Breaking Down the Cowardly and Childish Temper Tantrum Republicans are Throwing Over Immigration

boehner-faceOften when I’ve described the behavior of the Republican party toward President Obama, I’ve evoked the image of a petulant child throwing a hissy fit. Honestly, that’s often what I see when they’re on another one of their irrational fear mongering campaigns against the president. I don’t see rational adults hoping to work with another adult in a mature manner, I see children who desperately want to get their way being unable to do so because the adult that’s in charge won’t let them.


This situation with immigration is a perfect example.

About a year and a half ago, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate came together in a rare showing of bipartisanship to pass comprehensive immigration reform by a vote of 68-32. It wasn’t even as if the vote for this bill was close – it overwhelmingly passed the Senate, and it was a bill the president said he would sign.

But as most of us know, we never saw comprehensive immigration reform get passed in this country because Speaker of the House John Boehner refused to even let the House vote on it. And I think it’s important to clarify what I mean by that. It’s not that this Senate bill went up for a vote in the House and failed, it’s that Boehner wouldn’t even let them vote on it. And the reason why he didn’t let the House vote on this piece of legislation is because all indicators pointed to it passing.

Just think about that for a moment. Two-thirds of our government comes out on the record (one verbally, one via the Senate’s vote) in support of a piece of legislation. Not only that, but all signs point to this legislation passing in the House of Representatives if it were to come up for a vote, meaning that President Obama would have then signed it into law.

Except Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner flat-out won’t let the House vote on it.

Tell me, how’s that democracy? One man, and a handful of right-wing radicals in one branch of our government, with absolute power over a piece of legislation that’s supported by the president, was passed with bipartisan support in the Senate and is something an overwhelming number of Americans support.

And well over a year later, after Boehner and these House Republicans have refused to do anything on immigration, Republicans are now throwing a hissy fit because President Obama is tired of their inaction and is using as much power as he has to finally get something done on immigration.


But not only that, instead of these Republican senators who voted for this immigration bill last year coming out and calling out their right-wing pals in the House for blocking the bill that they worked with Democrats to pass, many of them have decided to cowardly side with their other do-nothing Republicans and condemn Obama for enacting some of the same measures they voted for just last year. 

This is pathetic, childish partisanship at its worst. We had a bipartisan bill that the president would have signed, that was supported by the vast majority of Americans – yet we couldn’t get it passed because a fraction of our Congress simply refused to do anything about immigration. And now, since they won’t do anything, they’re pissed because President Obama has decided to do something. And instead of the Republicans who voted for the immigration bill last year siding with the president in calling out the inaction of House Republicans, they’ve decided to act like cowards and side with their do-nothing buddies in the House of Representatives.

But the question the media should be asking these House Republicans who blocked this immigration bill – and who are throwing such a fit over Obama’s push for measures to deal with immigration – is when exactly were they planning to finally do their jobs and work on a comprehensive immigration bill of their own? It’s been four years since they took power in the House, and almost a year and a half since the Senate passed a bill, and they haven’t done a damn thing of substance.

Then again, not doing a damn thing is exactly what the House of Representatives has done since Republicans took control of it in 2010.



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

  • Macdoodle

    Thank Mr. President for handing the Republicans the White House in 2016.Bet Hillary is wishing you had not done what you did.The majority of Americans did not approve of you taking executive action.But, judging by the mid term election results, I would say they really dont approve of anything you do.ROTFLMAO!

    • DownriverDem

      Oh how wrong you are. Hillary and Jeb have said that it had to be done since Congress won’t pass the bill. Wake up. You need a new news source.

    • aaaabbbbaaaa

      You should really take the time to read the article you are commenting on, no?

    • القضيب سوداء كبيرة

      Turn off Fox News. It will liberate you.

    • proud2beDem

      Do you know the difference between Executive action and Executive order . Big difference ! This is where the tantrum comes in . OK lets have a tantrum because the Pres. is working to help fix our broken system , not making any laws just suggestions to the work the republicans refuse to do , and polls show over half of americans want immigration reform , a good bill was passed in the senate so tell me why it has not been voted on in the house . And why that refusal

      • strayaway

        Please provide the explanation of the difference between Executive action and Executive order as defined in the Constitution. The President didn’t fix the system last night. He instead further destroyed it by moving from the rule of law to the rule of presidential whimsy.

      • Erik Hansen

        It only applies while he is in office.

      • strayaway

        What are you talking about? My request was to “Please provide the explanation of the difference between Executive action and Executive order as defined in the Constitution.” You failed to do so. Either it is found there somewhere or you are repeating or making up jibberish.

      • Erik Hansen

        Do you think the U.S. has the resources to deport millions? It is impossible for all laws to be enforced, so agencies must triage. If they concentrated on all, then more violent offenders would slip thru the cracks. Obama has deported more than any other president. His memo, not order, is just tell the INS what his priorities are, the constitution grants the president authority over these agencies. Illegal immigration was at it’s highest when the Republicans controll all branches of government.

      • strayaway

        The president only has resources as provided by Congress. He seems to have plenty of money to keep his war going in Afghanistan, bomb Libya, and provide weapons to anti-Assad rebels though. My solution is always to severely punish cheating employers who profit from hiring illegal aliens. Use their money to fund deportations. If enough of those employers are put in prison they begin hiring Americans at higher wages and many illegal aliens will find the door out on their way home. Obama has cut way back on his deportations. Only an estimated half of border crossers are intercepted. Visa holders disappear into the woodwork.

        Memo? BS, It allows millions of people to stay here three years or more. It has the force of law and has a huge impact on our nation. If it looks like a law and works like a law its legislation. Don’t be cute with the Newspeak. On you last point, Bush was disaster too but he wasn’t so vile as to let five million law breakers stay here and compete for our jobs and social benefits.

      • Erik Hansen

        Do you think these millions got here in the last 6 years? Bush deported very few so I guess he also ignored the constitution. Get real BTW, your Social Security rant is just silly paranoia.

      • strayaway

        Bush also betrayed US workers. Bush said the Constitution was a “GD piece of paper”. Bush tried to pass comprehensive immigration reform but his vote failed. Obama instead issued an edict allowing 4m illegal aliens working papers to compete for a wider variety of American jobs.I used social Security as an example. But once one president sets a precedent about overriding laws and implementing new ones, expect more such dictatorial edicts from president of of both parties.

      • Beartx

        Checks and balances. Did you fail High School civics?

      • strayaway

        Your cliche that actually makes my point. Try again. I am offering you the opportunity to point out to me “provide the explanation of the difference between Executive action and Executive order as defined in the Constitution.” If it is “checks and balances”, all you have to do is specify the exact wording explaining the difference.

      • John R. Butler

        Executive actions are any informal proposals or moves by the president. The term executive action itself is vague and can be used to describe almost anything the president calls on Congress or his administration to do. But most executive actions carry no legal weight. Those that do actually set policy can be invalidated by the courts or undone by legislation passed by Congress.

        The terms executive action and executive order are not interchangeable. Executive orders are legally binding and published in the Federal Register, though they also can be reversed by the courts and Congress.
        There. Happy?

      • strayaway

        No, I’m not happy. What I asked for was not an opinion but rather to “provide the explanation of the difference between Executive action and Executive order as defined in the Constitution.” I can point out places in the Constitution stating that only Congress can legislate and only Congress can establish uniform naturalization laws. I want you, or someone, to match that with what the Constitution says regarding the scope of executive orders and actions allowing the president of issue his diktat last night.

      • James Ragland

        Because 73% of them will vote Democrat?

    • strayaway

      Bill Clinton might have wanted Obama to take the heat for this so the issue wouldn’t haunt Hillary in 2016.

      • Erik Hansen

        This issue will haunt the Republicans in 16, same story they will make bigoted racists remarks about immigrants in the primaries, then pretend they did not mean it in the general election.

      • strayaway

        Fully one third of illegal aliens are illegal because they have overstayed their visas. They are from all over the world. How is it racist to oppose “undocumented immigrants” like Mohammed Atta’s 9/11 crew members from staying here. They were mostly Caucasians after all. How is it racist to allow black and white unionized American workers to lose their jobs as they are displaced in formerly unionized meat packing plants and construction sites and replaced with non-union foreigners. Have you really considered what you are doing to destroy the jobs of unionized American workers? Whose side are you on?

      • Erik Hansen

        I did not say it is racist to oppose immigration policy, what I did say is Republicans cannot discuss it without making racist comments.

  • Jim Valley

    Today’s conservatives are worthless. Weren’t they supposed to be Raptured away by now? So GO, already!

  • proud2beDem

    All that can be said is no matter what the President does or doesn’t do the republicans will throw a tantrum and call him names . They are such babies we cant expect anything more of them .

    • strayaway

      It does mean amnesty in every sense of the word the way we used it until the president offered his new Newspeak definition last night. It was quite a night for the president usurping the Constitution and the dictionary both within fifteen minutes.

      • Erik Hansen

        It was a memo! If Obama violated the constitution on this then so did, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush.

      • strayaway

        To a degree you are correct although I think Reagan was supported by Congress. Obama has also previously violated his oath of office with smaller usurpations of congressional power. Are you suggesting that if one crime is committed, that some bigger crime is then ok? Obama challenged Congress and the American people to either oppose or accept his ‘in you face what are you going to do about it’ dictate. If Congress doesn’t reassert itself to regain its authority, presidential whim can and probably will displace the rule of law and order. Which side of that are you on?

      • John R. Butler

        Teabaggers are great at leveling general charges against the president, but awful at providing specifics. Two words you’ll never hear them use: “for instance…”

      • strayaway

        “Teabaggers is a sexual or sexually derogatory term referring to a sexual practice better understood among liberals it is sort of like conservatives using the n-word. I might have used the term “for instance” to give example of Obama’s Constitutional violations “for instance” bombing Libya, and legislating with executive orders.

      • ShaunW

        Aren’t they the Teabaggers?

      • Erik Hansen

        The law congress passed under Bush still gives the president the authority to wage the war on terror. BTW, where do you get these are Obama’s wars? All the current problems in the Middle East stem from th Iraq War, started by Bush with blatant lies.

      • strayaway

        Libya and Syria were both hostile to Islamic terrorists they did nothing to the US. Obama bombed Libya for no good reason as an executive order and in violation of the war Powers Act. Then he wanted to bomb Syria but settled for giving weapons to anti-Assad rebels who allowed those weapons to slip into the hands of IS. Bush hadn’t been president for years and had not started wars with Libya or Syria.

      • Erik Hansen

        The authority congress gave Bush to wage war has not been repealed, Obama maintains that same legal authority. There is only one recent US President that has not taken unilateral military action.

      • strayaway

        It was effectively repealed when Obama finally withdrew all of our troops and declared the war over. Are you suggesting that the legislation allowing Bush to make up his mind about having a war in Iraq so Congress didn’t have to take the responsibility is perpetual? If so, we are still at war with North Korea and the Blackhawk Indian tribe. Messing up North African stability and expanding Islamic power by overthrowing Khaddafi is a far cry from rescuing US students in Grenada.

      • Erik Hansen

        Bush declared victory in Iraq after 2 months, I guess that also ended the authorization. You have presented nothing but silly arguments, with misrepresentation of facts.

      • strayaway

        “Remind them that this is the president that ended the war in Iraq.” Michelle Obama.

        “He has taken good care of our men and women in uniform, he has ended the war in Iraq.” Bill Clinton.

        “We ended the war in Iraq.” Joe Biden.

        “I’ve kept the commitments I’ve made, I told you we’d end the war in Iraq, we did.” President Obama.

        “You know I say what I mean and I mean what I say – I said I’d end the war in Iraq, I ended it.” President Obama.

        “Everything that American troops have done in Iraq, all the fighting and all the dying, the bleeding, and the building and the training and the partnering – all of it has led to this moment of success….we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq.” President Obama.

      • Erik Hansen

        Iraq was doomed from the start, ISIS in Iraq are the Baathists that Bush kicked out of recontstruction. Remember Bush called this the Arab Spring, it was he that created this instability. Iraq should have never happened. At some point Iraq needs to defend it’s own country, the puppet Bush installed is not someone the Iraqis are willing to fight for.

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        Jonathan Gruber sure knows his people.

      • ChrisD

        You SERIOUSLY need to go look at what an Executive Memorandum is. For instance, google it. 🙂

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        Most liberals have homosexual tendencies and are quite familiar with acts like tea bagging. No surprise.

      • LateNightLarry

        CVNV… generalizing much based on your own homosexual desires?

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        Most faggots are tied closely to the RAT party.

      • Dan Childers

        You think? But we aren’t afraid to use our own names.
        Suck it up, crybaby.

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        You sure look the part.

      • Dan Childers

        Ah, name-calling. Logic fail. Checkmate.

      • Dan Childers

        Which part is that?

      • LateNightLarry

        The Teabaggers applied the term to themselves long before the UK meaning was ever brought forth… even to the extent of fastening teabags to their fake tri-corner hats.

      • strayaway

        Tea Party participants did apply that term to themselves. They apparently were not aware of sexual practices sharing the same name practiced by liberals. It’s interesting though that liberals are so free about sexually insulting their enemies.

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        Tea party and tea-bagger are two separate things. You have to know history for one and faggotry for the other.

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        Gruber is 100% correct when referring to the liberal democrat voter bloc.

      • Erik Hansen

        And your point?

      • LateNightLarry

        Teabaggers chose that term for themselves, and have been trying to walk away from ever since they found out what the term means in the UK… but, to their dismay, the term has stuck and will continue to stick until they fade away for good.

      • strayaway

        The term has stuck because liberals keep using it to remind themselves of good times.

      • Jillz

        “Obama challenged Congress”. Really? Why don’t you try putting yourself in the President’s shoes for a moment. Before he even stepped into office, the Republicans had already decided to do do whatever they could to make him a one term President. This is before he did ONE thing in an official capacity to warrant the incoming hate from the right. He has been dealing with “challenges” and obstruction from that moment on. At what point was he permitted (in the eyes of the right) to finally throw his hands in the air and realize that since this Congress is more interested in hurting the President than helping the country, that he might as well do what he can with the limited power that he does have?

        Why didn’t Congress act on the bi-partisan bill that was passed last year?

      • strayaway

        Yes, he challenged Congress to reclaim its power. To bad about the President’s feelings. If he didn’t like where the buck stops, he should have kept his community organizer job handing out foundation money. At what point you asked. Answer: this isn’t about his prissy ego. He can do what the Constitution allows and no more. Congress did act on a nearly identical bill Bush tried to push through. It voted that bill down. Congress, as you realize is under no obligation to vote on or pass any bill. Members of Congress are responsible to voters in their districts. If you don’t like what your member of Congress, vote them out. That was a lesson from our recent election. Democrats lost some seats.

      • Jillz

        I wasn’t talking about the President’s “feelings”. I am referring to the fact that he has tried to work with Congress but THEY won’t have it. THEY made it their position to obstruct and challenge him at every turn, since BEFORE he was even in office. THEY have been hurting your country and blaming Obama for THEIR deficiencies and/or outright seditious (at the very least) actions.

        I ask you again, at what point should the President have thrown up his hands and realized there was no point trying to work with them – especially since they (Reps) are violating the Constitution every chance they get.

        Also, since Immigration Reform is so important to Americans, why didn’t the House vote on the Bill that was sent last year OR come up with a REASONABLE alternative themselves?

      • strayaway

        Presidents have no Constitutional authority to tell Congress to do anything except to convene or adjourn under extraordinary circumstances. All presidents have such frustrations. Obama’s are no different. More Americans did not want the president to give amnesty than those who did. I’m all for immigration reform too. I want present immigration laws enforced for a change, better protected borders, and punishment of employees who hire illegal aliens.

      • Thresa Jenkins

        Employees don’t hire people. Employers do.

      • strayaway

        Thank you for the correction.

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        He has never once tried to work with the Republicans. You are one of the Gruber people.

      • LateNightLarry

        Got that turned around 180 degrees CVNV… The RepubliCLOWNS and teabaggers have REFUSED to work with him on anything… literally on anything.

      • Erik Hansen

        Get serious, Republicans announced from the beginning they would not work with Obama.

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        They new from the start that he was a Communist sympathizer. Just one more Alynskyite.

      • Jillz

        Oh I see. So you admit that it was Republicans that refused to work with the President, you just feel that they were justified. Gotcha 😉

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        Gruber may not have ever met you personally, but he sure knows you.

      • Jillz

        Oh, it wasn’t me he was talking about, hunny. It was people who respond to valid points with comments like this:

        “They new from the start that he was a Communist sympathizer. Just one more Alynskyite.”

      • Dan Childers

        Except after Bush’s bill failed, he issued an executive order. Just like this one. Oops, no resignation. No disgrace.

      • strayaway

        Just like this one? Bush stopped deportations of non-criminals. Bush gave working papers to 4M illegal aliens so they could compete for Americans’ jobs? I’ve forgotten all this. Maybe you could provide me with a link to refresh my memory.

      • Dan Childers

        It’s your post. Find the link.

      • strayaway

        A link to what point? Please specify. Fact: Bad as Bush was with regards to protecting our border, he didn’t change the law by issuing an executive order giving 4-5M illegal aliens work permits to compete at a wider variety of US jobs.

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        Apparently because he has some black blood?

      • Erik Hansen

        Please, explain his other constitutional violations. They are mostly made up by Faux News. See the problem is the right has raised a false red flag too many times for anyone to care what they are crying about this time. You are completely wrong, this is in no way amnesty, it does not grant citizenship.

      • strayaway

        The Constitution is very specific about only congress being given the power to legislate, establish uniform naturalization laws, and repeal invasions. laws are also supposed to be applied uniformly. If you would like, I will cote the exact wording but in exchange I expect you to quote the Constitution where it says that presidents may ignore, override, or write legislation. Those acts, in my opinion are violations. Last night’s diktat and bombing Libya are examples. I suggest that you stop watching Fox news and read the Constitution instead.

      • Erik Hansen

        He is not writing laws, he is directing the agencies with limited resources on how best use those limited resources. BTW, the Senate passed an immigration bill that Boehner blocked a vote on that had strong bipartisan support.

      • strayaway

        Giving working papers to 4M law breakers to compete for a wider variety of US jobs has nothing to do with directing agencies with limited resources. So what if Boehner blocked a vote. That doesn’t give the president power or an excuse to dictate his own such legislation.

      • LateNightLarry

        There are probably 8-10 million undocumented workers ALREADY working in the US… The President’s actions will simply let some of them come out of hiding and join the rest of society…

      • strayaway

        I agree. The president’s unconstitutional actions will 8-10m illegal aliens to do just that. Which group of lawbreakers will be the next to receive the President’s favor?

      • cattnipp

        so the POTUS asking them to deport the child sex traffickers before the single mother working two jobs to support her citizen daughter is an idea that offends you?

      • strayaway

        Violating the Constitution offends me.

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        They will be back on the next train if the did accidentally follow through on a promise.

      • m1a0n3u0e1l2

        Your comments have so many weak points that it is hard to even mention them: “I think” Reagan was supported by Congress. Comparing this case with a “crime”?. “Obama Challenged Congress and the American people”? What do you mean by that?. Congress reassert itself? What’s the matter with your knowledge about this Congress? Those congressmen are so lazy and clueless that they don’t even care if the earth orbit the sun or vice versa.

      • strayaway

        Your last sentence is correct. Congress has been giving away more and more of its power to the executive branch. Congress needs to reassert itself to reclaim its powers and punish a rogue president. My hopes aren’t too high. Obama cowed Congress on Mexico’s Revolution Day though. Yes, I thought Reagan was supported by Congress. I looked it up. I was right. Congress did pass immigration legislation allowing amnesty. There was some unanticipated problem splitting kids from parents. Reagan patched this with an executive order. I don’t think he had the authority to do so and make no excuses for him. However, Congress passed the legislation and he was operating within that context as opposed to Obama who significantly changed immigration laws without the input of Congress.

        “ALL legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress”… Article 1, Section 1

        Isn’t violating his oath and passing laws contrary to the Constitutional separation of powers a crime? How about bombing Libya by executive order? People were killed in that case. Even Dennis Kucinich said that was an impeachable act.

        In 2010, defending his inaction on immigration issues, Obama said, “I’m president, I’m not king. I can’t do these things just by myself.” That’s all changed, and the Constitution lies in tatters as a result.

      • Erik Hansen

        Look up Executive Orders under Bush and Reagan. The legal precedents do exist.

      • strayaway

        I don’t remember Bush or Reagan getting on TV and announcing that they were giving working papers to four million illegal aliens to compete for scarce American workers’ jobs. President do not have the power to legislates naturalization laws.

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        You are speaking of bills passed by the Congress that they signed. Too complicated for you Gruber’s.

      • Erik Hansen

        You are mistaken, Reagan signed executive orders to grant amnesty to people not covered by the bill passed by congress.

      • Jillz

        The Congress Obama has to work with won’t DO anything. At least the President is trying to do what the American people want (as opposed to Republicans who just say the words “we’re listening to the American people”). And on this one, he has said, all the House has to do is give him legislation to sign – when they do, his executive actions will go away.

      • strayaway

        You support dictatorial acts and oppose the rule of law. How progressive.

      • Erik Hansen

        stray away, we have established you are a paranoid delusional idiot, moving on.

      • strayaway

        Erik, You have established that you are a sheep. Time to you to go back to your fold where you shepherd will care for you until he or his successors get hungry.

      • ChrisD

        I am just going to keep saying it, PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD GO LOOK UP EXECUTIVE MEMOS! 🙂

      • strayaway

        Look up the Constitution and find the part that authorizes presidents to give out millions of work permits and override immigration law. Clue: it doesn’t exist.

      • Thresa Jenkins

        Congress hasn’t lost any power. They just decided not to use it.

      • strayaway

        Considering that only Congress can legislate if it chooses to do so and the President has boldly ignored and even overridden immigration law with his own legislation, I would say Congress has lost some of its power relative to the executive branch.

      • Erik Hansen

        Obama is altering that same law, just like Reagan

      • Angie

        Congress should probably assert….or reassert…or whatever pretty quick then huh? Like…You know…DO something? That’s kinda what the president is telling them to do!

      • strayaway

        Presidents have no Constitutional power to tell Congress to do anything except, in extraordinary cases to convene or adjourn both house. You must not know much about the Constitution or care about the rule of law.

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        You are not very well educated apparently. Never mind, the groups minders will tell you what to think.

      • Rick Flash

        How did he usurp the Constitution? Please do tell…

      • strayaway

        First, presidents have no authority to ignore, override, or write legislation. You are welcome to cite Constitutional or oath of office language saying they can. Second, the Constitution is very specific about only congress being given the power to legislate, establish uniform naturalization laws, and repeal invasions. laws are also supposed to be applied uniformly. If you would like, I will cote the exact wording but in exchange I expect you to quote the Constitution where it says that presidents may ignore, override, or write legislation.

      • Rick Flash

        They can delay its implementation. He’s not writing, overriding or ignoring any laws. You should listen to the words that are being spoken from his mouth. It’s really simple.

      • strayaway

        If he isn’t overriding, or ignoring existing laws, then he must be deporting as many illegal aliens as possible today. He referred “to the actions I’m taking”. High-tech workers will have an easier time coming to the United States. About four million people will be eligible for a new legal status that would defer their deportations and allow them to work legally. Where did that come from. Illegal aliens can now compete with Americans for a wider range of jobs. More high tech workers can come here and take jobs away from Americans. Did you miss that? Those are big changes to our naturalization and immigration laws and they didn’t come from Congress. Don’t you realize that the next president that comes along can use Obama’s constitutional overrides as an precedent to eliminate your social security or something and some ding dong Republican will claim “He’s not writing, overriding or ignoring any laws.” You really won’t like it when a Republican president dictates things you don’t like. Try to get the bigger picture on where this is going.

      • James Ragland

        You seem paranoid. This is so families aren`t being ripped apart. They are already here. Now they will pay taxes. just think of all the good the 83 Billion in taxes revenue will do over the next five years.

      • strayaway

        The families were ripped apart when someone illegally entered the US leaving their families behind or decided to have anchor babies in the US being fully aware that they might be sent back. Send the whole family back to be reunited back home if you are so concerned about these people ripping their own families apart. Whatever taxes they pay will not compensate for the unemployment and welfare due the American workers they displaced.

      • Erik Hansen

        Deportations are at record levels!

      • strayaway

        BS, deportations have been way down the last couple of years and what of the hundreds of thousands Truman and Eisenhower rounded up to make jobs available for Americans?

      • Erik Hansen

        Bull, no record of Truman doing that, and the “wetback roundup” is being greatly exaggerated. Watch Fuax News much?

      • Thresa Jenkins

        He has deported more that GW Bush did.

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        BULL!

      • strayaway

        That isn’t saying much for Bush considering deportations have gone down the last couple of years and Obama just gave work permits to four million lawbreakers allowing them to compete for a wider variety of Americans’ jobs.

      • Erik Hansen

        They are deporting record numbers

      • strayaway

        Wrong. “The 364,700 deportations (in 2013) are the lowest since fiscal year 2007”. That was before his Nov. 20 edicts including orders to reduce deportations.

      • Erik Hansen

        deportations by year

      • James Ragland

        He didn`t write legislation. This is deferred action.

      • strayaway

        Newspeak is designed, according to Orwell, to prevent people from thinking. it seems to have worked in your case. Another poster here claimed it wasn’t legislation. it was actually a memo. What’s in your sheep food? Now millions of law breakers will be given work papers to compete with Americans for scarce jobs. It certainly wasn’t congressional legislation but if it walks and talks like a duck its a duck. Only Congress can legislate and establish uniform naturalization policy. When some future Republican president cites Obama’s executive actions altering immigration policy as allowing him to end social security, you can be sure that some dodo Republican will write in a website that eliminating Social Security wasn’t executive legislation, It was just deferred action.

      • m1a0n3u0e1l2

        It was quite a night for the president, indeed, showing the repugnant Republicans that he, contrary to their accusations of been weak, has a lot of courage by showing them that he really has ball, black balls indeed..

      • strayaway

        You are right. Hitler needed enabling act to write his own legislation. Obama just stared Congress down and acted as if he has a de facto enabling act. Congratulations. you have a dictator! Wait until some Republican president decides to take away your Social Security. Its enemies of the rule of law, like yourself, who will make such things possible in our post constitutional banana republic.

      • James Ragland

        Ok, once you refer to Adolph Hitler you have just lost all credibility. don`t feed strayaway any longer. Troll!

      • strayaway

        My point is that Obama is acting as if he was blessed with an enabling act giving him such powers. To understand what an enabling act is, it is best to read up on the enabling act of 1933 which allowed, as it were, Hitler to legislate when his Congress didn’t do what he wanted. In the movie “The Burning of the Reichstag”, the Hitler character demands an enabling act claiming “This act is an opportunity to hand power to those who can yield it most effectively” and “The government assumes the right to intervene in any situation to restore order, the right to draft laws”… It was right out an Obama speech saying that he waited long enough for Congress to do what he demanded and if they didn’t, he would. Sorry that you are unable to comprehend the strong similarities.

      • Erik Hansen

        Get your history from Hollywood? That explains a lot.

      • strayaway

        Just go to the wikipedia article “Enabling Act of 1933” if you don’t want the touch of drama. “The burning of the Reichstag” piece did a good job of bringing out the steps that were necessary in Germany for Hitler to get his enabling act allowing him to legislate by executive order. Our Congress and courts, in contrast, allow the president to do the same without an executive order. Just saying…

      • Jillz

        I find it funny how you just KNOW that if the Reps had the White House they would be abusive of their authority.

        Social Security is something Americans want; Immigration Reform is also something Americans want.

        So you’re saying the horrible Dictator shouldn’t act now for what Americans want (Immigration Reform) because in the future the Godlike Republicans might take revenge on the people by taking away their Social Security?

      • strayaway

        I’m saying that the Constitution does not allow the President to act as a dictator and that the rule of law is superior to fiat rule. I am warning you that this is a two edge sword. If Obama acts like a dictator and you give those same powers to Ted Cuz or Jeb Bush, you might not like the results. Something to think about.

      • Jaina

        He DID NOT WRITE a piece of Legislation. Jesus Christ doesn’t anyone actually READ the Constitution? If anyone’s the threat right now it’s a Congress avoiding running the country and doing their EFFING JOBS! He clarified what actions will and won’t be taken and gave interpretation and direction to FOLLOW THE EXISTING LAW. He then stated it was NOT a fix, and that the rest of the work MUST be done by Congress. Get off the BLIND HATE horse for a moment.

      • strayaway

        Only Congress is given the power to legislate and make uniform rules of naturalization. Obama said if congress didn’t legislate according to his will, he would take his own action. He wound up issuing work permits for 4m illegal aliens to compete for a wider variety of American’s jobs. That sure looks like legislation to me. it passes the duck test.I don’t remember that illegal aliens were allowed work permits under “THE EXISTING LAW”. I don’t hate the Constitution, you do.

      • Rob Bailey

        Senate = 68-32 FOR Immigration Bill. The representatives of the people spoke. Loudly. Problem is, there are a bunch of nut-jobs elected to the House, and the little pussies – in fear of losing their job to an even-nuttier nut job – refused to go ahead and vote on the Bill. So… Obama does what other Presidents did and legally does some policy tweaks. Get over it.

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        How’s the election going for you?

      • strayaway

        Yeah, some House Republicans seem to side with working Americans and our middle class instead of the President of Mexico and the US Chamber of Commerce. Obama has proven himself a dictator. He got tire of waiting for Republicans to kiss his rear so he created his own legislation. Good luck when some future Republican president does the same. Consider it karma.

      • Jaina

        I’m a veteran, so watch how you criticize my feelings towards the Constitution. Gave 9 years of my life to defend it. That alone was worth LEARNING about it.

      • strayaway

        Um, where did I criticize your feelings, as a veteran, to the Constitution?

      • curmudgeon VN Veteran

        Naw, Moochelle keeps them in the freezer or in her purse.

      • Jordan Ward

        A Constitutional Law scholar and Professor, I think he knows more about the constitution than you. Knowing that Republicans would pounce do you really believe he would do something illegal in terms of authority?

      • strayaway

        Criminal lawyers often represent criminals. Obama won the Peace Prize too. Republicans do not have enough votes in the Senate to find Obama guilty of anything.

    • curmudgeon VN Veteran

      Of course it does and just why would anybody be proud to be a democRAT is beyond me. You do not have even one politician who has any ethics or any honesty whatsoever and you sheeple continue to drink the Koolaid.

  • Cemetery Girl

    What is needed is the scene from Mars Attacks! How do we contact those Martians???

    • John R. Butler

      Meanwhile, in the REAL world….

      • Cemetery Girl

        … Congress works incredibly hard at not only doing nothing but preventing anything from being done, our President is a “dictator” because the only way anything at all can be accomplished is if he orders it because a percentage of extremists have a strangle hold on the country, politicians are questioning the existence of rape, people are more worried about if Obama is infecting them with Ebola or worrying about reality TV to pay any attention to the environment… Seriously, if you went back 20 years to when that movie came out and told people that some of the crap that has happened was going to happen they’d consider it as likely as Martians destroying Congress. At this point, why not dare to dream? We have already proven that we can get by with 2 out of the 3 branches of government, and that ain’t bad.

  • Me4U

    Now that the republiscum have control of the Congress they have nothing to do because the opposed everything the president wanted to do including universal healthcare, a conservative driven movement, until Obama wanted it. SUCKERS
    The only things they want are 1. eliminate social security, 2. eliminate medicare and 3. give a HUGE tax cut to the people that own them, lock, stock and barrel.

  • ShaunW

    Please stop saying “the vast majority of Americans support it”. Not saying I do or don’t (or whether I really even care), just saying who did you ask, when did you ask, and how did I miss it? Numbers, man, numbers!

  • m1a0n3u0e1l2

    The Republican Party needs to establish an agency, or a kind of a school, to monitor everything its functionaries say and do. They should edit all the declarations, statements, speeches, commentaries, etc., to prevent them from uttering so many incredibly ridiculous, irrational, puerile, insensate, aberrant, calumnious and plainly stupid expressions.

  • YellerKitty

    “Waaaahhh … you better not do what we don’t want you to do or we won’t do what we’ve never done yet and have no intention of ever doing in the future!”

  • David Gulliksen

    I’m coming to the conclusion that the House Republicans have gotten addicted to doing nothing constructive. It’s far more easy to make the same condemnations over and over without having to think about it. And why should they? The strategy is working.

  • curmudgeon VN Veteran

    It is NOT immigration it’s amnesty for illegal ALIENS! Any of you people attend school in the big bus?

  • Mark Rhoades

    One of the people doing a lot of commenting; Strayaway; keeps bringing up the constitution and how the president is violating it. If this were true then the Republican dominated house would be starting impeachment proceedings and not suing. The Republicans started proceedings against Clinton with out any problem. So why the difference now? They also comment about how the president has the Reps “cowed” but still blames the president. Seems like even when so many others in the legislature won’t do their job it’s still the presidents fault. No matter what anyone says that is the argument that most put forth. Seems like they are trying to make him become what they accuse him of; even though he keeps throwing the ball back in their court; by not doing anything…and it is still his fault. Rather than discuss the constitution or executive power you should point out to them they are engaging in a circular argument which is the heighth of dysfunctional logic. The Republicans in the house continually point fingers to show how much no one is doing. This is also a dysfunctional behavior called “deflecting”. And most in their party play along because they have no other game plan. These next 2 years should be interesting.