Jump to content

Obama's state department about to legalize millions of illegals, b


Security

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 348
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Obama to announce immigration order in Las Vegas on Friday

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102183389

 

 

The debate over Obama's executive action isn't about immigration, it's about the proper role of the executive in our Republic.

 

Interesting considering Nevada has one of the highest contingencies of illegal immigrants, and an unemployment rate still in the mid 7s because of it.

 

But hey, I'm sure everyone will back him given how much credibility he has in the nation. He wouldn't gruberize us, would he?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama’s answer is unequivocal. Here’s what he said: “With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case.” And followed that up with: “There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply, through executive order, to ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.”

 

Obama’s upcoming executive order on immigration is almost certainly illegal. How do we know? Because Obama told us so in 2011.

 

 

 

 

New NBC/WSJ poll shows only 38% support executive action on immigration, and 48% oppose.. . . . . . Paging Hillary Clinton...

 

http://www.nbcnews.c...251631 …

 

 

 

BREAKING: Tomorrow night President Obama will announce that individuals going through process of legal immigration are a bunch of suckers. _ Jim Geraghty

 

 

 

 

Reminder: The debate over Obama's executive action isn't about immigration, it's about the proper role of the executive in our Republic.

 

 

 

 

 

Added: Mr. Obama, the President of the ENTIRE country has invited Democrat leaders to dinner tonight to talk about his executive action.

 

Thats all you need to know about his bi-partisan approach to anything.

 

 

.

Edited by B-Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he does this he should be impeached and everyone who scoffed at the idea of" King Obama" should eat heaping helpings of crow.

 

I can't count the number of times this guy has proven his supporters wrong.

 

Executive order

 

Please share with us the constitutional underpinnings of the executive order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmm. As of now CBS, NBC, Fox won’t take Obama’s prime-time immigration speech live; ABC still deciding.

 

Maybe he should order them to........................... :thumbsup:

 

 

 

White House Advance Team Completes Stage Decorations for Las Vegas Immigration Announcement

B21TuGICcAALfVt.png

 

 

 

Liberals Can't Justify Obama's Amnesty

by Ramesh Ponnuru

 

President Barack Obama is planning to rewrite immigration law in the guise of exercising "prosecutorial discretion." In other words, he's going to ask federal agencies not to enforce the laws on the books and hand work permits to millions of illegal immigrants.

 

When conservatives and moderates criticize this unilateralism, as I did earlier this week, we tend to get three responses from liberals. None of them make Obama's plan sound any better.

 

{snip}

 

Mark Krikorian, who runs an immigration-restrictionist research group, has made short work of this argument. The Republicans-did-it-too crowd is exaggerating how big those earlier executive amnesties were. They were far smaller than what Obama is considering today. More important, these weren't cases where Congress had pointedly refused to enact an amnesty. They were the "tying up of loose ends" from a congressionally enacted amnesty, and after they were done Congress passed another law trying to prevent presidents from issuing further amnesties on their own.

 

What Obama is talking about is indeed a break with the country's constitutional tradition. You don't need to take my word for it. "That's not how our democracy works. That's not how our Constitution is written." Obama used those words to explain why he wasn't going to go it alone on immigration back in 2011.

 

It's not the Constitution that has since changed.

 

 

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-11-19/liberals-cant-justify-obamas-amnesty

 

.

Edited by B-Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmm. As of now CBS, NBC, Fox won’t take Obama’s prime-time immigration speech live; ABC still deciding.

 

 

That genuinely blows my mind.

 

Meanwhile, Dems are circulating to their party a letter of support for Obama so amnesty advocates know who to target.

 

Immigration advocates are warning that this is a real possibility — one that could have a serious impact on the politics of this fight if and when a government shutdown battle looms — and they are preparing to exert maximum pressure on those Democrats they deem at risk.

 

“We are preparing to pressure them at home and in Washington, to let them know that there will be hell to pay if this happens,” Frank Sharry, the executive director of America’s Voice, tells me.

 

Among the Democrats believed to be at risk are Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp, Jon Tester, Claire McCaskill, and Joe Donnelly. Angus King (who is an independent but caucuses with Dems) is also a question mark.

 

The problem, advocates worry, is that if these Democrats come out against any Obama executive action, it could complicate the political battle to come. Republicans are expected to try to pass legislation rolling back whatever Obama does. Democrats will try to block it. But if Republicans can get 60 votes — which they could do if enough Dems defect — the president would then have to veto it. That could make the politics of this battle worse for Obama: Not only is he acting unilaterally; he’s also facing bipartisan opposition within Congress that is requiring him to protect those unilateral actions with a veto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Could you be more ignorant? Lincoln didn't free the slaves, you asshat. Congress did when they ratified the 13th Amendment.

Really? Which of the hundreds of thousands of black union soldiers were still slaves? And was the federal government returning all those run sways to their masters in 1864?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, what? Well, in part, yes. The EP wasn't a complete an immediate solution, but then again, neither was the 13th amendment

 

Since you didn't (couldn't) answer my first question, maybe you can answer a simpler one. What, if any, limitations should there be on the President's ability to enact laws unilaterally?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, what? Well, in part, yes. The EP wasn't a complete an immediate solution, but then again, neither was the 13th amendment

 

You're !@#$ing retarded. The Emancipation Proclamation was for European benefit, to discredit the South and prevent the Confederacy's recognition by Europe. It freed exactly NO slaves. It didn't even free slaves in the Northern slave-holding states.

 

The Thirteenth Amendment, on the other hand..."All persons are equal before the law, so that no person can hold another as a slave." That's pretty complete and immediate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...