Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Did Obama Just Give Himself Enough Rope?

To hang himself?

Did Obama just provide the opening for a border-security bill? posted on HOT AIR November 21, 2014 by Ed Morrissey
It might take a little political jujitsu to pull it off, but Barack Obama may have inadvertently opened the door for Republicans to move forward in their incremental approach to immigration reform.
Until now, Obama and his fellow Democrats have argued that the humanitarian aspects of the current illegal immigrants in the US demanded a comprehensive solution rather than a deliberative and sequential strategy that could make sure that one piece worked before adding another to the mix.�

Republicans are pushing back hard on Obama�s declaration of executive amnesty last night, but it might have removed the argument for a comprehensive plan � especially if it produces the kind of results that Marc Ambinder predicted yesterday:
It will make America more of a magnet for undocumented immigrants...
�Illegal� immigration will probably increase in the near-term...

In other words, Obama�s announcement last night will not only do little to solve the actual problems with illegal immigration, it will clearly make them�worse.
Rather than ensuring a rational process for dealing with the current population of �undocumented workers,� this declaration and its inevitable consequences will�make sorting people out later during any normalization process more difficult.
It�s exactly the same dynamic that occurred in 1986, except that Congress created it through law rather than a President doing so through an edict.

That makes border security an even more acute problem than it has been already.
The new Republican Congress will have to address the situation immediately in order to head off some of these problems, assuming it doesn�t reach emergency status in the weeks prior to the start of the next session.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) already has a border-security bill ready to go in the first week of January, which will now take on a much more urgent track:
Johnson outlined his plans in an interview with The Associated Press amid growing Republican complaints over Obama�s plans to act on his own by year�s end to address the faulty immigration system.
Obama�s plans, which could remove the threat of deportation for millions, are emerging as a major point of conflict with congressional Republicans who made big gains in last week�s midterm elections.

�Regardless of what President Obama does, I�m going to move forward with a very strong border security bill,� Johnson said. �I hope President Obama doesn�t take that executive action because I think for many people that will poison the well and certainly make it more difficult to solve the immigration problem.�

Johnson said he would move his border bill �as quickly as we can� once the new Congress convenes. He said he supports solving the immigration system one issue at a time � the position of most Republicans.

Thanks to Obama jumping the gun and supposedly addressing the humanitarian concerns of those already here, Republicans have the opening to argue that the serial approach is now the best way to solve the problem.

That is what I meant by political jujitsu. In jujitsu, one does not confront an opponent�s strength head on, but uses it against him...

They need to address "birthright citizenship" as well.

No, because no one is gonna tie the other end to anything!

GOP has had more than 6 years that they could have written any ticket that they wanted as to immigration, instead they elected to do nothing, and have spent the entire 6 years doing nothing about anything!

Phil

That is Congress' prerogative. However to say they spent 6 years doing nothing is categorically untrue. The House has passed over 300 bills that have never been allowed to the floor for a vote in the Senate. In the same time, the Senate has passed 14.

It's mu understanding that the House sent several immigration bills to the Senate but harry dickreed would not let them come up for debate. The house has done it's share.
kwg

noknees
I believe you are absolutely correct as every other nation has all ready done that very thing. Cheers NC

The Republicans took control of the house in 2010. That is four years, not six. For the first two years of the Obama presidency, your democrats had total control of both houses, including a super majority in the Senate. Obama and the democrats chose to do nothing about immigration during that period, but instead shoved the ACA down the throats of the Republicans and the American people. If you are going to bitch about the Republicans, at least get the facts right.

couldn't have said it better myself. Actually started to then read your post and deleted mine.

And Obama has had 6 years to enforce current law, but he would rather use it as a tool in his anti-American agenda.

Forget the rope for gosh sake. Move on and focus on getting stuff fixed. You guys keep honing in on kicking the same old can down the road.

This cancer is darn near cured so walk away. Shun it! Swim upstream and away from the deep end.

[bleep] him!

ONWARD!!!

Obama could have had this, all he had to do was to have a bill go thru the congress and the senate at the time his party had the majority! He didn't and he told every body that he could not do what he did do because he didn't have the authority to do so, but now he has before the next Congress is seated. Its an impeachable offense, and the Congress could do just that, but unless you get the Senate to convict him for it, its a moot point! Now not fund it might be a way to do something, the Courts may take action and maybe the Democrats might because he has damaged them badly in the coming years! Its all a bit if, in the mean time he just told the country to go F ourselves, and that just might be an executive order to far!

At this juncture pointing fingers will solve nothing I think we should start hanging liars. One or two swinging from the gavels will fix a lot of bull poop.

This! He doesn't really want immigration reform for the "fruit pickers and house cleaners." He simply wants to get them on his side in the vote. He doesn't care about them one bit.

If he is short on rope I have some i will donate.

Thanks for the offer, but I think Obama is doing just ever so fine on his own.
He has destroyed the Democrat party.
It will rebuild.

Another fine example of how Obama's stupidity is going to make the border worse than before.

on Breitbart TV 21 Nov 2014
Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio (R) argued that President Obama's executive action on immigration would result in areas along the border being "flooded" with illegal immigrants on Friday's "Your World with Neil Cavuto" on the Fox News Channel.

"I'm going to have to beef up my fraud bureau. We arrest people by the hundreds in the workplace with fake IDs, violation of the state laws. So we're going to have a lot of fun with fake documents, and I don't see how he can keep up with it" he stated.
He added, "what about all the people that will be coming into our country now because they believe what the president is saying?

They believe it's amnesty. They believe they're going to get away with it, so we're going to be flooded with more people coming into our country because of the president speaking out and giving the impression that at least five million people will be given a pass. That's a big problem coming up."

Arpaio also said "at least he's looking into the problem in the interior, but he's not doing it correctly, giving amnesty to five million people.

By the way, how do you keep track of five million people? He can't even keep track of the criminals when they're released from jail, where they're at, so that's a really, really serious problem.
How to keep track of them and that's what concerns me, along with the issues of fairness...what about the millions of people that come into our country, they wait for years to get here, and they do it the right way, and now how do you think they feel when you're giving a [get out of jail free card] to these five million people?"

I believe GG is referring to the time the Rs had both Congress & the Presidency.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/393215/how-check-president-john-yoo-robert-delahunty/page/0/2

Although Obama�s deportation-deferral program violates the president�s duty to enforce the laws, the Constitution does not set out any obvious paths for resistance. The Constitution does not specifically set out the immigration power itself, only a power of naturalization, which it vests in Congress. The Supreme Court, however, has long recognized that control over the borders and immigration lies in Congress�s hands, not the president�s. To restore the Constitution�s separation of powers, critics will have to avail themselves of a variety of responses, some of which are less politically feasible than others.

Our Founders established three primary mechanisms to control an unconstitutional government. The first was the power of impeachment. The Clinton affair focused on whether perjury fell into the Constitution�s impeachable offenses: �Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.� Clinton�s defenders made a good point that this provision seemed to limit impeachment to the president�s public performance of his job. At the time of the Constitution�s writing, the British Parliament had used impeachment to remove ministers not just for constitutional disputes, but for incompetence and failure in office, such as losing a battle or a war. The Framers would have had no problem concluding that the president�s refusal to carry out his constitutional duties amounts to an impeachable offense.

The problem with impeachment is not its constitutional availability, but its political viability. As the Clinton affair teaches, Congress should not embark on impeachment unless it has the votes to convict. The House may vote to impeach � essentially a decision to prosecute � but the Senate must agree by a two-thirds vote to remove the president. Even with their stunning victories in this month�s midterm elections, Republicans have nothing approaching 67 votes in the Senate. Not only will impeachment fail, but as with Clinton, it will likely redound to Obama�s political benefit. Congress could always censure the president, as it considered during the Clinton affair. That could be a stinging rebuke, but it would have no practical effect on Obama�s order or his unconstitutional exercise of power.

The second, more promising, route is the power of the purse. Responding to the criticism that the Constitution made the president a potential dictator, James Madison declared in the critical Virginia ratifying convention that �the sword and the purse are not to be given to the same member.� Comparing the U.S. Constitution to the British, he said, �The sword is in the hands of the British King; the purse in the hands of the Parliament. It is so in America, as far as any analogy can exist.�

Opponents in Congress should immediately turn to the funding power. They need not aim for a complete government shutdown, which proved disastrous for the Republican party last year. They should use funds as a scalpel, not a sledgehammer. Congress could increase funds for border and immigration-control officers and cut them for higher management and legal advisers in the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department. It could separate the DHS appropriation from the overall federal budget and take a stronger hand in reorganizing and downsizing the department. It could refuse to cooperate with the Obama administration on any new funding proposals in other areas unrelated to immigration, and it could ignore the administration and spend more funds on national security.

Republicans should combine funding cutoffs with the usual tools of oversight to paralyze the Obama administration for the next two years. It could hold hearings where Obama officials face tough questions and conduct investigations into the performance on immigration, border, and national security. The Senate could refuse to confirm any Obama nominees for executive or judicial positions. It could refuse to approve any treaties or international agreements. President Obama should expect that his proposals in any area will be dead on arrival in Congress.

one things for sure...we need us a minority in the white house lgtb to ...no one can say anything and the media will be at your feet...