Obama... 

I've already emailed Cruz and Cornyn and Poe. . . 

Perfect timing with the Ferguson grand jury announcement. Surely will help American unity. 

All hail King Obama!! 

All hail King Obama!!



Have some respect. 

Respect is earned. His divisiveness, deception and arrogance warrant no respect. 

that is an opinion and i'm ok with that. 

I believe it's a proven "FACT" he's a liar. 

All the complaining by those on here.
Have you read the OP's article?
Probably not, since most of the posts are personal attacks on the POS.

Yes, let the Republicans debate and debate until hell freezes over. What we will end up is like the proverbial camel that was originally intended to be a horse....all designed by a committee.

Let's just get it done once and for all. We have elected the world's largest group of procrastinators. They are all in fear of not getting re-elected so they can live on the government dole forever. 

Respect is earned. His divisiveness, deception and arrogance warrant no respect.

^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^ 

Just because it often gets ignored in these discussions:

there are a TON of problems with our immigration system that have NOTHING to do with illegals and that we desperately need to fix. 

Reagan and Bush Offer No Precedent for Obama's Amnesty Order
Not only were past executive actions smaller, they didn't work.
David Frum Nov 18 2014, 5:26 PM ET


?What about Reagan in 1987? And George H.W. Bush in 1990??

This has become a favorite Democratic and center-left rebuttal to Republicans angry at reports that President Obama may soon grant residency and working papers to as many as 5 million illegal aliens. If Obama acts, he?d rely on precedents set by Republican predecessors. Surely that should disbar today?s Republicans from complaining?

Surely not, and for four reasons.

1) Reagan and Bush acted in conjunction with Congress and in furtherance of a congressional purpose. In 1986, Congress passed a full-blown amnesty, the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, conferring residency rights on some 3 million people. Simpson-Mazzoli was sold as a ?once and for all? solution to the illegal immigration problem: amnesty now, to be followed by strict enforcement in future. Precisely because of their ambition, the statute?s authors were confounded when their broad law generated some unanticipated hard cases. The hardest were those in which some members of a single family qualified for amnesty, while others did not. Nobody wanted to deport the still-illegal husband of a newly legalized wife. Reagan?s (relatively small) and Bush?s (rather larger) executive actions tidied up these anomalies. Although Simpson-Mazzoli itself had been controversial, neither of these follow-ups was.
Related Story

Five Reasons Obama Shouldn't Declare Amnesty

Executive action by President Obama, however, would follow not an act of Congress but a prior executive action of his own: his suspension of enforcement against so-called Dreamers in June 2012.

A new order would not further a congressional purpose. It is intended to overpower and overmaster a recalcitrant Congress. Two presidents of two different parties have repeatedly called upon Congress to pass a second large amnesty. Congress has repeatedly declined. Each Congress elected since 2006 has been less favorable to amnesty than the previous one, and the Congress elected this month is the least favorable of all. Obama talks as if Congress?s refusal to fall in with his wishes somehow justifies him in acting alone. He may well have the legal power to do so. But it hardly enhances the legitimacy of his action. Certainly he is not entitled to cite as precedent the examples of presidents who did act together with Congress.

2) Reagan and Bush legalized much smaller numbers of people than Obama is said to have in mind. While today's advocates cite a figure of 1.5 million people among those potentially affected by Bush's order, only about 140,000 people ultimately gained legal status this way, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement data as reviewed by Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies. Obama?s June 2012 grant of residency to the so-called ?Dreamers?, people who were brought to the United States illegally as children, could potentially reach 1.4 million people. His next round of amnesty, which is advertised as benefiting the parents of the Dreamers and other illegal-alien parents of U.S. resident children, could reach as many as 5 million people.

Put it another way: If all the potential of Obama?s past and next action is realized, he would?acting on his own authority and in direct contravention of the wishes of Congress?have granted residency and work rights to more than double the number of people amnestied by Simpson-Mazzoli, until now the most far-reaching immigration amnesty in U.S. history.

As the philosopher liked to point out, at a certain point, a difference in quantity becomes a difference in quality.

3) The Reagan-Bush examples are not positive ones. The 1986 amnesty did not work as promised. It was riddled with fraud. The enforcement provisions were ignored or circumvented. Illegal immigration actually increased in the years after the amnesty. The supposed "once and for all? solution almost immediately gave rise to an even larger version of the original problem.

The argument that ?Reagan and Bush did it,? is essentially an argument that future generations should not learn from the errors of previous generations. With the advantage of experience, it is clear that their decisions did not produce the desired result, and actually greatly worsened the problem they sought to solve. Let?s not repeat their mistake.

4) The invocation of the Reagan and Bush cases exemplifies the bad tendency of political discussion to degenerate into an exchange of scripted talking points. ?Oh yeah? Well, this guy you liked also did this thing you don?t like!? Is that really supposed to convince anybody? What we have here is not a validation of the correctness of President Obama?s action. It?s the shaking of a fetish, an effort to curtail argument rather than enlighten it.

It?s a style of argument borrowed from the late-night cable-comedy shows, in which a clip of somebody saying something at some point in the past is supposed to estop that person?or anybody in any way connected to him, or supportive of him, or even mostly but not entirely admiring of him?from ever saying anything different in the future. But a zinger is not a rebuttal. In this case, with all the huge differences between Obama?s situation and those of his predecessors, it does not even zing. 

Wat to go, Mr. President.

Add this to the list of things that will not be overturned or revoked by the new congress or the new president. 

He wrote the words "They say I'm a dreamer, but not the only one"




Most remember John Lennon as a former Beatle, a brilliant musician, husband to artist Yoko Ono and target for deportation by the Nixon Administration. Less known is the story of how Lennon?s immigration saga enabled the first public discussion on prosecutorial discretion in immigration law. After Lennon was placed in deportation proceedings, his immigration attorney, Leon Wildes, tried, without success, to obtain information for more than a year about INS?s policy for exercising prosecutorial discretion. A favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion refers to the agency?s decision to not assert the full scope of enforcement authority available to the agency in a given case. Unable to get far in his correspondence with INS, Wildes filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act. In 1975, As a result of the lawsuit, Wildes received copies of the cases that had been granted prosecutorial discretion as well as the agency?s policy on prosecutorial discretion (then dubbed non-priority status). The policy became public for the first time and appeared as an ?Operations Instruction,? identifying youth, elderly age, long-time presence in the United States, a physical or mental health condition requiring care in the United States, and family ties as reasons why the agency should consider exercising prosecutorial discretion favorably. Subsequent agency memoranda from the Immigration and Naturalization Service and Department of Homeland Security have continued to favor prosecutorial discretion when these sympathetic factors are present. Our research of cases over several years also indicates that the favorable factors articulated in the 1975 Operations Instruction continue to be significant indicators for a favorable grant of prosecutorial discretion. The role of prosecutorial discretion in immigration law was highlighted most recently in June 2011 when Immigration and Customes Enforcement (ICE) chief John Morton issued a comprehensive memo on the use of prosecutorial discretion in immigration matters. Building on the factors published as a result of the Lennon case, the Morton Memo lists several circumstances that should trigger a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion, noting that ?particular care and consideration? should be given to long-time green card holders; minors and elderly individuals; those present in the U.S. since childhood; persons suffering a serious medical condition; and victims of domestic violence, trafficking, or other serious crimes; among others. The Morton Memo also clarifies the authority of Immigration and Customs Enforcement attorneys to exercise discretion in any immigration removal hearing even when the charging officer is from outside Immigration and Customs Enforcement. This authority is significant because it allows the agency?s trial to serve as a ?check? within a system where nearly every immigration officer (including those from the services agency known as United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) has the authority to bring charges against a noncitizen. The Morton Memo also empowers Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees to consider cases for prosecutorial discretion early in the enforcement process and without relying on an affirmative request by an attorney. This clause is important because prosecutorial discretion has largely operated as a program reserved for seasoned private immigration attorneys with special relationships within the agency. The Morton Memo potentially levels the playing field for individuals who may qualify for prosecutorial discretion if a specific set of equitable factors are present. Like with previous memoranda, the Morton Memo highlights the relationship between prosecutorial discretion and ICE?s limited monies to remove the entire unauthorized population, and further concludes that any exercise of prosecutorial discretion is tenuous at best and does not result in a right or benefit to the noncitizen. Nevertheless, critics believe the Morton Memo serves as a new backdoor ?amnesty? or circumvention of Congress in the wake of failed congressional action on immigration. Select members of Congress have gone so far as to announce legislation to prevent the administration from exercising prosecutorial discretion. But that is politics. The importance of prosecutorial discretion was revealed long ago with the case of John Lennon. More than thirty-five years later, prosecutorial discretion continues to serve as a smart enforcement policy that allows the immigration agency to prioritize its limited resources and place sympathetic cases on the backburner. Ultimately, the impact of the Morton Memo is important and can be measured only with diligent oversight by the private bar, Congress and the agency?s own watchdogs. - See more at: http://immigrationimpact.com/2011/07/20/prosecutorial-discretion-and-the-legacy-of-john-lennon/#sthash.iOHJD24J.dpuf 

Yes, let the Republicans debate and debate until hell freezes over.

Neither Obama or the Republicans need to enact new laws. Immigration laws are already on the books. They just aren't being enforced. 

Those laws don't allow them to create millions of new Democrat voters, though. 

Neither Obama or the Republicans need to enact new laws. Immigration laws are already on the books. They just aren't being enforced.

yes, because the bulk of those laws are either irrational, inefficient, unenforceable or just plain stupid. 

Wat to go, Mr. President.Add this to the list of things that will not be overturned or revoked by the new congress or the new president.

That's exactly what this is designed to do. It throws down a gauntlet to Congress. Don't like the executive action? Supersede it. Pass something, pass something that we can all live with. 

Don't like the executive action? Supersede it. Pass something, pass something that we can all live with.

Odd that he does this just before the Congress turns completely red.

Where was he for the past 6 years on this? 

Where was he for the past 6 years on this?

He could've passed anything he wanted in the first 4 years, why didn't he do it then? 

Seems like he's doing this in haste.

Get it done quick. Before the GOP takes over. 

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)?Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell unveiled his party?s long-awaited plan on immigration on Wednesday, telling reporters, ?We must make America somewhere no one wants to live.?

Appearing with House Speaker John Boehner, McConnell said that, in contrast to President Obama?s ?Band-Aid fixes,? the Republican plan would address ?the root cause of immigration, which is that the United States is, for the most part, habitable.?

?For years, immigrants have looked to America as a place where their standard of living was bound to improve,? McConnell said. ?We?re going to change that.?

Boehner said that the Republicans? plan would reduce or eliminate ?immigration magnets,? such as the social safety net, public education, clean air, and drinkable water.

The Speaker added that the plan would also include the repeal of Obamacare, calling healthcare ?catnip for immigrants.?

Attempting, perhaps, to tamp down excitement about the plan, McConnell warned that turning America into a dystopian hellhole that repels immigrants ?won?t happen overnight.?

?Our crumbling infrastructure and soaring gun violence are a good start, but much work still needs to be done,? he said. ?When Americans start leaving the country, we?ll know that we?re on the right track.?

In closing, the two congressional leaders expressed pride in the immigration plan, noting that Republicans had been working to make it possible for the past thirty years. 

The Onion? 

The Borowitz Report 

Fox ? propagnda? 

Edited
Sorry. The New Yorker 

Mad Magazine?