Obama flip flops - on himself

"WASHINGTON — President Obama is poised to ignore stark warnings that executive action on immigration would amount to “violating our laws” and would be “very difficult to defend legally.”

Those warnings came not from Republican lawmakers but from Mr. Obama himself.

For years, he has waved aside the demands of Latino activists and Democratic allies who begged him to act on his own, and he insisted publicly that a decision to shield millions of immigrants from deportation without an act of Congress would amount to nothing less than the dictates of a king, not a president.

In a Telemundo interview in September 2013, Mr. Obama said he was proud of having protected the “Dreamers” — people who came to the United States illegally as young children — from deportation. But he also said that he could not apply that same action to other groups of people.

“If we start broadening that, then essentially I’ll be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally,” Mr. Obama told Jose Diaz-Balart in the interview. “So that’s not an option.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/18/us/by-using-executive-order-on-immigration-obama-would-reverse-long-held-stance.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

But he also said that he could not apply that same action to other groups of people.

“If we start broadening that, then essentially I’ll be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally,” Mr. Obama told Jose Diaz-Balart in the interview. “So that’s not an option.”

So where did he say he could not apply that same action to other groups of people.......I quoted what he said.....please reconcile your lie.

The use of broadening means to go beyond what is existing. Currently deportation deferral is happening and to continue to do the same in no way fits the implication you tried to achieve by saying that same action could not be applied to other groups of people. Nonsense. The law is clear. He has that power. Other Presidents have done what he is about to do. Sorry, there is no flip flop. Just incredible lies by folks who think that deportation deferral is unconstitutional.......nope.

ppaca wrote:

nice!

2seaoat wrote:[b]

So where did he say he could not apply that same action to other groups of people.......I quoted what he said.....please reconcile your lie.

The use of broadening means to go beyond what is existing.  Currently deportation deferral is happening and to continue to do the same in no way fits the implication you tried to achieve by saying that same action could not be applied to other groups of people.  Nonsense.  The law is clear.  He has that power.  Other Presidents have done what he is about to do.   Sorry, there is no flip flop.   Just incredible lies by folks who think that deportation deferral is unconstitutional.......nope.

Hey Loon, I didn't even make a comment on the article. If you knew how to follow a simple article you would realize that simple fact.

What a simple minded drone but I keep forgetting where you draw your misguided conclusions:

Gatorfan,

Seaoat doesn't agree with you.  But this writer for The New York Times does.

For Obama, Executive Order on Immigration Would Be a Turnabout

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/18/us/by-using-executive-order-on-immigration-obama-would-reverse-long-held-stance.html?_r=0

Bob wrote:Gatorfan,

Seaoat doesn't agree with you.  But this writer for The New York Times does.

For Obama, Executive Order on Immigration Would Be a Turnabout

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/18/us/by-using-executive-order-on-immigration-obama-would-reverse-long-held-stance.html?_r=0

LOL. True but then 2SO would disagree with me if I looked at the atomic clock and told him what time it was.

Wordslinger wrote:There are a lot of us who are deeply pissed at the fact our broken immigration laws and enforcement have been unable to compromise and patch the law -- because the republicans, in their overwhelming zeal to sink America's first black president opted to stall anything the administration wanted, immigration law reform fell into the same abyss that is still making congress a symbol of dysfunction.

Immigration reform needs immediate attention but to fault only the idiot Repubes is disingenuous at best, outrageously hypocritical at worst. Dumbocrats had the opportunity in '08 to do something but chose to chase the pipe dream of the ACA instead. Now you have Bonehead Boehner sitting on a perfectly acceptable bi-partisan reform bill from the Senate.

If a child was brought to the states and is still here as an "illegal" they should be granted immunity from deportation until they achieve citizenship. Barriers to that citizenship process should be reviewed and the process simplified so they can achieve their goal without insurmountable obstacles.

Illegal adults? Not so sure how I would approach that problem but we should not break up established families, particularly for those who have broken no other law except having slipped into the country under the radar.

gatorfan wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:There are a lot of us who are deeply pissed at the fact our broken immigration laws and enforcement have been unable to compromise and patch the law -- because the republicans, in their overwhelming zeal to sink America's first black president opted to stall anything the administration wanted, immigration law reform fell into the same abyss that is still making congress a symbol of dysfunction.

Immigration reform needs immediate attention but to fault only the idiot Repubes is disingenuous at best, outrageously hypocritical at worst. Dumbocrats had the opportunity in '08 to do something but chose to chase the pipe dream of the ACA instead. Now you have Bonehead Boehner sitting on a perfectly acceptable bi-partisan reform bill from the Senate.

If a child was brought to the states and is still here as an "illegal" they should be granted immunity from deportation until they achieve citizenship. Barriers to that citizenship process should be reviewed and the process simplified so they can achieve their goal without insurmountable obstacles.

Illegal adults? Not so sure how I would approach that problem but we should not break up established families, particularly for those who have broken no other law except having slipped into the country under the radar.

I agree with you on the above, completely!

What I and some 63% of voting Americans who chose not to vote this last midterm election share is total disgust at Washington -- Republican and Democrats -- using immigration as an example, both sides agree the current law and enforcement policies greatly need to be corrected.

Yet, once again, the republicans in their zeal to hurt the president, are willing to sacrifice immigration reform which would be good for all of America. Hell, they are even willing to sacrifice any sincere try at compromise.

I say screw the democrats and republicans for their entrenched unwillingness to compromise on ANYTHING regardless of the costs to the people they are supposed to serve.

Who really gives a shit whether it's a democrat or republican win that results in a law being passed that corrects something bad for America?

Screw Amerika Inc.! Control of our government through campaign financing.

Wordslinger wrote:

I say screw the democrats and republicans for their entrenched unwillingness to compromise on ANYTHING regardless of the costs to the people they are supposed to serve.

Who really gives a shit whether it's a democrat or republican win that results in a law being passed that corrects something bad for America?

Exactly, that's why I can't stand either party. They are more alike than different so it really amuses me on here to read how several posters blame everything on one side when it takes two to Tango as they say.