States sue to rein in Obama's illegal amnesty

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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?

Sounds like a Clintonian defense.

 

[TooTall]

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.

What he did was LIE about changing the law. His statement was clearly intended to mislead the illegals in this country.

 

[BluesLegend]

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?

I'm surprised he can show his face in church these days.

 

[SwimExpert]

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

You'll never understand the answer to your question until you understand how absurd your question is. And you'll never understand that until you recognize that not all law is statutory.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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

You'll never understand the answer to your question until you understand how absurd your question is. And you'll never understand that until you recognize that not all law is statutory.

Yes, all legitimate law is indeed statutory. We are a nation of laws, laws that are codified. Without the written law, we are governed by the Law of Club and Fang and essentially become a barbaric banana republic.

 

[S.J.]

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.

Lying about it is not and explanation. He does not have the legal authority to do what he did, and what he did was NOT the same as what Reagan did, no matter how many times you repeat the lie.

 

[SwimExpert]

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

You'll never understand the answer to your question until you understand how absurd your question is. And you'll never understand that until you recognize that not all law is statutory.

Yes, all legitimate law is indeed statutory. We are a nation of laws, laws that are codified. Without the written law, we are governed by the Law of Club and Fang and essentially become a barbaric banana republic.

Spoken like a true ignoramus. Not all law is statutory. Best example: the constitution. The constitution is not a statute. Yet it is the highest law of the land.

There are many kinds of law. Statutory is one type of law. Regulations from certain government agencies, such as the FCC, are another kind of law. Executive orders are a type of law. Published court rulings are another type of law. These various forms of law have their own applicability and purposes.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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

You'll never understand the answer to your question until you understand how absurd your question is. And you'll never understand that until you recognize that not all law is statutory.

Yes, all legitimate law is indeed statutory. We are a nation of laws, laws that are codified. Without the written law, we are governed by the Law of Club and Fang and essentially become a barbaric banana republic.

Spoken like a true ignoramus. Not all law is statutory. Best example: the constitution. The constitution is not a statute. Yet it is the highest law of the land.

There are many kinds of law. Statutory is one type of law. Regulations from certain government agencies, such as the FCC, are another kind of law. Executive orders are a type of law. Published court rulings are another type of law. These various forms of law have their own applicability and purposes.

The Constitution is set of statutes, written down and legally efficacious. Now you're plunging into terminal stupidity.

 

[SwimExpert]

The Constitution is set of statutes

No. You should get an education before you proceed further.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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....

I believe President Obama's use of executive action has just stripall authority away from ICE from doing the job the Federal Immigration Law.

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.

Why would we need these particular immigrants to be treated differently from any other? What ever happened to this cry for the need to have "equality" that's been preached so often in the political and main stream media? Is the hypocritical left now trying to bring exception to the rule?

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, Shakles gets it, just does not like it.

That's his problem.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The Constitution is set of statutes

No. You should get an education before you proceed further.

You sound like my 6 year old saying "Nah ahh, I'm not wrong, you're wrong". Start with the dictionary when you get yourself the education you prescribed for me. Statutes are written law passed by a legislative body...in the case of the Constitution, several legislative bodies. You're a classic case of thinking you're so smart you miss glaring stupidities.

 

[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....

I believe President Obama's use of executive action has just stripall authority away from ICE from doing the job the Federal Immigration Law.

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.

Why would we need these particular immigrants to be treated differently from any other? What ever happened to this cry for the need to have "equality" that's been preached so often in the political and main stream media? Is the hypocritical left now trying to bring exception to the rule?

Because we only have so much money each year to deport these immigrants, only 400k or so a year can be deported....(and it could be even less than that if they divert some of the INS budgeted money towards increasing our security along the border)

And waiting 27.5 years to deport all of these 11 million is just too long....

Who do you think should be deported first since it is so limited? To me, the sooner they get the gangsters, gang members, drug dealers, and the likes of such deported, would be better for all Americans safety. It costs money to deport these illegals, and the money is limited.

The parents of US Citizen children, due to our laws on the books, can not be easily deported and no one, except a handful, truly want to separate these children from their family unit, especially when the parents are law abiding parents outside of their initial misdemeanor of staying beyond their Visa or crossing the border illegally....

Basically, IF SOME of the 11 million ILLEGALS can't be deported immediately, who would be best to keep?

My problem with all of this, is not who Obama chose to delay deportation on, or him prioritizing....which is necessary under the circumstances...

but is with Congress's inaction on this immigration problem that we have.... if they don't fund more deportations and fund a more secure border, and don't penalize employers for hiring illegals to a degree that really hurts them, and don't change our guest working visa quantities and simplify the process, then 20 years from now, we will be in the same boat...

it'll be groundhog day.

 

[TooTall]

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

You'll never understand the answer to your question until you understand how absurd your question is. And you'll never understand that until you recognize that not all law is statutory.

What other kinds of law are there besides statutory law? All I understand is Obama said "I took action to change the law." and now I am told he did not change the law. My next 'absurd' question is, did his action change the law or was he just lying and pandering to illegal immigrants?

 

[TooTall]

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....

I believe President Obama's use of executive action has just stripall authority away from ICE from doing the job the Federal Immigration Law.

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.

Why would we need these particular immigrants to be treated differently from any other? What ever happened to this cry for the need to have "equality" that's been preached so often in the political and main stream media? Is the hypocritical left now trying to bring exception to the rule?

Because we only have so much money each year to deport these immigrants, only 400k or so a year can be deported....(and it could be even less than that if they divert some of the INS budgeted money towards increasing our security along the border)

And waiting 27.5 years to deport all of these 11 million is just too long....

Who do you think should be deported first since it is so limited? To me, the sooner they get the gangsters, gang members, drug dealers, and the likes of such deported, would be better for all Americans safety. It costs money to deport these illegals, and the money is limited.

The parents of US Citizen children, due to our laws on the books, can not be easily deported and no one, except a handful, truly want to separate these children from their family unit, especially when the parents are law abiding parents outside of their initial misdemeanor of staying beyond their Visa or crossing the border illegally....

Basically, IF SOME of the 11 million ILLEGALS can't be deported immediately, who would be best to keep?

My problem with all of this, is not who Obama chose to delay deportation on, or him prioritizing....which is necessary under the circumstances...

but is with Congress's inaction on this immigration problem that we have.... if they don't fund more deportations and fund a more secure border, and don't penalize employers for hiring illegals to a degree that really hurts them, and don't change our guest working visa quantities and simplify the process, then 20 years from now, we will be in the same boat...

it'll be groundhog day.

How much is it costing to allow these illegals to stay here and get the freebies they get tax free from the government?

 

[Old Rocks]

20Jan17, President Obama will hand the baton to the next President. And fools like you will once again have egg on your face.

 

[Old Rocks]

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....

I believe President Obama's use of executive action has just stripall authority away from ICE from doing the job the Federal Immigration Law.

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.

Why would we need these particular immigrants to be treated differently from any other? What ever happened to this cry for the need to have "equality" that's been preached so often in the political and main stream media? Is the hypocritical left now trying to bring exception to the rule?

Because we only have so much money each year to deport these immigrants, only 400k or so a year can be deported....(and it could be even less than that if they divert some of the INS budgeted money towards increasing our security along the border)

And waiting 27.5 years to deport all of these 11 million is just too long....

Who do you think should be deported first since it is so limited? To me, the sooner they get the gangsters, gang members, drug dealers, and the likes of such deported, would be better for all Americans safety. It costs money to deport these illegals, and the money is limited.

The parents of US Citizen children, due to our laws on the books, can not be easily deported and no one, except a handful, truly want to separate these children from their family unit, especially when the parents are law abiding parents outside of their initial misdemeanor of staying beyond their Visa or crossing the border illegally....

Basically, IF SOME of the 11 million ILLEGALS can't be deported immediately, who would be best to keep?

My problem with all of this, is not who Obama chose to delay deportation on, or him prioritizing....which is necessary under the circumstances...

but is with Congress's inaction on this immigration problem that we have.... if they don't fund more deportations and fund a more secure border, and don't penalize employers for hiring illegals to a degree that really hurts them, and don't change our guest working visa quantities and simplify the process, then 20 years from now, we will be in the same boat...

it'll be groundhog day.

How much is it costing to allow these illegals to stay here and get the freebies they get tax free from the government?

Why didn't you ask that question when Bush was in office? After all, that was when the number of illegals was increasing. Thus far, during President Obama's terms, the number of illegals here has been decreasing a bit.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Sates sue to rein in Obama's illegal amnesty"

Again, the president's order is neither 'illegal' nor 'amnesty.'

The president's order is supported by Federal law reaffirmed as Constitutional by the Supreme Court.

The suit is devoid of merit, no court will hear the case as immigration policy is the sole purview of the Federal government.

 

[TooTall]

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....

I believe President Obama's use of executive action has just stripall authority away from ICE from doing the job the Federal Immigration Law.

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.

Why would we need these particular immigrants to be treated differently from any other? What ever happened to this cry for the need to have "equality" that's been preached so often in the political and main stream media? Is the hypocritical left now trying to bring exception to the rule?

Because we only have so much money each year to deport these immigrants, only 400k or so a year can be deported....(and it could be even less than that if they divert some of the INS budgeted money towards increasing our security along the border)

And waiting 27.5 years to deport all of these 11 million is just too long....

Who do you think should be deported first since it is so limited? To me, the sooner they get the gangsters, gang members, drug dealers, and the likes of such deported, would be better for all Americans safety. It costs money to deport these illegals, and the money is limited.

The parents of US Citizen children, due to our laws on the books, can not be easily deported and no one, except a handful, truly want to separate these children from their family unit, especially when the parents are law abiding parents outside of their initial misdemeanor of staying beyond their Visa or crossing the border illegally....

Basically, IF SOME of the 11 million ILLEGALS can't be deported immediately, who would be best to keep?

My problem with all of this, is not who Obama chose to delay deportation on, or him prioritizing....which is necessary under the circumstances...

but is with Congress's inaction on this immigration problem that we have.... if they don't fund more deportations and fund a more secure border, and don't penalize employers for hiring illegals to a degree that really hurts them, and don't change our guest working visa quantities and simplify the process, then 20 years from now, we will be in the same boat...

it'll be groundhog day.

How much is it costing to allow these illegals to stay here and get the freebies they get tax free from the government?

Why didn't you ask that question when Bush was in office? After all, that was when the number of illegals was increasing. Thus far, during President Obama's terms, the number of illegals here has been decreasing a bit.

I remember Bush sending the National Guard to assist the Border Patrol and I don't believe the number of illegals here is decreasing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

You'll never understand the answer to your question until you understand how absurd your question is. And you'll never understand that until you recognize that not all law is statutory.

What other kinds of law are there besides statutory law? All I understand is Obama said "I took action to change the law." and now I am told he did not change the law. My next 'absurd' question is, did his action change the law or was he just lying and pandering to illegal immigrants?

An 8 word snip out of context means nothing.

Ask a sensible question first and you will get a sensible answer.