ADVERTISEMENT

If Obama does what this report

Ladoga

All-Big Ten
Oct 25, 2009
4,352
1,672
113
says he'll do, he'll take the Democratic Party down with him if it can go below the 1920s levels it currently is in.

ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jon Karl reported that according to WH officials "the president will move forward with an executive order on immigration reform "no matter how big a shellacking Democrats get tonight" during ABC's Election coverage on Tuesday.

Karl said "White House officials are saying that you can expect the president to set an aggressive, and defiant tone tomorrow. You're not going to see any mea culpas, no big firings, no change in direction."

He added "officials tell me the president is prepared to aggressively pursue his agenda using his power of executive authority, where he can't work with Congress, and the big one is going to be on immigration reform. White House officials tell me that the president will move forward with an executive order on immigration reform no matter how big a shellacking Democrats get tonight."
 
Depends

It depends what "an executive order on immigration reform" really is, says and does. That generic phrase doesn't mean anything. It's just a way for the media to start priming the fight as soon as possible.
 
Ah, but, you and I

both know what he specifically wants, don't we?

I hope he tries amnesty with immediate legal status, driver's licenses and vote registration. Its political suicide.


A good capitalist, if the opponent is about to commit suicide by hanging, will sell him the rope and watch from high atop a bar stool.
 
If the GOP is smart...

which no one ever claimed to be the case. They will simply point out how this impacts the processing times of legal immigrants. Increasing their wait times by many months and possibly years. That is a serious moral and ethical issue imo. Why should couples be held apart any longer than necessary because others decided they didn't need to follow the rules.

This is exactly what happened to immigrant VISA processing times following the DREAM crap with the students, etc. I may agree with the merits of their case, but I do have a serious problem with allowing them to cut the line. They should go to the end of the line, end of story.

This post was edited on 11/5 10:51 AM by toastedbread
 
Best thing the Pubs could do, IMO.....

Is to pass a bill through the house and senate and put it on Obama's desk.
 
The GOP leadership should approach Obama...

...first with an attempt to find consensus on immigration. If and when this fails, then pass reform legislation. Then if Obama vetoes the bill, the GOP can say they tried.
 
I agree.....

Obama has not been in the position of having to deal with a unified Congress before. The first 100 days will be interesting.

If the Congress can be unified, that is.
 
I would expect a GOP Senate to somewhat function

Just because there's enough Democratic moderates that you have a path to 60 votes. Not as many as there used to be but there's probably about 10 Democratic Senators Republicans could potentially work with (Obama had Scott Brown, Specter and the Maine Senators in 2009).

If the GOP tries to ram through bills from the House that's not going to work but I can see the Senate working if GOP leadership does a good job.

This post was edited on 11/5 12:01 PM by Fro
 
Do you think they will bring back the 60 vote cloture rule?

Someone fill me in on what Reid changed wrt this. Was it only for nominations, or is the filibuster dear?
 
He's backed himself into a corner.


I think it would be a political disaster for him (and, thus, Democrats) if he doesn't follow through with his pledge to take executive action on immigration.

I think it would be a different kind of political disaster for him (and, thus, Democrats) if he does.

There actually is another way out of this -- but it would involve relenting on the border-first provision. And I don't get the impression there's any appetite for that....for reasons I'll never understand.
 
Just for (some) nominations.

I think it applied to all nominations except certain judicial nominations (SCOTUS only, maybe?).

It had nothing to do with cloture on legislative action.
 
Agreed.

But the GOP needs to show a willingness to at least talk with the Dems in Congress (especially if they honestly believe they can't talk to Obama, anymore). Simply putting a bill on his desk for the sole purpose of watching him veto it isn't going to do anyone any good.

goat
 
well then, perhaps the Republicans should announce that...

since, it turns out, the Democrats were right to change the rule with respect to certain nominations, and that it has made things so much easier to deal with in the Senate, in the spirit of bi-partisanship and giving due credit where credit is due, the Republicans have decided to expand the rule to ALL actions taken by the Senate.

And they're even going to recognize Senator Reid's contribution in coming up with such a great rule by calling it, henceforth, the Harry Kari Reid Rule. (or Harry Carey Reid Rule for those living in Chicago)
3dgrin.r191677.gif
 
Why must it be a bill he'd veto?

Any immigration bill that contains a mass normalization provision already has what the Democrats want. I'm not sure why they'd have to be consulted any further. It would have what they want, after all.

Instead, it should just establish as a prerequisite for this normalization a genuine, concerted, sustained, and measured attempt at sealing up the border.

I realize the Democrats (as well as the Chamber of Commerce) wouldn't like this. But, again, that's the nature of compromise: you have to give to get. If they're unwilling to give in on this, then they're the obstacle to getting immigration reform done.
 
If....

....the Repubs decide not to move on immigration just because they want to allow Obama to hang himself, then I think it's safe to say we're in for two more years of the same old bullshit.

goat
 
This is exactly what I said last wk. No matter who wins BHO is movin

forward with his agenda via executive order. This is not how America is to operate. You can't do major things without the votes of the representatives in this country. To do so is to promote a monarchy.
 
his problem is that he apparently felt from day 1 that, since....


his office is oval, it must mean that there are no such things as corners when it comes to Presidents. In other words, this ain't the first corner he's thoughtlessly wandered into over the last 5+ years.
 
No.

What they should do is undo what Reid did. After all, for the next two years, it's Obama nominees they'll be dealing with. And there's a pretty good chance that (a) they'll only have a Senate majority for those 2 years, and (b) the next president will also be a Democrat.

IOW, the Republicans won't need the filibuster to block Obama's nominees. But they might need it back pretty soon. So...force them to do it again.
 
I wish you were right. But you aren't.

Amnesty is almost certainly going to happen, one way or another.

What this does is gives Republicans the ability to dictate the terms.
 
That's largely up to Obama, innit?

If he signals a desire to "work with Republicans" he'll get bills he can sign. If he signals that he's digging in (which seems to be the case, thus far), then he should expect to get bills he won't.

Clinton, post 1994, and GWB, post-2006, are examples of the former. I don't expect we'll see Obama be very accommodating. But time will tell.
 
yes you're right

If Obama is so brazen as to pull and executive order like that, then Repubs need to pass a new law. Not that Obama thinks laws pertain to him though.
 
Re: No.


I'm sure you realized this, but in case others did not, my suggestion was entirely TIC. I agree with you that the Republicans should change the rule back to the way it was before. The Democrats will look pretty silly if they complain about it, since it will be entirely irrelevant for the next 2 years.
 
That's what every President does

If we get a GOP President they can reverse all those executive directions to the various departments. Obama reversed a lot of Bush stuff when he came in and Bush reversed a lot of Clinton policies through executive order.
 
serious question for you van


And I don't mean to put you in a difficult position--well, maybe I am going to do that, but it is an honest question for you (i.e., I am in no way trying to make you look bad, etc.).

You are obviously a conservative Republican, and I suspect that you probably do not believe in any type of amnesty for illegal immigrants--even if it were to be done by way of legislation rather than presidential fiat. (Correct me if I'm wrong on that suspicion.)

But, assuming that is your stance, how does your faith play into that? For example, if someone was brought here by their parents as a young child, from, say, Mexico or Honduras, the only place they remember is the United States, and they are now 18 years old, wanting to go to college or get a job, what should happen to them with respect to their status in this country? It seems to me that my Christian faith compels me to support their right to not only stay in the U.S., but also that they deserve to have their right to stay formally recognized in some manner--quite possibly via citizenship. I certainly would never want to see someone like that forced to go back to Mexico or Honduras--places that, in their own memory, they have never even been too, and which are extremely violent and unsafe. Despite being a conservative (compassionate variety) Republican, I could never in good conscience demand or even want our government to do something like that.

So that's probably an easier one, so what about the 40 year old parents of the 18 year old kid (along with his 10 year old sister, born in the U.S.)? They decided 16 years ago that their children deserved better so they came to the U.S. looking for a better life. Apart from their illegal entry, they've never violated the law, even finding a way to pay income taxes, etc. (or, maybe they never made enough money to have ever been subject to paying any income tax). They learned English, attend the local church, worked like crazy to support their kids, attend the occasional Cubs game when they can afford it, and even volunteer their time and money to help others. In other words, the kind of people this country was built by 100+ years ago.

What should happen to the parents? Is it wrong to give them a path towards citizenship--i.e., some form of amnesty--so that they become full-fledged American citizens? Again, assuming that it is done legislatively by Congress with the approval of the President. If not, how does your faith play into that determination, particularly if it means both parents must return to Mexico or Honduras, likely taking their 10 year old daughter who speaks no Spanish? Even forcing them to return to Mexico or Honduras for a period of time and then reapplying for citizenship troubles me greatly.

And I understand fully that my faith and religious beliefs are no excuse for violating the law (up to a point, I suppose), or that following one's faith by no means suggests that there should not be consequences if in doing so I violate the law. Faith and the law are, for the most part, separate matters.

But what I am asking about is whether or not I can, as a Christian, insist on the deportation of an illegal immigrant regardless of circumstances, rather than urging our government to find another solution which better comports with my Christian principles of compassion, caring for others, and forgiveness.

I will scream bloody hell if Obama attempts to grant blanket amnesty via executive order. At the same time, however, I want our legislature to come up with something to address the growing problem which is not going to go away unless something is done.
 
Isn't that what Bush & Obama have both supported?

I know people whined about what Rubio was putting together because it "wasn't really securing the border" for whatever reason but securing the border has part of what Ted Kennedy and later President Obama have been talking about this whole time.
 
kind of hard to reverse someone's citizenship, assuming that

Obama attempts to do something along those lines. Although to be frank, it's hard to imagine how he could pull that off via executive order.
 
Nope.

The key here is that "amnesty" (or whatever you want to call it) would only take place *after* certain benchmarks on border security have been met. And this can be traced back to the 1986 amnesty bill where border security was essentially promised as to follow.

Of course, it never did. And I, personally, think this is because some interests don't want our borders secured. Setting it up this way forces them to relent on this in order for them to get what they want.

It's the prerequisite part that is key -- and this was not in the bill the Senate passed, nor was it in the Bush-era bill.
 
That wouldn't survive the courts.

Word is he's just going to permanently suspend deportations for illegals who meet certain criteria. There's no citizenship that comes with that. It's a stop-gap measure. And I do believe he probably has the authority to do that.
 
Interesting...

A naturalized citizen can be denaturalized after the fact if it is found that they concealed facts that would have made them ineligible. But what if the applicant is entirely honest about their ineligibility and, due to executive order, they are naturalized, anyway? Obviously, the government's grant of citizenship would have been illegal, but could it be revoked, if the applicant himself had committed no fault?

goat
 
The Senate bill that passed did have triggers in it

Everyone gets provisional status first but they can't get any permanent status until the border is "secure".

Obviously there's a disagreement as to what constitutes "secure" and who decides that the border is actually "secure" or not.

Understanding the 2013 Senate Immigration Bill
 
Here is my issue with that...

1. That in a sense encourages an open border. Do we allow anyone that wishes to move here can just uproot and live her permanently and illegally? There is a danger in becoming a welfare state as those in the worst positions are attracted to our benefits. What kind of immigrants are we trying to attract? For better or worse, people can't switch passports easily.

2. I have a serious problem with allowing them to just jump the line. Legal immigration can take years depending on the case. If I have a fiance and she wishes to immigrate and marry we are talking 1.5 years! And she doesn't have the option to just show up illegally. Why should I have to wait 1.5 years for her to join me? That in itself is outrageous (The slow processing times), but this on top of that is just insulting and disturbing.
 
It requires nothing in the way of results.


Here, from your link:

One of the primary purposes of the bill is to provide a path to Lawful Permanent Residence (a "green card") for the existing undocumented population via the new Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) program. Before Registered Provisional Immigrants can apply for Lawful Permanent Resident status, several security goals, or "triggers," must be met: the Southern Border Security Strategy must be deployed and operational, the Southern Border Fencing Strategy must be implemented and 700 miles of fencing completed, a mandatory employment verification system for all employers must be implemented, an electronic exit system must be implemented at all air and sea ports where Customs and Border Protection officers are present, and at least 38,405 full-time Border Patrol agents must be deployed along the southern border.


It's not merely differences over about what constitutes "secure." If you have a leaky faucet and call a plumber over, I don't think you'd be satisfied if he gave you a list of 5 things he tried....while the faucet's still leaking.

What we're looking for is for the faucet to stop leaking before triggering the normalization. They were looking for a 90% capture rate.
 
If they come legally then I am glad to have them here. Coming here

illegally is a big deal to me. Just look what happened with that marine who wandered into Mexico. How many months did he spend in their jails being threatened? Why did the Mexican govt get so mad? It's because every nation has a right to dictate who comes into their country. This is a bad deal when you multiply this by millions. These are people who don't care about our laws. I don't believe they only take work that others will not do. The fact is they lower wages by being here so it does affect other people who are born in this country. If our govt wants to open the doors completely to immigrants then I can live with that. This would mean they are coming here legally. But we better not put those millions of people on welfare etc because the truth is it will break the bank. I am not being mean, just speaking the truth. You can't put all those people on govt assistance and expect to have the program very long.
 
Forgive me for interrupting, but...

...you didn't actually address Noodle's question. He was asking how your faith plays into your opinions on immigration. You answered entirely from a political stand point.

I am also quite interested in your answer. I have asked you similar questions about other topics in the past which I felt you also failed to address.

goat
 
Re: If they come legally then I am glad to have them here. Coming here

Next time please just say I don't want to answer.

In other words you did not respond to anything I asked you. Which is fine, but don't pretend like you did. Last time I ever try to engage you in an honest discussion.

Good night
 
Read below on what I said to goat. Most of your scenarios miss something.

The parents who brought these kids here illegally are to blame. Is it a pleasant thing to make people leave? No, but it is the right thing to do because it's the Law as it is written. How hard is it to understand that the Law is very important. God, according to Romans 13 puts governments in place to punish evil doers. It is very wrong to break the law. And when you have millions of people doing it, I have to question whether they are doing right. Again, I did try to answer your post,but didn't specify the passage.
 
Re: Read below on what I said to goat. Most of your scenarios miss something.

Wow. Not only did you not answer my question, your attitude is stunningly disappointing. I am fully aware of the biblical passage and principles you mentioned, but that has little to do with what I asked you.

I'm not really sure why I even tried to get your views on the issue, since in my opinion you are nothing more than a charlatan. I'll say a prayer for your congregation tonight.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT