OBAMA'S IMMIGRATION POLICY 52,470

OBAMA’S

IMMIGRATION

POLICY

Anti-illegal immigration activists are planning several hundred protests in cities across the country on Friday and Saturday, part of a growing backlash against the federal government's efforts to temporarily house migrant children detained at the border. "We're the American defenders that are standing with the current Constitution, the existing federal laws, and the current borders of the United States that are in peril here."

(National Public Radio

· 5 mths ago)http://www.veooz.com/news/CHKvk0m.html

*  Special thanks to "Google Images", "The Los Angeles Times", "The Washington Times",
"Reuters" and "Bloomberg Reports"

BLOG  POST

by Felicity Blaze Noodleman

Los Angeles, CA

12.12.14

Thanks for returning to "Noodleman" this week!  We have assembled a very interesting group as we explore the reaction to Obama's executive  order giving Illegal Aliens amnesty. No; he didn't, we thought when we heard the news of the President's plan for Illegal Immigration on November 20, 2014.  With a new Republican Congress taking the floor in January, 2015 President Obama clearly wants to get things off on the wrong foot! He announced he is acting on his Executive authority which is evidently going to far for a lot of people.

After Democrats completely lost control of Congress in the mid term elections the President still has not got the message from voters.  When the President made his Illegal Immigration proclamation it was news, but the real news is the "blow back" on the issue and now we are beginning to see some of the results in the form of demonstrations, law suits and what Congress may do in 2015.  All along the US / Mexico boarder States from Texas to California protests are calling for Washington to protect our country and enforce the immigration laws which protect us all and our civil rights!

When is the Federal Government going to get the message that US citizens are opposed to Illegal Immigration and Federal spending on these Illegals?  It's a lot like someone breaking into your house and telling you they are going to live there too!  Which one of us would put up with that?  The United States has tolerated this situation for far to long!   Why do other country's know how to deal with their boarders and the United States is unable to do the same? 



Illegal Latinos have been leaking into the United Stated for decades.  Quietly building their army of criminals and draining the country of resources to fund their invasion of our schools and social services.  They make no contributions nor pay taxes and have built a Latino culture separate and apart from the United States.  Now they are protesting their treatment and want to demand their rights.  What rights?  They're criminals!  They must go!!!





For far to long Government at both the State and Federal levels have not done their jobs. States point their fingers at Washington DC saying it's the Federal Governments job and vice versa when in truth they both have the authority to deal with the problem. Make no mistake about it; the rats are in the corn!  They've been there for a long time.  Seniors, disabled, and other US citizens all wonder why their Government is not taking better care of them.  One big reason for this problem is the Billions Government spends on the costs for Illegal Aliens!  This is a crime

Ethnic polarization is something that Obama can easily exploit to his advantage. Protests against illegal aliens by Anglos will be perceived as being anti-Hispanic and anti-Latino and may help produce mass counter-demonstrations for Amnesty like the one in the photo in 2006. Immigration Reform activists have been talking about mass demonstrations for the last couple of years.

http://ion-us.net/2014/07/21/anti-illegal-alien-protests-may-actually-help-obama/  

Illegal Aliens have no legal claims in the US; they are not native Americans from within the US and try to confuse issues to their advantage.  Hispanic Latinos have "sneaked in" to the United States for decades and now are trying to tell the United States what to do about them!

ABC News estimates 100 Billion a year is spent by Tax Payers in dealing with the problems which result due to Illegal Immigration.  According to other sources this number is much lower, but when we consider all the resources used by Illegals such as Medical, Schools, Law Enforcement, Boarder Security, State & Federal Prisons and last but not least Cleanup to mention only a few, the larger number seems to be a conservative estimate.  

There are other costs for privet businesses as well which come into contact with these highly destructive people such as Restaurants, Theaters, Retail Merchants ect. and so on. The annual costs for vandalism, theft, graffiti and other damages means that we all pay higher prices!  We also must bear the burden of fewer services as a result.  

The US Census Bureau in conjunction with the Office of Homeland Security (Office of Immigration Statistics) reports that Undocumented Aliens living within US Boarders to be 11.9 million in 2011. Another group reporting Illegal US Populations, (The Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform) put these numbers in a much higher bracket estimating this population to be between 12 to 20 Million.


An other aspect to consider with giving such a large group of immigrants amnesty is the national employment picture.  Why should those who have immigrated to the United States legally and played by the rules now be forced to compete with the criminals who have come into this country through the back door?  It seems there will be less opportunity for these newly naturalized Americans in the land of opportunity!




This issue is not helping the Presidents slumping popularity. Polls continue to show Obama has one of the worst ratings of any President in history; only Harry Truman falls below Obama. The polls we follow; "Gallup" "Rasmussen Reports" and "Real Clear Politics" all follow the same trend with Rasmussen averaging the Presidents numbers for an over all -15 percent What is really interesting in the poll numbers is that now Republicans are receiving a five year high in the poll numbers as "Bloomberg" reports.

Demonstrators confront each other, Friday, July 4, 2014, outside a U.S. Border Patrol station in Murrieta, Calif., over illegal immigration. (Image source: AP/Mark J. Terrill)

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/04/five-arrested-during-illegal-immigration-protest-and-rally-in-california-town-where-crowds-turned-back-buses-of-migrants-just-days-ago/




"Bloomberg"

Approval Ratings Hit 5-Year High for Republicans

Dec 9, 2014 2:59 AM PST

President Obama's ratings hit bottom in a new Bloomberg Politics poll as he prepares to take on an antagonist Congress.

by Margaret Talev

White House correspondent at Bloomberg

Washington D.C. Metro Area

Republicans are enjoying a five-year peak in popularity after their wins in the midterm elections, according to a new Bloomberg Politics poll, while President Barack Obama struggles with his lowest job approval rating, at 39 percent. The White House also is facing a backlash from independents who oppose his unilateral moves on immigration, and just 24 percent say the country is on the right track, the lowest rating since September 2011. 

Obama's weakened standing comes as he and the rising congressional Republican leaders are poised to become partners—or adversaries—in guiding the nation. They will start in January on more equal footing, the poll shows. Forty-five percent of Americans say they now view the Republican Party favorably, while 47 percent hold an unfavorable view. 

That’s the best showing the party has had since the inception of the poll in September 2009. Opinion about the Democratic Party has plunged, with a favorable rating of 41 percent and an unfavorable rating of 50 percent. This was Democrats’ worst showing in more than five years.

Still, any Republican lawmaker or 2016 presidential hopeful tempted to declare a mandate may want to heed these warning signs: Americans also are more likely to view Republicans as more confrontational than Democrats, and to say Republican politicians are more motivated by their desire to antagonize Obama. In addition, individual Republican leaders tested aren't benefiting from the 8-point uptick in views of their party. For House Speaker John Boehner and incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, more respondents have unfavorable than favorable views.  

"This is a rising tide for Republicans while the tide has kind of gone out for the Democrats," said J. Ann Selzer, president of Selzer & Co., which conducted the poll. "Now that the midterms are over, it seems to me it's incumbent on them to pivot for 2016. They've had a strong ride in beating up on Obama. Now, exactly how long is that the relevant message? People are eventually going to want to hear 'We're going to do this.' They're going to want to hear a positive message—not just 'we have to stop Obama.'" 

Roman Kenenitz, 62, a Democrat from Mount Carmel, Pa., says that "mainly the disgust with Obama" is what's driving his more favorable views of the Republican Party rather than any sense that they are getting things done. His shift in partisan preference was intensified after the president last month announced a reprieve for the undocumented parents of children born in the U.S. and an expansion of permits for high-skilled foreign workers. Kenenitz said that Obama is “too much of a flip-flop type guy" and that "with him pulling this executive power” the president is “like a crybaby—‘it’s my way or no way’—and I just don’t feel he’s doing a good job.”

“Right now I feel they’re trying to put the brakes on him,” Kenenitz said of Republicans. But ask him who he likes for president in 2016, and he mentions Democrat Hillary Clinton, though he says he's open to a Republican as well. “I vote for who I feel will do the best,” he said. “I actually put a lot into it.”

Americans remain skeptical about the motivations of the ascendant congressional majority. Almost a majority, or 49 percent, say Republicans have been more confrontational while 32 percent say the Democrats have taken that posture. A clear majority also says Republicans are more motivated by their antagonism toward the president than their vision for the country—55 percent to 34 percent. 

The findings are essentially reversed when they were asked about Obama, with 54 percent saying he’s motivated by his vision and 36 percent saying he’s driven by antagonism toward Republicans. "If what they're doing is out of antagonism, are they making choices that aren’t really about their values?" Selzer said. Republicans run the risk of "sort of painting themselves into a corner" if they continue on this path once they're in control of both chambers of Congress or running for president against a candidate who is not Obama.

Obama is viewed favorably by 45 percent of Americans, a tick higher than in a June. A bright spot in the survey: his approval rating on managing the economy rose five points since June to 42 percent, although a majority, 53 percent, still disapprove of the job he's doing on that issue. Americans also issued negative ratings for his handling of health care, the budget deficit, immigration and foreign policy. His lowest approval rating—32 percent—is on the question of negotiating with the Republican majority in the U.S. House. 

As for Obama’s decision to take executive action to give some illegal immigrants temporary legal status, 56 percent say they don’t approve, while 39 percent are okay with it and 5 percent aren’t sure. This is partly a partisan issue; 83 percent of Republicans oppose the decisions while two-thirds of Democrats favor them. More ominously, though, a clear majority—57 percent—of independents oppose the actions.

The Bloomberg Politics poll of 1,001 U.S. adults was conducted Dec. 3-5 by Selzer & Company of Des Moines, Iowa, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-12-09/approval-ratings-hit-5year-high-for-gop

"The Los Angeles Times"

Anti-Illegal Immigration Activists Look Beyond California For Action

Robin Hvidston, president of We the People Rising, demonstrates in downtown Los Angeles last summer against illegal immigration. (Dan R. Krauss)

By CINDY CARCAMO  contact the reporter

For years, Raul Rodriguez Jr. would let out an exasperated sigh, then move on, whenever he read or heard news about illegal immigration. But something clicked last summer when he saw reports of multitudes of Central Americans illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.

"I've got to do something," Rodriguez, 72, said he told himself. "I've got to get off the couch and need to get people involved."

Rodriguez crafted signs denouncing illegal immigration for various rallies, including one in Murrieta a few days after busloads of Central American detainees were turned back amid vocal protests.

After President Obama announced his immigration reform plan last month, the Apple Valley resident started contacting congressional leaders to express his displeasure.

California's anti-illegal immigration movement has lost a lot of steam in the 20 years since voters passed Proposition 187, the ballot measure intended to deny taxpayer-funded services to those in the country illegally.

Polls consistently show that Californians don't see illegal immigration as the same type of threat they did in the 1990s, and a September USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll showed 73% of voters support some type of path to citizenship for those here illegally.

But the last few months have shown that the anti-illegal immigration forces remain small but potent — and a movement that backers hope will get stronger with Obama's action.

Tactics this time are changing. Robin Hvidston, president of We the People Rising, a Claremont organization, said her group and other California activists have focused on targeting congressional leaders outside the state because they know there's little they can do here.

"They see their only hope being the national government," said Roy H. Beck, who heads NumbersUSA, a powerful national advocacy group opposing illegal immigration. "They don't see a solution coming from inside California."

People Rising and other groups campaigning against illegal immigration say they are experiencing a modest uptick in public interest and support as immigration has emerged as a big issue this year, a trend confirmed by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

But it's not exactly a groundswell.

The protests in Murrieta garnered days of national attention and inspired similar demonstrations throughout the nation, according to activists and the poverty law center.

Obama's plan, which would give work permits and temporary protection from deportation to nearly 5 million who are in the country illegally, did generate some protests, but they were decidedly small-scale. One last month in Rancho Cucamonga drew just six demonstrators.

Activists in California say that once the new Congress takes office in January, they are planning a phone and fax blitz in response to Obama's move. Plans to join rallies in Washington, D.C., are also in the works.

Movement leaders said they want Congress to fight Obama's executive action and to further secure the border with Mexico.

The renewed activity opposing illegal immigration in California reflects what's happening on a national level, Beck said.

"They're all enraged and engaged," Beck said. "This issue is a white-hot priority within our followers."

Leo Chavez, professor of anthropology at UC Irvine who has researched and written about the movement against illegal immigration, said an uptick in such activity is common when there are national events with high-media exposure, such as the border crisis last summer.

But whether the momentum will be sustainable is a question, especially in California, where dramatic political and demographic changes have taken place since the heyday of the movement in the 1990s.

Polling shows that Californians still have concerns about illegal immigration.

In the September USC/Times poll, 72% of respondents said illegal immigration is a crisis or major problem. The response was shared across ethnic, ideological, income and geographic lines, the poll found, even by those who support a path to citizenship for people who are in the country illegally.

Still, the state's movement is a shadow of what it was in 1994, when California voters approved Proposition 187, a measure to deny public services — such as public schooling and healthcare — to people in the country illegally. Most of its provisions were struck down in court.

The movement deflated a bit, then picked up steam in 2005 with the rise of the Minuteman Project — a civilian militia patrol led by Jim Gilchrist of Orange County. The group took to patrolling the Mexican border in Arizona.

But infighting, violence and accusations of corruption dismantled the movement. The 2011 conviction of Minutemen member Shawna Forde in the murders of a man and his 9-year-old daughter in southern Arizona scarred the cause and drove many people out of the movement.

Many of the movement's most active participants moved into the tea party, which put immigration on the back burner and focused their energy on defeating a number of Obama's efforts, such as the Affordable Care Act, said Heidi Beirich, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks extreme right-wing and hate groups.

At the height of the movement in 2010, the center tracked more than 300 such groups. After that, it dipped dramatically to just about 30 last year.

Chavez, who has tracked anti-illegal immigration groups for years and wrote "The Latino Threat: Constructing Immigrants, Citizens, and the Nation," said that the movement in California lost a lot of its momentum because of the demographic shift that has occurred since the mid-1990s.

This year, Latinos became the largest single ethnic group in the state, making up 39% of the population, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

"Latinos are definitely a force to be reckoned with in California," Chavez said.

After California, the crusade against illegal immigration moved east toward Arizona after a series of immigration-enforcement laws were passed there, but many were ultimately struck down by the courts.

Now, all eyes are on Texas, where conservative legislators have adopted many of the movement's goals, especially after the crisis along the Texas border last summer.

"This is where California was in the 1990s," Beck said.

Rodriguez, born in El Paso, Texas, to a U.S.-born mother and a father of Mexican origin who became a naturalized U.S. citizen and fought in World War II, said he doesn't know whether his father came to the U.S. legally.

Regardless, he said, people should "get in line" and come and stay with permission, instead of crossing the border illegally or overstaying a visa and falling out of status.

The path to legal immigration to the U.S. is backlogged and very restricted, leaving those who do it through legal channels waiting for a very long time.

For instance, a Mexican national who is the adult child of a U.S. citizen must wait an estimated 20 years before filing for a permanent residency visa, according to a Migration Policy Institute report last year.

Rodriguez said he'll continue to fight illegal immigration any way he can. Recently, he fired his gardener after learning he was in was in the country illegally, because Rodriguez believed keeping him on was unfair to U.S. workers.

"I haven't found someone who I can hire to do the job," he said. "But I'm willing to pay an American citizen to do that for me."

cindy.carcamo@latimes.com

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ff-anti-illegal-immigration-20141208-story.html#page=1

"The Washington Times"

Obama Amnesty In Jeopardy With Bush Judicial Appointee Hearing States’ Challenge

Texas Gov.-elect Greg Abbott speaks to member of the media following a meeting with President Barack Obama and newly elected governors at the White House on Dec. 5, 2014.Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP  (MSNBC)

By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Sunday, December 7, 2014

Judge Andrew Hanen rebuked Homeland Security last year for refusing to follow border security laws

The states challenging President Obama’s deportation amnesty have already won the first round in court after the case landed in the lap of Judge Andrew S. Hanen, a Bush appointee who issued a scorching rebuke to the Department of Homeland Security last year, accusing it of refusing to follow border security laws.

It could hardly have been a worse outcome for Mr. Obama, who, in order to preserve his policy, will now have to convince a judge who is on record calling his previous, less-extensive nondeportation policies “dangerous and unconscionable.”

Led by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, the 20 states challenging the new policy filed their case in Brownsville. It could have gone to one of two judges — the other a Clinton appointee — but it landed in the lap of Judge Hanen last week, putting Mr. Obama on the defensive early.

“It’s the Constitution itself that is under assault by the president of the United States by this executive order,” Mr. Abbott told NBC’s “Meet the Press” this weekend. “This lawsuit is not about immigration. The issue in this lawsuit is abuse of executive power.”

Analysts on both sides of the issue said Mr. Obama’s opponents were fortunate to draw Judge Hanen, who has already shown a deep distrust of Homeland Security officials, questioning both their policies and their legal arguments.

In a 10-page order last December, just as the surge of illegal immigrant children was beginning, he blasted the Obama administration for refusing to get tough on enforcement and instead shipping children caught at the border to live with their illegal immigrant parents here in the U.S. — and refusing to even try to deport those parents.

“The DHS should cease telling the citizens of the United States that it is enforcing our border security laws because it is clearly not,” Judge Hanen wrote. “Even worse, it is helping those who violate these laws.”

Judge Hanen, who took his spot in the federal bench in 2002, was quick to say in his order that he didn’t take a “position on the topic of immigration reform,” but said he was dismayed at “the failure by the DHS to enforce current United States law.”

Even more striking was his reasoning: Judge Hanen said the government was wasting money, not saving it, by refusing to deport illegal immigrants and instead paying to connect children and their illegal immigrant parents.

The states that sued to halt Mr. Obama’s policy say they too will incur hundreds of millions of dollars in costs if they have to police, educate and provide care for the thousands of new illegal immigrants they expect to be enticed to enter the U.S. illegally based on the new amnesty. The states argue they have been injured by Mr. Obama’s order — or, in legal terms, have “standing” to sue in court — because of those economic consequences.

A number of legal experts, however, doubt that will be enough to convince a judge to take the case.

“It’s not enough to say you would be harmed. You have to prove it with evidence,” said Stephen H. Legomsky, a professor at the Washington University School of Law.

Mr. Legomsky spent two years as chief counsel at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services during the time when that agency was implementing Mr. Obama’s deferred action policy for “dreamers” — which was the testing ground for this year’s broader policy — and the professor said both have solid legal underpinnings.

First, the states would have to prove conclusively that Mr. Obama’s program will lead to a new surge in illegal immigration — something that is speculative. Mr. Legomsky said another federal court has already rejected that argument in a challenge to the “dreamer” policy.

He also said the drafters of the policies, known in the immigration world as “deferred action,” were careful to make sure that nobody has a right to tentative legal status. Each case is supposed to be reviewed carefully by an immigration officer, who is to use discretion.

Speaking Sunday, Mr. Abbott said he believes the fiscal impact on states will be enough to earn a day in court.

And Kris W. Kobach, secretary of state in Kansas and one of those who has been instrumental in devising legal attacks on Mr. Obama’s immigration enforcement policies, said there are other potential challengers as well.

Mr. Kobach said a U.S. citizen who could show he lost in a job competition to one of the newly legalized workers under the amnesty could also go to court — if he could prove that he lost the job specifically because of competition with an illegal immigrant.

“The trick, of course, is establishing that,” he said.

Mr. Kobach also said immigration agents who enforce the law could have standing to sue over the new policy.

He is leading a previous case filed by immigration agents that challenged Mr. Obama’s 2012 amnesty for “dreamers.” In that case a judge ruled that the administration did likely break the law — but the judge also ruled he didn’t have jurisdiction over the case since another part of the law said the agents needed to take their complaints to a personnel board, not the federal courts.

Mr. Kobach and the agents are fighting that case in the personnel board, and both he and the Obama administration have also appealed the initial judge’s ruling to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

That case is tentatively slated for oral arguments on Feb. 2.

In the Texas case, Judge Hanen has set a pretrial conference for March 31.

To win their case, opponents must not only win standing but must also show the president acted outside his powers.

They argue Mr. Obama has gone broader than previous presidents in using his prosecutorial discretion, and they said the president gave them ammunition last month when he twice said during a speech he had taken action to “change the law” in halting deportation. The states, in their lawsuit, pointedly cited Mr. Obama’s comments as a prominent part of their complaint.

Mr. Legomsky, though, said that while the comments may present a political problem for the president, “from a legal standpoint it’s totally irrelevant.”

The professor said deferred action is explicitly authorized in statutes, regulations and in a long line of court cases, giving Mr. Obama solid legal backing.

The states aren’t the only ones to file a challenge to the latest Obama action. Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio filed a lawsuit just minutes after Mr. Obama announced his policy Nov. 20. That lawsuit is pending in District Court in Washington, D.C.

Both the states and Sheriff Arpaio have sought preliminary injunctions in their cases, hoping to head off Mr. Obama’s policy before it can get up and running. The administration envisions taking applications within 180 days.

Sheriff Arpaio’s lawsuit is being heard in Washington by Judge Beryl A. Howell, an Obama appointee.

Her immigration record differs from that of Judge Hanen. Earlier this year she issued a ruling in an open records case seeking documents  on the construction of the border fence, and in her decision she speculated that construction of the fence could have a “disparate impact on lower-income minority communities.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/7/obama-amnesty-in-jeopardy-with-bush-judicial-appoi/

"Reuters"
Exclusive: Republicans Prepare 2015 Immigration Legislation

Demonstrators picket against the possible arrivals of undocumented migrants who may be processed at the Murrieta Border Patrol Station in Murrieta, California July 1, 2014.

CREDIT: REUTERS/SAM HODGSON

BY RICHARD COWAN

WASHINGTON Thu Dec 4, 2014 7:27pm EST

(Reuters) - U.S. Republicans, outraged with President Barack Obama for easing deportations of millions of undocumented residents, plan legislation in 2015 strengthening the U.S.-Mexican border to discourage illegal immigration.

The move, likely to come early next year according to House Republican leadership aides, may lead to other steps the House of Representatives could contemplate to repair parts of U.S. immigration law.

When legislation materializes, it would follow a year and half of congressional inactivity in the aftermath of the passage of a sprawling Senate bill backed by Obama but killed by the House.

"I think there is the realization...that this issue is not going away," said Republican Representative Mario Diaz-Balart, who has labored to write broad immigration legislation.

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul likely will oversee the effort, according to leadership aides. McCaul has pushed legislation imposing tough standards for border apprehensions.

Given the House's rejection of the Senate's work in 2013, a strategy is emerging for 2015 to have the House take the lead in the hope of making better progress.

The 2013 Senate bill's pathway to citizenship for millions of undocumented residents was a lightning rod for opposition.

"I want it to start in the House," said Republican Senator John McCain, a leading immigration reform proponent.

McCain said bills improving border security, establishing an online system for companies to check their workers' immigration status and expanding visas for high-tech foreign workers could be first out of the gate. The latter two are important to U.S. businesses.

Senior House Republican aides said it was unclear what bills might move next year beyond border security.

Republicans hope to gain more control of the immigration debate as they will hold majorities in the House and Senate for the first time since 2006.

They need to improve their standing with Hispanic-American voters as the party strives to capture the White House in 2016.

DIFFICULTIES ABOUND

Passing tougher immigration measures will be difficult, though, as Democratic votes will be needed.

Obama warned business leaders this week that "it's going to be hard, I think, for me and for other Democrats" to support piecemeal legislation that deals with the concerns of business but does not address undocumented Americans.

One leading Democrat on immigration, Representative Zoe Lofgren, was asked if she could support a Republican border security bill, for example.

"It depends on what it is," Lofgren said, adding Republican Representative "Steve King wants to do a (border) wall with electrified wire...I don't think that's a winning vote."

Ultimately, Republicans must address the approximately 12 million undocumented residents living in the United States for extended periods, McCain and Diaz-Balart said.

Many Republicans argue that allowing them to stay in the U.S. rewards law-breakers.

Meanwhile, House Republican leadership is more conservative with the recent election of Representative Steve Scalise to the third-ranking position. Scalise opposes giving legal status to undocumented residents.

Furthermore, the House immigration debate could unfold as a seasonal spike of illegal migration from Central America gets underway. Last summer's arrival of tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors stoked tensions between Republicans and immigration advocates.

For legislation to succeed in 2015, "a lot of things have to line up and they're not lined up now," said one Republican congressman who asked not to be identified.

(Editing by Caren Bohan, Sandra Maler and Alan Crosby)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/05/us-usa-congress-immigration-exclusive-idUSKCN0JI2JX20141205

With a "Lame Duck" Congress the President has decided to act on Illegal Immigration by himself without Congress.  This issue is so big that it demands an act of Congress to validate this kind of law and not the cowardly act of a predigest President.  Obama is on very thin ice with this one and his executive powers are in question!  In 2015 Obama will find a very different climate In Washington and if we are lucky a Congress which will Impeach him based on his criminal actions!

It must be nice to have a job where the rules don't apply.  A job where the job description is not a solid guide line, but flexible.  A job where the oath of office is not binding.   A job where we let our prejudges effect our decisions.  Evidently this is President Obama's view of the Presidency. He is unable to enforce boarder security, so intends to change the law instead of enforcing the law!  Well; we will see Mr. President. This is Felicity for the "Noodleman Group".

http://www.caglecartoons.com/media/cartoons/81/2010/05/26/78874_600.jpg

http://fbnoodleman.blogspot.com/

 Tell your friends and associates about us! 

It's easy!  Just copy and paste me into your email!

* “The Noodleman Group” is pleased to announce that we are now carrying a link to the “USA Today” news site.We installed the “widget/gadget” August 20, and it will be carried as a regular feature on our site.Now you can read“Noodleman” and then check in to “USA Today” for all the up to date News, Weather, Sports and more!Just scroll all the way down to the bottom of our site and hit the “USA Today” hyperlinks.Enjoy!

The Noodleman Group is on Google "Blogger"!