Obama immigration action "slap in the face," top GOP lawmakers say

The Washington Times ^ | November 19, 2014 | Stephen Dinan

[Political Junkie Too]

Yeah, the quarter in my pocket may be a "rare coin" on Friday because it comes from a country that no longer exists. Either that, or it's the new confederate currency.

-PJ

[Dqban22]

OBAMA’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL AMNESTY TO MIGRANTS THAT ARE LIVING ILLEGALLY IN THE U.S.A.

After destroying the best health care system in the world, Obama is determined to grant wide amnesty to foreigners living illegally in U.S. If Obama wants to make the U.S. into another banana republic, it seems he is well underway to reaching his goal.

The Republicans must make it perfectly clear that Obama has declared a merciless war against the American workers and the middle class of America. There are 92 million of able Americans out of the work force because they cannot find employment and Obama wants to legalize and give work permits to over 11 million illegal aliens allowing them to bring here the rest of their families. In other words, another 25 or 30 million that either will compete with Americans and legal immigrants searching for scarce jobs or are going to be added to welfare, bankrupting Medicaid and the food stamp system as well as ruining even more the quality of the public schools with the massive infuse of hundreds of thousands of children without speaking English to already overburdened schools systems.

[LS]

I think this is brilliant. Probably wouldn’t hold up long. Holder/replacement will sue, courts will cave.

[LS]

It’s a great idea. Holder/replacement would sue, though, and the courts would likely overturn (see USSC vs. AZ case). But it has a shot and would immediately galvanize the public vs. ZEro and the Dems

[Sirius Lee]

Ooooo! Hit me again, please!

[Political Junkie Too]

The courts overturned Arizona because there were federal laws in place. Do you really think that SCOTUS would overturn states in support of executive lawlessness, especially when the courts already ruled in favor of Congress as the controlling branch on immigration?

-PJ

[Lazamataz]

Courts didn’t cave last time. They upheld. Precedent = established.

[Lazamataz]

Even if overturned, stays and delays would be the order of the day, which gives our side additional time for maneuvering.

[Political Junkie Too]

I agree that stays and delays are tactically advantageous, but my point is that the circumstances are different this time. An overturn would be egregious.

The last time, the government argued that there were federal laws on the books and the country needed one set of laws.

This time, there is not a similar argument that defends the President acting unilaterally.

I just heard on the Mark Levin show that Greg Abbott, the SoS of Texas, is planning to file a lawsuit against Obama, arguing that Article I Section 8 gives Congress the authority to make immigration law that Texas will follow.

It's beginning.

-PJ

[stephenjohnbanker]

” The last time, the government argued that there were federal laws on the books and the country needed one set of laws.

This time, there is not a similar argument that defends the President acting unilaterally.”

Great point.