I hope the President explains something.

[Plane]

If it is legal and constitutional to take this executive action , why was he waiting?

If he is enforcing the law as it is and he is merely setting priorities to make the law effective and efficient, then what was he doing last week?

He says that he would have preferred to have the problem solved on the floor of congress, but is this a matter of preference on his part?, or is his constitutional mandate dependent on powers granted by the constitution so that he hasn't got power that the constitution doesn't grant him?

[Plane]

I watched.

I didn't understand what is different now.

I didn't catch what he is planning to do differently or why.

Fox carried this speech , CBS didn't.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I think that Congress has had plenty of time to come up with an immigration reform bill. The GOP appointed Marco Rubio to help do this, and then ignored everything he said. As for the President, he has the right to choose his own schedule.

What he proposed is entirely logical and useful.

[Plane]

What did he announce he would do that is different than he has been doing ?

[sirs]

What he proposed is entirely logical and useful.

Not to mention completely unconstitutional, while giving the middle finger to the will of the people & congress

[Plane]

  So why am I mad?


    Maybe I shouldn't be, perhaps this won't give me another furlough.

      But it could.

[sirs]

  So why am I mad?

Only you can answer that one, Plane.  Though you wouldn't be alone, given the precedent he just set     

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is not unconstitutional. Since Congress has not authorized funds to deport everyone, and does not even have plans to do so, that leans that the President, as head of the Executive, has the obligation to select who is and who is not subject to deportation. Just as a policeman has the right to choose where he will await to stop people speeding or making illegal turns.

It is NOT unconstitutional. The GOP had their chance and did diddly squat. They are either  incompetent boobs or, most likely, they understand that they have been given a lot of campaign finance money to do nothing, because the construction, agriculture and meatpacking industries need cheap, easily intimidated labor.

President Obama should be given an award for doing the right thing.

[sirs]

I'm afraid it is.  Apparently our president believes that Article II has a “f*** you” clause designed to allow him unilateral power in the absence of Congressional action to his taste.  But meanings are unimportant. Only the agenda is important.  So when the constitution or the people with their vote get in the way, Obama resorts to lying and simply ignoring what HE HIMSELF stated over a dozen times prior, that he wasn't authorized to do

The President doesn't get to pick, the people do.  They picked NO, in this last election, buttressed by poll after poll after poll after poll.  But the emperor has spoken, and screw the will of the people of the United States.  Maybe you folks can measure his head for his crown

[Plane]

It is not unconstitutional.

You are contradicting President Obama (from back in March).

And he is supposed to know the constitution pretty well.

[sirs]

It is not unconstitutional.

You are contradicting President Obama (from back in March).

And he is supposed to know the constitution pretty well.

Even before that.  Take it away Mr. Obama.......

“I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with [the president] trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.” (3/31/08)

“We’ve got a government designed by the Founders so that there’d be checks and balances. You don’t want a president who’s too powerful or a Congress that’s too powerful or a court that’s too powerful. Everybody’s got their own role. Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it or he can sign it. … I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.” (5/19/08)

“Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.” (5/5/10)

“[T]here are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship.  And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)

“I do have an obligation to make sure that I am following some of the rules. I can't simply ignore laws that are out there. I've got to work to make sure that they are changed.” (10/14/10)

“I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” (10/25/10)

“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.” (3/28/11)

“I can't solve this problem by myself. … [W]e're going to have to have bipartisan support in order to make it happen. … I can't do it by myself. We're going to have to change the laws in Congress, but I'm confident we can make it happen.” (4/20/11)

“I know some here wish that I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself.  But that’s not how democracy works.  See, democracy is hard.  But it’s right. Changing our laws means doing the hard work of changing minds and changing votes, one by one.” (4/29/11)

“Sometimes when I talk to immigration advocates, they wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how a democracy works. What we really need to do is to keep up the fight to pass genuine, comprehensive reform. That is the ultimate solution to this problem. That's what I’m committed to doing.” (5/10/11)

“I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books …. Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that's not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written.” (7/25/11)

“So what we’ve tried to do is within the constraints of the laws on the books, we’ve tried to be as fair, humane, just as we can, recognizing, though, that the laws themselves need to be changed. … The most important thing for your viewers and listeners and readers to understand is that in order to change our laws, we’ve got to get it through the House of Representatives, which is currently controlled by Republicans, and we’ve got to get 60 votes in the Senate. … Administratively, we can't ignore the law. … I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true.  We are doing everything we can administratively.  But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce.  And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things.  It’s just not true. … We live in a democracy.  You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it.  And if all the attention is focused away from the legislative process, then that is going to lead to a constant dead-end. We have to recognize how the system works, and then apply pressure to those places where votes can be gotten and, ultimately, we can get this thing solved.” (9/28/11)

In June 2012, President Obama unilaterally granted deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA), allowing “eligible individuals who do not present a risk to national security or public safety … to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization.” He then argued that he had already done everything he could legally do on his own:

“Now, what I’ve always said is, as the head of the executive branch, there’s a limit to what I can do. Part of the reason that deportations went up was Congress put a whole lot of money into it, and when you have a lot of resources and a lot more agents involved, then there are going to be higher numbers. What we’ve said is, let’s make sure that you’re not misdirecting those resources. But we’re still going to, ultimately, have to change the laws in order to avoid some of the heartbreaking stories that you see coming up occasionally. And that’s why this continues to be a top priority of mine. … And we will continue to make sure that how we enforce is done as fairly and justly as possible. But until we have a law in place that provides a pathway for legalization and/or citizenship for the folks in question, we’re going to continue to be bound by the law. … And so part of the challenge as President is constantly saying, ‘what authorities do I have?’” (9/20/12)

“We are a nation of immigrants. … But we're also a nation of laws. So what I've said is, we need to fix a broken immigration system. And I've done everything that I can on my own[.]” (10/16/12)

“I'm not a king. I am the head of the executive branch of government. I'm required to follow the law. And that's what we've done. But what I've also said is, let's make sure that we're applying the law in a way that takes into account people's humanity. That's the reason that we moved forward on deferred action. Within the confines of the law we said, we have some discretion in terms of how we apply this law.” (1/30/13)

“I’m not a king. You know, my job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law.  And, you know, when it comes to enforcement of our immigration laws, we’ve got some discretion. We can prioritize what we do. But we can’t simply ignore the law. When it comes to the dreamers, we were able to identify that group and say, ‘These folks are generally not a risk. They’re not involved in crime. … And so let’s prioritize our enforcement resources.’ But to sort through all the possible cases of everybody who might have a sympathetic story to tell is very difficult to do. This is why we need comprehensive immigration reform. To make sure that once and for all, in a way that is, you know, ratified by Congress, we can say that there is a pathway to citizenship for people who are staying out of trouble, who are trying to do the right thing, who’ve put down roots here. … My job is to carry out the law. And so Congress gives us a whole bunch of resources. They give us an order that we’ve got to go out there and enforce the laws that are on the books.  … If this was an issue that I could do unilaterally I would have done it a long time ago. … The way our system works is Congress has to pass legislation. I then get an opportunity to sign it and implement it.” (1/30/13)

“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)

“I think that it is very important for us to recognize that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative. I can do some things and have done some things that make a difference in the lives of people by determining how our enforcement should focus. … And we’ve been able to provide help through deferred action for young people …. But this is a problem that needs to be fixed legislatively.” (7/16/13)

“My job in the executive branch is supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed. Congress has said ‘here is the law’ when it comes to those who are undocumented, and they've allocated a whole bunch of money for enforcement. And, what I have been able to do is to make a legal argument that I think is absolutely right, which is that given the resources that we have, we can't do everything that Congress has asked us to do. What we can do is then carve out the DREAM Act folks, saying young people who have basically grown up here are Americans that we should welcome. … But if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that's not an option. … What I've said is there is a there's a path to get this done, and that's through Congress.” (9/17/13)

“f, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws. That’s part of our tradition. And so the easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like I can do something by violating our laws. And what I’m proposing is the harder path, which is to use our democratic processes to achieve the same goal that you want to achieve. … It is not simply a matter of us just saying we’re going to violate the law. That’s not our tradition. The great thing about this country is we have this wonderful process of democracy, and sometimes it is messy, and sometimes it is hard, but ultimately, justice and truth win out.” (11/25/13)

“I am the Champion-in-Chief of comprehensive immigration reform. But what I’ve said in the past remains true, which is until Congress passes a new law, then I am constrained in terms of what I am able to do. What I’ve done is to use my prosecutorial discretion, because you can’t enforce the laws across the board for 11 or 12 million people, there aren’t the resources there.  What we’ve said is focus on folks who are engaged in criminal activity, focus on people who are engaged in gang activity. Do not focus on young people, who we’re calling DREAMers …. That already stretched my administrative capacity very far. But I was confident that that was the right thing to do. But at a certain point the reason that these deportations are taking place is, Congress said, ‘you have to enforce these laws.’ They fund the hiring of officials at the department that’s charged with enforcing.  And I cannot ignore those laws any more than I could ignore, you know, any of the other laws that are on the books. That’s why it’s so important for us to get comprehensive immigration reform done this year.” (3/6/14)

“I think that I never have a green light [to push the limits of executive power].  I’m bound by the Constitution; I’m bound by separation of powers.  There are some things we can’t do. Congress has the power of the purse, for example. … Congress has to pass a budget and authorize spending. So I don’t have a green light. … My preference in all these instances is to work with Congress, because not only can Congress do more, but it’s going to be longer-lasting.” (8/6/14)

[sirs]

I think this one, was my favorite, though they all completely undermine, what he just did:

“There are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are here illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair.

It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision.

And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration.

And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally.

Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship.  And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)

These are his own words.

[sirs]

I'm guessing the professor doesn't have a rational explanation to the embarrassing hypocrisy, by his fella.  I wouldn't have one either, as there's nothing rational about it

[Xavier_Onassis]

I do not actually CARE what Obama n=may have said in the past. Perhaps he was wrong when he said it.

If Congress wants immigration reform, they can and should bloody well draw up a bill and pass the effing thing, That is their job.

Had the done their job, the President would not have needed to act.

If there is a corpse lying in the street, and all the local officials do is argue about whose job it is to move it and how should be done, and what must be done before anyone moves it, they have no bloody reason to get their tighty whities in a knot when someone else comes and does the job before all their stupid conditions are met.

He did the right thing. He did at the right time.  I do not give a shit whether it conflicts with what he said or not.

[sirs]

What everyone says, and more so pledges, is cared for, by most who pay attention to the issues that effects them the most....such as healthcare and national security.  Especially by those said decisions impact directly.  So you can stick your hand in the sand, and pretend he never made such comments, but reality rears a monumental inconvenient truth....that Obama made it crystal clear.....(kinda along the lines of if you like your Doctor/Insurance, you could keep it....period) that what he just did, was clearly and constitutionally prohibited from doing

There was no rush...this didn't have to be done now, (or ever for that matter, since it wasn't the executuve branch's jurisdiction to supercede existing immigration law).  The people spoke in Nov, and made it clear that they didn't want to have happen, what just happened.  He could have waited for the new elected legislators to come together, and with new elected officials, come new ideas, and new opportunities TO WORK TOGETHER. 

But instead, Obama gives his middle finger to the voters, and screws any chance of some substantive bipartisan legislation/reforms

Then again, that was probably his intention, all along