Republicans Fail at Funding Homeland Security
#1
The Republican congress can't pull their heads out of their asses and pass funding for Homeland Security. Will you brain dead righties tell me how this is Obama's fault.
Reply
#2
(02-27-2015, 09:53 PM)Snail Wrote: The Republican congress can't pull their heads out of their asses and pass funding for Homeland Security. Will you brain dead righties tell me how this is Obama's fault.

I'm assuming you are referring to the first vote. Care to post how many democrats voted for it and how many voted against. Of course not. The Dems once again were the party of No.
Reply
#3
(02-27-2015, 10:05 PM)SFLiberal Wrote:
(02-27-2015, 09:53 PM)Snail Wrote: The Republican congress can't pull their heads out of their asses and pass funding for Homeland Security. Will you brain dead righties tell me how this is Obama's fault.

I'm assuming you are referring to the first vote. Care to post how many democrats voted for it and how many voted against. Of course not. The Dems once again were the party of No.


Look, the Republicans foolishly believed they could force the President to sign a bill that defunded the Presidents executive action on immigration because they knew how important Homeland Security is to real Americans.

They lost that gamble when the Democrats Filibustered the House bill. Now that shit stew of a bill has been determined to be inedible and the failed strategy of the Republicans is evident to everyone to see, except for people like you.

There will be another vote and your party of obstruction will be forced to vote on a clean bill at some point. Think not?
Reply
#4
Quote:Hit Us Again, Harder
The EEOC won’t stop using bad evidence that loses cases in court.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission lost another high-profile lawsuit last week in what’s become a pattern. But EEOC v. Freeman is more than a run-of-the-mill legal brushback. The ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals eviscerates the agency for using faulty evidence that other courts had already found to lack credibility.
The EEOC had sued Freeman Co., an events-services company, in 2009 for using credit and criminal background checks in hiring decisions. The agency charged this had a “disparate impact” on men and blacks, though it had no proof of intent to discriminate, only what it claimed was statistical evidence of discriminatory results.
Most companies settle such charges rather than endure the costs and reputational risks, but Freeman fought back in court and argued it had legally conducted criminal checks for all applicants and used credit checks only for employees whose jobs involved handling money.
And here’s the rub. It turns out the EEOC allegations rested entirely on evidence provided by psychologist Kevin Murphy. A federal district court found in August 2013 that Mr. Murphy had cherry-picked data to support the EEOC’s contentions and introduced errors into the sample, concluding that his report was “completely unreliable.” Without evidence of discrimination, there was no case. Yet the EEOC wouldn’t settle merely for an embarrassing defeat, and chose to appeal.
So last week it achieved humiliation status, as a three-judge panel on the Fourth Circuit found unanimously for Freeman, citing Mr. Murphy’s “pervasive errors and utterly unreliable analysis.” In a concurring opinion, Judge G. Steven Agee noted that Mr. Murphy’s “problems would be troubling enough standing alone, but they are even more disquieting in the context of what appears to be a pattern of suspect work.”
Mr. Murphy’s analysis was previously shredded by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in another of the agency’s background-check cases, EEOC v. Kaplan (“Opinion of the Year,” April 17, 2014). Judge Agee also noted that over the span of a decade the Eleventh Circuit, Second Circuit and a district court have also raised concerns about or outright “rejected Murphy’s conclusions.”
In Freeman the EEOC acknowledged these problems, conceding in a classic understatement that Mr. Murphy’s work wasn’t “A+.” Yet it still rolled him out as a legal authority as it sought to browbeat another company into a settlement. And it would have won if Freeman hadn’t been willing to spend the money to expose Mr. Murphy’s claims to scrutiny in court.
In its zeal to abuse disparate-impact law, the EEOC is typical of the Obama Administration’s racial enforcement police. The difference is that the EEOC is supposed to be a neutral arbiter of antidiscrimination disputes, with the goal of conciliating between employees and employers whenever possible.
Under former Chair Jacqueline Berrien and now under Chair Jenny Yang, the EEOC has discarded that mandate and used its wide-ranging power to rewrite the law to impose its policy preferences on law-abiding businesses. Freeman shows how far outside the law the agency will go to cow employers into submission.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hit-us-again...45?tesla=y
Lawless.
Reply
#5
(02-28-2015, 08:09 AM)Big Rock Wrote:
Quote:Hit Us Again, Harder
The EEOC won’t stop using bad evidence that loses cases in court.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission lost another high-profile lawsuit last week in what’s become a pattern. But EEOC v. Freeman is more than a run-of-the-mill legal brushback. The ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals eviscerates the agency for using faulty evidence that other courts had already found to lack credibility.
The EEOC had sued Freeman Co., an events-services company, in 2009 for using credit and criminal background checks in hiring decisions. The agency charged this had a “disparate impact” on men and blacks, though it had no proof of intent to discriminate, only what it claimed was statistical evidence of discriminatory results.
Most companies settle such charges rather than endure the costs and reputational risks, but Freeman fought back in court and argued it had legally conducted criminal checks for all applicants and used credit checks only for employees whose jobs involved handling money.
And here’s the rub. It turns out the EEOC allegations rested entirely on evidence provided by psychologist Kevin Murphy. A federal district court found in August 2013 that Mr. Murphy had cherry-picked data to support the EEOC’s contentions and introduced errors into the sample, concluding that his report was “completely unreliable.” Without evidence of discrimination, there was no case. Yet the EEOC wouldn’t settle merely for an embarrassing defeat, and chose to appeal.
So last week it achieved humiliation status, as a three-judge panel on the Fourth Circuit found unanimously for Freeman, citing Mr. Murphy’s “pervasive errors and utterly unreliable analysis.” In a concurring opinion, Judge G. Steven Agee noted that Mr. Murphy’s “problems would be troubling enough standing alone, but they are even more disquieting in the context of what appears to be a pattern of suspect work.”
Mr. Murphy’s analysis was previously shredded by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in another of the agency’s background-check cases, EEOC v. Kaplan (“Opinion of the Year,” April 17, 2014). Judge Agee also noted that over the span of a decade the Eleventh Circuit, Second Circuit and a district court have also raised concerns about or outright “rejected Murphy’s conclusions.”
In Freeman the EEOC acknowledged these problems, conceding in a classic understatement that Mr. Murphy’s work wasn’t “A+.” Yet it still rolled him out as a legal authority as it sought to browbeat another company into a settlement. And it would have won if Freeman hadn’t been willing to spend the money to expose Mr. Murphy’s claims to scrutiny in court.
In its zeal to abuse disparate-impact law, the EEOC is typical of the Obama Administration’s racial enforcement police. The difference is that the EEOC is supposed to be a neutral arbiter of antidiscrimination disputes, with the goal of conciliating between employees and employers whenever possible.
Under former Chair Jacqueline Berrien and now under Chair Jenny Yang, the EEOC has discarded that mandate and used its wide-ranging power to rewrite the law to impose its policy preferences on law-abiding businesses. Freeman shows how far outside the law the agency will go to cow employers into submission.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hit-us-again...45?tesla=y
Lawless.

Thanks BR, for another OPINON piece from Rupert Murdoch and the editorial staff of the WSJ. A bit off subject (this is, after all, the "funding Homeland Security" thread, but whatever....)
I've said before, and repeat, that I think the WSJ is a fine newspaper. But, like the NYT, Washington Post, and other national papers it has a clear line between the editorial staff and the news division. (It's been reported many times that while Murdoch does not interfere with the news division, he controls the editorial staff with an iron fist).
So...
The piece you posted above is not news. Even more, it provides no direct reference to events that can be found in the very paper it prints. The allegations are indirect and obscure and it would take a lot of time to dig for the research to find the original reporting of these events.

I don't know much about the EEOC, but I do know it was an established agency long before Mr. Obama took office and to claim that "the EEOC is typical of the Obama Administration’s racial enforcement police" is absurd.

This forum is an excellent place to share information and exchange divergent views. Posting opinion pieces can be very informative, but we always have to take these views with a grain of salt and repeated posts from the same outfit that almost always has strident views directed at Democrats is not all that helpful in understanding current events.
Reply
#6
(02-27-2015, 10:51 PM)Snail Wrote:
(02-27-2015, 10:05 PM)SFLiberal Wrote:
(02-27-2015, 09:53 PM)Snail Wrote: The Republican congress can't pull their heads out of their asses and pass funding for Homeland Security. Will you brain dead righties tell me how this is Obama's fault.

I'm assuming you are referring to the first vote. Care to post how many democrats voted for it and how many voted against. Of course not. The Dems once again were the party of No.


Look, the Republicans foolishly believed they could force the President to sign a bill that defunded the Presidents executive action on immigration because they knew how important Homeland Security is to real Americans.

They lost that gamble when the Democrats Filibustered the House bill. Now that shit stew of a bill has been determined to be inedible and the failed strategy of the Republicans is evident to everyone to see, except for people like you.

There will be another vote and your party of obstruction will be forced to vote on a clean bill at some point. Think not?
Reply
#7
(02-28-2015, 10:21 AM)SFLiberal Wrote:
(02-27-2015, 10:51 PM)Snail Wrote:
(02-27-2015, 10:05 PM)SFLiberal Wrote:
(02-27-2015, 09:53 PM)Snail Wrote: The Republican congress can't pull their heads out of their asses and pass funding for Homeland Security. Will you brain dead righties tell me how this is Obama's fault.

I'm assuming you are referring to the first vote. Care to post how many democrats voted for it and how many voted against. Of course not. The Dems once again were the party of No.


Look, the Republicans foolishly believed they could force the President to sign a bill that defunded the Presidents executive action on immigration because they knew how important Homeland Security is to real Americans.

They lost that gamble when the Democrats Filibustered the House bill. Now that shit stew of a bill has been determined to be inedible and the failed strategy of the Republicans is evident to everyone to see, except for people like you.

There will be another vote and your party of obstruction will be forced to vote on a clean bill at some point. Think not?

You mean the Executive Action that Obama himself stated publically at least 22 times that he did not have the Constitutional authority to impose? That executive action?

Quote: 1. “I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with [the president] trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.” (3/31/08)

2. “We’ve got a government designed by the Founders so that there’d be checks and balances. You don’t want a president who’s too powerful or a Congress that’s too powerful or a court that’s too powerful. Everybody’s got their own role. Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it or he can sign it. … I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.” (5/19/08)

3. “Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.” (5/5/10)

4 “[T]here are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship. And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)

5 “I do have an obligation to make sure that I am following some of the rules. I can't simply ignore laws that are out there. I've got to work to make sure that they are changed.” (10/14/10)

6 “I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” (10/25/10)

7 “America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don't have a choice about that. That's part of my job. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.” (3/28/11)

8 “I can't solve this problem by myself. … [W]e're going to have to have bipartisan support in order to make it happen. … I can't do it by myself. We're going to have to change the laws in Congress, but I'm confident we can make it happen.” (4/20/11)

9 “I know some here wish that I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how democracy works. See, democracy is hard. But it’s right. Changing our laws means doing the hard work of changing minds and changing votes, one by one.” (4/29/11)

10 “Sometimes when I talk to immigration advocates, they wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how a democracy works. What we really need to do is to keep up the fight to pass genuine, comprehensive reform. That is the ultimate solution to this problem. That's what I’m committed to doing.” (5/10/11)

11 “I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books …. Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that's not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written.” (7/25/11)

12 “So what we’ve tried to do is within the constraints of the laws on the books, we’ve tried to be as fair, humane, just as we can, recognizing, though, that the laws themselves need to be changed. … The most important thing for your viewers and listeners and readers to understand is that in order to change our laws, we’ve got to get it through the House of Representatives, which is currently controlled by Republicans, and we’ve got to get 60 votes in the Senate. … Administratively, we can't ignore the law. … I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true. … We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it. And if all the attention is focused away from the legislative process, then that is going to lead to a constant dead-end. We have to recognize how the system works, and then apply pressure to those places where votes can be gotten and, ultimately, we can get this thing solved.” (9/28/11)

In June 2012, President Obama unilaterally granted deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA), allowing “eligible individuals who do not present a risk to national security or public safety … to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization.” He then argued that he had already done everything he could legally do on his own:

13 “Now, what I’ve always said is, as the head of the executive branch, there’s a limit to what I can do. Part of the reason that deportations went up was Congress put a whole lot of money into it, and when you have a lot of resources and a lot more agents involved, then there are going to be higher numbers. What we’ve said is, let’s make sure that you’re not misdirecting those resources. But we’re still going to, ultimately, have to change the laws in order to avoid some of the heartbreaking stories that you see coming up occasionally. And that’s why this continues to be a top priority of mine. … And we will continue to make sure that how we enforce is done as fairly and justly as possible. But until we have a law in place that provides a pathway for legalization and/or citizenship for the folks in question, we’re going to continue to be bound by the law. … And so part of the challenge as President is constantly saying, ‘what authorities do I have?’” (9/20/12)

14 “We are a nation of immigrants. … But we're also a nation of laws. So what I've said is, we need to fix a broken immigration system. And I've done everything that I can on my own[.]” (10/16/12)

15 “I'm not a king. I am the head of the executive branch of government. I'm required to follow the law. And that's what we've done. But what I've also said is, let's make sure that we're applying the law in a way that takes into account people's humanity. That's the reason that we moved forward on deferred action. Within the confines of the law we said, we have some discretion in terms of how we apply this law.” (1/30/13)

16 “I’m not a king. You know, my job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law. And, you know, when it comes to enforcement of our immigration laws, we’ve got some discretion. We can prioritize what we do. But we can’t simply ignore the law. When it comes to the dreamers, we were able to identify that group and say, ‘These folks are generally not a risk. They’re not involved in crime. … And so let’s prioritize our enforcement resources.’ But to sort through all the possible cases of everybody who might have a sympathetic story to tell is very difficult to do. This is why we need comprehensive immigration reform. To make sure that once and for all, in a way that is, you know, ratified by Congress, we can say that there is a pathway to citizenship for people who are staying out of trouble, who are trying to do the right thing, who’ve put down roots here. … My job is to carry out the law. And so Congress gives us a whole bunch of resources. They give us an order that we’ve got to go out there and enforce the laws that are on the books. … If this was an issue that I could do unilaterally I would have done it a long time ago. … The way our system works is Congress has to pass legislation. I then get an opportunity to sign it and implement it.” (1/30/13)

17 “This is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency. The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed. And Congress right now has not changed what I consider to be a broken immigration system. And what that means is that we have certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place even if we think that in many cases the results may be tragic. ... [W]e've kind of stretched our administrative flexibility as much as we can[.]” (2/14/13)

18 “I think that it is very important for us to recognize that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative. I can do some things and have done some things that make a difference in the lives of people by determining how our enforcement should focus. … And we’ve been able to provide help through deferred action for young people …. But this is a problem that needs to be fixed legislatively.” (7/16/13)

19 “My job in the executive branch is supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed. Congress has said ‘here is the law’ when it comes to those who are undocumented, and they've allocated a whole bunch of money for enforcement. And, what I have been able to do is to make a legal argument that I think is absolutely right, which is that given the resources that we have, we can't do everything that Congress has asked us to do. What we can do is then carve out the DREAM Act folks, saying young people who have basically grown up here are Americans that we should welcome. … But if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that's not an option. … What I've said is there is a there's a path to get this done, and that's through Congress.” (9/17/13)

20 “[I]f, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws. That’s part of our tradition. And so the easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like I can do something by violating our laws. And what I’m proposing is the harder path, which is to use our democratic processes to achieve the same goal that you want to achieve. … It is not simply a matter of us just saying we’re going to violate the law. That’s not our tradition. The great thing about this country is we have this wonderful process of democracy, and sometimes it is messy, and sometimes it is hard, but ultimately, justice and truth win out.” (11/25/13)

21 “I am the Champion-in-Chief of comprehensive immigration reform. But what I’ve said in the past remains true, which is until Congress passes a new law, then I am constrained in terms of what I am able to do. What I’ve done is to use my prosecutorial discretion, because you can’t enforce the laws across the board for 11 or 12 million people, there aren’t the resources there. What we’ve said is focus on folks who are engaged in criminal activity, focus on people who are engaged in gang activity. Do not focus on young people, who we’re calling DREAMers …. That already stretched my administrative capacity very far. But I was confident that that was the right thing to do. But at a certain point the reason that these deportations are taking place is, Congress said, ‘you have to enforce these laws.’ They fund the hiring of officials at the department that’s charged with enforcing. And I cannot ignore those laws any more than I could ignore, you know, any of the other laws that are on the books. That’s why it’s so important for us to get comprehensive immigration reform done this year.” (3/6/14)

22 “I think that I never have a green light [to push the limits of executive power]. I’m bound by the Constitution; I’m bound by separation of powers. There are some things we can’t do. Congress has the power of the purse, for example. … Congress has to pass a budget and authorize spending. So I don’t have a green light. … My preference in all these instances is to work with Congress, because not only can Congress do more, but it’s going to be longer-lasting.” (8/6/14)

- See more at: http://www.speaker.gov/general/22-times-...FBCyU.dpuf

Lets be clear here. Only 52 republicans voted against the funding bill. Only 12 democrats voted for it. So who is the party of NO and voted to NOT fund DHS?
Reply
#8
(02-28-2015, 10:28 AM)SFLiberal Wrote:
(02-28-2015, 10:21 AM)SFLiberal Wrote:
(02-27-2015, 10:51 PM)Snail Wrote:
(02-27-2015, 10:05 PM)SFLiberal Wrote:
(02-27-2015, 09:53 PM)Snail Wrote: The Republican congress can't pull their heads out of their asses and pass funding for Homeland Security. Will you brain dead righties tell me how this is Obama's fault.

I'm assuming you are referring to the first vote. Care to post how many democrats voted for it and how many voted against. Of course not. The Dems once again were the party of No.


Look, the Republicans foolishly believed they could force the President to sign a bill that defunded the Presidents executive action on immigration because they knew how important Homeland Security is to real Americans.

They lost that gamble when the Democrats Filibustered the House bill. Now that shit stew of a bill has been determined to be inedible and the failed strategy of the Republicans is evident to everyone to see, except for people like you.

There will be another vote and your party of obstruction will be forced to vote on a clean bill at some point. Think not?

You mean the Executive Action that Obama himself stated publically at least 22 times that he did not have the Constitutional authority to impose? That executive action?

Quote: 1. “I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with [the president] trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.” (3/31/08)

2. “We’ve got a government designed by the Founders so that there’d be checks and balances. You don’t want a president who’s too powerful or a Congress that’s too powerful or a court that’s too powerful. Everybody’s got their own role. Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it or he can sign it. … I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.” (5/19/08)

3. “Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.” (5/5/10)

4 “[T]here are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship. And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)

5 “I do have an obligation to make sure that I am following some of the rules. I can't simply ignore laws that are out there. I've got to work to make sure that they are changed.” (10/14/10)

6 “I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” (10/25/10)

7 “America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don't have a choice about that. That's part of my job. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.” (3/28/11)

8 “I can't solve this problem by myself. … [W]e're going to have to have bipartisan support in order to make it happen. … I can't do it by myself. We're going to have to change the laws in Congress, but I'm confident we can make it happen.” (4/20/11)

9 “I know some here wish that I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how democracy works. See, democracy is hard. But it’s right. Changing our laws means doing the hard work of changing minds and changing votes, one by one.” (4/29/11)

10 “Sometimes when I talk to immigration advocates, they wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how a democracy works. What we really need to do is to keep up the fight to pass genuine, comprehensive reform. That is the ultimate solution to this problem. That's what I’m committed to doing.” (5/10/11)

11 “I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books …. Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that's not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written.” (7/25/11)

12 “So what we’ve tried to do is within the constraints of the laws on the books, we’ve tried to be as fair, humane, just as we can, recognizing, though, that the laws themselves need to be changed. … The most important thing for your viewers and listeners and readers to understand is that in order to change our laws, we’ve got to get it through the House of Representatives, which is currently controlled by Republicans, and we’ve got to get 60 votes in the Senate. … Administratively, we can't ignore the law. … I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true. … We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it. And if all the attention is focused away from the legislative process, then that is going to lead to a constant dead-end. We have to recognize how the system works, and then apply pressure to those places where votes can be gotten and, ultimately, we can get this thing solved.” (9/28/11)

In June 2012, President Obama unilaterally granted deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA), allowing “eligible individuals who do not present a risk to national security or public safety … to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization.” He then argued that he had already done everything he could legally do on his own:

13 “Now, what I’ve always said is, as the head of the executive branch, there’s a limit to what I can do. Part of the reason that deportations went up was Congress put a whole lot of money into it, and when you have a lot of resources and a lot more agents involved, then there are going to be higher numbers. What we’ve said is, let’s make sure that you’re not misdirecting those resources. But we’re still going to, ultimately, have to change the laws in order to avoid some of the heartbreaking stories that you see coming up occasionally. And that’s why this continues to be a top priority of mine. … And we will continue to make sure that how we enforce is done as fairly and justly as possible. But until we have a law in place that provides a pathway for legalization and/or citizenship for the folks in question, we’re going to continue to be bound by the law. … And so part of the challenge as President is constantly saying, ‘what authorities do I have?’” (9/20/12)

14 “We are a nation of immigrants. … But we're also a nation of laws. So what I've said is, we need to fix a broken immigration system. And I've done everything that I can on my own[.]” (10/16/12)

15 “I'm not a king. I am the head of the executive branch of government. I'm required to follow the law. And that's what we've done. But what I've also said is, let's make sure that we're applying the law in a way that takes into account people's humanity. That's the reason that we moved forward on deferred action. Within the confines of the law we said, we have some discretion in terms of how we apply this law.” (1/30/13)

16 “I’m not a king. You know, my job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law. And, you know, when it comes to enforcement of our immigration laws, we’ve got some discretion. We can prioritize what we do. But we can’t simply ignore the law. When it comes to the dreamers, we were able to identify that group and say, ‘These folks are generally not a risk. They’re not involved in crime. … And so let’s prioritize our enforcement resources.’ But to sort through all the possible cases of everybody who might have a sympathetic story to tell is very difficult to do. This is why we need comprehensive immigration reform. To make sure that once and for all, in a way that is, you know, ratified by Congress, we can say that there is a pathway to citizenship for people who are staying out of trouble, who are trying to do the right thing, who’ve put down roots here. … My job is to carry out the law. And so Congress gives us a whole bunch of resources. They give us an order that we’ve got to go out there and enforce the laws that are on the books. … If this was an issue that I could do unilaterally I would have done it a long time ago. … The way our system works is Congress has to pass legislation. I then get an opportunity to sign it and implement it.” (1/30/13)

17 “This is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency. The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed. And Congress right now has not changed what I consider to be a broken immigration system. And what that means is that we have certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place even if we think that in many cases the results may be tragic. ... [W]e've kind of stretched our administrative flexibility as much as we can[.]” (2/14/13)

18 “I think that it is very important for us to recognize that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative. I can do some things and have done some things that make a difference in the lives of people by determining how our enforcement should focus. … And we’ve been able to provide help through deferred action for young people …. But this is a problem that needs to be fixed legislatively.” (7/16/13)

19 “My job in the executive branch is supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed. Congress has said ‘here is the law’ when it comes to those who are undocumented, and they've allocated a whole bunch of money for enforcement. And, what I have been able to do is to make a legal argument that I think is absolutely right, which is that given the resources that we have, we can't do everything that Congress has asked us to do. What we can do is then carve out the DREAM Act folks, saying young people who have basically grown up here are Americans that we should welcome. … But if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that's not an option. … What I've said is there is a there's a path to get this done, and that's through Congress.” (9/17/13)

20 “[I]f, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws. That’s part of our tradition. And so the easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like I can do something by violating our laws. And what I’m proposing is the harder path, which is to use our democratic processes to achieve the same goal that you want to achieve. … It is not simply a matter of us just saying we’re going to violate the law. That’s not our tradition. The great thing about this country is we have this wonderful process of democracy, and sometimes it is messy, and sometimes it is hard, but ultimately, justice and truth win out.” (11/25/13)

21 “I am the Champion-in-Chief of comprehensive immigration reform. But what I’ve said in the past remains true, which is until Congress passes a new law, then I am constrained in terms of what I am able to do. What I’ve done is to use my prosecutorial discretion, because you can’t enforce the laws across the board for 11 or 12 million people, there aren’t the resources there. What we’ve said is focus on folks who are engaged in criminal activity, focus on people who are engaged in gang activity. Do not focus on young people, who we’re calling DREAMers …. That already stretched my administrative capacity very far. But I was confident that that was the right thing to do. But at a certain point the reason that these deportations are taking place is, Congress said, ‘you have to enforce these laws.’ They fund the hiring of officials at the department that’s charged with enforcing. And I cannot ignore those laws any more than I could ignore, you know, any of the other laws that are on the books. That’s why it’s so important for us to get comprehensive immigration reform done this year.” (3/6/14)

22 “I think that I never have a green light [to push the limits of executive power]. I’m bound by the Constitution; I’m bound by separation of powers. There are some things we can’t do. Congress has the power of the purse, for example. … Congress has to pass a budget and authorize spending. So I don’t have a green light. … My preference in all these instances is to work with Congress, because not only can Congress do more, but it’s going to be longer-lasting.” (8/6/14)

- See more at: http://www.speaker.gov/general/22-times-...FBCyU.dpuf

Lets be clear here. Only 52 republicans voted against the funding bill. Only 12 democrats voted for it. So who is the party of NO and voted to NOT fund DHS?

Yeah, let's be clear here.
The bill was fro a ONE WEEK extension to fund an agency we very much need.
One week? Seriously?
The Democrats were saying "get serious, give us a real solution so we don't have to do this again next week. Of course they voted against this ridiculous offering.
Reply
#9
(02-28-2015, 11:06 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(02-28-2015, 10:28 AM)SFLiberal Wrote:
(02-28-2015, 10:21 AM)SFLiberal Wrote:
(02-27-2015, 10:51 PM)Snail Wrote:
(02-27-2015, 10:05 PM)SFLiberal Wrote: I'm assuming you are referring to the first vote. Care to post how many democrats voted for it and how many voted against. Of course not. The Dems once again were the party of No.


Look, the Republicans foolishly believed they could force the President to sign a bill that defunded the Presidents executive action on immigration because they knew how important Homeland Security is to real Americans.

They lost that gamble when the Democrats Filibustered the House bill. Now that shit stew of a bill has been determined to be inedible and the failed strategy of the Republicans is evident to everyone to see, except for people like you.

There will be another vote and your party of obstruction will be forced to vote on a clean bill at some point. Think not?

You mean the Executive Action that Obama himself stated publically at least 22 times that he did not have the Constitutional authority to impose? That executive action?

Quote: 1. “I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with [the president] trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.” (3/31/08)

2. “We’ve got a government designed by the Founders so that there’d be checks and balances. You don’t want a president who’s too powerful or a Congress that’s too powerful or a court that’s too powerful. Everybody’s got their own role. Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it or he can sign it. … I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.” (5/19/08)

3. “Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.” (5/5/10)

4 “[T]here are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship. And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)

5 “I do have an obligation to make sure that I am following some of the rules. I can't simply ignore laws that are out there. I've got to work to make sure that they are changed.” (10/14/10)

6 “I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” (10/25/10)

7 “America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don't have a choice about that. That's part of my job. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.” (3/28/11)

8 “I can't solve this problem by myself. … [W]e're going to have to have bipartisan support in order to make it happen. … I can't do it by myself. We're going to have to change the laws in Congress, but I'm confident we can make it happen.” (4/20/11)

9 “I know some here wish that I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how democracy works. See, democracy is hard. But it’s right. Changing our laws means doing the hard work of changing minds and changing votes, one by one.” (4/29/11)

10 “Sometimes when I talk to immigration advocates, they wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how a democracy works. What we really need to do is to keep up the fight to pass genuine, comprehensive reform. That is the ultimate solution to this problem. That's what I’m committed to doing.” (5/10/11)

11 “I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books …. Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that's not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written.” (7/25/11)

12 “So what we’ve tried to do is within the constraints of the laws on the books, we’ve tried to be as fair, humane, just as we can, recognizing, though, that the laws themselves need to be changed. … The most important thing for your viewers and listeners and readers to understand is that in order to change our laws, we’ve got to get it through the House of Representatives, which is currently controlled by Republicans, and we’ve got to get 60 votes in the Senate. … Administratively, we can't ignore the law. … I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true. … We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it. And if all the attention is focused away from the legislative process, then that is going to lead to a constant dead-end. We have to recognize how the system works, and then apply pressure to those places where votes can be gotten and, ultimately, we can get this thing solved.” (9/28/11)

In June 2012, President Obama unilaterally granted deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA), allowing “eligible individuals who do not present a risk to national security or public safety … to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization.” He then argued that he had already done everything he could legally do on his own:

13 “Now, what I’ve always said is, as the head of the executive branch, there’s a limit to what I can do. Part of the reason that deportations went up was Congress put a whole lot of money into it, and when you have a lot of resources and a lot more agents involved, then there are going to be higher numbers. What we’ve said is, let’s make sure that you’re not misdirecting those resources. But we’re still going to, ultimately, have to change the laws in order to avoid some of the heartbreaking stories that you see coming up occasionally. And that’s why this continues to be a top priority of mine. … And we will continue to make sure that how we enforce is done as fairly and justly as possible. But until we have a law in place that provides a pathway for legalization and/or citizenship for the folks in question, we’re going to continue to be bound by the law. … And so part of the challenge as President is constantly saying, ‘what authorities do I have?’” (9/20/12)

14 “We are a nation of immigrants. … But we're also a nation of laws. So what I've said is, we need to fix a broken immigration system. And I've done everything that I can on my own[.]” (10/16/12)

15 “I'm not a king. I am the head of the executive branch of government. I'm required to follow the law. And that's what we've done. But what I've also said is, let's make sure that we're applying the law in a way that takes into account people's humanity. That's the reason that we moved forward on deferred action. Within the confines of the law we said, we have some discretion in terms of how we apply this law.” (1/30/13)

16 “I’m not a king. You know, my job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law. And, you know, when it comes to enforcement of our immigration laws, we’ve got some discretion. We can prioritize what we do. But we can’t simply ignore the law. When it comes to the dreamers, we were able to identify that group and say, ‘These folks are generally not a risk. They’re not involved in crime. … And so let’s prioritize our enforcement resources.’ But to sort through all the possible cases of everybody who might have a sympathetic story to tell is very difficult to do. This is why we need comprehensive immigration reform. To make sure that once and for all, in a way that is, you know, ratified by Congress, we can say that there is a pathway to citizenship for people who are staying out of trouble, who are trying to do the right thing, who’ve put down roots here. … My job is to carry out the law. And so Congress gives us a whole bunch of resources. They give us an order that we’ve got to go out there and enforce the laws that are on the books. … If this was an issue that I could do unilaterally I would have done it a long time ago. … The way our system works is Congress has to pass legislation. I then get an opportunity to sign it and implement it.” (1/30/13)

17 “This is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency. The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed. And Congress right now has not changed what I consider to be a broken immigration system. And what that means is that we have certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place even if we think that in many cases the results may be tragic. ... [W]e've kind of stretched our administrative flexibility as much as we can[.]” (2/14/13)

18 “I think that it is very important for us to recognize that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative. I can do some things and have done some things that make a difference in the lives of people by determining how our enforcement should focus. … And we’ve been able to provide help through deferred action for young people …. But this is a problem that needs to be fixed legislatively.” (7/16/13)

19 “My job in the executive branch is supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed. Congress has said ‘here is the law’ when it comes to those who are undocumented, and they've allocated a whole bunch of money for enforcement. And, what I have been able to do is to make a legal argument that I think is absolutely right, which is that given the resources that we have, we can't do everything that Congress has asked us to do. What we can do is then carve out the DREAM Act folks, saying young people who have basically grown up here are Americans that we should welcome. … But if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that's not an option. … What I've said is there is a there's a path to get this done, and that's through Congress.” (9/17/13)

20 “[I]f, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws. That’s part of our tradition. And so the easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like I can do something by violating our laws. And what I’m proposing is the harder path, which is to use our democratic processes to achieve the same goal that you want to achieve. … It is not simply a matter of us just saying we’re going to violate the law. That’s not our tradition. The great thing about this country is we have this wonderful process of democracy, and sometimes it is messy, and sometimes it is hard, but ultimately, justice and truth win out.” (11/25/13)

21 “I am the Champion-in-Chief of comprehensive immigration reform. But what I’ve said in the past remains true, which is until Congress passes a new law, then I am constrained in terms of what I am able to do. What I’ve done is to use my prosecutorial discretion, because you can’t enforce the laws across the board for 11 or 12 million people, there aren’t the resources there. What we’ve said is focus on folks who are engaged in criminal activity, focus on people who are engaged in gang activity. Do not focus on young people, who we’re calling DREAMers …. That already stretched my administrative capacity very far. But I was confident that that was the right thing to do. But at a certain point the reason that these deportations are taking place is, Congress said, ‘you have to enforce these laws.’ They fund the hiring of officials at the department that’s charged with enforcing. And I cannot ignore those laws any more than I could ignore, you know, any of the other laws that are on the books. That’s why it’s so important for us to get comprehensive immigration reform done this year.” (3/6/14)

22 “I think that I never have a green light [to push the limits of executive power]. I’m bound by the Constitution; I’m bound by separation of powers. There are some things we can’t do. Congress has the power of the purse, for example. … Congress has to pass a budget and authorize spending. So I don’t have a green light. … My preference in all these instances is to work with Congress, because not only can Congress do more, but it’s going to be longer-lasting.” (8/6/14)

- See more at: http://www.speaker.gov/general/22-times-...FBCyU.dpuf

Lets be clear here. Only 52 republicans voted against the funding bill. Only 12 democrats voted for it. So who is the party of NO and voted to NOT fund DHS?

Yeah, let's be clear here.
The bill was fro a ONE WEEK extension to fund an agency we very much need.
One week? Seriously?
The Democrats were saying "get serious, give us a real solution so we don't have to do this again next week. Of course they voted against this ridiculous offering.

And you are mistaken, Sir. The vote we are talking about was a three week extension to fund the DHS so funding would not run out at midnight yesterday. That was the vote snail was referring to and I commented on. The one that failed because only 12 democrats voted for it, yet she tried to blame republicans because 52 voted against it vs the 160+ dems that voted nay. The one week extension was a second vote that the majority of both parties supported.
Reply
#10
(02-28-2015, 02:20 PM)SFLiberal Wrote:
(02-28-2015, 11:06 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(02-28-2015, 10:28 AM)SFLiberal Wrote:
(02-28-2015, 10:21 AM)SFLiberal Wrote:
(02-27-2015, 10:51 PM)Snail Wrote: Look, the Republicans foolishly believed they could force the President to sign a bill that defunded the Presidents executive action on immigration because they knew how important Homeland Security is to real Americans.

They lost that gamble when the Democrats Filibustered the House bill. Now that shit stew of a bill has been determined to be inedible and the failed strategy of the Republicans is evident to everyone to see, except for people like you.

There will be another vote and your party of obstruction will be forced to vote on a clean bill at some point. Think not?

You mean the Executive Action that Obama himself stated publically at least 22 times that he did not have the Constitutional authority to impose? That executive action?

Quote: 1. “I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with [the president] trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.” (3/31/08)

2. “We’ve got a government designed by the Founders so that there’d be checks and balances. You don’t want a president who’s too powerful or a Congress that’s too powerful or a court that’s too powerful. Everybody’s got their own role. Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it or he can sign it. … I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.” (5/19/08)

3. “Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.” (5/5/10)

4 “[T]here are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship. And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)

5 “I do have an obligation to make sure that I am following some of the rules. I can't simply ignore laws that are out there. I've got to work to make sure that they are changed.” (10/14/10)

6 “I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” (10/25/10)

7 “America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don't have a choice about that. That's part of my job. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.” (3/28/11)

8 “I can't solve this problem by myself. … [W]e're going to have to have bipartisan support in order to make it happen. … I can't do it by myself. We're going to have to change the laws in Congress, but I'm confident we can make it happen.” (4/20/11)

9 “I know some here wish that I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how democracy works. See, democracy is hard. But it’s right. Changing our laws means doing the hard work of changing minds and changing votes, one by one.” (4/29/11)

10 “Sometimes when I talk to immigration advocates, they wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how a democracy works. What we really need to do is to keep up the fight to pass genuine, comprehensive reform. That is the ultimate solution to this problem. That's what I’m committed to doing.” (5/10/11)

11 “I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books …. Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that's not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written.” (7/25/11)

12 “So what we’ve tried to do is within the constraints of the laws on the books, we’ve tried to be as fair, humane, just as we can, recognizing, though, that the laws themselves need to be changed. … The most important thing for your viewers and listeners and readers to understand is that in order to change our laws, we’ve got to get it through the House of Representatives, which is currently controlled by Republicans, and we’ve got to get 60 votes in the Senate. … Administratively, we can't ignore the law. … I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true. … We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it. And if all the attention is focused away from the legislative process, then that is going to lead to a constant dead-end. We have to recognize how the system works, and then apply pressure to those places where votes can be gotten and, ultimately, we can get this thing solved.” (9/28/11)

In June 2012, President Obama unilaterally granted deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA), allowing “eligible individuals who do not present a risk to national security or public safety … to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization.” He then argued that he had already done everything he could legally do on his own:

13 “Now, what I’ve always said is, as the head of the executive branch, there’s a limit to what I can do. Part of the reason that deportations went up was Congress put a whole lot of money into it, and when you have a lot of resources and a lot more agents involved, then there are going to be higher numbers. What we’ve said is, let’s make sure that you’re not misdirecting those resources. But we’re still going to, ultimately, have to change the laws in order to avoid some of the heartbreaking stories that you see coming up occasionally. And that’s why this continues to be a top priority of mine. … And we will continue to make sure that how we enforce is done as fairly and justly as possible. But until we have a law in place that provides a pathway for legalization and/or citizenship for the folks in question, we’re going to continue to be bound by the law. … And so part of the challenge as President is constantly saying, ‘what authorities do I have?’” (9/20/12)

14 “We are a nation of immigrants. … But we're also a nation of laws. So what I've said is, we need to fix a broken immigration system. And I've done everything that I can on my own[.]” (10/16/12)

15 “I'm not a king. I am the head of the executive branch of government. I'm required to follow the law. And that's what we've done. But what I've also said is, let's make sure that we're applying the law in a way that takes into account people's humanity. That's the reason that we moved forward on deferred action. Within the confines of the law we said, we have some discretion in terms of how we apply this law.” (1/30/13)

16 “I’m not a king. You know, my job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law. And, you know, when it comes to enforcement of our immigration laws, we’ve got some discretion. We can prioritize what we do. But we can’t simply ignore the law. When it comes to the dreamers, we were able to identify that group and say, ‘These folks are generally not a risk. They’re not involved in crime. … And so let’s prioritize our enforcement resources.’ But to sort through all the possible cases of everybody who might have a sympathetic story to tell is very difficult to do. This is why we need comprehensive immigration reform. To make sure that once and for all, in a way that is, you know, ratified by Congress, we can say that there is a pathway to citizenship for people who are staying out of trouble, who are trying to do the right thing, who’ve put down roots here. … My job is to carry out the law. And so Congress gives us a whole bunch of resources. They give us an order that we’ve got to go out there and enforce the laws that are on the books. … If this was an issue that I could do unilaterally I would have done it a long time ago. … The way our system works is Congress has to pass legislation. I then get an opportunity to sign it and implement it.” (1/30/13)

17 “This is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency. The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed. And Congress right now has not changed what I consider to be a broken immigration system. And what that means is that we have certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place even if we think that in many cases the results may be tragic. ... [W]e've kind of stretched our administrative flexibility as much as we can[.]” (2/14/13)

18 “I think that it is very important for us to recognize that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative. I can do some things and have done some things that make a difference in the lives of people by determining how our enforcement should focus. … And we’ve been able to provide help through deferred action for young people …. But this is a problem that needs to be fixed legislatively.” (7/16/13)

19 “My job in the executive branch is supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed. Congress has said ‘here is the law’ when it comes to those who are undocumented, and they've allocated a whole bunch of money for enforcement. And, what I have been able to do is to make a legal argument that I think is absolutely right, which is that given the resources that we have, we can't do everything that Congress has asked us to do. What we can do is then carve out the DREAM Act folks, saying young people who have basically grown up here are Americans that we should welcome. … But if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that's not an option. … What I've said is there is a there's a path to get this done, and that's through Congress.” (9/17/13)

20 “[I]f, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws. That’s part of our tradition. And so the easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like I can do something by violating our laws. And what I’m proposing is the harder path, which is to use our democratic processes to achieve the same goal that you want to achieve. … It is not simply a matter of us just saying we’re going to violate the law. That’s not our tradition. The great thing about this country is we have this wonderful process of democracy, and sometimes it is messy, and sometimes it is hard, but ultimately, justice and truth win out.” (11/25/13)

21 “I am the Champion-in-Chief of comprehensive immigration reform. But what I’ve said in the past remains true, which is until Congress passes a new law, then I am constrained in terms of what I am able to do. What I’ve done is to use my prosecutorial discretion, because you can’t enforce the laws across the board for 11 or 12 million people, there aren’t the resources there. What we’ve said is focus on folks who are engaged in criminal activity, focus on people who are engaged in gang activity. Do not focus on young people, who we’re calling DREAMers …. That already stretched my administrative capacity very far. But I was confident that that was the right thing to do. But at a certain point the reason that these deportations are taking place is, Congress said, ‘you have to enforce these laws.’ They fund the hiring of officials at the department that’s charged with enforcing. And I cannot ignore those laws any more than I could ignore, you know, any of the other laws that are on the books. That’s why it’s so important for us to get comprehensive immigration reform done this year.” (3/6/14)

22 “I think that I never have a green light [to push the limits of executive power]. I’m bound by the Constitution; I’m bound by separation of powers. There are some things we can’t do. Congress has the power of the purse, for example. … Congress has to pass a budget and authorize spending. So I don’t have a green light. … My preference in all these instances is to work with Congress, because not only can Congress do more, but it’s going to be longer-lasting.” (8/6/14)

- See more at: http://www.speaker.gov/general/22-times-...FBCyU.dpuf

Lets be clear here. Only 52 republicans voted against the funding bill. Only 12 democrats voted for it. So who is the party of NO and voted to NOT fund DHS?

Yeah, let's be clear here.
The bill was fro a ONE WEEK extension to fund an agency we very much need.
One week? Seriously?
The Democrats were saying "get serious, give us a real solution so we don't have to do this again next week. Of course they voted against this ridiculous offering.

And you are mistaken, Sir. The vote we are talking about was a three week extension to fund the DHS so funding would not run out at midnight yesterday. That was the vote snail was referring to and I commented on. The one that failed because only 12 democrats voted for it, yet she tried to blame republicans because 52 voted against it vs the 160+ dems that voted nay. The one week extension was a second vote that the majority of both parties supported.

I stand corrected.
But still, one week...three weeks? Even 6 months?
The truth is that the leader of the House is dealing with a party fractured and he can't meet the needs of the Senate that is willing to compromise on a bill that is rational.
Democrats feel very strongly that tying the immigration feature to this bill is an abuse of political good standards, and many of us agree. While all agree that protecting our southern border is critically important, including the language of deportation status should not be included.

Irony, that even with the gains of the midterm elections, the Republicans can't govern and it's because of the tensions in their own ranks. Conservative values are as legitimate as any, but not to the exclusion of all others. There are some 50 members of the House who are holding hostage policies that are important to the entire country.

We deserve better than this.
Reply
#11
John Boehner sneaked into the White House while his fellow Republicans were distracted by Netanyahu and surrendered in complete and unequivocal defeat. In other words, a clean bill was passed to fund Homeland Security.

I wonder if John Boehner feels like Obama's prison bitch.
Reply
#12
[Image: giphy.gif]
Reply
#13
(03-03-2015, 07:33 PM)Snail Wrote: John Boehner sneaked into the White House while his fellow Republicans were distracted by Netanyahu and surrendered in complete and unequivocal defeat. In other words, a clean bill was passed to fund Homeland Security.

I wonder if John Boehner feels like Obama's prison bitch.

No.
John Boehner wants this funded, if for no other reason to demonstrate that he can garner enough votes with help from Democrats to pass a bill. He has been held hostage by the "radical right", those 50 or so Republicans who simply don't understand how our system works. This time, he got it by them. Boehner is a pro: He wants to be able to control his party and do the things necessary to make the congress work.
And Boehner is a strong advocate of Homeland Security. He has been around long enough to know he might have to accept some mild "immagration language" to get it passed. It's how the system works and he knows it.
This may be a watershed and if Boehner can get the votes to pass things the Senate sends, we may see some progress in getting at least some legislation completed. We won't see any "progressive" bills passed obviously, but there are a lot of things hanging fire that a working congress can compromise about and make law or get appointments completed.
Reply
#14
(03-03-2015, 09:01 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(03-03-2015, 07:33 PM)Snail Wrote: John Boehner sneaked into the White House while his fellow Republicans were distracted by Netanyahu and surrendered in complete and unequivocal defeat. In other words, a clean bill was passed to fund Homeland Security.

I wonder if John Boehner feels like Obama's prison bitch.

No.
John Boehner wants this funded, if for no other reason to demonstrate that he can garner enough votes with help from Democrats to pass a bill. He has been held hostage by the "radical right", those 50 or so Republicans who simply don't understand how our system works. This time, he got it by them. Boehner is a pro: He wants to be able to control his party and do the things necessary to make the congress work.
And Boehner is a strong advocate of Homeland Security. He has been around long enough to know he might have to accept some mild "immagration language" to get it passed. It's how the system works and he knows it.
This may be a watershed and if Boehner can get the votes to pass things the Senate sends, we may see some progress in getting at least some legislation completed. We won't see any "progressive" bills passed obviously, but there are a lot of things hanging fire that a working congress can compromise about and make law or get appointments completed.
Excuse me, but the Democrats passed that bill not John Boehner. Look up the vote tally.
Reply
#15
(03-03-2015, 09:06 PM)Snail Wrote:
(03-03-2015, 09:01 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(03-03-2015, 07:33 PM)Snail Wrote: John Boehner sneaked into the White House while his fellow Republicans were distracted by Netanyahu and surrendered in complete and unequivocal defeat. In other words, a clean bill was passed to fund Homeland Security.

I wonder if John Boehner feels like Obama's prison bitch.

No.
John Boehner wants this funded, if for no other reason to demonstrate that he can garner enough votes with help from Democrats to pass a bill. He has been held hostage by the "radical right", those 50 or so Republicans who simply don't understand how our system works. This time, he got it by them. Boehner is a pro: He wants to be able to control his party and do the things necessary to make the congress work.
And Boehner is a strong advocate of Homeland Security. He has been around long enough to know he might have to accept some mild "immagration language" to get it passed. It's how the system works and he knows it.
This may be a watershed and if Boehner can get the votes to pass things the Senate sends, we may see some progress in getting at least some legislation completed. We won't see any "progressive" bills passed obviously, but there are a lot of things hanging fire that a working congress can compromise about and make law or get appointments completed.
Excuse me, but the Democrats passed that bill not John Boehner. Look up the vote tally.

Not quite. He needed SOME Republican votes and the 50 Tea Party folks couldn't reign in the necessary Republicans to kill it.
Reply
#16
[Image: 5192215923_d0c84279de.jpg]
Reply
#17
(03-04-2015, 08:05 AM)GPnative Wrote: [Image: 5192215923_d0c84279de.jpg]

That's just plain cynical.

Our democratic republic had built in tensions from the get go. We have had periods (quite a few actually) of "gridlock" when legislation ground to a halt. We have also had periods when things ran too fast for logical control: The Great Society, or the draconian tax breaks conservatives have at times served up to our "ruling class".

But we have had long and productive periods when political compromise was understood to be the way things had to work, and Tip O'neill and Ronald Regan worked for the betterment of the country. President Eisenhower was able to get the interstate highway system build (at tremendous cost) working with both parties. NASA was built with bi-partisan support.

We can cuss at congress, the president, and the Supreme Court until we are blue in the face but until we all accept the responsibility of full and complete citizenship we are as guilty as those we rant and rave at.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)