Immigration Reform and the Executive Order Pen

1. 88

   GA Andersonposted 9 years ago

   There is a lot of talk about the prospect of President Obama using an executive order to initiate some type of immigration reform before the new Congress takes office.
   
   Many pundits are speculating this might occur around Thanksgiving. (White House leaks?)
   
   The new Congress convenes in approx. 6 weeks. Should the President wait?
   
   What is so time-critical that 4 weeks would make such a difference? In my view this action would be a purely political move and a middle finger to the new Congress - and the American voters that elected them.
   
   I also think that except for the Democrat base that supports an amnesty-type reform platform, most of America will see it the same way.
   
   What say you?
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      If he waits for congress there will be nothing done.  If he uses his pen we will instantly have 10 million new citizens to give welfare to and become dependent on government for subsistence plus encourage 10 million more to sneak in.  It would be a great political move for his party even if it angers the rest of the people.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         God shetposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Do you feel that it is a 'depressing' fact for atheists that they do not have enough freedom to choose not to be maneuvered by a Muslim president?

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Can't imagine what atheism has to do with anything, and can't imagine why you would call Obama a Muslim.  He has, after all, attended a Christian church for years with never a hint of visiting a Mosque.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               God shetposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Interesting statements from you.

               replyreport
            2. 59

               God shetposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Seems like you don't take 'atheism' very seriously, as well:
               
               
               http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2672029

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  That mini-thread concerned taking believers seriously as they discussed why they believe, specifically the difference between wild unsupported claims and the statement they are afraid of death.  Go back and read it again.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     God shetposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Seems like you haven't fully understood that thread, yet. Neither this one (up-to now).

                     replyreport
         2. 84

            psycheskinnerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            The president is the president. That is about governmental structure not religion.  I do not give a damn what religion the president is although, for the record, he is Christian.

            replyreport
         3. 78

            Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Where do we get this hackneyed idea that the President is a Muslim? It  falls in the same category as proof of Obama's citizenship or demand for public disclosure of his college transcripts Can you prove your assertion?

            replyreport
         4. 71

            rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Too laughable to explain why.

            replyreport
         5. 88

            GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            I guess I should have said, "What say you, (except for God Shet)?
            
            Do you have anything to contribute to this discussion? I welcome all views on a topic, but it is just courtesy, (and I don't think too much to expect), to address the topic, instead of dragging in an unrelated soapbox. This is not a religious thread, so why are you here?
            
            GA

            replyreport
      2. 88

         GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         The optimist in me thinks there might be a chance for some type of acceptable bi-partisan agreement on immigration reform in the new Congress.
         
         I explained this further down in a response to Credence2, but in short, I believe if the Republicans continue with two more years of congressional behavior like the last two years - the public will just kiss them off as still just the party of "No."
         
         And I am hopeful there are enough bright bulbs in the pack to illuminate this to the rest of the Party.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            I have to disagree.  With a clear majority now, I fully expect the opposing party - democrats - to become the party of "No" with everything introduced by the republicans.  Neither side, not just republicans, is able to compromise.

            replyreport
         2. 88

            GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Oh my, oh my! I think I was giving the Repubs too much credit. I will type this with one hand as I eat crow with the other.
            
            It appears they just went through the election/selection of their congressional leadership.
            
            Same, Same. The seniority, "I scratched your back,"  and buddy system prevailed.
            
            Without even proposing any new ideas or reasons why - the Old Guard has taken their rightful places - just when change was needed the most.
            
            So, who will be the Dems presidential winner in 2016?
            
            GA

            replyreport
   2. 78

      Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I agree that this is expedience from the President. But Obama is not the first president that used 11th hour executive orders to promote a concept that in the near future would prove more difficult to get congressional support, through a lame duck status or otherwise what is to happen next January.  I would not deny the will of the electorate in their seating of GOP candidates. Having worked in Govt. contracting I am aware that an Executive Order may be nothing more than a piece of paper, without the purse strings of congress to give it life. The urgency of the president's effort indicate that this was issue that was on the laundry list, but one that could not be sorted out by a contentious congress. I can only suspect that things will become more difficult in regards to immigration reform as it never really had a chance of bi-partisan consensus in recent years.

      replyreport
      1. 88

         GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Good points. But I do think there may be, (or would have been), a chance for a bi-partisan immigration bill in the next Congress.
         
         I say that for this reason;
         
         A lot of pundit commentary is advising the Republicans to get something positive done in the next two years if they want a shot at the White House in 2016. Two more years of being obstructionists and the party of "No," and anti-Obama everything, will almost certainly seal their coffin in the eyes of the public.
         
         I heartily agree with this sentiment, and am enough of an optimist to believe there are enough smart new Republicans in Congress, and the party, to heed the wisdom of this line of thinking.
         
         I do not think this new Congress will try to repeal Obamacare, (but I bet they will be massaging the hell out of it), and I do think that even though they will try to change the agenda, they will back off some of more publicly alienating  issues.
         
         At least I hope they are smart enough to see the pitfalls of continuing in the footsteps of the current congress.
         
         Ga

         replyreport
2. 84

   psycheskinnerposted 9 years ago

   I know the process of finding right approach to undocumented immigrants is fraught to say the least.  But as a documented immigrant I do think someone needs to kick start immigration reform and make the system work better and in the genuine best interests of the nation as determined by more objective methods than people's knee jerk responses.
   
   And maybe the executive pen is a way to do it.  Mixed race marriage was permitted 30 years before a majority of people agreed with it. Many important steps were taken by leaders without majority support for ethical, legal or economic reasons. Sometimes, especially when it comes to big economic issues and human rights issues, democracy can be an ass.
   
   I know that seems weird to say, but history shows it to be true.

   replyreport
   1. 88

      GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Undocumented immigrants? Really?
      
      I agree that someone needs to start somewhere, even if it isn't a full-blown solution at first. I also agree it is in our national interest to do so. And so on... you make good points. And I like the honest reality of your comment. (especially about the messiness of democracy)
      
      But... an undocumented immigrant is an illegal immigrant. Trying to camouflage that important distinction with a euphemism is cowardly. It is not a legitimate effort to "be nice", or not hurt someone's feelings. I don't think reform based on the cowardliness of euphemisms is an honest effort at all.   
      
      Ga

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         "But... an undocumented immigrant is an illegal immigrant"
         
         Not it's not.  Immigration to the US requires that certain actions be performed, which are not being done.  The proper term is "illegal alien", whether the person feels they have "immigrated" or not.
         
         a·li·en
         ˈālēən/Submit
         adjective
         adjective: alien
         1.
         belonging to a foreign country or nation.
         unfamiliar and disturbing or distasteful.
         "bossing anyone around was alien to him"
         synonyms:    unfamiliar, unknown, strange, peculiar; More
         antonyms:    familiar
         relating to or denoting beings supposedly from other worlds; extraterrestrial.
         "an alien spacecraft"
         synonyms:    extraterrestrial, unearthly, otherworldly; More
         antonyms:    earthly
         (of a plant or animal species) introduced from another country and later naturalized.
         noun
         
         noun: alien; plural noun: aliens
         1.
         a foreigner, especially one who is not a naturalized citizen of the country where they are living.
         "an illegal alien"
         synonyms:    foreigner, nonnative, immigrant, emigrant, émigré
         "an illegal alien"
         a hypothetical or fictional being from another world.
         synonyms:    extraterrestrial, ET; More
         a plant or animal species originally introduced from another country and later naturalized.

         replyreport
         1. 88

            GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            psshaw... picky, picky. (you did notice immigrant was an accepted synonym didn't you?)
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 95

               wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Yes, although I would have to say a very poor one.  It is in common use, I know, mostly by those wishing to hide that they ARE still citizens of a foreign country, but that doesn't make it a good exchange for "immigrant".
               
               I have a pretty strong opinion on which is "best descriptor" and which one is "spin".

               replyreport
               1. 88

                  GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Can I get away with half-a-spin?
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Why not?  Half the country already does.

                     replyreport
3. 84

   psycheskinnerposted 9 years ago

   It is the phrase being used in government and social work circles.  Both would be an accurate description so I don't see it as an issue to get hung up on. In generally I am happy to call any group of people what they want to be called and I do feel this is a group defined by more than 'choosing to commit a crime'. One persons loitering vandal is another's political protestor etc.

   replyreport
   1. 88

      GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I see your point and respect your choice, but I think one is a truthful and accurate description, and the other is an attempt to hide a fact.
      
      GA

      replyreport