Type to search

Surrender: Government-By-Crisis Fails The GOP Again

Memo Pad Politics

Surrender: Government-By-Crisis Fails The GOP Again

Share

Ever since Republicans first devised their ill-conceived plan to use funding for the Department of Homeland Security as a hostage in hopes of forcing President Obama to abandon his immigration policy, the gambit was doomed to eventual failure.

On Tuesday, the debacle reached its logical conclusion. Hours after Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) acknowledged defeat, the House of Representatives ended the game and passed a bill funding DHS through September, without preconditions. The bill passed the house 257 to 167, with just 75 Republicans joining the Democratic minority to keep the department open.

There was never any real doubt that this would be the outcome. Since the equally poorly-thought-out government shutdown of 2013, President Obama has made it clear that he will not give in to Republican attempts to use must-pass spending bills to blackmail him into dismantling his agenda. The Department of Homeland Security was always a poor target for a hostage, given its importance to national security — and the fact that shutting it down would do nothing to stop President Obama’s executive actions on immigration. And voters were always going to blame Republicans, not Democrats, for a crisis that the GOP created.

Still, House Republicans insisted on dragging the crisis out until the last second, and managed to undermine Speaker Boehner’s tenuous authority in the process. Yet again.

So will this latest humiliation convince Boehner and his caucus to rethink their strategy of government-by-crisis? It’s unlikely; if the “fiscal cliff,” the government shutdown, and repeated debt ceiling standoffs (among other House-made emergencies) didn’t change their course, there’s no reason to believe that the DHS near-shutdown will be different.

In related news, on Tuesday the Congressional Budget Office announced that the debt ceiling will have to be increased in October or November.

Photo: Speaker Boehner via Flickr

Tags:
Henry Decker

Henry Decker was formerly the Managing Editor of The National Memo. He is currently an Online Associate at MRCampaigns.

  • 1

75 Comments

  1. Lynda Groom March 3, 2015

    I bettcha that today the committees to replace those 75 republicans who joined with Nancy to pass this bill are underway.

    Reply
    1. stcroixcarp March 4, 2015

      I love Nancy Pelosi.

      Reply
  2. fortunev March 3, 2015

    Bluster, lies and threats. Hallmark of rethuglican political philosophy.

    Reply
  3. FireBaron March 4, 2015

    Sort of says something when only 75 Republicans are actually concerned with governing.

    Reply
  4. itsfun March 4, 2015

    No need to worry, the gutless GOP will always fall in line.

    Reply
  5. James Bowen March 4, 2015

    Let’s hope the courts stop this illegal amnesty, and that Congress can find it in themselves to reassert their Constitutional authority in such matters.

    Reply
    1. highpckts March 4, 2015

      Let’s hope not!!! It is not illegal nor unconstitutional except when a black President does this!! Reagan did it! Bush did it!

      Reply
      1. James Bowen March 4, 2015

        Reagan and Bush did no such thing. They issued executive orders that facilitated the enforcement of laws that Congress passed. This President nullified existing law, which is as unconstitutional as it gets.

        Reply
        1. drdroad March 4, 2015

          Please tell me why a President would have to issue an Executive Order to ‘facilitate’ laws passed by Congress. If that were true, Presidents would be CONSTANTLY issuing Executive Orders. What both Reagan and Bush both did was issue an Executive Order to handle a gap in the law that Congress forgot to put in the bill. So the only difference here is the REASON the 3 President issued the Immigration Executive Orders. Still, all 3 did the exact same thing, issued Executive Orders to supplement laws that were NOT on the books. In the Reagan and Bush case Congress later passed laws reflecting the Executive Orders issued by each President. That doesn’t change the fact that they issued these orders changing deportations, just like President Obama did.

          Reply
          1. James Bowen March 4, 2015

            There is no gap in the law regarding these aliens–they are illegal, end of story. They do not belong here, have no business here, are not entitled to work here, and we certainly don’t need them to compete with our own beleaguered workers. The orders Reagan and Bush issued affected far, far fewer people and they were people who were entitled to amnesty under that law Congress passed in 1986.

            President to in fact routinely issue executive orders. It is part of their job. However, those executive orders must comply with existing law. Didn’t we all learn in the 5th grade that the President many not just disregard or nullify laws he doesn’t like?

            Reply
          2. drdroad March 4, 2015

            You need to do some research. Sounds like you are saying the difference is the amount of illegals covered by each of the 3 Executive Orders.

            http://www.businessinsider.com/reagan-and-bush-made-immigration-executive-orders-2014-11

            Reply
          3. James Bowen March 4, 2015

            No, that was not the only difference, although it was a big one. Those aliens covered by Reagan and Bush were arguably eligible for the amnesty. See the following: http://www.cis.org/Obama-Deferred-Action-Amnest-Executive-Action-Unconstitutional. All of this is good, but section D. is relevant to the question at hand.

            Reply
          4. Independent1 March 8, 2015

            You just keep spreading the lies of the CIS onward, DON’T YOU CLUELESS!! THE CIS IS A PACK OF LIARS!!!!!!! WAKE UP!!!!!

            Reply
          5. James Bowen March 9, 2015

            Do you have evidence for such a charge? They get most of their data from open source government documents.

            Reply
          6. James Bowen March 9, 2015

            Do you have evidence for such a charge? They get most of their data from open source government documents.

            Reply
          7. James Bowen March 9, 2015

            Do you have evidence for such a charge? They get most of their data from open source government documents.

            Reply
          8. Independent1 March 8, 2015

            When are you going to stop being a clueless bigoted hypocrite?? EVER???

            Reply
          9. James Bowen March 9, 2015

            As you can see from the sources I have given you, I am quite informed on this issue.

            Reply
          10. Independent1 March 9, 2015

            Yeah right!! You’re informed just like all the millions of other clueless RWNJs who are so informed by Faux News and other RWNJ sites and outlets that they’re dumber than people who don’t watch any news with respect to the truth and reality. Keep on informing yourself from those sources that do nothing but spew lies, distortions of the truth and fabrications of reality!!! And you’ll stay just as DUMB AS YOU ARE TODAY!!!!

            Reply
          11. James Bowen March 9, 2015

            Show me evidence that these sources are lying.

            Reply
          12. James Bowen March 9, 2015

            Show me evidence that these sources are lying.

            Reply
          13. Independent1 March 9, 2015

            Why waste my time?? Myself and numerous other posters on the NM have repeatedly proven that your rhetoric is complete bullshit and you clearly refuse to believe reality when you see it.

            Go bury your head in the sand and go post somewhere else because no one on the NM aside from your idiotic RWNJ buddies are going to believe one word of your demented, fabricated nonsense.

            Reply
          14. James Bowen March 9, 2015

            What proof? What you have linked and posted has either been refuted by links of my own and then some or actually supported what I was saying.

            Reply
          15. James Bowen March 9, 2015

            Show me evidence that these sources are lying.

            Reply
          16. Independent1 March 9, 2015

            Yeah right!! You’re informed just like all the millions of other clueless RWNJs who are so informed by Faux News and other RWNJ sites and outlets that they’re dumber than people who don’t watch any news with respect to the truth and reality. Keep on informing yourself from those sources that do nothing but spew lies, distortions of the truth and fabrications of reality!!! And you’ll stay just as DUMB AS YOU ARE TODAY!!!!

            Reply
          17. Independent1 March 9, 2015

            Yeah right!! You’re informed just like all the millions of other clueless RWNJs who are so informed by Faux News and other RWNJ sites and outlets that they’re dumber than people who don’t watch any news with respect to the truth and reality. Keep on informing yourself from those sources that do nothing but spew lies, distortions of the truth and fabrications of reality!!! And you’ll stay just as DUMB AS YOU ARE TODAY!!!!

            Reply
          18. James Bowen March 9, 2015

            As you can see from the sources I have given you, I am quite informed on this issue.

            Reply
          19. James Bowen March 9, 2015

            As you can see from the sources I have given you, I am quite informed on this issue.

            Reply
          20. stcroixcarp March 4, 2015

            No we don’t need these aliens, these illegals to compete with our own beleaguered workers, but we do need them to harvest the food we eat, and to clean up the messes we make and to take care of our children all for wages below the legal minimum. We need them so that our poor beleaguered corporations can make more profit that they can donate more to political campaigns. If you want to deport all the illegals, why not make their employers pay the cost of deportation. Us good taxpayers shouldn’t have to dig into our pockets.

            Reply
          21. James Bowen March 4, 2015

            We most certainly do not need them to harvest our food. Ag laborers are probably the most glutted occupation in the U.S. (and grain farms use machines, operated by the owner him/herself, to harvest). Also, most people do not make enough money to hire nannies for their kids.

            I am all for wrecking the employers who insist on hiring illegals. They are the ones who have caused this problem. However, we do not need to deport all the illegals. We simply need to enforce the laws in the workplace and take away their jobs. Without jobs, they have no reason to stay.

            Reply
          22. stcroixcarp March 4, 2015

            Have you been to a modern dairy farm? Have you seen vegetable farms and fruit orchards?
            You say we don’t have to deport ALL the illegals. Which ones would you let stay? There are over 11,000 illegal Irish immigrants living and working in New York City. How about we deport those first, then the Canadians, the Italians and the French. Would that make a big enough dent in the illegal population?

            Reply
          23. James Bowen March 4, 2015

            Yes, deport those Irish, French, and Italians too. Illegal means illegal. The problem is the numbers, not where they are from.

            Yes, it is the produce growers and the dairy farmers that are the worst ag offenders. The solution, as I said, is to enforce the laws in the workplace to deny illegals jobs and to ensure employing an illegal is far more costly than it is profitable.

            Reply
          24. JPHALL March 4, 2015

            You obviously do not know anything about American agriculture. What about tree fruits and nuts? What about vegetables? What about meat production? Machines do not handle this work. People do the work.
            Get off the ideological band wagon and breathe the air of reality. You want to stop illegal immigration? Dream on. The business bosses who rule the Republican party will not allow it, since they fought to stop workplace deportations. People are risking their life’s to get and stay here so your ideas are like sticking your finger in a break in the Hoover Dam. Sounds good, but not workable.

            Reply
          25. James Bowen March 5, 2015

            We take away their jobs, and they will leave more quickly than they came. We have done it before, and we can do it again. Just about every other nation on the planet that is not in a state of anarchy is able to. We should never, ever surrender to the forces of greed and corruption which undermine laws designed to protect our livelihoods. By the way, it was the current administration which halted workplace enforcement.

            Ranches on the Great Plains and elsewhere are highly mechanized operations where the owners do most of the work themselves with little if any hired help (my grandfather was a rancher in South Dakota). So raising meat is highly mechanized. As for the produce, in Europe machines are used for harvest. If they can do it, so can we. Until then, however, growers should be required to hire legal workers just like everyone else. If they can’t find enough people to do the job (which I highly doubt), they will just have to raise their wages. That’s how the free market works. Employers love to extoll the wonders of the free market until it works against them, then they ask everyone else to subsidize the cost of their cheap labor for them.

            Reply
          26. JPHALL March 8, 2015

            YOU REALLY LIVE IN A STATE OF DENIAL! All your noise is like the Republican Congress. Self serving and not very helpful. Have you checked out a meat, fruit or vegetable processing plant lately? The only legals are the family or corporation that own it and those they have hired to speak to their labor force!
            Subject: Re: Comment on Surrender: Government-By-Crisis Fails The GOP Again

            Reply
          27. James Bowen March 9, 2015

            So what? If the law is enforced in the workplace, these employers would be forced to hire Americans. When ICE raided several Swift meat processing plants in December 2006, native-born workers lined up for those jobs.

            Reply
          28. James Bowen March 9, 2015

            So what? If the law is enforced in the workplace, these employers would be forced to hire Americans. When ICE raided several Swift meat processing plants in December 2006, native-born workers lined up for those jobs.

            Reply
          29. James Bowen March 9, 2015

            So what? If the law is enforced in the workplace, these employers would be forced to hire Americans. When ICE raided several Swift meat processing plants in December 2006, native-born workers lined up for those jobs.

            Reply
          30. JPHALL March 9, 2015

            But as I have stated before your proposal will never be enacted. Every time it comes up the politicians bury it, then go on TV talking about actually doing it. Subject: Re: Comment on Surrender: Government-By-Crisis Fails The GOP Again

            Reply
          31. James Bowen March 10, 2015

            You don’t know that. The idea of enforcing the laws in the workplace is very popular. It has also been done at the state level, to the extent they are allowed to, with considerable success in Arizona and Alabama.

            Reply
          32. JPHALL March 10, 2015

            ONCE AGAIN YOU ARE LOST IN YOUR OWN DELUSIONS. You condemn the left for not being realistic about the world and yet you insist on a solution that never work for long periods of time. In America, money talks and principles are bought and sold.
            Subject: Re: Comment on Surrender: Government-By-Crisis Fails The GOP Again

            Reply
    2. charleo1 March 5, 2015

      The irony is they, [Congress] might be able to assert themselves, but for people like you. They most likely have you in an insular district where you, and your neighbors vote for the guy that says, they’ll either do this my way, or they won’t do anything at all. And since you are far from a majority of the whole. And since they [the rest] won’t allow the guy you elected to run the entire government. He does as you requested, and gums up the works, and protects the status quo. Which works for him by getting his campaign financed. Now he needs to do something for you, and your neighbors. So, he puts on a show. He creates this dystopian scenario for you. Where a maniacal empirical President is wildly overstepping his authority, and allowing a wholesale invasion of the Country. And he puts on this big act for you, how he’s doing all he can to stop it. And you’re puzzled why the rest of Country isn’t as up in arms as you about it all? Stumped, and perplexed, as you are, as to why the other worthless RINOs wouldn’t close down DHS. Or keep the government closed, until what you perceive as the great will of the people prevails? Well, you’re being played is the obvious answer, fool!

      Reply
      1. James Bowen March 5, 2015

        You do realize that a DHS shutdown would not have stopped this amnesty from taking place, since it is ostensibly paid for by collected fees, right? Those who supported the original House bill really wanted it to pass. While they knew that there was about as much of a chance that he would sign it as the Sun would rise in the West tomorrow, they still thought it important that Congress not endorse an unconstitutional act with funding.

        Reply
        1. charleo1 March 5, 2015

          It is an unconstitutional premise that the Congress may pre determine the Constitutionality of a President’s actions, before it has been found to be unConstitutional by the Judicial Branch. Or, the Congress conversely could have passed legislation specifically forbidding the President to take such action. As they did Reagan with prohibiting funding of the Contras in Nicaragua. But these Presidential prerogatives have been a precedented part of the Executive Branch since Washington. Of course those supporting the original House bill really wanted it to pass. They also knew it had no chance of passing, the Senate, and absolutely no chance of Obama caving in to this type of tactic. And they probably knew a lot about Presidential discretion. But decided to have a pretend fight, and do it anyway, for you. So why aren’t you happy?

          Reply
          1. James Bowen March 5, 2015

            I am not happy because they endorsed illegal actions by the executive branch. Besides, a DHS shutdown really doesn’t mean much, considering that most of the department is “vital” and would have continued to operate anyway.

            If what you say is true, how come the House can impeach the President? Congress very much has the right to judge actions by the executive branch as illegal or unconstitutional. Congress also has the power of the purse, and they have every right to exercise it.

            Reply
          2. charleo1 March 5, 2015

            Correction. They funded an agency, not endorsed anything. It’s goofball to make such an analogy. And doubly so, when it’s only been deemed to be illegal because some without the authority to do so, want to declare it as such. Things don’t work that way, and they know it. When have they ever? And when is it ever right, to require anyone to work without pay, for an unspecified amount of time, so a bunch of politicians can stage a phony protest? I heard none of the protesting prima donnas offer to forgo their pay, and their staffs pay, until such time as the matter was settled. Or to make up at a later date, the salaries of auxiliary, and support workers who would have been furloughed. So sure it doesn’t mean much, unless you’re just doing your job, and then you’re not. Or doing your job, and not getting paid for it as the bills pile up, and the credit scores crash. And you are absolutely correct about the House having the authority of impeaching a President. And, if he’s doing what these guys are accusing him of doing. And they believe that meets the threshold of high crimes, and misdemeanors. Well, they should put on their big boy pants, stop with the girly grandstanding, and do their duty.

            Reply
          3. James Bowen March 6, 2015

            In passing a bill that does not defund it, they allowed it to go forward. As far I am an concerned, that is an endorsement. Actions speak louder than words. Most of the department would have remained in operation since it is considered vital, and those who worked would have been paid (I know because I still got paid during 2013 shutdown). Congress has the power of the purse, and they have a duty to exercise it when necessary. Congress very much has the authority to deem something illegal from their prospective. They do make the laws, after all. Besides, if DHS is not allowed to enforce immigration laws, they are not protecting the country. If they are illegally ordered to give work permits to illegal aliens, they are doing the opposite of protecting the country.

            Reply
          4. charleo1 March 6, 2015

            As I said before, attitudes such as your own, are big part of the problem why Congress can’t take any meaningful action on immigration. And instead, are relegated to doing stuff that in the end, is not helpful. Defunding DHS doesn’t address the fundamental problems, and flaws of the system. Or control the incentives to come into the Country illegally. Defunding DHS, and requiring personnel to work without pay, would undeniably hurt moral, and perhaps even embolden the terrorists, and invite an attack! Congress does have a Right to it’s opinion. And they have the authority to prohibit by law the President’s actions. Or lacking the ability to do that, they have a Right to govern irresponsibly in symbolic protest. Which is the path a faction of the Republican Party chose. But it doesn’t change the fact, the foundational flaw lies in their own inability to come to consensus within their own caucus on immigration. The lack of cohesion to agree with themselves on the proposals they will, and will not support. So as to present them to the entirety of the legislative body for discussion, and resolution. Instead of visiting their own failures on people who have no power, or no responsibility in advancing any particular agenda. But are simply doing their jobs as they are ordered to carry them out. Why would you support such a lazy ineffective tactic out of politicians? Then, attempt to marginalize the people doing the work as vital, but not so important as to worry about paying them? It’s an absurd position!

            Reply
          5. James Bowen March 7, 2015

            You do know that morale at ICE is extremely low already because they are not being allowed to do their jobs and being given unlawful orders, right? You do know that various employee unions at DHS supported defunding, right?

            Congress has the power of the purse, and not only do they have the right to withhold funding to prevent illegal acts by the executive, they have a responsibility to do so.

            Meaningful action on immigration would mean slashing not, not greatly increasing it as S.744 would have done.

            Reply
          6. charleo1 March 7, 2015

            No I hadn’t heard moral was low over the President’s action. That effects people they weren’t concentrating on anyway. Or that the Union supported defunding? Your sources would be
            enlightening to me, if you have them… And of course, you oppose meaningful action on immigration. What else would you
            have to bitch about?

            Reply
          7. Independent1 March 7, 2015

            Charleo, carrying on a conversation with Bowen is nothing more than an exercise in futility. He doesn’t have the brain power to understand that he’s being taken for a dupe!!

            Reply
          8. charleo1 March 8, 2015

            Well of course he’s being lied to. Bowen is unfortunately part of a radical minority of mostly one issue, all or nothing, malcontents. That have decided the best way to get everything they want, is to create a crisis. Gum up the works, shut down the gov. of refuse to pay the bills, etc. Until they believe, out of frustration, or fear of the unthinkable happening, the majority will relent, and they’ll get their way. Which is not how things have ever worked, of course. In fact, the system is fashioned in such a way, as to make that kind of minority no compromise, coercion, impossible. Because, votes are what counts, what moves legislation, not threats. And if they aren’t there, as we’ve seen, they get worked around, and life goes on. But do they learn anything, is the problem with criminals, and zealots, and ideologues. In their minds, the reason they got caught, or lost, is never that their actions were wrong to begin with. To their thinking, they were absolutely right. They are always right, and, ‘the people.’ are always 100% behind them. But, it was the others that lost their nerve, or betrayed them. So, even before the dust settles on the last fiasco, their setting up the next opportunity to blackmail the majority into giving them 100% of what they want, or else! It’s really the all or nothing that separates them from people actually working to find solutions. The same is true with Netanyahu, and the Neocons. Their attitude is, Iran will do everything we say, or else! They can be a very dangerous element, as we’ve seen when all or nothing ideologues like Bush/Cheney, run things. And of course, we see the same refusal from their one issue idiots, to see where they made any mistakes, or learned anything they didn’t already know. Can’t even see in hindsight, where it was ill advised, reckless, or clearly a huge blunder. No way! To them, it was exactly the right thing, and they’d do it all again! Because, the people are behind them! They all share this same disconnect with reality we see in Bowen. They are fascinating, in the same way N. Korea is. That china is. In the same way controlled groupthink, is created, managed, and maintained, has a certain engrossment, for me at least.

            Reply
          9. James Bowen March 9, 2015

            Actually, our system was deliberately designed to make it difficult to pass laws. Majorities in a bicameral legislature (each house representing a different perspective of interests) much approve a bill, and the President must then sign it. The law is then subject to judicial review if various parties take issue with its constitutionality. “Gridlock” is, in fact, the default setting of our system. That is a crucial component of the checks and balances system.

            As for your comments about me being in a minority, can you then explain why immigration restrictionist groups like NumbersUSA have at least an order of magnitude more members and web traffic than groups like La Raza or the U.S. Chamber of Commerce? Can you explain why Congress hears an almost unanimous demand from their constituents to oppose legalization and for an enforcement-only approach to illegal immigration?

            Reply
          10. charleo1 March 9, 2015

            Don’t make up excuses for GOP failure, it’s not very patriotic.
            What happened to the idea that we should expect a responsive accountable government a great country like ours deserves?The facts are, Congress in general, hears a great deal of demand to fix a broken, dysfunctional immigration system. With a path to citizenship for some 11 million undocumented, who have been here at least a decade. And some much longer. And so, it’s unfortunate a few dead enders, and obstructionist in Congress are listening to constituencies that have very few interests, with respect to immigration. Other than protecting, what they see as, “Traditional American Culture.” Specifically, White and Protestant. Of course the irony of all this is, these restrictionists, and their lobby groups. Who by refusing to allow compromise, and work with others. By taking an all or nothing approach. Are enabling everything they claim to be against to continue on as it has the past 30 years. This, as the political stakes get higher, and less in their favor. And their chances of getting even a smidgeon of what they want, disappear with each passing day. That’s the situation you would ignore. And, as an American, you are prefectly within your Rights to do so. Think whatever you like, listen to whomever you choose. about what you call the, “normal dysfunctional gridlock,” in Congress. Do all the claiming you want, about the majority of Americans. What they approve of, and the like. Then when the system is reformed. And a path to citizenship is laid out, and immigration quotas are expanded. You are free to go on insisting this is not what the American People wanted at all! You can keep on doing that!

            Reply
          11. James Bowen March 9, 2015

            I am not making excuses for GOP failure. They (along with Democrats) failed to defund an unconstitutional action, and I am not pleased with that. As for gridlock being the default setting of our system, that is indeed the case. It is part of the checks and balances system.

            I don’t believe I said a “majority of Americans”. What I am saying is that there are a lot more Americans who are against legalization and for reducing immigration than vice versa. And Congress has certainly not heard demands from their constituents to increase immigration and legalize illegals. In 2007, so many people called the Senate to express their opposition to the amnesty bill being debated that the Capitol switchboard collapsed. A similar thing happened in 2013, with even more people calling in. One Congressman reported in 2013 that of 1800 constituent feedbacks he received regarding immigration, 12 were in favor of legalization and all the rest opposed (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/07/16/tom_cotton_a_key_house_voice_on_immigration_reform_119235.html)

            Immigration is the cause of unsustainable population growth in the U.S., and therefore it needs to be drastically reduced, not increased. This is what the Barbara Jordan commissioned recommended in 1996.

            Reply
          12. charleo1 March 9, 2015

            Look at the population numbers for yourself. We are under populating by our own historical standards! Not to mention a
            very important dynamic, we are getting older at the same time.
            Strict anti-immigration policies are a loser.

            http://www.multpl.com/us-population-growth-rate/table/by-year

            Reply
          13. James Bowen March 9, 2015

            Absolute numbers are what matter, not percentages. In terms of absolute numbers, we can only sustain indefinitely about 150-200 million people in this country. We have twice that, and the long-term growth is entirely due to immigration. We need population reduction, not expansion. That means we need to restrict immigration in order to achieve negative population growth.

            Reply
          14. James Bowen March 9, 2015

            Actually, our system was deliberately designed to make it difficult to pass laws. Majorities in a bicameral legislature (each house representing a different perspective of interests) much approve a bill, and the President must then sign it. The law is then subject to judicial review if various parties take issue with its constitutionality. “Gridlock” is, in fact, the default setting of our system. That is a crucial component of the checks and balances system.

            As for your comments about me being in a minority, can you then explain why immigration restrictionist groups like NumbersUSA have at least an order of magnitude more members and web traffic than groups like La Raza or the U.S. Chamber of Commerce? Can you explain why Congress hears an almost unanimous demand from their constituents to oppose legalization and for an enforcement-only approach to illegal immigration?

            Reply
          15. James Bowen March 9, 2015

            Actually, our system was deliberately designed to make it difficult to pass laws. Majorities in a bicameral legislature (each house representing a different perspective of interests) much approve a bill, and the President must then sign it. The law is then subject to judicial review if various parties take issue with its constitutionality. “Gridlock” is, in fact, the default setting of our system. That is a crucial component of the checks and balances system.

            As for your comments about me being in a minority, can you then explain why immigration restrictionist groups like NumbersUSA have at least an order of magnitude more members and web traffic than groups like La Raza or the U.S. Chamber of Commerce? Can you explain why Congress hears an almost unanimous demand from their constituents to oppose legalization and for an enforcement-only approach to illegal immigration?

            Reply
          16. James Bowen March 9, 2015

            Here are some.

            http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20141223-saldana-sworn-in-to-lead-ice-which-faces-changes-low-morale.ece

            https://www.numbersusa.com/news/uscis-council-president-speaks-out-border-security-bill-executive-amnesty

            http://www.progressivesforimmigrationreform.org/pdf/jordan-commission.pdf

            Meaningful action on immigration reform would involve slashing legal immigration and strictly enforcing and strengthening the enforcement mechanisms of our immigration laws. That is what the Jordan Commission recommended, and I strongly support that.

            Reply
          17. James Bowen March 9, 2015

            Here are some.

            http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20141223-saldana-sworn-in-to-lead-ice-which-faces-changes-low-morale.ece

            https://www.numbersusa.com/news/uscis-council-president-speaks-out-border-security-bill-executive-amnesty

            http://www.progressivesforimmigrationreform.org/pdf/jordan-commission.pdf

            Meaningful action on immigration reform would involve slashing legal immigration and strictly enforcing and strengthening the enforcement mechanisms of our immigration laws. That is what the Jordan Commission recommended, and I strongly support that.

            Reply
          18. James Bowen March 9, 2015

            Here are some.

            http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20141223-saldana-sworn-in-to-lead-ice-which-faces-changes-low-morale.ece

            https://www.numbersusa.com/news/uscis-council-president-speaks-out-border-security-bill-executive-amnesty

            http://www.progressivesforimmigrationreform.org/pdf/jordan-commission.pdf

            Meaningful action on immigration reform would involve slashing legal immigration and strictly enforcing and strengthening the enforcement mechanisms of our immigration laws. That is what the Jordan Commission recommended, and I strongly support that.

            Reply
          19. Independent1 March 7, 2015

            More absolute hogwash from a lying piece of CRAP!! You are so nonsensical it’s hard to believe!! Stop reading this RIGHT-WING PROPAGANDA DUMMY!!!!!!!! THEY’RE FILLING YOUR HEAD WITH ONE FANTASY AFTER ANOTHER!!!!!!

            Reply
          20. Independent1 March 7, 2015

            Correction!! The House CANNOT impeach the president. All the House can do is indict him; he has to be impeached by the Senate!! You know as much about our government as 12-year old.

            Reply
          21. James Bowen March 9, 2015

            Before you recklessly throw out insults like that, you should know what you are talking about. Impeach and indict are the same thing regarding this Constitutional process. The House impeaches (indicts), and the Senate holds the trial.

            At least one Federal Judge disagrees with these “constitutional experts”: https://www.numbersusa.com/news/federal-judge-obama%E2%80%99s-executive-amnesty-unconstitutional. For more details on how this violates the Constitution, see here: http://www.cis.org/Obama-Deferred-Action-Amnest-Executive-Action-Unconstitutional.

            Reply
          22. James Bowen March 9, 2015

            Before you recklessly throw out insults like that, you should know what you are talking about. Impeach and indict are the same thing regarding this Constitutional process. The House impeaches (indicts), and the Senate holds the trial.

            At least one Federal Judge disagrees with these “constitutional experts”: https://www.numbersusa.com/news/federal-judge-obama%E2%80%99s-executive-amnesty-unconstitutional. For more details on how this violates the Constitution, see here: http://www.cis.org/Obama-Deferred-Action-Amnest-Executive-Action-Unconstitutional.

            Reply
          23. James Bowen March 9, 2015

            Before you recklessly throw out insults like that, you should know what you are talking about. Impeach and indict are the same thing regarding this Constitutional process. The House impeaches (indicts), and the Senate holds the trial.

            At least one Federal Judge disagrees with these “constitutional experts”: https://www.numbersusa.com/news/federal-judge-obama%E2%80%99s-executive-amnesty-unconstitutional. For more details on how this violates the Constitution, see here: http://www.cis.org/Obama-Deferred-Action-Amnest-Executive-Action-Unconstitutional.

            Reply
  6. drdroad March 4, 2015

    Useless political fight that meant nothing. So 4-5 million are protected, pretty much doesn’t matter when we’re talking 14 million illegal in the US. We certainly are not going to deport anywhere near the number that would threaten that 4-5 million anyway. Given the huge cost of total deportation, which neither GOP or Democratic administrations have ever considered, why is this such a big deal. Same thing Reagan & Bush did. What a waste of our tax dollars!!

    Reply
  7. charleo1 March 5, 2015

    It is my strong belief this is all unfortunate, but in the end, just as dead ended, and passing of a fad, as all the other intentionally manufactured crisis’ we’ve seen since Gingrich. All this setting up what are essentially bluffs to oppose must pass bills, in order to hold hostage for ransom something or other these ideologues claim must be done to, “save the Country!” Because, for one thing, whatever it is, it is never something the majority wants to see done anyway. And the extortion they use to try to accomplish it, just makes them look like a bunch of power hungry jerks, without the least concern for the Country. And this stuff is always put directly on the Right. In spite of their unwillingness to own it, after their failures. But, why not then own it? If this Country is the hot bed of revolution they claim it to be? The truth is, it’s not. Americans are sick, and tired of the drama. And rightly see the extremism, and unwillingness to compromise as fundamentally averse to a system most do not see as needing their kind of radical change. And certainly not at the discretion of people who seem to be wholly without restraint on what they are willing to jeopardize, to throw under the bus, in order to enforce their agenda. For people that seem to be totally unaware, or uncaring, that are are rules that must be followed after all. Rules of conduct that prohibit this type of behavior. Else our history would be replete with it. And that being the case, America as a Nation, would have not..could not have been a possibility at all.

    Reply
  8. ExRadioGuy15 March 6, 2015

    LMAO…incompetence is one of the 10 GOP Tenets…the other nine:
    Bigotry, hypocrisy, elitism, Fascism, greed, corruption, arrogance, insanity and unintentional comedy.

    Reply
  9. ExRadioGuy15 March 6, 2015

    LMAO…incompetence is one of the 10 GOP Tenets…the other nine:
    Bigotry, hypocrisy, elitism, Fascism, greed, corruption, arrogance, insanity and unintentional comedy.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.