Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

The Immigration Executive Order Liveblog

The Immigration Executive Order Liveblog

Let the circus begin (LIVE UPDATES)

You can watch the announcement here at Legal Insurrection, or on the White House website.

We’re a little less than 30 minutes away from Obama’s big announcement on his plan to overhaul immigration, and Twitter is already buzzing:

UPDATE: Here we go

Zingers, engage!

We’ve had the shot, now here’s the chaser…the Jesus card:

The verdict? We’re not impressed.

And…justice:

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Should we pop some corn?

No, not really. This is not amusing.

Or…should we?

    ConradCA in reply to Exiliado. | November 21, 2014 at 3:09 am

    Comprehensive immigration reform is
    1) making being an illegal immigrant a felony punishable by 5 years in a federal prison followed by deportation and being banned from future entry into the USA. First offenders can plead guilty receive a suspended sentence and accept deportation.
    2) Making providing aid, including giving sanctuary, to illegals a felony punishable by 5 years in federal prison for each illegal alien aided.
    3) assign the thousands of FBI agents now working on ObamaCare the job of hunting illegal aliens.

I can’t bear to watch it.

I hope this isn’t another Clintonesque “purple rage” scenario that the left produced to make conservatives look like idiots.

His definition of the “real amnesty” is Orwellian.

His use of red herrings remains alive and well.

His call not to impugn the character of opponents will fall on deaf ears.

Conservatives, remember: Comprehensive immigration reform is popular. Executive order is not. Process, not policy. Repeat.
—Noah Rothman

Noah is full of crap. He needs to be shown some polls.

AND he needs to define WTF is meant by “comprehensive immigration reform”.

    Exiliado in reply to Ragspierre. | November 20, 2014 at 8:18 pm

    It’s similar to “comprehensive healthcare reform”

    Estragon in reply to Ragspierre. | November 21, 2014 at 1:25 am

    Polls vary by question wording – and even the order in which they are asked. But we aren’t a democracy by polling, we’re a republic with leaders elected to lead according to the laws.

    Nearly everyone agrees reform is needed, the system is broken. But ask directly and most will also agree we have to stem the illegal tide with enforcement first. Amnesty first and enforcement later was passed into law twice, in the ’60s and the ’80s, but the enforcement never came.

    – –

    And enforcement means much more than just the border, although that is obviously important. But most illegals came here legally and just stayed. We are the only G20 nation that has no system to track tourist, student, or work visas, or day visitors.

    e-Verify works and would go a long way to prevent the black market in illegal labor. There is no reason to postpone implementation for ten years as the Senate bill did, it could be in force nationwide in 18 months or less.

    – –

    Once we’ve established better control over who comes, stays, and works here, we can make allowances for those who’ve ‘lived in the shadows.’ But not before, and there is no reason at all to give such folks a special ‘pathway to citizenship’ outside the legal channels.

    Green cards? Fine, it is only realistic. But citizenship? Go get in line like everyone else.

    thats because hes a pile of crap. His byline at hotair is “this post has been updated” because of his mnny errors.
    hes a smug millenial who thinks hes smarter than the readers there.
    I can’t stand him and really hate the fact his thesis used intel myself and others in germany in the 80’s gathered to support his a$$. if I could go back in time I’d FURothman to every soviet incursion report I did.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to Ragspierre. | November 21, 2014 at 11:31 am

    I have an idea. Bust out the 1986 Immigration Reform Act and follow it to the fuc*ing letter, especially the part that describes a “one-time general amnesty” which was granted in… 1986.

Bitterlyclinging | November 20, 2014 at 8:17 pm

Its September, 1938 all over again and Obama’s inviting the Republicans to his study in Munich, Germany.
Will the Republicans answer his invitation as Neville Chamberlain or as Winston Churchill?
If the Republicans show up as Chamberlain, Obama will assure them by November 2016, there will be neither Constitution nor the Republic on which it is based, standing.

yaaawn ??

This weasel may have been born in this country, but he is not an American.

He’s also not a Constitutional Scholar.

Obama SOP is same as health care, lie about every damn thing, paint a pretty picture and tell us everything will be fine, just trust him, don’t worry your pretty little heads.

He is just helping honest working families, that are raising good children that are valedictorians usually. They are only doing jobs no American will do and are no burden on society, no drug cartels moving to Chicago, no human trafficking, just American loving dream seekers.

So many fairy tales … as bogus as Obamacare promises. The people that illegally snuck in here can move home at their leisure. We have no obligation to them, whether they are working or not. And certainly no obligation to another few million that Obama is essentially inviting to crash our borders, which he maliciously opened.

He Lies. But he gets to play the compassionate Santa Claus to the world, and paint any that oppose him as evil.

“God Damn America” is the Obama Doctrine.

    nordic_prince in reply to Midwest Rhino. | November 20, 2014 at 10:20 pm

    He never talks about the “dream seekers” that commit murder and mayhem – driving drunk and killing people or destroying property, importing drugs and vicious gangs into the US.

    Nope, just blather about “dreamers” ~

Did any president before him do this absent the assent of Congress in letter or spirit?

    Henry Hawkins in reply to oldschooltwentysix. | November 20, 2014 at 8:40 pm

    That would be a corpulent no.

    When Reagan signed an EO granting certain illegal aliens amnesty, he was doing so in reliance upon the 1986 immigration law that he had signed. That law explicitly gave the president discretion to extend amnesty to certain illegal aliens not specifically covered by the law, in order to aid in the fair implementation of the law (i.e., to keep family units together). Reagan’s EO even specifically cited that section of the 1986 law that gave him the legal discretion to do what his EO did.

    Democrats objected to Reagan’s amnesty EO, not as an abuse of power (which it clearly was not), but because they said Reagan was exercising his legal discretion far too narrowly. Subsequently, Bush issued another amnesty EO (again pursuant to the 1986 law) that widened the category of illegal aliens affected, in the way that Democrats had demanded.

    In their amnesty EOs, both Reagan and Bush were exercising discretion that had specifically been granted to them by congress. That is far different from what Obama is doing. In Obama’s case, congress refused to pass an immigration law, so there was no law which granted the president the power to do what Obama is doing. And the illegal aliens Obama is granting amnesty to are not close relatives of the people who were amnestied by the 1986 law, so he can’t plausibly claim he is using the executive discretion authorized in that law.

Okay, so I watched the whole thing. Fortunately “The Big Bang Theory” was being recorded on the DVR.

His argument seems to be predicated on the fact that the Senate passed a bill a year ago, and the House failed to vote on it. (I doubt, by the way, that if it had come to a vote, it would have passed as he claimed, but whatever.)

The question becomes, why now? If the trigger for this action was the House failing to vote, why didn’t he do this a year ago, when they didn’t vote on the Senate bill? Why, in fact, did he spend most of 2013 saying he *couldn’t* do anything?

If he could wait from June until now, why couldn’t he wait another two months for the newly-elected Congress to act on the issue? What’s so magic about late November 2014?

Of course we all know the answer. But I yearn for the day that someone in the WH press room actually asks the question.

    Clarification: “If he could wait from June 2013 until now…”

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Joseph. | November 20, 2014 at 9:02 pm

    I dub thee Captain Rhetorical!

    Ragspierre in reply to Joseph. | November 20, 2014 at 9:07 pm

    I pointed out the fairly obvious fact that…IF “our immigration system is broken and has been for decades”…Pres. ScamWOW and his CONGRESS and SENATE were entirely unfettered if they wanted to fix it all during 2009 and part of 2010.

    So THAT is a lie, too, if by implication.

    I suspect they didn’t because they KNEW how it would kindle a firestorm.

      You think it’s easy driving 18% of the world’s largest economy into the ditch and getting all four wheels stuck? I mean, how much do you think one guy can possibly fuck up at one time? Priorities, my man, priorities.

Subotai Bahadur | November 20, 2014 at 9:12 pm

There is critical Constitutional question. If the president can decree amnesty outside the law; what bounds ARE there on presidential authority? Or are there any at all? If the Legislative declines to give the Executive exactly what he wants, does the Executive have the power under the Constitution to declare whatever he wants to be law? If so, what is the role of the Constitution, and do we need the other branches at all? If we are not governed under the Constitution, what obligation do citizens have to obey the Federal government unless at gunpoint? Just trying to make sure that everybody knows what the rules are now.

It strikes me that this constitutes an assault closer to the mass of the population here and now than Charles I’s attempt to levy the Ship Money tax on Englishmen against the will of Parliament. And Charles I was beheaded over it.

    Obama had an interesting rationale right after the election. He said the legislators only represent little parts of the country, whereas he’s “the guy that was elected by everyone” (except the 49 percent of the voters who fervently voted against him).

    That’s a pretty clear indication that he believes the president should do whatever he sees fit, and mere legislators should not override his will.

      Estragon in reply to Radegunda. | November 21, 2014 at 1:33 am

      But Obama only won 51.06 of the popular vote and turnout was just 59.3%, so he was elected by 30.28% of eligible voters himself.

      If the President were to be King, we wouldn’t need a Congress at all.

    “If the president can decree amnesty outside the law; what bounds ARE there on presidential authority?”

    I suspect we are going to learn the answer to your question over the next two years. And we are not going to like it.

Obama predictably trots out immig sob stories–he NEVER speaks so empathetically abt millions of unemployed & underemployed Americans?

— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) November 21, 2014

Yeah, but THOSE people are nicely nippled up to the Federal sugar tit now.

Besides, Laura, those are stupid Americans. So, pht…

    Radegunda in reply to Ragspierre. | November 20, 2014 at 10:18 pm

    There are murmurs that the GOP leadership doesn’t want Sessions (or anyone who agrees with him) in important positions.

      Ragspierre in reply to Radegunda. | November 20, 2014 at 10:22 pm

      Yah, yah. We’ve talked about leaders and real leaders.

      Sessions will have a LOT of support from the people, and that ain’t hay.

Don’t believe the GOP Establishment’s protestations that they cannot defund Obama’s power-grab. They could shut that down in January in an afternoon after taking control of both the House and Senate. They are not going to do anything because they like what is going on.

This “debate” is pure political kabuki, with everyone just going through the motions. Obama gets to act like Robert Mugabe, his political godfather. McConnell and Boehner – both enthusiastic amnesty supporters – will diligently look for a way to roll back Obama’s executive order in the same way a mouse diligently searches to be devoured by a cat.

Everything changes, yet nothing changes.

Not so fast. I’m all for giving defunding a try — also holding up appointments — but don’t sell the lawsuit short. I’ll even go so far as to lay down an Yglesias style marker: If Obama’s executive action is as broad as described, the Supreme Court will strike it down.
—Mickey Kaus

I think he’s right. I agree that this is comparable to the Steel Seizure Case. And I’m also a fan of Richard Neely.
—InstaPundit

I think every mode of attack should be launched.

Every. One.

A 33-page Justice Department legal opinion made public just hours before Obama spoke concluded that he doesn’t have the legal authority to offer broad deportation relief to parents of so-called Dreamers—people who came to the U.S. illegally as children and won a reprieve from deportation in a program known as DACA that Obama created in 2012.”As it has been described to us, the proposed deferred action program for parents of DACA recipients would not be a permissible exercise of enforcement discretion,” Justice Department attorney Karl Thompson wrote in the Office of Legal Counsel opinion.

The opinion also reveals, in a footnote, that Justice Department lawyers informally raised concerns about Obama’s initial 2012 DACA program before it was enacted.

2nd Ammendment Mother | November 20, 2014 at 10:41 pm

One big problem is that Obama and Dems work very hard to restrict the discussion of immigration issues to just those from Latin Countries – I’m sure there are other statistics out there, but Houston ISD just published the immigrant profile for the first 3 months of this school year:
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/11/18/Exclusive-3000-Unaccompanied-Minors-in-Houston-Schools

And my second thought as I look at this situation is that everyone of the Pols who claim to speak on behalf of immigrants claim that they came to the US to escape dictatorial governments that ignore the rule of law…. and yet, that isn’t that what is being advocated?

If he’s gonna pretend to make the law, we should pretend to obey it.
—IowaHawk

I don’t intend to even pretend.

I aim to misbehave.

    sdharms in reply to Ragspierre. | November 21, 2014 at 6:46 am

    I agree- misbehave, civil disobedience. As a private citizen, not a lawyer, tell me what to do. Give me some ideas. I can ask the lawn guy for his green card (already done). I have great respect for your comments — look for them in LI. I want our governor to tell the Feds the “come and get it” — to defy the Feds process in this state (Texas) and it would be nice if we took control of the border. But I cant effect any of that. I need an idea.

      walls in reply to sdharms. | November 21, 2014 at 10:24 am

      An armed American citizen militia on the border works for me. Until bodies start to fall, words mean nothing and the illegal onslaught will continue.

      Ragspierre in reply to sdharms. | November 21, 2014 at 10:36 am

      Well, you ask me the very hard question that I can’t begin to answer for anyone but me; what am I prepared to do about it?

      For me, the answer appears clear enough, but it is still a hard answer. If I’m withdrawing my support for the Federal government, I’m really withdrawing it. No taxes (except those whose collection I cannot influence, like fuel taxes). And I do it publicly, notoriously, and without any attempt at special pleading.

      I won’t comply with anything the Federal government expects me to do, like answer a census, or sign up for ObamaDoggle (I already made that last decision).

      I won’t have anything to do with somebody who is supportive of this amnesty. If I need goods or services, and of course I will, I will do all I can to screen the provider. I will encourage employers to adopt an employment policy that excludes low-intensity invaders, and can certify to it.

      Now, all this is ME. I’m not demanding or even suggesting what you do. And I am “out there”, but I don’t believe in half-measures. I’ve seen this coming for years, and done a lot of thinking about it.

      One thing that recurs in my thinking is that this is going to need some organization to be really effective. There needs to be a recognizable group of people who are taking some portion of the actions I suggest (and others will suggest additional ones).

      I am not the guy to do that organizing. But it seems apparent someone will need to do it.

      I read this morning that Michelle Bachmann is calling for a rally in Washington on Dec. 3rd, and there will be others set up around the country. You and I need to support those, or even start one.

      One other thing I’ll mention in passing is that we all need to be careful about what we project. I have absolutely nothing against any race or ethnic group, and I need to make certain nobody can truthfully say I do. I am against people who have broken into my country and demanded “rights”, however. If they were all red-headed, blue-eyed MacDonalds, I’d feel precisely the same.

“With all its defects, delays and inconveniences, men have discovered no technique for long preserving free government except that the Executive be under the law, and that the law be made by parliamentary deliberations.” – Justice Robert Jackson, Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer (1952)

I see Obama trotted out the “we all are immigrants” bullshit.

Actually, Barack… I was born here to parents who were born here, whose parents, grandparents, etc.. were born here. We’ve been here for nearly 400 years so no…. I’m NOT an immigrant by any stretch of the imagination.

    creeper in reply to Sanddog. | November 21, 2014 at 9:28 am

    My father was a Naturalized citizen from Canada. He never considered himself anything but an American.

    Citizenship isn’t just jumping through the immigration hoops. It’s a state of mind.

      TrooperJohnSmith in reply to creeper. | November 21, 2014 at 11:37 am

      I’ll wager that he didn’t just watch CBC cable channel or insist on speaking just Canadian in the home, either! 😆

      My point is that immigrants have always assimilated, because they once had to do so. Now, with non-assimilating Latinos, their kids grow up illiterate in two languages. There is no longer a melting pot. Instead, we’re just going to pot.

Not that this is a scientific poll or even a large sampling but I find it interesting. I Winter over here in Tucson (74 today). I am doing a fairly large remodel on this house. It being Tucson the contractor and and most of the trades workers are of Mexican heritage or directly from Mexico. This is a fairly large contractor bonded and licensed and all of his employees are here legally. These are mostly skilled workers. They are pissed. They know that these new people are not going to be going after jobs as dental assistants or computer programmers. They fear that this competition will cut their wages and make it harder for the contractor they work for to find and bid jobs.

They know. They know exactly what is going on.

buckeyeminuteman | November 20, 2014 at 11:16 pm

Where’s a grassy knoll when you need one?

These son of a bitch RINOs are surrendering the Republic without even drawing a sword.

Obama’s criminal action is assembling a list of the illegals targeted for deportation when the next sane president is elected.

Good thing he’s calling for a background checks. Now we can deport him.

    Ah, yes, the “background checks.”

    To quote Joe Wilson: “You Lie!”

    Remember Obama’s first illegal amnesty by EO, the so-called “dreamer” amnesty (DACA)? Before signing that, Obama looked into the camera and earnestly assured Americans that before all these young “dreamers” received their legalization papers, they would have to submit to rigorous background checks, to ensure that we weren’t giving amnesty to dangerous criminals and gangbangers.

    Last year, the Heritage Foundation served an FOIA request on Obama’s DHS, asking for the documents showing how those promised “background checks” on the dreamer amnesty applicants were being conducted.

    You’ll be SHOCKED!!! to learn that DHS responded that it did not have any documents to give Heritage, because it has NOT been conducting background checks on “dreamer” amnesty applicants. DHS said it had been “overwhelmed” by the number of amnesty applications, and did not have the money or the necessary personnel to conduct hundreds of thousands of illegal alien background checks. Instead, DHS just accepted the “dreamers'” word for whatever they put in their applications — because illegal aliens, especially criminals and gangbangers — would never lie on an amnesty application, right?

    But you can be sure that the very same government that did not have the ability to perform background checks on hundreds of thousands of “dreamers” will have absolutely no problem performing background checks on MILLIONS of new amnesty applicants (wink, wink).

Congress needs to stop funding. . . a lot of federal agencies and perhaps stop paying the salaries of some federal judges and other government personnel. See which dictatorship has the most clout: a presidential dictatorship or a congressional dictatorship. Words vs money.

We need to defund AND sue AND impeach. Why people be wantin’ to choose just one?

GOP: “Hmm, what can we do that sounds good but doesn’t require we take any actual risks?”

Has 2014 been the last election?

Can’t wait till January 20, 2015 and the State of the Union address. I had a dream where right in the middle of Obama’s address, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) yells out, “LIKE A MOTHER F*CKER!”

TrooperJohnSmith | November 21, 2014 at 11:27 am

Achtung! Führerbefehl!

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend