IN Dem Senator condemns Obama

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by church mouse guy, Nov 21, 2014.

  1. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
  2. Zaac

    Zaac
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    13,757
    Likes Received:
    220
    So is he mad that his toes got stepped on or something? He's obviously wrong as the precedent had already been set.

    Nothing to see here.
     
  3. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    I don't know what precedent you are talking about. Joe is worried that he is a weak Democrat in a GOP state and has little chance of re-election.

    Also, unlike Nevada, Indiana has little need for more low-paid workers as we already have plenty of low-paid workers and we are getting more from Illinois and Michigan and Ohio all the time.

    Really, it is Nevada that needs more cheap labor.
     
  4. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,361
    Likes Received:
    789
    The Reagan administration action that amnesty advocates point to is simply irrelevant to the current case and trumpeted only because Reagan’s name is attached to it. In what was a legitimate exercise of prosecutorial discretion shortly after passage of the 1986 law, INS announced that as a practical matter it would look the other way under certain circumstances with regard to minor children both of whose parents received amnesty but who did not themselves qualify for the amnesty. It granted no work permits, Social Security numbers, or driver’s licenses. In the context of trying to implement the convoluted IRCA amnesty, I might well have done the same thing.

    George H. W. Bush’s 1990 “family fairness” policy is at least somewhat germane, in that it provided for renewable “voluntary departure” (i.e., amnesty) for certain spouses and children of amnesty beneficiaries, including work authorization. But it is no precedent either, for three main reasons:

    First, its size and scope. Despite claims at the time that “as many as 1.5 million” illegal aliens might benefit from the policy, the actual number was much, much smaller. In 1990, Congress passed legislation granting green cards to “legalization dependents” — in effect codifying the executive action Bush had taken a just few months earlier. That (lawful) measure actually cast the net wider than Bush’s action, and yet only about 140,000 people took advantage of it — less than one-tenth the number advocates claim. Scale matters here; Bush’s action cannot meaningfully be described as a precedent for Obama’s scheme that would be 30 or 40 times larger.

    Second, both Reagan’s and Bush’s moves were cleanup measures for the implementation of the once-in-history amnesty that was passed by Congress. In other words, it was a coda, a tying up of loose ends, for something that Congress had actually enacted, and thus arguably a legitimate part of executing the law — which is, after all, the function of the executive. Obama’s threatened move, on the other hand, is directly contrary to Congress’s decision not to pass an amnesty. In effect, Bush was saying “Congress has acted and I’m doing my best to implement its directives,” while Obama is saying “Congress has not done my bidding, so I’m going to implement my own directives.”

    Finally, in the same 1990 immigration law that codified Bush’s “family fairness” directive, Congress rejected further ad hoc presidential amnesties by creating Temporary Protected Status (TPS). The various unilateral actions presidents had taken to amnesty small groups of illegal aliens over the years — Extended Voluntary Departure and Deferred Enforced Departure were among the Orwellian euphemisms deployed — were clearly seen as abuses of the discretion which Congress granted the president. TPS was intended to limit that discretion in granting legal status, including work permits, to illegal aliens, by limiting such grants to clearly specified circumstances — such as when a country suffered an earthquake or hurricane — and imposing specific procedures upon the executive. And to make certain that future executive actions didn’t simply become a means of naturalizing entire populations of illegal aliens, the TPS law requires any bill addressing naturalization of TPS recipients has to pass the Senate with a 60 percent super-majority.

    It is absurd for Obama to claim that the very executive overreach that prompted Congress to impose these limits established a precedent for even greater executive overreach today.

    Whatever their merits, the Reagan and Bush measures were modest attempts at faithfully executing legislation duly enacted by Congress. Obama’s planned amnesty decree is Caesarism, pure and simple. “Precedent” isn’t the right word for the Obama crowd’s invocation of Reagan. The right word is “pretext.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/392887/obamas-unprecedented-amnesty-mark-krikorian
     
  5. Zaac

    Zaac
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    13,757
    Likes Received:
    220

    And you can stop right there with the excuses. The prosecutorial discretion precedent had been set and you don't get to decide which ones are legitimate and which aren't.

    This is nothing more than another partisan rant about nothing.
     
  6. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,361
    Likes Received:
    789
    No it hasn't and no about of liberal spin makes it so.
     
  7. Zaac

    Zaac
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    13,757
    Likes Received:
    220
    Yes it has. And no amount of stumping of feet and throwing of a third grade, partisan political temper tantrum is gonna undo history. :laugh:
     
  8. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    The Democrats lied to Reagan, who said that he was counting on the truthfulness of the Democrats--which was stupid on Reagan's part to think that the Democrats would tell the truth.
     
  9. Zaac

    Zaac
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    13,757
    Likes Received:
    220
    What does telling him a lie or not have to do with the legality of a President having the authority to do what Reagan, Bush and now Obama did?
     
  10. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    How many times does it have to be posted that Reagan was acting in relation to a law passed by Congress? A law in which the Democrats lied. A law which Reagan said that he did not like to sign for fear that the Democrats were lying.
     
  11. Zaac

    Zaac
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    13,757
    Likes Received:
    220
    And how many times does it have to be said that it doesn't matter who lied? If Congress has passed THE LAW, then he can LEGALLY do it.

    The precedent has been set so what's the real problem?
     
  12. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    You see, Reagan was acting in conjunction with federal legislation but His Imperial Majesty was acting because the GOP rejected any new federal legislation according to his own statement. So there is no precedent whatsoever of any sort.

    And that is what the IN Senator was saying when he said that only Congress could act on this matter.

    Now Joe may be speaking on behalf of Bayh and Hillary--I don't know--but he is a Democrat who knows that he cannot be re-elected in Indiana by supporting this imperial decree.
     
  13. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,247
    Likes Received:
    617
    Obama is using prosecutorial discretion within the same 1986 law that Reagan used. Case closed, unless there is an expiration date on the law.
     
  14. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    Reagan acted to implement a Congressional law granting amnesty to people here before 1982. There is no such federal law at this point and His Imperial Majesty pointed out that the Imperial Democrats passed a bill in the Senate in support of the US Chamber of Commerce but that the GOP in the House pigeon-holed the US Chamber of Commerce.

    Look for His Imperial Majesty to dissolve Congress soon with the total support of the Imperial Democrat Party.
     
  15. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,247
    Likes Received:
    617
    Show me where Reagan said he did not want to sign the bill. Reagan was in favor of the concept of amnesty.
     
  16. Zaac

    Zaac
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    13,757
    Likes Received:
    220
    Of course he was. This is, as usual, about partisanship.
     
  17. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    Reagan expressed doubts about the Democrats at the time and his doubts were justified. The Democrats never kept their promises. To use Reagan as a precedent is laughable since Democrats hate Reagan to this day and since legally there is no relationship as leftist Democrat Turley has outlined. There are actually one or two Democrats who are not imperialistic.
     
  18. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,247
    Likes Received:
    617
    Show me with a link. I lived through it and it didn't go down the way you allege.
     
  19. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
  20. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,247
    Likes Received:
    617

Share This Page

Loading...