Obama’s unilateral change of immigration law

If you want an example of why conservatives don’t believe President Obama’s overtures about working with them, and why he actually is making partisanship worse in this country while he claims to want the opposite, look no further than his administration’s new policy toward “low priority” illegal immigrants.

The policy, first reported by the Washington Times and subsequently confirmed in a publicly released memo from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, lays out the criteria for prosecutors to exercise discretion about whether to deport an illegal immigrant. The person in question must:

  • have entered the country before turning 16;
  • have been in the country for at least five years and still be here;
  • be in school (the memo doesn’t specify k-12 or college), or be a high school graduate, or have a GED, or have been honorably discharged from the armed services;
  • have not been convicted of “a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses” or pose “a threat to national security or public safety”;
  • be 30 years old or younger.

Individuals who meet these criteria almost certainly will not be deported. They will not immediately be granted any “substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship” because, in a rare moment of modesty, Napolitano acknowledges the administration can’t go that far in changing the law. But nor can we rule out such a development in the future.

What the administration has done here is short-circuit the legislative process and make a mockery of the idea that he wants to reach compromises with those who think differently about immigration policy.

You may recall that Congress had a heated debate about the DREAM Act, which would have granted a path to citizenship to almost the exact same pool of illegal immigrants. Now, there’s no question the path to citizenship element is a big difference between the two. But nor can anyone deny that Congress, as is its prerogative, has been debating how to change the legal approach to people who were brought to the United States as children — immigrants who arguably did not make the decision to come here illegally and might well be foreigners in their own birth countries if they’ve spent most of their lives here.

There is some sympathy among many conservatives for these child immigrants. But there is also debate about how to make such a policy change without creating an incentive for more illegal immigration. In fact, that is the biggest problem many conservatives — including yours truly — have with making such a policy change. That’s why you hear us talking about making the border more secure first, so that any kind of leniency for illegal immigrants already here does not lead to large number of new illegal immigrants.

With this decision, the Obama administration is dismissing those legitimate concerns. It is antagonizing its critics, who might have helped foster a compromise. And it is undercutting the very notion of a compromise, by taking what it wants without addressing what the other side wants.

Imagine if the president could unilaterally decree higher taxes, and then told conservatives, “OK, now I’ll be happy to talk about spending.” He would have no credibility, because he would already have gotten what he wanted without having to give in on anything.

That’s what’s happened here.

Then there are the details about the policy. Someone who came from Mexico to the U.S. a month before his 16th birthday and is now 21 cannot in any sense be described as someone who knows “only this country as home,” as Napolitano’s memo puts it. These kinds of thresholds for deciding when the law of the land should be ignored are more properly debated in Congress than decreed by an administration. Yes, the memo only grants discretion and doesn’t require it, but it also makes clear a strong preference for ignoring these “low priority cases.”

And let’s not pretend this policy is totally unrelated to this fall’s election. It’s not only brazen pandering to a group whose votes Obama needs desperately, but it is made at the same time his administration is fighting voter ID laws that would prevent, or at least sharply curb, any voting by illegal immigrants. (Apparently, the White House thinks you need to show an ID to listen to your president speak, but not to vote for him.)

Have other presidents single-handedly set policies their political opponents didn’t like? Of course. But most of them didn’t have the chutzpah to continue claiming, three and a half years into a very partisan presidency, that they really, really, really wanted to work with the other side of the aisle.

– By Kyle Wingfield

Find me on Facebook or follow me on Twitter

288 comments Add your comment

td

June 15th, 2012
11:58 am

Kyle,

Have you seen any polls on the age ranges in the Hispanic community that support Obama? I smell a big rat with this one.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

June 15th, 2012
12:02 pm

Obozo could have done this three years ago but waited until a few months before the election?

Feeling used yet, amigos?

Aquagirl

June 15th, 2012
12:04 pm

you may recall that Congress had a heated debate about the DREAM Act

C’mon, Kyle. Congress hasn’t done a thing about illegal immigration in years, they’re mired in their own idiocy and fear of the word compromise. The real world can’t wait forever.

Mr. Holmes

June 15th, 2012
12:05 pm

I know it just kills when doing the right thing also happens to be good politics. Alas, such is the case here. Cry me a river, Kyle.

ragnar danneskjold

June 15th, 2012
12:08 pm

I am a conservative who believes Congress is incompetent to set quotas for immigration. (Actually Congress is incompetent for almost every element of economic management, and immigration is merely one of those.) There are several law-related areas ancillary to immigration well within the purview of Congressional remedy, but our vacuous leader has stumbled into a rational solution to the irrational legislative problem.

the cat

June 15th, 2012
12:09 pm

Well done Mr. President. Obama 2012

GT

June 15th, 2012
12:12 pm

You sure you want to use the word pandering? Romney has a base most of us and them believe he is physically opposed to, yet he entertains to get their money and their vote. Now that he passes the speed bumps of the primary he, Romney, now is ,as you say, pandering to the Latino voter.

I would say Obama is representing his natural constituency. These people voted for him in the last election and now will vote for him in this one. Why should he cross an aisle to compromise with a group of people on a subject that they are out of touch with the rest of America on. Why does all the compromise have to come from O, these people can’t think of a compromise themselves?

td

June 15th, 2012
12:15 pm

Aquagirl

June 15th, 2012
12:04 pm

“The real world can’t wait forever.”

So your answer is that one person can unilaterally can change the law of the nation without the votes of the Congress. Sounds a little like you are supporting a dictatorship to me. I think I will remember this when Romney is President and we ask him to unilaterally outlaw abortion (in the name of protecting human life) due to the precedents Obama has established.

td

June 15th, 2012
12:17 pm

GT

June 15th, 2012
12:12 pm

“I would say Obama is representing his natural constituency. These people voted for him in the last election and now will vote for him in this one.”

Yes we know illegals voted for Obama in the last election and with the actions of Holder will be able to go to the polls and vote for him again this year.

iggy

June 15th, 2012
12:17 pm

” I would say Obama is representing his natural constituency”

Yes he certainly is. That constituency being, for the most part, scofflaws, excuse makers, pilferers and last but certainly not least the “lowest common denominator.”

Darwin

June 15th, 2012
12:18 pm

So, it’s once again hooray for a do nothing Congress?

BuckeyeinGa

June 15th, 2012
12:18 pm

This will definitely help in states like Az and Co. smart move

Aquagirl

June 15th, 2012
12:19 pm

So your answer is that one person can unilaterally can change the law of the nation without the votes of the Congress

Nobody’s changed the law. But please continue with your drama queen meltdown, a lot of folks seem to be enjoying their hysteria.

Manchurian-Kenyan Candidate

June 15th, 2012
12:19 pm

There’s a very simple reason why Obama came up with this

…..now he won’t be forced to deport himself!!!

td

June 15th, 2012
12:20 pm

Mr. Holmes

June 15th, 2012
12:05 pm

“I know it just kills when doing the right thing”

Explain to us all how allowing people to cross the border illegally be rewarded for their actions while there are millions of others in the world that have done everything the right way and are waiting to come here legally is the “right thing” to do?

Rick in Grayson

June 15th, 2012
12:21 pm

TD, you are correct that Obama is now setting precedents that increase the power of the Presidency in ways that would sadden our founding fathers and wreck havoc with the checks and balances they established for our Republic.

Manchurian-Kenyan Candidate

June 15th, 2012
12:21 pm

just having fun…..seriously, sounds like an act of desperation to me. He will lose some independant and black votes on this one.

But I’m sure Axelrod had Ayers, Rev Wright, and “Native American” Sen. Warren do the math before he announced this…

Mr. Holmes

June 15th, 2012
12:22 pm

And the president, of course, is changing no law unilaterally. He is merely establishing enforcement priorities of existing laws, which is entirely within his prerogative. The immigrants covered under this action still have no path to citizenship and can be summarily deported if & when the GOP next elects a president.

Romney’s response to this will be quite telling. I’d be willing to bet a large sum that it focuses near-exclusively on the “dictatorial” manner in which it was done and says nothing or next to nothing about the practical effect.

getalife

June 15th, 2012
12:22 pm

It was rubio’s idea so willard will have to agree.

td

June 15th, 2012
12:23 pm

Aquagirl

June 15th, 2012
12:19 pm

“Nobody’s changed the law. But please continue with your drama queen meltdown, a lot of folks seem to be enjoying their hysteria.”

Please show us all in the US code section where the following is the law:

have entered the country before turning 16;
have been in the country for at least five years and still be here;
be in school (the memo doesn’t specify k-12 or college), or be a high school graduate, or have a GED, or have been honorably discharged from the armed services;
have not been convicted of “a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses” or pose “a threat to national security or public safety”;
be 30 years old or younger.

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

June 15th, 2012
12:23 pm

Imagine if the president could unilaterally decree higher taxes, and then told conservatives, “OK, now I’ll be happy to talk about spending.”

Hey, can we do that too???

Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy

June 15th, 2012
12:24 pm

I wish I were surprised at this unbridled attempt to usurp legislative powers, but the man has repeatedly said, that the Congress holds him back from the “progress” he can bring to America. It is not the first time he has increased the powers of his office, with no push back from the legislative branch, and will not be the last.

There are suits against him for violating the first amendment as pertains to religion. The congress should again sue him and let the Supremes sort this out. He does not have the authority to change US law at will.

He dreams, speaking of Wet-Dream Act, of having dictatorial powers, so when Hugo goes in Venezuela maybe he can step in down there, assuming we throw him out up here.

Manchurian-Kenyan Candidate

June 15th, 2012
12:26 pm

@Finn….”Hey, can we do that too???”

Sorry Finn, you can move to Venezuela if you like that approach. But that might not last much longer since Chavez if at the footsteps of purgatory…so you’d better move quick

Mr. Holmes

June 15th, 2012
12:27 pm

Explain to us all how allowing people to cross the border illegally be rewarded for their actions while there are millions of others in the world that have done everything the right way and are waiting to come here legally is the “right thing” to do?

It’s because for a significant portion of these people, they were brought here as children and subsequently built a life and can contribute to society just like anyone else. Deporting them would be destroying that life because of a decision made by their parents, not them. Kyle’s example of someone coming “a month shy of his 16th birthday” is typical right-wing “throw the baby out with the bathwater” approach of trying to invalidate any sort of social compassion based on perceived abuses by a relative few. There are hundreds of thousands of people who were brought here as small children and remained–and you know it just as well as i do.

If throwing them out is your idea of “right,” you’re welcome to it, sir. It is not mine.

catlady

June 15th, 2012
12:28 pm

I’d like to talk about how Reagan changed immigration policy by opening the floodgates. I’d also like to talk about Shrub’s “signing statements.” THEN, we will talk about this.

iggy

June 15th, 2012
12:31 pm

Just more excuses. These adult-children, who prompted all this whining, should be tossed out along with the entire family.

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

June 15th, 2012
12:32 pm

Yes we know illegals voted for Obama in the last election

LOL, people who are scared to death of getting deported are going to risk standing in line to vote? In a room filled with hateful old white people with badges and authority?

60% of those who CAN vote don’t even bother but these folks who are banned from it are gonna risk it all out of their love for Obama?

Mwuahahahahahaha. Keep drinking the Hannity kool aid. You folks are really brainwashed.

Aquagirl

June 15th, 2012
12:33 pm

td, I’m sure you were straining for a point there but your question makes no sense. There is no law saying “have entered the country before turning 16.” There’s usually a SUBJECT in there. I’m sure there’s one in your mind but unfortunately it didn’t make it into your post.

Kyle’s last post was about prosecutorial discretion and oddly enough the resident cons here seemed in favor of the concept. Nobody thought our Republic would collapse as a result. I must complement some of y’all on such a quick 180 spin.

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

June 15th, 2012
12:34 pm

What do we do with the remains of those who served in the military and died doing it? We deport that part too?

ByteMe

June 15th, 2012
12:34 pm

If you want an example of why conservatives don’t believe President Obama’s overtures about working with them, and why he actually is making partisanship worse in this country while he claims to want the opposite

So remind me again about what Republican policy is toward immigration and how they’re open to compromise…?

Takes two to tango. Obama has no one on the other side to work with, so he does what he can for our country without any help from the disloyal and unpatriotic opposition.

So Kyle did you complain publicly when the Bush administration failed to enforce the LAWS about bank deposit leveraging that the SEC chose not to enforce in 2004-2006? Did you claim they were ignoring or rewriting the law? Or is this just another example of your selective outrage?

ByteMe

June 15th, 2012
12:35 pm

Kyle’s last post was about prosecutorial discretion and oddly enough the resident cons here seemed in favor of the concept. Nobody thought our Republic would collapse as a result. I must complement some of y’all on such a quick 180 spin.

This.

The lack of self-awareness by those with ODS is not surprising.

commoncents

June 15th, 2012
12:36 pm

Once again, there goes Obama acting “stupidly”

Kyle Wingfield

June 15th, 2012
12:37 pm

Mr. Holmes @ 12:27: I’m not the one who set the bar at age 16. If the bar were set at, say, age 10 with five years residency, it would be a completely different discussion.

Which, again, is why the changes should be made legislatively. It’s messier, it’s slower, it’s more frustrating for a lot of people. But our system is not designed for neat, fast changes to the law.

Kyle Wingfield

June 15th, 2012
12:38 pm

Aquagirl @ 12:33: Actually, I expressly said the last post was not about prosecutorial discretion: “For a moment, let’s play lawmaker instead of lawyer or law enforcer. ”

Some people might have ignored that part of the post, but that’s not how I framed it.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

June 15th, 2012
12:41 pm

Three-plus years of 8-10% unemployment

$1.5 trillion deficits every year

$6 billion in new debt

Record numbers on the dole

$800 billion wasted on non-stimulus

And the private sector is doing just fine

Everything that came before this post is merely meant to distract Americans from the disaster that is the Obozo regime.

Eyes on the prize, Americans, and like-minded patriotic Democrats.

Mr. Holmes

June 15th, 2012
12:41 pm

Kyle: Do we consider 16-year-olds to be minors in this country, yes or no?

If you think there are marauding bands of quinceaneros crossing the river and risking their lives in massive numbers, you’re no more rational than most of the Righties who post on this board.

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

June 15th, 2012
12:41 pm

Y’all just chill. We can modify the law after the election……

commoncents

June 15th, 2012
12:42 pm

Mr Holmes @ 12:27 – “It’s because for a significant portion of these people, they were brought here as children and subsequently built a life and can contribute to society just like anyone else. Deporting them would be destroying that life because of a decision made by their parents, not them. Kyle’s example of someone coming “a month shy of his 16th birthday” is typical right-wing “throw the baby out with the bathwater” approach of trying to invalidate any sort of social compassion based on perceived abuses by a relative few. There are hundreds of thousands of people who were brought here as small children and remained–and you know it just as well as i do.”

If that’s your arguement, wouldn’t you have rather supported a law (or a change in how a law is prescribed) that deals with just those who came here at a very young age and don’t know their actual home? Kyle’s example shows how Obama’s proposal is just a blanket statement meant to attract new voters, not actually correct the system.

You would think that a good president would at least have good proposals… Obama is just saying what he can to build support before the election, regardless if it’s actually a good idea

Kyle Wingfield

June 15th, 2012
12:42 pm

ByteMe @ 12:34: Here we go with the “disloyal and unpatriotic” rubbish. Obama and the Dems won’t give in, they’re being good little politicians; Republicans won’t give in, they’re the bad boys and girls…

Spare me.

As for your question: As you well know, I wasn’t writing about that topic back then and have no articles on the subject to show you. So I could say right now that I did complain about it privately at the time, and you wouldn’t believe me anyway. That’s why I don’t engage in these games about proving what I thought years ago.

I have the track record I have, and it gets longer and covers more topics every day.

Old Timer

June 15th, 2012
12:43 pm

It appears that Obama does not need an elected Congress. As of today, dictator style, he has made another one of his own rules, this time, regarding illegal aliens getting to stay to vote for him ala Bill Clinton style. Adding to his list of “my own Obama rules.” Next on his list is to bow to Putin again in a few weeks over Syria.
Why do we even need Wasshington?

Manchurian-Kenyan Candidate

June 15th, 2012
12:44 pm

Agree, Lil Barry

Instead of having to defend his economic achievements(pun intended), Barry is saying “Look! …a spider on the wall!”

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

June 15th, 2012
12:45 pm

That constituency being, for the most part, scofflaws, excuse makers, pilferers and last but certainly not least the “lowest common denominator.”

and eagle scouts, and christians, and deacons, and girl scouts, and social workers, and car salesmen, and analysts, and computer nerds, and CEO’s, and teachers, and perverts, and union members, and wall street traders. Pretty much the WHOLE gamut.

All except for that little sliver of idiots who watch Fox News.

Kyle Wingfield

June 15th, 2012
12:45 pm

Mr. Holmes: You’re missing the point. The point is that this kind of policy is justified in large part because children who are brought here by adults at a young age and are mostly raised here would be strangers in a strange land if they were taken back to their birthplaces. I get that. But the policy is overly broad when it also covers the kind of person I gave in my earlier example. Details matter.

commoncents

June 15th, 2012
12:45 pm

Kyle: Do we consider 16-year-olds to be minors in this country, yes or no?

Depends on what they are doing…

Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy

June 15th, 2012
12:47 pm

Byteme

Prosecutorial discretion is something to be used on an individual basis.

Laws should be changed, if there is a need to use discretion on thousands of cases. We pick and choose which laws to enforce and when, then we can not understand why respect for law and order is non existent.

There is a process that we go through to change laws, not publish a fiat.

It scares me to think how bold Barry is going to be after the election, when he has a little more room to operate, as he says. It is going to take years to restore the damage he has already done to the country, if he is reelected, we may not live long enough.

JDW

June 15th, 2012
12:48 pm

@Kyle…”Of course. But most of them didn’t have the chutzpah to continue claiming, three and a half years into a very partisan presidency, that they really, really, really wanted to work with the other side of the aisle.”

O’ HORSE HOOEY…it’s more like “after three and a half years of watching the other side try to do nothing but act as a barrier the President has chosen to use (at long last) the tools at his disposal”.

There are ramifications to being the PARTY OF NO. Now should the Republicans want to talk, well they know the address. Of course after Boehner’s last try my guess is he isn’t coming back until some of those Tea Partiers go home.

Mr. Holmes

June 15th, 2012
12:49 pm

And I love all the hand-wringing about not having taken this action “legislatively,” as if the folks in Congress have been soooo willing to work with this president on ANYTHING, much less something as politically charged as immigration. News flash: Sometimes governments have to actually govern, but the Right tends to forget this when the other side has the White House.

Obama spent 3+ years trying again and again to work with these people to actually move legislation forward. But no. The decision was that even a functioning government–regardless of its results–would be interpreted positively, and so the GOP has done everything in its power to bring things to a crashing halt.

The guy in the WaPost actually had a valid point the other day when he said that even if you disagree with every single one of Romney’s policies, his election might be better for the country because then the Republicans would not be tempted to drive us off a cliff. I truly believe the GOP would rather see national chaos and insurrection than an Obama second term.

Kyle Wingfield

June 15th, 2012
12:50 pm

JDW: If a party that doesn’t go along with what the other party wants is the PARTY OF NO, then I guess we have two PARTIES OF NO.

Old Timer

June 15th, 2012
12:51 pm

Kyle–true, but is is for congress to deciide, not Barry the one man show.

JDW

June 15th, 2012
12:51 pm

@Kyle…BTW where were you when Duhbya used signing statements 750+ times to in an attempt to nullify legal restrictions on his actions in legislation?

Kyle Wingfield

June 15th, 2012
12:52 pm

getalife @ 12:22: And here’s Rubio’s statement on the administration’s move, which is more or less what I wrote.

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

June 15th, 2012
12:52 pm

Boehner’s not willing to talk with Obama. He gets his rear end handed to him by his own party just by looking in the general direction of the white house.

Short leash they got on that one. The Weeper of the House.

Kyle Wingfield

June 15th, 2012
12:52 pm

Old Timer @ 12:51: Isn’t that what I wrote?

JDW

June 15th, 2012
12:53 pm

@Kyle…”then I guess we have two PARTIES OF NO”

Nope we have one PARTY OF NO and one party that’s tired of waiting for them.

Kyle Wingfield

June 15th, 2012
12:53 pm

JDW: See the latter part of my 12:42 to ByteMe.

Thomas Heyward Jr.

June 15th, 2012
12:55 pm

True lovers of freedom would insist that ALL Americans be treated…………………..exactly the same as “illegal aliens”.
.
eff your silly “papers”.
.
Alas………the Ron Paul army is surrounded by effiminate Metro/Federo Sexuals who crave attention from the likes of Romney, Obama, and Barney Frank.
.
But we grow.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

June 15th, 2012
12:55 pm

Mr. Holmes: Sometimes governments have to actually govern, but the Right tends to forget this when the other side has the White House.
———

I think what you’re referring to is akin to martial law. Or did you miss the whole thing about the three branches of government and checks and balances?

You Democrats are turning into good little fascists.

ralston

June 15th, 2012
12:55 pm

In the 80s, My dad and I used to be pro-Reagan , tried and true conservatives. Now, some 30 years later, both of us have got smarter, i.e. became Democrats.

Mr. Holmes

June 15th, 2012
12:56 pm

I understand your point, Kyle, and I fully admit that the decision to extend the age bar to 16-year-olds (who would now be much older and who likely have lots of friends who vote) is completely political. What I reject is your notion that the Right would have treated this any differently had the age been 10. Whatever Obama does, the kneejerk response from the Fox News crowd is “Tyranny!” and you know it.

Kyle Wingfield

June 15th, 2012
12:56 pm

JDW @ 12:53: What doesn’t get through your partisan lens is that some of us feel exactly the same about the Dems. The Dems are the PARTY OF NO when it comes to real spending cuts. They’re the PARTY OF NO when it comes to realistically addressing runaway entitlement spending. They’re the PARTY OF NO when it comes to strengthening border enforcement. They’re the PARTY OF NO when it comes to reassessing whether some regulations are overly burdensome to business. They’re the PARTY OF NO when it comes to passing a budget.

And so on.

JDW

June 15th, 2012
12:56 pm

@Kyle…”As you well know, I wasn’t writing about that topic back then and have no articles on the subject to show you.”

See thats kind of the point…you weren’t writing about it. Why?

Carol

June 15th, 2012
12:56 pm

You people complaining about this law don’t understand how much joy and hope it gives to a person, such as myself, who was brought here at the age of 3. You don’t get to come and stay here by choice in a situation like mine. But you grow to love the country you’re in and see it as home. I don’t look at my birth country as home. I have no desire to go back. But I’ve been living here with limited freedom and still working as hard as an American Citizen should. I teared up hearing this news. I’ve waited 13 years for a chance like this. I hope it works out for me and everyone else who deserves this opportunity.

ByteMe

June 15th, 2012
12:57 pm

This was a doubly clever move by the Obama administration. Over and above the obvious appeal to a key constituency, the policy here mimics, I assume intentionally, what Republicans claim they want to adopt in a scaled-down version of the DREAM Act. But for Republicans, embracing Obama’s move carries the same risk with their base as rejecting it does with immigrants – the voting bloc they’re most concerned about alienating. A hunch: prepare yourself for a deluge of condemnations of executive-branch overreach, paired with real reluctance to say anything meaningful about what the directive actually accomplishes.

This ^^^ as well. (from Talkingpointsmemo.com)

And, Kyle, the rubbish is the same nonsense Republicans love to throw at Democrats and “Libruls”. You just don’t like it when you’re the target and neither do I. Get your blog citizens to stop and I will as well.

As for what you complained about privately, actually, if you said you had, I would believe you. Most likely, though, you were as blissfully unaware of the policy change as the rest of the country was.

But that’s the interesting thing about it: we can be upset about it, but it’s still up to the Executive Branch to uphold the laws they want to uphold. Elections have consequences. Would the government have imposed illegal (and top secret) wiretaps under a Gore administration? Hard to be sure, but it’s hard to see how Gore would have been manipulated by a couple of insiders into attacking the wrong country or doing “extra-legal” things, given that he spent 8 years as VP. Would we have bombed Iran or put boots on the ground in Somalia under a McCain administration? Probably, given his disposition.

Complain… or win the election and give cover to your team when they do something like this.

Illegal Alien

June 15th, 2012
12:57 pm

Other than the political aspect, what’s bad about this?

Congress wouldn’t have addressed this anymore than in the past.

I constantly see articles about employers not being able to find qualified workers. If an unemployed person really wanted to work, they could find a job even if they had to swallow some of their pride.

td

June 15th, 2012
12:58 pm

Mr. Holmes

June 15th, 2012
12:41 pm

Your compassion argument blows up when you look at the criteria. If the kid is under 30 and a HS dropout and did not get his/her GED then they can be deported. Why is it that only the educated can stay and not everyone?

Kyle Wingfield

June 15th, 2012
12:59 pm

Thomas Heyward Jr.: Perhaps the Ron Paul army should brush up on what Ron Paul actually advocates.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

June 15th, 2012
1:00 pm

Kyle Wingfield
June 15th, 2012
12:56 pm
————–

Smackdown complete.

ByteMe

June 15th, 2012
1:01 pm

The Dems are the PARTY OF NO when it comes to real spending cuts. They’re the PARTY OF NO when it comes to realistically addressing runaway entitlement spending. They’re the PARTY OF NO when it comes to strengthening border enforcement.

Wow. So much wrong in one short burst.

So who signed off on the automatic sequestration cuts the House Republicans are trying to get out of?

So who wanted to pay for doctors to spend time with patients getting their end-of-life directives, a cost-effective way to lower Medicare costs… and who called them “death panels”?

So who has deported more illegals and built more fence… Obama or Bush?

Kyle Wingfield

June 15th, 2012
1:01 pm

Mr. Holmes: No, I don’t know that. Rubio has proposed something similar to what Obama did, but he explains very well why the way it is done is important.

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

June 15th, 2012
1:02 pm

The Dems are the PARTY OF NO when it comes to real spending cuts.

Yeah, just look at that long list of cuts listed in Ryan’s budget……oh wait, there aren’t any specific ones in there, right?

I guess the Democrats are THE PARTY OF NO phantom fiscal cuts!

JDW

June 15th, 2012
1:03 pm

@Kyle…HORSE HOOEY

“The Dems are the PARTY OF NO when it comes to real spending cuts.”

And yet Obama and Boehner worked out a $4 Trillion dollar deal that the Tea Party peed all over

“They’re the PARTY OF NO when it comes to realistically addressing runaway entitlement spending.”

And yet it has been said consistently that when revenue is on the table so are entitlements…hello Grover you home…

“They’re the PARTY OF NO when it comes to strengthening border enforcement.”

And yet untold billions have been poured into that very thing.

“They’re the PARTY OF NO when it comes to reassessing whether some regulations are overly burdensome to business.”

And yet there is a major project underway today at the direction of the President in EVERY agency to do just that.

“They’re the PARTY OF NO when it comes to passing a budget.”

It takes two to tango…I believe the President submitted one and Congress has taken no substantive action to reach any agreement.

Kyle Wingfield

June 15th, 2012
1:04 pm

JDW @ 12:56: Because my job during his first term was covering education and courts in Alabama, and during the second term it was covering European affairs in Brussels (I got there about two weeks after Election Day 2004).

I might as well ask why you weren’t preventing steroid use in baseball during the late 1990s.

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

June 15th, 2012
1:04 pm

Carol, above, just put another nail in the Romnay campaign coffin.

ByteMe

June 15th, 2012
1:06 pm

Because my job during his first term was covering education and courts in Alabama, and during the second term it was covering European affairs in Brussels (I got there about two weeks after Election Day 2004).

On a slow day, you should talk about that transition some. I know I’d find it really interesting.

Mr. Holmes

June 15th, 2012
1:07 pm

Kyle: That statement doesn’t do anything to support your point, which was that the problem is the age limit. You said yourself that if the age limit had been 10 then “it’s a completely different discussion.”

Just like I predicted we’ll get from Romney, Rubio’s reaction says nothing about the practical effects of the decision–indeed, it implicitly supports those effects–and focuses on the DREADED TYRANNY.

Oh the horror! And me without my smelling salts…

JDW

June 15th, 2012
1:07 pm

@Kyle..what you mean the Europeans didn’t care :lol:

I’ll give you that one…as for the steroids I was in London in the late 1990’s. My job was the Cricketers. Did well too!

Aquagirl

June 15th, 2012
1:07 pm

Actually, I expressly said the last post was not about prosecutorial discretion

Point taken Kyle….but I don’t recall a single post that advocated actually changing the law. So while I acknowledge you may not approve of prosecutorial discretion, a large number of posters explicitly said they do. Unless the prosecution is something they like, then they’re all for lowering the boom and screeching about the sanctity of law.

Quite a nest of hypocrites you have here. Someone had to point it out.

Kyle Wingfield

June 15th, 2012
1:12 pm

The sequestration bill was a perfect example of the meaningless bipartisanship I was talking about the other day. Both sides agreed to it, and then both sides began to try to dismantle it.

What Sec. Def. Leon Panetta said about it earlier this month:

“Sequester is not a real crisis, it’s an artificial crisis,” Panetta said. Both parties in Congress recognize that doubling cuts to the nation’s defense budget would be a disaster, he added. “I know of no Republican, no Democrat, who believes that should happen,” the secretary said.

The GOP went along with it because it had backed itself into a corner on the issue of the debt ceiling and — unlike what some people want to believe — wasn’t actually willing to withhold the new borrowing authority. Agreeing to what both sides knew to be fake cuts was a face-saving exercise.

Kyle Wingfield

June 15th, 2012
1:14 pm

ByteMe @ 1:06: Maybe I’ll give that a shot sometime.

GT

June 15th, 2012
1:14 pm

I think you will see a lot more of this unilateral decision making. I and many have wondered why it hasn’t been used before, but now see his brilliance. I imagine a lot on the right still don’t see it which will even make it more effective, but his timing is absolutely perfect. It is a little like the gay marriage endorsement. It all discribes Romney more than it does O. Some in the middle forget who this guy Romney is with his pointing at his opponent and giving them so little about himself.

dbetzel

June 15th, 2012
1:16 pm

Mr. Holmes,
So, if I bring my child to your house, I can just leave them there for you to feed indefinitely? This selective adherence to the application of law is not only unconstitutional (someone should actually read the 14th amendment), but it sends a CLEAR message to anyone that wants to skip the border. (BTW, what burdern of proof do they have to make to show that they came here UNDER 16? If we can’t seem to track those that are here, how the hell can we tell when they got here?).

iggy

June 15th, 2012
1:18 pm

“Y’all just chill. We can modify the law after the election……”

Agreed. Im sure President Romney will have something palatable to both sides of the aisle.

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

June 15th, 2012
1:21 pm

Glenn Greenwald explains the importance of political pressure – first the LGBT’s and now the immigrants.

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/15/the_imperative_of_political_pressure/

excellent article

Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!

June 15th, 2012
1:22 pm

“I would say Obama is representing his natural constituency.”

Lawbreakers? :)

iggy

June 15th, 2012
1:23 pm

Carol

June 15th, 2012
12:56 pm

Cry me a river.

This sword cuts both ways. My girlfriend and her parents, sisters, who are from the Dominican Republic took the proper path to citizenship and who became citizens, are outraged with this idea. Rest assured, this latest placating move by The Kenyan will split the democratic hispanic vote. The hispanics which are currently GOP will stay.

The Kenyan does it to himself again!!

Mr. Holmes

June 15th, 2012
1:23 pm

The GOP went along with it because it had backed itself into a corner on the issue of the debt ceiling and — unlike what some people want to believe — wasn’t actually willing to withhold the new borrowing authority.

A fair post on sham “bipartisanship” as evidenced by the sequestration charade. It’s just kick the can, except it’s still a net win for the GOP because, while neither side wants to cut defense, the Right really, reeeeeeally wants those social spending cuts. Both sides may laugh and say they were just kidding about taking away DoD’s candy, but the Repubs are dead serious on the other stuff. So the end debate will be about how much of the Dems’ priorities to cut.

And I wish I could believe you on the statement above, except we had actually sitting U.S. congressmen advocating for a national debt default. What, they were just pandering? We’ll get to see here pretty soon, won’t we?

BW

June 15th, 2012
1:25 pm

Kyle

The only way things apparently are going to be definitively decided in the legislative branch is through one party control which the American people will or will not approve in the elections in November. If the voting populace feels the President oversteps his bounds then he will be judged accordingly. The balance of powers argument is maddening considering the legislative branch has been slowly abdicating its legislative responsibility since the Vietnam War in regards to the executive branch’s powers. You could argue that one group of one side is there simply to dismantle legislation that has already passed seeing as government is always the problem. The lower house of Congress could pass a bill addressing all your concerns tomorrow and it could probably even pass in the upper house but my argument is that both sides only wish to engage in zero sum games. They are truly not committed to working on the problems they were sent to address. Continuing to deflect in an attempt to prove one side is the worst ever is simply ridiculous. Maybe one day there can be a nuanced conversation about the hard stuff, such as the one you suggest on immigration, but sadly that day is nowhere near.

JDW

June 15th, 2012
1:27 pm

@Kyle…”The sequestration bill was a perfect example of the meaningless bipartisanship I was talking about the other day. Both sides agreed to it, and then both sides began to try to dismantle it.”

Yes it is, but fact is it was done when there was no other choice after the Tea Partiers rebelled against the agreement Obama and Boehner worked out. While both agreed the Tea Partiers made it necessary.

Further to the point now it is the Republicans that refuse to engage and continue to create this mass of uncertainty that is crippling us all.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/15/news/economy/sequester/index.htm?source=cnn_bin

Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!

June 15th, 2012
1:27 pm

““They’re the PARTY OF NO when it comes to reassessing whether some regulations are overly burdensome to business.”

And yet there is a major project underway today at the direction of the President in EVERY agency to do just that.”

It takes more than 3 years to figure out which regulations hurt job creation? What about Valerie “We’re ready to rule day one” Jarrett?

Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!

June 15th, 2012
1:30 pm

I suspect this will become another instance where the Supremes will have to be called in to curb this President’s lawlessness and disregard for the constitutional balance of power.

Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy

June 15th, 2012
1:32 pm

I sure hope that after President Romney is sworn in, all these libs who complain about how the other party has obstructed the grand mission of our dear leader, will jump up and caution the Dems in Congress to go along with President Romney. After all he will have won, and therefore gets to decide how we do things in America. Whatever Romney wants the Dems should support.

I’m afraid they will oppose Romney more viciously than they did GWB and use the excuse, that is what the GOP did to Barry. Hypocrites all!

tiredofIT

June 15th, 2012
1:32 pm

“Feeling used yet, amigos?”

Sorta of like Bush and the Evangelicals

Stephen Gyamfi

June 15th, 2012
1:34 pm

In the absence of cooperation from congress to work on needed immigration issues, President Obama does not have any choice but to move the nation forward, i.e. unilaterally make changes to immigration laws as his position allows him to. You’ve got a Republican congress that is hell-bent in denying Obama of any legislative success regardless of the merit of the case.

Bobby

June 15th, 2012
1:37 pm

Once again President Obama has done what is correct and right. Congratulations to President Obama to stand up against the right wingers in this Country.

Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!

June 15th, 2012
1:38 pm

“In the absence of cooperation from congress to work on needed immigration issues, President Obama does not have any choice but to move the nation forward, i.e. unilaterally make changes to immigration laws as his position allows him to.”

The U.S. Constitution suggests otherwise, Stephen.

His job, if he wishes to have policies enacted, is to propose some that actually have a chance to be approved by both sides. If not, he gets gridlock. That is HIS fault, not the Republicans in Congress.

iggy

June 15th, 2012
1:38 pm

Finn, I regret to inform you, that for the cause of the Common Good Im forced to place, yet another, frowny face beside your name on the Employee of The Day Calendar. :(

tkeen

June 15th, 2012
1:38 pm

JDW

June 15th, 2012
1:03 pm
@Kyle…HORSE HOOEY

“The Dems are the PARTY OF NO when it comes to real spending cuts.”

And yet Obama and Boehner worked out a $4 Trillion dollar deal that the Tea Party peed all over

“They’re the PARTY OF NO when it comes to realistically addressing runaway entitlement spending.”

And yet it has been said consistently that when revenue is on the table so are entitlements…hello Grover you home…

“They’re the PARTY OF NO when it comes to strengthening border enforcement.”

And yet untold billions have been poured into that very thing.

“They’re the PARTY OF NO when it comes to reassessing whether some regulations are overly burdensome to business.”

And yet there is a major project underway today at the direction of the President in EVERY agency to do just that.

“They’re the PARTY OF NO when it comes to passing a budget.”

It takes two to tango…I believe the President submitted one and Congress has taken no substantive action to reach any agreement.

***************************
Gee, I guess somebody didn’t read the news when the President’s budget was soundly voted down, he even had ZERO votes from his own party; 97-0 in the Senate. And, pray tell, what entitlements are the Dems willing to cut or reduce??? Nothing. Anytime the Republicans mention it, the Dems whip out their “throwing grandma off a cliff” talking points and refuse to discuss it. I guess you are right, the Dems aren’t the party of “No”, they are the party of plug our ears and say “la la la la la” and hope it goes away. As for border control (or lack thereof)….let’s discuss the whole Fast and Furious program, shall we? In which Holder & Co gave guns to Mexican citizens, who then used said guns to kill border patrol agents. Or do you want to plug your ears and run away.

A Realist

June 15th, 2012
1:38 pm

Where have all ‘Compassionate Conservatives’ gone?

NO, kids don’t need healthcare, if they are sick, it’s their fault.
NO, if you parents brought you into this country as a child – it’s your fault, so just suffer.
NO, if the economy tanks, and you lose your job and house, it’s your fault. Deal with it.

Gimme a break! We used to NOT be a nation of hate… what have we become?

BW

June 15th, 2012
1:38 pm

Tiberius

Did I miss something? Did the President unilaterally change immigration law or did he simply issue a signing statement? Hyperbole from you and Kyle sometimes is a hoot.

Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!

June 15th, 2012
1:39 pm

I wonder if any on the left have ever read the Constitution in their lifetimes.

iggy

June 15th, 2012
1:41 pm

This latest move by The Kenyan, will do little to energize his base and imo will move more independents over to the, not to be confused with the silly television show, “Party of Law and Order” ie The GOP.

news2me

June 15th, 2012
1:43 pm

How sweet, Obama is pandering to entitled illegals who have grown up in this country learning how to lie and cheat from the very parents that brought them here. You get what you pay for, or pimp for votes. The apple won’t fall far from the tree, just wait and see.

I propose that we have an Illegal Alien Adoption Act, where those that openly support amnesty for Illegals must adopt and pay for their every need while they are overstaying their visit in our country. Illegla lovers need to put their money where their mouths are!

iggy

June 15th, 2012
1:44 pm

“Nation of Hate, Hate speech, hatuhs, hatin etc”

You guys are so 90’s with your tired ole expressions. Could you please toss out some new buzz words

tiredofIT

June 15th, 2012
1:44 pm

“Party of Law and Order” ie The GOP ——— Now that’s funny!

BW

June 15th, 2012
1:46 pm

iggy

I don’t care who you are….that’s funny!

Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy

June 15th, 2012
1:47 pm

Once again President Obama has done what is correct and right. Congratulations to President Obama to stand up against the right wingers in this Country.

So, Bobby, I take it that the Constitution and rule of law is not a big priority with you. Just stick it to the “right wingers”. If he declares himself “President for Life”, that will be OK as well? That would really show up those right wingers.

news2me

June 15th, 2012
1:47 pm

…. have not been convicted of “a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses” or pose “a threat to national security or public safety

LMAO! ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS fall under this category! They are ILLEGAL for pete’s sake!

iggy

June 15th, 2012
1:48 pm

“Now that’s funny!”

Maybe so but you wont be laughing come the Nov elections when the GOP take majorities in both houses and “Willard” takes the Presidential Oath of Office.

BW

June 15th, 2012
1:49 pm

Kyle

You have these people thinking that he actually changed immigration law….Bravo!

A Realist

June 15th, 2012
1:50 pm

OK, new buzz word – the GOP (and their FOX subsidiary) ought to relate to:
Vitriol

How about sputum – that fits many of the comments we hear.

When did people lose their compassion to engender political gain? So you put down one group, wrapping yourself in your personal interpretation of the Constitution… so it’s OK. After all, those people are some subhuman culture we don’t need anyway. And it’s not ‘me’ … so why should I worry or be concerned?

Wow….. somebody way down below is smiling bigtime!

BW

June 15th, 2012
1:50 pm

iggy

If that’s what America chooses….I have no problem with it….my vote is not changed on hyperbole or scary voices on a TV ad is what I’m trying to tell you

tiredofIT

June 15th, 2012
1:50 pm

“So, Bobby, I take it that the Constitution and rule of law is not a big priority with you.” As I remember it, Bush is the one that said it is ‘Just A Goddamned Piece Of Paper’

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a god-damned piece of paper!”

Euro206

June 15th, 2012
1:52 pm

I love it, now that this administration got tired of hoping and trying to deal with the folks on the other side of the table, they’re crying foul. Sick and tired of their garbage and their eagerness to watch the country’s people suffer only to have their wishlist check marked is a travesty and a disgrace to the people they supposedly represent. Then you have these so called journalists with the same ideals and and narrow mindedness to realize that we are a nation of immigrants and have been since it’s foundation. Why is it that most college educated Americans support this president and his views? That should give you a clue as to where this country is headed and the vision that it’s needed to continue to be a thriving nation with the contributions of millions of immigrants.

Mr. Holmes

June 15th, 2012
1:53 pm

How sweet, Obama is pandering to entitled illegals who have grown up in this country learning how to lie and cheat from the very parents that brought them here. You get what you pay for, or pimp for votes. The apple won’t fall far from the tree, just wait and see.

Man, I really wish I could figure out why the GOP has such trouble attracting the Hispanic vote. Because the rhetoric from the Right is so welcoming, and it’s always delivered in such a spirit of Christian love. Just one of those mysterious puzzles of life, I guess.

Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!

June 15th, 2012
1:54 pm

“So you put down one group, wrapping yourself in your personal interpretation of the Constitution”

What part of “Congress makes the laws” do you NOT understand, Realist?

Roekest

June 15th, 2012
1:54 pm

Let me guess: just another “evolution”?

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

June 15th, 2012
1:54 pm

This latest move by The Kenyan, will do little to energize his base

Yeah, just like those three moves for the LGBT crowd (DADT, DOMA, and Gay marriage) didn’t get most the gays to quiet down and start towing the line.

This will fire up the Hispanics! Some of them might even vote twice!

Old Timer

June 15th, 2012
1:54 pm

Kyle what Washington needs is the great FLUSH–vote them all out and watch the lobbyists panic. A fresh start couldn’t be any worse than what Washington has morphed into. Growing up I got paddled when I screwed up–nowadays instead of getting paddled they get hands slapped and consuling. When the entitlement crowd exceeds the taxpaying crowd the game is over regardless of what political party is in charge.. I am anxiously awaiting the Courts decision on Obama Care.–the next ax to fall.

iggy

June 15th, 2012
1:55 pm

Napoleonitano has a complex.

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

June 15th, 2012
1:55 pm

always delivered in such a spirit of Christian love

The meek shall inherit…my boot in their rears.

Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!

June 15th, 2012
1:56 pm

“we are a nation of immigrants and have been since it’s foundation.”

Yes. LEGAL immigrants.

“Why is it that most college educated Americans support this president and his views?”

The gross stupidity of the American electorate?

JF McNamara

June 15th, 2012
1:57 pm

Republicans should be happy. He’s solved this problem for you. Just shut up and accept the gift.

One of the biggest problems is that Republicans alienate Latinos with borderline (sometimes overt) racist talk on immigration and its going to affect you demographically in the future. If I were you, I would try to frame it as sensible legislation to a problem too big to solve. Claim victory in the fact that they don’t get citizenship and shut up about it.

This isn’t incentive. They are coming anyway and this is pretty much the policy we had before this announcement. It’s likely where Romney would have had to land anyway. You can’t deport all illegals.

Declare victory and move on.Getting hateful only weakens your position further.

iggy

June 15th, 2012
1:57 pm

“Yeah, just like those three moves for the LGBT crowd (DADT, DOMA, and Gay marriage) didn’t get most the gays to quiet down and start towing the line.”

That will not be enough to swing any State. Good thing I already gave you that frowny face … :(

BW

June 15th, 2012
1:57 pm

“Napoleonitano”

I’m borrowing that one…..that’s hilarious!

A Realist

June 15th, 2012
1:59 pm

Tiberius,
What I don’t understand is the hate of others that the GOP seems to have encouraged. That probably came out of their putting party in front of country in numerous statements (#1 job is to make president have a single term …etc.)

Obama has broken no laws….
Maybe you read the constitution for some other country….yes, that must be it. And if you say his is for the US constitution, you also have to look at all the myriad of court interpretations and opinions. There are lots of ‘em. Let us know when you finish reading.

Aquagirl

June 15th, 2012
2:00 pm

LMAO! ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS fall under this category!

Except…they don’t. If their parents brought them here then they guilty of only a civil penalty, not a criminal one.

Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!

June 15th, 2012
2:01 pm

A Constitutional decision allowing a President to unilaterally decide policy due to the inactivity of Congress will be impossible for you to find, Realist.

It doesn’t exist.

Jefferson

June 15th, 2012
2:02 pm

So what, other than whine are you going to do about it ? Congress is most of the problem.

iggy

June 15th, 2012
2:04 pm

A Realist

June 15th, 2012
2:04 pm

Tiberius
I’m not going to waste my time arguing….
There have been too many executive orders and signing statements in the past that have been held as valid.
Let’s see… who liked them so much….. was it… no…..W? Oooh! but we don’t count those, they were OK.

Mr. Holmes

June 15th, 2012
2:05 pm

Points to JF McNamara for one of the most sensible posts of the day. Except it ignores Guiding Principle #1 of the current GOP: If Obama does it, it must be tyranny.

The GOP leadership and their symbiotic brethren in the conservative media have whipped the base into such a lather over any Democratic president–who by definition must be illegitimate, since staunch conservatives are actually a majority of the country and not the 30-40% that polling shows them to be, and these folks who never legitimately elect a Democrat–that they must oppose everything said president does because it has to be illegal, immoral, unconstitutional and un-American. As was said by the gentleman replacing Dick Lugar on the Indiana’s Senate ballot this year said, “My idea of bipartisan is for Democrats to come around to the Republican way of thinking.”

Because THAT’S the way you run a country, folks.

A Realist

June 15th, 2012
2:07 pm

Nice comment Holmes…. as they say No S#%@ Sherlock!

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

June 15th, 2012
2:08 pm

Romney is out of his league. The same election machine that defeated the Clinton election machine is way too much for this rich kid who has never really had to fight for anything.

And, yes, you can include those 4 Vietnam deferments as examples of that inability to put up a fight.

ND

June 15th, 2012
2:11 pm

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/15/from-day-one.html

They were not necessarily the party’s official leaders, but they were the emotional leaders of the new breed–Jim DeMint, Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy–which is to say, the cohort to whom many others were looking for leadership; indeed, if you know anything about Mitch McConnell, to whom the leadership was looking for leadership. They talked for four hours about what their posture should be.

They agreed that night: oppose everything in completely unity. Show, Draper writes, “united and unyielding opposition to the president’s economic policies.”

So, before President Obama had proposed a single idea, the Republicans had already decided that they would oppose everything he did.

But sure, Obama is the one making partisanship worse in this country.

Curious

June 15th, 2012
2:12 pm

Posted this on another blog.

Too bad we didn’t have this means of “discussion” back in the 50’s.

The topic would’ve been integration and the conservatives (Southern Democrats, at that time) would’ve been foaming at the mouth about how it was going to destroy the country.

Heck, go back to the 40’s when Truman integrated the military. Same reaction then.

When our grandchildren (great grandchildren in my case) grow up, they’ll look back and wonder how stupid could we have been.

Latinos are here, they aren’t going away. DEAL WITH IT!

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

June 15th, 2012
2:13 pm

Google Translate says that the word for Hispanics who support Obozo is “tonto”.

ND

June 15th, 2012
2:14 pm

And let’s be real, notwithstanding the intentionally misleading headline, the administration is not “changing the law”. They are choosing not to enforce the law. That is a significant difference.

Peadawg

June 15th, 2012
2:17 pm

“the administration is not “changing the law”. They are choosing not to enforce the law. That is a significant difference.”

You’re right. I would stick w/ ‘changing the law’. It sounds much better.

stevie ray

June 15th, 2012
2:19 pm

Typical move by President Trillions…all carrot and no stick…at least his position on illegal immigration is consistent…”look the other way and protect the voting pool..” He is spineless and doesn’t deserve another term…at least the other option is somewhat less frightening…

stevie ray

June 15th, 2012
2:22 pm

ND,

How exactly can you assign blame relative to political polarity to one party over the other? Rather naive in my book…none of them give a flip about us or our money…the extremes of both parties need to be kept in check but both sides are childish in the discharging of constitutional obligations.

onpatroll

June 15th, 2012
2:22 pm

So its no to a penny sales tax to fix roads and other stuff for our state but you would still spend millions deporting people who haven’t caused one problem. Got it.

Jefferson

June 15th, 2012
2:23 pm

Go where the immegrants come from if you don’t like it, said one immegrant.

Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!

June 15th, 2012
2:26 pm

“They are choosing not to enforce the law. That is a significant difference.”

Yeah, it’s called a dictatorship fostered by lawlessness.

This will be the hallmark of the one-term President known as Obama.

Historians will be writing about his incompetency and his disdain for the rule of law and the Constitution for decades to come.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

June 15th, 2012
2:27 pm

And let’s be real, notwithstanding the intentionally misleading headline, the administration is not “changing the law”. They are choosing not to enforce the law.
——–

A distinction without a difference.

Maybe it’s time President Romney reprises Sonny Perdue’s “King Rat” commercial.

Sheri Andersen

June 15th, 2012
2:27 pm

I’m so very very upset with this!!!!! So many Americans are out of work and need jobs that will now be given to these illegal immagrants. I just don’t understand except to only win the votes by these people. It’s bad enough when looking for a job it requires bilingual speaking only!!!! We are do going in the wrong direction it really stinks! These people are ruining our country, taking all of the American jobs, it’s destroyed our system and it’s just getting worse. We need a big change!!!! I’m very sad and discouraged with where our country is heading!!!!

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

June 15th, 2012
2:31 pm

Some of us are for the rule of law, not of men.

The rest are Obozo fanboys.

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

June 15th, 2012
2:32 pm

With all the Wingnut screeching I will HAVE to tune into Hannity on the drive home today!

listen to that head a’splodin!

griff

June 15th, 2012
2:34 pm

This President has to GO!!!!

griff

June 15th, 2012
2:35 pm

Time for Romney

Tom

June 15th, 2012
2:35 pm

I am a legal immigrant who waited in line and went through due process to get citizenship. Might have been easier if I just relied on someone to bring me here, and wait it out. Would have saved me some dollars! I am now very confused as to why this very important decision is not put to a referendum so that the voice of the legal US citizens can be heard. Is this the type of decision that can be made by one person about a country’s fate? Maybe I don’t understand the political system here yet!

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

June 15th, 2012
2:36 pm

President Romney

president? of what? the Hair Club for Men?

So, Romney can’t fight for the title himself? Ya’ll just want to bend over and give it to him? Let the man do at least one honest day’s work in his life and try to win this campaign to claim that title.

MarkV

June 15th, 2012
2:40 pm

Kyle’s article is laughable. He spends almost all of it expressing his outrage about Obama’s unilateral changes in the immigration law, to give his sycophants here the food for accusing Obama of ignoring Constitution and worse. And at the very end he admits that “other presidents single-handedly set policies their political opponents didn’t like.” So all that outrage boils down to the argument that unlike those other presidents, Obama had claimed that he wanted to work with the other side. Which, incidentally, is probably not even true (about those other presidents).

Lynn

June 15th, 2012
2:43 pm

Theres a difference TD!! Abortion is a right in this country
Ruled on by the Supreme Court. In addition, The President
Has Executive powers and can and should use
More often with a Congress and party
That met during his first day in office to block and
Disagree on anything Obama put forth.
So to the Author of the article how can you even
Use the word comprimise in the same breath as
Republicans. Tried that many times they don’t want to gear
Anyone unless it’s themselves so stop it. Better
Yet where are their concrete plans???

Jefferson

June 15th, 2012
2:48 pm

Think of it like when a young and immature Romney bullies and assalts a young man, they just didn’t “press charges”. Kind of selective enforcement of law.

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

June 15th, 2012
2:49 pm

Under the age of 30? And what year did Reagan release the floodgates?

Hmmm, 30years ago was 1982..

Thanks Ronnie Reagan!

Liz

June 15th, 2012
2:54 pm

So do we spank the parents for reckless endangerment, or declare them heros?

When I look at Americans who turn their back on their own children, and rarely or never see them, let alone provide child support, I respect the illegal aliens even more, who risk it all to provide a better life for their kids.

My views have evolved, 180. However, I do not think it requires providing illegal aliens an avenue to citizenship to be more humane in America. Probably never will.

td

June 15th, 2012
2:57 pm

Lynn

June 15th, 2012
2:43 pm

“can and should use
More often with a Congress and party
That met during his first day in office to block and
Disagree on anything Obama put forth.”

This is a bogus argument and not true at all. The Democrats totally controlled the House and had a filibuster proof Senate for the first 18 months Obama was in office. If Obama wanted the immigration laws changed he had plenty of time to do it and it would not matter what the Republicans said and the Republicans could not have stopped him.

BTW: go back and look at some of the comments from Democratic leaders when Bush came to office and see if they did not try to stop everything he did and not compromise. This is what the opposition party does not matter which party is in the White House and it is a Presidents job to find common ground and to give in enough to get their agenda passed. You saying Obama can not get anything done because of the Republican is just a prime example as to why he should not be re elected. He is not a leader and we do not need someone like that in office.

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

June 15th, 2012
2:59 pm

Kyle is getting close to appreciating my recent use of the phrase “Sc—-g Obama”

Kyle Wingfield

June 15th, 2012
3:00 pm

For the record, the Daily Caller reporter who repeatedly interrupted Obama’s remarks today about this decision was being classless and disrespectful.

td

June 15th, 2012
3:03 pm

Finn McCool (The System isn’t Broken; It’s Fixed)

June 15th, 2012
2:49 pm

Under the age of 30? And what year did Reagan release the floodgates?

That is a total made up bogus point. Reagan granted amnesty only with the promise that the Dems would pass a law and FUND the securing the boarder. Tip broke that promise so the “flood gates” are caused by the Dems.

Darth Hater

June 15th, 2012
3:04 pm

Curious 0bama’s MAGICAL TELEPROMPTER tell him to do this?

Or was it his Kentucky-Derby-contending bride?

Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!

June 15th, 2012
3:04 pm

And I’m sure that there was no collusion between the White House and Time Magazine on this policy being delivered on the same day Time’s cover shows a bunch of illegal immigrants declaring “We are Americans”.

But it’s a good thing the media isn’t in the tank for Obama. . . . :roll:

Darth Hater

June 15th, 2012
3:06 pm

SEAL THE BORDER,….

and

Go, Braves!

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

June 15th, 2012
3:08 pm

Most of the illegals ARE more American than our own citizens. They tend to work for a living, as one example…

Mr. Holmes

June 15th, 2012
3:11 pm

For the record, the Daily Caller reporter who repeatedly interrupted Obama’s remarks today about this decision was being classless and disrespectful.

…and was following the example set three years ago by Joe “You Lie!” Wilson and most recently by GOP Presidential Nominee Mittens Romney, who instructed campaign staffers to heckle David Axelrod in Boston and just this week had his campaign bus driven in circles repeatedly around an Obama campaign event in Ohio … wait for it … honking its horn.

Seriously Mitt? What’s next, a panty raid of the DNC headquarters?

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

June 15th, 2012
3:11 pm

when Bush came to office and see if they did not try to stop everything he did and not compromise.

i believe Bush had a majority in both houses when he came into office, didn’t he? Isn’t that why we got the prescription drug giveaway and all those excellent job-creatin’ tax breaks?

The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers

June 15th, 2012
3:14 pm

This is a slap in the face to legal immigrants who went through the path to becoming legal. This is a slap in the face to Americans and especially their college age children looking for jobs to pay their way through school. The idiot emporer is too lazy and rigid to attempt to work with the other side to solve tough problems. It’s the cowards way out.

SBinF

June 15th, 2012
3:15 pm

::plays the world’s smallest violin:::

Just for you, Kyle!

Obama is polling ahead of Romney by 35 points with Latinos. You think this is politically motivated so he can increase that to 40 points?

All I can muster to that is an, ‘lol’.

Kyle Wingfield

June 15th, 2012
3:15 pm

Mr. Holmes: And the Iraqi who threw the shoe at Bush…

Classlessness didn’t begin three years ago. Or eight years before that. Or eight years before that…

carlosgvv

June 15th, 2012
3:17 pm

Kyle, needless to say, you didn’t mention how we got in this mess to start with. Big Business wanted cheap labor and politicians, especially Republican ones, catered to their masters and looked the other way while millions of illegals flooded into America.

Perhaps you should call them to task here first before bad mouthing Obama.

Mr. Holmes

June 15th, 2012
3:17 pm

Weak, Kyle. We’re talking about how our own people respect our own traditions for how we interact with the national chief executive. I suppose you’ll tell me the Iraqi was a Democratic plant?

Georgia, The " New Mississippi "

June 15th, 2012
3:23 pm

Looks like Obama made some more room under the Democratic tent.

Firewoman

June 15th, 2012
3:27 pm

Since Republicans are so hateful and racist in regards to Illegals Aliens, the Dems need to prove above and beyond just jow much they care. Adopt an Illegal Alien and pay for their every need while they are visiting in the United States. Democrats are simply not doing enough to keep them here. You’ve opened your hearts, now you must open your doors and wallets as well – or your’e simply a hypocrit!

Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)

June 15th, 2012
3:28 pm

all those excellent job-creatin’ tax breaks?
——–

Kinda hard to argue with 4-6% unemployment, but there’s always some genius willing to give it a try…

Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)

June 15th, 2012
3:28 pm

Obama preempted the inevitable Romney move to the center to get the Hispanic vote. Now, the vitriol and anger from the right will push more and more Hispanics into the Democrat camp.

good move.

The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers

June 15th, 2012
3:29 pm

Firewoman, your voter registration card has expired. Don’t bother to go to the polls.

Fun Size

June 15th, 2012
3:31 pm

Just because Congress is full of partisan idiots on both sides does not mean that Obama gets to make the rules on his own….they are both wrong. This is just a vote getting stunt for Obama to get elected in 2012.

Mr. Holmes

June 15th, 2012
3:33 pm

I haven’t seen the video yet, but if the guy (Neil Munro, I see is his name) truly did start heckling the President of the United States during prepared remarks in the freakin’ Rose Garden, he should have his White House credential permanently revoked and the Daily Caller should have its organizational credential suspended for six months.

Agree, Kyle? Come on. At some point there have to be real consequences for cr@p like this. I would be saying the same thing about a Salon or Mother Jones reporter when Dubya was in office. Good lord, if one of my J-school professors caught me doing this, they would try to have my diploma rescinded.

Fun Size

June 15th, 2012
3:34 pm

And by the way…..GO RON PAUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mr. Holmes

June 15th, 2012
3:38 pm

And just in case there was any doubt about this, Tucker Carlson has already defended his reporter: “As far as I’m concerned, not having seen it, as a general matter, reporters are there to ask questions. No politician wants to answer questions, but that’s not our concern.”

Jon Stewart definitely had it right about ole Tucker. He’s a nickname for Richard if I’ve ever seen one.

Dusty

June 15th, 2012
3:38 pm

PHew!

May I ask the management here to stop Finn the Bigot from writing “hateful old white people”.?. That’ s disgusting with prejudice pouring from every pore. No version of this should be allowed for any people..
—————-
And excuse me but WE HAVE LEGAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO FOLLOW. And it is quite true that unless we have a dictator who rules at his discretion, President Obama cannot change the laws already made in this country. I am appalled at his lack of respect for established American law.

This undercover shilly shallying is a disgrace to every law abiding citizen in the USA. The president is supposed to have taught “law” at Harvard They should revoke his credentials immediately.
———–

NO, I do not hate Hispanics. My son-in-law , who was born in South America, is a fine American He came to this country as an adult, followed all the rules for legal citizenship which took several years and money, and is now a proud citizen. So we make easy rules for others.

Those who are legal were foolish? NO, they wanted to be legal, not illegal stepchildren of this country. THEY are the Hispanics who are contributing and loving this country. We disgrace our legal citizens by short changing them..

chuck

June 15th, 2012
3:39 pm

How about we deport Obama.

Cutty

June 15th, 2012
3:41 pm

Enter your comments hereW. held signing statements every other week and these Cons have the ‘chutzpah’ to complain now. Lol. GTFOH.

Kyle Wingfield

June 15th, 2012
3:44 pm

Mr. Holmes: If I were talking to Carlson, I would advise him to watch the video. What Munro did is not what “reporters are there to [do].”

From what I’ve read, he didn’t have a regular (or “permanent”) WH credential. I’d have no problem with his losing the credential he did have. For the paper, I’d hold off unless another reporter did something similar. I’ve never worked for an organization that expressly told me and my colleagues not to interrupt public speeches, because none of my bosses would have anticipated that we might have done that. So I don’t fault the DC for not anticipating Munro would act that way.

JDW

June 15th, 2012
3:46 pm

@Tiberius..”It takes more than 3 years to figure out which regulations hurt job creation? What about Valerie “We’re ready to rule day one” Jarrett?”

Seven months into his presidency, fewer than half of President Obama’s top appointees are in place advancing his agenda, the New York Times reports.

“Of more than 500 senior policymaking positions requiring Senate confirmation, just 43 percent have been filled

The Washington Post reported that at the end of 2010 –almost two years after President Barack Obama’s inauguration –22 percent of administration positions requiring Senate confirmation were either vacant or filled temporarily by acting officials.

I am sure it was the Dems gumming up the works… :roll:

Just saying..

June 15th, 2012
3:46 pm

Oh no, he’s implementing W’s policy initiatives!! Sky’s falling…

Zedd

June 15th, 2012
3:49 pm

I can easily solve the illegal immigrant problem, help create jobs, and help the ailing economy all in one fail swoop. $500 a head for rounding up all the illegals to be deported, must be delivered alive and in reasonable shape. It puts money back into American tax payer hands, and helps relieve the drain on our entitlements and public services by the illegals. I have no sympathy for anyone that has been here illegally and has not tried to correct their status whether brought here as a child or not. The longer it has gone on, the bigger offense it becomes. We’re either a nation under the rule of law or we’re not! You don’t get to pick and choose which laws you going to enforce or ignore. Thought we were supposed to be governed by a system of checks and balances so one person couldn’t run ruff-shot all over the law of the land. What a disgrace!

Mr. Holmes

June 15th, 2012
3:50 pm

I suppose that’s fair, but both bow-tie Tucker and his publisher have already issued statements defending Munro’s actions. The DC spokesperson said he was “just doing what reporters do.”

In which case, the White House should just do what heads of state do, which is selectively issue press credentials. “We apologize, Mr. Carlson, but due to overwhelming demand for White House credentials during this election year, we will be unable to meet the Daily Caller’s request for the remainder of calendar 2012. We’re happy to provide access to White House pool reports, should you desire.

“Have a nice day!”

Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!

June 15th, 2012
3:54 pm

Really, JDW, you’re now quoting a report from back in 2009 to justify Obama’s failure to get anything meaningful done?

Really?

And you’re saying that acting officials don’t have the authority or capacity to implement his orders, JDW?

Really?

Are you ever going to take responsibility for your ineptitude when voting this clueless of unqualified candidates into the highest office in the land?

MANGLER

June 15th, 2012
3:54 pm

(I didn’t live here and didn’t read this paper at that time, so)
Were the local GOP base in Atlanta all up in arms every time Bush and Cheney overreached their executive powers and simply passed laws or changed laws without bothering to stop at Congress before passing go? Or is it OK when it happens by someone on your side?

Dusty

June 15th, 2012
3:59 pm

Just saying, 3:46

President Obama is implementing no one’s policy initiative but his own.

Don’t try to make President Bush a crook just because Obama doesn’t know what he is going.

Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy

June 15th, 2012
4:01 pm

I did not see the video, so I’ll take your word that Munro was classless, but with Oblamer at what point is the speech over. He has been speaking for 3.5 years, non stop. This time his speech had some effect, unlike most of this speeches. This time he put himself above the congress.

Anything to keep the conversation off his record and his sagging polling numbers. For every vote he gains through this and there will be many, he will lose one to people tired of supporting illegal aliens and losing jobs to illegals. It is a calculated risk on his part, but even a 50/50 split diverts the talk from the lousy job performance for one more day.

I guess the press were worn out with the attacks on Bain Capital, Romney’s record in MA, classified info leaks at the WH, Fast/Furious, will Holder resign, same sex marriage, and Sarah Jessica Parker, so time to throw another bone to keep them occupied.

As soon as the Supremes come in with the Oblamacare verdict this will be moved to the back page as well.

I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...

June 15th, 2012
4:04 pm

VIDEO: Obama Heckled By Daily Caller Reporter During Immigration Speech In Rose Garden

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/06/15/obama-heckled-by-daily-caller-reporter-during-immigration-speech-in-rose-garden–

I guess obozo didn’t pay attention to what happen to the last ten politicians that brought up amnesty.

Good, let him learn the hard way…

Dusty

June 15th, 2012
4:08 pm

MANGLER,

GOP around the country did not have to get up in arms over Bush and the “law” because he did not break them. He never wanted to be a dictator and played fair. “And that makes all the difference!”

Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy

June 15th, 2012
4:10 pm

The Washington Post reported that at the end of 2010 –almost two years after President Barack Obama’s inauguration –22 percent of administration positions requiring Senate confirmation were either vacant or filled temporarily by acting officials.

Big question, Oblamer spends so little time actually governing, how many of those positions has he nominated someone for? It is probably hard to find a lot of yes men, that can pass the background investigation. I mean in the beginning, he had a hellava time finding someone who was current with their taxes, but due to having a Dem Senate he was able to push Geitner and others through the process.

md

June 15th, 2012
4:13 pm

It appears even Mr Obama can no longer believe Mr Obama:

““This notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is not true,” Obama told Hispanic journalists at an “Open for Questions” White House roundtable. “The fact of the matter is there are laws on the books I have to enforce. And there is a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and comprehensive immigration reform passed by perpetuating the notion that somehow by myself I can just go and do these things.”” – Obama 2011

Dusty

June 15th, 2012
4:14 pm

My goodness,

A reporter broke into a speech by the president. Cry me a river. Bad manners but obviously free speech. I am much more concerned about “the speech” than some trivial incident by a reporter

No one will remember the reporter. But many will remember when the president tried to make lawbreakers into legal citizens shortly before an election. Oh yes, many people will remember THAT..

MarkV

June 15th, 2012
4:23 pm

Dusty @4:14 pm: “But many will remember when the president tried to make lawbreakers into legal citizens shortly before an election.”

Lying again, Dusty? Or just not paying attention?

luckjoe

June 15th, 2012
4:24 pm

Obama stated that this is the best thing for America. He does not know or care what is best for America. Obama is trolling for votes.

Mr. Holmes

June 15th, 2012
4:24 pm

A reporter broke into a speech by the president. Cry me a river. Bad manners but obviously free speech.

And no one is advocating the heckler (he doesn’t deserve to be called a reporter) be thrown in jail, which is the only protection “free speech” entitles you to. Conservatives seem to think that the First Amendment allows you to say anything you want anywhere, with no consequences from any person or organization. That is most assuredly NOT what it means.

It’s perfectly legal for me to walk into my boss’ office and call him a Nazi mouthbreathing malodorous buggerer of children. No one can throw me in jail for that. However the Constitution does not prevent said “buggerer” from ordering me to clean out my desk immediately, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!

June 15th, 2012
4:29 pm

Is not enforcing a law actually breaking a law?

Yes. If you’re the one that is supposed to enforce the law.

What would be the implications of Obama simply deciding not to enforce the IRS laws on tax payments for, say, the bottom 50% of wage earne – wait, those people already don’t pay income taxes. Never mind.

But I think even the densest liberals will get my point.

Even the President doesn’t get to decide which laws are simply inconvenient to enforce.

Except this one.

Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!

June 15th, 2012
4:31 pm

“Conservatives seem to think that the First Amendment allows you to say anything you want anywhere, with no consequences from any person or organization.”

Hyperbole much, Mr. Holmes?

md

June 15th, 2012
4:32 pm

Wonder what the black youth think about this action?

Unemployment of the black youth stands around 41%…….and Obama just made it worse…….they now get to compete with an additional roughly one million others that will soon be coming out of the woodwork…….

wallbanger

June 15th, 2012
4:42 pm

When the cartels set up in all of our major cities I hope you liberals will be happy.

Won't this move bring out the Republicans in November?

June 15th, 2012
4:43 pm

This feels a bit like a Hail Mary pass…there is more than a whiff of desperation to a move that comes out the week after poor econimic and jobs data meant that Obama is going to be running for re-election in a worsening economy.

However, I am puzzled. These 16 to 30 year olds cannot yet vote (obviously that is the Democratic plan). Won’t conservatives be deeply annoyed about this policy?

It seems like the numbers of angry Republican voters in the November election will more than outweigh the numbers of people deciding to vote for Obama based on this policy. Maybe they were hoping to fire up the base, but I think they got their parties confused….this will fire up Republicans.

Dusty

June 15th, 2012
4:53 pm

Mr. Holmes,

The only thing you proved about free speech is…. you can have free speech in all situations if you don’t mind paying the consequences for speaking out.

—————————————–

Dear sweet MarkV

You are lying by insinuation. You suggest that I am a liar because I stated the obvious. I repeat: The president is trying to make lawbreakers (aka illegal immigrants). into legal citizens just before an election. That is all true.

Whatsamatter? Are you here illegally?

MarkV

June 15th, 2012
5:03 pm

Dusty @4:53 pm “I repeat: The president is trying to make lawbreakers (aka illegal immigrants). into legal citizens just before an election. That is all true.”

Kyle (article): “Individuals who meet these criteria almost certainly will not be deported. They will not immediately be granted any “substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship”

getalife

June 15th, 2012
5:05 pm

willard was slow to respond but agrees with our President.

Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy

June 15th, 2012
5:06 pm

I think it would be less expensive to just invite Mexico to be the 51st state or 58th state if you are Oblamer. This open invitation to come one, come all, is going to get very expensive.

Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy

June 15th, 2012
5:09 pm

Dusty

There will be no pathway to citizenship, for at least 8 months.

Aquagirl

June 15th, 2012
5:09 pm

The president is trying to make lawbreakers (aka illegal immigrants). into legal citizens just before an election.

Dusty, hon, read the memo. That’s why Kyle included a link, it’s called “journalism” vs. “making stuff up as you go along.” The new policy doesn’t make one single person legal and never will.

So now you’ve been told that twice. If you keep repeating your untrue statement you’re either too lazy to read or unable to comprehend. After that, the only possibility left is that you simply don’t care if you spew lies. With you, it’s hard to tell which one is the problem.

Orange12

June 15th, 2012
5:16 pm

Obama cuts his own political throat. Priceless!

Contarded To The Core, Hate for no other reason, except..,

June 15th, 2012
5:22 pm

Frankly, I could be none the happier that President Obama is taking the attitude of looking out for those who look out for him. Screw you Cons (and yes you are a bunch of “cons”)! You cannot be dealt with in a reasonable, respectable, diplomatic manner because that is not who you are.

MarkV

June 15th, 2012
5:23 pm

Aquagirl @5:09 pm

I am giving Dusty the benefit of doubt of not paying attention.

md

June 15th, 2012
5:24 pm

“They will not immediately be granted any “substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship””

Not yet anyway…….but they will have the opportunity to apply for work permits……hence the 20 million already unemployed should love this announcement………….

Aquagirl

June 15th, 2012
5:37 pm

hence the 20 million already unemployed should love this announcement………….

If they don’t, they need to get off their butts and work harder. And once they do find a job, they can get a decent paycheck because there’s several million less workers willing to undercut their wages.

I bet some employers’ heads are asploding about now. They hate being deprived of cheap illegal labor.

This is Mrs. Norman Maine

June 15th, 2012
5:55 pm

This change was the right thing to do and so what if Republicans didn’t sign off on it? If you are waiting on them to take ethical, compassionate and responsible action, in other words do the right thing, then nothing will ever happen. EVER. These are the same people who were against civl rights and marriage equality so you can be assured they would never have come up with a policy which was fair to young immigrants brought to this country through no fault of their own. I’m glad Mr. Obama had the courage to step out and do this.

Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!

June 15th, 2012
5:56 pm

And let’s not forget that these illegals will be able to vote if Obama’s Justice Dept. has their way and stops attempts to clean them off of the voter rolls.

md

June 15th, 2012
5:57 pm

“I bet some employers’ heads are asploding about now. They hate being deprived of cheap illegal labor.”

more like consumers heads asploding as they are the ones that buy all the cheap crap……hence the jobs shipped overseas and the need for cheap labor over here……….Hyundai now one of the fastest selling brands…….we will never learn. (50 billion with a B in trade imbalance each and every month = stagnant real wages for US workers)

Orange12

June 15th, 2012
5:58 pm

Obama takes one more little parting shot to destroy the country. November cannot get here soon enough.

Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!

June 15th, 2012
5:59 pm

“This change was the right thing to do and so what if Republicans didn’t sign off on it?”

It’s called the LAW, dearie, in case you missed that little part of Civics 101 when you were in school.

md

June 15th, 2012
6:00 pm

“which was fair to young immigrants brought to this country through no fault of their own”

I’m sure the young immigrants that are waiting patiently in line to enter the country legally wouldn’t be too thrilled about your definition of “fair”…….but they are out of sight and out of mind…….goes with the old adage of the squeaky wheel always gets the oil………….

Thulsa Doom

June 15th, 2012
6:01 pm

Just more pandering by Obama to a special interest group. The man is shameless.

Dusty

June 15th, 2012
6:02 pm

Dear Aquagirl,5:09

Are you married to MarkV? You should be.

I STILL say that the president is trying to change illegals into legal citizens. This is just the FIRST STEP. Also it is a move he thinks will please ALL Hispanics, including those who are legal, and they will vote for him.>>>>> (Look what he is doing for us!!!)

And in case you haven’t noticed, we are only a few months away from the BIG election. You may forget but the president has not forgotten and neither have his handlers.

But do not worry. By January, exPresident Obama willl not have a passing thought for the poor illegals. He’ll be living it up in Hawaii and I am all for that.

Right now, yummy chicken & noodles are of more interest to me. Ah yes! See ya later, maybe……

md

June 15th, 2012
6:04 pm

Am I the only one having problems refreshing the ajc blog pages? Thought maybe the ajc IT goons screwed it up again like they had over at that other place…….I think they “fix” things in order to have perpetual job security. Kyle….you mentioned new software….has it been implemented and now there is a problem??

AW

June 15th, 2012
6:05 pm

I think it’s a bold move, like someone already said, this isn’t an attempt to grab voters, when he already had their vote to begin with. It shows he has the heart and power to try and make his beliefs happen.

I’ll tell you the worst part of the past 4 years….the fact that our congress has the mind of a 13 year old child, that would rather disagree just to argue, even if they know it’s the right thing to do. When our own government holds our leader back because all they care about is dem and repub, and not progressing. It shows they already have the wrong mindset and adults have no other choice, to do what they have to, to make it right.

I am not for opening our borders, it would be chaos and the world would lose control. I am for making things right for the people that are here, that had no choice, but are ghosts to this country and their own. All you people talk, but until you are in the shoes of a twenty something illegal, who can’t have a normal life, you have no merit.

There are pro’s and con’s against everything, but like another said, this obviously won’t last forever. When Obama does get his second term, he’s only here for another 4 years and the next will obviously over turn things that they see as “fit” for their beliefs.

I hate this country and everything it stands for. I won’t be here long. There’s never positive progression when no one believes in the right thing, only who had the idea, and was he on my team.

AmVet

June 15th, 2012
6:06 pm

There is some sympathy among many conservatives for these child immigrants.

What??? In the post-Reagan GOP??? And many???

I’m sure that in the previous 220 posts there are tons of examples.

Huge LOL.

I’d sure love to see some quotes or the first piece of evidence to support that claim.

The rabid brown shirts here want one thing and one thing only – to get rid of them and all of their family members ASAP. Hopefully with some deal of violence involved…

[...] Obama declared a unilateral amnesty today, pledging to have the Department of Homeland Security refuse to secure the homeland and [...]

fair and balanced

June 15th, 2012
6:13 pm

And I assume the amnesty bill passed by Reagan for over 3 million illegals was justified and would be passed today by his worshipers?

Thulsa Doom

June 15th, 2012
6:16 pm

“I’m sure the young immigrants that are waiting patiently in line to enter the country legally wouldn’t be too thrilled about your definition of “fair”…….but they are out of sight and out of mind…”

Curiously no one and especially the libs ever want to talk about this. For the immigrants who did it the right way it just isn’t right. They had to wait a number of years, go through lots of red tape and legal hassle, and pay thousands usually in legal fees. That’s messed up and just plain wrong. The illegals that Obama is giving access to should have to pay something- either out of state tuition or a surcharge out of their earnings sent to the state or federal treasuries for the privilege of living here. They should have to pay something similar to the process and crap that legal immigrants have to go through.

md

June 15th, 2012
6:16 pm

“When our own government holds our leader back because all they care about is dem and repub, and not progressing. It shows they already have the wrong mindset and adults have no other choice, to do what they have to, to make it right. ”

Sometimes, progress is made by NOT progressing………..

Rick in Grayson

June 15th, 2012
6:17 pm

Obama just added 1 million new workers to the labor pool. Unemployment just went up and US citzens and their children will now find it even harder to find jobs to support their families. Obama and the Democrats again place the interests of illegal aliens and their children before those of US citizens and legal residents.

Obama does not support the “rule of law” and show disdain for the sovereignty of the borders of the United States of America. He legislates from the office of the President and admonishes the Supreme Court to follow his wishes for the ACA.

Obama retains an Attorney General that refuses to answer simply questions about the “Fast and Furious” operation that cost the lives of 2 US law enforcement officers in the performance of their official duties.

Like his boss, Eric Holder speaks half-truths when he isn’t lying outright. So much for the “transparency” that Obama promised during his “Hope and Change” campaign! Obama has spent/wasted 5 Trillion dollars more than the tax revenues collected over the time as President and yet he and the Democrats can’t find entitlement programs to cut (after Obama stated that he would cut the deficit in half during his term as President…another lie). Even the Democrats won’t vote for the ridiculous budgets he sends to Congress for approval.

Good luck with another 4 years of Obama always blaming someone else for his failures to lead.

Ayn Rand was right

June 15th, 2012
6:18 pm

Obama just increased the under 30 set seeking job opportunities. He is also providing work permits to these newbies. If you are a US citizen or legal immigrant, under 30 and looking for employment…good luck.

Further, if your parents are crack heads and raise you in a homeless shelter, it is your responsibility to take yourself out of poverty and drug abuse when you become an adult. Why should we give hand-outs to children who’s parents brought them to a new world illegally, and not support legal citizens who’s parents raised them in a different world (Crackville). I am so tired of hearing people whine about how it’s not the children’s fault, it is the parent’s fault. Well duh! Everything that parents do to minor children is not the child’s fault. The responsibility of the child is to become a responsible adult and make their way in the world in spite of their parent’s choices.

md

June 15th, 2012
6:19 pm

“And I assume the amnesty bill passed by Reagan for over 3 million illegals was justified and would be passed today by his worshipers?”

Reagan was snookered into believing Congress would follow up on the part about sealing the borders……but they never did. Fast forward 30 years and we are in the same spot…….and the borders are still not sealed.

And the other good joke of the day……the DOE bureaucracy was founded to ween us off foreign oil……40 years ago.

And folks have no clue why the private sector has such a hard time staying in gear……

MarkV

June 15th, 2012
6:21 pm

Dusty @6:02 pm

I am taking back my giving Dusty a benefit of doubt. Now the only alternative to outright lying is a serious lack of thinking ability.

Dusty @4:53 pm “I repeat: The president is trying to make lawbreakers (aka illegal immigrants). into legal citizens just before an election “

Dusty @6:02 pm: “I STILL say that the president is trying to change illegals into legal citizens. This is just the FIRST STEP.”

In other words, Dusty believes that the steps President Obama has taken today, i.e., not to deport some illegal aliens based on certain criteria, but not to grant them any “substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship” (FIRST STEP), will be reversed before November, and those people will not only get a pathway to citizenship, but actually will become citizens in time to register to vote in November.

Is “divorced from reality” the appropriate description for this fantasy?

This is Mrs. Norman Maine

June 15th, 2012
6:21 pm

@Tiberius:” It’s called the LAW, dearie, in case you missed that little part of Civics 101 when you were in school.”

Just like Jim Crow was the law? There were plenty of cowards who defended that too……

md

June 15th, 2012
6:30 pm

And again……how is this the “right” thing when there are just as many that have yet to make it into the country in the first place?

I guess some folks think jumping the line is all that matters as long as one got there first……….yep, that sounds fair and “right”. Great message we are sending the rest of the world…..

“If you want to get into the US, screw the legal channels……just make sure you get your foot in the door and they’ll let you screw the folks behind you”

Dave Francis

June 15th, 2012
6:37 pm

THIS IS AN AFFRONT TO THE HURTING AMERICAN WORKER.

HOWEVER THE PARENTS CAN BE DEPORTED, AS THEY ARE STILL ILLEGAL. INTERESTING ENOUGH, THROUGH PROCESSING THE PARENTS OF THE STUDENTS WOULD BE REVEALED AND ICE CAN DETAIN AND DEPORT. NOT TO FORGET THAT THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN CHILDRED WILL SUFFER, AS THESE FOREIGN NATIONAL KIDS ARE ISSUED 800 THOUSANDS VISAS.

The Obama administration is passing laws by decree now, without any oversight and not being addressed by the House of Representatives. I thought this type of enacting policies as this, was for the dictatorships of the world? This is AMNESTY by any other name and will generate a firestorm amongst Independents voters as me, explicitly the TEA PARTY? I guess the Obama government sees themselves above the “rule of Law.” Obviously this is a political push for the children of foreign nationals and certainly performed on behalf of the majority ethnic population? Is this another bloated fraud policy, as seen in the 1986 Immigration Control and Reform Act. With the possibility of a work visa, they will be able to apply for taxpayer’s money for enrollment in colleges. THIS IS BILLIONS MORE DOLLARS TO THE STRAINED FINANCES FOR EDUCATION AND FURTHERANCE OF EVEN MORE PENDING MASSIVE CHAIN MIGRATION; AT LEAST THE PARENTS CAN BE DEPORTED FOR BREAKING IMMIGRATION LAWS? Democrats have always been generous with other people’s money, so it is very scary wondering what’s next in their agenda of their ‘Political Correctness’? Without any contradiction this is a means to gain millions of extra votes from persons already here, including non-citizens? This has clearly been shown by the Obama Dept of IN-Justice suing Florida, for ethically doing the correct thing of erasing non citizens from the election rolls.

If you want to read the truth about the lawlessness and carnage along the border, then bookmark the ‘AMERICAN PATROL’ website. Investigate other headlines today such as ‘Catch and release for low-priority illegal’s proposed — Border agency’s secret draft policy includes ‘prosecutorial discretion’, Obama implements DREAM amnesty by executive fiat!, The Fast and Furious scandal , Reporter heckles Obama during speech declaring sell-out of U.S. workers, Obama regime to help illegal’s, LA Mayor Villaraigosa delighted over Obama’s outrageous decree, Rep. Granger alarmed by Obama chicanery, Out-of-control Obama regime to bypass Congress on illegal’s today, Bombastic assemblyman wants to keep criminal illegal’s in the state, NYPD faces politicians, Muslim advocates seeking control of cops, Voters need to make their voices heard on illegal immigration, etc., AMERICAN PATROL is a current exposure site of the nationwide E-media and newspapers, blogs and commentary that the Liberal press prefers to keep from the public. Daily, the truth is revealed about illegal immigration and the corruption in Washington and state assemblies. This is intelligence not found in the press, which the parties keep suppressed. There is an eye opening video from TEA PARTY. ORG about the stunning claim that President Obama is ineligible for the position in the White House and every citizen should judge for their own peace of mind.

MarkV

June 15th, 2012
6:47 pm

Some people ignorant of the laws appear to believe that deportation of an illegal alien is an automatic consequence of the alien being identified as such. The Obama decision is not an action violating the immigration law.

AmVet

June 15th, 2012
6:47 pm

Yep, the long suffering American working family – who have watched their wages driven down to the point where they have flat-lined for forty years – is the victim NOT of the American businesses run by the criminals who profited handsomely from using illegal laborers for all of those decades, but from the laborers themselves.

This is the magnitude of the collective, pro-crime Republican dementia…

Contarded To The Core, Hate for no other reason, except..,

June 15th, 2012
6:47 pm

@AW
You are not alone in your sentiments. I despise much of what this country stands for as well. It really shows itself to be a fraud in a major way. It really always has had that element to it, just even moreso today as it seeks to DIgress because of those who cannot seem to accept the reality of changing demograhics and its inherent mandate for pluralism. My mind is wide open to entertaining spending the remainder of my life in another part of the world. Nothing but a bunch of bitter selfish A-holes in this “land”.

Joel Edge

June 15th, 2012
6:48 pm

What’s next. Outlawing logging across the nation to appease the greens?

Rick in Grayson

June 15th, 2012
6:59 pm

From another AJC column, Pedro’s story just re-enforces the idea that Obama’s executive order rewards the PARENTS (illegal aliens themselves) !

Pedro “Peter” Morales — who was illegally brought to the U.S. by his parents when he was 7 — is hoping the Obama administration’s announcement will help him get a work permit. He wants to get a job, move out of his parents’ home in Dalton, save for college and open his own automotive repair business.

“That is great because if I actually get that, it would make my life a whole lot easier, not just for me but for a lot of people — and my parents,” he said.
================
AND MY PARENTS!!!!

Obama would rather reward illegal aliens than work to create jobs here in the US for American citizens! He puts the interests of illegal aliens before those of US citizens!

He wants to FORCE US citizens to purchase health insurance but can not bring himself to pass the E-Verify law that would deny jobs to illegal aliens!

md

June 15th, 2012
7:02 pm

Ahhh….and Am has apparently missed the chart that shows the truth, so I’ll post it again:

http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_archive_02282001/

Yes, it is the consumers that dictate their own wages.

md

June 15th, 2012
7:03 pm

And Amvet…..please notice when real wages started flatlining…….just so happens it is directly related to being a net importer…….

md

June 15th, 2012
7:05 pm

And guess who’s been buying all those imports AM?

Maybe even an Infiniti……or 2.

Dusty

June 15th, 2012
7:27 pm

Poor MarkV

Now writing fantasies. I have never suggested that any illegals that are illegal now will be voting in the next election. I said the Hispanics who are LEGAL will be voting and the president is trying to influence them NOW. . You made up the rest.

Then I said the first step for some illegals was what the president is doing now. I did not say the legal first step. It is just the first step to keeping more illegals in the country one way or another.. The rest you made up

Ah but my chicken and noodles were delicious…..with mushroom sauce. The noodles reminded me of the way your mind works. But do not worry. Eat more mushroom sauce and you’ll be fine!!

td

June 15th, 2012
8:09 pm

MarkV

June 15th, 2012
6:21 pm

If you do not think illegals already vote then you my friend are either very naive or are clueless.

Since Obama just gave these people legal rights then they can go into the driver services offices and get a drivers license. Most states only require a drivers license to register to vote and as we have seen in Florida the DHS, under this administration, will not share its E-verify database with the election officials to verify citizenship so some of these people will be voting in Nov.

ld

June 15th, 2012
9:10 pm

Much ado about nothing much.

IF Obama is relected, then this will be the policy for 4 1/2 years; if not, then for about half a year … more. Bush did NOT do much about deporting these people either and want them to have citizenship.

IF
Romney is elected, then his first, easiest and, quite possibly, best re-election move would be to continue this policy while asking Congress to enact it into law with “appropriate” amendments – read that as:

amendments that appease the evangelicals (add church membership as a “test”);

amendments that appease the “English” as our national crowd (includ eonly those that speak only English);

amendments that appease the “anti-illegal” immigration crowd:

the new bill must include an amendment prohibiting any new amnesty — both/either in law or practice — w/o a constitutional amendment (or a super majority vote in Congress);

the new bill must close our borders to all immigrants aside from very specific exceptions: (fill in the blanks, depending which special intrest groups from whom he needsupport and/or wants to appease).

My guess is that if Romeny the flip-flopper a/k/a “mugwhump” is elected, he’ll do just that.

bu2

June 15th, 2012
9:38 pm

<>

Very well put td.

Its interesting that these “liberals” are all for facism if it suits their cause. If Congress doesn’t take care of a problem, just let a strong “leader” do it. If you like that type of government-Putin is president of Russia again.

bu2

June 15th, 2012
9:39 pm

Doesn’t look like my quote carried-td’s 2:57 post was right on.

Just saying..

June 15th, 2012
10:11 pm

Complain 1 on this this blog: The President doesn’t lead.
Complaint2: OMG, the President is leading (but I don’t like it).

Just saying..

June 15th, 2012
10:24 pm

Dusty
June 15th, 2012
3:59 pm: “President Obama is implementing no one’s policy initiative but his own.
Don’t try to make President Bush a crook just because Obama doesn’t know what he is going.”

Would it help if the President called it a signing statement?

MarkV

June 15th, 2012
11:00 pm

Dusty @7:27 pm

Poor Dusty,

She has taken a leave of her senses.

Dusty @4:53 pm “I repeat: The president is trying to make lawbreakers (aka illegal immigrants) into legal citizens just before an election. “

Dusty @7:27 pm “I have never suggested that any illegals that are illegal now will be voting in the next election. I said the Hispanics who are LEGAL will be voting and the president is trying to influence them NOW.”

Apparently, Dusty can see the word Hispanics in her quote above, and not see the words “illegal immigrants.”

RIP, Dusty’s senses, or her truthfulness.

zeke

June 16th, 2012
1:30 am

IMPEACH THE MORON!

RegisQuando

June 16th, 2012
7:32 am

Good for Obama. It’s not like anything is to be gained by listening to the useless conservatives posting here who don’t actually do anything for the country in terms of skilled or unskilled labor. Their cries would have a lot more merit if they weren’t complete leeches.

Russell

June 16th, 2012
7:38 am

I think Romney should act just like a Democrap on this one, Simply, LIE LIKE HELL ! Then when he becomes president have a prior executive order rescinding party! Also I would like to go ahead and say this now, When Romney become president and by-passes congress with an executive order that you Democrap’s don’t like, SHUT THE F–K UP!!!

Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!

June 16th, 2012
9:28 am

At some point the liberals on this blog will understand the difference between an executive order and ignoring an established law you have sworn to enforce.

But I doubt it will be anytime soon.

Just saying..

June 16th, 2012
9:50 am

Tib-
At some point the Republicans on this blog will understand the difference between an executive order and ignoring an established law you have sworn to enforce. But I doubt it will be anytime soon.

There, fixed your typo.

Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!

June 16th, 2012
9:56 am

Just sayin, many Republicans do.

However, you just proved that YOU do not.

Which was my point to begin with. Thanks for exposing yourself as a moron.

LMAO

June 16th, 2012
10:05 am

No wonder Hannity and FOX News are so popular, as a liberal admitted on this very blog that he was going to listen to Hannity on his ride home. Democrats are their largest audience!

LMAO

June 16th, 2012
10:16 am

Obama – the dumbest President in history! He panders for votes he will get anyway, and will has cemented his alienation of the voters who were sitting on the fence. Anything His Royal Highness Obama can and will be undone in a few months. I have never seen a President so desperate to get out of office and plot his own demise. Democrats – the party of jackasses! LMAO

Dusty

June 16th, 2012
10:46 am

Well, there is obviously a reading comprehension problem here with liberals. You can make a suggestion and they consider it “law”. Then they quibble!

But… Executive order is disorder of what is already legal. Anything, this time, to get around established law to create more Democratic voters, if only by influence.

No wonder the president is trying so hard any way possible to be elected. He has already made a record number of re-election speeches with more to come.. He is not Mr. Popularity any more.because of his exceptionally bad record. .

His administration is even working hard to overcome any states’ rights that disagree with the president, especially immigration The president wants complete rule. Complete! Beware!!

bu2

June 16th, 2012
10:51 am

He comes from Daley’s Chicago, where stealing elections and obeying the law as convenient is a time honored tradition. That’s the political environment he was brought up in.

MarkV

June 16th, 2012
11:13 am

The title itself of Kyle’s article is a lie.

Just saying..

June 16th, 2012
11:15 am

Tiberius – Banned from Bookman’s and proud of it!
June 16th, 2012
9:56 am: “Thanks for exposing yourself as a moron.”

And your oft-noted capacity to disagree, without being disagreeable

Just saying..

June 16th, 2012
11:18 am

Looking forward to seeing Tib & Dusty just beside themselves with joy for the next four years.
Of Romney’s first term.

Just saying..

June 16th, 2012
11:28 am

Extra painful that Obama cribbed the initiative from Rubio’s draft legislation…

saywhat?

June 16th, 2012
11:28 am

More Republican poutrage over sensible, competent governing. Will it ever end?

Just saying..

June 16th, 2012
11:37 am

saywhat?
June 16th, 2012
11:28 am: “More Republican poutrage over sensible, competent governing. Will it ever end?”

Not even with a President Obama Lite…

Daperera

June 16th, 2012
2:57 pm

Maybe we need immigration reform, but we certainly don’t need it by “executive order”. I called California’s Senator Boxer’s office and the staffer said that the President was “prioritizing” his enforcement of the law. I think this is called “selective” enforcement. I spent sometime looking through the US Constitution and could find nowhere any reference to “prioritizing” enforcement of the law, any law.

Article 2, Section 3 of the US Constitution under “Duties of the President” states “HE (The President) SHALL TAKE CARE THAT THE LAWS BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED”, “Faithfully Executed”, not selectively executed, not prioritized. The President, by executive order, is not “faithfully executing” the law, he is changing it and this is not in his purview according the words of the Constitution. Only Congress can do this.

saywhat?

June 16th, 2012
3:26 pm

One small point daperera, the President is only granted by Congress a finite amount of money in the budget to round up deport illegal immigrants, but not enough for all 11.5 million of them. How should it be decided which ones to deport? Should we deport the first random million we can afford to catch, detain and process without regard to any other factors and forget about the other 10.5 million until the following budget year? OR, would the law be more “faithfully executed” if the limited amount of enforcement available were focused on those illegal immigrants with criminal records, or those who have not contributed or shown the likelihood of contributing to the national good?

Again I ask, why do Republicans get their panties in a twist over competent sensible governance?

MarkV

June 16th, 2012
4:53 pm

Daperera @2:57 pm

It requires somewhat more than reading the ability to read the Constitution to understand that prioritizing the enforcement of the law is a normal practice, and that it is not “selective enforcement.” When someone breaks a law, any law, prosecution usually (unless the law specifies otherwise) has wide latitude regarding the consequences, such as what punishment to ask the court to impose. That is a normal “prosecutorial discretion.” President Obama did not change the immigration law. Deportation is not an automatic result of being found to be in the country illegally. The President, in accord with his executive power, simply has decided the criteria for this prosecutorial discretion.

fair and balanced

June 16th, 2012
5:43 pm

Mark V – very well said. The right wing bigots above do not realize that there has been a long history of allowing illegals to gain citizenshil after serving in the military, My father was one of them in WWII,
He escaped the Nazis, jumped ship in NY and eventually got busted. The judge using the same discretion as the black man in the White House allowed him to stay and not be sent back to made into soap if he served. he did and became a citizen. I guess that Judge was a liberal commie Democrat.
Compare that service to Willard, his father and five sons,

Just saying..

June 16th, 2012
5:50 pm

Daperera
June 16th, 2012
2:57 pm: “Maybe we need immigration reform, but we certainly don’t need it by “executive order”. I called California’s Senator Boxer’s office and the staffer said that the President was “prioritizing” his enforcement of the law. I think this is called “selective” enforcement. I spent sometime looking through the US Constitution and could find nowhere any reference to “prioritizing” enforcement of the law, any law…..Bla, bla, bla…”

Two points you’re welcome to refute;

1) Obama has already deported more people back to Mexico than Bush did in 8 years.

2) Learn what a “signing statement” is. Explain why Bush used it more than all other US Presidents combined. Then find it written anywhere in the US Constitution.

saywhat?

June 16th, 2012
5:58 pm

I have figured it out. I re-read the U.S. Constitution, and no where did I read that governance should be competent and sensible. Our strict constructionist conservative brethren want nothing in government that isn’t in the Constitution, so maybe that explains their love affair with the previous occupant who must not be named.

Oh, wait. “Inept” and “worst President in US history” weren’t in the Constitution either. Conservatives certainly are complex creatures.

Toby3061

June 17th, 2012
1:18 pm

Wake me when November 6th gets here. Obama has dropped too many straws in this camel’s back…

Harry Turner

June 17th, 2012
1:29 pm

The author has no shame. This exercise of the Executive’s constitutional full plenary power over immigration law has exercised “prosecutorial discretion” in the best interests of keeping our country secure. He has deported 1 million illegals so far. Our President is winnowing the 1.2 million undocumented down the 800,000 keepers. They will be aspiring, motivated contributors to our country’s prosperity. Surely we have the confidence to let them help us with our most challenging problems.

Rick in Grayson

June 17th, 2012
4:17 pm

Harry…Harry! Where is the “prosecutorial discretion”? An ENTIRE class of illegal aliens is being allowed to stay in the US and they are being issued WORK PERMITS! This will surely affect the labor market for individual states which is not a “right” of the federal government.

LOL KYLE U MAD

June 17th, 2012
4:34 pm

Stop pretending that Conservatives have sympathy for these kids. They don’t. You don’t, Kyle.

And get over it, Obama check-mated you and you only have yourselves to blame, as evidenced by Romney’s inability to articulate any kind of immigration policy besides “self-deportation”.

This is good policy and good politics. Go ahead and see how far deporting innocent kids gets you.

rokidtoo

June 17th, 2012
9:12 pm

The President’s biggest mistake was trying to work with the Republicans. The Republicans (Congress and SCOTUS) want to defeat the President and they don’t care who or what gets hurt – the economy, the U.S. credit rating, public employees, or children. Therefore, the President’s response should be to fight them at every opportunity.

[...] case you don’t understand why I’m posting this now, please read what the President did last Friday.) Tweet Filed Under: Main, [...]

justiceserved

June 18th, 2012
12:33 pm

Bush used Executive Orders 291 times while President. Why was the right not up in arms then?

Intown

June 18th, 2012
1:08 pm

Obama is within his executive discretion to do this, right to make this a campaign issue, and right thumb his nose at Congressional conservative Republicans on this. We will never be able to achieve hermetic seal that Repubs demand as the prerequisite to any compromise. It is proof of their unwillingness to compromise. Moreover, there is no recognition on the Repub side of the historical and future importance of having robust immigration to fuel the forward progrss of this once and future robust nation. So, I say, keep it coming Obama. And pray that Romney and Co. don’t wise up before November so that no matter how much of Adelson’s money he spends, Latinos and those who remember their immigrant heritage put Obama in the White House for four more years.

Neil

June 18th, 2012
1:47 pm

Well done mein Furher! Law means nothing with you around.

Darwin

June 18th, 2012
4:35 pm

Please read South Baptist leader’s recent comments on this topic. Kyle – you’re even out of touch with your own base. But you do know how to stir the pot.

Victor Wilson

June 18th, 2012
9:47 pm

Why this editorial is wrong at best, ethnically prejudiced at best.
Wrong: 1. Most illegal immigrants come here on visas and overstay. “Border security” has little to do with it. 2. Immigration policy is economically unsound. At best it tries to keep out hard working first generation individuals ready to contribute much. At worst, it keeps out people that are needed. NOT ONE economic analysis indicates immigration is not a good idea. 3. It is a human issue. Breaking up settled families is worse than someone breaking the law to come here for a better future, AND the laws have been changed in the last 20 years to keep people from coming here. Legal immigration is now almost impossible. Why is it ethnically prejudiced? Most immigrants share this author’s values: Family orientation, anti-abortion, faith in God, and lack of faith in BIG GOVT. However, common ground on values is less important to this editorial’s author than common ethnicity. He shares more with “Bill the Butcher’s” Native Americans, than with anybody else. Fundamentally, his is the polite face of well articulated racial bigotry.

CFC

June 19th, 2012
11:32 am

Well done president.