Dear Republicans: Your Fake Outrage Over President Obama’s Action on Immigration is Pathetically Laughable

boehner-obamaThe Republican outrage following President Obama’s announcement on immigration has been hilarious. It’s been so over the top that they’re impossible to take seriously. Then again, when isn’t their fake outrage comically over the top whenever President Obama does, well, practically anything?


Republicans let me warn you, whatever you all do, don’t you dare Google the past executive orders issued on immigration by Saint Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Dubya. If you do, there’s a very high likelihood that you’ll realize they all issued executive orders on immigration as well. Heck, you all might even find out that in 1986, Reagan passed essentially the same immigration bill President Obama wants passed now.

But let’s take a look at what some Republicans in Congress have said since the president announced his plans to do what he can on immigration since John Boehner and House Republicans have refused to do anything.

Since Obama’s speech, I’ve heard Republicans:

  • Suggest President Obama should be impeached.
  • Threaten to shut down the government.
  • Claim this kills any chance at working together on meaningful bipartisan legislation with the president.
  • Say they’ll hold up his nominees.
  • Continue to say they’re going to vote to repeal “Obamacare.”
  • Say they’ll keep doing what they can to sabotage “Obamacare.”
  • Say they’re going to sue the president (which they finally did).

So, in other words, they’re going to behave in exactly the same manner as they have since he took office in January 2009?

I’m sure if President Obama hadn’t taken this action on immigration, Republicans were absolutely going to make a real effort to work with him – something they haven’t done since he became president.


That’s what has been the most laughable part of all of the right-wing rhetoric since election night. After 5+ years of dedicating themselves to blocking, opposing or obstructing anything President Obama supports, with more power Republicans were suddenly going to become big fans of working with the president? Give me a break.

You have to be an absolute moron to believe that.

What Republicans will do these next two years is attempt to pass bills that they know the president won’t sign, then they’ll go on Fox News whining and complaining that President Obama refuses to work with them.

No matter what President Obama ultimately did on immigration, Republicans were never going to work with him. They didn’t work with him when he was first elected, they didn’t work with him when they took control of the House in 2010 and they damn sure weren’t going to work with him during his last two years in office.



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

  • Jim Bean

    Teamwork requires (duh!) a willingness to work with others. Obama fired the first salvo immediately after the election and inscribed the rocket he launched were the words “I’ll do whatever the hell I want and I don’t give a damn what you think.”

    To now attempt to claim the Pubs are to blame for the breakdown in teamwork is so very illogical and liberalesque.

    • Eli Bradley

      Looks like that particular quote happened in 2010, which would be two years after Mitch McConnell met with other Congressional Republicans who decided to make President Obama a ‘one term president’.

      You know, unless you have some other quote that I’m missing?

      • Jim Bean

        I know that both parties always commit to making the other party’s newly elected President a ‘one term President.’ Perhaps that is what you are missing. No Democrat ever says ‘lets do what whatever is in our power to make sure this newly elected Republican wins a second term.’

      • maritzka

        Dodge and deflect. So old and repetitious it is sickening. Just like all of your posts. From now on I will simply collapse them when I see your name. Cheers!

      • mukesh cara

        Good riddance.

      • Eli Bradley

        So, are you saying that there is NEVER any chance of compromise with ANY President, since instead of acting in the best interests of the country, they’re more interested in defeating the opposition?

        It’s amazing that there haven’t been more charges of treason.

      • Jim Bean

        What I’m saying is that an open statement of a desire by the losing party to do better in the next election does not represent an insurmountable obstacle to the winners of the current election. Some Democrats want to use that as an excuse to detract from their own ineptitude.

      • Eli Bradley

        And a President’s executive action isn’t insurmountable either. Pass a bill. I know it’s hard to do when you only work a third of the year and have the distinction of being more do nothing than the Congress before yours and the initial do-nothing Congress… but if John Boehner could focus on his job more than his tan, he might accomplish something!

      • strayaway

        Why not just pass a bill to requiring that existing immigration law be enforced to give some direction to the president?

      • Eli Bradley

        What makes you think that existing immigration law -isn’t- being enforced? Prosecutorial discretion has precedent, since the 70s.

      • LateNightLarry

        Don’t forget he’s got to focus on his drinking as well… I’m not sure he can handle two priorities and do anything else, including his supposed job.

      • Dr. Gadfly

        It’s standard Republican tactics to be one hundred percent uncooperative with any Democrat in the White House. Before Bill Clinton was ever sworn in they had already conspired to find a way to impeach him. Then they hired GOP hatchet man Ken Starr as a “special prosecutor” [special PERsecutor would have been a more accurate job title] which led to Monica Lewinsky and impeaching a president, and attempting to remove him from office, for messing with an intern.

    • crabjack

      Has no one here yet realized that Jim Bean (J.B.) is just a poorly disguised pseudonym for John Boehner. All Jimbo does here is regurgitate the hate and fear that spouts from the mouth of the house speaker. JimBob here is just one of the many channels the republicans have set up in order to enforce their dictum of, “tell the lie often enough and it becomes truth.” I think martizka has the right idea: collapse JimmmyBob whenever you see him.

    • Darkthunder

      Jimmy, the Republicans stated GOAL (even before President Obama was sworn in), was to make him a 1-term President. How the hell does anyone expect Republicans to WANT to work with a guy whom they wanted to kick out of the White House within the first term?

      Politics is compromise, and Republicans refuse to compromise with President Obama. They want things their way, or no way at all. And then they go off and blame Obama.

      • Jim Bean

        Can you cite me one instance in all of history where a Democrat said, “We want to make it our goal to insure this newly elected Republican POTUS gets elected to a second term.?

        C’mon, man!

      • Eli Bradley

        UNPRECEDENTED levels of obstruction in 6 years.

        I feel like we need to move past the one phrase, and look at the action. Because I can certainly point out that Democrats have never blocked a Republican president to these kinds of extremes before.

      • Jim Bean

        We have never had such a self-absorbed, self-worshipping, lone-wolf-mentality president before. And we have never had a Senate majority leader refusing to allow votes on 300+ bills before.

      • GenerallyConfused

        When one branch of your government refuses to do anything other than perform extreme acts of insanity (trying to do something over and over and getting the same result), one must do what one can to make sure the country as a whole functions properly.

      • Jim Bean

        Current Presidents frequently consult with their predecessors to gain insight on issues that come up. Know many times Obama contacted GW? One. Know why? To tell him he got bin-Laden before he could learn about it from someone else.

        Does that sound to you like a guy with the team spirit?

      • GenerallyConfused

        I have no illusions about the president, however I highly doubt Dubya would have been able to assist with a no-compromise House of Representatives. He has consulted Clinton, on a few occasions.

      • Jim Bean

        I agree with your take on the no-compromise House but am willing to also acknowledge that we have a no-compromise President and a no-compromise Harry Reid. I see no credible defense for any of the three and no way to single one out for blame.

      • GenerallyConfused

        If the president wasn’t willing to negotiate and compromise, we’d have the public option now.

      • Jim Bean

        Obamacare was passed w/o a single Republican vote of support. You’re argument has no legs. Furthermore, the public option would have put the need to raise taxes on everyone on the front page. The Dems couldn’t have survived that. Heck, they knew they couldn’t even survive the current plan if the truth about it were known. That’s why they hired Gruber.

      • GenerallyConfused

        Were you not paying attention to the news back then? I seem to recall quite a few dems and reps meeting with the president, dems conceding and trying to negotiate. Reps didn’t vote for it because ..well.. they didn’t want to see the president successful in anything.

        Am I happy with the aca? No… the only good thing that came out of it was the “no more pre existing condition” clause. The rest was pretty much a gift to health care lobbies, but to say that republicans didn’t have a say or that the president wasn’t willing to negotiate is false.

      • Jim Bean

        Politico, 1/23/09

        President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning – but he also left no doubt about who’s in charge of these negotiations. “I won,” Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.’

      • Darkthunder

        The point is, Republicans had no intention whatsoever, of cooperating with, or compromising with President Obama, long before he was sworn in. The very definition of being obstructionists. Even under Dubya, Democrats managed to find some ability to cooperate with Republicans.

        Under Obama, Republicans absolutely REFUSE to cooperate.

      • Jim Bean

        I seem to remember Pubs compromising to the tune of $40 in tax hikes for every $1 Obama conceded in spending cuts during the fiscal cliff affair. If asked to name a comparable compromise that Obama made to the Pubs, which one would you place at the top of your list?

      • GenerallyConfused

        Look at what they were trying to cut. How about they look a corporate welfare before they start taking away for from poor children? Oh, that’s right… because those corporations are paying them to keep the status quo.

      • Jim Bean

        But, but, but, but, but, . . . .. . . . . . . . .!!!

      • Eli Bradley

        And i remember a Republican primary debate where all 8 candidates would reject a deal of 10 to 1 tax cuts to tax increases when it came to debt reduction. Can’t even compromise there.

      • Jim Bean

        OK, but what we’re looking for here is a noteworthy compromise that Obama made to the Pubs.

      • GenerallyConfused

        Can you cite an instance of a democrat publically stating such? Because it can be cited for republicans. No where is anyone saying that a Democrat wants the Republican president to look fantastic, nor vice versa.. however, I’m rather sure that they at least try your do their jobs and not shut the government down in a monumentally massive temper tantrum.

        Cite your source, please.

    • Rob Bailey

      Ahhh. Teamwork. Collaboration. Hmmmm. Lemmessee. Senate votes like 68-32 for an immigration Bill over a year and a half ago, and all that House collaboration and teamwork magical happened.
      But… But… But… THE PEOPLE SPOKE! And they elected Obama twice! But hey, that doesn’t count. All the illegal immigrant votes, right?

      • strayaway

        Voters remembered that Senate vote this November and removed some of those 68 senators.

    • DoSi Do

      What are you talking about? What a Conservative memory of history!

  • sherry06053

    I think you’re wrong – I think Obama is going to take several executive actions. Immigration is just the first. Republicans are going to start playing defense, trying to block and punish everything he does. They can’t agree on anything, so they are going to be “outraged” and tripping all over themselves in their frenzy – then, he’s going to do another executive action. He’s playing them. He’s let them obstruct and complain, but not function for the last 6 years. Now, it’s his turn. He’s a very smart man.

    • Darkthunder

      “start playing defense, trying to block and punish everything he does”

      So basically, continue exactly like they’ve been doing since January 20th 2009?

    • y0gabagaba

      Good, go ahead and take executive action, and keep taking them, he has still taken less and is pacing less than GWB as far as executive actions go.

      and they are lil tiny blips on the map, Obama, and GWB compared to past presidents and the actions they’ve taken. Some presidents have taken executive actions 10x’s the amount of bush or Obama.

      • Darkthunder

        Add to that, Obama has had less vacation days in his first 6 years, compared to Dubya’s first 6. And Republicans love to whine about every single vacation day Obama does have. Meanwhile, Republicans often go for month-long vacations from the Senate and the House.

      • strayaway

        What was Bush’s most significant executive action? How did it compare with ignoring laws, overriding existing congressional legislation, and making significant changes in naturalization policy without the consent of Congress.?

      • Brian

        Please explain how Obama did any such thing and cite all legal documentation proving that what he did was illegal, and please include Supreme Court and Congressional interpretations, not your own personal interpretations.

      • strayaway

        Re Article 1, Section 1, provisions in Article 1, Section 8, and lack of any similar powers “granted” the executive branch, the 10th Amendment, the separation of powers, and according to Obama himself before he turned rogue.

        “America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don’t have a choice about that. That’s part of my job. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.” -Barack Obama (3/28/11)

      • Brian

        No existing law was changed, just reinterpreted and properly enforced. Executive action (not order) gives the president full right to do so. You need to make the distinction between executive orders and executive action. Orders are law, action is not.
        Furthermore, you didn’t answer my question. You gave me a completely irrelevant quote from Obama, and then cited the Constitution, but provided absolutely no context or supreme court interpretation.
        I asked you to prove any illegal action on the president’s part, and you have not done so. You also showed your ignorance in not understanding executive order and action. A great many journalists are confusing the two. However, there is a clear distinction that must be made.

      • strayaway

        Brian, You really deserve to be promoted to be the Emperor’s new wardrobe manager. You must also have a minor in Newspeak. I’m sorry, but I couldn’t even find the term ‘executive order’ in the Constitution. However, presidents do take an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The president may also “recommend” to Congress “such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient”. Did you catch that? He was supposed to have recommended measures instead of dictate his edict.

        You are now arguing with president Obama who made 22 such quotes expressing that, as president, he didn’t have the power to suspend deportations with an executive order. However, he lied and did just that. If you aren’t going to listen to quotes from president Obama before he went power crazy, you won’t listen to me read you the Constitution. The Constitution does not need some supervised context. It is the supreme law of the land. If it gives the power to legislate to Congress to legislate and specifically gives Congress the power to make naturalization legislation, then it is up to Congress to make such legislation if it so chooses. President Obama instead overrode legislation requiring the removal if illegal aliens and then made up new legislation giving them work permits. There is no part of existing immigration law suggesting people who snuck into this country should be given work permits to take jobs away from US citizens.

        To refresh your memory, I previously asked you, “What was Bush’s most significant executive action? How did it compare with ignoring laws, overriding existing congressional legislation, and making significant changes in naturalization policy without the consent of Congress? You ignored my question and obfuscated by asking your own question which I answered by quoting the pre-dictatorial President Obama.

      • Blair Schaan

        strayaway so right the countrys made up of laws, and if the GOP shut down a functioning govt of the United states its up to the president what to do, as he has to keep the country and govt operational; for the countrys safety and security I would hope in his last 2 years if the GOP shut down govt again, hed take Joe Bidens telling him last time declare martial law when govt stops function but Obama said no hed still try and work with the GOP, but this time he may surprise them if he did man be a lot pants being crapped in, he could then arrest all of cingres and senate the supreme court and send them all for a 6 months holiday in sun and sand at Gitzmo Cuba and then clean the country up and pick up assholes like sean Hannity Rush Limbough who seem to thrive seeing the country fall deeper and eeper in dispare and a lot of it they caused.

        Then go through and see which GIOOP signed that accord with Grovenor Norqwuist and they get haukled uo before a court martial and dalt with as traitors to the country Boehner and McConnell too haul their miserable asses up on whatevr charges can be thrown at them .
        All rights are also supsned Habious Corpus aooll constitutinal rights suspended so folks would be very carefiul what they said and did and thered be nop open gun carrying either wed see NRA scared shitless that wayne whatever that pricks name is would probably go into hiding scared hed get arrested.

        Yes I could see Onama finally want something on his record he did thatw asnte xpected 6 months miliatary running countrey clean up all the politics state and federal all laws null and void regarding abortons voting rights and laws whatwever he wanted he could void and declare dead , and after his 6 months he hands the country over to a newl elected govt new congressmen and senators new state govenors and govts in all 50 states.

        The countrys governed by a military council of 11 Luetenant Generals and Obama brings things he wants to change and do if they pass it and he signs it its now law thats how martial laws works, and to 3extend the 6 months the military council as to agree but imn sure Obama would simply want 6 nmonths hed make more changes then happened in past 20 years , then hed have a legacy for himself after he retired hell maybe people would want him to run again for a 3rd term like wow would that blow a few minnds, to say the least so the GOP be careful what ya ask for and do you may not have the balls to deal with the consequences

      • strayaway

        Blair, whatever you’re tripping on, I want some of it. I haven’t read of any intent by the GOP to shut down the government though. One of their suggestions is to hold up all of his appointments unless security related. That wouldn’t shut down the government though. Every time the government shuts down, the press blames it on the GOP so it would probably be to the Democrats advantage if they could shut down the government again like they did last time when the only issue was whether or not to keep Obama’s new tax on medical equipment.

    • Eg Kbbs

      The repubs work with the President in governance like Lucy works with Charlie Brown in kicking the football.

  • mike46

    To escape the atrocities of our war in Afghanistan 100s of thousands of war refugees illegally cross borders into adjacent countries. We denigrate those countries and point out human rights violations because they won’t feed, clothe and house those refugees. The US steps in with millions in aid. Everyone from Catholic Charities to the Red Cross show up to render assistance. Millions are donated and the US military is engaged to transport and distribute material.

    A few thousand children cross into our country to escape the atrocities of our “War on drugs” and they are called illegal immigrants. Thousands turn out to shout obscenities at them. Congress refuses to fund any programs to feed, clothe or house them.

    I guess it depends on which country you are from and whose border you cross as to what you are called and how you are dealt with.

    • strayaway

      BS. For the most part, they weren’t escaping atrocities. Nothing has changed in Guatamala and Nicaragua except that Obama offered some hope that if they made it here, they would be allowed to stay. So they came. Thanks. Obama. Those “children” were on average over 16 years old. They mostly came to live with relatives here who most likely were the main source of the average of $4,000 required of coyotes to bring them to the US. The communities that got stuck with these children have to pay for their education which averages over $12,800/year. if American parents leave their children in unattended cars, social services pays them a visit. When these parents pay to have their children smuggled into the US and face real dangers, they are rewarded with the border patrol delivering them to their door no questions asked.

      • mike46

        Sorry, but your version of history has been warped. Please check the signature on the law that prohibited the US from sending those children back home. I’ll give you a hint. His last name was Bush and he was a GOP President.

      • strayaway

        I didn’t claim otherwise. But that leaves the problem of the idiot in chief’s dreamer edict incentivizing the migration, refusing entry at the border, and checking the credentials of those our border patrol delivered them too. Some of those recipients, if undocumented, could have been sent home. Also, what is stopping Obama and Congress from reversing Bush’s’ law?

      • mike46

        Nothing other than the idiot GOP refusing to bring any kind of bill to the floor until after the mid-terms. And even now they have nothing in the works. As the President said to them. Pass a bill.
        And by the way you did say that it was the President’s fault. He was only following the law.

      • strayaway

        Congress is under no obligation to do what the president says to do. You must be thinking of governance in some banana republic dictatorship. The law includes stopping people at the border and removing any illegal aliens who sneak in or overstay their visas. He did the opposite and instead gave illegal aliens work visas. What law required him to do that?

      • mike46

        Have you been living in a cave for that past 20 years or so? This problem didn’t start in January of 2009. It was a well entrenched issue when he took office and will remain so into the far distant future.
        The point is, that if the GOP wants to wank and whine about his EO then they need to pass a bill that will solve the problem to their liking.

  • FUNKMAN53

    IF Anyone was a Die Hard Republican There is NO Way You Can Stand By and Support Your Party Look at all the Destruction they brought on the AMERICAN People Just Because They Cannot Defeat Obama ever. He has Tromp all over your Party but with CLASS Dignity Integrity Never Lowering himself to your level which infuriates you further You Truly are PATHETIC LOSERS Always were always will be

  • GenerallyConfused

    Typical. President does nothing, complaints from republicans. President does something, complaints from republicans.

    Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

    Not saying Obama has been fantastic or even great.. I have been more disappointed with him than anything.. but I will say at least he’s tried to negotiate. Republicans would go in with outrageous demands and when Obama said no, then whine he wasn’t to them.

    Can we please have term limits in Congress now? They can come back after four years.. or something.

    • strayaway

      President acts as a dictator, complaints from republicans. That’s good isn’t it?

      • GenerallyConfused

        President hasn’t been acting like a dictator. If you’re going to post something like that, at least provide proof.. something other than fixed “news”.

      • Jim Bean

        We are long past the age where proof of this required for any mind accepting new information. (Or paying attention.)

      • GenerallyConfused

        Um… no, we really aren’t. Proof is required for any new information, or the entire country would believe conspiracy theories.

      • strayaway

        Article 1, Section 1 is sufficient proof. In the president’s own words before going rogue,

        “This is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency. The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed. And Congress right now has not changed what I consider to be a broken immigration system. And what that means is that we have certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place even if we think that in many cases the results may be tragic.” (2/14/13)

      • GenerallyConfused

        And he did an executive action that, and this can be verified by anyone that knows how to use google, every president has done for about 40 years now. Therein it does not make him a dictator.

      • strayaway

        Instead of reciting a sheep talking point, how about quoting us what the Constitution says about executive orders. I realize that presidents sign executive orders for purposes of acquiring land,to hire employees, and other things required to execute congressional legislation but can you think of any Bush executive order that has the magnitude of issuing 4 million illegal aliens with working papers? Article 1, Section 1 says that ALL legislation is to come from Congress and it can only be legislation consistent with powers granted Congress. It’s been kind of fun watching progressives here wiggle and squirm, change the meaning of words, compare legal and smaller questionable executive orders with president Obama’s usurpation of congressional power but here is your opportunity to find any Bush order that compares in magnitude with Obama’s edict and explain why either is Constitutional using wording directly from the Constitution to prove your point.

  • Dr. Gadfly

    We’re sorry, America, ever since Newt Gingrich’s “contract on America” back in the Nineties we’ve been trying our best to destroy the country but we just haven’t been able to finish the job. There is still a Middle Class out there, despite our best efforts to reduce all salaries down to minimum wage everywhere, and we’ve just about run out of wars to help profit defense contractors. But we’re still working on it. Trust us, we’ll get there. – the GOP

  • Guest

    Is it possible to take an executive action to ban all republicans from speaking?