Obama amnesty announcement Friday

[OntheRail]

Originally Posted by davew

I wonder if that is because of his tendency to arrive at scheduled news conferences 30-45 minutes after he said it was going to start?

It is hard to put down his executive order before knowing what is in it. The leaked talking points say must have kid born in US and been here for 5-10 years. Will not be eligible for any welfare, food stamps, social security,... voting privileges and start paying taxes. Hard to say what it will be after he is done rewriting (interpreting) the constitution.

Obama does give speeches with enthusiasm and a big SMILE
And since most of audience will be Hispanic, they probably will not walk out on him.

I'll be the most transparent administration in History.

Rates will go down $2500.00
If you like you Doctor... keep your Doctor.
If you like your plan.. you can keep your plan... PERIOD!
Not a Tax... Lower cost projection by CBO and MIT's Prof. Gruber.
Parts of the Bill postponed... others reinterpreted.

Lacks Trust... Not above outright lying.

Could go on...

You know now that I think about it... he is transparent , he's just full of sh*t.... Period!

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by delayjf

Assuming Amnesty becomes reality - 1, 5, 10 years from now, how does the government ascertain that any specific illegal was present in the US when amnesty was granted?

I assume they will require that those already here who qualify to register. I also have the sneaking suspicion that the president will order a significant beef up of border security.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by delayjf

Assuming Amnesty becomes reality - 1, 5, 10 years from now, how does the government ascertain that any specific illegal was present in the US when amnesty was granted?

All amnesty plans I have heard of include registration and a background check.

Most of the buzz and "leaks" and speculation I have seen is that he is not going to announce amnesty. He is going to announce an extension of his previous "Dream Act" Executive Order, which applied to illegals brought here as minor children. The extension would apply to parents of those children and to illegals who are related to legal citizens. It would defer deportation for those people and give them work permits. It would not give them citizenship. Some rumors say that the work permits are only good for two years. Whether that is official or not, they are only good until the next president decides to continue or end the order.

This sounds more like something Obama would do. It is a spineless evasion of the issue, deferring the question of amnesty or citizenship until he is out of office. Kick the can down the road and let the next president deal with it.

[Tom]

No, he won't.
Obama is all talk. He will do nothing that benefits AMERICANS.

Now, let's look at he bottom line here.
By adding 5 million more to the job pool, he will effectively wipe out EVERY SINGLE JOB CREATED SINCE 2009.

[TJDave]

Originally Posted by Tom

By adding 5 million more to the job pool, he will effectively wipe out EVERY SINGLE JOB CREATED SINCE 2009.

Why do you suggest that? These 5 million have been here and working, for years.

[Tom]

Not legally.
Now they workforce numbers have to be adjusted to include them.

You want to CREATE 5 million jobs?
Deport them all.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by Marshall Bennett

I've kept silent on this subject here till now, and I won't say much. The subject reeks of stinkin politics.
Until the borders are secure, what difference does it make whether the millions already here are granted amnesty or not? They'll still be here one way or another. We don't have the resources to round up millions of undocumented individuals, of which a large portion will hide, and send them home.
Personally I don't give a f**k what Obama does tomorrow. It won't make any difference except on each sides of party lines where more anger will surface.
Each side has been using immigration as a tool to fight each other for decades now instead of directing their energy towards securing our borders.
So let the chips fall where they may. I for one, really don't give a damn.

I agree for the most part as well.

The only part of this worth getting bent over is the fact that the guy that was supposed to put an end to abuse of executive power naturally has done the exact opposite and upped the ante in terms of extent and scope..

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

the guy that was supposed to put an end to abuse of executive power naturally has done the exact opposite and upped the ante in terms of extent and scope..

On the other hand, he did say that he was going to put an end to business as usual in Washington, and he has certainly done that.

Whether you like their policies or not, the most effective presidents (LBJ, Reagan, Clinton) worked across the aisle to accomplish their goals. Obama has certainly put an end to even a chance of that happening.

[Tom]

If you don't defend the constitution, you do not deserve to have it.
No man is above the law. Especially Obama.
It is our duty to destroy the enemies of our laws, our system.
Obama has become that enemy.

Some one name me a country - ever - that chose to ignore its own laws and allow one man to make the rules - that ever became anything good.

Never happened, never will.
We are duty bound to stop every Hitler-wanna be, no matter who he is.
And this all this POS is.

[Clocker]

The NY Times Editorial Board heartily endorses Obama's immigration plan, sight unseen.

They also condemn the right for the things that they are going to say about the content of the plan.

The right will falsely label Mr. Obama’s actions lawless. They are a victory for problem-solving over posturing, common sense over cruelty, and lawful order over a chaotic status quo.

I wonder if those guys are any good at seeing the future at Aqueduct.

Editorial

[Clocker]

Ah, the voice of reason puts everything into perspective.

"Does the public know the Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order?" -- Nancy Pelosi

[FantasticDan]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Whether you like their policies or not, the most effective presidents (LBJ, Reagan, Clinton) worked across the aisle to accomplish their goals. Obama has certainly put an end to even a chance of that happening.

The Senate passed their immigration bill with bi-partisan support. Obama would have happily signed it. Boehner refused to even take it up so as to not give Obama any kind of "victory". This has happened repeatedly, hence this historic do-nothing Congress.

But yeah, it's Obama that won't work with THEM..

[BlueShoe]

Originally Posted by davew

Obama does give speeches with enthusiasm and a big SMILE
And since most of audience will be Hispanic, they probably will not walk out on him.

Hope his bleepin telepromper short circuits on him.

Sure thing wager; that little traitor that got elected to Congress from Illinois, Luis Gutierrez D-Ill., will be up front close to King Barack with a big grin on his stupid face.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by FantasticDan

Boehner refused to even take it up so as to not give Obama any kind of "victory".

Boehner said before the Senate even began work on their bill that the House would never even consider a comprehensive bill. He said that immigration reform would have to be done in incremental bills.

Harry Reid insisted on a comprehensive bill.

How is that "refusal" to give Obama a victory?

[FantasticDan]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Boehner said before the Senate even began work on their bill that the House would never even consider a comprehensive bill. He said that immigration reform would have to be done in incremental bills. Harry Reid insisted on a comprehensive bill. How is that "refusal" to give Obama a victory?

Wow, really?

"The House shall not take up this bill (despite bi-partisan support), for it is grossly comprehensive!"

So how many incremental bills has the House advanced and voted on?