Obama to use Executive Action on Immigration

[bob2the2nd]

The plan should be to legally pass a law for border security and immigration reform. It shouldn't be just a Republican plan or a Democrat plan.

That said, my issue isn't as much with his plan as it is in using an executive order. There's 22 different instances where he admitted he couldn't do it...then he did it! He is again pissing on the Constitution and setting an awful precedent. When Bush and Reagan used Executive Action with regards to immigration they were taking action on an amnesty law that had already been passed by Congress. Obama is making his own laws now...that's what i have an issue with, much moreso than the plan. All future Presidents will cite this event when they pull a loner too.

We are just coming off fresh elections where he got his ass kicked. Instead of saying "ok, message received, I'll try to reach across the aisle to the new guys" he's saying "fuck you, i'm going alone" and creating a constitutional crisis. He is the most divisive President we have had in a very long time and just an atrocious leader. This action is an admission of failure. Even if they do find some legal loophole to pull this off, the spirit of this move damages the presidency.

question max. why arent you ripping apart the house for not voting on the bi-partisian bill the senate passed in 2013? obama has been asking for it for the last 2 years. and yet here we are still waiting on it. when congress cant/wont do its job, sometimes the president has to be the adult in the room and lead.

this is like Q-tip telling me that Obama should have passed a law. seriously the house refuses to act, blame them.

 

[Ruken]

Few points here.

1. Q, you want to focus first on border security. Sounds great but not only would it take years. Be practically impossible due to the sheer length of the border and cost entirely too much. It's ignoring the fundamental issue that we have illegals here already. Amnesty and making our immigration system easier and cheaper not only allows those here to start on the path to citizenship, it makes there much less of an incentive to cross illegally.

2. Republicans are a walking hypocritical mess on immigration. Want border security yet many are elected and influenced by big companies that exploit illegal labor. You know why they want border security? They look tough knowing it won't work score political points while companies keep their cheap labor.

3. Max calling Obama the most divisive president ever or recent history is incorrect. Obama spent much of his first term trying to act bipartisan and the republicans employed a strategy of doing nothing and holding the system in a deadlock. That was a result of the tea party movement. Both Obama and the republicans are responsible for this feeling f
I'll will.

4. While his executive order is beyond the Reagan and Bush, extending amnesty in this manner in my opinion is certainty within the spirit of those. It's largely uncharted territory and as Obama said, pass a bill rather than sit and get pissy. The refusal to put the bill to a vote, the same do nothing method republicans have been adhering to for years, bit them in the ass.

5. Finally, if any of you honestly believe half the criticism Obama receives is not because he is black, then you are delusional


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KCOTT]

5. Finally, if any of you honestly believe half the criticism Obama receives is not because he is black, then you are delusional

I think you're the one making a delusional reach. These are critiques against actual decision-making. Stop with the easy cop out against his opposition.

 

[Ruken]

I think you're the one making a delusional reach. These are critiques against actual decision-making. Stop with the easy cop out against his opposition.

So you ignore my first four points where I responded to arguments not using race at all. Then latch on to my final point again where I stated, it was part of the reason not all.

Nice cherry pick #goodjobgoodeffort


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gourimoko]

I think you're the one making a delusional reach. These are critiques against actual decision-making. Stop with the easy cop out against his opposition.

He's right about the race issue though. I don't know why you shrug it off so easily. It can be easily demonstrated that there is a very large segment of the electorate that despise Obama simply because he is black.

 

[Rich]

question max. why arent you ripping apart the house for not voting on the bi-partisian bill the senate passed in 2013? obama has been asking for it for the last 2 years. and yet here we are still waiting on it. when congress cant/wont do its job, sometimes the president has to be the adult in the room and lead.

this is like Q-tip telling me that Obama should have passed a law. seriously the house refuses to act, blame them.

The Richard Nixon view of the Presidency that neither the Framers nor the text of the Constitution agree with. It's the House's prerogative to take up a bill if they so choose. They have that power. Now, you can criticize them for policy purposes, but they are well within their power to not vote on a bill no matter how important you perceive it to be.

 

[Ruken]

The Richard Nixon view of the Presidency that neither the Framers nor the text of the Constitution agree with. It's the House's prerogative to take up a bill if they so choose. They have that power. Now, you can criticize them for policy purposes, but they are well within their power to not vote on a bill no matter how important you perceive it to be.

It's really just Boehner. The bill has enough votes to pass the house Ya know because it was a bipartisan effort.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rich]

It's really just Boehner. The bill has enough votes to pass the house Ya know because it was a bipartisan effort.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Again, so? The house makes it's own rules for bringing bills to the floor. It's within their discretion and they've chosen to give the Speaker of the House a ton of power. What Obama did wasn't within his.

Pick a fight with Boehner and the Republicans policies all you want but it still doesn't mean the President can just take matters into his own hands because he's feeling pissy. That's not how the system is supposed to work.

EDIT: And just reading through the thread I can see multiple times where the "you don't like him because he's black" card is being played. I probably won't be responding to this thread again if that's the line of argument being tossed around. It's lazy and insulting. You feel like being lazy and insulting then go ahead, but I won't respond.

 

[Ruken]

Again, so? The house makes it's own rules for bringing bills to the floor. It's within their discretion and they've chosen to give the Speaker of the House a ton of power. What Obama did wasn't within his.

Pick a fight with Boehner and the Republicans policies all you want but it still doesn't mean the President can just take matters into his own hands because he's feeling pissy. That's not how the system is supposed to work.

EDIT: And just reading through the thread I can see multiple times where the "you don't like him because he's black" card is being played. I probably won't be responding to this thread again if that's the line of argument being tossed around. It's lazy and insulting. You feel like being lazy and insulting then go ahead, but I won't respond.

He was specifically referred to me. Yea it actually a problem deny if you want. I however stated many other arguments the he completely ignored.

Also not saying anyone here gives him shit because he is black but a lot of the criticism he gets is for precisely that reason. Ignoring that is just simply ignorant rich.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gourimoko]

I think most legal scholars would disagree with you Rich (I don't, however -- I completely agree with you). Having researched the topic extensively, most view the President as having a broader scope of prosecutorial discretion than you or I might think.

The same goes for the interpretation of Congressional authority and it's use of the Commerce Clause to regulate just about anything and everything.

My only point is that it is not a clear cut abuse of power case and shouldn't be portrayed as such, because in reality, many folks interpret the President (as well as Congress) as having sweeping authority on these matters (just like the argument about private insurance mandates).

 

[Ohdang]

He's right about the race issue though. I don't know why you shrug it off so easily. It can be easily demonstrated that there is a very large segment of the electorate that despise Obama simply because he is black.

I think that's true in the elderly especially, and unfortunately they never miss a ballot.

 

[bob2the2nd]

Also not saying anyone here gives him shit because he is black but a lot of the criticism he gets is for precisely that reason. Ignoring that is just simply ignorant rich.

i know I got a lot of shit for my post "we get it, he's black" but I living in a segment of maryland, where the KKK is alive and well. Ive driving through one of the boarding towns and been handing flyers by the klan. this is northern maryland for christ sakes. Most of the country believe this is the bluest of the blue sections of the country, and the KKK is not only active, but its publicly active.

i cant count the number of times ive heard "its not his policies, i just dont like him". my cousin's friend's who are in their early 20s have told me point black "i have no problem with being racist" . multiple of them.

i know a whole lot of people dont want to believe it, but racism is alive and well in this country, and you dont have to look very hard to find it.

 

[Cratylus]

I'm curious about your take on this, Bob. I'm not trying to call you out. Like I said, I'm just curious about your opinion since you seem fairly vocal about this issue.

I agree with you that racism is alive and well in the US in 2014. However, I think a lot of what people call "racism" nowadays tends to be what I would consider "bigotry" or "prejudice". Not that those two things are acceptable by any means, but to me they aren't AS severe as downright believing in the innate inferiority or deficiency of a person simply because he is a member of a particular race (cue the Gourimoko posting of modern dictionary definitions of racism in an attempt to say I'm "behind the times" on this). I know, I get it: Language changes over time, but in my opinion it's not always for the best. And in my opinion the equation of racism with prejudice and bigotry does a disservice to the accuracy of language and it clouds the discussion about race and the motivations of people.

None of that is central to my curiosity, but I wanted to get it out there so you kind of knew where I stood. Really my point/question is this. You and others believe that a large segment of the anti-Obama voters cast their ballots against Barack simply because of his race. I would argue that the exact same thing is true for many people who voted FOR Obama: they did so simply because he is black. Philosophically speaking, there's no difference between these two groups. Both are using the race of the candidate as the determining factor of their voting decisions. Yet I would venture to guess that many people (yourself included perhaps?) don't have a problem with the second group of voters who selected Obama simply because he is black. So I guess my question to you is: Do you personally see any difference between these two acts of prejudice?

By the way, true story here. I moved to Atlanta in Dec of 1999 and on New Year's Day 2000, after one month of living here, I was driving around in my convertible in a small suburb south of the city. I approached a red light and noticed a family standing on the corner with some sort of sign and it appeared they were collecting donations. I figured it was something to do with the Shriners or a school drive to get football uniforms or something like that. Nope, dead wrong. As I got to the stop light I could finally read their sign: they were collecting donations in support of the local chapter of the KKK. I nearly shit myself in disbelief.

 

[Cashius X]

i know I got a lot of shit for my post "we get it, he's black" but I living in a segment of maryland, where the KKK is alive and well. Ive driving through one of the boarding towns and been handing flyers by the klan. this is northern maryland for christ sakes. Most of the country believe this is the bluest of the blue sections of the country, and the KKK is not only active, but its publicly active.

i cant count the number of times ive heard "its not his policies, i just dont like him". my cousin's friend's who are in their early 20s have told me point black "i have no problem with being racist" . multiple of them.

i know a whole lot of people dont want to believe it, but racism is alive and well in this country, and you dont have to look very hard to find it.

I'm @ school right now but I live in Baltimore. What part of Maryland are you talking about? I know you said up north, but what city?

 

[CleveRocks]

Racism exists in America, in France, in Germany, in England, in Sweden, in China, in Japan.....But America is the only one of these countries designed to accomodate multiculturalism with intent. There will always be ignorant people, but where they turn into dangerous ignorant people is when they decide not to respect the law. It is exactly the generalized attack on law enforcement which is the danger here, because people use that as license to take the law into thier own hands on all sides, which leads to anarchy.

The local problem in ferguson is that people have lost confidence in law enforcement. This is an executive type of problem, and the executives here (governor has the first responsibility and if he cant get it done the president has to do it) have to restore confidence in law enforcement.You dont do that by not enforcing laws, you do that by enforcing laws fairly, transparently, and inclusively. I think both the governor and the presdident have failed in this regard.

Across the country, law enforcement has become a political opportunity. There are groups targeting law enforcement, which is a text book step towards destabilizing a society. Us vs them is always an advocate for evil outcomes, regardless of what side you are on. My meter for measuring reasonble voices is te degree to which there is an all inclusive us, as in us Americans, in the conversation..