The Official Outrage Over Obama Immigration Reform thread

[unsmiley 111]

Like Yuna said above, I'm past the point of anger and indignation - I'm heartsick.

Not only was this decision a slap in the face to all of us that have gone through the paperwork, costs, not to mention the humilation of interviews and in our case being accused of "not being a real couple" and having to get proof from friends and family, but it's a double slap when I see people celebrating this news in life and worst of all Facebook...

Our own friends and family that are so caught up in the politics of it all and don't even realize what goes on behind the scenes of this process and the time it takes. How this swipe of a pen will now clog up the offices that are already overloaded and have cost good people years of their lives waiting to be with THEIR loved ones. Not to mention I heard that there may be a huge cost reduction for the illelegals? Could this be true as well???

Sad day.

Not only will they get a discount, they'll probably get an Obamaphone to boot.

[unsmiley 111]

He has become a dictator since his reelection. The power went to his head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtfCRaNg5EU

Agreed. He can't get any of his "signature" measures passed the constitutional way. Had to resort to bribery, arm twisting,

"deeming a motion passed", bald-faced lying, and on and on to pass Obamacare, and now we have this bypass of Congress by this Nobel prize winning "constitutional scholar." Sickening.

[kev_n_jena 89]

ok, I missed it, will the 5 million plus people that the Obama administration will not prosecute be required to carry health insurance? I think I heard they will not be eligible for the ACA. Will they be fined annually for not carrying health insurance?

The more I think about this stunt that Obama is pulling the more I dislike it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I wonder what will happen if a Republican is elected president and unilaterally cancels Obamacare?

How is that relevant to the discussion? It's not like Obama has cancelled any law.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Mr. Big Dog

[Karee 4,190]

How is that relevant to the discussion? It's not like Obama has cancelled any law.

A new republican president could issue an "executive order" preventing it from being implemented. He/she could direct HHS to turn off the website. I mean he's set the precedent after all.

Don't panic, it looks like you'll get your Democrat voters in the end, which is really what this is all about. Politics. Obama doesn't care one bit about these illegal immigrants. He sees future Democrat voters. Plain and simple.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

A new republican president could issue an "executive order" preventing it from being implemented. He/she could direct HHS to turn off the website. I mean he's set the precedent after all.

Don't panic, it looks like you'll get your Democrat voters in the end, which is really what this is all about. Politics. Obama doesn't care one bit about these illegal immigrants. He sees future Democrat voters. Plain and simple.

You couldn't be more wrong. The precedent was set in 1930 by Herbert Hoover. Many presidents since have taken executive action on immigration matters. More recently George H. W. Bush did that - and he did just about exactly what Obama did on Thursday. That was back in 1990 when he extended immigration relief to 40% of the illegal immigrant population that the law passed by Congress did not cover. Exactly as is the case now, the Senate had passed a bi-partisan measure then that would have extended the 1986 benefits to family members of recipients of relief under the law. The House failed to act on that legislation for 8 months and then the President acted via an executive order. It's precisely what we are looking at now - only Obama waited on the House more than twice as long as the elder Bush did.

As for the future Democrat voters: Did the elder Bush do all that for future Democrat voters, too? Can you not see how silly that argument is?

Oh, and Obamacare is implemented. There are a few pieces still outstanding but those will be in place by the time he leaves office. The next President would have to do more than preventing the implementation. Not going to happen. But you can imagine that it might until you see that it won't.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Mr. Big Dog

[Karee 4,190]

You couldn't be more wrong. The precedent was set in 1930 by Herbert Hoover. Many presidents since have taken executive action on immigration matters. More recently George H. W. Bush did that - and he did just about exactly what Obama did on Thursday. That was back in 1990 when he extended immigration relief to 40% of the illegal immigrant population that the law passed by Congress did not cover. Exactly as is the case now, the Senate had passed a bi-partisan measure then that would have extended the 1986 benefits to family members of recipients of relief under the law. The House failed to act on that legislation for 8 months and then the President acted via an executive order. It's precisely what we are looking at now - only Obama waited on the House more than twice as long as the elder Bush did.

As for the future Democrat voters: Did the elder Bush do all that for future Democrat voters, too? Can you not see how silly that argument is?

The actions taken by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush — examples often cited by White House officials — were attempts to address ambiguities in an immigration law that was passed by Congress. Obama’s executive actions are different. They are a response to congressional failure to pass a law, and they affect a far greater number of immigrants currently living in the country illegally.

Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2014/11/obamas-actions-same-as-past-presidents/

I'm sure you knew that already. Don't play dumb.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'm sure you knew that already. Don't play dumb.

I'm not. But the folks at politifact fail to explain that the elder Bush was faced with precisely the same situation as Obama: It was knows that the 1986 Immigration Reform Act had created a situation where families could be split apart because spouses and children of beneficiaries of the 1986 Immigration Reform Act would not be granted relief if they did not meet the law's criteria on their own. Children were granted relief administratively in 1987 and there were efforts in Congress to amend the 1986 law - but they failed. There was, in fact, a bill that would have extended the relief to family members of the now legalized beneficiaries of the 1986 law. That bill had passed the Senate on a bi-partisan basis in 1989 - and then it died in the House. Eight months later, in February 1990, Bush acted and extended that relief that Congress failed to enact via executive order.

—1989. By a sweeping 81-17 vote, the Senate in July voted to prohibit deportations of family members of immigrants covered by the 1986 law. The House failed to act.

—1990. In February, President George H.W. Bush, acting through the Immigration and Naturalization Service, established a "family fairness" in which family members living with a legalizing immigrant and who were in the U.S. before passage of the 1986 law were granted protection from deportation and authorized to seek employment. The administration estimated up to 1.5 million people would be covered by the policy.

Fast forward 13 years. In June 2013, the Senate passed, on a bi-partisan basis, an immigration overhaul bill - and then it died in the House. Seventeen months later, Obama acts and extends relief to illegal immigrants with USC or LPR children via executive order.

—2013-2014 (Congress). After months of work, the Senate in June 2013 passes, 68-32, a huge immigration overhaul bill that includes a path to citizenship for immigrants who meet strict criteria. The House fails to act.

—2014 Frustrated by Congress' inability to act on immigration, Obama announces in June that he'll use executive powers to address other elements of the flawed immigration system. Like Bush, Obama is expected to extend deportation protections to families of U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Obama's anticipated action would not award legal status, but it would offer temporary protection from deportation to up to 5 million people, as well as the possibility of obtaining a work permit.

In my book, that's exactly the same thing - the President taking action where the Senate had and the House failed to do so. Both Presidents pursued the very same goal as well - preventing the break-up of families.

[Karee 4,190]

I'm not. But the folks at politifact fail to explain that the elder Bush was faced with precisely the same situation as Obama: It was knows that the 1986 Immigration Reform Act had created a situation where families could be split apart because spouses and children of beneficiaries of the 1986 Immigration Reform Act would not be granted relief if they did not meet the law's criteria on their own. Children were granted relief administratively in 1987 and there were efforts in Congress to amend the 1986 law - but they failed. There was, in fact, a bill that would have extended the relief to family members of the now legalized beneficiaries of the 1986 law. That bill had passed the Senate on a bi-partisan basis in 1989 - and then it died in the House. Eight months later, in February 1990, Bush acted and extended that relief that Congress failed to enact via executive order.

Fast forward 13 years. In June 2013, the Senate passed, on a bi-partisan basis, an immigration overhaul bill - and then it died in the House. Seventeen months later, Obama acts and extends relief to illegal immigrants with USC or LPR children via executive order.

In my book, that's exactly the same thing - the President taking action where the Senate had and the House failed to do so. Both Presidents pursued the very same goal as well - preventing the break-up of families.

Again, not the same thing. Of course they're the same thing in YOUR book, because you carry water for the Democrats no matter what they do. From the link I posted earlier:

The actions taken by Reagan and George H.W. Bush bear more resemblance to Obama’s. But they came in response to an immigration overhaul approved by Congress, as opposed to Obama’s reaction to congressional inaction.

In the case of Bush and Reagan, they made changes to an existing law. Chairman Obama just made his own law. In my mind that sets a precedent for future presidents. If congress refuses to vote on or pass a law, then they could just make up their own, as Obama did in this case. This is going to come back and bite them in azz the same as Reid using the nuclear option in 2013 in the Senate. That's the problem with Reid and Obama. They're very short sighted, like a large percentage of the people that vote for them.

Not only that, the people expressed their opposition to this plan in the mid term elections. Obama did it anyway. And the icing on the cake was that he waited until after the elections to do so. Thankfully this is one of the few times the voters were smart enough to see through it. Poor Mary Landrieu was just a casualty. Although she probably would've lost anyway. Obama and his pen, guaranteed it.

If you or anyone else doesn't think this decree will encourage more illegal immigration, you're either mentally ill, or unable to face reality. it WILL encourage more illegal immigration, and frankly I think the Dems want that.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

In my book, that's exactly the same thing - the President taking action where the Senate had and the House failed to do so. Both Presidents pursued the very same goal as well - preventing the break-up of families.

Forget, just for a moment, the ramifications for or against the families of all the illegals that will be affected by Obama's recent speech.

Admit to me that what he did is wrong. Plain and simple, outside the scope of his authority.

[Karee 4,190]

Admit to me that what he did is wrong.

Little early to be drinking, isn't it?

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

Little early to be drinking, isn't it?

It's 5 O'clock somewhere. And I've only had 3 so far. Well, almost 4...

[kev_n_jena 89]

It's 5 O'clock somewhere. And I've only had 3 so far. Well, almost 4...

I should be drinking after reading that but I'm going to wait until noon so I can stay awake for the Pacquiao fight tonight.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

I should be drinking after reading that but I'm going to wait until noon so I can stay awake for the Pacquiao fight tonight.

Go Manny!!

Got to see his house in Boracay last year. Pretty impressive place!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Again, not the same thing. Of course they're the same thing in YOUR book, because you carry water for the Democrats no matter what they do. From the link I posted earlier:

In the case of Bush and Reagan, they made changes to an existing law. Chairman Obama just made his own law. In my mind that sets a precedent for future presidents. If congress refuses to vote on or pass a law, then they could just make up their own, as Obama did in this case. This is going to come back and bite them in azz the same as Reid using the nuclear option in 2013 in the Senate. That's the problem with Reid and Obama. They're very short sighted, like a large percentage of the people that vote for them.

Not only that, the people expressed their opposition to this plan in the mid term elections. Obama did it anyway. And the icing on the cake was that he waited until after the elections to do so. Thankfully this is one of the few times the voters were smart enough to see through it. Poor Mary Landrieu was just a casualty. Although she probably would've lost anyway. Obama and his pen, guaranteed it.

If you or anyone else doesn't think this decree will encourage more illegal immigration, you're either mentally ill, or unable to face reality. it WILL encourage more illegal immigration, and frankly I think the Dems want that.

Huh? What law did Obama make? Can you quote it?

The people expressed their opposition to this plan? You seem to have forgotten that the people largely didn't show up for the mid-term elections.