Obama is 100% correct in this speech

[Hayabusa Rider]

The reason Obama did what he did now on immigration, and chose not to wait until the new congress took over, is exactly what you'd expect.
THAT, when the new congress takes over, they will do nothing on immigration.
But what they will do asap is pass new laws stripping Obama of executive order.

I expect that is not quite right, but not far off. They will work on immigration but probably not like you would like. I'm not sure what it would look like, but you won't like it, and I might not either. Regarding reigning in Presidential power I hope they do. You won't like that any more than the Republicans would during the Bush years but it can only happen when Congess and the WH are run by different parties.

Now it may be that nothing about immigration gets done and that would be too bad, but I'd still be glad to see President's fangs filed down a bit. Note I didn't say Obama's as I think it should have been done before him.

 

[PlanetJosh]

The founding father's idea was to have most of the power concentrated with the congress, the branch of govt closest to the people, and not much with the president. The people have gotten lazy, and that's dangerous. Now people say we have to make progress and get things done, so we have to ignore the constitution for the good of the country.

At least the president is the one with the legal right to decide if we launch a nuclear attack if we had to. But I suppose Republicans will figure out a way in the forums to say Congress has the final say in setting off nukes in a wartime situation. You're right but I wonder how far it's supposed to extend to major things for which we assume the president has the final say.

 

[BUnit1701]

So the question that would close this up is,

Has Obama signed more or less EOs then Bush at the same time during his term?

If the answer is less then Obama has lived up to the 2008 speech.

And your an idiot if you think the problem is the number of orders rather than the content of said orders. One executive order that creates law is far worse than 100 defining how to enforce/implement law.

 

[PlanetJosh]

I meant in my previous post the president is the one who decides if nukes will be launched if we're already in a war declared by congress. Generally Congress doesn't decide how a city will be bombed by the U.S. during a war. Although once again I bet people here will say Congress does have that authority. When it comes to one of the ultimate means of world destruction, nukes, conservatives would probably like to take that kind of decision away from the White House. Unless it's a Republican president.

 

[piasabird]

No more anchor babies.

 

[Zaap]

I meant in my previous post the president is the one who decides if nukes will be launched if we're already in a war declared by congress. Generally Congress doesn't decide how a city will be bombed by the U.S. during a war. Although once again I bet people here will say Congress does have that authority. When it comes to one of the ultimate means of world destruction, nukes, conservatives would probably like to take that kind of decision away from the White House. Unless it's a Republican president.

What kind of retarded point are you trying to make? What do you imagine this nonsense has to do with anything?

 

[Jhhnn]

And there is no illusion in new proposed laws?

Enabling illegals will only tell the world that "its ok to come EVEN MORE".

And they will too....

Our illegal immigrant problem will only get worse!

Speculation as fact. How quaint.

 

[Tracy_Sereika]

Look at above its a vet with a sign. Stating Vets before illegal! what a concept for our government to consider!!!

 

[Jhhnn]

Confession time people. I admit this fellow annoys me and so i wanted to be sure my perceptions were correct. Obviously the Republicans started all this nonsense but a few have been consistent in rejecting the extent of domestic spying and other abuses. Unfortunately a significant number of Democrats are for it since Obama has an affinity for a number of pet abuses. I also know that the Republicans are opposing immigration reform while Reagan others of their own did more or less similar things. But I'm not that invested in that as much as other things such as the PA.

Nevertheless, the Apologist Jhhnn fails to understand that he's a Republican in that he's just like them. It's never a combination of situations or people in his party, but the other guy, nor can he grasp that one doesn't have to have party loyalty and that's his and the Republican's weakness which is easily used against them. Poke them and they close ranks and can be maneuvered into doing what you want. Republicans in sufficient numbers will oppose Obama because Obama endorses something like immigration reform. He wants the PA. All suffiently clever anti PA people have to do is hit that nerve and the reflexive behavior of opposition kicks in. Like the Apologist they can't help it. They'll see this as something they have to be against because of partisanship and the established pattern of behavior dominates. It's manipulative, but that's something which is SOP in DC. We might as well use their weakness against them.

Partial amnesty is inevitable. Without it, deportation is like sharks coming in to eat a few swimmers on a crowded beach. Carried to this extreme, equal protection becomes an issue of due process, and even illegals have a right to due process.

Suggest a practical alternative. I'm pretty sure that the new congress will be working very hard to avoid that entirely & that you'll put it off as being due to forces beyond the control of the people in control. Obstructing change while raving about the status quo has served them well, so they'll keep up the same refrain as long as it serves the purpose of irrationalizing the electorate & supplying deliberately illegal labor to their financial backers.