States sue to rein in Obama's illegal amnesty

[bripat9643]

I am an American sycophant, and you? Simply a far right thug.

You're a commie who quotes official propaganda from the Cuban government.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Only Obama knee padders take that view. These are the same people who assured us cases against Obamacare were going nowhere. After all, "it was the law!"

No, it's just that some of us aren't crippled with Obama Derangement Syndrome, and also have a basic understanding of how the separation of powers works in our government. Just because I don't like Obama's actions does not make it unconstitutional.

If there was a seperation of powers, Obama wouldn't be taking it upon himself to use executive order to prevent deportation of those who violate Federal Immigration Laws that were once passed by the legislative branch and signed into law. He is purposely moving outside the Constitutional process, through an action not granted unto him under Article II regarding executive powers.

He is making sure that resources are devoted to the deportation of criminals, not babies, yet you complain about it.

That BHO is rightfully in the vein of RR in this matter was explained to you above; that you don't get it is your problem.

No, I just have a greater "respect" for those immigrants who must endure the long process of attaining citizenship LEGALLY, who don't like to see their efforts cheapened by those who have no respect for federal laws given exception through specialized treatment. The fact you don't understand this shows what little you know of the whole immigration process.

You don't even respect yourself, bub. If you had been born in Mexico, you would have snuck across first chance.

You really need to get out from behind all your cozy "civil rights", government provisions, and electronic comforts you enjoy. What you may not know, and I guess I have to clue you in on, is that Hispanics who sneak across our borders aren't the only distraught immigrants you'll find in the world desiring a better life for themselves and their family. Some are women from nations whose culture would rather treat them as property, and they work hard to find a way to come here to live in this country .... and they do it LEGALLY. Immigrants who are from the Ukraine, who most likely had to learn English in order to survive here, because they don't have the luxury of road signs or automated message systems so conveniently speaking their language.

Perhaps you have grown to depend on the government and it's provisions for so sooo long, that you don't know what it's like to really struggle? To find yourself working hard in a foreign land, learn their rules and customs, respect their laws (because, based on your responses, you don't have any lrespect for ours), work very long hours while educating yourself to understand their language in order to push yourself to make it. YET, they work hard at it and do it LEGALLY, because they take some pride in what they have accomplished because it wasn't simply "given to them" they had to EARN it.

No I doubt, Jake, you know what that's like. That may be your issue all along.

 

[JakeStarkey]

BluesLegend is describing the fascist state that the far right wants to create.

LOL that's just crazy talk.

That's what you do, yes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This from the anarcho communist who accuses me of promoting Castro, bripat's love of life.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, it's just that some of us aren't crippled with Obama Derangement Syndrome, and also have a basic understanding of how the separation of powers works in our government. Just because I don't like Obama's actions does not make it unconstitutional.

If there was a seperation of powers, Obama wouldn't be taking it upon himself to use executive order to prevent deportation of those who violate Federal Immigration Laws that were once passed by the legislative branch and signed into law. He is purposely moving outside the Constitutional process, through an action not granted unto him under Article II regarding executive powers.

He is making sure that resources are devoted to the deportation of criminals, not babies, yet you complain about it.

That BHO is rightfully in the vein of RR in this matter was explained to you above; that you don't get it is your problem.

No, I just have a greater "respect" for those immigrants who must endure the long process of attaining citizenship LEGALLY, who don't like to see their efforts cheapened by those who have no respect for federal laws given exception through specialized treatment. The fact you don't understand this shows what little you know of the whole immigration process.

You don't even respect yourself, bub. If you had been born in Mexico, you would have snuck across first chance.

You really need to get out from behind all your cozy "civil rights", government provisions, and electronic comforts you enjoy. What you may not know, and I guess I have to clue you in on, is that Hispanics who sneak across our borders aren't the only distraught immigrants you'll find in the world desiring a better life for themselves and their family. Some are women from nations whose culture would rather treat them as property, and they work hard to find a way to come here to live in this country .... and they do it LEGALLY. Immigrants who are from the Ukraine, who most likely had to learn English in order to survive here, because they don't have the luxury of road signs or automated message systems so conveniently speaking their language.

Perhaps you have grown to depend on the government and it's provisions for so sooo long, that you don't know what it's like to really struggle? To find yourself working hard in a foreign land, learn their rules and customs, respect their laws (because, based on your responses, you don't have any lrespect for ours), work very long hours while educating yourself to understand their language in order to push yourself to make it. YET, they work hard at it and do it LEGALLY, because they take some pride in what they have accomplished because it wasn't simply "given to them" they had to EARN it.

No I doubt, Jake, you know what that's like. That may be your issue all along.

Amazingly, Shakles believes libertarian garbage he promotes.

Libertarianism bascially means "get off of my property" and "I want to use government services but I won't pay for them."

 

[Wildman]

No, it's just that some of us aren't crippled with Obama Derangement Syndrome, and also have a basic understanding of how the separation of powers works in our government. Just because I don't like Obama's actions does not make it unconstitutional.

Go ahead I can't wait for you to explain why Obama, a supposed Constitutional law professor said 20+ times that it would not be legal for him to do what he has now just done so have at it. Well?

I really don't give a shit, because unlike you ODS loons I realize that this is not about Obama. Those in the Republican party who are obsessed with making Obama look bad are wasting time, harming the country and the party all at the same time.

Obama's EO is legal. The correct and proper response from Congress and the GOP is LEGISLATIVE ACTION, not whiny bullshit panty wetting.

It sounds like you're saying that past Obama was wrong when he said he didn't have the authority to do it since laymen (that's you, for government school graduates) apparently know something that past Obama (who claimed to be a "constitutional scholar") did not. That leads me to question everything Obama has to say on the Constitution, if he got something so basic as that wrong.

This thread exposes liberals on this forum for the sycophants they are. They believed him when he repeatedly said he DID NOT have the authority to change the law. No one challenged him then. NOW they're defending him when he decides to do it anyway, even though he said it would be illegal. They don't have a mind of their own, he tells them what to think and what to do and they fall right in line, no matter HOW stupid it makes them look. If he came out tomorrow and again decided he didn't have the authority to grant amnesty, they would AGAIN change their minds too. Talk about blind allegiance, liberals are nothing more than puppets dangling on a string.

From what I have seen from the left the last few years they see nothing at all wrong with lying, dishonestly, hypocrisy, back stabbing and mocking their own. You can point this stuff out and they just shrug their shoulders.

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

sounds to me like you are pointing your finger at a certain member of USMB..., someone like ole paint my hovel. .... ... .... ...

 

[Wildman]

None of you nutters, whether anarcho commie like yourself bripat or a liberatarian or any group, get to say what are the definitions or the defy that law should work in ways for which it was passed.,

The EO is nothing like amnesty.

And the states have no standing sue over EOs about illegals. The cases will be summarily dismissed.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

dum da dum dumb.., dum dumb

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dum Dum Wildman is on the scene.

He is a far right subversive thug who wants America to fail now that his wing of criminals have lost their influence in the GOP.

 

[bripat9643]

This from the anarcho communist who accuses me of promoting Castro, bripat's love of life.

Fakey, I proved you post Cuban government propaganda to the forum. You were full of praise for their healthcare system. I, on the other hand, have never had a complimentary thing to say about Cuba.

So who is the commie who loves Cuba?

 

[bripat9643]

If there was a seperation of powers, Obama wouldn't be taking it upon himself to use executive order to prevent deportation of those who violate Federal Immigration Laws that were once passed by the legislative branch and signed into law. He is purposely moving outside the Constitutional process, through an action not granted unto him under Article II regarding executive powers.

He is making sure that resources are devoted to the deportation of criminals, not babies, yet you complain about it.

That BHO is rightfully in the vein of RR in this matter was explained to you above; that you don't get it is your problem.

No, I just have a greater "respect" for those immigrants who must endure the long process of attaining citizenship LEGALLY, who don't like to see their efforts cheapened by those who have no respect for federal laws given exception through specialized treatment. The fact you don't understand this shows what little you know of the whole immigration process.

You don't even respect yourself, bub. If you had been born in Mexico, you would have snuck across first chance.

You really need to get out from behind all your cozy "civil rights", government provisions, and electronic comforts you enjoy. What you may not know, and I guess I have to clue you in on, is that Hispanics who sneak across our borders aren't the only distraught immigrants you'll find in the world desiring a better life for themselves and their family. Some are women from nations whose culture would rather treat them as property, and they work hard to find a way to come here to live in this country .... and they do it LEGALLY. Immigrants who are from the Ukraine, who most likely had to learn English in order to survive here, because they don't have the luxury of road signs or automated message systems so conveniently speaking their language.

Perhaps you have grown to depend on the government and it's provisions for so sooo long, that you don't know what it's like to really struggle? To find yourself working hard in a foreign land, learn their rules and customs, respect their laws (because, based on your responses, you don't have any lrespect for ours), work very long hours while educating yourself to understand their language in order to push yourself to make it. YET, they work hard at it and do it LEGALLY, because they take some pride in what they have accomplished because it wasn't simply "given to them" they had to EARN it.

No I doubt, Jake, you know what that's like. That may be your issue all along.

Amazingly, Shakles believes libertarian garbage he promotes.

Libertarianism bascially means "get off of my property" and "I want to use government services but I won't pay for them."

And Fakey means "everything I say is a lie."

 

[JakeStarkey]

bripat is an anarcho commie, who worships Castro

crusaderfrank is a fascist, worshipping the progressivism of the far right wing thugs

 

[bripat9643]

bripat is an anarcho commie, who worships Castro

crusaderfrank is a fascist, worshipping the progressivism of the far right wing thugs

Everyone in this forum knows those are outright lies, Fakey.

Who do you think you're fooling?

 

[TooTall]

Obama 2011, "I can't change the law, it wouldn't be legal"

Obama 2014, "I changed the law"

And there you have it.

Obama 2014, ''I took action to change the law..... ''

he did not change the law, that can only be done by Congress....all he did was give delayed deportation protection.... Now it is up to Congress to either pass immigration reform including his executive action to INS or not included his executive action with INS in their immigration reform OR sit back and do nothing, which is what Congress has chosen to do....NOTHING, and let Obama's executive action with INS stand.

Nothing that BOTH Reagan and Bush 1 as presidents did not ALSO DO.... Reagan in 1987 and Bush in 1990 issued executive actions to INS to delay deportation on a bunch of illegals that were NEVER given Amnesty by the Immigration Act of 1986 that Congress passed.

As far as the States suing.... They have to prove that they were harmed by this executive action....and I see no harm by his actions....

these States ALREADY HAVE these illegals living there, these States already have to school the children of these illegals, these illegals are already working in their States, already going to emergency rooms when sick, etc etc etc etc....

Congress funds the deportation of about 400,000 illegals a year in their budget for INS....they do not and HAVE NOT EVER FUNDED the deportation of the 11 million illegals...because of this lack of funding, INS HAS TO PRIORITIZE on who they deport and it is within the Executive's power to direct INS on priorities.

the States don't stand a prayer in winning this...it is simply a dog and pony show.

congress CAN do something, but they CHOSE NOT TO.

Obama said he changed the law. Was he going for "Liar of the Year" again?

 

[TooTall]

Obama 2014, ''I took action to change the law..... ''

he did not change the law, that can only be done by Congress....all he did was give delayed deportation protection.... Now it is up to Congress to either pass immigration reform including his executive action to INS or not included his executive action with INS in their immigration reform OR sit back and do nothing, which is what Congress has chosen to do....NOTHING, and let Obama's executive action with INS stand.

Nothing that BOTH Reagan and Bush 1 as presidents did not ALSO DO.... Reagan in 1987 and Bush in 1990 issued executive actions to INS to delay deportation on a bunch of illegals that were NEVER given Amnesty by the Immigration Act of 1986 that Congress passed.

As far as the States suing.... They have to prove that they were harmed by this executive action....and I see no harm by his actions....

these States ALREADY HAVE these illegals living there, these States already have to school the children of these illegals, these illegals are already working in their States, already going to emergency rooms when sick, etc etc etc etc....

Congress funds the deportation of about 400,000 illegals a year in their budget for INS....they do not and HAVE NOT EVER FUNDED the deportation of the 11 million illegals...because of this lack of funding, INS HAS TO PRIORITIZE on who they deport and it is within the Executive's power to direct INS on priorities.

the States don't stand a prayer in winning this...it is simply a dog and pony show.

congress CAN do something, but they CHOSE NOT TO.

Bitch, I told you to quit lying. Reagan and Bush did NOT do the same thing. You need to apologize for being a liar.

ahhhhhhh, poor baby SJ....I proved you wrong dear one, with legitimate links, and you know it.

(What's the silly, little toddler going to do next in his infantile temper tantrum....call me a whore? GROW UP!)

The only thing you proved is that you are a liar (or an idiot). Reagan and Bush did nothing even similar to what Obama is doing, and their actions do not legitimize Obama's outright violation of the Constitution.

Reagan and Bush 41 provide no precedent for Obama 8217 s amnesty by executive order Power Line

When your strongest defense is "Well, somebody else that I hate a whole lot did something similar", you don't have a good defense. I find it interesting that those who really hate Reagan and Bush hold them up as exemplars of good presidential behavior and want to apply them to Obama.

I didn't hate Reagan or Bush 1, or Bush 2, if that matters....nor did I hate Obama, even though I did not vote for him.....twice.

so your strawman isn't working on me.

YOU, in your own words, explain to me why the order by Reagan and 3 yrs later by Bush1, for INS to delay deportation and give authorization to work, the illegal spouses and illegal children who did not qualify for Amnesty through the 1986 Immigration Act created by Congress, is different than what this President has done.

NEWSFLASH

It isn't different enough to say one was legal and one was not.

Reagan, Bush, Obama

-all of these presidents, used their discretion, and delayed deportation of ILLEGALS not granted amnesty by Congress...yes, those given deportation protection by Reagan and Bush, also were for illegals that did not qualify for amnesty via Congress's 1986 law....
If it is determined to not be within this President's power, then it was not with Reagan's or Bush1's power either....becauseeeeeeeeeeee, it was the virtual same executive action and power.

Delayed deportation protection, is NOT the suspension of deportation...only delayed deportation...which is putting others that also are to be deported like gangsters and felons AHEAD of those that are parents of legal American citizen minors etc, only congress can suspend deportation or give amnesty.

When there are 11 million illegals to deport, and the funding for deportation by Congress is only enough to cover deporting 400 k illegals a year, then according to our laws, it is within the president's power to prioritize INS's deportation actions.

so Obama's argument is, that he is not giving Amnesty to illegals, he is prioritizing whom the INS concentrates on deporting with the limited funds to do the job provided to the agency.

It would take 27.5 YEARS with the money INS is being provided by Congress to deport all 11 million illegals....thus our President's need, as OVERSEER of ALL gvt agencies per the LAW OF THE LAND, to have this agency prioritize who they focus on deporting....within the LAW.

If these people were given permanent amnesty by the President, then that WOULD be changing the law, but delayed deportation is not permanent, so it does not break our immigration law, it is just delaying it....due to the shortage of money given to INS to deport all 11 million illegals which would take 27.5 years to do......

....other illegals, who are a threat to our Nation and Felons, take top priority.

I think this is a strong argument....we'll see what the courts determine, I suppose.

ALSO, congress CAN, in one simple vote, take away this responsibility of the president to prioritize if they renege the law in the 1940's that gave the President the power to do such....or congress could pass their own immigration reform including this prioritizing or taking it away....

They were NOT specific in the Immigration laws that they passed previously, in who got to be deported first, or second or third....if money is short to accomplish the job, they left this up to the President to decide, they can pass a law that is more specific and take away the president's discretion on how to execute the law....under the funding shortage to accomplish the law.

A lot of meaningless words unless you can explain what Obama said.

"This notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true," Obama said at a Hispanic Roundtable meeting in the White House in 2011. "We are doing everything we can administratively." Obama said similar things several times since then, and on Nov. 18, just two days before Obama announced his action, White House spokesman Josh Earnest pointed to the "large number of cases in which the president has said, 'I'm not an emperor, I'm not a king, and I can't change the law.' "

Fast forward to Tuesday, when Obama was speaking on immigration reform to a group in Chicago. When protesters began yelling at Obama to stop all deportations, the president became frustrated and answered: "There have been significant numbers of deportations. That's true. But what you're not paying attention to is the fact that I just took action to change the law.

In his own words he said he couldn't change the law and then proceeded to say he did change the law. Then again, maybe he lied.

 

[Care4all]

Bitch, I told you to quit lying. Reagan and Bush did NOT do the same thing. You need to apologize for being a liar.

ahhhhhhh, poor baby SJ....I proved you wrong dear one, with legitimate links, and you know it.

(What's the silly, little toddler going to do next in his infantile temper tantrum....call me a whore? GROW UP!)

The only thing you proved is that you are a liar (or an idiot). Reagan and Bush did nothing even similar to what Obama is doing, and their actions do not legitimize Obama's outright violation of the Constitution.

Reagan and Bush 41 provide no precedent for Obama 8217 s amnesty by executive order Power Line

When your strongest defense is "Well, somebody else that I hate a whole lot did something similar", you don't have a good defense. I find it interesting that those who really hate Reagan and Bush hold them up as exemplars of good presidential behavior and want to apply them to Obama.

I didn't hate Reagan or Bush 1, or Bush 2, if that matters....nor did I hate Obama, even though I did not vote for him.....twice.

so your strawman isn't working on me.

YOU, in your own words, explain to me why the order by Reagan and 3 yrs later by Bush1, for INS to delay deportation and give authorization to work, the illegal spouses and illegal children who did not qualify for Amnesty through the 1986 Immigration Act created by Congress, is different than what this President has done.

NEWSFLASH

It isn't different enough to say one was legal and one was not.

Reagan, Bush, Obama

-all of these presidents, used their discretion, and delayed deportation of ILLEGALS not granted amnesty by Congress...yes, those given deportation protection by Reagan and Bush, also were for illegals that did not qualify for amnesty via Congress's 1986 law....
If it is determined to not be within this President's power, then it was not with Reagan's or Bush1's power either....becauseeeeeeeeeeee, it was the virtual same executive action and power.

Delayed deportation protection, is NOT the suspension of deportation...only delayed deportation...which is putting others that also are to be deported like gangsters and felons AHEAD of those that are parents of legal American citizen minors etc, only congress can suspend deportation or give amnesty.

When there are 11 million illegals to deport, and the funding for deportation by Congress is only enough to cover deporting 400 k illegals a year, then according to our laws, it is within the president's power to prioritize INS's deportation actions.

so Obama's argument is, that he is not giving Amnesty to illegals, he is prioritizing whom the INS concentrates on deporting with the limited funds to do the job provided to the agency.

It would take 27.5 YEARS with the money INS is being provided by Congress to deport all 11 million illegals....thus our President's need, as OVERSEER of ALL gvt agencies per the LAW OF THE LAND, to have this agency prioritize who they focus on deporting....within the LAW.

If these people were given permanent amnesty by the President, then that WOULD be changing the law, but delayed deportation is not permanent, so it does not break our immigration law, it is just delaying it....due to the shortage of money given to INS to deport all 11 million illegals which would take 27.5 years to do......

....other illegals, who are a threat to our Nation and Felons, take top priority.

I think this is a strong argument....we'll see what the courts determine, I suppose.

ALSO, congress CAN, in one simple vote, take away this responsibility of the president to prioritize if they renege the law in the 1940's that gave the President the power to do such....or congress could pass their own immigration reform including this prioritizing or taking it away....

They were NOT specific in the Immigration laws that they passed previously, in who got to be deported first, or second or third....if money is short to accomplish the job, they left this up to the President to decide, they can pass a law that is more specific and take away the president's discretion on how to execute the law....under the funding shortage to accomplish the law.

A lot of meaningless words unless you can explain what Obama said.

"This notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true," Obama said at a Hispanic Roundtable meeting in the White House in 2011. "We are doing everything we can administratively." Obama said similar things several times since then, and on Nov. 18, just two days before Obama announced his action, White House spokesman Josh Earnest pointed to the "large number of cases in which the president has said, 'I'm not an emperor, I'm not a king, and I can't change the law.' "

Fast forward to Tuesday, when Obama was speaking on immigration reform to a group in Chicago. When protesters began yelling at Obama to stop all deportations, the president became frustrated and answered: "There have been significant numbers of deportations. That's true. But what you're not paying attention to is the fact that I just took action to change the law.

In his own words he said he couldn't change the law and then proceeded to say he did change the law. Then again, maybe he lied.

It's been explained 100,000 times but you and others just simply refuse to listen to reason.

Obama did say that he could not change the laws, this was up to congress.

Obama DID NOT SAY that he CHANGED the law, Obama said "I took action to change the law", and he did take executive action with Ins, to delay deportation, just like George HW Bush did, and President Reagan Did, with INS and their delayed deportation protections that they issued for illegals that were NOT given amnesty by the 1986 Law passed by Congress....

So, all three of these presidents, took action with INS, by giving deportation protection to illegals not covered by the Law of the land...but it was not until Congress passed a law in 1990, 4 years after the 1986 Immigration Act, did these illegals given delayed deportation protection by Reagan and by Bush1, were actually given permanent protection via the Law.

Reagan and Bush1 took temporary actions that were not covered by the newly passed Immigration reform of 1986 for illegals....and these Delayed Actions, lead Congress to change the Law, to cover these people....and it could have easily have lead to Congress not covering these people in their reforms I suppose? Either way, the temporary actions of Bush and Reagan and Obama, did not change the Law of the land....they are all and were all temporary actions meant to drive Congress in to changing the law...

Obama was very clear when he spoke on this, and expects Congress to address immigration reform and if they don't like his temporary delayed deportation protections, then they can change it in their bill that they make law.

Congress truly needs to get off their asses and do what they are being paid to do, which is protect the American people...these critters are not being paid by the RNC/GOP or the DNC...they are being paid by us, by you and by me.

Why would they even want to wait ONE DAY to tighten up our borders and take care of the 11 million illegals here already? WHY?

As Nike quotes, "Just Do It'' and stop with the Dog and Pony shows, pretty please.

Obama NEVER SAID "HE CHANGED THE LAW" it's right in front of you...He said he took action TO change the law...

reading comprehension, is important...and I'm sorry but obviously, the right wing media is counting on all of you to lack in this ability....

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

None of you nutters, whether anarcho commie like yourself bripat or a liberatarian or any group, get to say what are the definitions or the defy that law should work in ways for which it was passed.,

The EO is nothing like amnesty.

And the states have no standing sue over EOs about illegals. The cases will be summarily dismissed.

Who says states don't have standing? Either tell us or admit you just made it up.

you can't sue, unless you have been harmed...

this recent action has not harmed them...

These illegals are already living in these states, these illegals are already working, these illegals already have their children in our schools, the citizen children are also eligible for welfare, and as it stands now, because the parents work under the table and not above the table, they can easily hide what they make and allow their children to collect more in various welfare benefits than they may actually qualify for which costs these States more and the federal government more...

What this president did with this action did not harm the States, it actually will probably help them, by bringing these illegals in to the light of day.

Certain states wouldn't have debt to pay for illegal immigrants if they didn't put policies in place that ENCOURAGE those immigrants to live there, like state drivers license and covering for their education. They promoted their own debt by their choices, rather than inform ICE when an illegal is found to be living there. When has California informed the Federal government of an illegal immigrant? That state would rather protect and pay to have them live there through "sanctuary cities", they are knowingly harboring those who break the law. If these states go into further debt, that problem is on them and they become a victim of their own demise. They don't deserve help from the federal government for encouraging the breaking of Federal Immigration Laws. I have no sympathy for states who choose their own fate contrary to what the Federal Government allows.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The EO is crafted professionally with air tightness.

No suit will get past summary dismissal.

 

[TooTall]

ahhhhhhh, poor baby SJ....I proved you wrong dear one, with legitimate links, and you know it.

(What's the silly, little toddler going to do next in his infantile temper tantrum....call me a whore? GROW UP!)

The only thing you proved is that you are a liar (or an idiot). Reagan and Bush did nothing even similar to what Obama is doing, and their actions do not legitimize Obama's outright violation of the Constitution.

Reagan and Bush 41 provide no precedent for Obama 8217 s amnesty by executive order Power Line

When your strongest defense is "Well, somebody else that I hate a whole lot did something similar", you don't have a good defense. I find it interesting that those who really hate Reagan and Bush hold them up as exemplars of good presidential behavior and want to apply them to Obama.

I didn't hate Reagan or Bush 1, or Bush 2, if that matters....nor did I hate Obama, even though I did not vote for him.....twice.

so your strawman isn't working on me.

YOU, in your own words, explain to me why the order by Reagan and 3 yrs later by Bush1, for INS to delay deportation and give authorization to work, the illegal spouses and illegal children who did not qualify for Amnesty through the 1986 Immigration Act created by Congress, is different than what this President has done.

NEWSFLASH

It isn't different enough to say one was legal and one was not.

Reagan, Bush, Obama

-all of these presidents, used their discretion, and delayed deportation of ILLEGALS not granted amnesty by Congress...yes, those given deportation protection by Reagan and Bush, also were for illegals that did not qualify for amnesty via Congress's 1986 law....
If it is determined to not be within this President's power, then it was not with Reagan's or Bush1's power either....becauseeeeeeeeeeee, it was the virtual same executive action and power.

Delayed deportation protection, is NOT the suspension of deportation...only delayed deportation...which is putting others that also are to be deported like gangsters and felons AHEAD of those that are parents of legal American citizen minors etc, only congress can suspend deportation or give amnesty.

When there are 11 million illegals to deport, and the funding for deportation by Congress is only enough to cover deporting 400 k illegals a year, then according to our laws, it is within the president's power to prioritize INS's deportation actions.

so Obama's argument is, that he is not giving Amnesty to illegals, he is prioritizing whom the INS concentrates on deporting with the limited funds to do the job provided to the agency.

It would take 27.5 YEARS with the money INS is being provided by Congress to deport all 11 million illegals....thus our President's need, as OVERSEER of ALL gvt agencies per the LAW OF THE LAND, to have this agency prioritize who they focus on deporting....within the LAW.

If these people were given permanent amnesty by the President, then that WOULD be changing the law, but delayed deportation is not permanent, so it does not break our immigration law, it is just delaying it....due to the shortage of money given to INS to deport all 11 million illegals which would take 27.5 years to do......

....other illegals, who are a threat to our Nation and Felons, take top priority.

I think this is a strong argument....we'll see what the courts determine, I suppose.

ALSO, congress CAN, in one simple vote, take away this responsibility of the president to prioritize if they renege the law in the 1940's that gave the President the power to do such....or congress could pass their own immigration reform including this prioritizing or taking it away....

They were NOT specific in the Immigration laws that they passed previously, in who got to be deported first, or second or third....if money is short to accomplish the job, they left this up to the President to decide, they can pass a law that is more specific and take away the president's discretion on how to execute the law....under the funding shortage to accomplish the law.

A lot of meaningless words unless you can explain what Obama said.

"This notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true," Obama said at a Hispanic Roundtable meeting in the White House in 2011. "We are doing everything we can administratively." Obama said similar things several times since then, and on Nov. 18, just two days before Obama announced his action, White House spokesman Josh Earnest pointed to the "large number of cases in which the president has said, 'I'm not an emperor, I'm not a king, and I can't change the law.' "

Fast forward to Tuesday, when Obama was speaking on immigration reform to a group in Chicago. When protesters began yelling at Obama to stop all deportations, the president became frustrated and answered: "There have been significant numbers of deportations. That's true. But what you're not paying attention to is the fact that I just took action to change the law.

In his own words he said he couldn't change the law and then proceeded to say he did change the law. Then again, maybe he lied.

It's been explained 100,000 times but you and others just simply refuse to listen to reason.

Obama did say that he could not change the laws, this was up to congress.

Obama DID NOT SAY that he CHANGED the law, Obama said "I took action to change the law", and he did take executive action with Ins, to delay deportation, just like George HW Bush did, and President Reagan Did, with INS and their delayed deportation protections that they issued for illegals that were NOT given amnesty by the 1986 Law passed by Congress....

So, all three of these presidents, took action with INS, by giving deportation protection to illegals not covered by the Law of the land...but it was not until Congress passed a law in 1990, 4 years after the 1986 Immigration Act, did these illegals given delayed deportation protection by Reagan and by Bush1, were actually given permanent protection via the Law.

Reagan and Bush1 took temporary actions that were not covered by the newly passed Immigration reform of 1986 for illegals....and these Delayed Actions, lead Congress to change the Law, to cover these people....and it could have easily have lead to Congress not covering these people in their reforms I suppose? Either way, the temporary actions of Bush and Reagan and Obama, did not change the Law of the land....they are all and were all temporary actions meant to drive Congress in to changing the law...

Obama was very clear when he spoke on this, and expects Congress to address immigration reform and if they don't like his temporary delayed deportation protections, then they can change it in their bill that they make law.

Congress truly needs to get off their asses and do what they are being paid to do, which is protect the American people...these critters are not being paid by the RNC/GOP or the DNC...they are being paid by us, by you and by me.

Why would they even want to wait ONE DAY to tighten up our borders and take care of the 11 million illegals here already? WHY?

As Nike quotes, "Just Do It'' and stop with the Dog and Pony shows, pretty please.

Obama NEVER SAID "HE CHANGED THE LAW" it's right in front of you...He said he took action TO change the law...

reading comprehension, is important...and I'm sorry but obviously, the right wing media is counting on all of you to lack in this ability....

He took action to change the law, but he didn't really change the law. What does that mean?

 

[Care4all]

The EO is crafted professionally with air tightness.

No suit will get past summary dismissal.

I'm not certain it is an Executive Order but an Executive Action....

Our laws state that the President or the Executive Branch is responsible for running all the Gvt Agencies, and the President just needs to issue an executive action within INS, directing them, by prioritizing who we deport first, second, third due to the shortage on funding to deport all 11 million, and the delayed deportation protection for the parents of US Citizen minor children, as last to be deported, or delayed deportation.... delayed deportation is not permanent....the next President can direct INS to handle things differently.... or congress can do their jobs and pass comprehensive immigration reform, that gives them a different outcome.... easy peasy, if some Congress Critters would not be the yellow bellies that they are...and avoid immigration reform at all costs.

 

[Care4all]

The only thing you proved is that you are a liar (or an idiot). Reagan and Bush did nothing even similar to what Obama is doing, and their actions do not legitimize Obama's outright violation of the Constitution.

Reagan and Bush 41 provide no precedent for Obama 8217 s amnesty by executive order Power Line

When your strongest defense is "Well, somebody else that I hate a whole lot did something similar", you don't have a good defense. I find it interesting that those who really hate Reagan and Bush hold them up as exemplars of good presidential behavior and want to apply them to Obama.

I didn't hate Reagan or Bush 1, or Bush 2, if that matters....nor did I hate Obama, even though I did not vote for him.....twice.

so your strawman isn't working on me.

YOU, in your own words, explain to me why the order by Reagan and 3 yrs later by Bush1, for INS to delay deportation and give authorization to work, the illegal spouses and illegal children who did not qualify for Amnesty through the 1986 Immigration Act created by Congress, is different than what this President has done.

NEWSFLASH

It isn't different enough to say one was legal and one was not.

Reagan, Bush, Obama

-all of these presidents, used their discretion, and delayed deportation of ILLEGALS not granted amnesty by Congress...yes, those given deportation protection by Reagan and Bush, also were for illegals that did not qualify for amnesty via Congress's 1986 law....
If it is determined to not be within this President's power, then it was not with Reagan's or Bush1's power either....becauseeeeeeeeeeee, it was the virtual same executive action and power.

Delayed deportation protection, is NOT the suspension of deportation...only delayed deportation...which is putting others that also are to be deported like gangsters and felons AHEAD of those that are parents of legal American citizen minors etc, only congress can suspend deportation or give amnesty.

When there are 11 million illegals to deport, and the funding for deportation by Congress is only enough to cover deporting 400 k illegals a year, then according to our laws, it is within the president's power to prioritize INS's deportation actions.

so Obama's argument is, that he is not giving Amnesty to illegals, he is prioritizing whom the INS concentrates on deporting with the limited funds to do the job provided to the agency.

It would take 27.5 YEARS with the money INS is being provided by Congress to deport all 11 million illegals....thus our President's need, as OVERSEER of ALL gvt agencies per the LAW OF THE LAND, to have this agency prioritize who they focus on deporting....within the LAW.

If these people were given permanent amnesty by the President, then that WOULD be changing the law, but delayed deportation is not permanent, so it does not break our immigration law, it is just delaying it....due to the shortage of money given to INS to deport all 11 million illegals which would take 27.5 years to do......

....other illegals, who are a threat to our Nation and Felons, take top priority.

I think this is a strong argument....we'll see what the courts determine, I suppose.

ALSO, congress CAN, in one simple vote, take away this responsibility of the president to prioritize if they renege the law in the 1940's that gave the President the power to do such....or congress could pass their own immigration reform including this prioritizing or taking it away....

They were NOT specific in the Immigration laws that they passed previously, in who got to be deported first, or second or third....if money is short to accomplish the job, they left this up to the President to decide, they can pass a law that is more specific and take away the president's discretion on how to execute the law....under the funding shortage to accomplish the law.

A lot of meaningless words unless you can explain what Obama said.

"This notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true," Obama said at a Hispanic Roundtable meeting in the White House in 2011. "We are doing everything we can administratively." Obama said similar things several times since then, and on Nov. 18, just two days before Obama announced his action, White House spokesman Josh Earnest pointed to the "large number of cases in which the president has said, 'I'm not an emperor, I'm not a king, and I can't change the law.' "

Fast forward to Tuesday, when Obama was speaking on immigration reform to a group in Chicago. When protesters began yelling at Obama to stop all deportations, the president became frustrated and answered: "There have been significant numbers of deportations. That's true. But what you're not paying attention to is the fact that I just took action to change the law.

In his own words he said he couldn't change the law and then proceeded to say he did change the law. Then again, maybe he lied.

It's been explained 100,000 times but you and others just simply refuse to listen to reason.

Obama did say that he could not change the laws, this was up to congress.

Obama DID NOT SAY that he CHANGED the law, Obama said "I took action to change the law", and he did take executive action with Ins, to delay deportation, just like George HW Bush did, and President Reagan Did, with INS and their delayed deportation protections that they issued for illegals that were NOT given amnesty by the 1986 Law passed by Congress....

So, all three of these presidents, took action with INS, by giving deportation protection to illegals not covered by the Law of the land...but it was not until Congress passed a law in 1990, 4 years after the 1986 Immigration Act, did these illegals given delayed deportation protection by Reagan and by Bush1, were actually given permanent protection via the Law.

Reagan and Bush1 took temporary actions that were not covered by the newly passed Immigration reform of 1986 for illegals....and these Delayed Actions, lead Congress to change the Law, to cover these people....and it could have easily have lead to Congress not covering these people in their reforms I suppose? Either way, the temporary actions of Bush and Reagan and Obama, did not change the Law of the land....they are all and were all temporary actions meant to drive Congress in to changing the law...

Obama was very clear when he spoke on this, and expects Congress to address immigration reform and if they don't like his temporary delayed deportation protections, then they can change it in their bill that they make law.

Congress truly needs to get off their asses and do what they are being paid to do, which is protect the American people...these critters are not being paid by the RNC/GOP or the DNC...they are being paid by us, by you and by me.

Why would they even want to wait ONE DAY to tighten up our borders and take care of the 11 million illegals here already? WHY?

As Nike quotes, "Just Do It'' and stop with the Dog and Pony shows, pretty please.

Obama NEVER SAID "HE CHANGED THE LAW" it's right in front of you...He said he took action TO change the law...

reading comprehension, is important...and I'm sorry but obviously, the right wing media is counting on all of you to lack in this ability....

He took action to change the law, but he didn't really change the law. What does that mean?

It's called an executive action, when he directs any agency that he by Law, oversees....

And I ALREADY EXPLAINED IT, please reread what I wrote.