Mexican Invasion
See other Mexican Invasion Articles
Title: MIDTERM EXIT POLLS: 75% REJECT EXEC AMNESTY, 80% DON'T WANT FOREIGN WORKERS TAKING JOBS FROM AMERICANS
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern ... ers-Taking-Jobs-from-Americans
Published: Nov 8, 2014
Author: TONY LEE
Post Date: 2014-11-08 22:02:16 by out damned spot
Keywords: amnesty, jobs
Views: 4072
Comments: 13
Americans who voted in the midterms on Tuesday overwhelming are opposed to President Barack Obama's executive amnesty and do not want foreign workers to take jobs from Americans and legal immigrants who are already here. An exit poll conducting by Kellyanne Conway's The Polling Company found that three-quarters (74%) of voters believed that "President Obama should work with Congress rather than around Congress on immigration and separately." Americans who voted in the midterms on Tuesday overwhelming are opposed to President Barack Obama's executive amnesty and do not want foreign workers to take jobs from Americans and legal immigrants who are already here. An exit poll conducting by Kellyanne Conway's The Polling Company found that three-quarters (74%) of voters believed that "President Obama should work with Congress rather than around Congress on immigration and separately." Overall, strong "majorities of men (75%), women (74%), whites (79%), blacks (59%), and Hispanics (54%)," in addition to tri-partisan majorities of "self- identified Republicans (92%), Independents (80%), and Democrats (51%)" did not want Obama to enact an executive amnesty on his own. Only 20% of voters wanted Obama to move forward with his executive amnesty. "The President may be the last person in town to realize how resistant Americans are to him playing the Lone Ranger on amnesty," the polling memo stated. "In fact, based on his press conference yesterday, he has either suspended disbelief or has no awareness of how the immigration issue and his threats to act alone contributed to his party suffering massive losses on Tuesday." Obama may also grant work permits to millions of illegal immigrants and give the tech industry nearly a million more guest-worker permits via executive amnesty. But 80% of voters surveyed wanted "new jobs created by the economy to go to American workers and legal immigrants already in the country." The view was shared across all regions---74% in the Northeast, 80% in the Midwest, 85% in the South, and 80% in the West--and among men and women (no gender gap). As the Polling Company noted, these numbers turn "on its head the elitist idea that illegal immigrants 'do the jobs that Americans don't want to do.'" "Voters overwhelmingly prefer an immigration system that protects American workers," the polling memo states. "Therefore members of Congress should feel confident that voters will support actions using the power of the purse to protect American workers from Obama’s executive amnesty threat." But even after Democrats were thumped on Tuesday, Obama said he would enact his executive amnesty, which may include granting work permits to millions of illegal immigrants that would allow them to legally compete with American workers for nearly every job. The Polling Company poll was conducted on Election Day, November 4, and has a margin of error of +/- 3.5 percentage points.Overall, strong "majorities of men (75%), women (74%), whites (79%), blacks (59%), and Hispanics (54%)," in addition to tri-partisan majorities of "self-identified Republicans (92%), Independents (80%), and Democrats (51%)" did not want Obama to enact an executive amnesty on his own. Only 20% of voters wanted Obama to move forward with his executive amnesty. "The President may be the last person in town to realize how resistant Americans are to him playing the Lone Ranger on amnesty," the polling memo stated. "In fact, based on his press conference yesterday, he has either suspended disbelief or has no awareness of how the immigration issue and his threats to act alone contributed to his party suffering massive losses on Tuesday." Obama may also grant work permits to millions of illegal immigrants and give the tech industry nearly a million more guest-worker permits via executive amnesty. But 80% of voters surveyed wanted "new jobs created by the economy to go to American workers and legal immigrants already in the country." The view was shared across all regions---74% in the Northeast, 80% in the Midwest, 85% in the South, and 80% in the West--and among men and women (no gender gap). As the Polling Company noted, these numbers turn "on its head the elitist idea that illegal immigrants 'do the jobs that Americans don't want to do.'" "Voters overwhelmingly prefer an immigration system that protects American workers," the polling memo states. "Therefore members of Congress should feel confident that voters will support actions using the power of the purse to protect American workers from Obama’s executive amnesty threat." But even after Democrats were thumped on Tuesday, Obama said he would enact his executive amnesty, which may include granting work permits to millions of illegal immigrants that would allow them to legally compete with American workers for nearly every job. The Polling Company poll was conducted on Election Day, November 4, and has a margin of error of +/- 3.5 percentage points.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: out damned spot (#0)
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)
Even though 75-80% reject Amnesty?? With that kind of REAL "mandate," GOPe concubines Boehner and McConnell had better stop humping 0bola, zip up, then lead the opposition.
Now watch how things develop. Watch how Boehner and McConnell feign outrage, and put on dramatic acts, but never, ever, ever, actually use their power to STOP Obama by putting the government into shutdown and permitting an actual collapse, if that's what it takes to really stop Obama. (And yes, that IS what it will take to stop the Democrats: full on paralysis, with collapse and default and massive amount of economic destruction. The Democrats have NEVER been stopped - only momentarily slowed (and then not by much) since FDR's election in 1932. That has never changed, not in 41 consecutive election cycles, and it is not going to change this time either. Watch for it and you'll see.) Now ask yourself WHY? WHY, when Republicans win control of Congress, and still HAVE control of the Supreme Court (Republicans have had continuous, uninterrupted control of the Supreme Court since 1969) - and even when they also have the Presidency - WHY is nothing EVER done to reverse ANYTHING? WHY? All there EVER is from the Republican politicians, is drama school acting, and bleating about how "the Democrats BLOCK everything". Note that the REPUBLICANS, have never been able to block the DEMOCRATS, when Democrats are in power the way that DEMOCRATS block Republicans when the Republicans are in power. Ask yourself WHY? Ask yourself HOW that can be so? And then open your eyes to the self-evident truth: BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO! Got that? Republican politicians put on Drama 101 specifically in order to persuade IDIOT REPUBLICAN VOTERS that the Republicans REALLY REALLY REALLY wanna block the Democrats...BUT THEY DON'T. They DO NOT want to block the Democrats , AT ALL. They want to PRETEND they want to block the Democrats, in order to induce Republican voters, which is to say duped rubes, to keep on voting for them. All they want from the white rube voter is his vote. That gives them the office. They then USE the office to advance the economic interests of the super-rich who give them the campaign contributions, who invite them to the great parties, and who give them million-dollar-a-year jobs once they leave office. That is the way that it is, and it is never going to change with Republicans. Not ever. Now, I know that you don't believe that. So once you've dismissed me as a cynic and all that, just keep a placeholder of this discussion in your mind, and observe what happens in the year ahead, and in the years ahead. Obamacare is here to stay. We shall have socialized insurance, because socialized insurance means billions of dollars in personal profit for the alphas who own the Republican and Democrat parties. And there is absolutely nothing - nothing - that the Republican rank and file voter can do about that other than LEAVE the GOP, form a new party, and set it up on completely different principles than the GOP or the Democrats. But, you see, the American voter really is the rube that Gruber said. The voter will say that's too hard, can't be done. And so he will continue to get assraped by the Democrats, and the Republicans will continue to hold his hand and cry crocodile tears and do nothing, ever, to STOP what is happening. They're bought and paid for, both parties are incorrigibly corrupt, and as long as you live you will never, ever, ever, see what you believe in triumph as long as the choice is Democrat and Republican. You'll feel better about voting Republican, but you shouldn't, for Republicans are bigger liars than Democrats. Democrats are socialists and say so. Republicans pretend they're for you, and they screw you every time.
and.. 80% said yes... only 80%.... ZERO CREDIBILITY "we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
Ask yourself WHY? Ask yourself HOW that can be so? And then open your eyes to the self-evident truth: BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO! Got that? I've understood this dynamic for the last 20 years... My exit from FR was partially because I expressed your very observation on the subterfuge, fecklessness and charade that has been the GOP. That said, 110% of the Dems remain enemies of the USA, whereas it must be said that a good 25% of the Pubbies are the ONLY thing preventing this nation from crash-landing straight into Hell at any given time.
Where in hell does this admnistration claim the power to act separately exists? U.S. Supreme Court Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 711-712 (1893) The United States are a sovereign and independent nation, and are vested by the Constitution with the entire control of international relations, and with all the powers of Government necessary to maintain that control, and to make it effective. The only Government of this country which other nations recognize or treat with is the Government of the Union, and the only American flag known throughout the world is the flag of the United States. The Constitution of the United States speaks with no uncertain sound upon this subject. That instrument, established by the people of the United States as the fundamental law of the land, has conferred upon the President the executive power; has made him the Commander in Chief of the army and navy; has authorized him, by and with the consent of the 149 U. S. 712 Senate, to make treaties, and to appoint ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls; and has made it his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. The Constitution has granted to Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, including the entrance of ships, the importation of goods, and the bringing of persons into the ports of the United States; to establish a uniform rule of naturalization; to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a navy, and to make rules for the Government and regulation of the land and naval forces; and to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution these powers, and all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. And the several States are expressly forbidden to enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; to grant letters of marque and reprisal; to enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power; or to engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. [emphasis added] Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 713 (1893) [emphasis added]
Where in hell does this administration claim the power to act separately exists? The United States are a sovereign and independent nation, and are vested by the Constitution with the entire control of international relations, and with all the powers of Government necessary to maintain that control, and to make it effective. It's easy when you redefine or read between the lines.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
The Administration claims that it is inherent in the powers of the President. They don't elaborate, because they don't have to. As far as court cases and precedents - that's nice, but that's not the basis of Obama's decision. His power is based on the rule of 67. It takes 67 votes in the Senate to remove a seated President through impeachment. The Republicans do not have those 67 votes, and never will, and therefore, Obama has the power to do absolutely anything that he can order, that the executive agencies and police and armed forces will obey. If he orders it, they will obey or be fired. And since he can't be removed, he will always get away with it, whether it is "constitutional" in the abstract or not. Moreover, his getting away with it establishes the precedent that he has the power to do what he does. After all, he DOES these things, and nobody stops him, so clearly he DOES have the power. Does he have the "right"? Might makes right. He does it, he's not removed, obviously he has the "right" - that's as far as most people will ever go. The only other tool Congress has to defang him is to withhold money. But that means government shutdown and possible default on the debt. The Republicans are owned by capitalist alphas, for whom a debt default would be the destruction of their fortunes. Therefore, the Republicans have unilaterally disarmed, WILL NOT press the country into shutdown and default. And therefore, Obama wins. Might makes right.
Chief Law Enforcement Officer. - The President has the sole constitutional obligation to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed,"17 and this grants him broad discretion over federal law enforcement decisions. He has not only the power, but also the responsibility to see that the Constitution and laws are interpreted correctly.18 In addition, the President has absolute prosecutorial discretion in declining to bring criminal indictments. As in the exercise of any other constitutional power, one may argue that a particular President is "abusing his discretion," but even in such a case, he cannot be compelled to prosecute any criminal charges. Food for thought.....
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
Further reading http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/02/the-use-and-abuse-of-executive- orders-and-other-presidential-directives
"we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie.
The only way to try to compel him is to use the power of the purse, the threat of impeachment and removal, or the threat to reject his legislative program. In the current situation, Obama knows that he's not going to get anything through Congress, and he knows that the opposition does not have 67 votes to remove him. Which means that everything comes down to a game of chicken with Congress over government shutdown, or a game of chicken with the Supreme Court over how far they'll tolerate. Obama can issue executive orders to do whatever he wants, really. If the Court won't stop him and Congress won't defund and shut down the government, Obama will get his way for two years.
Thank you. The Heritage Foundation Legal Memorandum is, indeed, an excellent review and resource.
Food for thought..... I seriously doubt that Obama can maintain that the immigration legislation enacted by Congress is unconstitutional. I question Obama's authority to issue a lawful executive order if it includes some of the broader reaches being speculated. If it is restricted to a directive not to prosecute deportation actions it may survive. If it goes to changing the legal status of 5 million illegal immigrants, I believe it will have difficulty meeting the tests famously set forth by Justice Jackson in his concurring opinion in Youngstown. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/343/579/case.html U.S. Supreme Court Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) Excerpt from concurring opinion of Justice Jackson. Page 343 U. S. 636 and in these only, may he be said (for what it may be worth) to personify the federal sovereignty. If his act is held unconstitutional under these circumstances, it usually means that the Federal Government, Page 343 U. S. 637 as an undivided whole, lacks power. A seizure executed by the President pursuant to an Act of Congress would be supported by the strongest of presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation, and the burden of persuasion would rest heavily upon any who might attack it. 2. When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain. Therefore, congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence may sometimes, at least, as a practical matter, enable, if not invite, measures on independent presidential responsibility. In this area, any actual test of power is likely to depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables, rather than on abstract theories of law. [Footnote 4/3] 3. When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling Page 343 U. S. 638 the Congress from acting upon the subject. [Footnote 4/4] Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system. fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS20846.pdf Executive Orders: Issuance, Modification, and Revocation Vivian S. Chu Legislative Attorney Todd Garvey Legislative Attorney April 16, 2014 At page 3 Laurence Tribe, American Constitutional Law, 3rd Ed., Vol. 1, (2000), pg. 424:
Answer: Nobama cares.
#2. To: out damned spot (#0)
(Edited)
...Even after Democrats were thumped on Tuesday, Obama said he would enact his executive amnesty...
#3. To: Liberator (#2)
With that kind of REAL "mandate," GOPe concubines Boehner and McConnell had better stop humping 0bola, zip up, then lead the opposition.
#4. To: out damned spot (#0)
ok... so.. "Kellyanne Conway's The Polling Company" a Pollster with a well defined right-wing bias....walks up to voters and asks them if they would like "new jobs created by the economy to go to American workers and legal immigrants already in the country."
#5. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
Now ask yourself WHY? WHY, when Republicans win control of Congress, and still HAVE control of the Supreme Court (Republicans have had continuous, uninterrupted control of the Supreme Court since 1969) - and even when they also have the Presidency - WHY is nothing EVER done to reverse ANYTHING? WHY? All there EVER is from the Republican politicians, is drama school acting, and bleating about how "the Democrats BLOCK everything". Note that the REPUBLICANS, have never been able to block the DEMOCRATS, when Democrats are in power the way that DEMOCRATS block Republicans when the Republicans are in power.
#6. To: out damned spot (#0)
An exit poll conducting by Kellyanne Conway's The Polling Company found that three-quarters (74%) of voters believed that "President Obama should work with Congress rather than around Congress on immigration and separately."
The right to exclude or to expel all aliens, or any class of aliens, absolutely or upon certain conditions, in war or in peace, being an inherent and inalienable right of every sovereign and independent nation, essential to its safety, its independence, and its welfare, the question now before the Court is whether the manner in which Congress has exercised this right in sections 6 and 7 of the act of 1892 is consistent with the Constitution.
The power to exclude or to expel aliens, being a power affecting international relations, is vested in the political departments of the Government, and is to be regulated by treaty or by act of Congress, and to be executed by the executive authority according to the regulations so established, except so far the Judicial Department has been authorized by treaty or by statute, or is required by the paramount law of the Constitution, to intervene.
#7. To: nolu chan (#6)
#8. To: nolu chan (#6)
Where in hell does this admnistration claim the power to act separately exists?
#9. To: nolu chan (#6)
Where in hell does this administration claim the power to act separately exists?
#10. To: nolu chan (#6)
Where in hell does this admnistration claim the power to act separately exists?
#11. To: Jameson (#9)
As in the exercise of any other constitutional power, one may argue that a particular President is "abusing his discretion," but even in such a case, he cannot be compelled to prosecute any criminal charges.
#12. To: Jameson (#10)
Further reading
#13. To: Jameson (#9)
Chief Law Enforcement Officer. - The President has the sole constitutional obligation to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed,"17 and this grants him broad discretion over federal law enforcement decisions. He has not only the power, but also the responsibility to see that the Constitution and laws are interpreted correctly.18 In addition, the President has absolute prosecutorial discretion in declining to bring criminal indictments. As in the exercise of any other constitutional power, one may argue that a particular President is "abusing his discretion," but even in such a case, he cannot be compelled to prosecute any criminal charges.
1. When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate. [Footnote 4/2] In these circumstances,
The Supreme Court in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer established the framework for analyzing whether the President’s issuance of an executive order is a valid presidential action.18 As discussed below, the framework established by Justice Robert H. Jackson in his concurring opinion has become more influential than the majority opinion authored by Justice Hugo Black, and has since been employed by the courts to analyze the validity of controversial presidential actions.
Where the Constitution does not itself delegate authority to the President, Congress' failure to authorize the President to take acts of a sort that Article I enumerates as within the legislative sphere is a legal fact that often operates within the Constitutions entire system of allocating and restraining governmental power to deny such authority to the executive. Similarly, against the background of a constitutional rule in the field of foreign policy that the President may make treaties only with the advice and consent of the Senate, senatorial silence—a failure to ratify the treaty—is an operative fact that must be understood as depriving the would-be treaty of legal force.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]