I agree to a point however, he was hampered by congress' inaction He can't make laws, only sign them into law. Believe me, I do'tthink he acted properly, but it just wasn't all his fault.
you are not the majority, and you look foolish speaking for them, they can speak for themselves, how about you just speaking for you? MOD EDIT - Rule 3
I did not say which laws were either good, or bad. that is your preception, not mine. I agree that the Government should enforce the laws, but they are not doing so.
I have already stated, I started talking about all of them then you came up with the 60Kchildren, and my second comment was with regards to your statement about the children, MOD EDIT - Off Topic
Perry got the money from within the budget. http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-perry-texas-guard-border-20140813-story.html
They are enforcing the laws, the issue is they changed the policies of those laws, i.e. DACA and they process every OTM caught at the border. You stated: I responded: My perception is that you don't even know what the laws are, good or bad, and seem to confuse them with policies. You're simply throwing (*)(*)(*)(*) at a wall and hoping something sticks.
So when shown you failed to comprehend my comment this is all you can come back with? The simplest explanation is you are all over the place with your claims and can't keep them straight. I showed that DACA and the recent 60K kids were policy issues, nothing more, based on your OP Obama changed the policies and stayed within the confines of the law.
You can google to find out that the Majority of US Citizens do not want Amnesty, so YES I can speak for the majority since I am in agreement with them. https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/11/03/poll-results-election-iv/ These are the topline results of a YouGov/Huffington Post survey of 794 likely voters interviewed October 30 - November 2, 2014 on the midterms. The margin of error is 3.8%. Even the HuffPoo poll shows that Americans oppose providing a legal way for illegal immigrants already in the United States to become US citizens. It doesn't get any clearer than this.
Try $800,000,000, no it is not really earmarked, we do not have that kind of money laying around and the next Lt Governor wants them to stay. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/26/texas-national-guard-border_n_5889076.html
The HuffPoo? Where they only give half the information and treat it as fact. http://www.dallasnews.com/news/stat...an-perrys-plan-to-send-national-guardsmen.ece How about from the Texas Tribune http://www.texastribune.org/2014/09/11/dewhurst-mexicos-response-guard-insulting-and-offe/ The $38M for the guard falls within those numbers over the past 7 years.
The numbers were not made up by Huppo and it is mentioned on several other sites. Hey ignore it all you want I do not care, the fact of the matter is putting the NG on the border did Nothing to stem any tide and the only result was a lot of expense and they want to keep doing it. Logic and Common Sense never have been traits attributed to the right in recent years, I see why that is on a daily basis.
I didn't say the number was made up by HuffPoo, I said The HuffPoo? Where they only give half the information and treat it as fact. Which seems to be exactly what hey did. They used the $800M number and claimed it was all for the NG when in reality it was for all enforcement along the border over a 7 year time frame as the Texas Tribune and the Dallasnews state. Every link I have read states that it has deterred illegals from crossing in those areas that are guarded by the NG. Logic and Common Sense never have been traits attributed to the left for centuries, I see why that is on a daily basis. (Prime example above)
For a start, simply enforcing the laws on the books. That shouldn't even be controversial. Instead, your idea of bypassing the legal code and the constitution should be controversial.
Of course it is, but the fact that the laws aren't being enforced is also controverial. I don't think suggesting that the law be enforced solves the problem, got a more viable answer?
Since you don't think it's a big deal for the President to assume extra constitutional powers, I doubt any answers I have, that are limited to within the law and the constitution, would be considered answers by you.
The President has limited powers for a reason. All his admin can do is interpret existing law and adjust policy to be within the confines of it, such as DACA and the recent issue with the 60K children. Sometimes by following the law, it works against what one believes should happen. - - - Updated - - - The laws are being enforced, if you were able to understand what the laws are and what the policies are you would realize that he laws are being followed.
So to right a wrong are you saying we should throw both the rule of law and the Constitution out on their butts. Article I section 8 leaves congress with the power over naturalization and immigration. As a constitutional lawyer the president should know this. But that being said, I have been a support of the Gary Johnson plan for a very long time. But congress would have to pass it first, there according to the constitution is where the power lies, not with the chief executive.
So now you have decided what "I" think? well I think you are wrong. I repeat what I just asked in my previous post. Did I say he should? or that I hoped he would? Think about that. there may be much more to this than you realize.
I have not decided what you think. You did, So no, there isn't much more than that. The answer, based on your own statement, is that you hope Obama will do it and that he should do it.
