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.
I think it would be great if the Press were to clarify what an Executive Order would do or not do. I just see "Obama to issue Executive Order regarding.....(insert Amnesty, Undocumented immigrants, Immigration, etc)" nothing concrete.
I thought Executive Orders only address procedural points of existing laws.
I think the better question is, should congress halt most executive actions for all presidents?
This is the problem. Bush bans stem cell research with embryos, conservatives cheer. Reagan does amnesty, they cheered. Obama does it, bad, impeach him.....
And Reagan regretted giving amnesty. The 3 million illegals that were given amnesty were far more than Reagan thought would be getting amnesty. It was because of the push from the agriculture industry that wanted a steady supply of labor and the democrats supported the amnesty.
What Obama proposes is an amnesty package, giving much (to illegals) and (illegals) having to do little or nothing to get it, and it is a far cry from what Reagan passed.
And Reagan regretted giving amnesty. The 3 million illegals that were given amnesty were far more than Reagan thought would be getting amnesty. It was because of the push from the agriculture industry that wanted a steady supply of labor and the democrats supported the amnesty.
What Obama proposes is an amnesty package, giving much (to illegals) and (illegals) having to do little or nothing to get it, and it is a far cry from what Reagan passed.
But he did it. The premise of this thread is that Obama is exerting to much presidential power. My point is simply, Republicans don't seem to have a problem when their president exerts to much executive power, so why the uproar with this one? He was duly elected.
Fact is, we need to do something on immigration, deportation and self deportation doesn't work. Republicans have had a bipartisan bill on the house leaders desk for months, and they've done nothing with it. When a president acts because congress won't, I see an issue with Congress.
Should the president have executive action power like this? No. Should congress act? Yes. If its good for Republican presidents to use executive actions, then so it must be for Democratic ones as well
I think the better question is, should congress halt most executive actions for all presidents?
This is the problem...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
But he did it. The premise of this thread is that Obama is exerting to much presidential power. My point is simply, Republicans don't seem to have a problem when their president exerts to much executive power, so why the uproar with this one? He was duly elected.
Fact is, we need to do something on immigration, deportation and self deportation doesn't work. Republicans have had a bipartisan bill on the house leaders desk for months, and they've done nothing with it. When a president acts because congress won't, I see an issue with Congress.
Should the president have executive action power like this? No. Should congress act? Yes. If its good for Republican presidents to use executive actions, then so it must be for Democratic ones as well
""Reagan does amnesty"".....
Quote:
you mean ted kennedy
The 1986 Immigration Reform Act that rewarded illegal aliens with amnesty was known as the Simpson-Massoli bill of 1986. When first drafted, the bill was suppose to make it a criminal offense for aliens who were not authorized to work in the United States a federal criminal act and that it would be a federal crime for employers to hire illegal aliens.
Here's what happened, the Democrats in Congress refused to sign on this bill unless the 1.5 million illegal aliens already thought to be in the country illegally and would qualify for amnesty were rewarded amnesty. (reason being, if these illegal’s were to become U.S. citizens, guess what party they would most likely vote for ? )
So the amnesty part was added on to the bill other wise the Democrats wouldn't sign on. And to muffle the out cry, the American people were told that this amnesty was a one time thing and would never be repeated again.
Well the bill passed both houses of Congress and President Reagan signed the bill. In the inner circles of the administration, Ronald Reagan was to have said he may have made a mistake by signing the bill.
Guess what ?, it wasn't 1.5 million illegal aliens who would have qualified for amnesty. It turns out that over 3 million were rewarded with amnesty, mostly because of the fraud that took place during the amnesty process. Phony rent receipts, phony pay check stubs, liberal judges expunging criminal records of illegal aliens!!!
And after the bill became law, you had Teddy Kennedy watering down the enforcement part of the bill that had to do with enforcing and prosecuting employers who hired illegal aliens.
why is it the liberals CONSTANTLY push for amnesty???
liberals constantly want to give the illegals amnesty
you might want to COMPLETE that picture...there have been 9 amnesty bills, 8 PASSED, since 1965....ALL authored by Ted Kennedy
In 1986 Senator Kennedy said, ‘This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this.’
Here is Ted Kennedy commenting on the 1965 immigration bill,Quote
“The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission.” End of Quote.
In 1994, Ted Kennedy’s Section 245(i) Amnesty gave legal residence and jobs to 578,000 illegal aliens. It was a temporary rolling amnesty primarily for extended family members of immigrants who instead of waiting in line, come on to the country illegally.
In 1997, Ted Kennedy’s extension of the Section 245(i) rolling amnesty was followed by an increasing flow of illegal immigration.
In 1997, Ted Kennedy also won an amnesty for close to one million illegal aliens from Central America. Illegal immigration sped up some more.
In 1998, Ted Kennedy won an amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti.
In 2000, Ted Kennedy got the so-called Late Amnesty, legalizing another 400,000 illegal aliens who claimed that they missed out on Kennedy’s 1986 amnesty.
In 2000, Ted Kennedy also won the LIFE Act Amnesty for an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens. It was another reinstatement of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty...an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens. Illegal immigration accelerated.
again done though congress on passed/failed bills signed or vetoed
Obama...."""I will BY PASS CONGRESS""
that is the difference
Last edited by Ibginnie; 11-10-2014 at 04:42 PM..
Reason: edited quoted post and reply
We have waited almost 2 years for immigration reform that was supposedly a major problem threatening our country (according to the GOP) but they don't want the president taking action.
Obama has already stated that the first choice regarding immigration is a bipartisan bill from congress, what a brutal dictator time to impeach. Good luck with a bill from congress.
What ignorance....
The left has had 6 years to deal with this...yet what happend? Nothing...
Great leftist talking point BTW...."impeach" who is saying that, that has any legit backing....go ahead....I'll wait...
But he did it. The premise of this thread is that Obama is exerting to much presidential power. My point is simply, Republicans don't seem to have a problem when their president exerts to much executive power, so why the uproar with this one? He was duly elected.
Fact is, we need to do something on immigration, deportation and self deportation doesn't work. Republicans have had a bipartisan bill on the house leaders desk for months, and they've done nothing with it. When a president acts because congress won't, I see an issue with Congress.
Should the president have executive action power like this? No. Should congress act? Yes. If its good for Republican presidents to use executive actions, then so it must be for Democratic ones as well
But the dems supported Reagan's amnesty. Both parties saw a gap that had to be filled by migrants. Our agriculture industry has shrunk and today there is no industry that is growing in the US that has a "gap" that needs to be filled by over 11 million illegals. Reagan did not do it for political gain, and political gain is the only reason Obama wants to push his amnesty.
Both parties use and abuse the power of executive action. I see Obama using it more for political gain than believing in the purpose. IMO, that power should be extremely limited. If parties can't agree, they should be made to sit in a room and not allowed out until an agreement is reached that both parties can learn to live with. It should not be used as a weapon to threaten people or enacted if they don't agree with you, both of which Obama is guilty of.
Supreme Court ever heard a case involving Executive Orders?
yes they have....
one of the most famous is>>>
1944 - Korematsu v. United States - The Court ruled Executive Order 9066, internment of Japanese citizens during World War II, is legal, 6-3 for the United States
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.
