Obama State Of The Union Guests Include Undocumented Worker

Posted by | January 20, 2015 11:30 | Filed under: Politics Top Stories


Conservatives prefer the term “illegal immigrant,” and even though one of the president’s guests is someone allowed to stay in the United States because of his executive action on immigration, that isn’t silencing his critics.

President Obama’s list this year includes a doctor working to stop the spread of Ebola, union workers benefiting from a stronger economy, a victim of gun violence, a government worker freed in a prisoner exchange as part of the outreach to Cuba, and an illegal immigrant who has remained in the country under Mr. Obama’s temporary deportation amnesty.

Also on the guest list is Alan Gross, the American who spent five years in captivity in Cuba until recently.

To make a point in a running battle with Republicans over immigration, Mr. Obama invited Ana Zamora, who was allowed to stay in the country under a 2012 program to end the risk of deportation for young immigrants brought to the United States illegally while they were children.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.

120 responses to Obama State Of The Union Guests Include Undocumented Worker

  1. tracey marie January 20th, 2015 at 12:37

    Good job Mr. President!

  2. tracey marie January 20th, 2015 at 13:37

    Good job Mr. President!

  3. Jimmy Fleck January 20th, 2015 at 12:43

    I think someone needs to ask the President why he is not faithfully executing the laws with concerns to immigration. That is his duty as President. The Constitution does not grant him the right to ignore laws that he does not like. Now, he could issue a pardon to all illegal immigrants if he wanted. That is within his Constitutional powers, but that is not what he has done. I think someone needs to arrest the illegal immigrant on the floor of Congress during the speech as she is freely admitting that she is breaking our immigration laws.

    • jasperjava January 20th, 2015 at 12:49

      I was going to post a snarky comment about a right-wing unhinged anti-immigrant bigot in Congress shrieking to the Capitol police to arrest and remove her.

      It’s hard to believe that there are actual people who would approve of such action.

      • Jimmy Fleck January 20th, 2015 at 12:55

        jasperjava – what other crimes are you ok with people getting away with?

        • jasperjava January 20th, 2015 at 14:17

          When you have war criminals and torturers walking free, as well as greedy banksters who caused the near-collapse of the economy, it’s pretty bigoted to go after hard-working people just trying to make a good life for themselves and their families.

          Call for the arrest of B*$h and Cheney, Rumsfeld and Woo, the crooks on Wall Street, then we’ll talk about who’s getting away with “crimes”.

          • Jimmy Fleck January 20th, 2015 at 14:29

            By all means try these people for war crimes. I am sure we have enough prosecutors to handle that and the illegal immigrants as well. If not then we can easily stop prosecuting stupid things like drug possession to free up jail space and prosecutors. As for the bankers, they should have gone bankrupt and not been bailed out. Any bailout money should have been given directly to any investor that was defrauded by the Wall Street idiots that was not involved in the actual planning of the investments. I don’t know that there is a crime the bankers could be arrested for but for sure they should not have been given money for their stupidity.

            • William January 20th, 2015 at 15:07

              As for the bankers, they should have gone bankrupt and not been bailed out

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Deposit_Insurance_Corporation

              • StoneyCurtisll January 20th, 2015 at 15:08

                I was going to mention the “reward for bad behavior”…
                Ya beat me too it.

              • Jimmy Fleck January 20th, 2015 at 15:36

                That is why I said any bailout money should have gone directly to investors and not back to the banks that made the mess in the first place.

                • William January 20th, 2015 at 16:46

                  You DO understand that as a result of the Wall St crash of 1929 and the subsequent failure of so many banks the FDIC was created right? You do understand that banks are insured against failure right?

            • StoneyCurtisll January 20th, 2015 at 15:12

              Why arrest and prosecute leaders of financial institutions when they can be fined..
              Like JPM’s latest 2.6 Billion dollar fine.
              Or Citi bank’s 7 Billion dollar fine.
              The list goes on and on.

            • jasperjava January 20th, 2015 at 16:07

              We don’t nearly have enough prosecutors to persecute millions of “illegal” immigrants. We don’t have the resources. It’s completely unrealistic.

              I agree with you that the “war on drugs” has been a huge waste. But diverting these resources to another heartbreaking useless endeavour like persecuting hard-working people is sheer lunacy. Leave them alone. They contribute to the economy. They do jobs that native-born Americans won’t do. And yes, if they eventually become citizens, it may prevent the White supremacist right-wing Republican Party from ever oppressing us again.

        • StoneyCurtisll January 20th, 2015 at 15:04

          Being in the country undocumented is not a crime..
          it’s a civil offense, not criminal.

      • Pistol-Packing January 20th, 2015 at 13:38

        i dont care how you slice it, dice it, fry it or roast it. trying to change the name from “Illegal” to undocumented is really just a pile of crap. Call a spade for what it is. Now the question is, what do you do with them all??
        1)I can understand about not deporting children who came here not under their will. At the same time, you cant reward bad behavior.
        2) Make it completely clear, there is n”NO” Illegal entry allowed. You get caught, automatic expulsion. None of this catch and release stuff.
        3) There should be “NO” pathway to citizenship for those that crossed illegally. If we must give them a legal mechanism to apply for and stay legally, maybe acceptable. But no citizenship or voting rights.
        4) And lock down the damn Border already !!!

        • anothertoothpick January 20th, 2015 at 14:02

          The reality is that about 40 percent of the people came in on an airplane, with a legal visa, and just overstayed their visa and have never gone home.

          • StoneyCurtisll January 20th, 2015 at 15:03

            Bingo~!

          • Pistol-Packing January 20th, 2015 at 15:39

            Actually a very true statement. Dont know what the true percentage is, but over staying a visa is very much apart of the problem.

        • anothertoothpick January 20th, 2015 at 14:04

          So much for the fence.

        • Jimmy Fleck January 20th, 2015 at 14:05

          I agree. The problem is neither party is willing to cross their voters on what needs to be done. The democrats see these immigrants as future voters so they do not want them removed. The republicans cave to businesses that want cheap labor so they do not really push to have these people removed either. Their needs to be a dual approach to this problem.

          1. Secure the border and patrol the border. We can easily do this if we were to recall our military forces that are stationed all around the world. Tell the foreign countries that either they pay us to guard them or they can guard themselves. We don’t need to play world police when we can’t even secure our own borders.

          2. Crack down on companies that hire illegal immigrants. Severe fines and revoking of business licenses to start. Deny any companies caught from working on government contracts. And if it doesn’t stop then you need to start jailing company executives.

          3. No government benefits of any kind for illegal immigrants, Any illegal immigrant applying for aid, school, healthcare, etc. should be arrested.

          If there are no jobs and no free benefits then we won’t have to do anything to deport the illegals – they will leave on their own.

        • tracey marie January 20th, 2015 at 15:17

          Just like ronnie did, oh wait.

          • Pistol-Packing January 20th, 2015 at 15:48

            They were just as bad then as they are now. promised border security them promised it now, and nobody delivers.

    • William January 20th, 2015 at 14:57

      “I think someone needs to arrest the illegal immigrant on the floor of Congress during the speech as she is freely admitting that she is breaking our immigration laws.”

      Why don’t you do it. make a citizens arrest. Just think what a hero you’ll be to the right wing wacko brethren.

      http://youtu.be/Kqewojda3M0

    • StoneyCurtisll January 20th, 2015 at 15:05

      Specifically what law is it that you believe president Obama is ignoring.
      Can you name the statute.

      • Jimmy Fleck January 20th, 2015 at 15:31

        http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/8cfr.html

        • StoneyCurtisll January 20th, 2015 at 15:45

          Nice try Jimmy…
          But if you notice those are not “laws’…
          Those a regulations…
          Again I ask you…
          What specific law in regarding immigration is president Obama ignoring?

          • OldLefty January 20th, 2015 at 15:51

            This is no different than;

            The Clinton administration didn’t defend
            a law requiring dismissal of HIV-positive service members.

            George W. Bush didn’t defend a law
            prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads.

            George H. W. Bush didn’t defend
            federal statutes that required minority preferences in broadcast
            licensing.

            Statement on Signing the Union Station Redevelopment Act of 1981,
            Pub. Papers of Ronald Reagan 1207 (Dec. 29, 1981): President Reagan stated that
            a legislative veto was unconstitutional and announced that “[t]he
            Secretary of Transportation will not . . . regard himself as legally bound by
            any such resolution.” Id.

            Statement On Signing the National and Community Service Act of
            1990, Pub. Papers of George Bush 1613 (Nov. 16, 1990): President Bush rejected
            the constitutionality of provisions that required a Presidentially appointed
            board exercising executive authority to include, among its 21 members,
            “seven members nominated by the Speaker of the House of Representatives .

            Ronald Reagan did not defend a
            Congressional resolution vetoing an INS Deportation Decision.

            Statement on Signing the Union Station Redevelopment Act of 1981,
            Pub. Papers of Ronald Reagan 1207 (Dec. 29, 1981): President Reagan stated that
            a legislative veto was unconstitutional and announced that “[t]he
            Secretary of Transportation will not . . . regard himself as legally bound by
            any such resolution.”

            Statement on Signing the Department of Defense Appropriation Act of
            1976, Pub. Papers of Gerald R. Ford 241 (Feb. 10, 1976): President Ford stated
            that a committee approval mechanism was unconstitutional and announced that he
            would “treat the unconstitutional provision . . . to the extent it
            requires further Congressional committee approval, as a complete nullity.

            • StoneyCurtisll January 20th, 2015 at 15:54

              And that’s just the short list~!

              • OldLefty January 20th, 2015 at 15:55

                Yep.

                The president, and DOJ have authority to refuse To enforce
                unconstitutional laws.

                • Jimmy Fleck January 20th, 2015 at 15:58

                  Please cite the court decision that declares the U.S. Immigration Laws as unconstitutional.

                  • OldLefty January 20th, 2015 at 16:17

                    Don’t need one:

                    “If, under the Constitution, the president must enforce much of the law but need not enforce all of it, where should the line be drawn? It might be surprising that after two centuries of constitutional experience, we don’t know the answer. Probably the reason is that most of the time, the president’s nonenforcement decisions are not controversial. Every day, an executive branch official decides to drop an investigation, or not to prosecute a case, because resources are scarce and the harm caused by a particular legal violation does not seem serious. We don’t object because that’s a sensible thing to do.

                    And the sensible thing to do in the area of immigration law is to bring removal proceedings against the most serious violators — typically, criminals — while leaving otherwise law-abiding noncitizens alone. Given that Congress has not appropriated nearly enough money to deport 10 million or more people, this type of priority-setting is unavoidable, and not merely wise. Indeed, the president is just following in the footsteps of his predecessors, who also focused removal efforts on dangerous aliens. Congress has acquiesced in this practice for years. The president’s discretion over immigration is deeply interwoven in our law. As the Supreme Court recognized just two years ago, in the course of summarizing the statutory scheme: “A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials.”
                    (ARIZONA ET AL. v. UNITED STATES)
                    The only difference between the president and his predecessors is that the president has openly declared the de facto policy of his predecessors. We might disagree about whether this move is wise, but it’s not a constitutional violation.”

                    NYT

                • StoneyCurtisll January 20th, 2015 at 16:23

                  Exactly…

          • Jimmy Fleck January 20th, 2015 at 15:57

            “United States Code (U.S.C.). The code is a collection of all the laws of the United States.” This is a direct quote from the U.S. website on Immigration Law.

            I think you are parsing words by claiming the U.S.C. is a list of regulations. It is the collection of laws passed by Congress.

            • StoneyCurtisll January 20th, 2015 at 16:21

              The link you provided is exactly that, a list of regulations, not laws..(look at it again, this time real close)..

              • Jimmy Fleck January 20th, 2015 at 16:35

                http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/act.html

                Here is the actual law. I see that I did not link to Title 8 of the USC earlier. I linked to Title 8 of the CFR which are regulations in reference to the laws of the USC. Sorry.

                The Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA, was created in 1952. Before the INA, a variety of statutes governed immigration law but were not organized in one location. The McCarran-Walter bill of 1952, Public Law No. 82-414, collected and codified many existing provisions and reorganized the structure of immigration law. The Act has been amended many times over the years, but is still the basic body of immigration law.

                The INA is divided into titles, chapters, and sections. Although it stands alone as a body of law, the Act is also contained in the United States Code (U.S.C.). The code is a collection of all the laws of the United States. It is arranged in fifty subject titles by general alphabetic order. Title 8 of the U.S. Code is but one of the fifty titles and deals with “Aliens and Nationality”. When browsing the INA or other statutes you will often see reference to the U.S. Code citation. For example, Section 208 of the INA deals with asylum, and is also contained in 8 U.S.C. 1158. Although it is correct to refer to a specific section by either its INA citation or its U.S. code, the INA citation is more commonly used.

                • StoneyCurtisll January 20th, 2015 at 16:48

                  Those are a list of “acts”…
                  Again not “law”..

                  Come on man..

    • whatthe46 January 20th, 2015 at 15:35

      who the hell is “she?”

      • Jimmy Fleck January 20th, 2015 at 15:41

        “To make a point in a running battle with Republicans over immigration, Mr. Obama invited Ana Zamora, who was allowed to stay in the country under a 2012 program to end the risk of deportation for young immigrants brought to the United States illegally while they were children.”

        She is Ana Zamora – the illegal immigrant.

        • tracey marie January 20th, 2015 at 19:05

          she is not, according to the powers given to the President, he delayed her deportation without amnesty.

    • OldLefty January 20th, 2015 at 15:49

      I think someone needs to ask the President why he is not faithfully executing the laws with concerns to immigration. That is his duty as President.

      ________

      They say that about every president.

      ” faithfully executing the laws”

      Always comes down to interpretation.

  4. Jimmy Fleck January 20th, 2015 at 13:43

    I think someone needs to ask the President why he is not faithfully executing the laws with concerns to immigration. That is his duty as President. The Constitution does not grant him the right to ignore laws that he does not like. Now, he could issue a pardon to all illegal immigrants if he wanted. That is within his Constitutional powers, but that is not what he has done. I think someone needs to arrest the illegal immigrant on the floor of Congress during the speech as she is freely admitting that she is breaking our immigration laws.

    • jasperjava January 20th, 2015 at 13:49

      I was going to post a snarky comment about a right-wing unhinged anti-immigrant bigot in Congress shrieking to the Capitol police to arrest and remove her.

      It’s hard to believe that there are actual people who would approve of such action.

      • Jimmy Fleck January 20th, 2015 at 13:55

        jasperjava – what other crimes are you ok with people getting away with?

        • jasperjava January 20th, 2015 at 15:17

          When you have war criminals and torturers walking free, as well as greedy banksters who caused the near-collapse of the economy, it’s pretty bigoted to go after hard-working people just trying to make a good life for themselves and their families.

          Call for the arrest of B*$h and Cheney, Rumsfeld and Woo, the crooks on Wall Street, then we’ll talk about who’s getting away with “crimes”.

          • Jimmy Fleck January 20th, 2015 at 15:29

            By all means try these people for war crimes. I am sure we have enough prosecutors to handle that and the illegal immigrants as well. If not then we can easily stop prosecuting stupid things like drug possession to free up jail space and prosecutors. As for the bankers, they should have gone bankrupt and not been bailed out. Any bailout money should have been given directly to any investor that was defrauded by the Wall Street idiots that was not involved in the actual planning of the investments. I don’t know that there is a crime the bankers could be arrested for but for sure they should not have been given money for their stupidity.

            • William January 20th, 2015 at 16:07

              As for the bankers, they should have gone bankrupt and not been bailed out

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Deposit_Insurance_Corporation

              • StoneyCurtisll January 20th, 2015 at 16:08

                I was going to mention the “reward for bad behavior”…
                Ya beat me too it.

              • Jimmy Fleck January 20th, 2015 at 16:36

                That is why I said any bailout money should have gone directly to investors and not back to the banks that made the mess in the first place.

                • William January 20th, 2015 at 17:46

                  You DO understand that as a result of the Wall St crash of 1929 and the subsequent failure of so many banks the FDIC was created right? You do understand that banks are insured against failure right?

            • StoneyCurtisll January 20th, 2015 at 16:12

              Why arrest and prosecute leaders of financial institutions when they can be fined..
              Like JPM’s latest 2.6 Billion dollar fine.
              Or Citi bank’s 7 Billion dollar fine.
              The list goes on and on.

            • jasperjava January 20th, 2015 at 17:07

              We don’t nearly have enough prosecutors to persecute millions of “illegal” immigrants. We don’t have the resources. It’s completely unrealistic.

              I agree with you that the “war on drugs” has been a huge waste. But diverting these resources to another heartbreaking useless endeavour like persecuting hard-working people is sheer lunacy. Leave them alone. They contribute to the economy. They do jobs that native-born Americans won’t do. And yes, if they eventually become citizens, it may prevent the White supremacist right-wing Republican Party from ever oppressing us again.

        • StoneyCurtisll January 20th, 2015 at 16:04

          Being in the country undocumented is not a crime..
          it’s a civil offense, not criminal.

      • Pistol-Packing January 20th, 2015 at 14:38

        i dont care how you slice it, dice it, fry it or roast it. trying to change the name from “Illegal” to undocumented is really just a pile of crap. Call a spade for what it is. Now the question is, what do you do with them all??
        1)I can understand about not deporting children who came here not under their will. At the same time, you cant reward bad behavior.
        2) Make it completely clear, there is n”NO” Illegal entry allowed. You get caught, automatic expulsion. None of this catch and release stuff.
        3) There should be “NO” pathway to citizenship for those that crossed illegally. If we must give them a legal mechanism to apply for and stay legally, maybe acceptable. But no citizenship or voting rights.
        4) And lock down the damn Border already !!!

        • anothertoothpick January 20th, 2015 at 15:02

          The reality is that about 40 percent of the people came in on an airplane, with a legal visa, and just overstayed their visa and have never gone home.

          • StoneyCurtisll January 20th, 2015 at 16:03

            Bingo~!

          • Pistol-Packing January 20th, 2015 at 16:39

            Actually a very true statement. Dont know what the true percentage is, but over staying a visa is very much apart of the problem.

        • anothertoothpick January 20th, 2015 at 15:04

          So much for the fence.

        • Jimmy Fleck January 20th, 2015 at 15:05

          I agree. The problem is neither party is willing to cross their voters on what needs to be done. The democrats see these immigrants as future voters so they do not want them removed. The republicans cave to businesses that want cheap labor so they do not really push to have these people removed either. Their needs to be a dual approach to this problem.

          1. Secure the border and patrol the border. We can easily do this if we were to recall our military forces that are stationed all around the world. Tell the foreign countries that either they pay us to guard them or they can guard themselves. We don’t need to play world police when we can’t even secure our own borders.

          2. Crack down on companies that hire illegal immigrants. Severe fines and revoking of business licenses to start. Deny any companies caught from working on government contracts. And if it doesn’t stop then you need to start jailing company executives.

          3. No government benefits of any kind for illegal immigrants, Any illegal immigrant applying for aid, school, healthcare, etc. should be arrested.

          If there are no jobs and no free benefits then we won’t have to do anything to deport the illegals – they will leave on their own.

        • tracey marie January 20th, 2015 at 16:17

          Just like ronnie did, oh wait.

          • Pistol-Packing January 20th, 2015 at 16:48

            They were just as bad then as they are now. promised border security them promised it now, and nobody delivers.

    • William January 20th, 2015 at 15:57

      “I think someone needs to arrest the illegal immigrant on the floor of Congress during the speech as she is freely admitting that she is breaking our immigration laws.”

      Why don’t you do it. make a citizens arrest. Just think what a hero you’ll be to the right wing wacko brethren.

      http://youtu.be/Kqewojda3M0

    • StoneyCurtisll January 20th, 2015 at 16:05

      Specifically what law is it that you believe president Obama is ignoring.
      Can you name the statute.

      • Jimmy Fleck January 20th, 2015 at 16:31

        http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/8cfr.html

        • StoneyCurtisll January 20th, 2015 at 16:45

          Nice try Jimmy…
          But if you notice those are not “laws’…
          Those are ‘Regulations”…(not law)
          Again I ask you…
          What specific law in regarding immigration is president Obama ignoring?

          • OldLefty January 20th, 2015 at 16:51

            This is no different than;

            The Clinton administration didn’t defend
            a law requiring dismissal of HIV-positive service members.

            George W. Bush didn’t defend a law
            prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads.

            George H. W. Bush didn’t defend
            federal statutes that required minority preferences in broadcast
            licensing.

            Statement on Signing the Union Station Redevelopment Act of 1981,
            Pub. Papers of Ronald Reagan 1207 (Dec. 29, 1981): President Reagan stated that
            a legislative veto was unconstitutional and announced that “[t]he
            Secretary of Transportation will not . . . regard himself as legally bound by
            any such resolution.” Id.

            Statement On Signing the National and Community Service Act of
            1990, Pub. Papers of George Bush 1613 (Nov. 16, 1990): President Bush rejected
            the constitutionality of provisions that required a Presidentially appointed
            board exercising executive authority to include, among its 21 members,
            “seven members nominated by the Speaker of the House of Representatives .

            Ronald Reagan did not defend a
            Congressional resolution vetoing an INS Deportation Decision.

            Statement on Signing the Union Station Redevelopment Act of 1981,
            Pub. Papers of Ronald Reagan 1207 (Dec. 29, 1981): President Reagan stated that
            a legislative veto was unconstitutional and announced that “[t]he
            Secretary of Transportation will not . . . regard himself as legally bound by
            any such resolution.”

            Statement on Signing the Department of Defense Appropriation Act of
            1976, Pub. Papers of Gerald R. Ford 241 (Feb. 10, 1976): President Ford stated
            that a committee approval mechanism was unconstitutional and announced that he
            would “treat the unconstitutional provision . . . to the extent it
            requires further Congressional committee approval, as a complete nullity.

            • StoneyCurtisll January 20th, 2015 at 16:54

              And that’s just the short list~!

              • OldLefty January 20th, 2015 at 16:55

                Yep.

                The president, and DOJ have authority to refuse To enforce
                unconstitutional laws.

                • Jimmy Fleck January 20th, 2015 at 16:58

                  Please cite the court decision that declares the U.S. Immigration Laws as unconstitutional.

                  • OldLefty January 20th, 2015 at 17:17

                    Don’t need one:

                    “If, under the Constitution, the president must enforce much of the law but need not enforce all of it, where should the line be drawn? It might be surprising that after two centuries of constitutional experience, we don’t know the answer. Probably the reason is that most of the time, the president’s nonenforcement decisions are not controversial. Every day, an executive branch official decides to drop an investigation, or not to prosecute a case, because resources are scarce and the harm caused by a particular legal violation does not seem serious. We don’t object because that’s a sensible thing to do.

                    And the sensible thing to do in the area of immigration law is to bring removal proceedings against the most serious violators — typically, criminals — while leaving otherwise law-abiding noncitizens alone. Given that Congress has not appropriated nearly enough money to deport 10 million or more people, this type of priority-setting is unavoidable, and not merely wise. Indeed, the president is just following in the footsteps of his predecessors, who also focused removal efforts on dangerous aliens. Congress has acquiesced in this practice for years. The president’s discretion over immigration is deeply interwoven in our law. As the Supreme Court recognized just two years ago, in the course of summarizing the statutory scheme: “A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials.”
                    (ARIZONA ET AL. v. UNITED STATES)
                    The only difference between the president and his predecessors is that the president has openly declared the de facto policy of his predecessors. We might disagree about whether this move is wise, but it’s not a constitutional violation.”

                    NYT

                • StoneyCurtisll January 20th, 2015 at 17:23

                  Exactly…

          • Jimmy Fleck January 20th, 2015 at 16:57

            “United States Code (U.S.C.). The code is a collection of all the laws of the United States.” This is a direct quote from the U.S. website on Immigration Law.

            I think you are parsing words by claiming the U.S.C. is a list of regulations. It is the collection of laws passed by Congress.

            • StoneyCurtisll January 20th, 2015 at 17:21

              The link you provided is exactly that, a list of regulations, not laws..(look at it again, this time real close)..

              • Jimmy Fleck January 20th, 2015 at 17:35

                http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/act.html

                Here is the actual law. I see that I did not link to Title 8 of the USC earlier. I linked to Title 8 of the CFR which are regulations in reference to the laws of the USC. Sorry.

                The Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA, was created in 1952. Before the INA, a variety of statutes governed immigration law but were not organized in one location. The McCarran-Walter bill of 1952, Public Law No. 82-414, collected and codified many existing provisions and reorganized the structure of immigration law. The Act has been amended many times over the years, but is still the basic body of immigration law.

                The INA is divided into titles, chapters, and sections. Although it stands alone as a body of law, the Act is also contained in the United States Code (U.S.C.). The code is a collection of all the laws of the United States. It is arranged in fifty subject titles by general alphabetic order. Title 8 of the U.S. Code is but one of the fifty titles and deals with “Aliens and Nationality”. When browsing the INA or other statutes you will often see reference to the U.S. Code citation. For example, Section 208 of the INA deals with asylum, and is also contained in 8 U.S.C. 1158. Although it is correct to refer to a specific section by either its INA citation or its U.S. code, the INA citation is more commonly used.

                • StoneyCurtisll January 20th, 2015 at 17:48

                  Those are a list of “acts”…
                  Again not “law”..

                  Come on man..

    • whatthe46 January 20th, 2015 at 16:35

      who the hell is “she?”

      • Jimmy Fleck January 20th, 2015 at 16:41

        “To make a point in a running battle with Republicans over immigration, Mr. Obama invited Ana Zamora, who was allowed to stay in the country under a 2012 program to end the risk of deportation for young immigrants brought to the United States illegally while they were children.”

        She is Ana Zamora – the illegal immigrant.

        • tracey marie January 20th, 2015 at 20:05

          she is not, according to the powers given to the President, he delayed her deportation without amnesty.

    • OldLefty January 20th, 2015 at 16:49

      I think someone needs to ask the President why he is not faithfully executing the laws with concerns to immigration. That is his duty as President.

      ________

      They say that about every president.

      ” faithfully executing the laws”

      Always comes down to interpretation.

  5. Wayout January 20th, 2015 at 15:04

    Just a few years ago it would have been unimaginable that a President of the United States would aid and abet illegal activity. It’s over folks, the great experiment of a republican form of government guided by duly passed laws of the people’s representatives is over.

    • StoneyCurtisll January 20th, 2015 at 15:07

      Once again you amaze me…
      I thought you could not get anymore ignorant then in your previous comments.

      • Wayout January 20th, 2015 at 15:32

        Ignorant? You are the one who is ignorant. We are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, a government that is run under the “Federalist” model – i.e. a Federal central government with individual sovereign states, whose leaders are elected in the democratic fashion.

        The term ” republican form of government” comes from little “r” of republicanism, not the big “R” that denotes a political party. And we are not a democracy either. That term has been erroneously applied to our nation for many years now. I see you have never had a civics class.

        • StoneyCurtisll January 20th, 2015 at 15:39

          Your words were “A republican form of government”…
          A “constitutional republic” is not a “republican form of government”..
          Go back to Google and look up “Liberal Democracy”..

          I’ll do it for you…

          A liberal democracy is a form of representative democracy
          in which elected representatives who hold power are limited by a
          constitution that emphasizes protecting individual liberties, equality
          and the rights of minority groups. Among the many liberties that might
          be protected are freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of religion, the right to private property and privacy as well as equality before the law and due process under the rule of law

          • Roctuna January 20th, 2015 at 19:10

            As much as it galls me, I think Wayout’s usage of republican (small r) is correct. Republican form of govm’t refers to election by the people at state and fed levels instead of having the state govm’t elect the federal. But let’s not pick nits. As usual his comment is wayout (small w), misguided and shallow.

        • StoneyCurtisll January 20th, 2015 at 15:41

          Then why didn’t you call it a “constitutional republic” in the first place?..
          Instead of a “republican form of government”..

    • tracey marie January 20th, 2015 at 15:16

      you mean like ronnie arming Iran and selling drugs, bush the drunk starting pre-emptive wars and torturing POW’s

    • OldLefty January 20th, 2015 at 15:42

      That’s what EVERYONE says, and EVERYONE thinks THEY are the arbiter of the Constitution, and understand it better than anyone who disagrees with them.

      That’s EXACTLY what WE said about Reagan.

    • William January 20th, 2015 at 17:02

      Just a few years ago it would have been unimaginable that a President of the United States would aid and abet illegal activity.

      Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha

      The presidency of Ronald Reagan in the United States was marked by multiple scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials, the largest number for any US president

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_administration_scandals

    • William January 20th, 2015 at 17:11

      Lets just go ahead and skip to the root cause of your outrage, shall we Skippy?

    • Roctuna January 20th, 2015 at 19:15

      Really! Nixon’s illigality was so pervasive and far-reaching that “-gates” are part of our vocabulary. And can anything be more evil than Iran-Contra? Selling arms to Iran and funding death squads in Central America expressly prohibited by Congress? The best you righties could come up with was an illicit bj.

  6. Wayout January 20th, 2015 at 16:04

    Just a few years ago it would have been unimaginable that a President of the United States would aid and abet illegal activity. It’s over folks, the great experiment of a republican form of government guided by duly passed laws of the people’s representatives is over.

    • StoneyCurtisll January 20th, 2015 at 16:07

      Once again you amaze me…
      I thought you could not get anymore ignorant then in your previous comments.
      There is no such thing as “A Republican form of government”..

      And where have you been if you couldn’t imagine a President of the United States would aid and abet illegal activity.

      • Wayout January 20th, 2015 at 16:32

        Ignorant? You are the one who is ignorant. We are a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, a government that is run under the “Federalist” model – i.e. a Federal central government with individual sovereign states whose leaders are elected in the democratic fashion.

        The term ” republican form of government” comes from little “r” of republicanism, not the big “R” that denotes a political party. And we are not a democracy either, as that term has been erroneously applied to our nation for many years now. I see you have never had a civics class.

        • StoneyCurtisll January 20th, 2015 at 16:39

          Your words were “A republican form of government”…
          A “constitutional republic” is not a “republican form of government”..
          Go back to Google and look up “Liberal Democracy”..

          I’ll do it for you…

          A liberal democracy is a form of representative democracy
          in which elected representatives who hold power are limited by a
          constitution that emphasizes protecting individual liberties, equality
          and the rights of minority groups. Among the many liberties that might
          be protected are freedom of speech and assembly, freedom of religion, the right to private property and privacy as well as equality before the law and due process under the rule of law

          • Roctuna January 20th, 2015 at 20:10

            As much as it galls me, I think Wayout’s usage of republican (small r) is correct. Republican form of govm’t refers to election by the people at state and fed levels instead of having the state govm’t elect the federal. But let’s not pick nits. As usual his comment is wayout (small w), misguided and shallow.

        • StoneyCurtisll January 20th, 2015 at 16:41

          Then why didn’t you call it a “constitutional republic” in the first place?..
          Instead of a “republican form of government”..

    • tracey marie January 20th, 2015 at 16:16

      you mean like ronnie arming Iran and selling drugs, bush the drunk starting pre-emptive wars and torturing POW’s

    • OldLefty January 20th, 2015 at 16:42

      That’s what EVERYONE says, and EVERYONE thinks THEY are the arbiter of the Constitution, and understand it better than anyone who disagrees with them.

      That’s EXACTLY what WE said about Reagan.

    • William January 20th, 2015 at 18:02

      Just a few years ago it would have been unimaginable that a President of the United States would aid and abet illegal activity.

      Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha

      The presidency of Ronald Reagan in the United States was marked by multiple scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials, the largest number for any US president

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_administration_scandals

    • William January 20th, 2015 at 18:11

      Lets just go ahead and skip to the root cause of your outrage, shall we Skippy?

    • Roctuna January 20th, 2015 at 20:15

      Really! Nixon’s illigality was so pervasive and far-reaching that “-gates” are part of our vocabulary. And can anything be more evil than Iran-Contra? Selling arms to Iran and funding death squads in Central America expressly prohibited by Congress? The best you righties could come up with was an illicit bj.

  7. tracey marie January 20th, 2015 at 15:21

    Our border has more patrols(men) drones, technology and money then anytime in our history, we are a net zero immigration, only ronnie gave amnesty, being undocumented is a civil offense.

    • StoneyCurtisll January 20th, 2015 at 15:23

      But they do not what to believe that…
      They do want to believe that Obama is not anything about the “borders”..
      Theses are the same people that dont believe his birth certificate, or that he is a christian and not a Muslim.

      Ya cant talk sense to them.

      • tracey marie January 20th, 2015 at 15:24

        I like to watch and poke the imbeciles.

        • StoneyCurtisll January 20th, 2015 at 15:25

          make sure ya poke em with a sharp stick~!

          • tracey marie January 20th, 2015 at 15:25

            a very sharp stick…they get all frothy and angry

            • StoneyCurtisll January 20th, 2015 at 15:27

              You’re just like a kid poking a barking dog with a stick through a fence…
              (I’m kidding)~!!!

              • tracey marie January 20th, 2015 at 15:27

                Sometimes it is just to easy to poke and laugh.

                • StoneyCurtisll January 20th, 2015 at 15:28

                  I know…
                  Sometimes I cant help myself either~!

                  • tracey marie January 20th, 2015 at 15:28

                    usually I just laugh and ignore, I am bored so I will play with them

                    • StoneyCurtisll January 20th, 2015 at 15:28

                      Yep..
                      Same here.

  8. tracey marie January 20th, 2015 at 16:21

    Our border has more patrols(men) drones, technology and money then anytime in our history, we are a net zero immigration, only ronnie gave amnesty, being undocumented is a civil offense.

    • StoneyCurtisll January 20th, 2015 at 16:23

      But they do not what to believe that…
      They do want to believe that Obama is not anything about the “borders”..
      Theses are the same people that dont believe his birth certificate, or that he is a christian and not a Muslim.

      Ya cant talk sense to them.

      • tracey marie January 20th, 2015 at 16:24

        I like to watch and poke the imbeciles.

        • StoneyCurtisll January 20th, 2015 at 16:25

          make sure ya poke em with a sharp stick~!

          • tracey marie January 20th, 2015 at 16:25

            a very sharp stick…they get all frothy and angry

            • StoneyCurtisll January 20th, 2015 at 16:27

              You’re just like a kid poking a barking dog with a stick through a fence…
              (I’m kidding)~!!!

              • tracey marie January 20th, 2015 at 16:27

                Sometimes it is just to easy to poke and laugh.

                • StoneyCurtisll January 20th, 2015 at 16:28

                  I know…
                  Sometimes I cant help myself either~!

                  • tracey marie January 20th, 2015 at 16:28

                    usually I just laugh and ignore, I am bored so I will play with them

                    • StoneyCurtisll January 20th, 2015 at 16:28

                      Yep..
                      Same here.

Leave a Reply