Talk politics.

The Thursday issue is that Obama isn't circumventing Congress enough in dealing with an urgent issue.

From:

That's what's being reported. What's being stated by House Republicans is that he's not using existing law enough to deal with the urgent issue. Here's the full statement (http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/statement-house-gop-leaders-border-bill), and the key points I'll bold:

This situation shows the intense concern within our conference – and among the American people – about the need to ensure the security of our borders and the president’s refusal to faithfully execute our laws. There are numerous steps the president can and should be taking right now, without the need for congressional action, to secure our borders and ensure these children are returned swiftly and safely to their countries. For the past month, the House has been engaged in intensive efforts to pass legislation that would compel the president to do his job and ensure it can be done as quickly and compassionately as possible. Through an inclusive process, a border bill was built by listening to members and the American people that has the support not just of a majority of the majority in the House, but most of the House Republican Conference. We will continue to work on solutions to the border crisis and other challenges facing our country - See more at: http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/statement-house-gop-leaders-border-bill#sthash.uzD0VW3M.dpuf

From:

And this says nothing of Congress having accepted any bills, only assurances how hard they're trying.

From:

Well, there's some issues in the House with essentially three competing programs, and the House has no faith in the Senate taking up many of their bills anyway, so there is some genuine gridlock. That does not give the President an excuse to not use existing law (the point of the Thursday statement) or to circumvent Congress (the point of the Wednesday lawsuit).

From:

I get it, simply put, and behind all the partisan spin and bullshit technicalities, they expect him to do something they can then rant about, and sue him over. ;-)

From:

They believe that he's already done that, thus the lawsuit from Wednesday.

From:

I'm sure they do. They also believe they could gain some political points out of this debacle.

What they believe and what reality is, could turn out to be two very different things though - on both accounts.

From:

Indeed. But not contradictory. :)

From:

fizzyland.livejournal.com

That lawsuit is going nowhere and you know it.

From:

I don't really disagree, although I consider it a pretty interesting tactic from a purely observational standpoint.

From:

telemann.livejournal.com

The lawsuit maybe a way to head off the "impeachment" talk. And it's meant to give the far right Republicans a way to vent off all that Obama rage, well according to Rachel Maddow. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/07/31/maddow_impeachment_threat_electrifies_democratic_base.html) I agree House leadership doesn't want the public spectacle of impeachment hearings, particularly after how badly that went with Bill Clinton.

From:

fizzyland.livejournal.com

The Senate has to initiate Impeachment, if I remember my civics.

From:

telemann.livejournal.com

I sort of remember the debate of the precise meaning for the words and their proper uses in the 1990s.
But yeah the House has to vote to bring charges. Then the Senate holds a legal proceeding, to consider removal from office. But the word Impeachment is on the ticket for President Clinton's Senate trial.

From:

If there are already laws on the books that the president is not enforcing why pass new ones?

From:

Such as...? Or have you just been parroting the generalities that your chosen talking heads have been spewing from the political pulpit?

From:

I'm not sure, but that does seem to be the question of the day.

I mean we have a lot of commentators going on about how these people are fleeing violence and persecution in their home countries but if that is the case why are they not being processed as refugees and asylum seekers? I'm pretty sure the president (or rather DHS) has actual legal powers in this regard so why the attempted end run with talk of blanket amnesty?

Edited Date: 6/8/14 17:50 (UTC)

From:

That's not an answer to what I asked.

From:

Such as this: http://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum

Or is this just another case of the Democrats and their supporters cynically playing the "Somebody think of the children!" card in the hopes that the opposition will shut up and go away.

Edited Date: 7/8/14 16:24 (UTC)

From:

I thought you would've learned by now I don't give a dog's poop about your petty partisan skirmishes over there. Cite a law you expect being invoked, and specify its manner of use in this case, or I shall consider your evasion attempts as a sign of lack of arguments.

From:

I did.

I pointed out that the DHS's office of Citizenship and Immigration Services alrealdy has a legal process in place for expediting the immigration and naturalization of those who are fleeing violence and/or persecution in their home countries.

If these people really are refugees and asylum seekers as the OP and others have claimed, why are they not being processed as refugees and asylum seekers? Why push for blanket amnesty?

The answer I suspect is that either those claims of violence and/or persecution will not stand up to scrutiny, or that the stated motivations are not true motivations. The whole mess stinks.

From:

luzribeiro.livejournal.com

Right. It's all been a vast conspiracy all throughout, spanning an entire continent. Obama first gave those people false promises of amnesty, then instructed all those human traffickers to trick the Central American kids into believing it was true, and now that they've arrived knocking at the door, he wants to turn them into Democrat voters.

You guys are so precious. The whole world is after poor little oppressed conservatives, desperately trying to craft all sorts of sophisticated schemes to steal their God-given freedoms. Or something.

From: