Obama Prepares Amnesty Plan

[Spendulus]

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?

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.

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.

[ReserviorHunt]

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.

[dontCAREhair]

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?

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.

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."   

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.

[My Name Was Taken]

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.

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.

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

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.

[My Name Was Taken]

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).

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)

[MelodyRowell]

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).

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

[thedok]

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.

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

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

[BADecker]

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

[bryant.coleman]

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

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.

[majakn]

very very very superial nation that isn't nation

[jcoin200]

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.

[Chef Ramsay]

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

President Obama’s announcement of his immigration executive order Thursday night is apparently for Latino ears only. Though the White House claims that they sent out “feelers” to the major English-speaking networks, they didn’t bother sending an official request for coverage. Instead, only Latino networks Univision and Telemundo are airing the president’s 10-minute announcement.

As The Washington Post notes, the president’s 8 p.m. announcement comes at a particularly opportune time for reaching a “captive audience of Hispanic television viewers”: the 15th annual Latin Grammys, which airs on Univision starting at 7 p.m. Last year around 9.8 million viewers tuned into the awards ceremony. Univision is doing its part to make sure the president's message reaches its millions of viewers by temporarily postponing the show to broadcast Obama’s address. 

Reports have it that illegal immigrants across the country are throwing watch parties in anticipation of the president’s announcement of amnesty for around 5 million immigrants here illegally.  One Chicago Latino leader, Pastor Emma Lozano of Aldaberto United Methodist Church, told The Washington Times she’ll be watching the address alongside people currently facing deportation:

“We’re going to be watching this very closely, people in my church,” said Aldaberto. “We’re going to have the TV on in both languages and really praying and hoping we get what we deserve.”

Though Politico reports that the White House is “exasperated” that the big English-speaking networks “snubbed” the announcement, the same report reveals that the Obama administration didn’t bother sending the standard formal request for coverage to networks Wednesday. Instead, the White House simply posted an announcement of the message on its Facebook page—perhaps the first such announcement of its kind.

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

[Chef Ramsay]

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

President Barack Obama’s unilateral amnesty will quickly add as many foreign workers to the nation’s legal labor force as the total number of new jobs created by his economy since 2009.

The plans, expected to be announced late Nov. 20, will distribute five million work permits to illegal immigrants, and also create a new inflow of foreign college graduates for prestigious salaried jobs, according to press reports.

Obama has already provided or promised almost one million extra work permits to foreigners, while his economy has only added six million jobs since 2009.

Under the president’s new amnesty plan, “up to four million undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States for at least five years can apply. … An additional one million people will get protection from deportation through other parts of the president’s plan,”

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! 

[jcoin200]

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.

[Eisenhower34]

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

President Barack Obama’s unilateral amnesty will quickly add as many foreign workers to the nation’s legal labor force as the total number of new jobs created by his economy since 2009.

The plans, expected to be announced late Nov. 20, will distribute five million work permits to illegal immigrants, and also create a new inflow of foreign college graduates for prestigious salaried jobs, according to press reports.

Obama has already provided or promised almost one million extra work permits to foreigners, while his economy has only added six million jobs since 2009.

Under the president’s new amnesty plan, “up to four million undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States for at least five years can apply. … An additional one million people will get protection from deportation through other parts of the president’s plan,”

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! 

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

[bryant.coleman]

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.

[Eisenhower34]

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   

[My Name Was Taken]

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).

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

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!

[jaysabi]

Maybe I can steer this back on topic.

Obama May Cut Deportations

WASHINGTON—The White House is considering two central requirements in deciding which of the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants would gain protections through an expected executive action: a minimum length of time in the U.S., and a person’s family ties to others in the country, said people familiar with the administration’s thinking.

Those requirements, depending on how broadly they are drawn, could offer protection to between one million and four million people in the country illegally.

The deliberations follow President Barack Obama ’s promise to act to change the immigration system, after legislation overhauling immigration law died in Congress.

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

Article I, Section I

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

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.

[Spendulus]

Maybe I can steer this back on topic.


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......

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. ....

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.