Author Topic: Illegal Executive Action on Illegal Immigration  (Read 20198 times)

God or Mammon?

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 173
Re: Illegal Executive Action on Illegal Immigration
« Reply #50 on: November 21, 2014, 12:49:23 PM »
Did you even read the link you posted?

As thepokercab stated, a majority of americans support the actual policies. See graph 3 in your link. What your link shows is that the majority do not support taking executive action on the issue.

I am assuming you are responding to me with your comment, and that you are referring to Illegal Immigration (the Washington Post link)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/11/20/understanding-how-americans-feel-about-immigration-in-7-easy-charts/

Did you even read it?  Graph 3 shows the poll respondents confusion about the immigration question, depending on how the question is worded.

But here is a poll responding to your point exactly:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-reform/nbc-wsj-poll-nearly-half-oppose-executive-action-immigration-n251631

"Forty-eight percent oppose Obama taking executive action on immigration -- which could come as soon as later this week -- while 38 percent support it; another 14 percent have no opinion or are unsure."

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
Re: Illegal Executive Action on Illegal Immigration
« Reply #51 on: November 21, 2014, 12:49:58 PM »
Oh boy. This thread is getting touchy.

I'll just say that, while I'm not the most informed person on the matter, I am aware that Obama is not the only president to invoke (or at least threaten to invoke) executive orders on immigration issues. George W. Bush used his executive powers to allow children of immigrants to stay in the United States, an issue that Obama is often blamed for. Other previous presidents have addressed the immigration issue as well with executive action. It's interesting that it is only now such a big topic.

The crying around Obama's imperialistic, autocratic, monarchistic actions around Executive Orders has been laughable.  He's averaged  33 executive orders per year; vs George Ws 36 per year, Clinton's 45 per year, George H's 41 per year, and Reagan's 47 per year, and as you mentioned Reagan and Bush did the exact same thing during their presidencies and people didn't blow a gasket. 

Obama is no saint, and I find his presidency to be generally disappointing, but the extent of the right wing's desire to completely destroy his presidency and apparently drag the country down with it, has been breathtaking.

I think you are conveniently ignoring the fact that some of his highly publicized Executive Orders have been to conveniently further his own agenda (ACA, illegal immigration) despite polls showing public opinion strongly against his actions.
1) Does it make sense that Obama's orders are highly publicized and none of the other presidents' were?
2) I would expect that the Executive orders of all the presidents further the signing president's agenda, why would you expect it not to?

What do either of those have to do with the appropriateness of his actions?  He did them DESPITE the electorate saying they didn't want him to - so he shouldn't be surprised that his actions (and he himself now) are so unpopular.

Are these the best arguments the POTUS' supporters can come up with to justify a horrible presidency and acting AGAINST the people?
I don't support the president, he is too conservative for me.  I was asking questions which you want to ignore.  If you look at the parts of the ACA and ask people about them, people do want them.  Many who are opposed though, want it to go farther, AKA single payer.  Obama picked Ronneycare which many liberals don't like. 
That being said, the reason we have a representative government is that people are educated enough to make decisions.  For example, being oppose to "Obamacare" yet liking most of the things within it when asked separately.    Another example is complaining when one president does something yet, not when any other does it.  For a president to give an order to the rest of the executive branch is part of his responsibilities, and has been shown to be legal in many cases.   Hell, our first president did them and I bet not everyone was happy them. 

zoltani

  • Guest
Re: Illegal Executive Action on Illegal Immigration
« Reply #52 on: November 21, 2014, 12:55:31 PM »
Long waiting period, check
Pass Background check, check
Paid taxes, check

All things laid out in last nights plan

andy85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Louisville, KY
Re: Illegal Executive Action on Illegal Immigration
« Reply #53 on: November 21, 2014, 12:58:02 PM »

I don't support the president, he is too conservative for me.  I was asking questions which you want to ignore.  If you look at the parts of the ACA and ask people about them, people do want them.  Many who are opposed though, want it to go farther, AKA single payer.  Obama picked Ronneycare which many liberals don't like. 
That being said, the reason we have a representative government is that people are educated enough to make decisions.  For example, being oppose to "Obamacare" yet liking most of the things within it when asked separately.    Another example is complaining when one president does something yet, not when any other does it.  For a president to give an order to the rest of the executive branch is part of his responsibilities, and has been shown to be legal in many cases.   Hell, our first president did them and I bet not everyone was happy them.

he is too conservative?....my mind is literally shattered

zoltani

  • Guest
Re: Illegal Executive Action on Illegal Immigration
« Reply #54 on: November 21, 2014, 01:00:04 PM »
Graph 3 does not show confusion based on how the question is asked it shows support based on how the questions is asked.

3. Most polls show clear majority support for a path to some kind of legal status, but not all do

God or Mammon?

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 173
Re: Illegal Executive Action on Illegal Immigration
« Reply #55 on: November 21, 2014, 01:00:33 PM »
Oh boy. This thread is getting touchy.

I'll just say that, while I'm not the most informed person on the matter, I am aware that Obama is not the only president to invoke (or at least threaten to invoke) executive orders on immigration issues. George W. Bush used his executive powers to allow children of immigrants to stay in the United States, an issue that Obama is often blamed for. Other previous presidents have addressed the immigration issue as well with executive action. It's interesting that it is only now such a big topic.

The crying around Obama's imperialistic, autocratic, monarchistic actions around Executive Orders has been laughable.  He's averaged  33 executive orders per year; vs George Ws 36 per year, Clinton's 45 per year, George H's 41 per year, and Reagan's 47 per year, and as you mentioned Reagan and Bush did the exact same thing during their presidencies and people didn't blow a gasket. 

Obama is no saint, and I find his presidency to be generally disappointing, but the extent of the right wing's desire to completely destroy his presidency and apparently drag the country down with it, has been breathtaking.

I think you are conveniently ignoring the fact that some of his highly publicized Executive Orders have been to conveniently further his own agenda (ACA, illegal immigration) despite polls showing public opinion strongly against his actions.
1) Does it make sense that Obama's orders are highly publicized and none of the other presidents' were?
2) I would expect that the Executive orders of all the presidents further the signing president's agenda, why would you expect it not to?

What do either of those have to do with the appropriateness of his actions?  He did them DESPITE the electorate saying they didn't want him to - so he shouldn't be surprised that his actions (and he himself now) are so unpopular.

Are these the best arguments the POTUS' supporters can come up with to justify a horrible presidency and acting AGAINST the people?
I don't support the president, he is too conservative for me.  I was asking questions which you want to ignore.  If you look at the parts of the ACA and ask people about them, people do want them.  Many who are opposed though, want it to go farther, AKA single payer.  Obama picked Ronneycare which many liberals don't like. 
That being said, the reason we have a representative government is that people are educated enough to make decisions.  For example, being oppose to "Obamacare" yet liking most of the things within it when asked separately.    Another example is complaining when one president does something yet, not when any other does it.  For a president to give an order to the rest of the executive branch is part of his responsibilities, and has been shown to be legal in many cases.   Hell, our first president did them and I bet not everyone was happy them.

Questions I want to ignore?  How are they relevant to whether he acted legally/ethically/consistently vs what he said and what the people want?

Obama picked 'Ronneycare' because that is the only measure that would pass - and even then the Dems had to word things very carefully so that it wasn't considered a 'tax'.  Precisely what Jonathan Gruber said off the record (or so he thought) in a video that is now going viral and showing that the Democrats indeed had to do all they could to 'trick' the electorate into supporting a measure that, if written plainly, would have been wildly unpopular (and now is, after it has been passed and the effects are coming to fruition).

But I suppose your point about being opposed to the ACA but liking parts of it can be consistent.  For instance, I'm sure many would say "I like this, that and the other" policy individually, but when then asked to package them together and come up with a plan to pay for it (i.e. higher taxes) they could say no.  And isn't that exactly what is happening?  The people feel they were duped: many lost their policy despite promises that they could keep them, others are paying a lot more than they bargained for (although technically I guess Dems were smart to never say how much more people might have to pay) and a small minority who couldn't get coverage previously are ecstatic.

Do most people want healthcare available to all despite existing preconditions?  Yes as a general principle.  Were they willing to give up a policy they had or pay significantly more?  Seems not....and that's why IT IS UNPOPULAR

Eric

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4057
  • Location: On my bike
Re: Illegal Executive Action on Illegal Immigration
« Reply #56 on: November 21, 2014, 01:01:06 PM »

I don't support the president, he is too conservative for me.  I was asking questions which you want to ignore.  If you look at the parts of the ACA and ask people about them, people do want them.  Many who are opposed though, want it to go farther, AKA single payer.  Obama picked Ronneycare which many liberals don't like. 
That being said, the reason we have a representative government is that people are educated enough to make decisions.  For example, being oppose to "Obamacare" yet liking most of the things within it when asked separately.    Another example is complaining when one president does something yet, not when any other does it.  For a president to give an order to the rest of the executive branch is part of his responsibilities, and has been shown to be legal in many cases.   Hell, our first president did them and I bet not everyone was happy them.

he is too conservative?....my mind is literally shattered

Literally shattered?  Literally?  No wonder you can't comprehend his conservative streak.  You have no functioning brain!

zoltani

  • Guest
Re: Illegal Executive Action on Illegal Immigration
« Reply #57 on: November 21, 2014, 01:02:38 PM »
Question to you GOD

If i marry a foreign national does that person gain citizenship?

God or Mammon?

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 173
Re: Illegal Executive Action on Illegal Immigration
« Reply #58 on: November 21, 2014, 01:02:48 PM »
Graph 3 does not show confusion based on how the question is asked it shows support based on how the questions is asked.

3. Most polls show clear majority support for a path to some kind of legal status, but not all do

The title of the graph is "IMMIGRATION CONFUSION"

The text:
"3. Most polls show clear majority support for a path to some kind of legal status, but not all do

A single NBC/WSJ poll released this week finds a 35-percentage point difference in support for a path to legal status versus a path to citizenship, depending on how the question is worded. The wide variation is nothing new."

Selectively picking out the points you agree with does not change the context or point that the journalist wanted to get across

thepokercab

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 484
Re: Illegal Executive Action on Illegal Immigration
« Reply #59 on: November 21, 2014, 01:04:19 PM »

I don't support the president, he is too conservative for me.  I was asking questions which you want to ignore.  If you look at the parts of the ACA and ask people about them, people do want them.  Many who are opposed though, want it to go farther, AKA single payer.  Obama picked Ronneycare which many liberals don't like. 
That being said, the reason we have a representative government is that people are educated enough to make decisions.  For example, being oppose to "Obamacare" yet liking most of the things within it when asked separately.    Another example is complaining when one president does something yet, not when any other does it.  For a president to give an order to the rest of the executive branch is part of his responsibilities, and has been shown to be legal in many cases.   Hell, our first president did them and I bet not everyone was happy them.

he is too conservative?....my mind is literally shattered

Yes.  Obama isn't very liberal. Most people not watching Fox News, get this. 

I don't agree with Bill Maher on everything, but I think he said it best:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5-toYkXdyo.  (2-minute mark)

andy85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Louisville, KY
Re: Illegal Executive Action on Illegal Immigration
« Reply #60 on: November 21, 2014, 01:04:38 PM »

I don't support the president, he is too conservative for me.  I was asking questions which you want to ignore.  If you look at the parts of the ACA and ask people about them, people do want them.  Many who are opposed though, want it to go farther, AKA single payer.  Obama picked Ronneycare which many liberals don't like. 
That being said, the reason we have a representative government is that people are educated enough to make decisions.  For example, being oppose to "Obamacare" yet liking most of the things within it when asked separately.    Another example is complaining when one president does something yet, not when any other does it.  For a president to give an order to the rest of the executive branch is part of his responsibilities, and has been shown to be legal in many cases.   Hell, our first president did them and I bet not everyone was happy them.

he is too conservative?....my mind is literally shattered

Literally shattered?  Literally?  No wonder you can't comprehend his conservative streak.  You have no functioning brain!
well played sir...well played

zoltani

  • Guest
Re: Illegal Executive Action on Illegal Immigration
« Reply #61 on: November 21, 2014, 01:05:10 PM »
My point was, you stated a majority do not support the actual plan he has laid out, which is false. Polls show a majority support path to legal status.

God or Mammon?

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 173
Re: Illegal Executive Action on Illegal Immigration
« Reply #62 on: November 21, 2014, 01:09:23 PM »
Long waiting period, check
Pass Background check, check
Paid taxes, check

All things laid out in last nights plan

You seem to have a habit of cherry picking a few things out of an entire article that suits your agenda (and the unpopular POTUS')

You picked out 3 things out of about 20 in that list

What about learning English?  What about paying a penalty?  What about back taxes?  Does anything in that poll say anything about amnesty to parents of children born in the US (illegally), otherwise known as 'Anchor Babies'?  Do you have any idea how strongly against the concept of 'Anchor Babies' the electorate is?

God or Mammon?

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 173
Re: Illegal Executive Action on Illegal Immigration
« Reply #63 on: November 21, 2014, 01:11:55 PM »
My point was, you stated a majority do not support the actual plan he has laid out, which is false. Polls show a majority support path to legal status.

The polls you refer to are asking about bona fide legislation that is formed in the House/Senate, and signed by the POTUS.

The NBC poll I link to above shows disapproval of the way the POTUS handled the situation.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
Re: Illegal Executive Action on Illegal Immigration
« Reply #64 on: November 21, 2014, 01:12:15 PM »
Oh boy. This thread is getting touchy.

I'll just say that, while I'm not the most informed person on the matter, I am aware that Obama is not the only president to invoke (or at least threaten to invoke) executive orders on immigration issues. George W. Bush used his executive powers to allow children of immigrants to stay in the United States, an issue that Obama is often blamed for. Other previous presidents have addressed the immigration issue as well with executive action. It's interesting that it is only now such a big topic.

The crying around Obama's imperialistic, autocratic, monarchistic actions around Executive Orders has been laughable.  He's averaged  33 executive orders per year; vs George Ws 36 per year, Clinton's 45 per year, George H's 41 per year, and Reagan's 47 per year, and as you mentioned Reagan and Bush did the exact same thing during their presidencies and people didn't blow a gasket. 

Obama is no saint, and I find his presidency to be generally disappointing, but the extent of the right wing's desire to completely destroy his presidency and apparently drag the country down with it, has been breathtaking.

I think you are conveniently ignoring the fact that some of his highly publicized Executive Orders have been to conveniently further his own agenda (ACA, illegal immigration) despite polls showing public opinion strongly against his actions.
1) Does it make sense that Obama's orders are highly publicized and none of the other presidents' were?
2) I would expect that the Executive orders of all the presidents further the signing president's agenda, why would you expect it not to?

What do either of those have to do with the appropriateness of his actions?  He did them DESPITE the electorate saying they didn't want him to - so he shouldn't be surprised that his actions (and he himself now) are so unpopular.

Are these the best arguments the POTUS' supporters can come up with to justify a horrible presidency and acting AGAINST the people?
I don't support the president, he is too conservative for me.  I was asking questions which you want to ignore.  If you look at the parts of the ACA and ask people about them, people do want them.  Many who are opposed though, want it to go farther, AKA single payer.  Obama picked Ronneycare which many liberals don't like. 
That being said, the reason we have a representative government is that people are educated enough to make decisions.  For example, being oppose to "Obamacare" yet liking most of the things within it when asked separately.    Another example is complaining when one president does something yet, not when any other does it.  For a president to give an order to the rest of the executive branch is part of his responsibilities, and has been shown to be legal in many cases.   Hell, our first president did them and I bet not everyone was happy them.

Questions I want to ignore?  How are they relevant to whether he acted legally/ethically/consistently vs what he said and what the people want?

Obama picked 'Ronneycare' because that is the only measure that would pass - and even then the Dems had to word things very carefully so that it wasn't considered a 'tax'.  Precisely what Jonathan Gruber said off the record (or so he thought) in a video that is now going viral and showing that the Democrats indeed had to do all they could to 'trick' the electorate into supporting a measure that, if written plainly, would have been wildly unpopular (and now is, after it has been passed and the effects are coming to fruition).

But I suppose your point about being opposed to the ACA but liking parts of it can be consistent.  For instance, I'm sure many would say "I like this, that and the other" policy individually, but when then asked to package them together and come up with a plan to pay for it (i.e. higher taxes) they could say no.  And isn't that exactly what is happening?  The people feel they were duped: many lost their policy despite promises that they could keep them, others are paying a lot more than they bargained for (although technically I guess Dems were smart to never say how much more people might have to pay) and a small minority who couldn't get coverage previously are ecstatic.

Do most people want healthcare available to all despite existing preconditions?  Yes as a general principle.  Were they willing to give up a policy they had or pay significantly more?  Seems not....and that's why IT IS UNPOPULAR
Well given that executive orders have been considered legal since our country was founded, yet only Pres. Obama's are not, are relevant.   He is giving an order to member of executive branch, exactly what suppose to be done with these and yet, every time "OMFG he signed an executive order, ILLEGAL".  When that is your response (btw, executive orders don't have to be popular to legal), that is relevant. 
If you were smart enough to look at employer plans and the requirements for ACA plans, it was not hard to figure that 1, a crappy plan did not meet the requirements and 2) you'd be paying COBRA costs.  Because of 2, that is why we have the tax credits.  This is why we have a representative government, these concepts are not hard yet what I hear from right is OMG the world is ending.  FFS, grow up and get an education.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
Re: Illegal Executive Action on Illegal Immigration
« Reply #65 on: November 21, 2014, 01:14:01 PM »
Long waiting period, check
Pass Background check, check
Paid taxes, check

All things laid out in last nights plan

You seem to have a habit of cherry picking a few things out of an entire article that suits your agenda (and the unpopular POTUS')

You picked out 3 things out of about 20 in that list

What about learning English?  What about paying a penalty?  What about back taxes?  Does anything in that poll say anything about amnesty to parents of children born in the US (illegally), otherwise known as 'Anchor Babies'?  Do you have any idea how strongly against the concept of 'Anchor Babies' the electorate is?
Not required for legal immigrants and given that we don't have an official language that actual probably would be illegal.
And I'd really like a source for the last one.  Do you know how many people are descended from Anchor Babies?  I know my family is, and I'm Polish and Russian on that side.

God or Mammon?

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 173
Re: Illegal Executive Action on Illegal Immigration
« Reply #66 on: November 21, 2014, 01:15:20 PM »
Oh boy. This thread is getting touchy.

I'll just say that, while I'm not the most informed person on the matter, I am aware that Obama is not the only president to invoke (or at least threaten to invoke) executive orders on immigration issues. George W. Bush used his executive powers to allow children of immigrants to stay in the United States, an issue that Obama is often blamed for. Other previous presidents have addressed the immigration issue as well with executive action. It's interesting that it is only now such a big topic.

The crying around Obama's imperialistic, autocratic, monarchistic actions around Executive Orders has been laughable.  He's averaged  33 executive orders per year; vs George Ws 36 per year, Clinton's 45 per year, George H's 41 per year, and Reagan's 47 per year, and as you mentioned Reagan and Bush did the exact same thing during their presidencies and people didn't blow a gasket. 

Obama is no saint, and I find his presidency to be generally disappointing, but the extent of the right wing's desire to completely destroy his presidency and apparently drag the country down with it, has been breathtaking.

I think you are conveniently ignoring the fact that some of his highly publicized Executive Orders have been to conveniently further his own agenda (ACA, illegal immigration) despite polls showing public opinion strongly against his actions.
1) Does it make sense that Obama's orders are highly publicized and none of the other presidents' were?
2) I would expect that the Executive orders of all the presidents further the signing president's agenda, why would you expect it not to?

What do either of those have to do with the appropriateness of his actions?  He did them DESPITE the electorate saying they didn't want him to - so he shouldn't be surprised that his actions (and he himself now) are so unpopular.

Are these the best arguments the POTUS' supporters can come up with to justify a horrible presidency and acting AGAINST the people?
I don't support the president, he is too conservative for me.  I was asking questions which you want to ignore.  If you look at the parts of the ACA and ask people about them, people do want them.  Many who are opposed though, want it to go farther, AKA single payer.  Obama picked Ronneycare which many liberals don't like. 
That being said, the reason we have a representative government is that people are educated enough to make decisions.  For example, being oppose to "Obamacare" yet liking most of the things within it when asked separately.    Another example is complaining when one president does something yet, not when any other does it.  For a president to give an order to the rest of the executive branch is part of his responsibilities, and has been shown to be legal in many cases.   Hell, our first president did them and I bet not everyone was happy them.

Questions I want to ignore?  How are they relevant to whether he acted legally/ethically/consistently vs what he said and what the people want?

Obama picked 'Ronneycare' because that is the only measure that would pass - and even then the Dems had to word things very carefully so that it wasn't considered a 'tax'.  Precisely what Jonathan Gruber said off the record (or so he thought) in a video that is now going viral and showing that the Democrats indeed had to do all they could to 'trick' the electorate into supporting a measure that, if written plainly, would have been wildly unpopular (and now is, after it has been passed and the effects are coming to fruition).

But I suppose your point about being opposed to the ACA but liking parts of it can be consistent.  For instance, I'm sure many would say "I like this, that and the other" policy individually, but when then asked to package them together and come up with a plan to pay for it (i.e. higher taxes) they could say no.  And isn't that exactly what is happening?  The people feel they were duped: many lost their policy despite promises that they could keep them, others are paying a lot more than they bargained for (although technically I guess Dems were smart to never say how much more people might have to pay) and a small minority who couldn't get coverage previously are ecstatic.

Do most people want healthcare available to all despite existing preconditions?  Yes as a general principle.  Were they willing to give up a policy they had or pay significantly more?  Seems not....and that's why IT IS UNPOPULAR
Well given that executive orders have been considered legal since our country was founded, yet only Pres. Obama's are not, are relevant.   He is giving an order to member of executive branch, exactly what suppose to be done with these and yet, every time "OMFG he signed an executive order, ILLEGAL".  When that is your response (btw, executive orders don't have to be popular to legal), that is relevant. 
If you were smart enough to look at employer plans and the requirements for ACA plans, it was not hard to figure that 1, a crappy plan did not meet the requirements and 2) you'd be paying COBRA costs.  Because of 2, that is why we have the tax credits.  This is why we have a representative government, these concepts are not hard yet what I hear from right is OMG the world is ending.  FFS, grow up and get an education.

Well we now know I have won the argument since you have now resorted to petty ad hominem attacks.

Well done.

God or Mammon?

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 173
Re: Illegal Executive Action on Illegal Immigration
« Reply #67 on: November 21, 2014, 01:18:49 PM »
Long waiting period, check
Pass Background check, check
Paid taxes, check

All things laid out in last nights plan

You seem to have a habit of cherry picking a few things out of an entire article that suits your agenda (and the unpopular POTUS')

You picked out 3 things out of about 20 in that list

What about learning English?  What about paying a penalty?  What about back taxes?  Does anything in that poll say anything about amnesty to parents of children born in the US (illegally), otherwise known as 'Anchor Babies'?  Do you have any idea how strongly against the concept of 'Anchor Babies' the electorate is?
Not required for legal immigrants and given that we don't have an official language that actual probably would be illegal.
And I'd really like a source for the last one.  Do you know how many people are descended from Anchor Babies?  I know my family is, and I'm Polish and Russian on that side.

While you may think it is wonderful that your parents broke the law and conceived you here to gain a path to citizenship (assuming that is what you mean), the ends don't justify the means and unfortunately most people disagree with you.

http://www.limitstogrowth.org/articles/2010/06/03/rasmussen-poll-58-reject-anchor-baby-citizenship/

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
Re: Illegal Executive Action on Illegal Immigration
« Reply #68 on: November 21, 2014, 01:19:38 PM »
Oh boy. This thread is getting touchy.

I'll just say that, while I'm not the most informed person on the matter, I am aware that Obama is not the only president to invoke (or at least threaten to invoke) executive orders on immigration issues. George W. Bush used his executive powers to allow children of immigrants to stay in the United States, an issue that Obama is often blamed for. Other previous presidents have addressed the immigration issue as well with executive action. It's interesting that it is only now such a big topic.

The crying around Obama's imperialistic, autocratic, monarchistic actions around Executive Orders has been laughable.  He's averaged  33 executive orders per year; vs George Ws 36 per year, Clinton's 45 per year, George H's 41 per year, and Reagan's 47 per year, and as you mentioned Reagan and Bush did the exact same thing during their presidencies and people didn't blow a gasket. 

Obama is no saint, and I find his presidency to be generally disappointing, but the extent of the right wing's desire to completely destroy his presidency and apparently drag the country down with it, has been breathtaking.

I think you are conveniently ignoring the fact that some of his highly publicized Executive Orders have been to conveniently further his own agenda (ACA, illegal immigration) despite polls showing public opinion strongly against his actions.
1) Does it make sense that Obama's orders are highly publicized and none of the other presidents' were?
2) I would expect that the Executive orders of all the presidents further the signing president's agenda, why would you expect it not to?

What do either of those have to do with the appropriateness of his actions?  He did them DESPITE the electorate saying they didn't want him to - so he shouldn't be surprised that his actions (and he himself now) are so unpopular.

Are these the best arguments the POTUS' supporters can come up with to justify a horrible presidency and acting AGAINST the people?
I don't support the president, he is too conservative for me.  I was asking questions which you want to ignore.  If you look at the parts of the ACA and ask people about them, people do want them.  Many who are opposed though, want it to go farther, AKA single payer.  Obama picked Ronneycare which many liberals don't like. 
That being said, the reason we have a representative government is that people are educated enough to make decisions.  For example, being oppose to "Obamacare" yet liking most of the things within it when asked separately.    Another example is complaining when one president does something yet, not when any other does it.  For a president to give an order to the rest of the executive branch is part of his responsibilities, and has been shown to be legal in many cases.   Hell, our first president did them and I bet not everyone was happy them.

Questions I want to ignore?  How are they relevant to whether he acted legally/ethically/consistently vs what he said and what the people want?

Obama picked 'Ronneycare' because that is the only measure that would pass - and even then the Dems had to word things very carefully so that it wasn't considered a 'tax'.  Precisely what Jonathan Gruber said off the record (or so he thought) in a video that is now going viral and showing that the Democrats indeed had to do all they could to 'trick' the electorate into supporting a measure that, if written plainly, would have been wildly unpopular (and now is, after it has been passed and the effects are coming to fruition).

But I suppose your point about being opposed to the ACA but liking parts of it can be consistent.  For instance, I'm sure many would say "I like this, that and the other" policy individually, but when then asked to package them together and come up with a plan to pay for it (i.e. higher taxes) they could say no.  And isn't that exactly what is happening?  The people feel they were duped: many lost their policy despite promises that they could keep them, others are paying a lot more than they bargained for (although technically I guess Dems were smart to never say how much more people might have to pay) and a small minority who couldn't get coverage previously are ecstatic.

Do most people want healthcare available to all despite existing preconditions?  Yes as a general principle.  Were they willing to give up a policy they had or pay significantly more?  Seems not....and that's why IT IS UNPOPULAR
Well given that executive orders have been considered legal since our country was founded, yet only Pres. Obama's are not, are relevant.   He is giving an order to member of executive branch, exactly what suppose to be done with these and yet, every time "OMFG he signed an executive order, ILLEGAL".  When that is your response (btw, executive orders don't have to be popular to legal), that is relevant. 
If you were smart enough to look at employer plans and the requirements for ACA plans, it was not hard to figure that 1, a crappy plan did not meet the requirements and 2) you'd be paying COBRA costs.  Because of 2, that is why we have the tax credits.  This is why we have a representative government, these concepts are not hard yet what I hear from right is OMG the world is ending.  FFS, grow up and get an education.

Well we now know I have won the argument since you have now resorted to petty ad hominem attacks.

Well done.
It is not an attack, I genuinely think yours an idiot or uneducated.  I could go with either. 
And why do I think that?  Besides your comments:
http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/4fa820f5ecad041037000008-450-/education-and-party-affiliation.jpg
There is a reason education and being liberal are high correlation.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2014, 01:24:50 PM by Gin1984 »

God or Mammon?

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 173
Re: Illegal Executive Action on Illegal Immigration
« Reply #69 on: November 21, 2014, 01:22:52 PM »
Oh boy. This thread is getting touchy.

I'll just say that, while I'm not the most informed person on the matter, I am aware that Obama is not the only president to invoke (or at least threaten to invoke) executive orders on immigration issues. George W. Bush used his executive powers to allow children of immigrants to stay in the United States, an issue that Obama is often blamed for. Other previous presidents have addressed the immigration issue as well with executive action. It's interesting that it is only now such a big topic.

The crying around Obama's imperialistic, autocratic, monarchistic actions around Executive Orders has been laughable.  He's averaged  33 executive orders per year; vs George Ws 36 per year, Clinton's 45 per year, George H's 41 per year, and Reagan's 47 per year, and as you mentioned Reagan and Bush did the exact same thing during their presidencies and people didn't blow a gasket. 

Obama is no saint, and I find his presidency to be generally disappointing, but the extent of the right wing's desire to completely destroy his presidency and apparently drag the country down with it, has been breathtaking.

I think you are conveniently ignoring the fact that some of his highly publicized Executive Orders have been to conveniently further his own agenda (ACA, illegal immigration) despite polls showing public opinion strongly against his actions.
1) Does it make sense that Obama's orders are highly publicized and none of the other presidents' were?
2) I would expect that the Executive orders of all the presidents further the signing president's agenda, why would you expect it not to?

What do either of those have to do with the appropriateness of his actions?  He did them DESPITE the electorate saying they didn't want him to - so he shouldn't be surprised that his actions (and he himself now) are so unpopular.

Are these the best arguments the POTUS' supporters can come up with to justify a horrible presidency and acting AGAINST the people?
I don't support the president, he is too conservative for me.  I was asking questions which you want to ignore.  If you look at the parts of the ACA and ask people about them, people do want them.  Many who are opposed though, want it to go farther, AKA single payer.  Obama picked Ronneycare which many liberals don't like. 
That being said, the reason we have a representative government is that people are educated enough to make decisions.  For example, being oppose to "Obamacare" yet liking most of the things within it when asked separately.    Another example is complaining when one president does something yet, not when any other does it.  For a president to give an order to the rest of the executive branch is part of his responsibilities, and has been shown to be legal in many cases.   Hell, our first president did them and I bet not everyone was happy them.

Questions I want to ignore?  How are they relevant to whether he acted legally/ethically/consistently vs what he said and what the people want?

Obama picked 'Ronneycare' because that is the only measure that would pass - and even then the Dems had to word things very carefully so that it wasn't considered a 'tax'.  Precisely what Jonathan Gruber said off the record (or so he thought) in a video that is now going viral and showing that the Democrats indeed had to do all they could to 'trick' the electorate into supporting a measure that, if written plainly, would have been wildly unpopular (and now is, after it has been passed and the effects are coming to fruition).

But I suppose your point about being opposed to the ACA but liking parts of it can be consistent.  For instance, I'm sure many would say "I like this, that and the other" policy individually, but when then asked to package them together and come up with a plan to pay for it (i.e. higher taxes) they could say no.  And isn't that exactly what is happening?  The people feel they were duped: many lost their policy despite promises that they could keep them, others are paying a lot more than they bargained for (although technically I guess Dems were smart to never say how much more people might have to pay) and a small minority who couldn't get coverage previously are ecstatic.

Do most people want healthcare available to all despite existing preconditions?  Yes as a general principle.  Were they willing to give up a policy they had or pay significantly more?  Seems not....and that's why IT IS UNPOPULAR
Well given that executive orders have been considered legal since our country was founded, yet only Pres. Obama's are not, are relevant.   He is giving an order to member of executive branch, exactly what suppose to be done with these and yet, every time "OMFG he signed an executive order, ILLEGAL".  When that is your response (btw, executive orders don't have to be popular to legal), that is relevant. 
If you were smart enough to look at employer plans and the requirements for ACA plans, it was not hard to figure that 1, a crappy plan did not meet the requirements and 2) you'd be paying COBRA costs.  Because of 2, that is why we have the tax credits.  This is why we have a representative government, these concepts are not hard yet what I hear from right is OMG the world is ending.  FFS, grow up and get an education.

Well we now know I have won the argument since you have now resorted to petty ad hominem attacks.

Well done.
It is not an attack, I genuinely think an idiot or uneducated.  I could go with either. 
And why do I think that?  Beside your comments:
http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/4fa820f5ecad041037000008-450-/education-and-party-affiliation.jpg
There is a reason education and being are high correlation.

Being....what?  Bad at grammar?

I assume you mean 'education and being a DEMOCRAT are HIGHLY CORRELATED"?

IRONIC
« Last Edit: November 21, 2014, 01:29:44 PM by God or Mammon? »

andy85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Louisville, KY
Re: Illegal Executive Action on Illegal Immigration
« Reply #70 on: November 21, 2014, 01:36:39 PM »
well this sure escalated quickly

everybody knows that:

Democrats
-pro-choice
-support same-sex marriage
-support free healthcare
-want minimum wage
-hate guns
-educated
-well spoken
-tech savvy

Republicans
-the exact opposite of all of the above

if you dont fit neatly into one of those two boxes then you are screwed.

*sarcastic post* (except for the italicized portion)

God or Mammon?

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 173
Re: Illegal Executive Action on Illegal Immigration
« Reply #71 on: November 21, 2014, 01:48:36 PM »
Long waiting period, check
Pass Background check, check
Paid taxes, check

All things laid out in last nights plan

Your second point, "Pass Background Check", no longer seems to apply (or have veracity):

"The Department of Homeland Security has just released new "Policies for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants." Designed to fill in the details after President Obama's announcement that at least four million currently illegal immigrants will be given work permits, Social Security numbers and protection from deportation, the DHS guidelines are instructions for the nation's immigration and border security officers as they administer the president's directive.

The new priorities are striking. On the tough side, the president wants U.S. immigration authorities to go after terrorists, felons, and new illegal border crossers. On the not-so-tough side, the administration views convicted drunk drivers, sex abusers, drug dealers, and gun offenders as second-level enforcement priorities. An illegal immigrant could spend up to a year in prison for a violent crime and still not be a top removal priority for the Obama administration."

I guess illegal (although maybe no longer) immigrants who are drunk drivers, sex abusers, drug dealers and gun offenders are just average Joe's that probably slipped up and need some sympathy - no reason to go out of our way to deport them.

WHAT A DISASTER

zoltani

  • Guest
Re: Illegal Executive Action on Illegal Immigration
« Reply #72 on: November 21, 2014, 01:49:26 PM »
And you sir seem to have a habit of cherry picking buzzwords from talking heads to try and back up your position. Illegal! Amnesty!

Again I ask you, If i marry a foreign national do they gain citizenship? 

LibrarIan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 537
Re: Illegal Executive Action on Illegal Immigration
« Reply #73 on: November 21, 2014, 01:51:22 PM »
Can I get a thread lock?

God or Mammon?

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 173
Re: Illegal Executive Action on Illegal Immigration
« Reply #74 on: November 21, 2014, 01:51:55 PM »
And you sir seem to have a habit of cherry picking buzzwords from talking heads to try and back up your position. Illegal! Amnesty!

Again I ask you, If i marry a foreign national do they gain citizenship?

I don't know who you are, where you live or what country you are a citizen of - nor am I curious to find out.

But I'm sure you will tell us anyway.

davisgang90

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1360
  • Location: Roanoke, VA
    • Photography by Rich Davis
Re: Illegal Executive Action on Illegal Immigration
« Reply #75 on: November 21, 2014, 01:52:13 PM »
Illegal Immigrants is hurtful.  Call them Free-Range Democrats.

zoltani

  • Guest
Re: Illegal Executive Action on Illegal Immigration
« Reply #76 on: November 21, 2014, 02:34:17 PM »
And you sir seem to have a habit of cherry picking buzzwords from talking heads to try and back up your position. Illegal! Amnesty!

Again I ask you, If i marry a foreign national do they gain citizenship?

I don't know who you are, where you live or what country you are a citizen of - nor am I curious to find out.

But I'm sure you will tell us anyway.

I can rephrase it so you can rephrase your dodge.

If an american citizen marries a foreign national does the foreign national gain american citizenship.

Lkxe

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 135
Re: Illegal Executive Action on Illegal Immigration
« Reply #77 on: November 21, 2014, 02:57:23 PM »
And you sir seem to have a habit of cherry picking buzzwords from talking heads to try and back up your position. Illegal! Amnesty!

Again I ask you, If i marry a foreign national do they gain citizenship?

I don't know who you are, where you live or what country you are a citizen of - nor am I curious to find out.

But I'm sure you will tell us anyway.

I can rephrase it so you can rephrase your dodge.

If an american citizen marries a foreign national does the foreign national gain american citizenship.
The answer to this question is no- legal status, residency and a path to citizenship

zoltani

  • Guest
Re: Illegal Executive Action on Illegal Immigration
« Reply #78 on: November 21, 2014, 03:03:36 PM »
Yes, I know. I just suspect that the OP has never gone through the immigration process, been close to someone in the process, and has no actual knowledge of the immigration process. The question was a kind of litmus test.

Lkxe

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 135
Re: Illegal Executive Action on Illegal Immigration
« Reply #79 on: November 21, 2014, 03:07:36 PM »
Well I never have either but it's an easy goggle- though my mil used to be Canadian. Most U.S. citizens can't pass the test so it shouldn't really surprise anyone that most don't know how the system works.

zoltani

  • Guest
Re: Illegal Executive Action on Illegal Immigration
« Reply #80 on: November 21, 2014, 03:14:55 PM »
IME, most americans think that marriage = citizenship

Eric

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4057
  • Location: On my bike
Re: Illegal Executive Action on Illegal Immigration
« Reply #81 on: November 21, 2014, 03:15:37 PM »
Illegal Immigrants is hurtful.  Call them Free-Range Democrats.

Considering they're unlikely to be rich, old, white and male, it's a decent approximation.

SwordGuy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8956
  • Location: Fayetteville, NC
Re: Illegal Executive Action on Illegal Immigration
« Reply #82 on: November 21, 2014, 04:55:36 PM »
Please explain, calmly and rationally, precisely what illegal action Obama has committed with his new immigration policy?


mulescent

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 114
Re: Illegal Executive Action on Illegal Immigration
« Reply #83 on: November 21, 2014, 05:51:43 PM »

he is too conservative?....my mind is literally shattered

Actually, this is a common sentiment on the left and also my opinion.  Obama is basically the equivalent of a sane, pre-Neocon/Tea Party Republican.  Obamacare, his signature achievement, is EXACTLY what the Republicans wanted instead of what Clinton tried to propose.

This whole thread is depressing because:

1) It has reinforced to me just how insane the political rhetoric has gotten.  God or Mammon (love the handle, BTW), you sound like a reasonable guy.  However, it seems like the "facts" you know and the ones I know are in opposition.  In my world, executive actions aren't illegal generally and neither (probably) is this one, end of story.  Immigration is a boon to our economy.  Immigrants don't use government services in a disproportional fashion and they aren't mostly criminals.  Diversity strengthens us.  The bottom line is that I think you don't really understand the issue, and I'm sure you think the same thing about me.  Where do we go from here?  Screaming at each other won't solve the problem.  IMO, compromising is the only way forward.

2)  We're discussing human beings here, who are trying to improve the lives of their families.  Are some of them bad?  Sure.  Most?  No way.  The immigration debate, IMO, cannot be reduced to a discussion of the (il)legality of the immigrant's status.  It's not like speeding or murdering someone.  We shouldn't shit on people for trying to make their lives better by working hard.  We definitely shouldn't forcibly break up families or continue to take advantage of "illegal" status to deny hardworking people the chance to move forward.

3)  Right now, there is a really ugly racist/xenophobic/save the white people streak running through the Republican electorate. Obama is brave for taking action on immigration.  Maybe it is the right thing to do, or maybe it's wrong.  Either way, it will hopefully force the Republicans to actually deal with the issue in a reasonable manner.  There is a reason they haven't and don't want to: many of their constituents views on nonwhite people will alienate most voters.  That's why Boehner said that executive action would take any consideration of immigration by the House off the table.  Obama's actions are a gift to the Republican party - now they don't have to actually deal with the consequences of airing their views.  I hope they do, though, since that will force them to moderate.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2014, 06:13:19 PM by mulescent »

YK-Phil

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1173
  • Location: Nayarit (Mexico)
Re: Illegal Executive Action on Illegal Immigration
« Reply #84 on: November 21, 2014, 08:01:21 PM »
Que dices? No entiendo nada!