Bitcoin Forum

Obama May Cut Deportations

More...http://online.wsj.com/articles/obama-may-cut-deportations-1414626089 (http://online.wsj.com/articles/obama-may-cut-deportations-1414626089)

Article I, Section I

Article I, Section VIII of US Constitution aka Congressional powers

Sessions: 'The World Has Turned Upside Down'


Senator Jeff Sessions will soon release this statement in response to a report in the Wall Street Journal that details President Obama's plans to unilaterally implement amnesty.

"The Wall Street Journal confirmed today that the President is planning to issue a massive unilateral executive amnesty after the election.

"In its report, the WSJ certifies that this executive amnesty would provide work permits for illegal immigrants—taking jobs directly from struggling Americans.

"Based on the USCIS contract bid and statements from USCIS employees, we know this executive immigration order is likely to be broader in scope than anyone has imagined.

"Earlier this week, President Obama’s former head of Homeland Security revealed that she overrode resistance from administration lawyers and law enforcement agents in implementing the President’s earlier unlawful amnesty and work authorization program for illegal immigrants 30 and under. This was an open admission by one of the most senior people in government of violating one’s oath of office in order to accomplish a nakedly political aim.

"The President is assuming for himself the sole and absolute power to decide who can enter, work, live, and claim benefits in the United States. He has exempted virtually every group in the world from America’s immigration laws: people who enter before a certain age, people related to people who enter before a certain age, adults traveling with minors, minors traveling with adults, illegal immigrants who are not convicted of serious crimes, illegal workers who are convicted of serious crimes but not enough serious crimes, almost anyone who shows up the border and demands asylum, the millions who overstay their visas, and, as was recently exposed, illegal immigrants with serious criminal histories. The list continues to grow.

"A nation creates borders and laws to protect its own citizens. What about their needs?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/sessions-world-has-turned-upside-down_817731.html

At some point there has to be pushback against these executive orders, or we have de facto fascism.

... Or we already do.

The last 100 years have been a steady progression in the expansion of executive power. In terms of the history of this country, the idea that the president is expected to wield as much power as he does is relatively new. It was never intended to be this way, but as the progression has been gradual, we've been acclimated to it. When things are going wrong, the public wants one person to have the power to 'fix it,' and someone to blame when it's not. Basically, we want to elect our king and expect him not to be corruptible by the power he wields, but when in the history of the world has this ever been the case?

This stupid step will alter the American demography irreversibly, and in the long term will reduce the US to a third world nation. Less number of tax payers and an ever increasing number of social parasites can never be a good sign.

Cool! We might start spreading this information between the gypsies in central/eastern Europe. Perhaps with some hints about the generous US benefit system ...and we shall take our countries back :).
BTW Obama and Co. keep bashing us about how badly we treating those poor souls, so it would be time to show us how to deal with them properly :).

People have been warning about immigrants destroying America since there was an America. A little reality check is in order.

The Nobel Prize winner will fix it....

Obama's nobel prize was actually revoked.

Obama has shown a disregard for the law and the constitution, so I don't see why anyone would be surprised that he is willing to disregard the constitution in this situation. Liberals have always wanted more illegal immigrants in this country so when they do become citizens they can take advantage of social programs and legally vote democrat, and before they become citizens they can cast illegal votes for democrats (this is the main reason why liberals are against voter ID laws)

Wth, no it wasn't.  ???

I think Obama gives amnesty step is a step that is not bad, generous and willing to give a second chance for amnesty recipients is a generosity given by President Obama, in fact a lot of interest from the Obama of giving amnesty to immigrants, ahead of the next election Obama needs support sound, so this can be one way that Obama can win the next election ...  8)

Yes, the nobel committee asked for it back, essentially revoking it

http://www.thefinaledition.com/article/nobel-committee-asks-obama-nicely-to-return-peace-prize.html

This was the 2nd result (below wikipedia) when searching google for 'obama nobel peace prize'

The administration knows hooking the people on as many government programs as possible is the way to their success.

This is further proof that Obama does NOT have the AMERICAN PEOPLES best interests in mind, only looking for a way to get people to bow down to his supreme power.  Allowing 11+ million ILLEGALS to stay here pretty much guarantees they will agree with everything his says no matter what, because they will see him as their "savior."  Its all just a ploy to boost his "support"

He wants more people to be in the country to vote so they can help elect his liberal allies

Yup, they have lost the support of the American people as shown by the recent elections, so they are trying to basically buy the support of what should be "illegals" by allowing them to stay here and suck the middle class dry

No, we have not been acclimatized to it.  No, we don't want one person to fix it.  No, we don't want to elect our king.

The ABUSE of executive power by Obama is widely acknowledged and is completely unprecedented.

Gosh, I hate to break this to you, but that's a satire site. This passage of the article gives it away:


But in case you need explicit proof, see this: http://www.thefinaledition.com/page/why-we-are.html

Obama was not asked for his Nobel Prize back.

Except when Bush was treading on the Constitution by doing all the same things Obama has done. Except when Reagan was sending troops into conflict without authorization from Congress. Except when FDR created the New Deal and interfered with the Supreme Court in order to implement it. Except when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Except when Jackson enacted martial law or openly defied the Supreme Court.

Yeah, please tell me again how Obama's power grabs are "completely unprecedented."   ::)

In case you were not aware of it, cases of national necessity and wartime conditions are the very point of options such as executive orders.

That is not what we are discussing.  A valid use of executive power would be to suspend civil rights and institute martial law say for example in the case of a severe ebola outbreak.

An abuse of executive power would be to usurp actions and power given constitutionally to Congress, or to sign a blatantly unconstitutional executive order.

He is not only a traitor, but he actively hates America down to the core on a racial, cultural, and personal level.

It's a fact that he was raised in an Anti-American, Anti-west environment. He would rather idolize and talk about his deadbeat revolutionary wannabe father who ran out when he was 3 years old, and dedicate his 'manifesto' to 'the dreams of my father' rather then talk about how his mother and the wealthy grandparents raised his pampered 'rebel' ass in a private school with gated houses.

He thinks his less-then-white skin grants him some kind of a moral superiority. The world is laughing at such an attitude for obvious reasons, and I think white America and all of the nation should come to understand there is no such thing as having a blacker skin equated to some kind of entitlement or 'guilt' of anyone else. If their motivation is racial, it is perfectly acceptable and correct to destroy the said race and discriminate racially to all those who display such attitudes.

He is barely fit to be an assistant professor wannabe at a liberal shithole 'college', never mind hold a political office. However, he manipulated and played on the guilt ridden white folks attitude and manage to worm his way into the oval office.


Now he is doing exactly what he always wanted to do - try and remake others to his liking or bring down what others have.


It's racial, cultural and ethnic reason that drives him to do what he does. However, more then one world leader (actually all of them) are aware of this and don't give 2 shits about his 'charms' which are just used in America to cajole, casually deceive, and manipulate the feelings of the majority for his own ends.



Additionally, there is nothing wrong with America being a white majority country, or people insisting on it. No one is asking the chinese or indians to diversify. I am a minority myself (disadvantaged one), but there is simply no logic for this whole 'multicultural' nonsense other than racially motivated agenda that drives people to equate outright invasion with equality or social justice.

West and America is white country/nations. PERIOD.

Whether or not they accept occasional visitors or minorities is THEIR right and decision, no one else. Do these minority thieves and trespassers ever care about 'native americans' when it's not convenient for them? When did they ever give a fuck?

Chinese are not asked to bring in non chinese to their country. India is not asked to do it either, nor is africa asked to take in millions of chinese as the same as africans, and neither is virtually any other nations on earth except for white, western nations.

This is not about equality. You are not equal but a foreigner when you enter different countries. As long as basic safety is protected, you better understand your place in someone else's house.

Deal with it.

Every country has a core constituency, core ethnic group, and core idea and culture and heritage.


White folks, run this shit out of the office and impeach his ass. He is waging a racial war against you and you have nothing to feel guilty about putting him in his place. If putin and assad did it, you are RIGHTFULLY obligated to correct this grave error in American history. Anyone who says they are not white and do not accept that america or other western nations are not white countries is an invader trying to manipulate your values against you. No one is obligated to accept outsiders when they are different. Mutual respect and understanding is one thing, but this has gone far enough into the territory of outright invasion supported by manipulation of your own values against you.

Bush was protecting national security via execute action. Reagan had the authority to send troops into conflict zones for up to 90 days without congressional approval as per the law (which is unconstitutional as the constitution gives the power to direct the military to the president). Your other examples are also constitutionally acceptable examples of how the president is allowed to make/use executive orders.

Obama on the other hand is using executive orders in order to make law which is a power reserved for the legislature.

That's funny, it seems "inalienable rights" doesn't mean "inalienable" anymore. Sounds like you and ole BO have more in common than you care to admit.


For example, suspending habeas corpus (Lincoln was challenged at the time by the courts, which he ignored, but the challenge was later validated by the Supreme Court when they ruled that only Congress could suspend habeas corpus), or nationalizing the steel mills (FDR's executive order was ruled invalid by the courts), or yada, yada. There are literally too many instances of unlawful executive orders to single them out individually. On top of these two specific examples I've named, there have been over 15,000 executive orders in the history of this country, but you're trying to pass off that only the last 200 or so under Obama are "unprecedented."

Not a reasonable assertion.

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)

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

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

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

At least he had an American mother.  ;D

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.

very very very superial nation that isn't nation

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.

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

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/ (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!  :)

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.

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

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 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   

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!

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.

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.

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.

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 #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.

Fair on both points!