1 - 10 Next
They didn't. Lying is a tactic that has been rejected. Neither Bush nor Reagan took an executive action that was contrary to the expressed intent of Congress. Now. would you like to consider again how you will react when a GOP Prez takes the kind of unprecedented power this president has?
Sad that expecting adherence to the Constitution is now deemed to be whining. Some day you will wake up and recognize how badly your ideology has fallen.
If you mean that future GOP presidents can claim similar power for themselves, you're exactly right. Point out what a future GOP Prez could do, and ask them if they really want to legalize illegals badly enough to grant this Prez that much power. In fact, THIS precedent --- deferring deportation --- can be reversed by a GOP Prez in 2017, and the govt could use those illegal registries to find and deport people with ease.
It IS broken, in that people are ignoring it to come here illegally, and the wait to get here legally is so onerous. But, legalizing illegals already here does nothing to solve those problems, and, in fact, makes them worse by encouraging more people to sidestep the system. A "fix" stops the illegal influx and streamlines the legal immigration process to take away, as much as possible, the incentive to jump the line.
But they do presumably care about re-election. BO doesn't have to worry about it, but any Dem who noticed what happened on Nov 4 has to wonder if his/her political future is worth getting behind the Prez on this.
We might have Florence Ballard on our side, but we'll never get Diana Ross. :-)
I think the tack to take is to point out to Dems that at some date in the future there will be a GOP president again, and they have to decide if they want that future Prez to have the same power they are enthusiastically ceding to this one. Is rewarding illegal immigrants really a principle worth destroying 225 years of political history over?
In response to:

Did Obama Take a Dive?

gtanv Wrote: Nov 17, 2014 8:51 AM
Of course, the problem with this analysis is that the Reagan amnesty was SUPPOSED to result in better border security and increased employer repercussions as part of the deal for amnestying the illegals. It didn't happen. The flood of illegals kept coming. We didn't solve the problem. Modern Republicans have learned from that experience and have no interest in a new amnesty with promises of border security on the back end. This time it's fix the border first, a position learned from the Reagan amnesty that this author loves. By the way, if illegal immigration is so good for us, why would the deal have included border security and employer repercussions? if illegals are so valuable to the country, why have immigration policy at all?
In response to:

A Tent Too Big

gtanv Wrote: Nov 13, 2014 10:03 AM
Any GOP nominee will be smeared by the left, but we will lose those votes no matter what. The concern is that Walker will have to start with baggage to the swing voter that he will need to climb out from under. If Walker's the nominee, I will certainly support, but think another midwest governor will have less work to do to get rank and file union types on his side.
1 - 10 Next