As usual, you fall over yourself to try and disprove me with material that winds up being irrelevant. The Act you reference is from 1953. The earliest executive order I referenced was from 1956. Obviously, there wouldn't be any need to sign an executive order if the president wasn't trying to provision something that wasn't already included in the 1953 act.

For future reference, rushing to the internet for things to cut and paste into your responses often leaves you looking like a fool. Just stick with your Dennis Menace middle-finger - it sums you up perfectly, just a brainless cartoon with a big middle-finger.

As usual, you fall over yourself to try and disprove me with material that winds up being irrelevant. The Act you reference is from 1953. The earliest executive order I referenced was from 1956. Obviously, there wouldn't be any need to sign an executive order if the president wasn't trying to provision something that wasn't already included in the 1953 act.

For future reference, rushing to the internet for things to cut and paste into your responses often leaves you looking like a fool. Just stick with your Dennis Menace middle-finger - it sums you up perfectly, just a brainless cartoon with a big middle-finger.

First, let's get this question of constitutional legality out of the way. I will do this simply by pointing to the precedence set by every single Republican president since Eisenhower who all used executive orders to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. Here is a summary of 18 of these executive orders.

Pres. Dwight Eisenhower:

1956
By executive order, circumvented immigration quotas to allow 900 orphans to join their adoptive families in the U.S.

1956-1958
By executive order, allowed 31,000 Hungarian anti-Soviet insurgents to emigrate.

1959-72
By executive order, allowed 600,000 Cubans fleeing Castro to emigrate. [PDF]

Pres. Gerald Ford:

1975
By executive order, allowed 360,000 refugees, mostly from from Vietnam, to emigrate.

1976
By executive order, allowed 14,000 Lebanese nationals to emigrate.

Pres. Ronald Reagan:

1981
By executive order, allowed 7,000 Polish anti-Communists to emigrate.

1982
Allowed 15,000-plus Ethiopians to emigrate.

1987
By executive order, rescinded deportation of 200,000 Nicaraguans.

1987
By executive order, deferred deportation of undocumented children of 100,000 families. [JSTOR]

George H.W. Bush:

1989
By executive order, deferred deportations of Chinese students.

1989
By executive order, reversed visa denials of 7,000 Soviets, Indochinese.

1990
By executive order, deferred deporations of previously amnestied citizens’ 1.5 million spouses and children.

1991
By executive order, deferred deportation of 2,000 Gulf War evacuees.

1992
By executive order, deferred deportations of 190,000 El Salvadorans.

George W. Bush:

2002
By executive order, expedited naturalization for green-card holders who joined military.

2005
By executive order, deferred deportation of students affected by Hurricane Katrina.

2006
By executive order, enabled 1,500 Cuban physicians to seek asylum at US embassies.

2007
By executive order, deferred deportation of 3,600 Liberians.

Now, whether or not you think ALL of these orders are constitutionally illegal is a different, though respectable argument. On the other hand, if you're inclined to pick and choose which of the orders are justified, then you are surrendering the broad claim that President Obama does not have the constitutional authority to issue executive orders. If that's the case, you would have to shift the focus to whether or not his constitutionally valid order is otherwise unreasonable. This is the part I want to focus on here. In other words, constitution aside, what exactly is it that makes Obama's action so horrific?

The first such argument that appears most obvious is the extent of the order. Clearly, Obama's order involves a far greater number of immigrants than any of the orders before him. Perhaps that's worthy of concern, although personally I don't see it. Maybe someone needs to point it out to me. If these illegal immigrants were being granted citizenship then I would say it would be helping to dilute the democracy by decreasing the ratio of representatives to citizens, but Obama isn't granting them citizenship. That leaves us with the sociological and economic concerns of accepting 5 million immigrants into our system and this is where my opinion might grate on some nerves. I personally don't see any difference between native-born Americans and immigrants when it comes to basic human rights. Nor do I see any difference between them when it comes to their work ethic, criminal inclination or any other form of stereotyping. I don't have much tolerance for the whining about immigrants "taking" jobs from Americans either. As far as I am concerned, the only reason why an immigrant will take "your" job is that they're better at it than you are and if that's the case then good, because as a consumer, I would rather pay for goods and services provided by the best workers, than those provided by "privileged" workers and this is coming from a professional in a field that is saturated by foreign workers. I've been surviving by working hard and competing not by relying on the government to force employees to give the job to me just because I was born here.

The other response I have to this protectionist view is that immigrants are also consumers which means they will not only be taking jobs, they will be creating jobs too by virtue of increased demand. These five million immigrants are going to be shopping at Walmart, buying lunches at Taco Bell and if Obama gets his way they will also be buying insurance and paying for services, just like everyone else. I don't hear Republicans complain about the fact that there are already over 300 million people in what they take pride in saying is the largest and strongest economy in the world. So I don't understand how 5 million more is going to make any difference.

What does that leave us with? Not much. Of course there is the prejudice, racism and general bigotry which has always characterized the right, from the quiet undercurrents of conservative policy to the most outrageous antics of extreme fascism but Republicans know they can't win over the moderates on racism and bigotry alone. They HAVE to come up with something that at least sounds legitimate. So far they have a big fat ZERO, and apparently they are choosing to continue with a campaign of emotionally changed fallacy in hopes that enough voters will remain ignorant and infuriated to carry the bullshit movement.

I'd have more respect for them if they just said we hate Mexicans at least then they wouldn't be lying.

Cut and pasted the list of EOs from FactCheck... and if your reading comprehension was a little better you would have picked up on my making this a side issue to my main argument. My point was to list the EO's simply to acknowledge their existence. Perhaps it was your shock to learn that Obama wasn't the first president to issue executive orders that lead you down the path of arguing about them. It's not difficult to verify. Just look them up. I don't understand why I would need to research them when that's all I'm doing. Do I have to research the U.S. to acknowledge it exists?

The main part of my argument is the four paragraphs of my own words. Imagine that.