Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

Ryan, GOP Blast Obama's Leaked Immigration Plan

Posted by on Feb. 18, 2013 at 7:02 AM
  • 16 Replies

Ryan, R-Wisc., called the leaked immigration proposal "counterproductive" on ABC's "This Week" and questioned the president's motives, accusing him of seeking a partisan advantage instead of finding a solution. (AP Photo)



Sunday, 17 Feb 2013 05:44 PM

A defensive White House Sunday insisted it was only drafting a backup immigration reform plan in case a bipartisan congressional committee working on a bill fails, but Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio and other key Republicans blasted a leaked copy of the measure, calling it "dead on arrival" on Capitol Hill.


Ryan, R-Wisc., called the leaked proposal "counterproductive" on ABC's "This Week" and questioned the president's motives, accusing him of seeking a partisan advantage instead of finding a solution. 

"Leaking this out does set things in the wrong direction," he said. "By putting these details out without a guest worker program, without addressing future flow, by giving advantage to those who cut in front of the line...that tells us he's looking for a partisan advantage and not a bipartisan solution."

"There are groups in the House and Senate working together to get this done," he said, "and when he does things like this, it makes it much more difficult to do that. And that's why I think this particular move - very counterproductive."

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., another lawmaker involved in the bipartisan congressional immigration talks, agreed.  

“Leaks don't happen in Washington by accident,” McCain said. “Does the president really want a result, or does (he) want another cudgel to beat up Republicans so that he can get political advantage in the next election?


McCain complained that the president "has had no communication with Republicans on the issue, unlike the previous four presidents that I've dealt with."

But White House Chief of staff Denis McDonough said the administration hoped that bipartisan efforts would deliver a broadly acceptable package, but wanted a plan B.

"So let's make sure they get this thing done, and they're up there working on it right now. We have to make progress on immigration reform, we should enact it this year and the president will continue to work with the team to make sure that happens."

Politicians on both sides of the aisle are anxious to tackle immigration reform, after the increasingly influential Latino vote turned out heavily in favor of President Barack Obama and his Democrats in the November 2012 election.

USA Today said on Saturday that a draft of a White House immigration proposal would allow illegal immigrants to become legal permanent residents within eight years.

The plan, obtained by the newspaper, also would provide for more security funding and require businesses to check the immigration status of new hires within four years.

Obama emphasized in last week's State of the Union address the importance of creating a path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million immigrants who are in the United States illegally. Many Republicans stress that the nation's borders must be secured first.

Sen. Marco Rubio, the key Republican on the issue and one of the eight senators on the committee crafting the legislation, dismissed the White House draft as a seriously flawed rehash of failed immigration policies that would make the country's immigration problems worse.

"If actually proposed, the president's bill would be dead on arrival in Congress, leaving us with unsecured borders and a broken legal immigration system for years to come," Rubio, who is a Cuban-American from Florida, said in a statement on Saturday.

According to USA Today, illegal immigrants could also apply for a newly created "Lawful Prospective Immigrant" visa, under the White House's draft bill. If approved, they could apply for the same provisional legal status for spouses or children living outside the country, according to the draft.

Conservative Republicans like Senator Rand Paul want borders to be first secured before they can endorse any immigration reform.

"I will support it on one condition: That we have a report that says the borders are being secured ... (it has to be) a report and comes back and is voted on in Congress," Paul said on "Fox News Sunday."

"I won't do it on a promise from President Obama, that he will secure the borders," Paul, from Kentucky, added.


Reuters wire service contributed to this story. 


by on Feb. 18, 2013 at 7:02 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Feb. 18, 2013 at 7:07 AM
1 mom liked this

Can you say bass ackwards?

No secured borders first?

And Obama wants to require employers to check immigration status on new hires within FOUR YEARS?!

That seems like four years too many. My employer checks before even hiring. And they've been doing that for almost ten years. Does that mean the Obama administration is 14 years out of date?

romalove
by SenseandSensibility on Feb. 18, 2013 at 7:26 AM

If you think they really can secure the borders I have a bridge to sell you.  Only hardly ever used by little old ladies going to church on Sundays.

SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Feb. 18, 2013 at 7:35 AM
1 mom liked this

So you are saying, if the border can't be secured and prevent 100% of breaches, then we shouldn't even try. There is NOTHING that is done 100% correctly all the time. (Pst, because we are human.) So does that mean we give up, raise the surrender flag, give up the ghost?

That is silly.

Quoting romalove:

If you think they really can secure the borders I have a bridge to sell you.  Only hardly ever used by little old ladies going to church on Sundays.



romalove
by SenseandSensibility on Feb. 18, 2013 at 7:37 AM


Quoting SallyMJ:

So you are saying, if the border can't be secured and prevent 100% of breaches, then we shouldn't even try. There is NOTHING that is done 100% correctly all the time. (Pst, because we are human.) So does that mean we give up, raise the surrender flag, give up the ghost?

That is silly.

Quoting romalove:

If you think they really can secure the borders I have a bridge to sell you.  Only hardly ever used by little old ladies going to church on Sundays.



You read an awful lot into things that are not said.

I said they can't really secure the borders.

I said nothing else about what they should or should not do.

I pointed that out because to make that a sticking point in trying to enact reform is a strawman.  

SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Feb. 18, 2013 at 8:13 AM
1 mom liked this

It's called reading between the lines, and trying to dig for more information.  Done often by most people. We are not always right, but it gives us someplace to start.

If you want to communicate more clearly - then maybe you might want to communicate more clearly.

If you want to try to say something without taking a stand -  THAT is the straw man.

Or maybe just not the right post for you to comment on.

Quoting romalove:


Quoting SallyMJ:

So you are saying, if the border can't be secured and prevent 100% of breaches, then we shouldn't even try. There is NOTHING that is done 100% correctly all the time. (Pst, because we are human.) So does that mean we give up, raise the surrender flag, give up the ghost?

That is silly.

Quoting romalove:

If you think they really can secure the borders I have a bridge to sell you.  Only hardly ever used by little old ladies going to church on Sundays.



You read an awful lot into things that are not said.

I said they can't really secure the borders.

I said nothing else about what they should or should not do.

I pointed that out because to make that a sticking point in trying to enact reform is a strawman.  



romalove
by SenseandSensibility on Feb. 18, 2013 at 8:33 AM


Quoting SallyMJ:

It's called reading between the lines, and trying to dig for more information.  Done often by most people. We are not always right, but it gives us someplace to start.

If you want to communicate more clearly - then maybe you might want to communicate more clearly.

If you want to try to say something without taking a stand -  THAT is the straw man.

Or maybe just not the right post for you to comment on.

Quoting romalove:


Quoting SallyMJ:

So you are saying, if the border can't be secured and prevent 100% of breaches, then we shouldn't even try. There is NOTHING that is done 100% correctly all the time. (Pst, because we are human.) So does that mean we give up, raise the surrender flag, give up the ghost?

That is silly.

Quoting romalove:

If you think they really can secure the borders I have a bridge to sell you.  Only hardly ever used by little old ladies going to church on Sundays.



You read an awful lot into things that are not said.

I said they can't really secure the borders.

I said nothing else about what they should or should not do.

I pointed that out because to make that a sticking point in trying to enact reform is a strawman.  



It is possible and likely preferable if you aren't grasping my meaning to ask what I am trying to say instead of creating words I never said.

I communicate very clearly.  I can tell because of the large number of people who get upset with what I say LOL.

SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Feb. 18, 2013 at 9:14 AM
2 moms liked this

There is a reason leaked documents are leaked.

Congress drafts laws, since they are the legislative branch of government.

The President is the executive branch, which is supposed to enforce the laws passed by Congress.

The President often has priorities he or she would like to be reflected in bills. So it is understandable that he or she would have some input to the immigration laws being crafted by Congress. 

But why would the President draft his own bill - and leak it to the press - before Congress has released their bill? When it's not even his job?

Possibly to push his views on the American people before they have had a chance to hear from Congress, so he can have more power in both executive and legislative branches, so he can be more present in US government, the "Dad" of America, the King of America, the Emperor of America. So he gets more of his way. 

Kind of like Napoleon. Or George III.

blondekosmic15
by Blonde on Feb. 18, 2013 at 1:51 PM
1 mom liked this

 

Quoting SallyMJ:

There is a reason leaked documents are leaked.

Congress drafts laws, since they are the legislative branch of government.

The President is the executive branch, which is supposed to enforce the laws passed by Congress.

The President often has priorities he or she would like to be reflected in bills. So it is understandable that he or she would have some input to the immigration laws being crafted by Congress. 

But why would the President draft his own bill - and leak it to the press - before Congress has released their bill? When it's not even his job?

Possibly to push his views on the American people before they have had a chance to hear from Congress, so he can have more power in both executive and legislative branches, so he can be more present in US government, the "Dad" of America, the King of America, the Emperor of America. So he gets more of his way. 

Kind of like Napoleon. Or George III.

 

SallyMJ
by Ruby Member on Feb. 18, 2013 at 7:47 PM

I know - the article is REALLY LONG!!!!!

Apparently you are a perfectly clear communicator in your own mind.

As we learned in freshman college year, the recipient is the judge on the clarity of the communication, not the speaker.

Welcome to the real world of the human condition.

Quoting romalove:


Quoting SallyMJ:

It's called reading between the lines, and trying to dig for more information.  Done often by most people. We are not always right, but it gives us someplace to start.

If you want to communicate more clearly - then maybe you might want to communicate more clearly.

If you want to try to say something without taking a stand -  THAT is the straw man.

Or maybe just not the right post for you to comment on.

Quoting romalove:


Quoting SallyMJ:

So you are saying, if the border can't be secured and prevent 100% of breaches, then we shouldn't even try. There is NOTHING that is done 100% correctly all the time. (Pst, because we are human.) So does that mean we give up, raise the surrender flag, give up the ghost?

That is silly.

Quoting romalove:

If you think they really can secure the borders I have a bridge to sell you.  Only hardly ever used by little old ladies going to church on Sundays.



You read an awful lot into things that are not said.

I said they can't really secure the borders.

I said nothing else about what they should or should not do.

I pointed that out because to make that a sticking point in trying to enact reform is a strawman.  



It is possible and likely preferable if you aren't grasping my meaning to ask what I am trying to say instead of creating words I never said.

I communicate very clearly.  I can tell because of the large number of people who get upset with what I say LOL.



romalove
by SenseandSensibility on Feb. 18, 2013 at 8:22 PM
1 mom liked this


Quoting SallyMJ:

I know - the article is REALLY LONG!!!!!

Apparently you are a perfectly clear communicator in your own mind.

As we learned in freshman college year, the recipient is the judge on the clarity of the communication, not the speaker.

Welcome to the real world of the human condition.

Quoting romalove:


Quoting SallyMJ:

It's called reading between the lines, and trying to dig for more information.  Done often by most people. We are not always right, but it gives us someplace to start.

If you want to communicate more clearly - then maybe you might want to communicate more clearly.

If you want to try to say something without taking a stand -  THAT is the straw man.

Or maybe just not the right post for you to comment on.

Quoting romalove:


Quoting SallyMJ:

So you are saying, if the border can't be secured and prevent 100% of breaches, then we shouldn't even try. There is NOTHING that is done 100% correctly all the time. (Pst, because we are human.) So does that mean we give up, raise the surrender flag, give up the ghost?

That is silly.

Quoting romalove:

If you think they really can secure the borders I have a bridge to sell you.  Only hardly ever used by little old ladies going to church on Sundays.



You read an awful lot into things that are not said.

I said they can't really secure the borders.

I said nothing else about what they should or should not do.

I pointed that out because to make that a sticking point in trying to enact reform is a strawman.  



It is possible and likely preferable if you aren't grasping my meaning to ask what I am trying to say instead of creating words I never said.

I communicate very clearly.  I can tell because of the large number of people who get upset with what I say LOL.



I'm OK with you not understanding my communication.

I have plenty of people who do.

If you don't understand me, you are always free to ask for clarification.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)