Obama Said to Plan Moves to Shield 5 Million Immigrants

[boutons_deux]

President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per) will ignore angry protests from Republicans and announce as soon as next week a broad overhaul of the nation’s immigration enforcement system that will protect up to five million undocumented immigrants from the threat of deportation and provide many of them with work permits, according to administration officials who have direct knowledge of the plan.

Asserting his authority as president to enforce the nation’s laws with discretion, Mr. Obama intends to order changes that will significantly refocus the activities of the government’s 12,000 immigration agents.

One key piece of the order, officials said, will allow many parents of children who are American citizens or legal residents to obtain legal work documents and no longer worry about being discovered, separated from their families and sent away.

That part of Mr. Obama’s plan alone could affect as many as 3.3 million people who have been living in the United States illegally for at least five years, according to an analysis by the Migration Policy Institute, an immigration research organization in Washington. But the White House is also considering a stricter policy that would limit the benefits to people who have lived in the country for at least 10 years, or about 2.5 million people.

Extending protections to more undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children, and to their parents, could affect an additional one million or more if they are included in the final plan that the president announces.

Mr. Obama’s actions will also expand opportunities for immigrants who have high-tech skills, shift extra security resources to the nation’s southern border, revamp a controversial immigration enforcement program called Secure Communities, and provide clearer guidance to the agencies that enforce immigration laws about who should be a low priority for deportation, especially those with strong family ties and no serious criminal history.

A new enforcement memorandum, which will direct the actions of Border Patrol agents and judges at the Department of Homeland Security, the Justice Department and other federal law enforcement and judicial agencies, will make clear that deportations should still proceed for convicted criminals, foreigners who pose national security risks and recent border crossers, officials said.

White House officials declined to comment publicly before a formal announcement by Mr. Obama, who will return from an eight-day trip to Asia on Sunday. Administration officials said details about the package of executive actions were still being finished and could change. An announcement could be pushed off until next month but will not be delayed into next year, officials said.

“Before the end of the year, we’re going to take whatever lawful actions that I can take that I believe will improve the functioning of our immigration system,” Mr. Obama said during a news conference a day after last week’s midterm elections. “What I’m not going to do is just wait.”

The decision to move forward sets in motion a political confrontation between Mr. Obama and his Republican adversaries that is likely to affect budget negotiations and debate about Loretta E. Lynch, the president’s nominee to be attorney general, during the lame-duck session of Congress that began this week. It is certain to further enrage Republicans as they take control of both chambers of Congress early next year.

A group of Republicans — led by Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, Senator Mike Lee of Utah and Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama — is already planning to thwart any executive action by the president on immigration. The senators are hoping to rally their fellow Republicans to oppose efforts to pass a budget next month unless it explicitly prohibits the president from enacting what they call “executive amnesty” for people in the country illegally.

“Our office stands ready to use any procedural means available to make sure the president can’t enact his illegal executive amnesty,” said Catherine Frazier, a spokeswoman for Mr. Cruz. ( says the Canadian anchor baby! )

But the president and his top aides have concluded that acting unilaterally is in the interest of the country and the only way to increase political pressure on Republicans to eventually support a legislative overhaul that could put millions of illegal immigrants on a path to legal status and perhaps citizenship. Mr. Obama has told lawmakers privately and publicly that he will reverse his executive orders if they pass a comprehensive bill that he agrees to sign.

White House officials reject as overblown the dire warnings from some in Congress who predict that such a sweeping use of presidential power will undermine any possibility for cooperation in Washington with the newly empowered Republican majority.

“I think it will create a backlash in the country that could actually set the cause back and inflame our politics in a way that I don’t think will be conducive to solving the problem,” said Senator Angus King of Maine, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats and supports an immigration overhaul.

The question of when the president should make the announcement is still being discussed inside the West Wing, officials said. Announcing the actions quickly could give Mr. Cruz and others a specific target to attack, but it would also allow immigration advocates to defend it. Waiting until later in December could allow the budget to be approved before setting off a fight over immigration.

Although a Republican president could reverse Mr. Obama’s overhaul of the system after he leaves office in January 2017, the president’s action at least for now will remove the threat of deportation for millions of people in Latino and other immigrant communities. Immigration agents are to instead focus on gang members, narcotics traffickers and potential terrorists.

Officials said one of the primary considerations for the president has been to take actions that can withstand the legal challenges that they expect will come quickly from Republicans. A senior administration official said lawyers had been working for months to make sure the president’s proposal would be “legally unassailable” when he presented it.

Most of the major elements of the president’s plan are based on longstanding legal precedents that give the executive branch the right to exercise “prosecutorial discretion” in how it enforces the laws.

That was the basis of a 2012 decision to protect from deportation the so-called Dreamers, who came to the United States as young children. The new announcement will be based on a similar legal theory, officials said.

The White House expects a chorus of outside legal experts to back it up once Mr. Obama makes the plan official. In several “listening sessions” at the White House over the last year, immigration activists came armed with legal briefs, and White House officials believe those arguments will quickly form the basis of the public defense of his actions.

Many pro-immigration groups and advocates — as well as the Hispanic voters who could be crucial for Democrats’ hopes of winning the White House in 2016 — are expecting bold action, having grown increasingly frustrated after watching a sweeping bipartisan immigration bill fall prey to a gridlocked Congress last year.

“This is his last chance to make good on his promise to fix the system,” said Kevin Appleby, the director of migration policy at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. “If he delays again, the immigration activists would — just politically speaking — jump the White House fence.”

Some groups, like the United We Dream network, the largest organization of young undocumented immigrants, are preparing to deploy teams to early 2016 states like Iowa and New Hampshire to hold presidential candidates accountable and press for more action.

“From our perspective, the president has the power, the precedent and the priority for action on his side,” said Clarissa Martínez-De-Castro, deputy vice president of NCLR, also known as the National Council of La Raza. The opportunity “to go big and bold is what will allow the country to derive the biggest benefit on both the economic side and the national security side.”

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/14/us/obama-immigration.html?_r=0

shutdown the govt!

lynch the n!gga!

Wonderful how Kenyan Muslim HUSSEIN! took the Repug extortion threats over any unilateral immigration actions and stuffed them down their LYING throats.

Repugs said they won't cooperate with Barry if he does anything. It looks like Barry has, after 6 years, realized that the Repugs won't cooperate if he DOESN'T do anything. Repugs won't cooperate, period.

[Infinite_limit]

Brown country. GO WHITE RUSSIA !!!

[Spurminator]

Going to be interesting to see lame duck DGAF Obama in action the next couple years. Typically an outgoing President would want a smooth exit that makes it easier for his party's candidate in the next election, but given his history with Hillary Clinton that may not even be a consideration for him.

[boutons_deux]

Going to be interesting to see lame duck DGAF Obama in action the next couple years. Typically an outgoing President would want a smooth exit that makes it easier for his party's candidate in the next election, but given his history with Hillary Clinton that may not even be a consideration for him.

I think his history with Hillary will be vastly overwhelmed by 8 years of shit history with the Repugs. Next 2 years is Barry's payback time. I bet Krazy Kruz already has impeachment document in preparation.

[RandomGuy]

Going to be a big dust up.

The big O is finally going to man up and do what he should have been doing for years. Drop the hammer and force the GOP to have to defend the racist wing of its party.

I am waiting for the answer to two questions from any Republican:


How do you define "securing the border"?

and

Tell me why amnesty, even a limited one, is a bad thing, economically for the US. I can generally show reasonable data to say that the illegal immigrants are a net gain to the economy.

[boutons_deux]

the Repugs did nothing about immigration from Jan 2001 to Jan 2009

and the Repugs have done nothing but obstruct imm reform since.

Boner said there wouldn't be any comprehensive imm legislation, only piecemeal shit, which means stretched out over many years and NOTHING until the border was hermetically, perfectly sealed. iow, until "never".

Why? because the Repug base is racist, xenophobic, "knowing" that America MUST be controlled, owned only by Euro-Americans,not by south-of-the-border Indians or half breeds.

[boutons_deux]

G.O.P. Unveils Immigration Plan: “We Must Make America Somewhere No One Wants to Live”


http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Borowitz-GOP-Unveils-Immigration-Plan-690.jpg

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell unveiled his party’s long-awaited plan on immigration on Wednesday, telling reporters, “We must make America somewhere no one wants to live.”

Appearing with House Speaker John Boehner, McConnell said that, in contrast to President Obama’s “Band-Aid fixes,” the Republican plan would address “the root cause of immigration, which is that the United States is, for the most part, habitable.”



“For years, immigrants have looked to America as a place where their standard of living was bound to improve,” McConnell said. “We’re going to change that.”

Boehner said that the Republicans’ plan would reduce or eliminate “immigration magnets,” such as the social safety net, public education, clean air, and drinkable water.

The Speaker added that the plan would also include the repeal of Obamacare, calling healthcare “catnip for immigrants.”

Attempting, perhaps, to tamp down excitement about the plan, McConnell warned that turning America into a dystopian hellhole that repels immigrants “won’t happen overnight.”
“Our crumbling infrastructure and soaring gun violence are a good start, but much work still needs to be done,” he said. “When Americans start leaving the country, we’ll know that we’re on the right track.”

In closing, the two congressional leaders expressed pride in the immigration plan, noting that Republicans had been working to make it possible for the past thirty years.

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/republicans-unveil-immigration-plan?mbid=nl_111914_Borowitz&CNDID=&spMailingID=7298426&spUserID=MjczNzc0Njk0NDAS1&spJobID=562100463&spReportId=NTYyMTAwNDYzS0

[boutons_deux]

Obama Expected To Unveil Immigration Actions On Friday In Vegas
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/obama-immigration-executive-action-friday-las-vegas?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

[boutons_deux]

TX's biggest flaming asshole in full flare mode

Cruz Urges Halting All Nominations Over Obama's Immigration Order


"If the President announces executive amnesty, the new Senate Majority Leader who takes over in January should announce that the 114th Congress will not confirm a single nominee—executive or judicial—outside of vital national security positions, so long as the illegal amnesty persists.



This is a potent tool given to Congress by the Constitution explicitly to act as a check on executive power. It is a constitutional power of the Majority Leader alone, and it would serve as a significant deterrent to a lawless President.



Additionally, the new Congress should exercise the power of the purse by passing individual appropriations bills authorizing critical functions of government and attaching riders to strip the authority from the president to grant amnesty."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ted-cruz-obama-executive-action-immigration?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

[DarrinS]

TX's biggest flaming asshole in full flare mode


boutons getting all hot and bothered. :lol

[spurraider21]

everybody loves executive orders when their guy is in office, calls it tyranny when the other guy is in office. its a funny cycle

[ElNono]

everybody loves executive orders when their guy is in office, calls it tyranny when the other guy is in office. its a funny cycle

Not everybody... team players for the most part...

[spurraider21]

Not everybody... team players for the most part...
thats true. i really wish i had a team. i just feel like a heckler no matter who's in the seat

[SnakeBoy]

the Repugs did nothing about immigration from Jan 2001 to Jan 2009

and the Repugs have done nothing but obstruct imm reform since.

Boner said there wouldn't be any comprehensive imm legislation, only piecemeal shit, which means stretched out over many years and NOTHING until the border was hermetically, perfectly sealed. iow, until "never".

Why? because the Repug base is racist, xenophobic, "knowing" that America MUST be controlled, owned only by Euro-Americans,not by south-of-the-border Indians or half breeds.



Democrats wouldn't touch the issue when they could have actually done something about it. Now Obama/Dems are just playing politics and as usual Boo is happy to play along.

[m>s]

time to get a masters and leave the US and loan debts behind forever

[Th'Pusher]

time to get a masters and leave the US and loan debts behind forever
Lol load debts.

[spurraider21]

"With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed -- and I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.

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 ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President."

[m>s]

Lol load debts.
Hello gayboy

[boutons_deux]

Democrats wouldn't touch the issue when they could have actually done something about it.

when was that?

[Th'Pusher]

Hello gayboy
How much debt did you run up at UTA? And how long will it take to pay back being a bank teller?

[m>s]

i don't have debt it was only 20k and I paid it back in a year. You mad I'm going to charge my ms and leave you with the bill while I head for glorious russia?

[Th'Pusher]

i don't have debt it was only 20k and I paid it back in a year. You mad I'm going to charge my ms and leave you with the bill while I head for glorious russia?
:lol glorious Russia. Take it. I'll give a pussy like you one year in Russia before you'd be offering to suck a homeless man's dick for a one way ticket back to the good ol' USA.

[m>s]

I'll be joining the russian armed forces in exchange for citizenship and counting shekels with my MS

[Th'Pusher]

I'll be joining the russian armed forces in exchange for citizenship and counting shekels with my MS
You live in a dfw suburb and are a bank teller at a local chase bank. Seriously dude. You're fucking delusional. And, you're stupid too. At best, you top out at at middle management at chase, but you'll likely be fired for a lack of productivity and try your hand at some shitbag Edward Jones door knocking job begging people to give you a few dollars for some muni bonds that Pay 4%.

[m>s]

Wrong on every single account. I switched fields I do accounting now and make more than you do guaranteed.

[Th'Pusher]

Wrong on every single account. I switched fields I do accounting now and make more than you do guaranteed.
:lol how long did you last is your previous position before the let you go?

[Yonivore]

No, Reagan Did Not Offer An Amnesty By Lawless Executive Order (http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/20/no-reagan-did-not-offer-an-amnesty-by-lawless-executive-order/)

(Nor did George H. W. Bush, by the way)


"Most recently, however, Progressive columnists have settled on an old favorite tactic: justify Democratic misbehavior by claiming (falsely, as you will see) that a Republican did it first."
We've seen a lot of that in here, as well.


"If Obama wants to justify his lawless immigration action, he will have to do it some other way than citing (blaming, more like) prior Republican presidents. They, to their credit, were trying to implement Congress’ will. Obama, on the other hand, has declared that his government will act despite Congress, or, I suspect, to spite Congress. Such pettiness finds no support in the presidencies of Reagan and Bush."

Obama Immigration Speech: CBS, Fox, NBC & ABC Not Airing (http://deadline.com/2014/11/obama-us-immigration-primetime-speech-univision-1201289203/)
I think it's interesting the four major networks will not be airing Obama's Decree but, you will be able to see it on Univision -- They're pre-empting the 15th Annual Latin Grammys in order to air the speech -- Celebrations to ensue afterward.

Discuss...

[Yonivore]

Casual Attire for a Casual Ending of the Separation of Powers (http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/392997/casual-attire-casual-ending-separation-powers-jim-geraghty)

"If you want to stretch the powers of the presidency beyond all recognition, to insist 'prosecutorial discretion' now means not enforcing the law for millions of people who violated the law by entering the country illegally, and to claim unilateral power to change the makeup of American society in the face of stiff public and Congressional opposition… at least wear a suit jacket, right? This is a special occasion."

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152967942944238&set=vb.63811549237&type=2&theater

[SupremeGuy]

lol demorats

Asking people to obey laws doesn't make someone a racist. Holy shit, you guys can't be that stupid right?

[boutons_deux]

The Repugs have been able to move on immigration since 2001, because they have been and are "bitterly split".

And pussy eater, nor any right-wingdings here, doesn't have ANY serious proposals on immigration.

The Federalist! :lol The Federalist "knows" the will of Congress in the 1989s and 2000s :lol Repug Congress under St Ronnie and dubya had some much unified will they didn't do shit about immigration.

They don't want to do anything about immigration, because immigration is a key, perennial campaign issue to inflame their racist, xenophobic SpursTalk and white rural base.

[boutons_deux]

and Repugs said nothing when dickhead tried and mostly succeeded to implement ... The Unitary Executive!

=======

Another beloved, honorable, comparatively extreme left-wing Repug President:

Nixon replied: "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal,"[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nixon_Interviews#cite_note-13) in the context of American national security.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nixon_Interviews

and Repugs say immigration and the border are national security catastrophes due to all the ISIS killers and narco-terrorists pouring across the border, plus remember those illegal immigrants dropping anchor babies as sleeper agents to destroy America. :lol

[Yonivore]

The Repugs have been able to move on immigration since 2001, because they have been and are "bitterly split".

And pussy eater, nor any right-wingdings here, doesn't have ANY serious proposals on immigration.

The Federalist! :lol The Federalist "knows" the will of Congress in the 1989s and 2000s :lol Repug Congress under St Ronnie and dubya had some much unified will they didn't do shit about immigration.

They don't want to do anything about immigration, because immigration is a key, perennial campaign issue to inflame their racist, xenophobic SpursTalk and white rural base.
Actually, we do have ideas on immigration.

1) Secure the border.

2) Enforce existing immigration law.

3) Tighten e-verify with employers.

4) Deport those here illegally, beginning with criminals and adults with no families.

5) THEN, sit down and develop a plan for the remaining illegal aliens.

[Yonivore]

and Repugs said nothing when dickhead tried and mostly succeeded to implement ... The Unitary Executive!
Example?


=======

Another beloved, honorable, comparatively extreme left-wing Repug President:

Nixon replied: "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal,"[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nixon_Interviews#cite_note-13) in the context of American national security.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nixon_Interviews
I don't think anyone seriously agreed with Nixon -- I know I didn't.


and Repugs say immigration and the border are national security catastrophes due to all the ISIS killers and narco-terrorists pouring across the border, plus remember those illegal immigrants dropping anchor babies as sleeper agents to destroy America. :lol
Fact is, you don't know who is sneaking across the borders.

VICTIMS OF ILLEGAL ALIENS (http://www.ojjpac.org/memorial.asp)
They don't have to be terrorists (narco- or otherwise) in order to wreak havoc on our society.

[boutons_deux]

Actually, we do have ideas on immigration.

1) Secure the border.

2) Enforce existing immigration law.

3) Tighten e-verify with employers.

4) Deport those here illegally, beginning with criminals and adults with no families.

5) THEN, sit down and develop a plan for the remaining illegal aliens.

how many $10Bs are the Repugs willing to spend, ANNUALLY, to secure the border hermetically? And the Repugs, always so honest and good faith, have said at least from 2009, no immigration reform until the border is hermetically sealed, which will be never. Repugs are fucking assholes.

Border Patrol is already heavily a equipped military, with jurisdiction stretching over a huge portion of USA, with almost no restrictions, and apparently rotten with lawless killers, abusers, rotten cops.

deport those here illegally, that's Ms, how do YOU plan to do it. buses, railcars, airplanes? what's your budget for this?

e-verify database, like Kobach's voting database used to suppress voters, is full of errors. Repug businessman LOVE to underpay, ripoff low-cost illegal immigrants.

[Yonivore]

how many $10Bs are the Repugs willing to spend, ANNUALLY, to secure the border hermetically? And the Repugs, always so honest and good faith, have said at least from 2009, no immigration reform until the border is hermetically sealed, which will be never. Repugs are fucking assholes.

Border Patrol is already heavily a equipped military, with jurisdiction stretching over a huge portion of USA, with almost no restrictions, and apparently rotten with lawless killers, abusers, rotten cops.

deport those here illegally, that's Ms, how do YOU plan to do it. buses, railcars, airplanes? what's your budget for this?

e-verify database, like Kobach's voting database used to suppress voters, is full of errors. Repug businessman LOVE to underpay, ripoff low-cost illegal immigrants.
So, murderers are gonna murder so, why try and do anything...

That sums up your rationale pretty concisely.

[Th'Pusher]

No, Reagan Did Not Offer An Amnesty By Lawless Executive Order (http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/20/no-reagan-did-not-offer-an-amnesty-by-lawless-executive-order/)

(Nor did George H. W. Bush, by the way)


We've seen a lot of that in here, as well.



Obama Immigration Speech: CBS, Fox, NBC & ABC Not Airing (http://deadline.com/2014/11/obama-us-immigration-primetime-speech-univision-1201289203/)
I think it's interesting the four major networks will not be airing Obama's Decree but, you will be able to see it on Univision -- They're pre-empting the 15th Annual Latin Grammys in order to air the speech -- Celebrations to ensue afterward.

Discuss...

NPR will be airing it

[boutons_deux]

“A very dangerous situation”: GOP Senator warns of “violence” if Obama signs immigration order
http://media.salon.com/2013/08/tom_coburn-620x412.jpg

Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma warned Wednesday that the country could witness outbreaks of “anarchy” and “violence” if, as expected, President Obama signs an executive order sparing millions of unauthorized immigrants from deportation.

Speaking with USA Today’s Susan Page, Coburn predicted that executive action could set off a spiral of lawlessness.
“I don’t think it’s so much the Republican reaction here,” Coburn replied after Page asked how Republicans would respond to the order. ”The country’s going to go nuts, because they’re going to see it as a move outside the authority of the president, and it’s going to be a very dangerous situation. You’re going to see — hopefully not — but you could see instances of anarchy. … You could see violence.”

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/20/a_very_dangerous_situation_gop_senator_warns_of_vi olence_if_obama_signs_immigration_order/

Coburn! :lol Okies! :lol

Cobby dog-whistling to the rednecks, bubbas, rurals, militiamen, patriots!, marans, trailer park trash, KKK, GOA, NRA, Oath Keepers, Promise Keepers, etc to start shootin n!gg@s tonight, and to get the rope ready to lynch the head n!gg@

[Yonivore]

NPR will be airing it
Like I said, I think it's interesting the four major networks will not be airing Obama's Decree...

[m>s]

ya'll ready to go to war to defend the public?

[Yonivore]

The Mexican Revolution: November 20th, 1910 (http://edsitement.neh.gov/feature/mexican-revolution-november-20th-1910)
Coincidence?

[Yonivore]

You know who used to be opposed to King Obama's plan to dictate by executive order?

King Obama, that's who.

IIueBJWkCQY

[boutons_deux]

Like I said, I think it's interesting the four major networks will not be airing Obama's Decree...

they claim it's a political speech, not a public interest speech

[ElNono]

Bachmann: Executive action allows in 'illiterate' voters

Rep. Michele Bachmann says executive actions on immigration will lead to a flood of “illiterate” Democratic voters.
“The social cost will be profound on the U.S. taxpayer — millions of unskilled, illiterate, foreign nationals coming into the United States who can’t speak the English language,” Bachmann told reporters at the Capitol, The Washington Post reported Wednesday.

“Even though the president says they won’t be able to vote, we all know that many, in all likelihood, will vote,” the Republican lawmaker added. “The president has a very single-minded vision. He’s looking at new voters for 2016.”
When asked by the Post why she used the word “illiterate” to describe immigrants, Bachmann cited her own experience visiting the border and said, “that’s what they told me.”
“Some are, some aren’t,” the Minnesota congresswoman said of the literacy of illegal immigrants. “Those are not Michele Bachmann’s words, those words came from Hispanics who live on the border. … I’m not using a pejorative term against people who are non-American citizens. I’m only repeating what I heard from Hispanic-Americans down at the border. That’s what they told me.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/michele-bachmann-immigration-executive-action-113056.html

[ElNono]

Hopefully they take the mic away from Bachmann during the prez campaign, tbh...

[boutons_deux]

Benghazi!

ISIS!

hyperinflation!

cantaloupe calves!

Social Security crisis!

narco-terrorists!

out-of-control spending!

same-sex marriage!

national debt!

federal deficit!

free market!

Liberty!

Freedom!

marans!

Ebola!

immigrants with diseases!

[m>s]

Benghazi!

ISIS!

hyperinflation!

cantaloupe calves!

Social Security crisis!

narco-terrorists!

out-of-control spending!

same-sex marriage!

national debt!

federal deficit!

free market!

Liberty!

Freedom!

marans!

Ebola!

immigrants with diseases!
fuck you leftist cuck

[CosmicCowboy]

Michelle Bachman really is an embarrassment to any conservative with a brain.

[m>s]

not really, going from 90% white to under 50% white is going to kill this country

[boutons_deux]

Michelle Bachman really is an embarrassment to any conservative with a brain.

the Repug, conservative, libertarian, evangelical groups are severely polluted with shameless, ignorant, hateful, stupid assholes. We could a LONG thread with them. :)

And to their DIScredit, the moderate, serious group members let the assholes run their mouths without challenge.

[CosmicCowboy]

I have no problem with illegal hispanic immigrants that work hard, take care of their family responsibilities, and don't get in trouble with the law.

Why wouldn't we want them as citizens?

They won't be the downfall of the USA.

The Ferguson type ignorant fucks are a much greater threat to our country, "citizen" or not.

[boutons_deux]

The Ferguson type ignorant fucks are a much greater threat to our country, "citizen" or not.

Dear racist, the BigCorps and financial sector are the most serious threat to USA. They exist to bleed our wealth and fuck up the environment.

[CosmicCowboy]

Dear racist, the BigCorps and financial sector are the most serious threat to USA. They exist to bleed our wealth and fuck up the environment.

Why is it racist to call ignorant fucks ignorant fucks?

[m>s]

I have no problem with illegal hispanic immigrants that work hard, take care of their family responsibilities, and don't get in trouble with the law.

Why wouldn't we want them as citizens?

They won't be the downfall of the USA.

The Ferguson type ignorant fucks are a much greater threat to our country, "citizen" or not.

a country is only as great as the people who inhabit it. substitute 105 average iq inventors and civilized folks for 85iq socialist foreigners and the america you knew will be dead and gone forever.

[m>s]

20-30 years from now there will be this huge unexplained drop in workforce productivity as america slides from 1st world to 2nd world status and the leftists will probably try to blame it on whitey for not working hard since it's not our country anymore

[cantthinkofanything]

20-30 years from now there will be this huge unexplained drop in workforce productivity as america slides from 1st world to 2nd world status and the leftists will probably try to blame it on whitey for not working hard since it's not our country anymore

balderdash. Just look at all the successful countries with non-white/non-Asian majorities.

[CosmicCowboy]

a country is only as great as the people who inhabit it. substitute 105 average iq inventors and civilized folks for 85iq socialist foreigners and the america you knew will be dead and gone forever.

The first generation immigrants are not the problem. They typically have a great family and work ethic.

[m>s]

The first generation immigrants are not the problem. They typically have a great family and work ethic.
it's not about that, they are still untermenschen. even if they are exceptional their children will likely revert back to the mean.

[m>s]

a society that is mostly black and mexican is not going to innovate, invent, and create jobs. that is just the facts i'm sorry to break it to those whose feelings may be hurt or offended but it is the absolute truth. the next century belongs to the chinese. they are practicing eugenics while we are doing reverse eugenics.

[CosmicCowboy]

a society that is mostly black and mexican is not going to innovate, invent, and create jobs. that is just the facts i'm sorry to break it to those whose feelings may be hurt or offended but it is the absolute truth. the next century belongs to the chinese. they are practicing eugenics while we are doing reverse eugenics.

link?

[m>s]

china has a bad problem with pollution related impotence and people pay top dollar for the sperm of top university students, lawyers, engineers, etc, this is not new and is very well know. here check out this link about chinese genetic research.

http://www.ibtimes.com/chinese-scientists-may-soon-be-able-genetically-engineer-smarter-children-1137797

our mongrel children won't be able to compete with 180 iq chinese master race

[boutons_deux]

Why is it racist to call ignorant fucks ignorant fucks?

All of Ferguson, population 20K+, Blacks aren't ignorant fucks.

OTOH, in my more precise estimation, the vast MAJORITY you right wingers are ignorant fucks.

[m>s]

A company in China is attempting to identify common alleles in the DNA of some of the world’s most intelligent people. If they can be found, the research may let parents select an embryo containing the so-called "most intelligent" DNA, potentially bumping up intelligence by up to 15 IQ points.According to Vice, the scientists and researchers at BGI Shenzhen have taken on the genetic engineering project and are getting close to figuring out the common allele among the "genius" DNA.
Geoffrey Miller, an evolutionary psychologist, is among the 2,000 luminaries who donated DNA to the science of smart.
In an interview with Vice (http://www.vice.com/read/chinas-taking-over-the-world-with-a-massive-genetic-engineering-program?utm_source=Sinocism%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=6f7fcbe979-Sinocism03_18_13&utm_medium=email), Miller explains in more detail what exactly the research may be able to achieve, and why China is far more advanced in genetic research.
Miller says that even if IQ is boosted in one generation by a seemingly small increment, the potential of even more intelligent offspring increases as well and can improve society in all sectors. “Even if it only boosts the average kid by five IQ points, that’s a huge difference in terms of economic productivity, the competitiveness of the country, how many patents they get, how their businesses are run and how innovative their economy is,” he said.
China’s past with eugenics has paved a way for current Chinese geneticists and researchers to be leaders in the field, despite what many perceive as controversial science. Under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping in the late 1970s and '80s, managing China’s booming population became a priority. By the time technology allowed for it, prenatal testing and screening for birth defects and gender were common among Chinese parents who only had one chance to have a child because of the one child policy implemented by Deng. And though gender-selecting abortion is illegal in China, this did not stop many parents from killing or abandoning baby girls.
This project, by BGI Shenzhen, Miller said, is rooted in the idea of prenatal screening, but does not cross lines of genetic engineering or adding new genes. “It’s the genes that couples already have,” Miller said, adding that “that kid would belong to that couple as if they had it naturally, but it would be the smartest a couple would be able to produce if they had 100 kids.”
Miller says genetics research is so advanced in China is because of a lack of religious culture that inhibits Western research. “We have ideological biases that say, ‘well, this could be troubling, we shouldn’t be meddling with nature, we shouldn’t be meddling with God.’”
But most Chinese, Miller believes, have no qualms about genetically engineering babies.
“An audience would say, ‘Obviously you should make babies genetically healthier, happier and brighter!’’

[m>s]

All of Ferguson Blacks aren't ignorant fucks. OTOH, in my more precise estimation, the vast MAJORITY you right wingers are ignorant fucks.
no just the ones out rabble rousing and threatening to burn down white neighborhoods. if anyone comes to my neighborhood they're going to have fucking big problems.

[ElNono]

Michelle Bachman really is an embarrassment to any conservative with a brain.

It's just mind-boggling how she doesn't realize the damage she's making. Wish the GOP would do a better job of weeding some of these people out.

[Yonivore]

REAGAN AND BUSH 41 PROVIDE NO PRECEDENT FOR OBAMA’S AMNESTY BY EXECUTIVE ORDER (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/11/reagan-and-bush-41-provide-no-precedent-for-obamas-amnesty-by-executive-order.php)

Not a video...


"Tonight, President Obama will override Congress and effectively declare amnesty for at least several million illegal immigrants. As Scott has noted (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/11/day-of-infamy.php), Obama himself has repeatedly admitted he lacks the constitutional power to make this move.

"Some of Obama’s defenders claim that the president was mistaken when he acknowledged his lack of power to override the immigration laws. One supporter (I don’t remember who) said that Obama received bad legal advice. Apparently, the “constitutional lawyer” was misled by his legal team.

"The most common argument in favor of Obama’s power to declare amnesty by executive order is that Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush did it. Juan Williams, among others, has made this claim.

"It is baseless. Unlike what Obama is about to do, Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 issued immigration regulations that were expressly authorized by a law passed by Congress.

"In 1986, Reagan signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act. The Act required him to adjust the status of certain illegal immigrants to the category of 'alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence.'

"The Act also authorized the Attorney General to allow other illegal immigrants who did not qualify for the amnesty to remain in the U.S. if needed 'to assure family unity.'

"Accordingly, in May 1987, the Justice Department issued regulations that interpreted the the term 'family unity' as calling for the maintenance of the 'family group.' Family group was defined as including 'the spouse, unmarried minor children under 18 years of age who are not member of some other household, and parents who resided regularly in the household of the family group.' Thus, not all spouses and children were included.

"This regulation was not an exercise of prosecutorial discretion or the assertion of a generalized right to suspend 'oppressive' immigration laws. Rather, the administration made it clear that it was carrying out the direction of Congress. It even cited the section of the law that provided this direction (section 245(d)(2)(B)(i) of the 1986 Act).

"House Democrats, including one of the authors of the 1986 Act, criticized Reagan for interpreting too narrowly the executive authority they had granted him. They wanted all spouses and children to receive amnesty in the name of family unity. If anything, then Reagan acted too cautiously, exercising less than the full discretion afforded him by Congress.

"Enter President George H.W. Bush. In 1990, he expanded the Reagan DOJ’s interpretation of 'family unity' to encompass all spouses and children. Like Reagan, Bush merely interpreted the 1986 Act, as Congress called on the executive to do.

"Bush’s interpretation was the more expansive one that Democrats had urged the Reagan administration to adopt. Both the Reagan and Bush interpretations were reasonable, though differing, attempts to effectuate congressional intent.

"Obama, by contrast, will not be fulfilling a congresional mandate to interpret a new statute. He will be overriding the immigration law in the name of 'prosecutorial discretion' on the ground that Congress hasn’t enacted a new statute.

"It will be an unprecedented, unlawful, and dangerous assertion of executive power. It might well create a constitutional crisis."
There's actually a mistake in the cite; it is Section 245a(d)(2)(B)(i) of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (8 USC 1255a(d)(2)(B)(i) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1255a)) that grants the President and Attorney General the discretion to waive certain provisions of the law for the sake of "family unity."

Look it up, do your due diligence before claiming Reagan and Bush did the same thing as Obama is proposing to do tonight.

[ElNono]

I expect this to be litigated, tbh... we'll see what the arguments are.

[ElNono]

Also, I don't think any of these people that qualify for this enforcement exception can actually become citizens?

[Yonivore]

Also, I don't think any of these people that qualify for this enforcement exception can actually become citizens?
But, I think the point is, Obama doesn't have the legal or constitutional authority to make the enforcement exceptions in the first place. He's not citing any provision of any law that says he has such discretion. In fact, he's claiming to act because there is no law that does what HE thinks should be done.

Even a benevolent dictator is, nonetheless, a dictator.

As someone said earlier, this has less to do with what he's doing than how he's doing it. If we're a nation of laws, he should follow them.

[ElNono]

But, I think the point is, Obama doesn't have the legal or constitutional authority to make the enforcement exceptions in the first place. He's not citing any provision of any law that says he has such discretion. In fact, he's claiming to act because there is no law that does what HE thinks should be done.

Even a benevolent dictator is, nonetheless, a dictator.

As someone said earlier, this has less to do with what he's doing than how he's doing it. If we're a nation of laws, he should follow them.

Well, it's a very important distinction for two reasons:
1) It's not amnesty. Amnesty allows the amnestied people to become citizens.
2) It's a temporary measure, relatively simple (compared to granting citizenship anyway) to undo by his successor if he/she so chooses.

As far as how he's doing it, I'll let the courts decide that. Never been a fan of EOs (implementation of the NSA dragnet comes to mind), and wouldn't want an expansive interpretation to set foot.
The expansion of executive power spearheaded by Cheney was damaging, IMO, and this would be more of the same.

[boutons_deux]

"1) It's not amnesty. Amnesty allows the amnestied people to become citizens."

Amnesty!

Ebola!

ISIS!

Benghazi!

thugs!

Megyn Kelly's Startling Immigration Admission Subverts Months Of Fox Fearmongering, Including Her Own

Fox News host Megyn Kelly undermined months of claims from her network peers when she admitted to guest Jennice Fuentes that President Obama's upcoming executive action does not constitute "amnesty." Kelly, who has herself used the "amnesty" label to discuss the president's coming order, acknowledged that the term is a dog whistle conservative media have exploited to stoke opposition to immigration reform.

Obama is set to announce a new set of executive actions (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/obama-immigration-plan-unveil-113022.html) that will allow as many as 5 million undocumented immigrants to apply for protection from deportation based on the time they have been in the U.S. and their family ties.

On the November 19 edition of The Kelly File, Kelly acknowledged that the president is not actually pursuing "amnesty," because "amnesty is citizenship and that's not what [Obama] is talking about." Kelly also explained how conservatives purposely misuse the word "amnesty" for political gain: "That's a hot-button term that the right uses to sort of get people upset."

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/11/20/megyn-kellys-startling-immigration-admission-su/201644

[Yonivore]

Well, it's a very important distinction for two reasons:
1) It's not amnesty. Amnesty allows the amnestied people to become citizens.
2) It's a temporary measure, relatively simple (compared to granting citizenship anyway) to undo by his successor if he/she so chooses.

As far as how he's doing it, I'll let the courts decide that. Never been a fan of EOs (implementation of the NSA dragnet comes to mind), and wouldn't want an expansive interpretation to set foot.
The expansion of executive power spearheaded by Cheney was damaging, IMO, and this would be more of the same.
We may simply have to disagree. Temporary or not, amnesty or not, it's clearly a move by the Executive to enact policy without any legal basis.

Refresh me on the "NSA Dragnet." Exactly what was done that did not have statutory backing? You and I may both agree that the federal police state has grown way out of proportion but, sadly, Congress passed laws that allowed the Executive to exercise those powers. The U.S. Patriot Act and FISA and the Department of Homeland Security are all creations of Congress.

[ElNono]

We may simply have to disagree. Temporary or not, amnesty or not, it's clearly a move by the Executive to enact policy without any legal basis.

Refresh me on the "NSA Dragnet." Exactly what was done that did not have statutory backing? You and I may both agree that the federal police state has grown way out of proportion but, sadly, Congress passed laws that allowed the Executive to exercise those powers. The U.S. Patriot Act and FISA and the Department of Homeland Security are all creations of Congress.

The NSA dragnet was the mass interception of communications in the US post 2001 (which I believe it's what's call the metadata program today). The program was implemented in secrecy by the Executive under an EO. Years later, when the program was leaked out to the public (by the NYTimes IIRC), and phone companies were about to get sued for complying with it, Congress enacted new law legalizing the program and granting phone companies retroactive immunity. Obviously, it had to be retroactive, because there was no such law by Congress when the EO was created.

BTW, Barry voted in favor of that program and the retroactive immunity. IIRC, that vote was in 2008. At that point I knew he was more of the same.

[spurraider21]

Amnesty!

Ebola!

ISIS!

Benghazi!

thugs!
Melting ice caps!

Running out of fossil fuels!

The 1% !

Gays!

Uterus!

don't act like both sides dont play the same game, booboo :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Melting ice caps!

Running out of fossil fuels!

The 1% !

Gays!

Uterus!

don't act like both sides dont play the same game, booboo :lol

Women's groups and the gay community are the democratic parties constituents. That is not the same thing.

This is not to say that dems are not lying pieces of shit especially amongst the leadership but generally they do not do the same media and campaign practices of the GOP. People like to conflate Fox News and MSNBC but MSNBC is not chaired by the DNC's former media strategist.

[spurraider21]

Women's groups and the gay community are the democratic parties constituents. That is not the same thing.

This is not to say that dems are not lying pieces of shit especially amongst the leadership but generally they do not do the same media and campaign practices of the GOP. People like to conflate Fox News and MSNBC but MSNBC is not chaired by the DNC's former media strategist.
when somebody's campaign was so geared towards that one issue to the point where his nickname became "Mark Uterus" i think its a valid point :lol

[Yonivore]

The NSA dragnet was the mass interception of communications in the US post 2001 (which I believe it's what's call the metadata program today). The program was implemented in secrecy by the Executive under an EO. Years later, when the program was leaked out to the public (by the NYTimes IIRC), and phone companies were about to get sued for complying with it, Congress enacted new law legalizing the program and granting phone companies retroactive immunity. Obviously, it had to be retroactive, because there was no such law by Congress when the EO was created.

BTW, Barry voted in favor of that program and the retroactive immunity. IIRC, that vote was in 2008. At that point I knew he was more of the same.
IIRC, the NSA "dragnet" was directed at communication that originated outside the United States and was conducted at bases, also outside the United States. While it is illegal to conduct a warrantless wiretap on an domestic phone, it is not illegal for a national intelligence agency to tap a foreign source of communication -- even if one of the parties to that communication is in the United States. Also, IIRC, Congress was fully informed and agreed to the program.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

when somebody's campaign was so geared towards that one issue to the point where his nickname became "Mark Uterus" i think its a valid point :lol

And what point do you think that is? That guy lost in a mismanaged campaign. That tells me that independents and the democratic base do a better job discerning when someone is patronizing them.

Compare and contrast to the response you get from GOP types regarding the oversimplified clarion call regarding Benghazi and Gruber. People died and he said you were stupid! #GruberGATE!!!!!!

[spurraider21]

Spin it however you want, it's still people trying too hard to pound one issue as "the hot button issue" when they should be concerned with the totality of what is going on.

[ElNono]

IIRC, the NSA "dragnet" was directed at communication that originated outside the United States and was conducted at bases, also outside the United States. While it is illegal to conduct a warrantless wiretap on an domestic phone, it is not illegal for a national intelligence agency to tap a foreign source of communication -- even if one of the parties to that communication is in the United States. Also, IIRC, Congress was fully informed and agreed to the program.

Nope. See Hepting v. AT&T (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepting_v._AT%26T), eventually dismissed due to the retroactive immunity granted in 2008. Also Jewel v. NSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewel_v._NSA), which is still ongoing.

[dbestpro]

What affect if any does anyone think this will have on unions, and the amount of expenditures for low income people per person?

[Yonivore]

Nope. See Hepting v. AT&T (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepting_v._AT%26T), eventually dismissed due to the retroactive immunity granted in 2008. Also Jewel v. NSA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewel_v._NSA), which is still ongoing.
Dismissed and pending. I see.

[ElNono]

Dismissed and pending. I see.

Dismissed because of the retroactive immunity. Case was filed in January 2006, retroactive immunity was granted in July 2008 through FISAAA. Here's the District Court order:
https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/orderhepting6309_0.pdf

FISAAA (after being amended in 2008) read:

(A) in connection with an intelligence activity involving communications that was ——
(i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007; and...

[Yonivore]

Dismissed because of the retroactive immunity. Case was filed in January 2006, retroactive immunity was granted in July 2008 through FISAAA. Here's the District Court order:
https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/orderhepting6309_0.pdf

FISAAA (after being amended in 2008) read:

(A) in connection with an intelligence activity involving communications that was ——
(i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007; and...
So, the phone companies ostensibly violated the law? Not the President? Got it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Spin it however you want, it's still people trying too hard to pound one issue as "the hot button issue" when they should be concerned with the totality of what is going on.

I'm trying to talk about it. That guy did lose. It is what it is.

The 1% comment is modern semantics for the same class distinctions and complaints that have existed since the times of aristocracy. Women's and homo rights are an extension of liberalism that dates from back then too.

What do Benghazi and this Gruber shit hearken too? You really think that the GOP establishment seeks disestablishment? Government bad! DERP #TWITTERTAG!

[ElNono]

So, the phone companies ostensibly violated the law? Not the President? Got it.

Apparently, phone companies did not have a choice, thus the immunity grant. There's plenty of examples under National Security Letters. Thus the second lawsuit, Jewel v. NSA.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So, the phone companies ostensibly violated the law? Not the President? Got it.

That is determined in a court of law and the GOP is all bark and no bite regarding that to this point.

Abbot might force the issue and we will see but all you are doing is advocating for the complainant and not making any factual legal statement. I am sure you spoke in much the same way regarding the legal argument regarding the mandate.

[ElNono]

But the fact that Bush himself wasn't sued actually goes to the point I was making: It's unlikely that Barry doesn't have the power to issue the EOs, even if there's no backing law. There's an unfortunate precedent.

It doesn't excuse the fact that they do such bullshit, IMO, but there's that.

[Yonivore]

But the fact that Bush himself wasn't sued actually goes to the point I was making: It's unlikely that Barry doesn't have the power to issue the EOs, even if there's no backing law. There's an unfortunate precedent.

It doesn't excuse the fact that they do such bullshit, IMO, but there's that.
I think the differences in what the Obama administration is proposing on immigration versus what the Bush administration did with respect to terrorist intelligence are many. Most of which we hashed and rehashed at the time. And, none of which I have the least desire to revisit at this late date.

But, one of the principal differences is that Congress was informed and approved of the NSA program.

[ElNono]

I think the differences in what the Obama administration is proposing on immigration versus what the Bush administration did with respect to terrorist intelligence are many. Most of which we hashed and rehashed at the time. And, none of which I have the least desire to revisit at this late date.

But, one of the principal differences is that Congress was informed and approved of the NSA program.

I don't think informing Congress is an issue here. And unfortunately, the President did not seek approval until much, much later, so in that sense, not much difference at all.

I opposed those shenanigans back then, I don't like what the current President is doing either.

[spurraider21]

I'm trying to talk about it. That guy did lose. It is what it is.

The 1% comment is modern semantics for the same class distinctions and complaints that have existed since the times of aristocracy. Women's and homo rights are an extension of liberalism that dates from back then too.

What do Benghazi and this Gruber shit hearken too? You really think that the GOP establishment seeks disestablishment? Government bad! DERP #TWITTERTAG!
you dont think there are lame twittertags on the other side? please

[Yonivore]

I don't think informing Congress is an issue here. And unfortunately, the President did not seek approval until much, much later, so in that sense, not much difference at all.

I opposed those shenanigans back then, I don't like what the current President is doing either.
The difference being, I don't believe what the administration did back then was either illegal or unconstitutional.

What this administration is doing is clearly extralegal -- hell, he's as much as admitted it himself.

[ElNono]

Politically, this move reeks of planting seeds for the next campaign. This is a prez that deported the most illegals ever (good), and Dems probably don't want the GOP to use that.

[ElNono]

The difference being, I don't believe what the administration did back then was either illegal or unconstitutional.

What this administration is doing is clearly extralegal -- hell, he's as much as admitted it himself.

What you believe is immaterial. Courts establish that.

EDIT: Your opinion is noted though.

[SnakeBoy]

Politically, this move reeks of planting seeds for the next campaign. This is a prez that deported the most illegals ever (good), and Dems probably don't want the GOP to use that.

I think it is clearly a political move for 2016 but I don't think it has much to do with the Hispanic vote. I think Obama is just trying to bait the GOP into overreacting by shutting down the govt, impeachment talk, etc. Dumbasses will probably take the bait tbh.

[ElNono]

I think it is clearly a political move for 2016 but I don't think it has much to do with the Hispanic vote. I think Obama is just trying to bait the GOP into overreacting by shutting down the govt, impeachment talk, etc. Dumbasses will probably take the bait tbh.

I see what you're saying. Here's where McConnell gotta shine.

[boutons_deux]

and the Repugs, dicklessness needing try to beat down that uppity n!gg@ and play macho man before the racist, xenophobic base, will take the bait.

[Yonivore]

What you believe is immaterial. Courts establish that.
And the courts established neither with respect to the Bush administration's actions.

[SnakeBoy]

and the Repugs, dicklessness needing try to beat down that uppity n!gg@ and play macho man before the racist, xenophobic base, will take the bait.

Is it me or has Boo become even less coherent since the GOP took the Senate?

[ElNono]

And the courts established neither with respect to the Bush administration's actions.

Because there was no challenge. We'll see if there's a challenge to that authority now. Personally, I doubt there is, given the standing precedent.

[SnakeBoy]

Do you think Obama would have made this move had the Dems held the Senate?

[ElNono]

I think it is clearly a political move for 2016 but I don't think it has much to do with the Hispanic vote. I think Obama is just trying to bait the GOP into overreacting by shutting down the govt, impeachment talk, etc. Dumbasses will probably take the bait tbh.

Thinking a little more about this, the shutdown can backfire on Barry too though. Congress will likely pass legislation funding the government and cutting his authority over this stuff, and he'll have to veto, putting the shutdown in his hands. We'll see how it all works out.

[ElNono]

Do you think Obama would have made this move had the Dems held the Senate?

I thought he was going to do it last year. He actually already did some of it with enforcement directives. Obviously, the mid-term campaign stopped everything.

I was pretty sure the GOP was going to re-take the Senate barring some major blunder. In the current scenario, there's obviously some other aspects at play now.

[boutons_deux]

Do you think Obama would have made this move had the Dems held the Senate?

The Senate being Dem or Repug isn't the problem. The Dems had the Senate, sent a imm bill to the House. Boner and the House tea baggers are the problem of NOTHING GETTING DONE.

[SnakeBoy]

I thought he was going to do it last year. He actually already did some of it with enforcement directives. Obviously, the mid-term campaign stopped everything.

I was pretty sure the GOP was going to re-take the Senate barring some major blunder. In the current scenario, there's obviously some other aspects at play now.

I've always had the opinion that the Democrats don't actually want comprehensive immigration reform. It's a winning issue for them with Hispanics, take it off the table and it opens the door to GOP gains with Hispanics and it wouldn't take much gain to give the GOP a huge advantage. Obama's action today guarantees comprehensive immigration reform won't happen. No way the GOP can take the heat from the base on immigration reform AND look like they are Obama's bitch at the same time.

[m>s]

NOTHING GETTING DONE.

nobody wants what obama and you psychos want to "get done."

pass a bill ordering the removal of all illegal aliens and restoring this country back to a sovereign nation by removing the private federal reserve bank, and we'll fucking GET IT DONE

[FuzzyLumpkins]

you dont think there are lame twittertags on the other side? please

Sure. #yeswecan and #hope as opposed to #Grubergate and #Benghazi. Certainly different kind of lies.

[spurraider21]

Sure. #yeswecan and #hope as opposed to #Grubergate and #Benghazi. Certainly different kind of lies.
lol "our lies are better than their lies"

[FuzzyLumpkins]

the leaders of both the democratic and republican parties needs to go. The democrats added Warren to a DNC leadership post but they stayed the same elsewise. It is my hope that she gets the banking committee chair at some point in her career. That is at least something even if Pelosi, Reid, and Schumer still remain.

Priebus, McCain, and McConnell got their butts kicked for 6 years kept their jobs and RNC/GOP leadership positions have remained much the same. They let Cruz talk at the RNC convention but they kept Boehner as a foil and made Karl Rove's guy whip for all the tea party groundswell that buoyed them in the house. Many of the people that are most influential in the party like Rove and Ailes, do not even hold any office. Fixate on #Obama.

For their part the DNC guys are more than happy to let the people do that.

Until people start talking about party leadership, structure, and legal basis then nothing is going to change.

I feel sorry for Yoni parroting the confidence of GOP state attorney general types. Those guys are at the front lines in the gerrymandering practice. He is some form of cop so it is understandable at least. He is conditioned to be subordinate to those types.

[ElNono]

I've always had the opinion that the Democrats don't actually want comprehensive immigration reform. It's a winning issue for them with Hispanics, take it off the table and it opens the door to GOP gains with Hispanics and it wouldn't take much gain to give the GOP a huge advantage. Obama's action today guarantees comprehensive immigration reform won't happen. No way the GOP can take the heat from the base on immigration reform AND look like they are Obama's bitch at the same time.

I think both parties want the same thing, the votes. There used to be a time where they didn't matter, but demographic shifts are making that harder and harder to ignore. My perception from the bases is that progressives largely don't care and can't be made to care. Conservatives appear more resolute into getting rid of what could be only described as scum in their eyes (generalizing here, but the vitriol is undeniable). In that sense, I think it's a lot easier for democrats to navigate the political posturing on that aspect.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

lol "our lies are better than their lies"

I am not a democrat. Haven't voted for a democrat in a decade.

[spurraider21]

I am not a democrat. Haven't voted for a democrat in a decade.
coulda fooled me. i've been voting third party just as a form of protest. i know my state and district vote blue anyway

i do vote for Brad Sherman though, he's a good guy

[ElNono]

Politics has basically evolved into a high stakes game of strategy and marketing. Decisions like Citizens United have only cemented that notion.
All the other lower-level bullshit is just that, BS to win the power game.

If you like strategy though, there's an inherent beauty to that high stakes game. You do need to isolate yourself from the low-level noise though.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

lol "our lies are better than their lies"

No, one is explicit while the other is 'look at the silly monkey.' Obama promised transparency, civil rights and liberties, banking reform, and all manner of things that he failed to deliver. The GOP has a news apparatus that manufactures scandals.

You can put further value judgments on your own.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

coulda fooled me. i've been voting third party just as a form of protest. i know my state and district vote blue anyway

i do vote for Brad Sherman though, he's a good guy

Why is that? Because I bash the GOP and you feel the need to defend them? Bouties and Dan do the same to me from the other side.

[spurraider21]

No one is explicit while the other is 'look at the silly monkey.' Obama promised transparency, civil rights and liberties, banking reform, and all manner of things that he failed to deliver. The GOP has a news apparatus that manufactures scandals.

You can put further value judgments on your own.
both parties have their issue laid out in their party platforms.

both sides also have their little catchphrases and bulletin material. you are just being lazy

[FuzzyLumpkins]

both parties have their issue laid out in their party platforms.

both sides also have their little catchphrases and bulletin material. you are just being lazy

You make that halfassed argument and call me lazy. Well done.

Where is the DNC's Ailes and Fox News? If you say MSNBC then I laugh at you.

[spurraider21]

You make that halfassed argument and call me lazy. Well done.

Where is the DNC's Ailes and Fox News? If you say MSNBC then I laugh at you.
whats the one dan rather worked for :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

whats the one dan rather worked for :lol

So you went with the Fox News advertising slogan. #M$M

Where does Dan Rather work now and why was he fired?

[spurraider21]

So you went with the Fox News advertising slogan. #M$M

Where does Dan Rather work now and why was he fired?
lol what? i dont watch fox news, and im pretty sure fox would qualify as mainstream media anyway

[FuzzyLumpkins]

lol what? i dont watch fox news, and im pretty sure fox would qualify as mainstream media anyway

Well, I have and you are parroting the advertising campaign of Fox ie you cannot trust the MSM while they are 'fair and balanced.' If you did not get it there perhaps you should look into where you got that notion from.

I listen to more than a little of AM radio when out of town too. I guess I am a Republican. . . .

Dan Rather was fired because he put out false reports regarding President Bush's service record. CBS put their integrity over their world famous anchor man yet you think they blindly support the dems. And you call me lazy. Nice.

Do you ever see something similar happening at Fox News?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Politics has basically evolved into a high stakes game of strategy and marketing. Decisions like Citizens United have only cemented that notion.
All the other lower-level bullshit is just that, BS to win the power game.

If you like strategy though, there's an inherent beauty to that high stakes game. You do need to isolate yourself from the low-level noise though.

Just seems fixed to me with no real stakes.

[spurraider21]

Fox is a wing on the GOP and i dont even think they try to hard to deny it. why do you think they air a show like 24 there :lol

stop the terrorists, torture works!

i dont typically watch fox, i know they have the oreilly, beck, hannity on there between the news broadcasts. i dont really watch news on tv anyway

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fox is a wing on the GOP and i dont even think they try to hard to deny it. why do you think they air a show like 24 there :lol

stop the terrorists, torture works!

i dont typically watch fox, i know they have the oreilly, beck, hannity on there between the news broadcasts. i dont really watch news on tv anyway

So again. Where is the democratic analog?

[ElNono]

Just seems fixed to me with no real stakes.

A lot of the goals do overlap, so I know what you mean. At a slightly lower level there's the personal perpetuity in power stakes.

[Uriel]

Just watched Obama's Immigration Address. I'm so proud of him. :cry

[Clipper Nation]

Obummer buying votes for the Dems, per par. Also, :lol at the idea that securing our borders instead of letting anyone just waltz on in is "racist."

[boutons_deux]

Maddow: GOP and talk radio were ‘elated’ to fight George W. Bush on immigration, too

NBC host Rachel Maddow pointed out on Thursday that Republicans’ staunch opposition to comprehensive immigration reform did not begin during President Barack Obama’s administration.

“Not that long ago it was President [George W.] Bush pushing for immigration reform and [Sen.] Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III (R-AL) and Rush Limbaugh beating him so he would not get it,” Maddow said.

Maddow showed footage of a 2006 address Bush gave promoting a “middle ground” in immigration policy, which in turn led to a 2007 bill that he hoped to push through Congress. But the bill failed in the Senate (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/28/washington/28cnd-immig.html) despite generating bipartisan support, with 33 Republicans voting it down.

[COLOR=#505050][FONT=inherit][FONT=inherit][FONT=arial]

[FONT=arial][SIZE=3]The right wing hate media know their white, rural, low-wage (eg, work directly, manually with machinery, dirt, animals, plants), low-info (ignorant, uneducated) viewers/listeners/rabble are nativists, xenophobes, racists.

Right-wing hate media make their money selling ads/audience ratings, so rousing the rabble against immigrants (Repug base from its low socio/economic perch needs somebody to look down on) and immigration reform is just a perennial business, like immigration/immigrants is a perennial campaign topic for politicians.

[Big Empty]

Temporary citizenship. In other words, ur shit is gonna expire in 3 years, u better get ur lazy ass up n go vote for a democrat lol i think thats how that woukd work

[lefty]

G.O.P. Unveils Immigration Plan: “We Must Make America Somewhere No One Wants to Live”


http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Borowitz-GOP-Unveils-Immigration-Plan-690.jpg

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell unveiled his party’s long-awaited plan on immigration on Wednesday, telling reporters, “We must make America somewhere no one wants to live.”

Appearing with House Speaker John Boehner, McConnell said that, in contrast to President Obama’s “Band-Aid fixes,” the Republican plan would address “the root cause of immigration, which is that the United States is, for the most part, habitable.”



“For years, immigrants have looked to America as a place where their standard of living was bound to improve,” McConnell said. “We’re going to change that.”

Boehner said that the Republicans’ plan would reduce or eliminate “immigration magnets,” such as the social safety net, public education, clean air, and drinkable water.

The Speaker added that the plan would also include the repeal of Obamacare, calling healthcare “catnip for immigrants.”

Attempting, perhaps, to tamp down excitement about the plan, McConnell warned that turning America into a dystopian hellhole that repels immigrants “won’t happen overnight.”
“Our crumbling infrastructure and soaring gun violence are a good start, but much work still needs to be done,” he said. “When Americans start leaving the country, we’ll know that we’re on the right track.”

In closing, the two congressional leaders expressed pride in the immigration plan, noting that Republicans had been working to make it possible for the past thirty years.

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/republicans-unveil-immigration-plan?mbid=nl_111914_Borowitz&CNDID=&spMailingID=7298426&spUserID=MjczNzc0Njk0NDAS1&spJobID=562100463&spReportId=NTYyMTAwNDYzS0



Well that's gonna work

[m>s]

Temporary citizenship. In other words, ur shit is gonna expire in 3 years, u better get ur lazy ass up n go vote for a democrat lol i think thats how that woukd work
Not supposed to be able to vote but fuck it there are no laws anymore RACE WAR NOW!!!!

[boutons_deux]

Obama ignored all threats and would have kicked the Repugs in the balls, but .... their dicklessness.

Hilarious to see the Repugs saying (actually just rousing their rabble base) Obama to be impeached, Obama in prison for 5 years, destroying the Consitition, shutdown the govt.

The "no compromise"-now-threat is hilarious.

The Repugs haven't compromised, have obstructed EVERYTHING, not just imm reform, since Jan 2009, so blaming Obama for poisoning the Repug-poisoned well is believed only by the Repug base.

Get a rope, lynch that uppity n!gg@ !

[CosmicCowboy]

Obama ignored all threats and would have kicked the Repugs in the balls, but .... their dicklessness.

Hilarious to see the Repugs saying (actually just rousing their rabble base) Obama to be impeached, Obama in prison for 5 years, destroying the Consitition, shutdown the govt.

The "no compromise"-now-threat is hilarious.

The Repugs haven't compromised, have obstructed EVERYTHING, not just imm reform, since Jan 2009, so blaming Obama for poisoning the Repug-poisoned well is believed only by the Repug base.

Get a rope, lynch that uppity n!gg@ !

:lmao @ Boos fantasy Republicans.

[CosmicCowboy]

Well that's gonna work

:lmao @ stupid fucking idiots that get fooled hook line and sinker by satire websites.

[boutons_deux]

:lmao @ Boos fantasy Republicans.

all of those threats from Repugs are actual threats, not boo makin up shit like a Bible humper

[Blizzardwizard]

Republicans :lol

Obama kicking ass again :cry

[CosmicCowboy]

all of those threats from Repugs are actual threats, not boo makin up shit like a Bible humper

Feel free to quote a sitting senator or congressman that is threatening to put Obama in jail for 5 years.

Otherwise, just shut the fuck up you raving idiot.

[boutons_deux]

Feel free to quote a sitting senator or congressman that is threatening to put Obama in jail for 5 years.

Otherwise, just shut the fuck up you raving idiot.

http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/obama-about-to-commit-felony-worth-5-years-jail-time/

[boutons_deux]

http://www.liberalamerica.org/2014/11/20/gop-congressman-suggests-throwing-obama-in-prison-for-5-years/

[boutons_deux]

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/06/10/barack-obama-could-be-facing-10-years-to-life-in-prison/

[CosmicCowboy]

In other words, no one called for putting Obama in jail for five years.

lol RSS feeds

Thanks for playing

[CosmicCowboy]

Brook's (whose views on immigration I do not share) actual quote:

“I don’t know what he’s going to do yet,” he continued. “Until we see what he’s going to do, it is difficult to say whether he is violating a civil statute or violating a criminal statute.”

[m>s]

http://www.liberalamerica.org/2014/11/20/gop-congressman-suggests-throwing-obama-in-prison-for-5-years/


http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/obama-about-to-commit-felony-worth-5-years-jail-time/


http://www.tpnn.com/2014/06/10/barack-obama-could-be-facing-10-years-to-life-in-prison/
Tl;dr bitch

[boutons_deux]

In other words, no one called for putting Obama in jail for five years.

lol RSS feeds

Thanks for playing

the right wing media and a Congressman all mentioned jail for Obama

[boutons_deux]

House Republicans sue over Obamacare implementation

Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday filed a long-anticipated lawsuit challenging the implementation of President Barack Obama's signature health care law over employer-based coverage and payments to insurers, according to court documents.

The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Washington against the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Treasury, targets a decision to delay implementation of the law's employer mandate, which requires employers with more than 50 employees to offer healthcare coverage.

It also challenges a provision of the law that authorizes Treasury payments to health insurance companies.

House Speaker John Boehner, in a statement, said that Obama had bypassed Congress to take "unilateral actions" when implementing the healthcare law, also known as Obamacare. :lol

"If the president can get away with making his own laws, future presidents will have the ability to as well. The House has an obligation to stand up for the Constitution," Boehner said. :lol

Jonathan Turley, the lead counsel for House Republicans on the lawsuit, said in a Friday blog post that the president's actions blurred the lines between branches of government and usurped the ability of Congress to use the "power of purse" during the appropriations process. :lol

The House had passed a resolution in July authorizing the lawsuit.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obamacare-lawsuit-20141121-story.html

Repug MISgovernance, what's not to love?

Thanks, ST right-wingers

[CosmicCowboy]

the right wing media and a Congressman all mentioned jail for Obama

You say all sorts of crazy stupid shit and I don't say 'Democrats say (whatever Boutons vomits out). There are batshit crazy Republicans just iike there are batshit crazy Boutons.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao @ Boos fantasy Republicans.

That guy from FL is the one that helped get the Senate Bill passed.

[boutons_deux]

You say all sorts of crazy stupid shit and I don't say 'Democrats say (whatever Boutons vomits out). There are batshit crazy Republicans just iike there are batshit crazy Boutons.

False equivalence is your shitty, risible defense of batshit crazy Repugs and right-wingdings.

There's NOTHING in severity of shittiness, in volume of batshit from the Dems that even approaches, in a 100 years, the non-stop batshit from the Repugs and right-wing hate media, Fox, etc.

[boutons_deux]

The Noose Tightens As Boehner Walks Into Obama’s Trap By Vowing To Stop Him On Immigration

President Obama has set the Republicans up, and John Boehner walked into the president’s trap today by vowing to stop him on immigration.Video:Boehner painted himself into a corner today by vowing to stop the president’s executive orders on immigration,


"With this action, the president has chosen to deliberately sabotage any chance of enacting bipartisan reforms that he claims to seek. :lol (Repugs have sabotaged Obama for 6 years)

And, as I told the president yesterday, he’s damaging the presidency itself. :lol

President Obama has turned a deaf ear to the people that he was elected, and we were elected, to serve. :lol

But we will not do that. In the days ahead, the People’s House will rise to this challenge. :lol

We will not stand idle as the president undermines the rule of law in our country and places lives at risk. :lol

We’ll listen to the American people, :lol we’ll work with our members, :lol

and we will work to protect the Constitution of the United States. :lol"

By vowing to act to stop Obama, Speaker Boehner walked into the trap that the president has set for congressional Republicans.

Boehner has already been told that he can’t defund the executive orders (http://www.politicususa.com/2014/11/20/republicans-stop-obama-gop-told-impossible-defund-immigration-executive-orders.html).

The House can’t do anything to stop the implementation of the executive orders.

The courts have already ruled that presidents have broad authority as it relates to deportations, so a lawsuit is likely to go nowhere fast.It appears that Boehner only has two options.

The House of Representatives could pursue articles of impeachment against the president, or they can shut down the government.

There is a possibility that the House could vow not to fund the government until the president rescinds his executive orders.President Obama has sunk all of the GOP’s post-election momentum and thrown congressional Republicans into chaos by acting where Boehner wouldn’t.

The president knew that Boehner would never accept the one option that could end this conflict. Speaker Boehner could put this issue to bed if he allowed the House to vote on the Senate passed immigration bill.Boehner’s remarks reveal that Republicans aren’t considering the option of doing their jobs and passing legislation.

Instead, Boehner is walking right into the president’s trap.

His party is fractured and on the verge of triggering another government shutdown.

The Republicans admitted last night that Obama has them by the balls. (http://www.politicususa.com/2014/11/20/republicans-admit-obama-balls-immigration-actions.html)

Boehner is screwed, and his vow to fight is another sign that the country is moving towards another government shutdown showdown.

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/11/21/noose-tightens-boehner-walks-obamas-trap-vowing-stop-immigration.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

:lol Eat shit, right wingers. :lol

[Dirk Oneanddoneski]

I want everyone to look at this picture and try to tell me this hasn't been planned for decades

http://s3.amazonaws.com/static.texastribune.org/media/images/Groege-P-Bush_jpg_800x1000_q100.jpg

Why would a man from an elite royal family like the Bush's race mix with a shitskin peasant farm girl?

Its been the Jews plan to destroy all white nations for over 100 years, all the Bushes and Osambo are just along for the ride, and if you don't believe me just take a Jews word for it

MFE0qAiofMQ

[m>s]

I want everyone to look at this picture and try to tell me this hasn't been planned for decades

http://s3.amazonaws.com/static.texastribune.org/media/images/Groege-P-Bush_jpg_800x1000_q100.jpg

Why would a man from an elite royal family like the Bush's race mix with a shitskin peasant farm girl?

Its been the Jews plan to destroy all white nations for over 100 years, all the Bushes and Osambo are just along for the ride, and if you don't believe me just take a Jews word for it

MFE0qAiofMQ

yep. sieg heil kamarade.

[boutons_deux]

Poll: Americans Broadly Back Obama’s Immigration Executive Action

The poll, which was conducted on behalf of the liberal 501(c)(4) “dark money” group Americans United for Change, described the president’s policy as follows:

The action would direct immigration enforcement officials to focus on threats to national security and public safety, and not on deporting otherwise law-abiding immigrants. Immigrants who are parents of children who are legal US residents could qualify to stay and work temporarily in the United States, without being deported, if they have lived in the United States for at least five years, pay taxes, and pass a criminal background check.


After hearing that description, voters overwhelmingly backed President Obama’s move: 67 percent viewed it favorably, while just 28 percent viewed it unfavorably.

The support was fairly bipartisan, with 91 percent of Democrats, 67 percent of Independents, and 41 percent of Republicans viewing the executive action favorably.

Among Tea Party Republicans, however, 64 percent opposed the policy while just 30 percent viewed it favorably.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/poll-americans-broadly-back-obamas-immigration-executive-action/

and the Kock Bros' corporate subsidiary, aka tea baggers, aka marans!, is the racist, xenophobic, nativist, Confederate tail that wags Repug dog.

[m>s]

More fake lies just like when they said 90% of Americans wanted more gun control and then every single gun control candidate got BTFO

[Fabbs]

Has even ONE Repug politician / media moron made a suggestion how they would fix the situation?
:lol Barry even said, you don't like this, then pass a bill.

[m>s]

yeah deport them? actually enforce immigration law? groundbreaking stuff i know.

[Nbadan]

That would be great...I dare the GOP to pass an immigration bill that automatically deports 10's of millions of illegals....that would be priceless...

[m>s]

what's wrong with it?

[m>s]

10's of millions of illegals
at least you admit they're lying here

[FromWayDowntown]

Apartheid

[HI-FI]

sorry if already posted
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2014/11-overflow/20141122_amnesty.jpg

[boutons_deux]

Even Fox Propaganda said no amnesty was given.

you right-wingers are such duped dumbfucks

[Blizzardwizard]

Obama making those Repugs twist and turn :lol

'But but but he must be breaking some rules surely :cry :cry'

:lol

[ElNono]

Apparently, this ruling won't really matter, but nevertheless it's the first shoe to drop...

Obama's immigration actions ruled unconstitutional
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/12/judge-rules-obama-immigration-actions-unconstitutional-200043.html

The other two direct challenges are apparently making their ways through court...

[ElNono]

judge's opinion here:

http://images.politico.com/global/2014/12/16/juarezescobarrlg.pdf

[spurraider21]

when you have an issue this big, its very unlikely that it will be settled at the district level

[ElNono]

when you have an issue this big, its very unlikely that it will be settled at the district level

yeah, plus it's a criminal case... as much as the court would like to weigh on it, the EO only deals with civil enforcement... plus, nobody challenged the constitutionality of the EO in the case.

Apparently, a hearing on the federal case is due next week, but ultimately, this will probably go all the way up to the SCOTUS, and by the time it gets there, Barry might not be prez anymore anyways.

[boutons_deux]

judge's opinion here:

http://images.politico.com/global/2014/12/16/juarezescobarrlg.pdf

it's Repug judge, its right-wing political-hack opinion is typically wrong. the immigrant in question IS not even covered by Obama's Exec action, anyway. :lol

[Yonivore]

yeah, plus it's a criminal case... as much as the court would like to weigh on it, the EO only deals with civil enforcement... plus, nobody challenged the constitutionality of the EO in the case.

Apparently, a hearing on the federal case is due next week, but ultimately, this will probably go all the way up to the SCOTUS, and by the time it gets there, Barry might not be prez anymore anyways.
If I'm not mistaken, the constitutional issue was introduced when the defendant attempted to claim protections afforded by the President's executive action.

Also, it is my understanding the President never issued an actual Executive Order but just a memorandum ordering deportation cease on 5 million people. It is his action (which he claimed in a public forum "changed the law") that is being declared unconstitutional and that is being challenged in the courts by, now, 24 states.

[ElNono]

If I'm not mistaken, the constitutional issue was introduced when the defendant attempted to claim protections afforded by the President's executive action.

The defendant made no such claim, the court requested filings on the matter unsolicited, as the order explains. Ultimately, you can't disassociate the fact that this is a criminal proceeding, whereas the executive guidelines apply only to administrative civil cases (a different venue), which is why this opinion carries no weight and won't stop the implementation of the new DHS directives.


Also, it is my understanding the President never issued an actual Executive Order but just a memorandum ordering deportation cease on 5 million people. It is his action (which he claimed in a public forum "changed the law") that is being declared unconstitutional and that is being challenged in the courts by, now, 24 states.

Some refer to it as Executive Action instead, but it boils down to the same thing, executing laws and the amount of leeway the president has in that realm. The two other federal lawsuits that attack this directly (one of which you mention) have much better standing challenging that.

[Yonivore]

The defendant made no such claim, the court requested filings on the matter unsolicited, as the order explains. Ultimately, you can't disassociate the fact that this is a criminal proceeding, whereas the executive guidelines apply only to administrative civil cases (a different venue), which is why this opinion carries no weight and won't stop the implementation of the new DHS directives.
You're right, I was wrong.


Some refer to it as Executive Action instead, but it boils down to the same thing, executing laws and the amount of leeway the president has in that realm. The two other federal lawsuits that attack this directly (one of which you mention) have much better standing challenging that.
No, there's a big difference between executive actions and executive orders; the biggest being that actions are an informal proposal by the executive that carry absolutely no legal authority while the order is an executive interpretation on existing law, published in the Federal Register, that, unless overturned by the courts or legislature, carries the weight of law.

[ElNono]

No, there's a big difference between executive actions and executive orders; the biggest being that actions are an informal proposal by the executive that carry absolutely no legal authority while the order is an executive interpretation on existing law, published in the Federal Register, that, unless overturned by the courts or legislature, carries the weight of law.

They're both based on existing law. The president obviously can't create new law, that's why I said it boils down to the same thing: executing laws and the amount of leeway the president has in that realm.

Personally, I don't think interpreting law should be on the realm of the executive, that's what the judicial is for. Unfortunately, the unchecked expansion of executive power, largely abetted by Congress, it's been the norm for a few decades now.

[boutons_deux]

"don't think interpreting law should be on the realm of the executive"

when a"law" gets to the rule-making stage, lobbyists interpret the law, eg CFPB, etc, to their paymasters' profits.

Obama's EO doesn't change the law. He sets priorities, a triage, in applying the law: bad guys deported first, good guys get 3 years grace (unless they become bad guys).

[Yonivore]

They're both based on existing law. The president obviously can't create new law, that's why I said it boils down to the same thing: executing laws and the amount of leeway the president has in that realm.

Personally, I don't think interpreting law should be on the realm of the executive, that's what the judicial is for. Unfortunately, the unchecked expansion of executive power, largely abetted by Congress, it's been the norm for a few decades now.
Except the informality of the action allows the President to "freestyle" his decision whereas a published order kind of binds him to what he says in the order, unless he wants to issue another order.

I think it's an important distinction but, not one I think is worth quibbling over. Either way, he's headed to court in 24 states over his action. Telling that crowd he "...took action to change the law," probably won't help him.

[boutons_deux]

Supreme Court says Arizona must issue driver's licenses to immigrants

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-arizona-immigrants-drivers-license-20141215-story.html