Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Still a pointless poll. Obama does not propose amnesty.
So you got a whole lot of the right wingers agreeing that Obama is correct.
Since you seem to have the inside track as to what is in Obama's yet-to-be-released Executive Order on immigration, could you kindly provide a link to the EO?
The truth is you don't know what's going to be in the EO just like the rest of don't know the specifics. What we do know is that Obama has repeatedly stated that he plans to circumvent Congress to enact policy that hasn't been approved by Congress. Regardless of what that is, it's wrong, it's unconstitutional, and it's an abuse of power. Whether the coming EO actually contains blanket amnesty is irrelevant. There are laws on the books now that address immigration, and Obama is planning on unilaterally changing them. That is impeachable conduct, and I thought we did away with the monarchy in 1776.
Apparently, you and other liberals are pining away for the good old days when one person ruled by decree.
He needs to work with Congress. Immigration is too big an issue to have Obama go it alone. No "one" person should have that type of authority over any issue that would affect the whole country.
The Senate passed a reasonable approach to the problem which was killed by Boehner in the house primarily because he knew it would pass if voted on.
That basically illustrated the problem. The Republican side of the House will agree only to tighten the border laws. The Senate will block all such measures that don't include a broad solution. And this will still be true in the New Congress.
So the President has the choice of doing what he can via EO or doing nothing. I expect he will choose the EO route.
The Senate passed a reasonable approach to the problem which was killed by Boehner in the house primarily because he knew it would pass if voted on.
That basically illustrated the problem. The Republican side of the House will agree only to tighten the border laws. The Senate will block all such measures that don't include a broad solution. And this will still be true in the New Congress.
So the President has the choice of doing what he can via EO or doing nothing. I expect he will choose the EO route.
Your idiot President could always try and do what other Presidents have done - leading by building consensus and actually negotiating a bill. But why start now 6 years into his Presidency? Better to just act unilaterally, smear his opponents, and act outside the bounds of the law.
After all, it's all he knows.
The left will rue the day it let Obama willfully ignore Congress and the Constitution.
P.S. If immigration reform is so important that it requires action before the end of the year, why is it that Obama and the Democrats didn't pass a bill in 2008 when they had supermajorities in both houses of Congress? Oh that's right - they were too busy passing a new entitlement program that they never bothered to read before enacting.
The Senate passed a reasonable approach to the problem which was killed by Boehner in the house primarily because he knew it would pass if voted on.
That basically illustrated the problem. The Republican side of the House will agree only to tighten the border laws. The Senate will block all such measures that don't include a broad solution. And this will still be true in the New Congress.
So the President has the choice of doing what he can via EO or doing nothing. I expect he will choose the EO route.
And if it's anything that looks like Amnesty for all Illegals in the US the Republicans will have all branches of the Government for the next decade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trace21230
Your idiot President could always try and do what other Presidents have done - leading by building consensus and actually negotiating a bill. But why start now 6 years into his Presidency? Better to just act unilaterally, smear his opponents, and act outside the bounds of the law.
After all, it's all he knows.
The left will rue the day it let Obama willfully ignore Congress and the Constitution.
As a positive it will probably keep future presidents from pulling the same crap.
Since you seem to have the inside track as to what is in Obama's yet-to-be-released Executive Order on immigration, could you kindly provide a link to the EO?
The truth is you don't know what's going to be in the EO just like the rest of don't know the specifics. What we do know is that Obama has repeatedly stated that he plans to circumvent Congress to enact policy that hasn't been approved by Congress. Regardless of what that is, it's wrong, it's unconstitutional, and it's an abuse of power. Whether the coming EO actually contains blanket amnesty is irrelevant. There are laws on the books now that address immigration, and Obama is planning on unilaterally changing them. That is impeachable conduct, and I thought we did away with the monarchy in 1776.
Apparently, you and other liberals are pining away for the good old days when one person ruled by decree.
My insight into the EO is limited to the simple precept that Obama will act legally which prevents amnesty or anything like it. There is however no question of his ability to offer parole and the right to work. The feds do it all the time. See the DREAM EO.
Such a view is vastly superior to the one put forth here that he will act outside his Constitutional bounds.
Your idiot President could always try and do what other Presidents have done - leading by building consensus and actually negotiating a bill. But why start now 6 years into his Presidency? Better to just act unilaterally, smear his opponents, and act outside the bounds of the law.
After all, it's all he knows.
The left will rue the day it let Obama willfully ignore Congress and the Constitution.
Such a bill was in fact worked out but killed by a minority of the House. There does not appear to be any possibility of negotiating such a bill that will pass both houses.
Such a bill was in fact worked out but killed by a minority of the House. There does not appear to be any possibility of negotiating such a bill that will pass both houses.
Maybe something will be doable after the EO.
In order to become law, a bill needs to pass both Houses and be signed by the President. If the House isn't satisfied with the bill that the Senate passed, then the Senate needs to come up with something agreeable to the House. It's that simple.
We the people elected a Republican House of Representatives in 2010 for a reason - to put a check on the excesses and abuses of one party rule. Obviously the left doesn't like it, but that's just too bad. They should have thought about that when they were engaging in overreach after overreach from 2008-2010.
In order to become law, a bill needs to pass both Houses and be signed by the President. If the House isn't satisfied with the bill that the Senate passed, then the Senate needs to come up with something agreeable to the House. It's that simple.
We the people elected a Republican House of Representatives in 2010 for a reason - to put a check on the excesses and abuses of one party rule. Obviously the left doesn't like it, but that's just too bad. They should have thought about that when they were engaging in overreach after overreach from 2008-2010.
Actually the problem with the Senate bill in the house was that it would clearly have passed if voted on. Therefore the leadership blocked any vote on it. It was in fact blocked by a minority of the house. So even though the house is willing to vote for the Senate law it is blocked by a part of the Republican caucus.
In a similar matter the Senate will block any security only approaches. So you have a standoff that cannot be broken.
And note the House versions do not do anything to fix the problem. They ignore it to spend more money on the border where they will again fail. It is not clear that the border can be successfully locked down by any technique that the border dwellers will allow. You think Texas is willing to seal off the Rio Grande?
I defend criminals. Its been suggested I smoke marijuana to help my insomnia, correct? Would that not make me a criminal?
I support expanded immigration. The fact the immigration must be illegal because our system needs reform doesn't mean illegals are bad, it mean the immigration system is bad.
As I've said, we've had many criminals in our history that are now seen as virtuous, and they broke the law regularly
As far as rental managers being mind readers, they don't have to be. Check on the property after two months. More residents then were listed, they broke the lease and evict them. Its that simple
first bolded: You are comparing apples to oranges.
Eviction process is never "that simple"
Again, if you want to argue, argue fairly. Don't blame the victims.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
