Why are there members here supporting having Obama using executive action

[scarystuffyo]

for immigration ?

This will be a disaster for Democrats

[Nuclear Unicorn]

1. It depends on which immigration you're talking about.

If it was H1B visas the tune would be different.

[scarystuffyo]

7. What are the numbers in those? 60 , 70 thousand a year ? bio tech , chemistry , engineering etc..

Those numbers are very small unless you're the one who lost his job
to a HIB

Obama isn't talking about those

[elleng]

2. Disaster?

[kelliekat44]

123. We don't even know what the Exec. Order will say. It could be a really great thing. nt

[elleng]

126. Exactly.

Thanks, kelliekat.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

3. How?

Can you be a little more specific as to how and why you think his use of executive action will be a disaster for Dems in general, and not just blowback on him personally?

[scarystuffyo]

12. Because in 2016 someone is going to have to run on this

or at the very least be asked if he or she supports these actions.

So much can go wrong with this.
We will have for the next 2 years another flood to our border .

We will have border states unable to handle it , it will be blamed squarely on Democrats.

Mark my words...there will be a serious crime committed by one of the people
who this action helped stay here and it will be a campaign issue to who ever is running in 2016


This is crazy to support Obama doing this on his own.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

17. Ok, here's where I disagree with your prediction.

Yes, in under 2 years, our candidates (just like their candidates) are going to have to address immigration. And make no mistake, demographic shifts mean making immigration EASIER rather than harder is going to be the winning hand. And at that point in time, either Congress will have done something or not. If they have, and it's something the President is willing to sign, then we see that both sides think something needed done. If they haven't, then Dems still have the upper hand. Because they can say 'Look, it's been years, and Congress STILL hasn't done squate about this pressing issue.' But if Congress did finally get off their hands and do something useful, they can say 'I prefer Congressional action to executive orders, but at least his action finally spurred Congress into doing something'.

'Disaster' always depends on messaging. There are proper ways to set up the optics, and improper ways. Smart Dems will be just fine, stupid ones will always find a way to pull defeat out of the jaws of victory.

[scarystuffyo]

23. I don't disagree with a lot of what you wrote

just by the President saying he will use executive action has gotten congress to talk about it
but the President has to give congress a chance to debate in how to fix the immigration issue.
It is a front burner issue that is not going away now , no way now is this going on the back burner.

The President needs to wait and let Democrats and Republicans work out a bill
then present it to the President .

that's all I'm saying

If he goes this alone and something goes wrong down the road because of it.

Democrats are toast in 2016

[onecaliberal]

32. With all due respect congress has had years to debate

Immigration. The senate passed a bill at least a year ago. Sign away mr President. If you support the democratic platform there is nothing to worry about. Will a blue dog have trouble with this, you bet.

[Chemisse]

65. The president invited Congress to pass an immigration law.

Just last week.

The ball is in their court. If they continue to fumble, Obama's executive action will stand. If they get something through themselves, worthy of his signing, then that will be the law of the land.

So if someone commits a crime, thanks to the executive action, he can point his finger at Congress and ask why they never put forward a different immigration law.

[jwirr]

103. Most of the people who will be involved in the actions are already here and have been for many

years already. They are not going to take any jobs they do not already have. They are already done with education and many served in the military. And if we finally come through with our promises they will vote. I for one cannot wait until he does as much for them as possible.

If there is blowback it will come from white conservatives who are worried about becoming a minority in this country.

[brush]

104. These sounld like repug talking points.

Sure you're on the right site?

[Recursion]

100. The argument is that conservative opposition to reform is a lot more intense than liberal support

So, it would partially energize the base while completely enraging the other side.

I honestly have no idea what the numbers actually are, I just know that's roughly the argument. Kind of like gun control: our party's position has wide support that's not very deep, whereas the opposition is absolutely fanatical.

[Vincardog]

4. Please expand on your post

[nashville_brook]

5. why is that? Reagan took executive action on immigration.

[ollie4]

68. Yup. And there was no Republican rebellion....

Imagine that....

[spanone]

6. fuck the republicons.

this will be a disaster for the thugs.

[Lil Missy]

8. No it won't. It will be a disaster for republicans though. n/t

[scarystuffyo]

15. No it won't

This is a huge issue that should be a bill passed by Congress and signed by the President into law.

[spanone]

20. congess won't act. it's that simple.

[scarystuffyo]

24. They will now , they have no choice

[spanone]

48. you give them waaaay to much credit.

[ollie4]

72. They have not in the past....

....And they will not do so in the future.

I disagree with your point that the executive action will hurt us in 2016.

This is going to force the hands of the Republicans running for pres....they may have wanted to not draw attention to the issue....but now there is going to be a pressure on all of them to out-do each other in being radically right on immigration.

Then one of them will win the nomination with a lot of dirt he/she said about immigrants....and they lose.

Obama shows some foresight here.

[shraby]

38. How long do you propose the President should wait? He's been waiting 6 years now.

And before that, the republicans had a chance to do something for 8 years and what did we hear? Crickets at the same time they were going crazy about people coming over the border. The best they could come up with was what Russia did after WWII. Build a wall.
That worked so good to keep people out, it kept their citizens in as well.
If signing an EO will get them off their duffs, the more power to him.

[Lil Missy]

63. That's a republican talking point.

They've had 6 years to pass a bill and have refused to do so. This way will light a fire under their asses and at the same time cause divisions among the repubs.

[jwirr]

106. Where do you live that it is such a big deal?

[Spazito]

9. There are some who want that to be the case...

but you find them on right wing sites, not here one would hope. It will not be a disaster for the Democrats and it is the right thing to do.

[pampango]

10. Polls show that people support a path to citizenship, even republicans. What 'disaster' are

you talking about?

[Savannahmann]

13. Reference those polls please.

Because the polls I've found, including Exit polls on Election day showed 57% supported Congress taking action on Immigration. Only one poll has asked the question about executive action on Immigration. Guess what the support for that was.

So show me the poll that says the people support Executive action on immigration. Because the only one I've found that asks that question shows a mere 20% support the President going alone.

[pampango]

21. Conservative republicans are the least supportive of legal status (54%).

Liberal Democrats are the most supportive - 84%.

[Ink Man]

34. Look what happened

in the very blue state of Oregon.

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The fate of a little-noticed ballot measure in strongly Democratic Oregon serves as a warning to President Barack Obama and his party about the political perils of immigration policy.
Even as Oregon voters were legalizing recreational marijuana and expanding Democratic majorities in state government, they decided by a margin of 66-34 to cancel a new state law that would have provided driver's licenses to people who are in the United States illegally. <snip>

[pampango]

47. Thanks. That hardly cancels out the desire of most Americans to see a path to legal status for them

but that is an interesting referendum result.

[amandabeech]

78. Yes, but the Pew study was from June of 2013.

From what I've noticed personally, there's been a change in people's attitudes since the summer wave. I here people muttering about immigration just being "too much." I wouldn't dismiss that Oregon referendum myself.

[pampango]

81. I guess we don't agree on how ready the country is for immigration reform. For sure,

republicans will be quite happy if Obama decides not to push through with executive action and waits longer for a republican congress to act.

[amandabeech]

83. A year ago I would have agreed with you, but with the comments I've heard over the past few

months, I'm having serious doubts.

[Savannahmann]

70. You are using poll numbers from Jun 2013.

Seventeen months out of date? That is your justification for the huge support?

Exit polling for the last election shows 57% support. But the question was worded asking how many wanted Congressional Action. So just over half the public wants Congressional Action on Immigration.

One poll asked how many would support the President taking Executive Action. One. That poll is here.

Twenty percent support the President taking Executive Action. Now, the only poll you have is fifteen months old. In those polls, the Republicans were hugely unpopular and going to lose the Senate. Today, the Republicans are viewed more favorably than the Democrats. 53% of the people want the Republicans to set the agenda.

So what polling do you have that shows the people support the President taking executive action? Anything from the last ninety days? Or how about this year? Because I watch the polls and I've not seen anything that shows widespread, or even plurality support of Executive Action. Because everything I can see tells me that this is going to harm the Democratic Party enormously. This week, if the President takes the action he's promised, we will lose our chance at the White House in 2016.

[pampango]

87. Here's one from 2 months ago - September.

http://www.people-press.org/2014/09/03/more-prioritize-border-security-in-immigration-debate/

Given 3 options for immigration priorities: Stronger border enforcement, a path to legalization and a mix of both:

78% of Democrats favored a path to legal status: 33% for that to be the primary focus and 45% for it to be included in the reform along with stricter border enforcement.
65% of independents favored a path to legal status: 24% for that to be the primary focus and 41% for it to be included in the reform along with stricter border enforcement.
45% of republicans favored a path to legal status: 9% for that to be the primary focus and 36% for it to be included in the reform along with stricter border enforcement.
31% of tea party supporters favored a path to legal status: 3% for that to be the primary focus and 28% for it to be included in the reform along with stricter border enforcement.

[Savannahmann]

90. Your own numbers don't support your argument

First, they don't take into account the executive action angle. But we'll ignore that for now.

Unless the President orders the National Guard to the border, which no one is thinking he will do, then he'll satisfy 23% of the people, and only them. You can't count the people who think "both" by doing only one half of the "both" option.

So where is this huge public support for the Executive Action? Because the linked article shows a public desire to increase border security, which is the Republican argument, not the stated objective of the Executive Action.

I hope you're starting to see the minefield we're walking into in the next few days. I hope so, because right now, we're walking into it with our eyes closed tightly to the danger we're facing. Because President Obama's actions are liable to place an insurmountable obstacle to a Democratic President in 2016 in our path.

[pampango]

97. My numbers are for people who support a path to legalization. Some support as the main priority,

others support it as a shared priority but they all support a path to legalization. A majority of people support the policy of a path to legal status. That much is undeniable. Some of them also support other immigration priorities as well.

My reading is that he does plan to include measure to 'enhance border security' in the executive order. If he indeed does that, perhaps everyone will be happy. I joke, of course. I am 100% certain that republicans will find these 'border security' measures "totally inadequate and a joke". I hope he does not send more National Guard troops to the border. That is a political stunt with no practical effect.

You are right that those high numbers of support for legalization (particularly among Democrats and independents) do not factor in achieving it by Executive Order. (The only majority opposition to the idea of legalization is among Republicans, especially tea party supporters, but we are unlikely to get their votes in any event.)

I don't know what fraction of those Democratic and independent supporters would back off if asked if they supported Executive Action to achieve it. I doubt the it would be a large portion of them since republicans have proven that they will not pass an immigration reform bill in congress so you are not going to get a path to legalization any other way. It will be a gamble by Obama if it does this, but it will be a liberal gamble. (When Truman integrated the military in 1948 by Executive Order it was a gamble, but a liberal gamble. Segregation was still legal and the law of the land in much of the US at the time.)

If he does not take the gamble, the republicans win. They do not care that a majority of people would like to see a path to legalization among whatever other changes are made to the immigration system. They respond primarily to the tea party wing of their party. We all know they have no intention of passing immigration reform.

[geek tragedy]

95. Fancy that, a person who hates the ACA also whining about

Obama doing something about immigration after Congress has clearly and explicitly abdicated on the subject .

Almost as funny as your post about Michelle Obama working with Monsanto.

[Savannahmann]

113. Baloney

I never said I hated the ACA. Post a link or withdraw the comment. I have said more than once I wanted single payer.

[geek tragedy]

114. Asdf

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1307310


Here's a bonus whine from you about Obama in 2012

I want several things, all of them promised during the first campaign in 2008. I want the the torture facility at Guantanamo Bay closed. I can give him a pass on that because the Rethugs screwed him by denying him money to relocate the prisoners. I want the PATRIOT ACT abolished. I have a harder time giving him a pass on that, because he signed the reauthorization bill. The next time it comes up, I want him to VETO the damn thing.

I want to see some action on Amnesty. I am sick and tired of being in a nation where millions of people are hiding in the shadows because they are brown.

I feel dissapointed in the thread and the site, because we were the ground game of the re-election effort. We need to let the Washington Elites know we're serious when we say we expect action.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1781097

Note: progressives call it a path to citizenship, not 'amnesty'

[Savannahmann]

115. Baloney Again

I maintain I never wrote anything about opposing the ACA. Here is but a few of the posts where I mentioned Single Payer.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024872268

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024609540

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5276715

Now, you said I hated the ACA. I want proof or an apology.

You're trying to confuse the issue by posting a thread taken way out of context. Proof that I hate the ACA. Proof that I've ever said it. Go ahead. Prove it.

[geek tragedy]

116. Besides your claim that the ACA was a voucher program in disguise, there's

the ACA is killing pharmacies:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4076228

And your bleating how the ACA was a fraud because of a glitch in the Washington state exchange?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002405750

It turns out she is not eligible for the tax credit, and thus can't buy the insurance, and can't afford it. This is one of our supporters, who was screwed by the ACA in her opinion, and how many others opinions?

Do you now see the millstone that is the ACA, and why I now wonder if we can keep the Senate? We are in serious trouble, and if we don't figure it out, we're going to be well and truly fucked in November 2014. I can't stress this enough, we have seriously fucked up on our reporting of what the ACA would do, and what we promised the people. Remember George HW Bush was defeated by his read my lips broken promise. How do you think we're going to fare in November now?

[Savannahmann]

118. You've done much to prove nothing.

I reported what the Pharmacist said. I didn't endorse it did I?

I warned about the perceptions that were out there, not that they were true. But that they would be perceived as true.

By the way, your second link doesn't go where you said it did. Regardless. you haven't proven anything.

Since you have no intention of doing so, and you won't apologize like an adult would. I'm going to wish you a good night. I said everything else I had to say in the private message, and I meant every word.

[geek tragedy]

120. Just so people don't get the wrong idea, your PM was full of virulently hateful

insults and verbal abuse, so your claim of wishing anyone here a good night is about as genuine as your concern over the issue of immigration, an issue on which you've managed to concern troll on two mutually exclusive sides.

[FSogol]

11. From wiki: "A tell in poker is a change in a player's behavior or demeanor that is claimed by some

to give clues to that player's assessment of their hand. A player gains an advantage if they observe and understand the meaning of another player's tell, particularly if the tell is unconscious and reliable. Sometimes a player may fake a tell, hoping to induce their opponents to make poor judgments in response to the false tell. More often, people try to avoid giving out a tell, by maintaining a poker face regardless of how strong or weak their hand is."

[likesmountains 52]

101. Been waiting...

[2naSalit]

14. Seems to me that

an EO takes it entirely out of anyone's hands but the E who made the O. Ds can run against it but, mind you, an EO is hard to rescind as it should be. It is one of the options afforded a president when he is faced with a hostile Congress who ignores the bidding of their constituents.

I don't see it as a disaster regardless of who implements it, it needs to happen.

[joeybee12]

16. Disaster? It'd be great...always a good idea to pick a fight with Repukes...

Bad idea to run away from one.

[scarystuffyo]

18. The President can work out a bill with Congress

The majority of the country wants the immigration system fixed.

[joeybee12]

19. Have you been paying attention the last 6 years?

Repukes will not work with Obama at all...not at all.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

26. Yeah, that was a bit Twilight Zone-ish.

More likely just a bored someone having a little *fun* on DU.

[joeybee12]

40. 600+ posts and he/she is still bored...

And he/she apparently isn't giving up!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

46. Since October.

Seriously, October.

The avatar is a nice change... usually it's John Lennon or the Birkenstocks.

[joeybee12]

49. Let's do a DU pool to see if he makes it to December...

I think not.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

52. I'd say yes, based on the fact that...

we have a member whose sole purpose is to berate other DUers, and she hasn't been given the ol' heave-ho. She just came off of time-out, and went right back to the attacks. Think she still has 4 hides, so it's just a matter of time before another vacation.

[alcibiades_mystery]

59. This current foot stomping thread on GOP impotence is especially funny

AS soon as Obama signs these orders, this one and some others are going to go into total meltdown mode.

Will be "scary" to watch, yo.

[scarystuffyo]

31. They will on this because they have to

You watch this will be one of the Presidents most important legacies
when he signs the bill into law.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

44. Who has to? Why do they have to?

You're not explaining yourself very well.

[freshwest]

122. Why do they *have to* pass a bill? Why should they? Their voters don't want one. So they won't.

[JaneyVee]

22. Which Congress?

[tammywammy]

28. LOL

[pampango]

29. Many of us would have preferred that, but their tea party wing has repubs too scared

to pass any immigration legislation in congress.

[AnalystInParadise]

25. Good luck selling that here

This is a bad idea, but no one wants to look at it analytically. Executive Power grabs are never a good idea, and if this was a Republican President doing this, people would be screaming their heads off.

[Alittleliberal]

61. No we wouldn't

The Republican president wouldn't have to use executive action, OUR elected officials are cowards.

[amandabeech]

79. I agree.

Our system works better when a compromise can be worked out between legislative and executive on major issues, and this is a major issue. I'd suggest that the President give the pubbies until Feb 15 or so, like Biden suggested.

[SidDithers]

27. Thank you for your concern...nt

Sid

[Kali]

57. that is exactly what I was gonna write

[baldguy]

30. Hispanics & Lantinos are 12.5% of the population **and growing**

Ignoring that is what cost the Dems in 2014.

[scarystuffyo]

35. I don't want the President to ignore it , the majority of the country wants to

see our immigration system fixed.

[baldguy]

39. So, how is it a "disaster" if the President does what the majority of the country wants?

[Savannahmann]

76. Because a vast majority oppose taking Executive action on the issue

Show me a poll that supports executive action. You can't find one. I'll wait a while, no worries. I put them out there above, but here's the link to the post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025826030#post70

57% support congressional action on Immigration, that was the question asked during the exit polls. So where would we find your information that a majority of the country wants the President to take executive action?

[Louisiana1976]

33. The Rethugs in Congress should lead, follow, or get out of the way on immigration. Since they

won't, it's up to Obama to take executive action. He's President--it's his job.

[TheKentuckian]

36. There are other elections than the next one, we'd best secure the block if we wish to win them.

Life is not about running scared from the Confederates.

[KingCharlemagne]

107. Best response in the thread, imho. Along those lines, U.S. Grant fought a very early

battle -- don't remember where exactly -- with Confederates. At that point, many in the Union feared Confederate warmaking acumen, based on the Rebels' early successes in Virginia at Bull Run and their snagging of the creme de la creme of the Army's officer corps. But after Grant fought this battle, he said he realized that the Confederates were just as scared of his forces as his were of theirs. I've always felt a special affection for Grant b/c of that epiphany!

[BeyondGeography]

37. Yo

That's scary stuff.

[Dawson Leery]

41. Bring back the unrec option.

Obama's only mistake was not to take such action before the election.

[jwirr]

111. I agree.

[Hoyt]

42. When Republicans speak of immigration reform, they mean something punitive. I like Obama's plan.

Sounds like you don't.

[geek tragedy]

43. concern troll is concerned, nt

[H2O Man]

45. Legalize Lonnie Anderson's hair!

It MUST be done NOW!!!!! Before the SKY FALLS!!!!!

[HERVEPA]

50. Oh, just stuff it.

You're not very clever.

[peacebird]

51. "Saint Ronnie" did it, so why is it a disaster for dems, again..?

[Enrique]

53. if it would be a disaster for the Dems

then why would the GOP pass a bill for Obama to sign? Why would they save the Dems from disaster? And why would they give Obama his legacy as you call it?

[MerryBlooms]

54. Let the chips fall where they may, it's the right thing to do.

If you have trouble standing for what's right, that's on you, not the President or anyone else.

[TBF]

55. lol - pissed about that

are you? Good.

[2naSalit]

56. See below...

In case you weren't aware...

The president:

is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. He or she has the power to call into service the state units of the National Guard, and in times of emergency may be given the power by Congress to manage national security or the economy.
has the power make treaties with Senate approval. He or she can also receive ambassadors and work with leaders of other nations.
is responsible for nominating the heads of governmental departments, which the Senate must then approve. In addition, the president nominates judges to federal courts and justices to the United States Supreme Court.
can issue executive orders, which have the force of law but do not have to be approved by congress.
can issue pardons for federal offenses.
can convene Congress for special sessions.
can veto legislation approved by Congress. However, the veto is limited. It is not a line-item veto, meaning that he or she cannot veto only specific parts of legislation, and it can be overridden by a two-thirds vote by Congress.
delivers a State of the Union address annually to a joint session of Congress.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/executive_power

[alcibiades_mystery]

58. ROFL

I know it's a strong and good action when the obvious ones start objecting to it openly.

[scarystuffyo]

64. forgive me if I put party first

[pinboy3niner]

66. Which party?

[alcibiades_mystery]

71. Ha!

Burn.

It's hilarious how nearly everyone on this thread has already seen this one in action and just takes for granted what he's up to.



Obvious is obvious.

[B Calm]

62. Tell congress to get off their ass!

[abelenkpe]

67. Stop watching FOX nt

[Gman]

69. What? You think if Democrats don't do things

That make people mad that's how you win an election?

[frazzled]

73. It will be good for the country

and good for the immigrant population. And good for the rest of us.

That is what will drive the president. Your concern, however, is noted.

[BKH70041]

74. Serves 2 purposes.

I don't know about why people here support it, but Party leaders want it. Why?

1) They'll vote Democratic,
2) Cheap labor.

Votes and lower costs are hard to turn down, and shouldn't be.

[amandabeech]

82. The problem is that more non-Hispanic voters are seeing the "cheap labor" end of it.

That could come back to haunt us.

[BKH70041]

112. Where else do they have to go?

They'll come around. They always do.

[amandabeech]

128. They'll stay home or vote pub.

Maybe some of them did just that in the recent elections.

There are a lot of very alienated people out there.

[MineralMan]

75. On what do you base your prediction of disaster?

You're going to have to explain, since we have no idea about your expertise in such matters. So, run this down for us. Show your work.

[jazzimov]

77. Why?

[Vattel]

80. Because it is the right thing to do. (And it won't be a disaster.)

[MFM008]

84. Democrats will be

Toast to WHOM? Exactly... ewww fear the Rand Paul...if we ever start acting like democrats, someone might vote for us again.

[GeorgeGist]

85. Like Ebola?

[customerserviceguy]

86. Thank you for posting this

It will be a disaster for many reasons.

First, the election a couple of weeks ago has been seen in many, if not most of the areas of this country as a repudiation of the President and his policies. Yes, yes, there's lowered turnout, etc., but that simply means that the people who were willing to stand in line to vote when he was at the top of the ticket just simply couldn't be bothered when it came down to electing people who agreed with and backed up his agenda. That's just simply a loss, and people expect a loser to be a gracious loser. That means not ruling by fiat as your first official domestic policy act after receiving a vote of no confidence.

Second, this executive ordering involves other hard questions of fairness. It's well understood that when something goes through a normal legislative process, and passes, then not everybody will get 100% of what they want. When two or more sides will not compromise, then there is no legislation passed. That's what's happened on immigration law for a long time, going back into the GWB administration at least. Whatever plan the President signs into law by executive order will always be too much for some, and not enough for others.

Third, the optics of this will be all wrong, no matter what comes out. At this point, the expected proposals deal with people who illegally immigrated here, then had US citizen children here. It rewards fertility, and punishes abstenance, or at least the ability to responsibly use birth control. It sends the further message that all you have to do is come here, either give birth to a child or admit to being the father of a US born child, hide in the shadows for a number of years using fake ID's (something that would be called "identity theft" if you or I did it) and eventually you'll get to stay. It's no wonder the right wing uses the term "anchor babies", because that is precisely the result from what I expect the President's plan to encompass.

Fourth, the GOP will have a field day blaming this on the President, they'll charge him with creating a magnet for the poorest people to come here and clog the hospitals, schools, and eventually the courts with the children of undocumented workers who are living off of the welfare plans supplied to the child. In fact, I expect the boldest of them (not congresscritters necessarily, but RW talk show hosts especially) to sabatoge the plan, saying, "Yeah, go ahead and sign up for this, when we have control of 100% of the government, we'll know who you are and where to find you!" It will actually hurt relations in this country between Latino immigrants of any status and the majority population.

[JonLP24]

121. I'll be the first to support this and recognize the political danger

As far as to your third paragraph how else would you sensible address the issue of deporting parents of US citizens?

Besides, the risks & costs of having child doesn't outweigh the benefits of having a US born child. Maybe some short-term relief for safety net such as WIC, deportation low priority, etc. The child can't sponsor the parent for citizenship until 21. I don't think the grand bargain of a work permit will seriously entice people to have children here to help what? Also helps those without criminal records but there is literally no guarantee of citizenship so I don't see a serious risk of people doing this for little short term benefits which aren't benefits when weighed by the costs of not having these little benefits.

Fourth, I agree the GOP will have a field day but it doesn't matter what the truth is. "Amnesty" cracks me up. Immigration reform does more to beef up deportation then it does to help the broken system. Whether politically if it is enough or not, I don't know. But in reality, it is not enough.

[Cha]

88. Better question.. why are there a couple of members who aren't?

[YvonneCa]

91. ...

... Great answer!

[Cha]

98. They're scared!

JORGE RAMOS ✔ @jorgeramosnews
Follow
It'll be difficult for Republicans to reject executive action on immigration and not to be seen as anti-immigrant and anti-Latino.
6:07 AM - 16 Nov 2014 199 Retweets 180 favorites

AP Politics ✔ @AP_Politics
Follow
Obama move to shield immigrants from deportation has precedents; Reagan and Bush also did it: http://apne.ws/1yHFKmc
7:44 AM - 15 Nov 2014

http://theobamadiary.com/2014/11/16/another-tweet-or-two-5/

Mahalo Yvonne~

[YvonneCa]

109. Back at you...

...Cha.
SO GLAD he is pushing GOP on this. It's long past time...

[Savannahmann]

92. Because we don't want to lose the White House in 2016.

We've read the polls, and we know we are about to thumb our collective noses at the Voting Public. They may forgive/forget it. That's been known to happen, or they may turn their backs on the Democratic party through the next election. If they do, we'll see Rand Paul getting sworn in as President of the United States.

Now, would passing out Green Cards (the expected action to be announced this week) be worth losing the White House and Congress through at least 2022?

[geek tragedy]

96. So you favor deporting DREAMers then. nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

93. It's hilarious watching the

Usual under-bridgers come out of the woodwork over this.

[Cha]

99. EO on Immigration..

JORGE RAMOS ✔ @jorgeramosnews
Follow
It'll be difficult for Republicans to reject executive action on immigration and not to be seen as anti-immigrant and anti-Latino.
6:07 AM - 16 Nov 2014 199 Retweets 180 favorites

AP Politics ✔ @AP_Politics
Follow
Obama move to shield immigrants from deportation has precedents; Reagan and Bush also did it: http://apne.ws/1yHFKmc
7:44 AM - 15 Nov 2014

http://theobamadiary.com/2014/11/16/another-tweet-or-two-5/

[riversedge]

89. I support it If House does not act on the Senate comprehensive bill.

[Yupster]

117. Where does this idea come from

that one house of congress is obligated to act on what the other house of congress passes?

Where does that even come from? It is an idea that is so foreign to our Constitutional system of checks and balances and bicameral legislature.

[lumberjack_jeff]

94. The White House dials up the number of H1B visas each year via executive action.

No hair on fire about that.

[amandabeech]

129. Maybe no hair on fire, but hair does get singed regularly on the H1B topic.

I remember some quite clearly. There have been some H1B holders here on DU, and things did. get quite hot. You are right that this EO issue is getting more "ink."

[brush]

102. Why would it be a disaster?

Every president has used executive orders.

There's no election coming up to worry about. We no the repugs in charge in the House and Senate aren't going to do anything on immigration so I hope he does do it — the sooner the better.

It should have been done already.

Now tell me how you think it would be a disaster to help Democratic Party constituents' family members?

[Stellar]

105. Your conversation is purely Republic0n speak.

It stinks up to high heaven like every Republic0ns b.s. conversation.

[KingCharlemagne]

108. Because it's the right thing to do and Republicans are incapable of governing. - nt

[cry baby]

110. It's standing up on principle...and the disaster would be

if he did nothing because families would be split up when those 5 million are deported or continue hiding and not contributing fully to our American society.

Disaster for dems?? I don't think so.

[JonLP24]

119. Evaluating whether something should or should not be done

based on political consequences rather than whether it should be done is the problem with the system in a nutshell.

Not that doing the right there will change that. On foreign policy he was willing to play the game and delaying it until after the midterms is part of the game.

I gave up hope on meaningful change due to these compromises. I will say as far as the game is concerned, someone described it as Democrats moved to the center, Republicans moved to insanity.

[Old Nick]

124. It's already a disaster for 12 million people

And what the hell is Obama supposed to do? The Republicans have made clear time and time and time again that they'd rather North Korean troops camped on the Potomac than give any assistence to the President.

[JEB]

125. Because it is the right fucking thing to do for the people affected.