The Big Lawsuit

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by finnbow

What's also funny is that within days of the President delaying the employer mandate, the House voted to do exactly the same thing. I suppose Boehner's pissed that the President actually succeeded in doing something that the GOP wanted.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/11/politi...ite-house-sue/

What if Boehner wins the lawsuit? Will the delay that he championed and supported through the House vote be rescinded? That'll make him real popular with the business community.

As rudderless as Obama looks, the House makes him look like the paragon of virtue and efficiency.

Pretty much how I see it.

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

Yeah, well, that's how it's supposed to work. Laws originate or are modified in Congress, not in the WH. I think its the constitutional lawyer in the WH that's confused.



Again, its not just about Obamacare. Its about a Prez with a phone and a pen that has decided that he wants to act unilaterally.

But, that's just it. He knows exactly what he's doing and they know they can't do anything about it.......

Because he knows the ropes better than they do. That is why he pisses them off so bad. It's also why I voted for the smartass. The Republicans hate him because he keeps evading and out foxing them. And I'm loving every second of that.

Even when he pisses me off. It's worth it.

Dave

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I understand that, but now we have the GOP demanding that the President send all the kids immediately back to Central America even though it's against the law they passed and Dubya signed. So, on one hand they're suing Obama for doing what they wanted (delaying the Obamacare mandate) while demanding that he defy the child trafficking law because they're too chickenshit to take any vote involving immigration issues.

We'll disagree about much of this. Obama's new found desire to strictly adhere to the law in this case is, at the very least, convenient. While everyone seems to identify the TVPRA as the root of the issue, I'm left wondering why Obama, for example, doesn't simply use his phone and his pen to creatively change the law like he did for healthcare reform. Under TVCRA, Canadian and Mexican children are exempt. He could simply decide the broaden the exemption for any children who also transits illegally through Mexico, like he unilaterally broadened the enforcement of CO2 emissions for example. I mean, at least that would be consistent with how the Administration has chosen to enforce other laws.

(On a side note, I love how you others on the left love to characterize this as "Bush's law". Its not like he wrote it himself and signed it into law. In fact, Biden was the one who introduced the law in the Senate, and Tom Lantos introduced it in the House.)

Many in the GOP want a legal way to handle the issue of illegal immigration. You've observed this yourself. However, Boehner said in February that it was “time to deal with” U.S. immigration policy, but after discussions with the Prez came away saying that it will be difficult to pass a bill this year because fellow Republicans don’t trust President Barack Obama to enforce the changes.

“There’s widespread doubt about whether this administration can be trusted to enforce our laws,” Boehner told reporters in Washington. “It’s going to be difficult to move any immigration legislation until that changes.”

They don't trust Obama on this because they know that Obama is also playing politics with this. The "fix" here would be to address this issues with the 2008 Act that is responsible for this mess. However, WaPo observes:

To his credit, Obama voiced support for such a measure. Less to his credit, he omitted it from his proposal to Congress after 200 activist organizations urged him to reconsider; they argued in an open letter that it would leave Central American children at the mercy of criminal gangs back home.

The right answer here is not to hide behind a broken law. The law was designed to prevent and discourage trafficking and its obvious that its having the precisely opposite effect. There are many in this forum who, for example, cheer when drug laws are enforced and call such laws immoral or unjust. Is the enforcement of a law that encourages families to send their children (and, by they way, there's quite a few adults in the mix here too) unaccompanied on a long and perilous journey, where they end up being released to unknown persons (we heard testimony this week that DHS makes no effort, for example, to verify the immigration status of the people who the kids are released to)? Is it any less immoral to to enforce a law that ends up creating make-shift Manzanars out of military bases and bus depots?

[whell]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

But, that's just it. He knows exactly what he's doing and they know they can't do anything about it.......

Dave

I wonder if these folks think he knows exactly what he's doing?

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by whell

I wonder if these folks think he knows exactly what he's doing?

Whell's sudden and convenient concern about the fate of illegals comes bubbling up to the surface of the sludge lagoon.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

We'll disagree about much of this. Obama's new found desire to strictly adhere to the law in this case is, at the very least, convenient. While everyone seems to identify the TVPRA as the root of the issue, I'm left wondering why Obama, for example, doesn't simply use his phone and his pen to creatively change the law like he did for healthcare reform. Under TVCRA, Canadian and Mexican children are exempt. He could simply decide the broaden the exemption for any children who also transits illegally through Mexico, like he unilaterally broadened the enforcement of CO2 emissions for example. I mean, at least that would be consistent with how the Administration has chosen to enforce other laws.

(On a side note, I love how you others on the left love to characterize this as "Bush's law". Its not like he wrote it himself and signed it into law. In fact, Biden was the one who introduced the law in the Senate, and Tom Lantos introduced it in the House.)

Dubya did indeed sign it into law. Nobody held a gun to his head. There were plenty of bills from the Dems he didn't sign, but this is one that he did. Try as you will, you cannot get around it.

As for the political dynamics behind the current situation, it's clear to me that both sides have long since chosen to use such dramatic events to point fingers and gain political advantage and not actually address problems. Unfortunately, politics has become all about the acquisition and maintenance of power, not solving problems. Both sides' positions with regard to this crisis is to try to use it to their advantage in the next election, not to actually solve the problem.

[Oerets]

Immigration only becomes an issue after your families migration to this country it seems.

The majority of those seeing this as immigration issue and not a humanitarian refugee drug related one. As yourself two questions, first how well were your ancestors treated when arriving here? Second are we a caring nation?


Also what happen to the argument on the whole life thing. Does the right to life end at birth if you are brown and speaky no english?

Barney

[barbara]

Originally Posted by Oerets

Immigration only becomes an issue after your families migration to this country it seems.

The majority of those seeing this as immigration issue and not a humanitarian refugee drug related one. As yourself two questions, first how well were your ancestors treated when arriving here? Second are we a caring nation?


Also what happen to the argument on the whole life thing. Does the right to life end at birth if you are brown and speaky no english?

Barney

Well stated. I agree.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by barbara

Well stated. I agree.

Plus one. To quote some smart ass comedian, "We just might get a World Cup winning team out of it in ten years or so".

[Rajoo]

This is yet another manufactured crisis for political purposes. The intent of the GOP is to continue to paint Obama as an ineffective president.
There are three issues in play here. One is the spike in influx of immigrants not of Mexican origin, the 2008 law that GWB signed, and now the Obama request of $3.7 billion in emergency funding.
Democrats are opposed to revising the law, under the law the administration cannot arbitrarily deport, without additional funds the government will not have the resources to handle the influx. GOP house will amend this funding request to death, one can bet on it. So there never will be an answer, was never meant to be and it is another on the GOP we are gonna get you list.

My guess is that the GOP is hoping that any anti-Obama fervor they can whip up will only help them in the mid-term elections. Only time would tell. One thing for certain, the GOP are about to alienate the entire Latino voting block because the detainees will continue to be miserable as they await legal processing.