Bill Clinton Comes to Obama’s Defense, Hammers Republican Propaganda on Immigration

bill-clinton-speakingAs the battle over immigration will undoubtedly rage on for months following President Obama’s decision to do what he can to address an issue Republicans seem disinterested in fixing, a major Democratic ally has emerged and come out in support of the president – Bill Clinton.


Not only has the former president come out in support of Obama’s actions on immigration, but he completely debunked the right-wing propaganda that the president’s actions are those of a “lawless dictator shredding our Constitution.”

On Wednesday, Clinton said, “As far as I can tell, every president in the modern era has issued some executive action on immigration. So I imagine he’ll be on pretty firm legal ground.”

Exactly.

First, let’s go ahead and debunk the myth that amnesty is some radical leftist idea by pointing out that in 1986, “conservative icon” Ronald Reagan passed practically the same immigration bill President Obama wants Congress to pass now.

And while that wasn’t done via executive order (amazing what a president can get done when a Congress is willing to work with him, isn’t it?), he did issue an executive order in 1987 on immigration, ending the deportation of minor children who didn’t fall under the guidelines of the 1986 immigration bill he signed. In other words, Reagan used executive orders to grant amnesty to illegal immigrations.

Oh, George H.W. Bush also used an executive order to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants.

And George W. Bush, after Congress failed to give him the immigration bill he wanted in 2007, also used the power of the executive order.


In fact, he said at the time, “Although the Congress has not addressed our broken immigration system by passing comprehensive reform legislation, my administration will continue to take every possible step to build upon the progress already made.”

The truth is Clinton is exactly right. President Obama is on sound legal ground because practically every other president before him has taken executive action on immigration when Congress refused to do anything. 

What Republicans are counting on, and sadly it’s a fairly safe bet, is the short-term memory of the American people. They want to push this idea that Obama’s actions are those of an unconstitutional dictator who wants to abuse his power. But what you won’t hear many Republicans talk about – and you sure as hell won’t see Fox News cover – is that we had comprehensive immigration reform passed in this country almost a year and a half ago. The Senate passed a bipartisan bill 68-32 that the president said he would sign, except John Boehner wouldn’t let the House even vote on it.

All President Obama is doing is using his power to get as much of that bipartisan bill enacted as he possibly can. House Republicans have had well over a year to get something done on immigration and they’ve done absolutely nothing.

And now they’re throwing a hissy fit because they know Obama has the power to act without them.



Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

    Short term memory of the American people? They don’t care about what anyone else did in office—they only care that THIS president, that they have blasted from the beginning, isn’t doing what they wanted him to do! No matter that the congress would NEVER work with him in order to make him look bad and ineffective! I can just hear all of the right wing conservatives screaming now that he has broken the constitutional law and he should be impeached. Then add in what they’ll hear on fox news and from their church leaders and they will be rabid with rage. Because this immigration situation has been allowed to grow and fester for so many many years there was no perfect answer as to how to go about changing it. You can’t just throw out however many millions of people who are here and have been here for a long time and not think about how it’s going to impact the families of these people. I think he came up with some good guidelines for how this process will be handled and I am hoping that he won’t be vilified by the “know everythings” that live among us.

    • Kim Sara

      Before 1 year I lost so much and after that I was fortunate enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me. I started for them and in a short time after I’ve started averaging $300 everyday. The best thing was that cause I am not that computer savvy all I needed was some basic skills nothing more.

      You can definetly try this genuine site link

      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.reviews-247.com

    • strayaway

      You were right. He has violated his oath of office again and should be impeached but there aren’t enough votes to do that. No one has to throw out millions of people. Just put the CEO’s of businesses who profit from hiring foreigners in prison to reduce the demand for cheaper foreign labor. Many illegal aliens will find the door by themselves when there is no demand for their labor. But to get back to Bill Clinton, David Frum observed that “it’s curious that if executive immigration action is so politically popular, Clinton is so ready to leave the credit to the current occupant of the White House rather than to the next.” The sooner this hits the fan, the better for Hillary in 2016. The quote was from the 11/17 Atlantic Article, ”
      Five Reasons Obama Shouldn’t Declare Amnesty”

      • Darren Stevens

        I do believe you missed Marilyn’s message. Like the rest of you xenophobes who subscribe to whatever message Fox News vomits up to you who watch/listen, there is no dictatorial action here, only enactment of what the bipartisan Senate bill propounded but the chickenshit speaker wouldn’t allow to come up for a vote. TFB for you.

      • strayaway

        I think I understood Marilyn’s message. She, and presumably you, miss the point of the Constitution and the rule of law. What happened last night was profound. While other presidents have violated the Constitution and Obama has done so himself a number of times, this time was different. President Obama chose to challenge Congress and the American people with an ‘in your face what are you going to do about it’ usurpation of congressional power. If allowed to stand, presidents can henceforth rule at whim. If they want your property to enrich their friends, if they want to imprison their enemies, if they want to overlook perjury, or any other violation of law, they can just as easily do that. That’s what you and Marylyn seem to miss and support. If the President doesn’t get the bill he wants from Congress in three years, Hilary can provide another three years of amnesty. You will not like it when some equally petulant Republican president does something you consider outrageous because Congress didn’t give him the bill he wanted. Back to Obama’s challenge. Hitler wanted the same power to make laws without the consent of his Congress. However, he was forced to go to the Reichstag for an ‘enabling act’ giving him such power.Obama, instead, just stared Congress down and acts as if he has de facto enabling act. I blame Congress for being so lame.

        The first time I can remember anyone saying Obama had committed an impeachable offense was when Dennis Kucinich said so regarding Obama’s executive ordered bombing of Libya. This president seems to think he can bomb nations at will and rule as a dictator as we saw lat night. He has no constitutional basis for doing so. The Constitution does not give presidents the power to pick which laws they feel like executing and then override laws with ones of their own. President Obama has said this himself on occasion. He has since chosen to violate his oath. The Constitution is very specific that only Congress has ALL legislative powers (granted herein), may declare wars, make naturalization legislation, and protect our borders from invasion.

        I am a xenophobe to some extent and proud of it. I didn’t like it that Mohammed Atta’s crews of some ‘undocumented immigrants’ (they overstayed their visas) caused mayhem. I don’t like it that US wages are stagnant and millions of Americans are out of work because too many foreigners, legal and otherwise, are allowed in to work for lower wages. I don’t like it that 82% of population growth in the US is immigration driven at present rates of immigration. It means our population will be 438M in just 26 years. No one can claim to be ‘green’ and justify all the new roads, parking lots, parks, plastics, pipelines, and everything else to accommodate this increased population. Obama’s decree combined with incentivizing immigration and chain immigration laws will probably accelerate this growth.

        I seldom watch tv, so your incorrect presumption that I am a Fox viewer just identified you as being a bad guesser and a bit simplistic.

      • Larry

        In you face ? Really ? This is not the bill that Obama wants.A bipartison bill passed in the Senate over a year ago. It went to the House and John Boehner refuses to bring it up for a vote, even though Democrats and some Republicans said the Votes are there, but Boehner is a coward who is afraid of Ted Cruz and the rest of the crazies in the tea party. This has been done before but funny when it was a white President doing it, everything was ok. I am only speaking the truth, that you people are afraid to admit.

      • strayaway

        It should have read, “in your face” rather than “in you face”. Spell check isn’t perfect. Bush’s similar bill was voted down. Congress is not required to take a vote on the the Senate’s amnesty bill or on the hundreds of bills stacked on Ried’s shelf either frustrating as that may be. I think it would be more productive to blame the president’s failures on his policies rather than his race.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Boehner didn’t let the bill come to a vote in the house because he knew it would pass and pissing off Obama was more important.

        You wanna give me a list of those “hundreds of bills stacked on Ried’s (sic) shelf” and explain exactly how they would make any ordinary American’s life better? Tax cuts for rich people ain’t gonna cut it.

      • Brad Short

        347 Bills so far… But do your own research. Typical lazy ass liberal.

      • SophieCT

        Brad Short, you sound like a typical ignorant Republican. Those 347 so-called bills are dirty–nothing but gifts to conservative benefactors. They have nothing to do with making laws for a nation. Watching Fox and reading Brietbitch has turned your brain to mush.

      • Brad Short

        Many of those bills were sponsored by Democrats dumbass. The ACA is a dirty bill designed to help Liberal benefactors. It damn sure didn’t help. It made health care twice as expensive.

      • Di Kelley

        Actually, we pay *less* through my husband’s employer-sponsored health plan than we did prior to the ACA.

      • Brad Short

        Yeah right! Thank GOD for Corporations. Thank Democrats for nothing.

      • Brad Short

        Okay, I’ll bite. Exactly WHAT does the generosity of your husbands employer have to do with the ACA? Your husbands insurer offered better rates to companies by dumping high risk coverage onto the ACA and by dumping all individual policies. This is probably far too esoteric for you so I will leave it at that.

      • Brad Short

        Here dumbass, I did it for you. The following are excerpts from remarks given by Kansas Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins (KS-02)

        “The President is fond of referring to the House as the “Do-Nothing Congress.” But we have 352 reasons why it’s a “Do-Nothing Senate.”

        “352 bills are sitting on Harry Reid’s desk, awaiting action.

        “98% of them passed with bipartisan support. Republicans and Democrats working together to pass legislation.

        “50% of the bills passed unanimously, with no opposition.

        “70% of the bills passed with 2/3rds support in the House.

        “And over 55 bills were introduced by Democrats.

        “352 bills. Why won’t Harry Reid act? These are good bills; bills that put the American people back to work, put more money in hardworking Americans pockets, help with education, and skills training.

        “We call upon Harry Reid to get to work before he adjourns in August to pass some of these bills. The American people deserve better.”

        LOL. They have actually added 5 since I researched it. You must get your news from Whoopi Goldberg. You are what the Democrats refer to as a useful idiot.

      • Nicholas A Kocal

        Quoting a racist republican congressman does not help your cause.

      • Brad Short

        The Race card always comes out when logic and reason have left the building. Unfortunately for you, black or white, you are a complete dumbass. Everything Lynn said is EASILY verifiable by any third grader with a computer. Unfortunately for you, any random third grader is smart than you… Being a complete dumbass actually does help your cause. You and your fellow dumbasses vote for these clowns.

      • Brad Short

        So instead of verifying the facts, you went straight to the race card. That’s typical of a retarded Liberal. Don’t worry, welfare is safe. You won’t go hungry.

      • strayaway

        No, I am too lazy to find a list. I did find an article claiming 191 bills were on Reid’s shelf 30 of which were authored by House Republicans. That was last March so the number probably has increased since then.

      • Carolina Cruisers

        Lol. They are clearly sore losers and obstructionists. Why aren’t you lambasting the right for all their lies and failures

      • Brad Short

        Because Fact Check websites have proven that all the lies are coming from the Democrats.

      • springerj

        What Fact Check websites?

        Like Politifact, where the overwhelming majority of “Pants on Fire” lies have been told by Republicans?

      • strayaway

        Is that the topic in this thread?

      • We may not like it, when a “petulant Republican president does something we consider outrageous without the consent of Congress,” but you sure as he$$ won’t hear cries of impeachment, and comparisons of that President to an “emperor,” “King” or any other of the many terms you folks use to describe this President.

      • strayaway

        Look up “Bush chimp” on Google images as an example of how wrong you are. Presidents through out our history have been lampooned and vilified every bit as much ac Obama. Why do you think he should be treated special? Some specific names referencing Obama have to to with his attitudes and policies which may be different then those of, for example, Grover Cleveland. I suspect that FDR and Lincoln received their share of justified criticisms for their constitutional abuses. The good news is that the republic survived both of them after a fashion so my guess is that the Country will right itself somewhat from its listing after Obama.

      • Way to go for justifying why people have actually compared this President to a “chimp.” See, whether liberals did call Bush a chimp or not is irrelevant, making your entire point non sequitor. Why? Because YOU folks are supposedly the party of “family values,” the “Christian party,” comprised of a never ending force of evangelical rhetoric. If ANYONE should refrain from this sordid rhetoric, it should be the folks from your camp, but they can’t and they won’t! Why? Because in your camp’s mind, “this” President isn’t one of “us.” This President is different. Whether the matter is about race, or not, it really doesn’t matter because in the end, the party of no, ended up being the party of go as in telling the President he could go to you know where. You folks are laughable!

      • strayaway

        In your previous post, you wrote, “you sure as he$$ won’t hear cries of impeachment, and comparisons of that President to an “emperor,” “King” or any other of the many terms you folks use to describe this President.” By way of illustration to show you were wrong, I offered Bush chimp as a sample of what Bush dealt with. But now you say it is irrelevant. Ok, whatever…

        “You folks”? That’s the term that the NAACP convention took umbrage to when Perot used it. I’m more of a Ron Paul type so your dislike of family values, Christians, and evangelicals really misses the target. Social conservatives are a different part of the Republican Party. You seem to be addressing the wrong “you people”. I was through with this president when he bombed Libya. His recent forays into ruling by diktat instead of the rule of law have just been icing on the cake. You are correct that I am disgusted with Obama thinking he should be at least shunned but you didn’t understand the reason(s). Many of those social agenda Republicans you so dislike supported Obama when he was conducting his executive ordered war on Libya.

      • Di Kelley

        Uh, he didn’t say he personally disliked any of those things, so much as point out that the republicans claim to be for those things when their social and humantarian policies don’t bear that out. I think.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Bush didn’t deal with much of anything because (A) he had a Republican Congress and (B) he didn’t give a rat’s ass about anything.

        Carter created the Carter Center, devoted to improving human life.
        Clinton founded the Clinton Global Initiative, devoted to improving human life.
        Dubya learned how to paint.

      • strayaway

        A) during the last two years of Bush’s tenure when things really tanked, didn’t bush have a Democratic controlled House and Senate?

      • Brad Short

        YES, and Bush was also NOT given a budget to sign. Nancy Pelosi knew Bush would veto her outrageous request so she rammed through a continuing resolution, then dumped a boatload of iff budget expenditures on him

      • You mean the “executive ordered war on Libya,” which was the sole result of House Republicans landblasting him, headed up by Senator John “Oh, I forgot, I LOST the 2008 election,” arguing the “president is leading from behind?” Is that the one you are complaining about?

        Further, I know just why people are disgusted with the President. They were disgusted when he was campaigning for President, disgusted when he was elected in 2008, and even more disgusted when he was re-elected in historical fashion, over an opponent who ran on a calling card of “I’m not him,” only to find out the electorate didn’t want someone different; they wanted the man that sits there now! Indeed! They were SO disgusted, and I can assure you that it was not over his policies. When I live in Louisiana and hear the persistent, “we ought to be ashamed that we are electing ‘that’ man into office, I can nearly assure you with 100 percent certainty that it had absolutely NOTHING to do with policy.

        Finally, while I realize perhaps you are not part of that great evangelical force, a few things you might wish to be informed of. First, I am a licensed and ordained pastor, however I firmly believe there needs to be, no, it is lawful that one exists, a wall separating the church and state, and I do not believe it my right to shove my beliefs down another’s throats. Second, the latter description of my faith is NOT representative of the theocratic well wishers. No, far from it! They want this nation run under “their interpretation of God’s Word.” One only need look at the good man from the Family Research Council who argued Florida got it all wrong when they no longer allow Christians or Satantists to pass things out in Orange County Florida. No! He feels only his version of christianity is valid, and THIS is the type of evangelicals trying to influence quite successfully the agenda of the Republican party. Personally? I believe they are “using” their faith in order to promote an agenda, but when doing so, with it becoming the face of the party, then all need to abide by what they have established for you all!

      • strayaway

        Dennis Kucinich gave a couple of reasons why president Obama’s executive ordered attacks on Libya were impeachable offenses. I don’t care about your religion except for defending your freedom of religion as well as speech, etc.

      • Dennis Kucinich? He is hardly the poster boy or grand speaker for the Democratic Party. If I recall correctly, and I do, he is the one who stated during the 2008 primary that “he believed in alien life and UFO’S.” Folks like Kucinich will be brutally punished this next election due to their affinity towards critiquing one of their own so I would not put too much stock in him. But thanks for the reference.

        Now! Back to my point which you allude! The “executive ordered war on Libya,” which was instigated by Republican lawmakers in the press on a near hourly basis accusing the President (repeatedly) of allowing America to decline because “he didn’t act,” only to follow up with “He leads from behind,” when the President used a sensible alternative without getting boots on the ground and still taking out Kadafi? I think he did quite well with that issue.

      • strayaway

        You’re right. The Democratic Party has become a pale version of the Republican Party trying to please the same campaign contributors and offering war mongers like Hillary and putting corporatist puppets like Bill Clinton and Obama into office. Kucinich was already punished for not going with the corporatist flow in the Democratic party. His congressional district was eliminated.

        I realize that Democrats no longer accept that the “buck stops here” but really, it was Obama who bombed Libya. There was no reason to take out Khaddafi. The results have been horrible for Libyans and US foreign policy. You are also missing the point that President Obama had no authority to bomb Libya.

      • Brad Short

        If you vote for Obama, your religion is a joke to you. Obama is actually in favor of executing babies BORN alive during partial birth abortions. Christian my ass!

      • Hey Brad,

        Got news for ya! YOU are not my ultimate “judge.” Christ IS! Wake up and quit trying to deflect: The last President, who was adamantly opposed to abortion, ended up sending grown up babies into a war by LYING to the American people. In my opinion, that makes HIM a murderer.

        However, you folks just aren’t content with the structure of the abortion law. No, what you folks want is a “Personhood amendment,” which “sounds” so good, so nice, so “Christian,” until one looks a bit further into the matter to determine what you folks mean by that term. And when one does they get the following:

        As soon as a sperm meets an egg, “a soul is born.” I really would love to see your proof for that. Now, if you don’t mind, I have grown ups to discuss these issues with! Good day!

      • Brad Short

        I suppose you believe in Santa too? Perhaps the Easter Bunny? Good luck with that.

      • Brad, actually no, I do not believe in Santa nor the Easter Bunny! YOU once again, are not my ultimate judge! When I stand at the door of eternity, not one thing you say will be relevant to Christ at that moment regarding me. Even now: Nothing you say to me is relevant in my estimation so let’s just part ways right here. Have a blessed Thanksgiving holiday and I hope you get to sit at the grown-up table this year!

      • Brad Short

        Adults know two things.
        1) Weapons of Mass Destruction were found in Iraq, but the story was buried by the Obama Administration. One of his disgruntled scapegoats actually testified to that fact, which later verified by the D.O.D. There goes your first argument down the toilet.
        2) There is no mythical being living up in the clouds thats going to Judge you upon your death. To believe that and denounce Santa proves the idiocy of that argument. That’s why you aren’t a “Doctor” of anything useful. You don’t have the mental horsepower to deal in facts, so you went to school to learn about Unicorns and mythical beings. Congrats.

      • Andrew Norman

        Nice vocabulary. Wish you had a clue as to what you were talking about. That would have been the icing on the cake.

      • KJB007

        Ron Paul is a total bigot as well.

      • strayaway

        Under Obama, blacks have lost more homes, have had their savings decline, and have lost more jobs relative to whites. Racial relations have also measurably declined. I’m surprised the KKK wasn’t trying to get votes to support Obama to further mess up blacks.

      • KJB007

        Where’s your evidence?

      • strayaway

        Do a Google search. I realize that you are probably a liberal and liberals are used to things being handed to them. However, If you still want me to spend my time looking things up for you, I will do so if you agree to agree ahead of time that Obama is a failure if I can find sources.

      • Di Kelley

        How is that you can miss that when applied to a black man the word “chimp” is indeed racist? How can you justify using it? Seriously, I despise SJW usually because they take things too far the other way but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to *see* that yes, the use of the word *is* racist in this instance, and no, it is not justified. Far from. It just proves the point some have made here that most of the Right’s Obama hatred is racially motivated.

      • strayaway

        How is it that you are such a bad reader. I did not apply or suggest applying the word ‘chimp’ to Obama. What I wrote was, “Look up “Bush chimp” on Google images” as an example of how Bush was lampooned to prove that Obama wan’t the only criticized president ever. How you contorted “Bush” into “Obama”, I don’t know.

      • KJB007

        I believe he was referred to as “the smirking chimp” because of the chimp-like pose he often made. Now–not only has Obama been shown as a chimp–his wife has also been shown as such; and he’s been depicted in Muslim garb, as having a bone through his nose, conservatives have requested to see his birth certificate and then rejected it as illegitimate… The list goes on. The GOP and TP are bigoted a-holes. If they’re not, someone needs to show me when even one has spoken up against this bs behavior.

      • strayaway

        Please re-read my response to Di Kelly. If you don’t like that example, do a Google search for “Bush Hitler. My point as that Obama wasn’t the most lampooned vilified President ever. L. Johnson and Nixon were so criticized that they could hardly make speeches outside of a military base because of all the protestors. Face it, Obama has a lot of failed policies and has now started acting as dictator in chief. It’s not about his color. It’s about his failures.

      • KJB007

        Seriously — if you are unable to see how this President has been vilified due to the color of his skin — I’m done with you. You are unaware of your own bigotry. No sense kicking a unconscious horse.

      • strayaway

        Good bye, I think that blaming Obama’s unpopularity on race is as lame as blaming Bush, mentioning the Koch brothers, or reading Fox news as the source of Obama’s problems. Whites voted for Obama in 2008. His skin color didn’t prevent that nor has it changed since then. That leaves other variables like his failed policies.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Bush II deserved to be mocked and lampooned. $6 trillion wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq invasion based on lies.

      • strayaway

        I’m not sure about the $6T figure or what part of the figure was under Bush vs. Obama but agree with the rest of your statement.

      • Brad Short

        Actually the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan totalled LESS than 1.5 trillion when Bush left office AND all of it was approved by a supermajority in both Chambers of Congress. Nice try dimwit. By the way, Weapons of Mass Destruction were found in Iraq and quickly covered up by the Obozo administration. That’s an easily verifiable fact.

      • Andrew Norman

        You bring up an excellent point. Hate-mongering conservatives said word for word the same things about Roosevelt and Lincoln. They weren’t any more correct then as they are now

      • strayaway

        Then, in your mind, Lincoln’s imprisonment of some of his political enemies and Roosevelt’s incarceration of Japanese Americans was ok?

      • Brad Short

        Bullshit. Democrats screamed impeachment every time Bush shaved. Doctor my ass… I guess you can be whatever you want on the Internet.

      • Di Kelley

        And I find xenophobia on its face deplorable. This nation was built on immigrants, and xenophobia is just as plain wrong as homophobia and any other form of bigotry is.

      • Brad Short

        The Nation was built on LEGAL immigrants that were forced by the immigration laws to assimilate into our society and learn our language. The nation wasn’t enhanced by illegal immigrants that swam across the river and sponged off of our social programs.. It doesn’t matter what logic I throw at you, you have already went to the racist/bigot defense. That’s what Liberals do when they have nothing of substance left to say.

      • Di Kelley

        I was simply pointing out that Xenophobia is a form of bigotry and bigotry is a depolorable action. And it is. I also did not state I agreed with illegal immigration, so much as I want to see *legal* immigration be made easier and more streamlined so that *less* illegal immigration happens.

        Just as with abortion, if you make contraception easier and less expensive to attain, the rate of abortion drops because the number of unintended pregnancies drops. It’s common sense.

      • Brad Short

        Simply not true. First of all, contraception has never been easier to get. Condoms are FREE almost everywhere. The “pill” is less than $10.00 a month. I’m not sure how old you are, but this is WAY easier than it was 25 years ago, yet unwanted pregnancy has continued to escalate. Second, there is nothing xenophobic about not wanting illegal aliens flooding our Country. It’s just the typical race/bigot card that Liberals use when logic and reason don’t support their position.

      • strayaway

        I wrote this as found a few posts back-

        “I am a xenophobe to some extent and think it reasonable. I didn’t like it when Mohammed Atta’s crews of some ‘undocumented immigrants’ (they overstayed their visas) caused mayhem. I don’t like it that US wages are stagnant and millions of Americans are out of work because too many foreigners, legal and otherwise, are allowed in to work for lower wages. I don’t like it that 82% of population growth in the US is immigration driven at present rates of immigration. It means our population will be 438M in just 26 years. No one can claim to be ‘green’ and justify all the new roads, parking lots, parks, plastics, pipelines, and everything else to accommodate this increased population.”

        Yes, I am bigoted in favor of American workers, I have a dislike for harbored terrorists, and I don’t want America paved over because foreign nationals and corporations in search of cheaper labor determine our immigration policies.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Uh, can you show me exactly in the Constitution where it says what Obama did was illegal? And can you also explain why other Republican presidents have done the same thing and no one whined about it like you? http://www DOT pensitoreview DOT com/2014/11/17/impeachable-18-immigration-executive-orders-by-republican-presidents/

        Congress ceded power when it sat on its fat ass for 6 years and did nothing. Y’all been whining about impeaching Obama for as long, but you can’t impeach someone who has not committed impeachable offenses. Not liking what he does isn’t grounds for impeachment.

      • strayaway

        I’ll be glad to as soon as you show me where in the Constitution presidents are given the power to ignore legislation they don’t like, override legislation, and write new legislation. I have previously made this offer but have had no takers -just the usual talking points about Reagan did it which is partly true, Bush issued more executive orders which ignores qualitative measurement, or some Newspeak definitions like Obama’s edict wasn’t legislation, it was just “memo”.

        In your last paragraph, “Congress ceded power” you make the point that you don’t give a rat’s ass about the Constitution. I assumed that about democrats but that message is loud an clear today. You would be happier under a dictatorship. Perhaps, Obama has just taken us there.

      • Hunter S. Thompson

        The president is given the power in the Constitution “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Read it and weep buddy, he can make this executive order. “Faithfully” is so vague you can read it many different way. So stop trying to use the Constitution to prove your point because you are wrong! It doesn’t say “he shall take Care that all laws be executed” does it?

      • strayaway

        The laws require that illegal aliens be kept out of the Country and that if found inside the Country, they be removed. Obama, like Bush, kept the border fairly open and was lax about enforcing visa violations. He violated his oath to faithfully execute such laws. There is absolutely nothing in immigration law requiring the President to instead give illegal aliens work permits to compete for a wider variety of American jobs. How stupid can you be?

      • Hunter S. Thompson

        Well not as dumb as you obviously. You didn’t even respond to what I said, you just went on some silly Conservative rant! If you are unable to realize that “faithfully” leaves lots of ambiguity than you sir are the dumb one!

      • strayaway

        Obama didn’t faithfully execute laws protecting our border or expelling illegal aliens. Hi instead offered them Americans’ jobs. read Article 1, Section 1. It is more specific than your false offering. Also, “dumb” refers to an inability to speak.

      • Hunter S. Thompson

        Alright here is article 1 section 1 that you refer to “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” That has nothing to do with “faithfully executing the laws” now does it? Also dumb has more than 1 definition, so in fact in North America you are dumb! This whole ambiguity thing is confusing to you isn’t it? Words having more than 1 definition crazy stuff isn’t it!? Here’s what you’re not getting, what’s faithful to you or I may not be to others.

        Now let’s say we do your solution and kick them all out. What about the kids born here who are citizens who’s parents will be kicked out? Who will be in charge of their care? They are citizens right? So your solution is to put more kids permanently into the system? Hmmmm, very interesting!

      • strayaway

        Article 1, Section 1 rules out Obama ignoring, overriding, or making new legislation, period, all of which he did. Thus, he failed to faithfully execute the laws and unconstitutionally wrote new legislation – which only Congress has the power to do. Article 1, Section 8 is even more specific. “The Congress (not the president) shall have the Power…To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization…and repeal Invasions.” Although Congress has to power do do such things, it is not required to, presidents do not have such power, and rewarding four million law law breakers with a wider variety of Americans jobs is not something the President was enforcing. It is a new policy that did not originate in Congress. My solution, as I’ve repeated many times, is to severely punish the employers of illegal aliens. If their fines and imprisonments were sufficient, they would hire Americans. Many illegal aliens would find their own way out. Mass deportations are not required. The parents should have considered what would happen if the law caught up with them. Any other law breaking class also suffers as families when the law catches up with them. Bank robbers, drug dealers, those convicted of fraud, etc.. often lose much of what they have. Their wives and children wind up losing too. Why should illegal aliens be treated differently? What about all the Americans who have lost jobs or the ability to demand higher wages because they were displaced by lower wage illegal aliens? Their kids suffer too. Why must you always care so much about foreigners and hate American workers so? I choose instead to side with American workers and the rule of law.

      • Hunter S. Thompson

        You don’t get it and that’s fine. What jobs are these illegals displacing legal workers? In the fields where they pick tomatoes for something like $50 for 2 tons picked per day. Have you ever worked in a field? These are jobs that Americans have become too lazy and entitled to do, these are not some cushy jobs. Difference between drug dealers getting caught or bank robbers getting caught and the parents of illegal aliens being deported. Both parents will be gone when the illegals are deported, while usually you still have access to 1 parent when the other is arrested.

        Now Article 1 doesn’t rule out the president choosing how the laws are enforced as long as it’s done faithfully by him. That’s what you’re ignoring over and over again. Just because you don’t think it’s faithfully done doesn’t mean he does. That is what matters, not what some dumb shit on a random BS political website thinks!

        American worker has become an oxymoron, Americans don’t want to have to work hard.

        You can keep responding but talking to you is like talking to any conservative; I’m done beating my head against the wall. Once you all die off the world will be a much better place! Oh and you are all dying off at an incredible pace! lol

      • strayaway

        Which jobs? Whichever jobs they now can have that they previously weren’t allowed to do as illegal aliens assuming they didn’t have false identity. Yes, I’ve done a lot of farm work. How about you? I don’t appreciate competing with foreign workers brought in to work cheaper than me. Don’t lecture me about work. I’ve probably done more shit work, literally in some cases, than you imagine. How about you? How much farm work have you done? If there wasn’t the option of cheap foreign labor, corporate farms would have to pay more to hire Americans. Then you go on to insult American workers for being too lazy to do work they used to do for illegal alien wages. Your sympathies and loyalties are with your foreign caste workers. You are an enemy of American workers.

        Article 1 does rule out presidents writing laws like giving working papers to millions of foreign workers. You aren’t going to convert me to your brand of authoritarian strong man rule. You can’t even comprehend that this president said he would do what he wanted if congress didn’t do what he wanted and then did. You haven’t comprehended that a Republican president can now do the same if Obama is allowed to get way with it.

        Your ending had a nice touch to it. You insulted American workers and expresses your wish that I did. Nice. Thanks for reminding us why we shouldn’t vote for Democrats.

      • KJB007

        That’s hogwash. Obama’s in hot water with Dems for deporting more people than any other President in history. Additionally, there is more money and security at the border now than there ever was. Illegal crossing at the border is at an all time low. What you don’t get is that people who come here on legal visas don’t cross the border on foot. They fly in, they come on boats. They overstay their work or vacation visa and never leave.

        I get so po’d at people who don’t keep up on this issue; who don’t read the data. Strayaway–you do this constantly. Make accusations with no evidence or backup. You tell me that Liberals don’t know how to use the Google? We do–we just don’t get all our information from Breitbart and Fox.

        Also FYI–our President is a Constitutional Law Professor and head of the Harvard Law Review whose intelligence far outstrips that of you or anyone in the GOP when it comes to Constitutional Law. I’m pretty sure he knows what is and is not Constitutional.

      • strayaway

        KJ, What is “that”. Please speak in in nouns. Isn’t your main point that Obama has failed because America is so racist? I’m perfectly aware that visa holders aren’t usually Hispanics. That’s one reason I mention them. If you go through my posts, you will find that I even mention Mohammed Atta’s crew members, some of whom overstayed their visas. In your Newspeak, they were “undocumented immigrants”. They were “immigrants’ right?

        When was Obama given his professorship? He is to constitutional law what mafia lawyers are to criminal law. He has. for instance, made 22 statements to the effect that he did not have the constitutional power as president to change immigration law. That was before he went rogue and changed immigration law. He also won a Peace Prize too before he bombed seven countries.

      • KJB007

        FU AH.

      • strayaway

        “A closer examination shows that immigrants living illegally in most of the continental U.S. are less likely to be deported today than before Obama came to office, according to immigration data.

        Expulsions of people who are settled and working in the United States have fallen steadily since his first year in office, and are down more than 40% since 2009.”

        “the number of people deported at or near the border has gone up — primarily as a result of changing who gets counted in the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency’s deportation statistics.

        The vast majority of those border crossers would not have been treated as formal deportations under most previous administrations. If all removals were tallied, the total sent back to Mexico each year would have been treated as formal deportations under most previous administrations. If all removals were tallied, the total sent back to Mexico each year would have been far higher under those previous administrations than it is now.

        “If you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close to zero — it’s just highly unlikely to happen,” John Sandweg, until recently the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said in an interview.

        Even when immigration officials want to deport someone who already has settled in the country, doing so is “virtually impossible” because of a lengthy backlog in the immigration courts” -latimes 4/1/14

      • dimepeice55

        You win the nobel prize for being, “THE VILLAGE IDIOT” who is missing from somebody’s village! Why didn’t all of you morons, B***H about, Regan’s and Bush Sr’s amnesty? This is all about you people, trying every trick, in thee book, to get this man, out of office.

      • strayaway

        Obama should have been when he bombed Libya. What you seemingly fail to understand is the comparative context and magnitude of Reagan’s relatively limited executive order implementing an act of Congress. I don’t think he should have done it but at least he had Congress at his back and the numbers were smaller. Also, he didn’t go on national tv, as far as I know, and tell congress that he was going to ignore laws and issue his own edict. So, all in all, I think you have proven yourself as “THE VILLAGE IDIOT” in your presentation of dim witted liberal talking points

      • KJB007

        Strayaway–did someone take your job cleaning toilets or picking produce? The FACT is there are farmers who need the immigrant labor force to put food on YOUR table. And you REALLY believe that this congress would put any CEO behind bars for breaking the law. You’ve got to be kidding us.

      • strayaway

        No, but i’ve picked tobacco, sold vegetables my family raised commercially, and cleaned a lot of barns with a shovel and pitchfork. How about you? Did you ever get your blisters on your pinkies? Unlike you, I am not worried about starving if corporations aren’t allowed lower paid caste labor.

        So what tiny percentage of illegal alien jobs are on farms where locals won’t work for illegal alien wages? I like how progressive so often fall back on platitudes about not having food to eat if it weren’t for illegal aliens making corporate farms more profitable and driving family farm out of business. I don’t see any Amish farms hiring illegal aliens but they do just fine.

        You can’t argue both that we need $15/hour minimum wages and we also need illegal aliens to works for much less. That’s one of the reasons I’m on the side of higher minimum wages. I wouldn’t mind paying an extra ten cents for head of lettuce if it meant i didn’t have to pay taxes to educate illegal aliens’ kids and feed a bunch of social service workers.

        No, i don’t believe we will see CEO’s behind bars for the same reason we don’t see bankers behind bars. Bush or Obama it makes no difference. They are controlled by the same puppet masters. That doesn’t mean I go along as a cheerleader for the corporatist game plan like you.

    • VALERIE MARTIN

      I agree 100%
      I often wonder how they could LOVE GWB?
      He and his minions LIED us into a war that
      cost Thousands & Thousands their lives,
      Hundreds of Thousands wounded, Trillions
      of taxpayer dollars for nothing…NOTHING!
      President Obama was elected, TWICE!
      By “The People”, yet they obstruct him at every turn.
      GOP wins a low turnout mid-term & suddenly, “The
      People have spoken!!!!”
      It’s really quite #TWISTED

  • Zack Morris

    Who gives a $hit what any other president did? That doesn’t make it right. To all you morons on here that are in trade unions who are supporting this BS, let me ask you this. What do you think is going to happen to your wages or your job security when well over 5 million illegal immigrants are granted amnesty. Who are contractors going to hire, a journeyman making $40 hr or a Mexican who will do it for $15?
    Good luck with that, jacknutts.

    • Darren Stevens

      Who’s the jacknut? Answer: YOU, moron. Once they’re legal they won’t work for the $15/hr you pulled out of your ass. The will HAVE to be offered the $40. Xenophobe much?

      • Zack Morris

        Oh Darren, you misguided fool.
        If you honestly think that they will get paid equal pay you are beyond help, but I’ll play along for now. So let’s say they make the same. Ok, now how many American jobs are lost because the Mexicans/new Americans take them? Use your head. I feel sorry for you and people who think like you or cannot have an independent, rational thought. You have no idea what is coming to this country.

      • Darren Stevens

        I don’t feel sorry for you so don’t feel sorry for me. *I* am not the fool here. The immigrants are only to happy to do the jobs that Americans won’t do. That said, what about the “good Americans’ who hire the illegals on whom they pay no FICA, etc.? WHO IS GOING TO CUT THE GRASS, WASH THE DISHES, CUT THE ONIONS/GARLIC/POTATOES, CLEAN THE GREASE TRAPS, TAKE OUT THE TRASH AND WIPE YOUR SENIORS’ BUTTS WHEN THE SHIT THEMSELVES? Are YOU going to do it? Will you send your kids to do those jobs? No, of course not. Now go away and stop this tinkering with things you know nothing about before your head explodes and one of the newly-made legals will have to clean up the mess you made.

      • Zack Morris

        Wrong again you simple minded slave. I actually work in the medical field and I take care of and help people. Americans, Mexicans, Asians, Africans young people and old people, I don’t discriminate, nor do I loathe immigrants. What do you know about helping people or this country? You have know idea how negatively this will effect this country in every aspect. I bet you were one of the mindless sheep saying how great Obama Care was going to be too, right?
        Your a anti American Communist clown.

      • Larry

        How negatively were things when just about every President gave amnesty in one way or another?

      • Di Kelley

        I’ve already said I don’t think the ACA went far enough and we need full out single payer, but I know you’d sh*t a brick over it if that ever happened.

      • Darren Stevens

        Zack, I make it a habit never to chew my cabbage twice, but in your case I’ll make an exception:

        Now go away and stop this tinkering with things you know nothing about before your head explodes and one of the newly-made legals will have to clean up the mess you made.

        Oh, and, yes, the one, single, solitary thing you’re right about is the fact that I KNOW the ACA (you disrespectful little racist cunt), is great–take a look around–because it works very well here in the cradle of the American revolution.

      • Zack Morris

        Oh Darren did I hit a nerve, you communist pu$$y. You clearly are in denial with Obama Care, it is a $hit storm of a train wreck and if you can’t see that than you sir are a retard. I disagree with your liberal, communist, anti American jibberish and I’m a cunt? Lol, your a miserable brainwashed Pu$$y of a man and should be ashamed of your entire existence. Do us real Americans a favor and just go end yourself.

      • mandate

        Darren, you must listen to Zach. He is evidently a constitutional scholar and an economics major as well as some one that can see into the future, And besides he must be psychic to know that Bob does not have a job!!!!!

      • Darren Stevens

        Cha, picture that with a Kodak.

      • strayaway

        President Obama has just incentivized illegal immigration. Despite his assurances, more will come for jobs and benefits. In fact, a couple of weeks ago, President Obama issued an executive edict allowing in an extra 100,000 Haitians. A month before that, he announced that visa holders from Ebola ravaged countries could stay here indefinitely even if they had overstayed their visas.

        Also, you don’t seem to understand or apply the law of supply and demand. More people competing for the same number of jobs will result in lower average pay. True, some formerly illegal aliens will get higher pay but only by displacing US workers. Call me a Xenophobe if you like but my loyalties are to US workers not scabs.

      • I have to commend you for your writing skills, especially when I see you purposefully distort the nature of an Executive Order, by replacing the word, “edict,” to intimate the term “king.” Really clever. Tell me, do you care to discuss in real factual aspects, how both Ronald Reagan, George H. Bush, AND George W. Bush ALL issued Executive Orders regarding immigration? Tell me: Did you call those order edicts? I’ll bet not!

      • strayaway

        My understanding of the concept of executive orders is that presidents have have the duty of executing laws. In the course of ding so, they sign off on construction projects, hire people, acquire land or whatever it takes to execute a law. What they don’t do is ignore, pick and choose laws they want to execute or write new ones. I don’t remember Reagan or the Bush’s doing anything on the scale of what Obama just pulled off. I don’t remember them scheduling a time to brazenly assault the Constitution. I sensed something different. Obama was all in your face, what are you going to do about it? If Congress doesn’t respond, Obama wins and the rule of law takes a beating. Eventually, then, a Republican president uses the Obama precedent to take away social security or whatever he/she wants to do. That’s when you should remember that you were an apologist for executive powers. That’s blowback and it will happen if Obama has his way. I’m not talking about immigration here. I’m talking about this and future presidents making their own rules. If those other presidents also issued legislation, I’ll call those edict too. But please tell me what edict comes close to doing what Obama did? Where in the Constitution did he get that power anyway? Please cite the exact wording.

        This last 24 hours has been interesting watching Democrats support their leader’s attack on the Constitution and try to obfuscate by changing the meaning of words and claim something really bad is actually ok because other people have done little bad things. All of this speaks to Democrats sense of ethic or lack thereof and to their indifference to the Constitution and the rule of law.

      • Strayaway,

        Instead of you or I depending on our “understanding” of what constitutes an executive order, why not go directly to the legal dictionary? I shall place a link below for your utilization, however I just read the entire article and once again; it seems to be a whole lot of crying over nothing. You are correct when you argue that nothing has been done at this magnitude by Bush or Reagan, but then again the issue was not as salient as it is today. Congress perpetually had warning by this President and others in the past to act on an issue they usually do not enjoy acting upon. Therefore, over one year ago, this President told the Republicans to get a law worked out. They didn’t! He did! It is that simple.

        Regarding the nature in which the President conveyed himself, I really failed to see a man who was “in one’s face,” but rather a man who made a solid bona fide argument, utilizing the Republican’s own points against themselves, and on top of it all, appealing to the greater virtues we have as a nation, concluding with scriptural support. While I can most certainly see how people (especially conservatives) interpret that as an “in your face” act, I see it more as conservatives realizing they have just been check-mated by a man they highly underestimated. If it took 65% of the electorate to not vote, only to lead to this President obtaining a set of ba$$s, then I commend those who did not vote.

        The problem that exists today, in our very nation, is due to a minority of voters in the electorate, hijacking a majority party (the Republicans) only for them to establish the entire agenda for this nation, and a President who has all too often readily attempted to meet them in the middle, when they do not even view his electoral results as valid. Why? Because he isn’t a citizen of this country in their minds! He is different, he is not one of us, all premised on the lies, rumors, myths, and fabrications circulated by those within the conservative media entertainment complex. Then, when winning this past mid-term, these same lawless psuedo constitutionalists, got elected, gaining more of a foothold on a party that USED to be reasonable, even compassionate, but no more.

        So, my conclusion is this: Even IF the President was “in our faces” regarding his issuance of an executive order, kudos to him, because at least someone in the Republican party now knows they will not be pushing him around any time soon! Oh, they may impeach him, failing to get the essential votes in the Senate, but they were already going to do that!

      • strayaway

        WHY I HAVEN’T VOTED FOR ANY DEMOCRAT FOR MANY YEARS

        “Congress perpetually had warning by this President and others in the past to act on an issue they usually do not e njoy acting upon. Therefore, over one year ago, this President told the Republicans to get a law worked out. They didn’t! He did! It is that simple.”

        I support the Constitution and the rule of law. Too many Democrats prefer the autocratic, dictatorial alternative as spelled out in this quote. I see no difference in attitude between this this quote and the folks who supported the Enabling Act of 1933.

      • strayaway

        Your last paragraph suggests that what is more important to you than the rule of law is Obama’s ability to conduct a pissing contest.

      • No, no! Don’t go putting words in my mouth. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let’s be clear: THE ONLY folks arguing the President isn’t acting within the law, are conservatives. I am merely pointing out how the Republicans called the President’s bluff and he answered the call. If you REALLY want to go the other route, one could argue that the arguments provided by the GOP lawmakers were nearly pleadings, cries, begging if you will, to not upset their little turnip truck! You know, like the little three year old who has just built a sand castle and big brother threatens to blow it over? While the President is not the big brother, the GOP can certainly be found analogous to the three year old; petulant!

      • strayaway

        Always the apologist for the dictator… Conservatives are split. The Bush family and the US Chamber of Commerce, for instance, have always championed cheap foreign labor. The are on your side as well as the President of Mexico, the racist group La Raza, and Benedict Arnold Gutierez. Opposed to the president’s dictatorial edicts are constitutional liberrarians, grass root conservatives, and a large number of working and unemployed Americans.

        The President acted as a petulant dictator who didn’t get the message voters sent him. SNL did a piece on the Bill vs. Executive Order that went viral. Go to YouTube and enter “Capitol Hill Cold Open – Saturday Night Live”.

      • Odd you should mention how the President “didn’t get the message voters sent him,” when you most likely had not a word to say about the GOP ignoring the very will of “We the People” in not one, but two elections! And, really! Don’t get me started on posting the links on the specific votes the GOP blocked as punishment to “ensure we can deny this President’s ability to deliver the very hope and change he promised the nation.”

        You REALLY ARE out of your league. I think I shall terminate this sordid affair of you simply posting “talking points,” while I post facts. I have much better things to do! But seriously: Have a happy and Blessed Thanksgiving with your family!

      • strayaway

        My talking point – ” The Republican Party had one strategy it followed in nearly every Senate race: run against the president. It paid off… Democratic candidates couldn’t get out of the president’s shadow.” -from the Slate article “O’Bummer The Republican Party ran against Obama, and the president lost big-time.”

      • See though? The second you resort to calling the President of this nation “O’Bummer,” you lose all credibility in debating with me. You apparently are being victimized by confirmation bias, which simply means you seek out only that information which tends to confirm your belief, worldview, ideology, or conviction, while marginalizing ANY other relevant information which tends to have the capability of changing your mind. In addition, using the title you used to name the President demonstrates that at minimum, you have an affinity with those who are aligned with the Tea Party, and at maximum are part of the very machine which set forth to topple democracy as we know it in our nation, by de-legitimatizing the electoral results of 2008 and 2012, leading historians to record both elections as not only historical, but also recording this President as the first one to achieve those electoral results since Dwight Eisenhower. As far as your point that the nation voted against the President in the mid-term, you are absolutely dead wrong. Just because your party leaders decided to place him on a ballot, does not make it so. Finally, you really need to verse yourself in these matters, lest you be caught not able to sit at the grown-up table this Thanksgiving holiday. I wish you nothing but the best, however this IS the end of the line for me regarding dialogue with you. Be blessed!

      • strayaway

        Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I didn’t call Obama ‘O’Bummer”. That was the title of a Slate article. Isn’t Slate left leaning? Have that argument with them. Just because Americans voted for Obama in 2008 doesn’t mean they still support him in 2014. Americans once voted for Nixon too but changed their minds and drove him out of office. We can hope Obama meets the same fate. Driving some Obama allies out of the Senate, I suppose, is something to be thankful about. What are you mentioning democracy for anyway? Your guy just usurped congressional power. Did you catch what Obama said yesterday” I just took an action to change the law”. Did you catch that? “Change” the law rather than implement the law. Constitutionally, presidents are not empowered to change laws.

      • kathy

        So basically it doesn’t bother you that millions of people that broke the law will now be able to compete with you for a job. Hell, let’s just do away with laws and let people do whatever they want cause we feel sorry for them and their circumstances!!!

      • Darren Stevens

        No it doesn’t. They can’t compete for my job. Ever. Their children might, but they can’t. AND by the time their children can, I’ll be retired.

      • Darren Stevens

        Please unsubscribe me from this thread.

        Thanks.

    • Bob Dabilina

      The Supreme Court will give a shit what other presidents did. They will be the ones determining weather the executive actions are constitutional. So in closing I’d like to say I hope one of those “Mexicans” takes your job you selfish ba$tard.

      • Zack Morris

        Fortunately you need an education to have my job and if caring about the American worker and our country is selfish than yes I am selfish.. Have fun looking for a job Bob.

    • Di Kelley

      ninety nine percent of these immigrants are *agricultural* workers. Crop pickers/field workers/etc. The only difference is that they will, once they have *visas* (Visas, not citizenship mind you) is that they will actually be paying *taxes* on the wages they earn and be paying into our economy.

      • Zack Morris

        They won’t make enough to pay taxes moron. They will just be added to the many many welfare recipients that are “Taking” from our economy not adding to it. You liberal dems are the dumbest people on the planet.

      • Darren Stevens

        Sounds like you live in one of those states that TAKES more than it contributes. You know, like the OPPOSITE of mine.

      • Zack Morris

        I live in the greatest state in the union.

      • Di Kelley

        Actually, most of the singles will still end up paying taxes. Even most of those married if they have no children will end up paying. The tax breaks for the most, the ones that *do* actually benefit the ones they are *intended* to benefit instead of the huge corporations, generally benefit only families with children (The EIC applies to both singles and marrieds but generally if you earn above 14k a year for a single and 30k a year for a couple are not eligible and Child Tax Credit only covers families with children) which means a significant portion of those workers *will still be contributing taxes.*

        And also again would note, if our minimum wage were actually a *living* wage, forcing companies to pay their workers at a wage that would actually be enough to live on, the social safety nets that we do still desperately need would not be strained so hard.

      • Zack Morris

        Blah, blah, blah. I’ve heard it all before. You can keep your plan, you can keep your Dr., the immigrants will pay taxes.. Bull$hit!! If you want to keep buying this crap than so be it, but I for one am done being lied to. I have absolutely no reason to believe a word this administration has to say. Grubber said it himself, they lied to get the bill passed. What else do you need? Why would anybody continue to be fed these lies. You liberal dems are disgusting.

      • Di Kelley

        Again, might point the ACA was, in its ooriginal form, *Romney’s* baby. The Republican Right’s last presidential candidate. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

      • Zack Morris

        And it was crap then too. I’m not a republican so don’t try your left right BS with me. Both parties are a joke. The fact that you actually think either party cares about “YOU” especially the Democrats, shows me how “asleep” you are. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

    • madmatthew56

      Actually, you dolt, you make our point for us. Today these undocumented workers have to stay in the shadows and are afraid to fight for higher wages and better working conditions because then they’ll be turned in to ICE and deported. (The employers who hire them illegally, of course, never get what they deserve, which is to be frogmarched to the nearest Club Fed.) But now that they can come out of the shadows and get on a path to citizenship, they will be able to fight for better wages and working conditions. Mexicans will no longer have to do it for $15.

      • Zack Morris

        Lol, ok mad matt. We’ll see.

  • CobrayRPB

    The Democrats screwed Reagan and the Republicans with that amnesty bill. As they are wont to do the Dems got the amnesty part passed but reneged on the border security aspect. What good is amnesty without secure borders. Hey, they got what they wanted so who cares, right? Also, look at the numbers involved. Regan and Bush had somethig like 1.1 million while El Presidente will grant amnesty to 5 million while there are still 11 million already here. This won’t create jobs, it will depress wages and strain the welfare system. Please show me how this will be good for the economy. I’m sure in the delusional left wing brain of such mental giants like Pelosi and Sharpton it makes sense. However,Pelosi and her dying party need votes and agitators like Sharpton need more “victims” to keep the grievance industry rolling. Again, show me how letting in millions of unskilled, zero educated people will help.

    • Di Kelley

      As pointed out above, many of these undocumented immigrants are *already working*, tax free, in the agricultural sector of this country’s work force. The only thing that this action will do in giving them visas is assuring that now they’ll be paying in taxes on the work they do.

      • CobrayRPB

        With none of the entitlements that they are hoping to get as well.

    • madmatthew56

      Ever notice how there’s always an excuse for St. Ronnie? He never did anything wrong? I swear they’d beatify Old Pruneface if they could… when the truth is, he started us on this insane path of wrecking trade unions and opening up US markets to slave labor from India and China that has destroyed the middle class.

      • CobrayRPB

        Reagan went through congress. He didn’t say that if congress didn’t pass a bill he liked he would do what he wanted anyway. It is amazing how rabid Obama’s supporters are. Your emotional investment in this guy makes you turn a blind eye to his utter failure. Couple that with a lap dog, subservient media and this cretin can get away with anything. We weren’t talking about the trade unions but they will love an influx of dues paying flunkies. The unions and the Dems have killed the auto industry and cities like Detroit. Prove me wrong with something other than your opinion please.

      • Di Kelley

        I lived through the Recession that *immediately* followed the Reagen and Bush presidencies, Cobray. I’ve seen what their policies did to the economy. No-thank-you. I’ll take Congress being pushed around by a President who has actually managed to pull this country *mostly* out of a recession caused by eight years of GW in office over most of *that* any day.

        Oh yes, and the obsturctonist Congress that has already caused *one* shut down that has harmed this country horribly economically because they sat on a funding bill for almost three weeks, Boehner refusing to let it come to a vote, to try to get the President to back down on an *already written and approved* law. Yeah, again, no thank you.

      • CobrayRPB

        Bah…shutdowns….they were caused by Obama and his lack of effort to be bipartisan. They removed non essential employees which shows how inefficient the system is. There have been how many shutdowns? Gridlock is a good thing and an jntention of the founding fathers. It was supposed to foster bipartisanship. Anyway, i understand your point and you stated it quite eloquently. I’m not much of a Boehner fan and Obamacare never should have been passed, but that is getting off topic. If i came across as snotty in my previous reply, i apologize. You seem like a rational person.

      • Di Kelley

        Thank you. I do try to be. I’m generally reasonable, Cobray, and yeah, I will come out swinging in the vast majority of these forums because so few people are *willing* to discuss matters of this nature with an open mind. I strike fast and hit hard generally because if they act stupidly in the comments it’s *generally* logical to assume they are not going to be willing to listen to reason.

      • CobrayRPB

        I respect anyone’s opinion if it is valid and not laced with profanity or name calling. I think a middle ground can be reached on many subjects. Politics is a bad example of that theory though. I think there is a lot of obstinace on both sides of the aisle and we tend to look at the opposition in the worst light. Not every Democrat is a Bernie Sanders and not every Republican is a Ted Cruz. Both have good ideas but they take them to an extreme that is caustic. I tend to be too ridgid because my background is mostly military. It is black and white because it has to be. I’ve been a police officer for the last 4 years and you learn fast how to listen in order to calm a situation down. You can’t talk to every kne like they are some knucklehead specialist.

      • Di Kelley

        I am very much centrist, myself, or try to be. Reagen and Bush did some damage to this country with their economic policies, at least IMO they did. Clinton was no snow white angel, and I won’t say he was. But all of them are human beings who did the best that they were able to do with the knowledge they possessed and with a desire to help the people of this country.

        I do think their intentions, *for the most*, were good. I won’t villify Bush as far as his leadership here because I do believe that at least in his economic policies he had good intentions. (I won’t get into my opinions on the Iraq war because I’ve already done so elsewhere and my intention isn’t to p*ss people off) but they didn’t *work*. Democratic economic policies, for the most, *have*.

      • Darren Stevens

        Old Pruneface? Ahahahahahaha. Great. I just refer to him as old sawdust brain.

  • Jim Brown

    way to go Chief !

  • Brad Short

    Did any of you Liberal retards follow the election results? These tired old lies and spins aren’t working anymore. What Reagan did is absolutely nothing like what Obozo did. Nice story though.

    • Darren Stevens

      I checked the election results. More than half the country didn’t vote. No mandate here, just luck and a lot of money spent to keep people from voting–either by sheer demoralizing or bogus voter fraud laws. Hang that one up, please, because there’s not there there.

      • Brad Short

        Lol. Sure Darren. Puff-puff-give. Another useful idiot pops his head up for a minute.

      • Di Kelley

        Exactlly, Darren. It was estimated that only around 35-40% of the eligible voters actually *did* vote for mid terms, and Hell even with such a horrid turn out even half of *those* voted Dem. If all of our eligible turneds out the Republicans quite likely would have been *crushed.*

  • talkto

    Bill Cosby should have picked politics over entertainment. ..accused rapists can still get gigs in politics, and are highly sought after by their adoring sheep.

  • Rob Fisher

    i find it funny that both sides only use the facts that support their side, and omit the stuff that doesn’t. Nothing will get better as long as we continue to let them use us as their personal ping pong table, dividing us further and further apart. The left use Bush as an example here, to defend how it is an acceptable action, with the same voices that cry how his policies have destroyed this nation. The right tell you it is unprecedented action, ignoring the past. Reagan did it in conjunction with congress, so it does not apply here, but the left want to add it for their justification. The sheer numbers affected by this action, is vastly greater than previous actions, and the economies then were much better than it is today. The impact on the safety net programs, food stamps, welfare, and others, are already busting at the seams, and there is no denying this will stress them further. The left won’t tell you that when Bush signed his order, there was money set aside to build a fence along the border, that never happened. The biggest objection to the senate bill that the left cries about, was there was nothing in it, about how the border would be secured. Any reform passed MUST include real steps to stop the influx of illegals in the future, and an improved process, and incentives to become a citizen the lawful way. Until then, the law should be upheld, no matter what good intentions these people have. If a guy robbed a bank, but was a nice guy, and just needed money to feed his family, does that make it acceptable, and all charges should be dropped? When will we stop chanting the talking points these asshats in our government tell us, and start uniting against them instead?

    • Di Kelley

      And again, I’ve pointed out the solution to fixing our social safety nets is to increase our minimum wage to a liveable level but no one on the right *likes* that idea. If that happened and people actually earned enough in some of the lower paying jobs they’ve been *forced* to take to live on our safety nets would be much less stressed.

      Also, pointing out that if our *legal* immigration system was more streamlined so that it took a shorter time to enter legally (A week for a visa, six months for full citizenship once you’ve actually applied once you have a legal visa) we’d have many, many fewer illegals. Most of them enter due to desperation because our *legal* process takes so long, that would do so legally if it *didn’t.* Not saying it’s right that they do, just pointing out facts.

    • kathy

      Exactly!

  • Frankye Campbell

    Thank You MR Clinton for the TRUTH!! These are evil people in the Republican Party now and coming in. So SAD and other World Leaders are Looking at Us. But We are not # 1 anymore, because of the Bad CHOICES, the Government has made!!!!!

  • Under Dog

    Bill Clinton? Isn’t he the president that diddled a nineteen-year old in the Oval Office? Got disbarred for lying under oath?
    What, he’s some sort of a hero all of a sudden?
    If he had worked anywhere else, HR would have fired him so fast your head would spin,,,,,
    You’re going to have to find some other presidential “expert”. This guy is a convicted liar.

  • Queue the GOP’ers… “But those were different…blah blah blah…”

  • Billy Spearman

    Hard to get a real grip on immagration ,,,, HOW ABOUT WE BRING HOME OUR OVER SEAS MEN & WOMAN ,,FIGHTING FOR 14 YEARS ,,, THAT IS REFORM ,, THAT IS TRULY WORTHY OF A PRESIDENTIAL INTERVENTION ,.

  • Shreknangst

    PAY ATTENTION: “Reagan used executive orders to grant amnesty to illegal immigrations.”

    But the Tea Party and current Republicans are Against REAGAN!

    The idea is to bring down the nation. The USA has a birth rate of 60 when it was once closer to 130 and 105 is necessary for zero population growth (a steady population — one that is neither increasing nor decreasing over time).

    Deprived of immigrants (the thing which made America grow in the early 1900’s and boom in the mid 1900’s) the American population will age and the economy will fold — especially since the Republicans pay Social Security at a rate which, like the current minimum wage, is below poverty.

    In 1965, Americans on Social Security, or earning the minimum wage, were above poverty — today the minimum wage should be between $16 and $25 to equal the purchasing power of the $1.50 minimum wage in 1965/7.

    The goal is to destroy America by undermining the economy at the local level — where minimum wage is actually spent to create jobs in supermarkets and other local stores.

  • Chris Kirouac

    If Obama said not to eat dogshit,there would be a lot of folks running around with bad breath tomorrow.And thats the long and short of it.