Obama 'close to acting alone on immigration'


#1

Reports in the New York Times and Fox News say Mr Obama is planning to extend protection from deportation to some parents of legal US residents.

The overall plan is estimated to affect as many as five million undocumented immigrants living in the US.

Republicans in Congress say such action would be beyond Mr Obama’s authority.

“We’re going to fight the president tooth and nail if he continues down this path,” House Speaker John Boehner told reporters.

Mitch McConnell, the incoming Senate majority leader, urged the president to “work with us to try to find a way to improve our immigration system”.

bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-30042847

I find Obama’s decision to go through with immigration reform (affecting up to 5 million immigrants) without involving Congress to be outrageous. I am not an Obama supporter obviously, but I would be alarmed if any President I supported did this to the opposition - it would force me to reconsider my support of him. Not only is he thumbing his nose at the Republicans, he is thumbing his nose at every single US citizen who disagrees with his policies, or who even just wants a congressional debate on this issue.


#2

He has issued more than 1000 executive orders. A tyrant indeed!


#3

Obama likes to flaunt what he can do with his pen.
This should be an impeachable offense if he follows through with it.
More than likely the next two years he will continue to do what he wants distegarding if it is constitutional or not. He is almost daring the republicans or anyone else to stop him!
I am just so sorry he got elected this second term! Get ready for anything these last two years. He will probably see that the electoral college is done away with before he leaves office.


#4

Constitution Schmonstitution!

Well, at least lots of people got their Obamaphones!

:smiley:


#5

How many Senators are needed to impeach the President if it should ever get that far?


#6

So are the U. S. Bishops on board with Obama on this matter?


#7

And what would the charges be? Doing what congress has refused to, or was incapable of doing themselves?


#8

I recall Republican Richard Nixon being impeached and removed from office and President Clinton impeached by the House but not removed by the Senate. I believe it takes 2/3 of the Senate to remove a President of the United States from office. With the GOP no where near 2/3 even for the next 2 yrs, it’s not likely that it’s going to happen.

As far as action on immigration, he has already waited a year and a half for the House to even be willing to take up a bipartisan bill passed by the Senate. That’s far long enough to wait.


#9

ncronline.org/news/bishops-support-executive-action-immigration


#10

I recall Nixon resigning


#11

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment
At the federal level, the impeachment process is a two-step procedure. The House of Representatives must first pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been “impeached”. Next, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings…

To convict the accused, a two-thirds majority of the senators present is required. Conviction removes the defendant from office.

Bill Clinton, Democrat, was impeached on December 19, 1998, by the House of Representatives on articles charging perjury (specifically, lying to a federal grand jury) by a 228–206 vote, and obstruction of justice by a 221–212 vote. The House rejected other articles: One was a count of perjury in a civil deposition in Paula Jones’ sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton (by a 205–229 vote). The second article was one that accused Clinton of abuse of power by a 48–285 vote. The Senate vote to remove him from office fell short of the necessary ⅔, voting 45-55 to remove him on obstruction of justice and 50-50 on perjury.

Richard Nixon was never impeached. While the House Judiciary Committee did approve articles of impeachment against him and did report those articles to the House of Representatives, Nixon resigned before the House could consider the impeachment resolutions and was subsequently pardoned by President Ford.


#12

:doh2: I recall better where I was. I was at a park and still recall hearing the news on TV in my motel room. :thumbsup: Thanks. Yes he resigned in the face of nearly certain impeachment and removal from office. Hearings and threats of impeachment and removal from office. What a trying time for our nation which i pray we never see again.


#13

Obama’s administration has been far worse than the Nixon administration so it is really sad that he probably won’t be removed.


#14

To be fair I don’t believe we will ever be able to truly gauge the Obama Presidency when for 3/4 of it he will have been saddled with such an extreme partisan opposition and a do nothing Congress. We live in such times where there is such division in politics. The nation is so divided politically. In 2000 Gore won the popular vote. Bush the EC. 2004 was close. In the last 4 elections, the 2 times Obama himself was actually on the ballot, he won by larger Electoral College margins. In 08 and 12. Then in the 2 inbetween non-Presidential yrs in 10 and 14 when he was not on the ballot, the GOP won. And when a Senate leader proclaims right after a POTUS is first elected that his job is to make sure the newly elected POTUS is a 1 term POTUS, that pretty much says a mouthful right from the get go. And when the system is so broken that a House wouldn’t even consider a bipartisan Senate passed bill on immigration, then it’s time for a POTUS to act.


#15

THIS headline plus

THIS picture of Obama abroad (in China this week)

Could this mean his “acting alone on immigration” might mean he’s thinking about “going over the wall?”

:nope: ***- probably just another ***Executive Order.


#16

Thank you for the link. Go, bishops, go! Clearly they are not as heartless as the hardcore conservatives here who put partisanship over Catholic social values. Appalling.


#17

:thumbsup: Yes, it’s pathetic how the House acts, or rather, not acts. It’s because of the “Tea Party Morons”. By the way, before anyone accuses me of slander, I am not the one who coined the term, but Bruce Bartlett, President Reagan’s (!) ecconomic adviser, who used the term twice in a single interview. But then, I know, he is considered an apostate among the real fervent ‘conservative believers’ (shrug).


#18

Republicans in the House (less so in the Senate) have used border security as an always moving target as a pretense not to pass comprehensive immigration reform. It will never be enough, even though Obama has done much more for border security than previous presidents – as even some anchors on Fox have conceded, in a hot debate with Laura Ingraham who, while being Catholic, has extremist anti-immigration views that clearly go against the ones of the body of US bishops.


#19

As has been shown this week with the Jon Gruber tapes being exposed, the will of the American people is not a factor as to what the President wants to do. What drives him is his political ideology and whether he is able to accomplish his will while in power. He knows exactly what he is doing and will use whatever capability he has to guide the country in the direction he wants.


#20

:thumbsup: well said! And it doesn’t seem to bother him if the direction he is guiding the country is into a hole.

How anyone can still defend Obama or continue to make excuses for him is beyond my comprehension.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.