55% of Americans think Obama's immigration EOs should stand

[KingOrfeo]

According to a new CBS poll. See also here.

Two months ago, Obama announced that he would exercise his executive authority to spare up to 5 million unauthorized immigrants from deportation, provided they could demonstrate family ties and pass a background check. In the CBS poll, 62 percent of respondents indicated they supported allowing unauthorized immigrants to remain in the U.S. temporarily and apply for work permits if they met such requirements.

Americans were far more divided on the question of whether Obama’s actions constitute a proper use of his authority. A slight plurality of respondents — 48 percent — said Obama acted within his purview as chief executive, while 46 percent said he did not.

Presidents have historically exercised executive discretion on deportations, as when GOP Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush granted deportation reprieves to some unauthorized immigrants.

While Americans split on the question of whether Obama acted within his authority, a substantial majority — 55 percent — said that his actions should be allowed to stand. Only 40 percent said that Congress should scuttle the president’s policy.

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

But then we have a Republican form of government, and then there is the law of the land.

Oh and Salon, true to it's ideology tries to compare what Obama is doing to what Bush did, which is a very false equivalency, since Bush was acting under legislative authority. They also have a dead link to the poll, so it's methodology cannot be investigated.

How dare Salon compare Bush's actions to Obama's actions! It's soooo not fair.

#UnitedStatesMarineCaterwaul

 

[KingOrfeo]

They also have a dead link to the poll . . .

It works for me -- and, I linked to that article too, for good measure.

 

[KingOrfeo]

But then we have a Republican form of government . . .

You wish! No, we have a republican form of government. Small "r."

. . . and then there is the law of the land.

Which is unclear and unsettled, WRT to the permissible constitutional scope of EOs.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Where is the methodology?

At the bottom.

This poll was conducted by telephone January 9-12, 2015 among 1,001 adults nationwide. Data collection was conducted on behalf of CBS News by SSRS of Media, PA. Phone numbers were dialed from samples of both standard land-line and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The error for subgroups may be higher. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Read Art I Section 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Nope, WRT to the permissible scope of EOs, that don't clear it up none; and it is quite incredibly stupid of you to suggest it might.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Nope, WRT to the permissible scope of EOs, that don't clear it up none; and it is quite incredibly stupid of you to suggest it might.

How stupid do you rate it on a scale of 1-to-Query?

 

[cowslinger64]

But then we have a Republican form of government, and then there is the law of the land.

Oh and Salon, true to it's ideology tries to compare what Obama is doing to what Bush did, which is a very false equivalency, since Bush was acting under legislative authority. They also have a dead link to the poll, so it's methodology cannot be investigated.

Those legislative bodies weren't trying to destroy the country like these.. All to keep the brutha in the White House from having any success even though those policies were beneficial to the American people they should be more concerned about.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

The problem is, the President is exceeding his authority, regardless of benefits to people. We do have a fucking legal system.

Which has yet to rule on that question.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The President cannot create rights, or bestow benefits. Get a clue. He must act with legislative authority.

That is no legal argument.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

I see kingofAssRetards is busy posting his bullshit

his welfare check must have came today

 

[BotanyBoy]

The problem is, the President is exceeding his authority.

All day every day...you bitch and complain about how unconstitutional and illigal and outside his authority Obama goes.

Yet not a SINGLE FUCKING fucking republican has ever done fuck all about it....

Not a SINGLE attempt to hold him responsible for the multitude of treasonous offences he makes on an hourly basis according to you.......

Ever stop and ask yourself why? Ever think it might be because you're full of shit and a fringe nut job?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The problem is, the President is exceeding his authority, regardless of benefits to people. We do have a fucking legal system.

In 2017 our Usual Suspects will sing a different tune when a new broom sweeps all of Obamullah's shit outta the White House. His shit isn't immortal.

 

[KingOrfeo]

. . . Obamullah's . . .

Lamer than lame.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The problem is, the President is exceeding his authority. . .

But, that's not really the problem, is it?

I’m hardly the first to make this point, but because it’s such a popular rhetorical tactic in our politics, it bears repeating: Policy arguments that focus on form and process instead of substance are, with notably rare exceptions, a disingenuous waste of everyone’s time.

For example: Because Republican politicians have so often worked themselves into high dudgeon over the way the Affordable Care Act cleared the U.S. Senate, a casual observer could be forgiven for assuming that opposition to reconciliation is a bedrock principle of modern-day conservatism. It is not. But arguing that the other side isn’t playing by the rules is sometimes easier, politically, than engaging in an actual policy debate — especially if your preferred policy is to allow insurers to deny sick children coverage and to renege on guaranteed healthcare for millions.

Confusing the issue is even more of an imperative if your chosen policy on a hot-button issue like immigration is to either maintain an unpopular status quo or to deport more than 11 million. And that, essentially, is the position congressional Republicans find themselves in right now, which was made crystal clear in the House on Wednesday, when the vast majority of GOPers voted to repeal President Obama’s recent unilateral moves to reduce undocumented immigrant deportations. It wasn’t much of a surprise, then, to see Speaker John Boehner try to frame the vote as having little to do with immigration policy per se, and everything to do with reversing an “executive overreach [that] is an affront to the rule of law” and a threat to the Constitution.

That said, the vote happened less than 48 hours ago. So, yes, I am a bit taken aback by a report from Politico that shows the Republicans’ facade of Constitution-fetishism and fealty to tradition has already crumbled. But that’s the unavoidable conclusion to be drawn from the article, which offers a preview of the agenda House Tea Partyers plan to unveil to their fellow Republicans during a GOP-only retreat. It’s an agenda that, in two key respects, has the ultimate goal of amending the Constitution.

One of the proposed amendments, Politico reports, would force the federal government to balance the budget, something conservatives have been trying, to no avail, to pass for decades. It’s a terrible idea, but it’s also pretty ho-hum at this point, too. However, their other proposal for how to make a document they usually speak of as nearly biblical in its sanctity even better is newer — and if it were to be accepted by anyone in the party outside its Tea Party fringe, it would represent a significant nativist shift on immigration from the GOP. It’s a proposal to tweak that pesky 14th Amendment in order to combat the phantom menace of “anchor babies” and end the long-standing U.S. practice of birthright citizenship. Needless to say, Steve King, the leader of what pro-immigration reform GOP aides derisively call the “boxcar crowd” (as in, they want to round the nation’s undocumented immigrants into boxcars for eventual deportation), is leading the charge.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

it's always the problem.

Was it a problem during the W years? He was certainly a far worse offender in that regard.

 

[BotanyBoy]

But, that's not really the problem, is it?

it's always the problem.

The two most partisan fringe loons on the board..
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02847/Steve-Irwin-crocod_2847616b.jpg
..locked in a battle of derps!!