Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala. accuses Obama of committing federal felony with 5 year sentence.

[Flopper]

.

PS - the board is still waiting for you to show us where other presidents handed out work permits. THINK

No one will be handing out work permits. For person to qualify they must have lived in the US for 5 consecutive years and be able to prove it, have no criminal record, and make application.

HAHAHA. And "proof" will constitute the applicant saying it's so.These are illegals - few will have any way to prove where they have been.

Nope. Multiple documents are required. Things like school records, bank accounts, pay check stubs, phone bills, power bills, rental agreements, mortgages, credit card bills, with name and address on the bills will probably be accepted as proof.
.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Not a law but an order with a fixed expiration date, which congress can override.

Suppose congress did write a law overriding obama's EO. The obozo would veto the law and the GOP doesn't have the votes to override the veto.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

HAHAHA. And "proof" will constitute the applicant saying it's so.These are illegals - few will have any way to prove where they have been.

Nope. Multiple documents are required. Things like school records, bank accounts, pay check stubs, phone bills, power bills, rental agreements, mortgages, credit card bills, with name and address on the bills will probably be accepted as proof.
.

Nothing will be required, you fool. Even obozo admits this will apply to 5 million people. They don't have the resources to check these things out. The govt will just take the word of the applicant just like they did with obozo's dreamer amnesty of 2012. THINK

 

[Flopper]

.

PS - the board is still waiting for you to show us where other presidents handed out work permits. THINK

No one will be handing out work permits. For person to qualify they must have lived in the US for 5 consecutive years and be able to prove it, have no criminal record, and make application.

HAHAHA. And "proof" will constitute the applicant saying it's so.These are illegals - few will have any way to prove where they have been.

Nope. Multiple documents are required. Things like school records, bank accounts, pay check stubs, phone bills, power bills, rental agreements, mortgages, credit card bills, with name and address on the bills will probably be accepted as proof.
.

As with previous amnesty programs, most people that are eligible will not apply. It takes a lot faith for a person illegally in the country to walk into an immigration office and announce that they are in the country illegally.

Not a law but an order with a fixed expiration date, which congress can override.

Suppose congress did write a law overriding obama's EO. The obozo would veto the law and the GOP doesn't have the votes to override the veto.

They convince independents and democrats to vote to override the veto or they pass immigration reforms.

As with previous amnesty programs, most people that are eligible will not apply. It takes a lot of faith for a person illegally in the country to walk into an immigration office and announce that they are in the country illegally. Until there is real legislation passed, most illegal immigrants who have clean criminal records and have lived in the country 5 years with documentation to prove it, aren't going to take the risk based on an executive order that may disappear tomorrow.

 

[suplex3000]

Yup, it's gonna happen

 

[AvgGuyIA]

The loons are out in force I see...

The State of Alabama certainly puts out a lot of crazies, that's for sure. Brooks is near the top of the heap. My favorite is former AG Troy King, who wagered a war against sex toys and homos a while back while ******* the homecomiing king from Troy State Univ. (!), whom he put on the state payroll as his "personal assistant".

Troy King was not involved in a gay sex scandal as you accuse him. There is no evidence for it.

Lol. Tell that to the guy who fucked him in Evergreen AL when he was 19.

And Larry Sinclair fucked Obama too? Show a link of your proof. Wiki doesn't mention it. If any place would, it's a Leftist website like Wiki.

 

[Spare_change]

Still waiting for you to tell us when you are going to be pursuing President Bush Sr.

Much easier than Obama, since no impeachment is necessary.

I mean if you were serious about your claim that this is a crime.

No question it's a crime and if you want to prosecute other presidents for doing it too, then that's fine with me. I hate bush 41 and 43 and the waco kid.

PS - the board is still waiting for you to show us where other presidents handed out work permits. THINK

No one will be handing out work permits. For person to qualify they must have lived in the US for 5 consecutive years and be able to prove it, have no criminal record, and make application.

You're right ... that's what he said.

And, what did he say they got for it? The right to work, freedom from deportation.

Only one problem ... they can't get the right to work without their work permit. And, they can't get a permit unless they are a legal immigrant. Except that, now, Obama has created a new class ... you can get a work permit if you're an illegal immigrant. THAT is the new law he is not authorized to write ...

Oops.

Not a law but an order with a fixed expiration date, which congress can override.

Wrong - it is a law because it establishes new requirements. EOs can only be used to implement already established (by Congress) laws.

 

[Howey]

The loons are out in force I see...

The State of Alabama certainly puts out a lot of crazies, that's for sure. Brooks is near the top of the heap. My favorite is former AG Troy King, who wagered a war against sex toys and homos a while back while ******* the homecomiing king from Troy State Univ. (!), whom he put on the state payroll as his "personal assistant".

Troy King was not involved in a gay sex scandal as you accuse him. There is no evidence for it.

Lol. Tell that to the guy who fucked him in Evergreen AL when he was 19.

And Larry Sinclair fucked Obama too? Show a link of your proof. Wiki doesn't mention it. If any place would, it's a Leftist website like Wiki.

You wanna see a picture of my dick?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

Wrong - it is a law because it establishes new requirements. EOs can only be used to implement already established (by Congress) laws.

That's the idea behind EOs but it's not how obama uses them He wrote EOs that altered the law called obamacare and last week wrote an EO that gave work permits to millions of illegals. Those aren't EOs - they are revisions to a law and a brand new law. The constitution says he can't do that but he does it anyway.

 

[Flopper]

Still waiting for you to tell us when you are going to be pursuing President Bush Sr.

Much easier than Obama, since no impeachment is necessary.

I mean if you were serious about your claim that this is a crime.

No question it's a crime and if you want to prosecute other presidents for doing it too, then that's fine with me. I hate bush 41 and 43 and the waco kid.

PS - the board is still waiting for you to show us where other presidents handed out work permits. THINK

No one will be handing out work permits. For person to qualify they must have lived in the US for 5 consecutive years and be able to prove it, have no criminal record, and make application.

You're right ... that's what he said.

And, what did he say they got for it? The right to work, freedom from deportation.

Only one problem ... they can't get the right to work without their work permit. And, they can't get a permit unless they are a legal immigrant. Except that, now, Obama has created a new class ... you can get a work permit if you're an illegal immigrant. THAT is the new law he is not authorized to write ...

Oops.

Not a law but an order with a fixed expiration date, which congress can override.

Wrong - it is a law because it establishes new requirements. EOs can only be used to implement already established (by Congress) laws.

No, the president can not and did not create law. Both immigration law and the courts allow the president wide latitudes on enforcing deportation and other aspects of immigration law.

 

[Spare_change]

No question it's a crime and if you want to prosecute other presidents for doing it too, then that's fine with me. I hate bush 41 and 43 and the waco kid.

PS - the board is still waiting for you to show us where other presidents handed out work permits. THINK

No one will be handing out work permits. For person to qualify they must have lived in the US for 5 consecutive years and be able to prove it, have no criminal record, and make application.

You're right ... that's what he said.

And, what did he say they got for it? The right to work, freedom from deportation.

Only one problem ... they can't get the right to work without their work permit. And, they can't get a permit unless they are a legal immigrant. Except that, now, Obama has created a new class ... you can get a work permit if you're an illegal immigrant. THAT is the new law he is not authorized to write ...

Oops.

Not a law but an order with a fixed expiration date, which congress can override.

Wrong - it is a law because it establishes new requirements. EOs can only be used to implement already established (by Congress) laws.

No, the president can not and did not create law. Both immigration law and the courts allow the president wide latitudes on enforcing deportation and other aspects of immigration law.

Perhaps you can explain the legal basis for his new policy of issuing work permits to illegal immigrants. Both immigration law and the courts do NOT allow the president to change the criteria established by Congress.

 

[Flopper]

[

Wrong - it is a law because it establishes new requirements. EOs can only be used to implement already established (by Congress) laws.

That's the idea behind EOs but it's not how obama uses them He wrote EOs that altered the law called obamacare and last week wrote an EO that gave work permits to millions of illegals. Those aren't EOs - they are revisions to a law and a brand new law. The constitution says he can't do that but he does it anyway.

The immigration statute expressly recognizes deferred action by name, expressly authorizes the administration to grant work permits, and places no limitations on either. I think you are interpreting long established regulations as law.

When resources don’t permit 100% enforcement, agencies are forced to set priorities. Year after year, Congress has knowingly given the administration only enough resources to take legal action against some 400,000 of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S.—less than 4% of that population. Sensibly, the administration believes that removing those who threaten public safety and those who entered recently is a higher priority than breaking up families and upending the lives of productive long-term residents—especially those brought here as children.

 

[Spare_change]

[

Wrong - it is a law because it establishes new requirements. EOs can only be used to implement already established (by Congress) laws.

That's the idea behind EOs but it's not how obama uses them He wrote EOs that altered the law called obamacare and last week wrote an EO that gave work permits to millions of illegals. Those aren't EOs - they are revisions to a law and a brand new law. The constitution says he can't do that but he does it anyway.

The immigration statute expressly recognizes deferred action by name, expressly authorizes the administration to grant work permits, and places no limitations on either. I think you are interpreting long established regulations as law.

When resources don’t permit 100% enforcement, agencies are forced to set priorities. Year after year, Congress has knowingly given the administration only enough resources to take legal action against some 400,000 of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S.—less than 4% of that population. Sensibly, the administration believes that removing those who threaten public safety and those who entered recently is a higher priority than breaking up families and upending the lives of productive long-term residents—especially those brought here as children.

"The great thing about Obama’s TelePrompter is that when he stops reading from it, he slips up and tells the truth.

The White House has argued that President Obama’s executive amnesty order last week was made well within the existing law. But in remarks in Chicago tonight, President Obama went off script and admitted that in fact he unilaterally made changes to the law.

President Obama made the admission after getting heckled for several minutes by immigration protesters.

“Now, you’re absolutely right that there have been significant numbers of deportations. That’s true. But what you are not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law.” Obama I Just Took An Action To Change The Law The Daily Caller

Go to the link, and you can watch a video of him saying it.

So much for your argument .... changing law is the sole province of Congress.

Your argument holds water re: fewer deportations - it does NOT give him the right to create a new level of immigrants.

 

[BULLDOG]

Fact is obama committed this felony 2 years ago with his amnesty. Section 1324 of title 8 of the US code makes it a federal felony to encourage illegals to enter or reside in america.

Obama to 8216 commit felony worth 5-years jail time 8217

nov 20 2014
Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., said before the speech that Obama may be about to commit a felony worthy of five years jail time, reported PoliticalWire.com.

He told Slate that with his forthcoming executive actions on immigration, President Obama risks breaking a federal statute “making it a felony to aid, abet, or entice a foreigner to illegally enter the U.S.”

Said Brooks: “At some point, you have to evaluate whether the president’s conduct aids or abets, encourages, or entices foreigners to unlawfully cross into the United States of America. That has a five-year in-jail penalty associated with it.

Mo Brooks? Is he kin to Mel Brooks? He's funny too.

 

[Spare_change]

Fact is obama committed this felony 2 years ago with his amnesty. Section 1324 of title 8 of the US code makes it a federal felony to encourage illegals to enter or reside in america.

Obama to 8216 commit felony worth 5-years jail time 8217

nov 20 2014
Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., said before the speech that Obama may be about to commit a felony worthy of five years jail time, reported PoliticalWire.com.

He told Slate that with his forthcoming executive actions on immigration, President Obama risks breaking a federal statute “making it a felony to aid, abet, or entice a foreigner to illegally enter the U.S.”

Said Brooks: “At some point, you have to evaluate whether the president’s conduct aids or abets, encourages, or entices foreigners to unlawfully cross into the United States of America. That has a five-year in-jail penalty associated with it.

Mo Brooks? Is he kin to Mel Brooks? He's funny too.

No, he's the illegitimate son of Our Miss Brooks.

 

[Flopper]

[

Wrong - it is a law because it establishes new requirements. EOs can only be used to implement already established (by Congress) laws.

That's the idea behind EOs but it's not how obama uses them He wrote EOs that altered the law called obamacare and last week wrote an EO that gave work permits to millions of illegals. Those aren't EOs - they are revisions to a law and a brand new law. The constitution says he can't do that but he does it anyway.

The immigration statute expressly recognizes deferred action by name, expressly authorizes the administration to grant work permits, and places no limitations on either. I think you are interpreting long established regulations as law.

When resources don’t permit 100% enforcement, agencies are forced to set priorities. Year after year, Congress has knowingly given the administration only enough resources to take legal action against some 400,000 of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S.—less than 4% of that population. Sensibly, the administration believes that removing those who threaten public safety and those who entered recently is a higher priority than breaking up families and upending the lives of productive long-term residents—especially those brought here as children.

"The great thing about Obama’s TelePrompter is that when he stops reading from it, he slips up and tells the truth.

The White House has argued that President Obama’s executive amnesty order last week was made well within the existing law. But in remarks in Chicago tonight, President Obama went off script and admitted that in fact he unilaterally made changes to the law.

President Obama made the admission after getting heckled for several minutes by immigration protesters.

“Now, you’re absolutely right that there have been significant numbers of deportations. That’s true. But what you are not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law.” Obama I Just Took An Action To Change The Law The Daily Caller

Go to the link, and you can watch a video of him saying it.

So much for your argument .... changing law is the sole province of Congress.

Your argument holds water re: fewer deportations - it does NOT give him the right to create a new level of immigrants.

Yes, he took actions to change the law. He issued an executive order to pressure congress to pass immigration reform. If he's successful, and republicans pass immigration reform, then the actions he took will have changed the law.
.

 

[Spare_change]

[

Wrong - it is a law because it establishes new requirements. EOs can only be used to implement already established (by Congress) laws.

That's the idea behind EOs but it's not how obama uses them He wrote EOs that altered the law called obamacare and last week wrote an EO that gave work permits to millions of illegals. Those aren't EOs - they are revisions to a law and a brand new law. The constitution says he can't do that but he does it anyway.

The immigration statute expressly recognizes deferred action by name, expressly authorizes the administration to grant work permits, and places no limitations on either. I think you are interpreting long established regulations as law.

When resources don’t permit 100% enforcement, agencies are forced to set priorities. Year after year, Congress has knowingly given the administration only enough resources to take legal action against some 400,000 of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S.—less than 4% of that population. Sensibly, the administration believes that removing those who threaten public safety and those who entered recently is a higher priority than breaking up families and upending the lives of productive long-term residents—especially those brought here as children.

"The great thing about Obama’s TelePrompter is that when he stops reading from it, he slips up and tells the truth.

The White House has argued that President Obama’s executive amnesty order last week was made well within the existing law. But in remarks in Chicago tonight, President Obama went off script and admitted that in fact he unilaterally made changes to the law.

President Obama made the admission after getting heckled for several minutes by immigration protesters.

“Now, you’re absolutely right that there have been significant numbers of deportations. That’s true. But what you are not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law.” Obama I Just Took An Action To Change The Law The Daily Caller

Go to the link, and you can watch a video of him saying it.

So much for your argument .... changing law is the sole province of Congress.

Your argument holds water re: fewer deportations - it does NOT give him the right to create a new level of immigrants.

Yes, he took actions to change the law. He issued an executive order to pressure congress to pass immigration reform. If he's successful, and republicans pass immigration reform, then the actions he took will have changed the law.
.

"Why" is not the issue ... we are a nation of laws. He broke the law. There is no relativism for breaking the law ... doing bad things for good reason is still doing bad things.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

Perhaps you can explain the legal basis for his new policy of issuing work permits to illegal immigrants. Both immigration law and the courts do NOT allow the president to change the criteria established by Congress.

Millions of americans are asking that. How does "prosecutorial discretion" cover giving work permits to illegals and letting them collect SS and medicare benefits?

 

[Flopper]

[

Wrong - it is a law because it establishes new requirements. EOs can only be used to implement already established (by Congress) laws.

That's the idea behind EOs but it's not how obama uses them He wrote EOs that altered the law called obamacare and last week wrote an EO that gave work permits to millions of illegals. Those aren't EOs - they are revisions to a law and a brand new law. The constitution says he can't do that but he does it anyway.

The immigration statute expressly recognizes deferred action by name, expressly authorizes the administration to grant work permits, and places no limitations on either. I think you are interpreting long established regulations as law.

When resources don’t permit 100% enforcement, agencies are forced to set priorities. Year after year, Congress has knowingly given the administration only enough resources to take legal action against some 400,000 of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S.—less than 4% of that population. Sensibly, the administration believes that removing those who threaten public safety and those who entered recently is a higher priority than breaking up families and upending the lives of productive long-term residents—especially those brought here as children.

"The great thing about Obama’s TelePrompter is that when he stops reading from it, he slips up and tells the truth.

The White House has argued that President Obama’s executive amnesty order last week was made well within the existing law. But in remarks in Chicago tonight, President Obama went off script and admitted that in fact he unilaterally made changes to the law.

President Obama made the admission after getting heckled for several minutes by immigration protesters.

“Now, you’re absolutely right that there have been significant numbers of deportations. That’s true. But what you are not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law.” Obama I Just Took An Action To Change The Law The Daily Caller

Go to the link, and you can watch a video of him saying it.

So much for your argument .... changing law is the sole province of Congress.

Your argument holds water re: fewer deportations - it does NOT give him the right to create a new level of immigrants.

Yes, he took actions to change the law. He issued an executive order to pressure congress to pass immigration reform. If he's successful, and republicans pass immigration reform, then the actions he took will have changed the law.
.

"Why" is not the issue ... we are a nation of laws. He broke the law. There is no relativism for breaking the law ... doing bad things for good reason is still doing bad things.

That's your opinion. Keep in mind immigration law gives the president a great deal of latitude when it comes to enforcement. He can make changes on the issuing of work permits, delay deportation, and if congress doesn't provide sufficient funds for deportation, he can decide who get's deported and who stays. If you don't agree with his actions, write your congressman and urge him to change the law.

 

[Flopper]

[

Perhaps you can explain the legal basis for his new policy of issuing work permits to illegal immigrants. Both immigration law and the courts do NOT allow the president to change the criteria established by Congress.

Millions of americans are asking that. How does "prosecutorial discretion" cover giving work permits to illegals and letting them collect SS and medicare benefits?

They will be able to collect Social Security and Medicare at retirement providing they pay for it through payroll deductions. However, they would not be able to receive federal assistance such as welfare or food stamps, Medicaid, or insurance subsidies.