Immigration dispute erupts at White House Lunch.....

[MMC]

Seems things just weren't so amicable with BO's Luncheon with Republican Leaders.....as usual, BO spouted off what he has always said about working with Republicans. One thing we do need to stop doing with the BO and the Democrats is.....put an end to that notion of. We can find common ground. There is no common ground. Two completely different ideologies. All we can do is work for compromise. As there can be no common ground with one party standing for Big Government.....and the other that doesn't. What say ye?


A White House lunch aiming for cooperation boiled into a fresh dispute with newly empowered Republicans over immigration reform Friday, with GOP leaders warning President Barack Obama to his face not to take unilateral action. The president stood unflinchingly by his plan to act.

The Republicans' approach, three days after they resoundingly won control of the Senate in midterm elections, "seemed to fall on deaf ears," Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said in a telephone interview. "The president instead of being contrite or saying in effect to America, 'I hear you,' as a result of the referendum on his policies that drove this last election, he seems unmoved and even defiant." "I don't know why he would want to sabotage his last two years as president by doing something this provocative," said Cornyn.

Obama press secretary Josh Earnest said there was no reason that executive action on immigration should kill opportunities for the president and Republicans to find common ground.....snip~

Immigration dispute erupts at White House lunch

 

[ocean515]

Seems things just weren't so amicable with BO's Luncheon with Republican Leaders.....as usual, BO spouted off what he has always said about working with Republicans. One thing we do need to stop doing with the BO and the Democrats is.....put an end to that notion of. We can find common ground. There is no common ground. Two completely different ideologies. All we can do is work for compromise. As there can be no common ground with one party standing for Big Government.....and the other that doesn't. What say ye?


A White House lunch aiming for cooperation boiled into a fresh dispute with newly empowered Republicans over immigration reform Friday, with GOP leaders warning President Barack Obama to his face not to take unilateral action. The president stood unflinchingly by his plan to act.

The Republicans' approach, three days after they resoundingly won control of the Senate in midterm elections, "seemed to fall on deaf ears," Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said in a telephone interview. "The president instead of being contrite or saying in effect to America, 'I hear you,' as a result of the referendum on his policies that drove this last election, he seems unmoved and even defiant." "I don't know why he would want to sabotage his last two years as president by doing something this provocative," said Cornyn.

Obama press secretary Josh Earnest said there was no reason that executive action on immigration should kill opportunities for the president and Republicans to find common ground.....snip~

Immigration dispute erupts at White House lunch

Sink or swim, opposition to the President and his parties vision for the United States must be the order of the day.

For example, how do you compromise over something like the elevation of the EPA into a Mega Agency, given mandate to push a social justice agenda without citizen oversight or recourse? What would that look like? Gee, could you cut back a bit on the Environmental Justice initiative that will federalize the way towns and cities envision their future?

The majority needs to make dang sure they are communication their efforts and why. Much like the Contract with America. Let people see what is going on, and then let the chips fall where they may. If the citizens are supportive, any veto effort by the President will be seen for what it is - an extension of the "Party of No" that actually is deeply rooted in the President and his party.

 

[1750Texan]

Obama has been quite clear... Congress must act.

He continues to hammer this point to make the point stick in the minds of the American people. When Congress shelves immigration, and it will, Obama will hold a press conference on a proposed EO action and the issue will be back in the news.

Obama has Congress over a barrel.

 

[Lovebug]

I hope that everyone soon realizes that Obama is not at all interested in any compromises. He is agenda driven and will force his agenda through by any means necessary.
Just look at the line up supposedly opposing him. Why on earth are we even talking McConnell as future majority leader? Look at brassless Bohner. Do any of you anticipate any firm leadership opposing Obama's ramming through his agenda coming from either?
Any guesses about the back room dealings going on so that they can pretend, in the open, that they are actually working for the people?
But, perhaps I am wrong and we will actually see some solutions that are in America's best interest instead of in the interest of furthering our leader's political careers.

 

[anatta]

Congress needs to pass some stuff -now that Reid's black hole of legislation is gone;
can the tea party faction work with the Republican "establishment" to actually pass anything?

If not it's green light for executive orders. Not a good way to govern at all.

I'm pretty non-partisan - i'd like to see Congress actually pass anything, and if Obama vetos it - fine.
"Congress proposes the executive disposes"

 

[ttwtt78640]

Um - what, exactly, is the "small gov't" approach to immigration law enforcement? Is that not exactly what Bush and Obama both have been doing? What else can using only 5K ICE agents to enforce immigration law in a nation of 310 million (covering over 3.7 million square miles) be called?

Neither party is going to do much of anything to deal with the estimated 20 million "illegal" aliens in the US; the demorats plan is to simply reduce that number by converting them to legal aliens while the republicants plan is to have them "self deport" by growing gov't (which you say that they oppose?). We now have about 50K TSA agents; twice what we now have for border security agents (about 20K) and ICE agents (about 5K) combined. Clearly the "small gov't" approach now being used is not getting the job done.

 

[lifeisshort]

There was a war fought to oust the Spaniards from America and now Obama wants to let this new invasion happen and give away the hard won victory here just as he gave Fallujah back to the radicle Muslims after that hard won victory.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Obama has been quite clear... Congress must act.

He continues to hammer this point to make the point stick in the minds of the American people. When Congress shelves immigration, and it will, Obama will hold a press conference on a proposed EO action and the issue will be back in the news.

Obama has Congress over a barrel.

No - Obama has been quite political. Now that the last congressional election during his reign is history (without passing what he wants) he will NOW act to make that "law" using an EO. If Obama has, and always has had, this power then how can he explain why we NOW need (or have ever needed) the congress to act?

 

[MMC]

I hope that everyone soon realizes that Obama is not at all interested in any compromises. He is agenda driven and will force his agenda through by any means necessary.
Just look at the line up supposedly opposing him. Why on earth are we even talking McConnell as future majority leader? Look at brassless Bohner. Do any of you anticipate any firm leadership opposing Obama's ramming through his agenda coming from either?
Any guesses about the back room dealings going on so that they can pretend, in the open, that they are actually working for the people?
But, perhaps I am wrong and we will actually see some solutions that are in America's best interest instead of in the interest of furthering our leader's political careers.

Mornin LB.

I think with Repubs sounding off about it.....puts BO into the perspective he is. He thinks people just want to see more cooperation. He don't think this election was a repudiation of his policies and himself.



"They'd like to see more cooperation," Obama said, sitting at the middle of 13 lawmakers in the Old Family Dining Room set with the Truman china. "And I think all of us have the responsibility, me in particular, to try to make that happen.".....snip~


Uhm.....naturally most like to see cooperation. So this is a non answer. But as usual with BO. Its always about him.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Both parties are doing nothing about immigration law enforcement for the perceived political gain that simply doing nothing (but talking about change) now offers. The demorats talk about immigration "reform" but really want amnesty to convert more "undocumented" immigrants to legal voter status by documenting them (meanwhile enjoying a bump in the Hispanic vote) while the republicants talk about getting tough on "illegal" aliens while doing noting to identify and deport them (meanwhile getting a bump in votes from those that like this "tough talk" but excuse no follow up action).

 

[1750Texan]

No - Obama has been quite political. Now that the last congressional election during his reign is history (without passing what he wants) he will NOW act to make that "law" using an EO. If Obama has, and always has had, this power then how can he explain why we NOW need (or have ever needed) the congress to act?

You seem to believe that Obama can fix all immigration issues with EOs... Where did you hear that?

The GOP in Congress has been saying for months that the immigration system is broken. 100's of campaign ads claiming that the border is not secure... was not a clue to you that there is a immigration problem.

Now with a victory all problems just disappear? is that how you role?

 

[MMC]

Congress needs to pass some stuff -now that Reid's black hole of legislation is gone;
can the tea party faction work with the Republican "establishment" to actually pass anything?

If not it's green light for executive orders. Not a good way to govern at all.

I'm pretty non-partisan - i'd like to see Congress actually pass anything, and if Obama vetos it - fine.
"Congress proposes the executive disposes"

That will have to be the plan.....turn BO into his own party of No. Although BO did say he wasn't mopey.

"He still hasn't come to grips with the reality of the election and the consequences of the election," Barrasso said. "His tone and tenor didn't seem to reflect that of somebody whose policies were just significantly rejected all across the country just three days ago.".....snip~

 

[MMC]

Sink or swim, opposition to the President and his parties vision for the United States must be the order of the day.

For example, how do you compromise over something like the elevation of the EPA into a Mega Agency, given mandate to push a social justice agenda without citizen oversight or recourse? What would that look like? Gee, could you cut back a bit on the Environmental Justice initiative that will federalize the way towns and cities envision their future?

The majority needs to make dang sure they are communication their efforts and why. Much like the Contract with America. Let people see what is going on, and then let the chips fall where they may. If the citizens are supportive, any veto effort by the President will be seen for what it is - an extension of the "Party of No" that actually is deeply rooted in the President and his party.

Mornin Ocean. :2wave: Well McConnell and Boehner did talk about governing. But then.....BO and the convo went to Ebola, and then ISIS. Then BO wanting 5 Billion to take on ISIS.

5 Billion on a war that he plans to leave behind for another to deal with.....wherein his Plan has coalition is a failure.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Seems things just weren't so amicable with BO's Luncheon with Republican Leaders.....as usual, BO spouted off what he has always said about working with Republicans. One thing we do need to stop doing with the BO and the Democrats is.....put an end to that notion of. We can find common ground. There is no common ground. Two completely different ideologies. All we can do is work for compromise. As there can be no common ground with one party standing for Big Government.....and the other that doesn't. What say ye?

Both parties are parties of big government. The one admits it, the other doesn't, but the fact remains that government continues to get bigger and more powerful regardless of who is in power.

A White House lunch aiming for cooperation boiled into a fresh dispute with newly empowered Republicans over immigration reform Friday, with GOP leaders warning President Barack Obama to his face not to take unilateral action. The president stood unflinchingly by his plan to act.

The Republicans' approach, three days after they resoundingly won control of the Senate in midterm elections, "seemed to fall on deaf ears," Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said in a telephone interview. "The president instead of being contrite or saying in effect to America, 'I hear you,' as a result of the referendum on his policies that drove this last election, he seems unmoved and even defiant." "I don't know why he would want to sabotage his last two years as president by doing something this provocative," said Cornyn.

Obama press secretary Josh Earnest said there was no reason that executive action on immigration should kill opportunities for the president and Republicans to find common ground.....snip~

Immigration dispute erupts at White House lunch

The president can not be allowed to take unilateral action. Doing so would jeopardize the Constitution of the United States, and can not be allowed. The presidency (as any power given a current president is going to be inherited by his successors) should not be given extra constitutional powers ever for any reason. cpwill has a thread on that very subject here.

 

[eohrnberger]

I see it as the same old Obama.

Make the appearances of playing well with others, and once the cameras are turned off, he delivers an ultimatum to the congressmen, 'either pass illegal alien amnesty, or I'll do it via an executive order'.

That's really not setting the stage for compromises, when you dictate ultimatums to what should be your negotiating partners.

Should the congress pass bipartisan legislation that addresses illegal immigration and it has a border security component in it, wanna make a bet that Obama's gonna declare it as 'not in the best interests of the country' and veto that?

 

[MMC]

Both parties are parties of big government. The one admits it, the other doesn't, but the fact remains that government continues to get bigger and more powerful regardless of who is in power.



The president can not be allowed to take unilateral action. Doing so would jeopardize the Constitution of the United States, and can not be allowed. The presidency (as any power given a current president is going to be inherited by his successors) should not be given extra constitutional powers ever for any reason. cpwill has a thread on that very subject here.

Mornin' DH. :2wave: Well there are those that are in the Republican party that do not stand for big government. Sometimes that is the side-effect that comes thru with legislation that becomes bipartisan. Yes Government grew under Reagan and Bush Junior.....most know this. But it is not like the Ideology of Big Government coming from the left.....now is it?

Also after their lil talk on Immigration.....that's when BO shifted to the other two I mentioned. Now he wants 5 Billion for ISIS. Again, wherein his plan has come undone and failed. So what does he need the 5 Billion for?

That should be auto.....NO!

 

[polgara]

Mornin Ocean. :2wave: Well McConnell and Boehner did talk about governing. But then.....BO and the convo went to Ebola, and then ISIS. Then BO wanting 5 Billion to take on ISIS.

5 Billion on a war that he plans to leave behind for another to deal with.....wherein his Plan has coalition is a failure.

Greetings, MMC. :2wave:

I just have a hard time understanding what the overall plan is, and what the expected results might be - from the President's point of view. Asking for $5 billion dollars like it's a piddling amount of money seems absurd at this point. What is his vision? Am I missing something important here? :shock:

 

[VanceMack]

Obama has been quite clear... Congress must act.

He continues to hammer this point to make the point stick in the minds of the American people. When Congress shelves immigration, and it will, Obama will hold a press conference on a proposed EO action and the issue will be back in the news.

Obama has Congress over a barrel.

We bring in millions of legal immigrants every year, not including those that come here on student and work visas (which are many more times the amount of immigrant candidates). We have a legal pathway to citizenship that far surpasses most if not all developed countries and is CERTAINLY more benevolent than the emigration home countries. Beyond enforcing the already in place and very generous existing laws, what exactly is 'broken'?

BTW...many democrats dont want to see amnesty, black groups and black citizens DAMN sure dont want to see amnesty, Unions are in opposition to amnesty, and the presidents executive privilege is limited to enforcing EXISTING law, not creating or amending laws. And yet, YOU see the president having the GOP over a barrel?

 

[Dittohead not!]

Mornin' DH. :2wave: Well there are those that are in the Republican party that do not stand for big government. Sometimes that is the side-effect that comes thru with legislation that becomes bipartisan. Yes Government grew under Reagan and Bush Junior.....most know this. But it is not like the Ideology of Big Government coming from the left.....now is it?

Morning, MMC. No, it's not like the ideology of big government coming from the left, but more like the reality of big government coming from the right.

Also after their lil talk on Immigration.....that's when BO shifted to the other two I mentioned. Now he wants 5 Billion for ISIS. Again, wherein his plan has come undone and failed. So what does he need the 5 Billion for?

That should be auto.....NO!

Oh, he wants 5 billion for ISIS?

He did decide to send troops, just as soon as the election was over, despite his declarations of "no boots on the ground."

Maybe he needs the five billion for running shoes then.

Seriously, if the US is going to try to fight ISIS, then the effort needs to be funded. Should we try to fight ISIS, or simply let the countries of the Middle East deal with the problem? Are they even capable of dealing with the problem?

Oh, and the POTUS taking unilateral action to reform immigration? What a bizarre idea that is. Maybe the POTUS, enforcer of laws passed by Congress, could get out of the way and let the existing immigration laws work. That should spur the sponsors of Congresscritters to see to it that their minions keep the flow of cheap labor coming.

 

[MMC]

Greetings, MMC. :2wave:

I just have a hard time understanding what the overall plan is, and what the expected results might be - from the President's point of view. Asking for $5 billion dollars like it's a piddling amount of money seems absurd at this point. What is his vision? Am I missing something important here? :shock:

Mornin Lady P.

The only expected results it seems would be that he is leaving the war for another to fight.

He just had Congress approve a couple hundred Million for the Syrian Rebels.....who now have been pretty much defeated and taken out of the game by Al Nusra/AQ.

 

[MMC]

Morning, MMC. No, it's not like the ideology of big government coming from the left, but more like the reality of big government coming from the right.



Oh, he wants 5 billion for ISIS?

He did decide to send troops, just as soon as the election was over, despite his declarations of "no boots on the ground."

Maybe he needs the five billion for running shoes then.

Seriously, if the US is going to try to fight ISIS, then the effort needs to be funded. Should we try to fight ISIS, or simply let the countries of the Middle East deal with the problem? Are they even capable of dealing with the problem?

Oh, and the POTUS taking unilateral action to reform immigration? What a bizarre idea that is. Maybe the POTUS, enforcer of laws passed by Congress, could get out of the way and let the existing immigration laws work. That should spur the sponsors of Congresscritters to see to it that their minions keep the flow of cheap labor coming.

Who is usually rolling back regulations, again?

Yeah he says they will be there to advise.

Before one goes and asks for money for a War. One needs a plan. Not try and work the one that just failed. IMO.....those over there in the ME. Are not capable by themselves.

Well we do need to let them work on it....rather than just add some more to the rolls and increase the number of ways to get more in.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You seem to believe that Obama can fix all immigration issues with EOs... Where did you hear that?

The GOP in Congress has been saying for months that the immigration system is broken. 100's of campaign ads claiming that the border is not secure... was not a clue to you that there is a immigration problem.

Now with a victory all problems just disappear? is that how you role?

Granting amnesty to those now in the country illegally conflicts with better border security. The amnesty idea in no way helps to fix anything but it surely will encourage more to try to enter/stay illegally. The Obama plan, much like PPACA, is to make things worse and then hope that the folks will demand more gov't action to fix the gov't created problems.

The demorats say that they agree with the republicants on better border security yet insist that "common ground" not be used to pass that alone into law; instead using that as political leverage to force the inclusion of amnesty making a "comprehensive" immigration reform package. Cooperation in congress, according to Obama/Reid, means that nothing gets done on immigration unless it includes the amnesty that they want. Obama thinks that by taking amnesty "off the table" it will allow him to keep his EO amnesty and force the republicants to spend even more to attempt to secure the border.

We tried amnesty now and better immigration law enforcement later in 1986 - that should be a lesson in having packages where the amnesty part is done now and the rest might happen later. This time why don't we try better immigration law enforcement now and maybe do the amnesty later.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Obama has been quite clear... Congress must act.

He continues to hammer this point to make the point stick in the minds of the American people. When Congress shelves immigration, and it will, Obama will hold a press conference on a proposed EO action and the issue will be back in the news.

Obama has Congress over a barrel.

It's not about congress. Obama does not have wide popular support on the immigration issue. If he goes it alone and passes out amnesty without first securing the borders....the immigration issue will be just as damaging to democrats as the healthcare bill...if not more. And Obama does not realistically have congress over a barrel. Amnesty will go nowhere if the congress refuses to fund it.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Granting amnesty to those now in the country illegally conflicts with better border security. The amnesty idea in no way helps to fix anything but it surely will encourage more to try to enter/stay illegally. The Obama plan, much like PPACA, is to make things worse and then hope that the folks will demand more gov't action to fix the gov't created problems.

The demorats say that they agree with the republicants on better border security yet insist that "common ground" not be used to pass that alone into law; instead using that as political leverage to force the inclusion of amnesty making a "comprehensive" immigration reform package. Cooperation in congress, according to Obama/Reid, means that nothing gets done on immigration unless it includes the amnesty that they want. Obama thinks that by taking amnesty "off the table" it will allow him to keep his EO amnesty and force the republicants to spend even more to attempt to secure the border.

We tried amnesty now and better immigration law enforcement later in 1986 - that should be a lesson in having packages where the amnesty part is done now and the rest might happen later. This time why don't we try better immigration law enforcement now and maybe do the amnesty later.

Agreed. After the 86 fiasco, the vast majority of the American people simply do not trust the government to follow through on border security if amnesty is given first.

 

[MAGAnificent]

I hope that everyone soon realizes that Obama is not at all interested in any compromises. He is agenda driven and will force his agenda through by any means necessary.
Just look at the line up supposedly opposing him. Why on earth are we even talking McConnell as future majority leader? Look at brassless Bohner. Do any of you anticipate any firm leadership opposing Obama's ramming through his agenda coming from either?
Any guesses about the back room dealings going on so that they can pretend, in the open, that they are actually working for the people?
But, perhaps I am wrong and we will actually see some solutions that are in America's best interest instead of in the interest of furthering our leader's political careers.

Prior to Eric Cantor losing his congressional seat in his primary, I would have agreed. Boehner and McConnell at the behest of their big donors in the US Chamber of Commerce were planning to slip in a comprehensive immigration bill to Obama's liking. The plan was to allow it to come to a vote in the house and pass mostly with democrat votes while republicans entered token "no" votes so they could tell their constituents that they were against it and voted no. However what happened to Cantor spooked them. I think they are now more afraid of their constituents then they are of the US Chamber of Commerce.