View Full Version : The king has spoken..

John Hill
22nd Nov 2014, 05:36
..what now for Obama's immigration reforms?

22nd Nov 2014, 05:37
A succession of Fox News talking heads going apoplectic on screen.

John Hill
22nd Nov 2014, 05:40
How close is this?


Dea Certe
22nd Nov 2014, 06:14
Thank you, John!

22nd Nov 2014, 07:31
OK, they don't like rule by decree, fine. I don't like it either.

But couldn't they simply do their own jobs and pass some legislation? Oh, that's too hard, and no campaign donations involved.

22nd Nov 2014, 07:55
We have what is called "a system of checks and balances" that you might want to read up on to get an idea of what might happen next: perhaps a review by the Supreme Court of the constitutionality of what President Obama has done, or some counter-move by the Republican-dominated legislature.

As it happens, Obama has at least two close Kenyan relatives, an aunt and an uncle, both living in the USA since years as illegal immigrants. According to him he has had no recent contact with these relatives, so that their continued illegal presence, often supported by public funds, has nothing to do with him. I find this difficult to believe, but then I would do that, not being a Democrat.

22nd Nov 2014, 08:15
Chunks, one of the checks and balances that you refer to is the ability of a sitting president to issue executive orders;

Of course, executive orders have been around since the first days of the republic. George Washington issued eight of them. Perhaps the most famous example was Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation.

Critics say there's no specific Constitutional authority for them, but precedent has outweighed the critics.

Obama has actually issued far fewer executive orders than most of his predecessors, as Brookings scholar John Hudak, among others, has noted. As of last month, Obama had issued 193 directives classified as "executive orders" the fewest of any two-term president since Theodore Roosevelt.

What Obama has done is certainly no worse than Bush's 'signing statements' See here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/18/AR2007061801412.html). Where he refused to implement legislation that had been adopted by both houses and which he had signed into law.

Didn't see any calls for impeachment then, did we.

22nd Nov 2014, 10:49
Surely it's all a scam anyway? Just another 4million votes for Democrats, nationwide, possibly enough that they won't have to cheat in future. :)

22nd Nov 2014, 11:04
Surely it's all a scam anyway? All politics is a scam.
As I suggested in another thread, why doesn't Blabber Obama start by putting his money where his fat mouth is and taking some of the illegal Africans who are making their way on rafts across the Mediterranean?

22nd Nov 2014, 11:06
As an outsider looking in so to speak, is there a mechanism in place that would allow another party to be formed independent of the Republican and Democratic parties? :)

22nd Nov 2014, 11:36
Check out Ross Perot's run for the Presidency, for a recent example of a third party candidacy. For an earlier one, Theodore Roosevelt ran, unsuccessfully, as the candidate of the Bull Moose party in 1912.

ExXB: It's a system: something with multiple elements. One element is what Obama used, but another might be what another branch of government shall use as a counter. Let's see what happens next.

Many people, even US citizens, often misunderstand what is done in US government.

Bill Clinton, for instance, was impeached; it was not just that there were calls for his impeachment. He was impeached on two counts, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice, by the House of Representatives, but he was later acquitted by the Senate.

22nd Nov 2014, 11:54
Thanks chuks, you learn something every day, I mistakenly thought Ross Perot was a member of one of the main parties. :)

22nd Nov 2014, 15:30
SteynOnline: Elections Matter? (http://www.steynonline.com/6671/elections-matter)

Juliet Sierra Papa
22nd Nov 2014, 22:20
As an outsider looking in so to speak, is there a mechanism in place that would allow another party to be formed independent of the Republican and Democratic parties?
We have the EFF here Mr Beaufort, they are more than welcome to take this pr!ck and his party.

23rd Nov 2014, 03:26
We do have other parties already formed. Libertarians, Greens, etc. But they do not have the funding to compete, and the vast majority of voters prefer to vote for someone who has a chance to win, rather than for the best candidate. Even so, there are a few third party and indy politicians who have managed to get into office.

I've been rather amused by the recent flap about American voters being called 'stupid'. We all know that around election time the landscape is covered in signs, showing nothing more than a candidate's name, and possible a very short slogan. These signs were purchased by campaign managers, who are paid large sums of money to know how to attract votes. And those who are paid to know think that many Americans vote based on name recognition. :uhoh: And that's why I carry a gun.

Re the OP, I think Obama's immigration move was one of the smartest things he's done. Makes him look good and the GOP look bad, even if they manage to overturn it. As far as immigration itself, I think that is a problem with no good answers, which is probably why no one wants to work on it. Kind of lose/lose all around.

23rd Nov 2014, 04:20
But couldn't they simply do their own jobs and pass some legislation?

How? If it actually got through the Democrat-run Senate, Obama would veto it.

23rd Nov 2014, 04:51
As a foreigner currently 'living' in the USA on a work assignment, i find this "immigration" reform to be sensible on a national level, but utter bullshit and unjust on a personal level.

There are numerous people trying to get into and stay/work/live legally in the US but can't because they went the "legal" route (it's not that easy as many may think - certainly easier immigrating in almost any EU country than it is to immigrate into the US). Now all lawbreakers are getting more or less a free trip simply for breaking the law for 3 years. .... and those who follow the law still can't get in.

23rd Nov 2014, 06:08
Now all lawbreakers are getting more or less a free trip simply for breaking the law for 3 years. .... and those who follow the law still can't get in.

Bingo. Every amnesty craps in the face of the law-abiding immigrants who spent years, and significant amounts of money, following the law. Obama is telling them they were idiots for doing things the legal way, when they could just have turned up in America and demanded their right to live there.

23rd Nov 2014, 08:07
Oh I thought this thread might have been about what Prince Charles will do when he becomes King.

Prince Charles will not be silenced when he is made king, say allies | UK news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/19/becoming-king-not-silence-prince-charles-allies)

23rd Nov 2014, 08:38
Well if it comes to pass in the next two years, Chucky III and Barry I can combine their skills and a new Empire will arise.

23rd Nov 2014, 10:15
Part of the problem is that if you want to sneak in and work some menial job then you can stay under the radar without too much trouble. If you want to do a skilled job then you really need to be legal. So this sort of amnesty is attracting exactly the sort of people we don't need! We have drones enough as it is.

Face it: "Life is unfair," as even a bleeding heart such as Jimmy Carter was quick to point out. If we really want to open the gates to the suffering throngs of the Third World we shall find ourselves crowded out of our own country, and run out of money too. Poor quality of life back home, taken by itself, should not bring the right to live in the States. It still matters to know what you can bring to the party.

23rd Nov 2014, 13:47
Anyone remember the name of the fella who signed a paper to close some holiday camp for bad guys in some bay in Cuba ?