Topic: Obama Prepares Amnesty Plan (Read 4745 times)

Fair on both points!

On #1 I have no need or interest to attempt to form opinions based on Internet comments, I refer to actual live people I have known.

#2 like you say we are in agreement.  Regarding constitutionality I leave that to scholalrs.

Even now, she is leading the opinion polls against all her potential GOP challengers (including Rand Paul and Chris Christie) by double digits. She looks all set to win the 2016 elections.

On your first point, it's entirely possible. Is it not also possible you don't know all of them? You don't have to go very far into internet comment sections to see conservatives bashing immigrants on the basis of race.

On the second point, as I've already stated I think this action isn't justified. But your example doesn't prove it's unconstitutional. Political posturing does not prove unconstitutionality. If the president has the authority to do something and says "pass this law or I'll use my authority to do it myself," that's not unconstitutional. It's unconstitutional if he doesn't have the authority in the first place. But I think I'm just arguing semantics here. We're in agreement that he shouldn't have done it.

And most of politics is childish. The majority of politics in America is obstructing the other party so they can never have political victories. That's good politics, but terrible for the country.

1.  I have not seen "Republicans hating immigrants".  I say that from knowing large numbers of them.  Maybe you've fallen for a often repeated piece of propaganda here.

2.   If a president says to Congress "Either do XYZ or I will" he is explicitly SAYING that he'll take on, unconstitutional legislative powers if his threat is not obeyed.  It's also a very childish way to try to get something done.

Maybe I can steer this back on topic.



It seems the plan announced last night is the same as was posited in the OP. There are two questions I'd like to pose.

1) Is this a good plan?

2)  Is this an appropriate use of executive power? (Or, alternately, has the President claimed a legislative power?)

My answer to number 1 is I like the plan more than I don't. When Republicans say "Immigrant," they do so as a pejorative. I don't believe Republicans hate illegal immigrants so much as they hate immigrants. The US has a long history of hating every generation that has just arrived. Despite the popular conservative anecdote, immigrants don't come here for a free ride. They come here to work because they live in areas where there is no opportunity. They understand that working hard and keeping the fruits of your labor is an opportunity that exists in America, and they want that. That's why every generation has come here. So I discount a lot of Republican opposition to the plan as just opposing Obama or opposing immigrants because of the racial undertones. (This is not a fair assessment to those who oppose the plan on its merits, I concede that. So don't prove me right by making your counterargument based on race or stereotypes of immigrants.) This country needs immigrants. It's always been the lifeblood of America: people who want to do well make America great.

My answer to number 2 is I don't think so. As much as I like the plan, I'm uncomfortable with the way it is being implemented. The President's frustration with a deadlocked congress is not a justification for going around them. (Well, it is, but not a valid one.) A technical argument can be made as to whether or not the President seized a "legislative power" in his actions last night. If you were to conclude that he did, it's obviously unconstitutional. If you were to conclude that he did not, then the question still remains as to whether the actions are appropriate. I'm answering this last component. I don't think the actions are appropriate. I don't want the president to have the power to make huge unilateral decisions like this. But I also don't trust the Republicans when they say they don't either, because they object to the plan, not the use of power. They were more than content to let Bush make huge decisions when he was in office while the Democrats complained about abuse of power. Now that the roles are reversed, there is a predictable silence from the Democrats challenging Obama's power moves.

On an off topic note, I know this is the internet, but please try to make your responses to me on point and constructive. I'm interested to see other perspectives, but I will straight up stop reading the moment you start insulting or commanding others to respect your opinion as law. (I've been involved in a thread recently that has devolved to the "I'm right and you're stupid" stage, and it's utterly pointless. Nothing gets accomplished at that point.) Just be respectful, basically, and you have my word that I will be respectful as well.

Attempting to distinguish between "war" and "armed conflict" is exactly what enables Presidents to break the law. Oh, invading that country isn't war. It's this other, not-war thing. See? Totally legit!

This is fairly standard for a president to try to setup a president of similar political affiliation to potentially be elected to the white house at the 2nd half of a president's term. The same with trying to get his party to have control of congress.

I personally do not think Clinton is electable after what happened in bengazi on 9/11 as if she were to win the nomination she will surely be painted as a murderer. She has a lot of other baggage/skeletons that will likely be brought up   

Hmm... any way Obama is not going to run in 2016. His moves will help Hillary for certain. Her popularity is at an all time low. But despite of this, if the amnesty moves forward, then she will be certainly elected as POTUS in 2016.

This will also add a number of voters who would likely have not otherwise voted and these voters will vote almost exclusively democrat so his party will have a much larger voter base in the 2016 election. It is no  surprise that he did this so close to after the GOP won such large gains in both chambers of congress and would likely have won a presidential election if it were had in November

yeah its not the jobs I'm so much worried about (they still won't have educations even if obummer lets them stay) its the additional cost of medical care (which will be free for them I'm sure!!) and the other entitlements they will not be getting.  Obama clearly does not have the best interests of the US working/middle class in mind.  He knows that this new group of illegals (now legals?) will support him to the ends of the earth, no matter what his agenda is.  This is very bad for working Americans, actually all Americans.

Obama’s Amnesty Will Add As Many Foreign Workers As New Jobs Since 2009

More...http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/20/obamas-amnesty-will-add-as-many-foreign-workers-as-new-jobs-since-2009/

Keep in mind, most of those jobs that were 'created' were part time or minimum wage. Now, surge the competition for those jobs and govt services to the max and presto! 

Yep, unlike any other announcement he makes, the dribble channels (NBC, CBS, ABC, etc) of the drones always go live with it until now. It's the poor and lower class workers that will be screwed by this new wave of amnesty and they're the general 'news' viewers of such ubiquitous channels that won't be showing what's really newsworthy at the moment.

Obama Doesn't Bother to Solicit English-Speaking Networks for Coverage
President's amnesty announcement for Latino ears only

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/obama-doesnt-bother-solicit-english-speaking-networks-coverage

did everyone else see that none of the "major networks" will be broadcasting this tonight?  It seems like this may be ordered by the administration to prevent most people from seeing it, and in turn being disgusted by the prez's lack of concern for the American taxpayers who will now have to foot the bill for just another 12-20 million people.

very very very superial nation that isn't nation

At least he had an American mother. 

20 million potential Democrat voters added to the list of registered voters. This will spell the end of GOP in the United States. All the RINOs can kiss goodbye to their constituencies.

Well, he gave himself amnesty. Why not the rest of the immigrants.   

cant decide who is the most ignorant here, America was built by immigrants and destroyed by ignorance. Every problem America has can be fixed but it wont happen until the American population wakes up from its doughnut induced coma. mmmmmmm doughnuts. china turned America into a nation of consumers (provided by their cheap production) and America fell for it hook, line and sinker. America will do well again when it starts actually doing some work

The thing is that these conflicts did not involve "war" with these countries but these were rather "conflicts". In theory the president could also recall the troops that are in the country we are at "conflict" with and send replacement troops for them to replace them; this would be very expensive but would still follow the letter (but not the spirit) of the law

War requires two branches of government: Congress to authorize it, and the President to direct the military. The president does not have authority to send troops without Congressional authorization. The 90 days you're referencing is the War Powers Resolution, and it's not a free 90 days to do whatever without Congressional authority. Within 48 hours of deploying troops, the President must notify Congress of the troop deployments, and the troops must be recalled within 60 days, with a 30 day drawn down period, unless there is an authorization for the use of force from Congress or a declaration of war.

There are two ways then a president can violate the War Powers Resolution. By failing to notify Congress of troop deployments, or failing to recall within 60 days.

Partial list of instances in which a President has been accused of violating the War Powers Act:
Reagan (Grenada)
Bush I (Panama)
Clinton (Haiti, Kosovo)
Bush II (Pakistan)
Obama (Pakistan, Yemen, Libya)