The GOP/TPers are using threats of government shut-down and impeachment to keep Obama from easing immigration via an executive order ~ here's more evidence that the GOP/TPers simply avoid doing any due diligence/fact-checking on anything they disagree with Obama on ~ IOW, on everything ~ ~ Sooz

On immigration, Obama may follow an existing trail
11/14/14 10:55 AM
By Steve Benen

To hear Republicans tell it, the outrage about President Obama’s likely executive actions on immigration is less about the policy and more about the legal principles. Presidents, the argument goes, simply aren’t supposed to shape immigration policy unilaterally – such actions are unprecedented, unconstitutional, and at odds with the American tradition.

The trouble, of course, is that if Obama does take policy steps on his own, he won’t be blazing a new trail; he’ll be following a trail that already exists. Mark Noferi had an interesting piece last week on some of this president’s recent predecessors.


When Congress failed to act, the Reagan administration decided to change the policy on its own, announcing that federal law enforcement would use its “discretion” and extend protections against deportations. And at that point, congressional Republicans condemned Reagan’s outrageous and dangerous abuses, calling for his immediate impeachment.

Wait, actually that never happened. My mistake.

A few years later, the Bush/Quayle administration pursued its own executive actions on immigration – again, without Congress – concluding that the law should be enforced “humanely” and without splitting up families.

George H.W. Bush wasn’t impeached, either.

Given the far-right apoplexy about Obama’s “unprecedented” actions, the public might be surprised to learn just how much precedent there is.


Now I’ve seen some persuasive arguments that Obama’s apparent plan is qualitatively different from these more limited measures. It’s a fair and accurate point – what this president reportedly has in mind goes further and affects more people. It’s not at all unreasonable to recognize a difference between modest actions and sweeping actions.

But if this political fight ultimately comes down to principle, it’s an argument Republicans will lose. The right’s case is simple: changes to immigration policy must come from congressionally approved legislation, not executive actions. Recent history clearly paints a very different picture.

If Republicans had gone hair-on-fire berserk about any of these other modern presidents using their powers in nearly identical ways, they might appear less craven now. But at this point, the GOP’s argument appears to boil down to, “Other presidents can change immigration policy through executive actions, but this one can’t.”

And that’s not a sustainable posture.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/immigration-obama-may-follow-existing-trail

Have I mentioned recently how totally/fully/completely I loathe the GOP/TPers' mindsets? ~ ~ Sooz

One week after the elections, GOP shutdown talk grows louder
11/14/14 08:00 AM—Updated 11/14/14 08:10 AM
By Steve Benen

It was just 10 days ago that Republican candidates won big in elections nationwide. It was just nine days ago that incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) publicly declared, “There will be no government shutdown or default on the national debt.”

But that was last week. This week, as Benjy Sarlin reports, many congressional Republicans are gearing up for yet another shutdown showdown.


Predicting the likely outcome of the fight is tricky, in part because no one has actually seen the White House’s executive actions that Republicans are already condemning, and in part because Republicans themselves are divided on how best to proceed.

For his part, McConnell said again yesterday that “there is no possibility of a government shutdown,” at least not in this session. Soon after, however, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) declared that “all options are on the table” when it comes to GOP opposition to the president’s policies.

Boehner’s posturing is very likely the result of pressure from his House Republican members, who tend to lead their leaders, rather than the other way around. Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.) has assembled 59 GOP lawmakers – and counting – who’ve endorsed a letter calling on Congress to “prohibit the use of funds by the administration for the implementation of current or future executive actions that would create additional work permits and green cards outside of the scope prescribed by Congress.”

To be sure, 59 is hardly a majority, but the number is growing and Republican fury isn’t subsiding.

If GOP lawmakers decide to pursue a shutdown strategy, here’s how it would work:

Current federal funding expires on Dec. 11, at which point the government would shut down (again). It’s been widely assumed that both the Republican-led House and Democratic-run Senate would approve spending measures to keep the lights on well into 2015.

But with Obama weighing action on immigration, conservative lawmakers have decided the spending bills give them leverage. If the president wants to prevent a mid-December shutdown, he’ll have to sign the measures Congress passes, so Republicans want to include provisions in the bill that would prevent the administration from curtailing deportations.

GOP lawmakers realize, of course, that the president would never sign such a bill, but they’re eager to push the gambit anyway.

It’s tempting to think Republicans wouldn’t shut down the government again, especially after last year’s fiasco, but therein lies the point: GOP officials realize that they forced a government shutdown for no apparent reason, humiliated themselves in the public’s eyes, and did real damage to the country, but a year later voters had forgotten all about it. Indeed, voters rewarded Republicans with expanded power anyway.

As a result, GOP lawmakers learned a lesson: they can engage in ridiculous antics, but the public will forget. In this case, if Republicans force a shutdown next month, they’ll have two full years before Americans vote again, at which point the standoff will be a distant memory.

Watch this space.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/one-week-after-the-elections-gop-shutdown-talk-grows-louder#break

Shut it down, then.

For his part, McConnell said again yesterday that “there is no possibility of a government shutdown,” at least not in this session. Soon after, however, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) declared that “all options are on the table” when it comes to GOP opposition to the president’s policies.

They haven't even been invested yet and already they are starting to tear their own guts out.

this is going to be a very difficult 2 years for DC. the GOP won't be spared from the difficulties.

Personally, using history as a guide, I see the GOP/TPers as being largely responsible for any difficulties ~

Sooz

That's why I said "shut it down". With a majority in both the House and the Senate they OWN the shutdown 100%.

No. They" have to shut down" government because of Obama's excessive spending, tax hikes, criminal behaviour, love of sharia law, the gay agenda as a whole and of course abortion.

Don't forget that FOX will work hard to convince half the population.

precisely. i can hear the champagne corks popping at DNC headquarters already!

I'm thinking the purely mean-spirited egoism of those who will "shut it down" hurts too many people who don't deserve it and will be harmed because they can't afford it ~

Sooz

Short term pain, sooz.

And the gain is as certain as the pain Oskar? See Jab's comment.

So far the pushback has been rather mild/correct/diplomatic and it hasn't worked and all indications are that it will continue to not work.

That's not the point of the exercise IMHO. As long as a large part of the population believes that the exercise kept Obama, the muslim gangster, anti-christ, communist or something like it, from destroying their America, it works.

Even more reason to let it happen.
Push them to the wall and they'll cave in a week, IMO.

Yeah! Evil extortionist Obama forces them to cave.
"Please send mo money so we can fight the evil one."

Deja vu all over again? ~ ~ to me personally, there is a vast difference between attacking/rejecting a policy and attacking/rejecting a person ~ but it seems the answer to Steve Benen's conclusionary question is simple, altho we need to go full circle to get to the answer ~ that answer is "because he's black" ~ Sooz

Unprecedented, except for all the other times
11/17/14 12:51 PM—Updated 11/17/14 01:26 PM
By Steve Benen

For Republicans, there is no bigger issue on the political landscape than President Obama taking executive actions on immigration. This one issue has driven GOP officials to raise the prospect of a government shutdown, presidential impeachment, and the defeat of every major legislative initiative of the next Congress.

But the problem Republicans can’t quite get around is the fact that Obama’s policy is likely to be awfully similar to what other modern presidents have done without incident.

We talked a bit about this on Friday, but a national report from the Associated Press has elevated this angle considerably.


There was no political explosion then comparable to the one Republicans are threatening now.

Over the last several days, GOP officials have sought to draw a distinction between limited, targeted executive actions, intended to advance the nation’s humanitarian and foreign policy goals, and the more sweeping policy Obama reportedly has in mind. And on this, the right has a compelling case to make – or at least half of a compelling case.

The Clinton administration, for example, adopted a deferred-action policy towards a modest number of Salvadoran immigrants as a result of their country’s civil war. The H.W. Bush administration took similar steps to protect Chinese students fearing persecution in 1990. The W. Bush administration issued an executive order expediting the naturalization process for green-card holders who enlisted in the United States military.

It’s not unreasonable to argue these measures are qualitatively – and quantitatively, for that matter – different from the kind of actions the Obama White House reportedly has in mind. Those recent examples set a precedent, but their scope and scale is dissimilar.

That’s only part of a larger story, however.

More from the AP report:


Congress considered expanding the law, but the effort ended up failing, prompting Reagan to act on his own. The Republican administration said it had “discretion” in how best to enforce federal law in this area, and in this case, Reagan used that executive power to derail deportations – if immigrant parents were given amnesty as part of the 1986 law, their kids could stay, too.

The problem persisted, though – the AP report noted that “spouses and children of couples in which one parent qualified for amnesty but the other did not remained subject to deportation.” So, in 1989, H.W. Bush took executive actions of his own to help keep families together.

Congress, rather than throwing a tantrum and impeaching the president, codified Bush’s policy into law soon after.

And while the narrow, limited orders related to Nicaraguan and Chinese immigrants are different from what Obama intends to do, these other measures from Reagan and Bush are actually quite similar.

Mark Noferi of the pro-immigration American Immigration Council, told the AP, “It’s a striking parallel. Bush Sr. went big at the time. He protected about 40 percent of the unauthorized population. Back then that was up to 1.5 million. Today that would be about 5 million.”

Congress hadn’t acted, a president saw a problem he could fix, so the executive branch relied on prosecutorial discretion to address a pressing issue, shielding a very large group of immigrants from deportation. We can debate whether the policies have merit, but to call the actions “unprecedented” simply isn’t correct.

What’s more, National Journal reports that these kinds actions go back even further.


It’s possible that today’s congressional Republicans have no idea that this history exists. It’s also possible they just don’t give a darn.

But for those who take the debate seriously, these precedents matter. The fact that Obama appears likely to follow a trail that’s already been blazed flips the burden back to freaked-out lawmakers – if previous Congresses didn’t descend into madness as a result of executive actions on immigration, why should this Congress behave differently?

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/unprecedented-except-all-the-other-times

Coburn doing what he does best: fanning the flames ~ what I find "interesting" is that there are so many GOP/TPer "constitutional experts" ~ ~ Brian Beutler's commentary [live-linked below] is itself a terrific read, and there are more "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

GOP senator warns of ‘anarchy’ and ‘violence’
11/20/14 09:05 AM
By Steve Benen

Former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele appeared on msnbc yesterday, and when host Alex Wagner asked what kind of advice he’d give his party’s leaders in Congress, Steele offered some sound advice. “The first would be, ‘Get a grip,’” he said.

Steele’s comments came to mind after reading this report published last night by USA Today.


The far-right senator went on to say, “Here’s how people think: Well, if the law doesn’t apply to the president … then why should it apply to me?”

It’s hard to know what to make of such an odd perspective. If Coburn is correct, why weren’t there similar outbursts of anarchy and violence when Presidents Reagan and Bush took very similar executive actions? If the masses are so deeply concerned about separation of powers and the often-ambiguous lines surrounding executive authority, wouldn’t we have seen instances of pandemonium before?

As a practical matter, I’m not even sure how this would work. The Obama administration has limited resources, so it appears likely to prioritize deportations for criminals who entered the country illegally. So, in Coburn’s vision, anti-immigrant activists will become violent, perhaps literally rioting in the street, until more unobtrusive families are broken up?

Brian Beutler reminded Republicans overnight that “just because right-wingers are blind with rage doesn’t mean Obama’s immigration action is illegal.”


“Get a grip,” indeed.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/gop-senator-warns-anarchy-and-violence

Coburn could be correct. Reckon he knows the rightwingnut mentality better than we do.

Add this as #7 to the following list: since the House GOP/TPers refuse to act on immigration, this is the most responsible and best action Obama can take ~ and it has the added benefit of pissing off the GOP/TPers ~ Sooz

All You Need To Know About Obama's Executive Action To Legalize 5 Million
By Sahil Kapur Published November 20, 2014, 6:00 PM EST

In a far-reaching move that could help shape his legacy, President Barack Obama will announce a series of executive actions on Thursday evening to shield some five million undocumented immigrants from the threat of deportation and let them temporarily work in the country.

He will expand an existing program to avoid targeting certain young people, and create a new program to relieve undocumented parents of Americans of deportation fears, senior administration officials told reporters in the White House ahead of the prime-time announcement.

Here are six important things to know about the announcement.

The cornerstone of Obama's executive action is a new "deferred action" program to authorize undocumented parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents temporarily live and work in the country, as long as they've resided here for at least 5 years and can show that their child was born before the date of Obama's announcement. This huge action covers more than 4 million people. Separately, Obama will expand his 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which currently covers people born after 1981 who came to the country before June 15, 2007 — the expanded program will scrap the age cap and move the cutoff date to January 1, 2010. It's expected to cover some 270,000 new so-called DREAMers.

Despite intense lobbying by immigrant-rights groups, the action will not cover parents of DREAMers, or DACA beneficiaries. A senior administration official said that after an exhaustive review of the White House's legal options, "we made a determination that the law essentially did not support that. ... By executive action he can only do so much."

This action is temporary, and can be reversed by the next president. "It is not a pathway to citizenship," a senior administration official stressed, saying that the administration will begin accepting applications in the spring (potentially sooner for the expanded DACA program). Each applicant will be required to pass a background check to receive what will be a three-year work authorization under both programs. They'll also have to pay taxes and stay on the right side of the law. Their reprieves and work permits are granted on the basis of the longstanding exercise of prosecutorial discretion, and can be revoked at any time at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security.

Obama's executive actions will also require immigration officials to shift their enforcement priorities to target gang members, felons, suspected terrorists or those who are believed to pose national security threats. These people will be listed as the highest priority for deportation, as will anybody who enters the country after January 1, 2014. That's good news for people who entered before that date and haven't committed crimes or serious misdemeanors. They won't be able to apply for formal protection from deportation, but administration officials say they won't be targets for removal.

"We're going to be focused on deporting felons, not families," one senior administration official said, adding that the White House will be "aggressive" in communicating to the rest of the world that people who come to the U.S. on or after January 1, 2014 will be ineligible for any relief.

Republicans are gearing up to mount a massive backlash that could include a government shutdown standoff or a lawsuit. The conservative base is apoplectic about Obama's actions, and rank-and-file GOP lawmakers are floating everything from impeachment to jailing the president. House Speaker John Boehner's (R-OH) office dubbed him "Emperor Obama" ahead of the announcement. Incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has vowed that "Congress will act" to counteract Obama. Many congressional Republicans — led by Sen. Jeff Sessions (AL), Sen Ted Cruz (TX) and more than 50 House members — are pushing to use the budget process to prohibit the federal government from spending any money to give work permits to undocumented immigrants.

Obama officials admit Congress may have the power to do that, but they caution that he wouldn't sign such a bill. "I'm sure they're going to spend a lot of energy thinking of creative ways to stop us, either through funding bills or other," one official said. "But either way it's a largely irrelevant point because that will, in and of itself, be something the president would veto."

The politics of Obama's move are explosive and could reshape 2016 presidential race. The reactions stand to sharpen the contrast between Democrats and Republicans, which is particularly salient among Hispanics, who broadly support immigration relief. Pledging to overturn Obama's actions could become a litmus test in the GOP primary, if Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and other opponents demand as much. That could make life miserable for the eventual Republican nominee in the general election, where Hispanic voters, who helped give Obama two terms in office, are likely to again play an important role. Meanwhile, in a sign that Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton may be on board, her husband and former President Bill Clinton said Wednesday that Obama is on "pretty firm legal footing" to act unilaterally on immigration. House and Senate Democratic leaders have likewise vowed to strongly support the president's actions. One politically perilous scenario for Obama, however, is if congressional Democrats start defecting and elevate the pressure on the White House to reconsider.

A lawsuit against Obama's actions has little chance of success. At least five Republican governors and Speaker John Boehner are considering suing Obama for what they say is an illegal move. But aside from the fact that a lawsuit likely won't be settled until Obama is out of office, legal precedent gives the president the advantage. Former presidents, including Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, used executive action to defer the deportations of certain categories of immigrants and give them work permits. In 1989, Bush shielded some 40 percent of the undocumented population from deportation; Obama's programs will apply to the same fraction of today's unlawful immigrants. As recently as 2012, the Supreme Court affirmed the wide latitude that immigration officials have in deciding who to target for deportations.

"Removal is a civil matter," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy in Arizona v. U.S., joined by four other justices, "and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/obama-legalize-five-million-undocumented-immigrants

New acronym to remember and use frequently: GFQ! ~ ~ Sooz

Understanding the Obama Executive Order Firestorm
By Josh Marshall Published November 20, 2014, 4:27 PM EST


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/understanding-the-obama-executive-order-firestorm

I noticed the sky is still up there. Has Congress canceled their holidays to deal with the imminent catastrophe?

that's what's happening, for sure. Reading the comments sections of National Review Online et al, half their readers are just despairing and the other half are calling for insurrection of one kind or another. I gotta say, I'm feeling some Schadenfruede.

Schadenfreude, OpaTom!

Ja, Schadenfreude. Verzeihung bitte, Jab.i