Posted on 08/16/2013 7:45:39 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
A behind the scenes argument has broken out among Democrats and immigration advocates in the wake of public discussion of a so-called “Plan B” on immigration, in which advocates would press the White House to legalize millions of undocumented immigrants via executive authority if Congress fails to act.
Some have pushed the “Plan B” idea in the media to increase pressure on Republicans to support legislative reform, by getting them to fear Obama would legalize the 11 million himself if they don’t do it on their own terms. But others — including, sources say, the White House — think floating the idea is not only substantively absurd, but is also politically a mistake, because it only takes the pressure off Republicans on immigration by allowing them to slip back into fight-Obama-tyranny-at-all-costs mode.
The “Plan B” idea has generated a lot of attention lately, and for good reason: it’s pretty dramatic stuff.
The idea — most recently given a big public push by Marco Rubio — is that if Republicans can’t support immigration reform, then they should fear Obama using his executive authority to legalize the 11 million, just as he did with the DREAMers. Rubio warned fellow Republicans that if they don’t embrace reform, “a year from now we could find ourselves with all 11 million people here legally through an executive order from the president.”
Some immigration advocates have also echoed this idea. Frank Sharry, the head of pro-immigration America’s Voice, recently reacted to Rubio’s comments by claiming that if Republicans punt on reform, “immigration reform advocates are going to do what we did in 2011 and 2012, which is to pressure Obama to use his authority — which is expansive in this area.”
But some inside the immigration reform movement are calling on folks to shut up...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
That is not even suggested by the Rubio threat or what Dems are asking Obama to do. There is no law that Obama can not enforce that will give illegals legal citizenship
(the SCOTUS said they will not tell the POTUS how to enforce the law which is not the same as letting him grant citizenship on a whim.) .
But lets imagine that Obama can just make anyone he wants a US voting citizen at his whim.
If that was the case then why should we waste time and effort opposing the amnesty bill? In fact why would Dems put so much effort into passing an amnesty bill if Obama can make them legal voters?
No, I say Rubio/Obama are bluffing and that we not give in to them.
Calling someone an MR was an insult ehen I was a kid.
How about Obama's DACA EO giving out work permits? Seems to me that goes beyond "not enforcing the law," and there was no real opposition to his doing so. Giving out citizenship would be a much more serious matter, but I believe he has already gone beyond his legal authority.
But lets imagine that Obama can just make anyone he wants a US voting citizen at his whim. If that was the case then why should we waste time and effort opposing the amnesty bill? In fact why would Dems put so much effort into passing an amnesty bill if Obama can make them legal voters?
"I tried to convince Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform but they refused, so...."
No, I say Rubio/Obama are bluffing and that we not give in to them.
Not sure whether he would give out citizenship, but I agree, giving in would be foolish.
why would Dems put so much effort into passing an amnesty bill if Obama can make them legal voters?
_____________________________________________
that-guy-in-my-White-House TM can make them voters but it wont be legal..
bump
0bama's executive order is not law. They would still be illegal.
At what point do we as a people stand up and say "NO!" At what point do we have the courage to demand that our elected officials obey the laws that they passed? By what means do we make that demand? We need to start considering this, carefully and soon. Otherwise we really will be in a dictatorship.
Obama's approval numbers are now hitting record lows, yet his critics are often written off as simple- minded "Obama haters." It doesn't wash. The problem is a pattern of presidential lawlessness.
Last time we checked, the Constitution requires the president to "faithfully execute the law." That's no editorial opinion, but Article 2, Section 3, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that "(The President) shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
Our founders conceived and established in that document three co-equal branches of government to preserve our individual liberty and restrain the unlimited power of government. But this president and his administration have routinely ignored the divisions of power between the presidency, the Congress and its legislation, and the Supreme Court and its rulings. Constitutionally, the president has the authority to check the legislative branch by recommending legislation to be passed by Congress or through the presidential veto.
But he cannot legislate through executive fiat and he can't pick and choose which parts of the law he will comply with or decline. Nor can he defy judicial rulings from the highest court in the land. But that's what he's done. In just the latest example, President Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder has directed federal prosecutors to conceal the amount of drugs seized during an arrest to circumvent mandatory minimum sentences set by Congress in 1986.
Whether one agrees with that law or not, its legal authority lies within the constitutional powers of Congress, not the executive branch. And that's the issue. It's part of a growing litany of presidential lawlessness:
• Aug. 14, 2013: The Obama administration delayed the provision in ObamaCare to cap out-of-pocket health care costs, picking and choosing parts of the law to enforce, which is to exceed its authority. (Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
People like Anderson Cooper, Chris Matthews and Oprah Winfrey, to name just a few, have all the megaphones.
George Soros creates and richly finance organizations that can bend the ears of Capitol Hill potentates.
The Hollyweird Left produces propaganda to ensure the low information voters (LIV) know just how evil conservatives are. They use their billions of $, along with the Technology Kings (Zuckermann, Bezos, Ted Turner, etc.) to promote and keep democrats in power.
Science calls us deniers because we want more proof that we should just wreck the economy and ruin the lives of millions of people over a “threat” that's natural and has been present on Earth for millions of years.
Academia indoctrinates our youth from 5 years old to 22 on how rotten and awful the rich, America, and Christianity is.
I just don't have much hope. I can't understand why we (meaning our political philosophy) seems to have no power. Four years ago, our outrage grew to the point of boil-over and the TEA Party was born. We fought back, in protest and town hall.
The answer from the Left was easy. They got Anderson Cooper and his megaphone to call us “Teabaggers”. Congressman Elijah Cummings said protesters spit on him and called him the N-Word when he and Nancy's minions took their power walk with giant gavel to rub our faces in it. They used ALL the power the megaphones had, media and Hollyweird, to attack, denigrate and make a laughing stock out of the TEA party and it worked.
Now, right before our eyes, we see the megaphones ignoring the murders in Benghazi and the shameful, lying Susan Rice going on ALL the Sunday shows and not telling the American people the truth and they don't mind.
We see the IRS, NSA, FBI and other federal agencies breaking the law for political gain and just whatever else (reasons and the depth of it we can only just speculate on) that would make Richard Nixon blush and the megaphones just yawn and the LIV gets a sad, young boy named Trayvon to take their minds off things.
I have no answer. We could fight back, but we need money, and lots of it. We need our own megaphones--Rush, etc. are not enough.
We need to force the megaphones to report on us. Things like Rand Paul's "filibuster" should be weekly occurrences, but it's as if our side doesn't care.
Our side! Is it?
I have to conclude if they're not against the Left, they are... For them?!
The Left let two from "our" side have a megaphone, McCain and Graham, because they can always be depended on to eat their own. Whackobirds, anyone?
Is Boehner and his leadership so afraid of the megaphones that they won't fight, or are they secretly in agreement with the Left on things?
There's so much more and I am outraged beyond belief but I have no answer. Men much more powerful than me refuse to take a stand--how can I?
Too many to mention. Too many liars, not enough truth tellers.
If Obama could and would give out US citizenship then Rubio in the above post would be right. We would be better off with the Senate bill than him doing that.
Obama will grant US citizenship by exec order and get away with it when he signs that full repeal of Obama-care, which is never.
I see no point in playing the game ‘Lets just assume that Obama is King of the US and we are all his subjects” because its a dead end.
What you say is very disheartening, but it’s also very true.
I do believe, however, that there is a deep disgust and hatred of political correctness in this country, and a disconnect between the views of most Americans and the way those views are marginalized. For example, most Americans oppose racial preferences, and oppose increasing legal immigration into this country. Yet the various organs of the Left will call anyone championing such views racist (or at least strongly imply it). When they do this, they are by extension calling most Americans racist, and xenophobic, and anti-immigrant, an so on. I don’t think most Americans appreciate this, but they have very few standing up for them.
If the right person came along, I think they could tap into that justified anger and frustration, and turn the Left’s advantages against them.
Or maybe not. I don’t know. It is increasingly depressing that the Republican party is increasingly worthless on so many of these issue.
I do not agree with "better off." Passing the senate bill would give Obama and the RINOs Constitutional legitimacy. By no means am I agreeing with Rubio.
However, your phrase "could and would" also implies that the US public would no longer care whether Obama is a tyrannical monarch.
He already invented new "executive legislation" (as if legislation by the courts was not bad enough) in giving out work permits in the DACA EO, but perhaps the public let it slide because it was supposedly limited to Dreamers. I am hoping you are right that Obama does not think he could get away with giving away citizenship. I say, watch what he, Hillary, and RINOs do carefully, and oppose them with all our power.
Are you saying that Constitutional legitimacy matters to the Dems? That they are holding their hopes out on the House passing amnesty for that, when Obama can just sign a piece of paper and make them all voters?
If Obama can make illegals voting citizens on the spot then why wouldn't he have done it sooner?
They would all vote Dem.
He would be King. And then we should all move on to entertainment like the rest because its hopeless.
Didnt the SCOTUS just throw out that section of voting rights act that has Dems in a tizzy? The one that the GOP congress and POTUS passed in 2006?
Now after Hillary as POTUS replaces justice Kennedy in her first or second term she will be able to do anything she wants as the evil Queen, including deem citizenship.
But that is still a few years away.
Only as the path of least resistance. If Congress had passed a Dream Act then he would not have had to do the EO. But that would have meant the GOP had opened its trenchcoat all the way, exposing hideous treason for all to see.
That they are holding their hopes out on the House passing amnesty for that,
That may or may not be true. I never claimed either.
when Obama can just sign a piece of paper and make them all voters?
I never said that Obama was going to give out citizenship via fiat. I said that if he did, it was not clear to me who would stop him, considering all his lawless acts done with impunity.
If Obama can make illegals voting citizens on the spot then why wouldn't he have done it sooner? They would all vote Dem.
I already posted a reason why that might be what they are doing. Let me try again. When he issued DACA, he claimed it was because Congress had not acted. "In the absence of any immigration action from Congress to fix our broken immigration system, what we’ve tried to do is focus our immigration enforcement resources in the right places....Effective immediately, the Department of Homeland Security is taking steps to lift the shadow of deportation from these young people."
You see, before blaming the GOP, he has to prove that they won't pass what he wants.
Yes, there are arguments for his not giving out citizenship. For example, DACA did not have citizenship, and the entire illegal population is not as cute and cuddly as the Dreamers. Also, they may be thinking that it's just a matter of time until the GOP, with enough bribes and arm twisting, caves.
Emancipation proclamation proclamation was identical to the amnesty proposed.
Emancipation was an illegal taking
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.