Thread: Executive order amnesty...as I said, this is not a joke.

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

If Obama tries this it will lead to massive civil unrest. Is he that stupid?

thats a loaded question, isnt it?
he thinks the American people are stupid and will not know what he is up to as he continues to DESTROY this country

Originally Posted by TexasBorn

If Obama tries this it will lead to massive civil unrest. Is he that stupid?

if he gives it a shot, thats the desired effect. marshall law, no elections.

Here is what can be done:

Congressional Recourse
If Congress does not like what the executive branch is doing, it has two main options. First, it may rewrite or amend a previous law, or spell it out in greater detail how the Executive Branch must act. Of course, the President has the right to veto the bill if he disagrees with it, so, in practice, a 2/3 majority if often required to override an Executive Order.

Congress is less likely to challenge EOs that deal with foreign policy, national defense, or the implementation and negotiation of treaties, as these are powers granted largely to the President by the Constitution. As the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the President is also considered the nation's "Chief Diplomat." In fact, given national security concerns, some defense or security related EOs (often called National Security Directives or Presidential Decision Directives) are not made public.

In addition to congressional recourse, Executive Orders can be challenged in court, usually on the grounds that the Order deviates from "congressional intent" or exceeds the President's constitutional powers. In one such notable instance, President Harry Truman, was rebuked by the Supreme Court for overstepping the bounds of presidential authority. After World War II, Truman seized control of steel mills across the nation in an effort to settle labor disputes. In response to a challenge of this action, the Supreme Court ruled that the seizure was unconstitutional and exceeded presidential powers because neither the Constitution or any statute authorized the President to seize private businesses to settle labor disputes. For the most part, however, the Court has been fairly tolerant of wide range of executive actions.

Obama, and other administrations before him, have got to cater to everyone who has more pigment in their skin than whites do.

God forbid they should cater to AMERICANS!

Incidentally, those of us here who are generally fighting for "our nation" do realize that there are many who post here do not have America's best interests at heart, as they are fighting for their own interests against America and Americans?

Just thought I'd say that, and probably will say it again, because I am sure that some may not realize that their words are being read by, and encouraging, those who we are speaking about - those who are invading our nation with intentions to take it over.

Originally Posted by dregerk

Here is what can be done:

Congressional Recourse
If Congress does not like what the executive branch is doing, it has two main options. First, it may rewrite or amend a previous law, or spell it out in greater detail how the Executive Branch must act. Of course, the President has the right to veto the bill if he disagrees with it, so, in practice, a 2/3 majority if often required to override an Executive Order.

Congress is less likely to challenge EOs that deal with foreign policy, national defense, or the implementation and negotiation of treaties, as these are powers granted largely to the President by the Constitution. As the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the President is also considered the nation's "Chief Diplomat." In fact, given national security concerns, some defense or security related EOs (often called National Security Directives or Presidential Decision Directives) are not made public.

In addition to congressional recourse, Executive Orders can be challenged in court, usually on the grounds that the Order deviates from "congressional intent" or exceeds the President's constitutional powers. In one such notable instance, President Harry Truman, was rebuked by the Supreme Court for overstepping the bounds of presidential authority. After World War II, Truman seized control of steel mills across the nation in an effort to settle labor disputes. In response to a challenge of this action, the Supreme Court ruled that the seizure was unconstitutional and exceeded presidential powers because neither the Constitution or any statute authorized the President to seize private businesses to settle labor disputes. For the most part, however, the Court has been fairly tolerant of wide range of executive actions.

EO is a part of the NWO and the socalist democrapic take over. They want and enjoy the dictatorial power. We need to bring back a Republic and get out of this democrapic rule.

Originally Posted by xchange

i don't know , i still have the benefit of the doubt. if it is true that will be a political suicide and will bring this country into a revolutionary war , civil war, race war and every kind of war you can name. there is no money. the country is in serious problem. unemployment is skyrocketing. don't believe washington if they say there's jobs open because it is not true. those jobs that are open because companies laid off employees who have been in the company for awhile being replaced by newly college grads for an entry level pay. i know this because my company is doing it. they are giving college grads jobs displacing workers between the age of 35 and 55 forcing 55 and over into an early retirement. i dont think GOP will allow this to happen.

but if it does please tell me "we told you so". thanks.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... _emergency

UPDATE: USCIS Memo Details Obama Administration Plan for Executive Action Amnesty

NUMBERSUSA
Thursday, July 29, 2010, 11:21 PM EDT

UPDATE: USCIS Memo Details Obama Administration Plan for Executive Action Amnesty

Thursday, July 29, 2010, 11:21 PM EDT - posted on NumbersUSA

A newly revealed memo, obtained by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) who is leading the fight against amnesty, shows Obama Administration officials offering a detailed plan that would offer actual or de facto amnesty to millions of illegal aliens without Congress ever taking a vote.

The 11-page memo, drafted by Chief of Policy and Strategy for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Denise Vanison, outlines the various ways to offer a mass amnesty to the nation's 11-18 million illegal aliens through the use of administrative actions. The stated purpose of the memo is to offer "administrative relief options to promote family unity, foster economic growth, achieve significant process improvements and reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization."

"The memo proposes 18 different ways for the Obama Administration to essentially eliminate our borders through regulatory fiat and in clear violation of the letter and the spirit of U.S. immigration laws, which Obama swore an oath to faithfully execute," said NumbersUSA's Director of Government Relations Rosemary Jenks.

The memo is an alternative plan to amnesty "in the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform." In addition to using deferred action and parole, which were previously identified in two separate letters drafted by Sen. Grassely and signed by 11 other Senators (read the first and second letters), the memo outlines ways that USCIS can extend benefits and protections to individuals and groups of people by lessening the standards used in "extreme hardship" cases.

Item 4 in the memo outlines ways the Obama Administration can provide amnesty for millions of illegal aliens through the "extreme hardship" provision. It would "encourage many more spouses, sons, and daughters of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to seek relief without fear of removal. It would also increase the likelihood that such relief would be granted." Section 4 reads:

Lessen the Standard for Demonstrating "Extreme Hardship"

The Act at 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) and (II) renders inadmissible for 3 or 10 years individuals who have been unlawfully present in the U.S. for 180 days or one year respectively, and then depart. By statute, DHS has discretion to waive these grounds of inadmissibility for spouses, sons and daughters of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents if the refusal to admit such individuals would result in extreme hardship to their qualifying relatives. Generally, the "extreme hardship" standard has been narrowly construed by USCIS.

To increase the number of individuals applying for waivers, and improve their chances of receiving them, CIS could issue guidance or a regulation specifying a lower evidentiary standard for "extreme hardship." This would promote family unity, and avoid the significant human and financial costs associated with waiver denial decisions born of an overly rigid standard. This revised standard would also complement expanded use of PIP as set forth in B.

In addition to lessening the standard for demonstrating "extreme hardship", the memo details many more options that "have the potential to result in meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action."

Other options include: allowing aliens in the United States under Temporary Protected Status to adjust their status to Legal Permanent Resident, extending "grace periods" to leave the country for aliens on temporary work visa, changing the distribution time line for temporary workers on the H-2B visa, and granting up to 240 additional days on applications for employment authorization when the application is filed before the work authorization expiration date.

Denise Vanison has been an immigration attorney for more than 18 years. She advised multi-national and domestic corporate clients on employment of foreign nationals in the United States, I-9 employment verification and procurement of passports, visas, green cards and U.S. citizenship.

The memo was drafted for Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Alejandro Mayorkas. In addition to Denise Vanison, Roxana Bacon from the Chief Councel's office, Debra Rogers from Field Operations, and Donald Neufield from Service Center Operations were also listed as authors of the memo.

UPDATE: DHS has issued the following response:

Internal draft memos do not and should not be equated with official action or policy of the Department. We will not comment on notional, pre-decisional memos. As a matter of good government, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will discuss just about every issue that comes within the purview of the immigration system. We continue to maintain that comprehensive bipartisan legislation, coupled with smart, effective enforcement, is the only solution to our nation’s immigration challenges.

Internal memoranda help us do the thinking that leads to important changes; some of them are adopted and others are rejected. Our goal is to implement policies wisely and well to strengthen all aspects of our mission. The choices we have made so far have strengthened both the enforcement and services sides of USCIS — nobody should mistake deliberation and exchange of ideas for final decisions. To be clear, DHS will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation’s entire illegal immigrant population.

READ THE FULL MEMO IN PDF: http://www.numbersusa.com/content/files ... veMemo.pdf

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/ ... nesty.html

I think if he was even to try this trick he would be thrown out of office

This Memo on Executive Order to do amnesty is a threat to Congress --

it is a political ploy or nudge or pressure to Congress to pass the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill ---- to say to Congress --- you better get to work and do an amnesty becuause ya know if you don't --- I'll (Obama) will just go and do it anyway.....

so you have no alternative BUT to pass the CIR amnesty bill...

Obama trying to do the 'no choice' and inevibility tactic...

Congress does not have to do anything the President says!! -- because it is WE THE PEOPLE.

Originally Posted by Justthefacts

I think if he was even to try this trick he would be thrown out of office

Thrown?......Surely, you jest.