[winter_blue]

> They had 8 years to fix this, but they didn't.

I'm not sure if you're being facetious here, or if you simply are ignorant of how the U.S. Constitution / government works.

There are two types/levels of federal laws: (1) statutory laws - made by Congress ("U.S.C."/US Code), and (2) regulatory laws ("C.F.R.") - made by the Executive Branch.

For a statutory law to pass in the US, the House + Senate + President has to agree. When one party has control over all 3, it's called a "trifecta". Moreover, in the Senate, you need 60% votes due to the what's called the legislative filibuster.

Democrats had a trifecta only for 2 years (2009 and 2010). During the remaining 6 years that Obama was in office, Republicans blocked practically everything substantive. The Democrats actually did try to pass a small immigration bill (the DREAM Act) during their trifecta, but that bill (S. 2205) got 52-44 votes, and thus failed due to the legislative filibuster. It's extremely difficult to pass statutory laws in the US.

Obama and the Democrats spent put a huge amount of effort trying to fix the immigration system, but they were blocked by Republicans through and through.

> Obama did do some small changes

He actually made a huge number of substantial changes with regard to immigration in our regulatory laws (the CFR). More than any recent President. Obama did everything he could that was within his power (ie within the power granted to him by the Constitution and statutory law).

[amf12]

> I'm not sure if you're being facetious here, or if you simply are ignorant of how the U.S. Constitution / government works.

I do understand that. The thing though is, "trifecta" is difficult in practice and shouldn't really be a barrier to passing laws.

My observation was mainly about fixing and overhauling the immigration system (combating fraud, streamlining it, etc - and not really about increasing or decreasing immigration). I am not sure Republicans were a barrier to such efforts.

[winter_blue]

> The thing though is, "trifecta" is difficult in practice and shouldn't really be a barrier to passing laws.

This is an illogical sentence. What are you trying to say here. That the US Constitution "shouldn't really be a barrier to passing laws"? Is this a joke? You seem to be utterly unfamiliar with how most constitutional legal systems work. It's not just a Western country. Even countries like India have a similar system. Imagine I go to India and say "the Parliament shouldn't really be a barrier to passing laws". People would laugh at you. You're making a really dumb and nonsensical statement. (And you sound facetious.)

> My observation was mainly about ...

You "observation" was an accusatory statement that the Obama administration "had 8 years to fix this, but they didn't" -- which I pointed out and explained was completely and flat-out wrong.

As I explained in my parent comment, the Obama administration made extensive and substantive changes to the immigration system, within the scope of the Executive Branch's powers. A lot of changes to the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) affecting immigration, many EOs, memorandas. DACA is a famous example of a positive change they brought about.

More substantive immigration law overhauls are outside the ability of the President to affect. Congress must do it. And Republicans in Congress blocked nearly every bill that was in any way pro-immigrant.

And, no, in the US, you can't say Congress "shouldn't really be a barrier to passing laws". You'll be laughed out the room.

[amf12]

> The thing though is, "trifecta" is difficult in practice and shouldn't really be a barrier to passing laws.

> This is an illogical sentence.

You said Democrats had "trifecta" only two years (2009-10) during the Obama admin. I am assuming you mean they had the executive, house and senate.

I am saying, not controlling all three should not be a barrier to passing laws. You are completely misunderstanding me. I said "trifecta" should not be a barrier because you mentioned Democrats only had it for two years. Does the US constitution say the two chambers AND executive should be controlled by either Republicans or Democrats to enact laws?

> People would laugh at you. You're making a really dumb and nonsensical statement. (And you sound facetious.)

Well, I am glad the people I know would try to understand my point better than just laugh at me or call me dumb :)

> You "observation" was an accusatory statement that the Obama administration "had 8 years to fix this, but they didn't"

And I still stand by it - while supporting the said admin. I did mention they 'made extensive and substantive changes to the immigration system'. However, I still believe there are some changes they could have done (which Republicans would have supported) that would have made the system much better.

[winter_blue]

You're right in that there were some things that could have been achieved with bipartisan support.

One example would be eliminating the per-country limit on employment-based immigrants, which has resulted in 100+ years of wait time for India-born EB2/EB3 aspirants. There's bipartisan support for it, and it might have passed in isolation, but it wasn't high enough of a priority for either party. (Note though: the provision eliminating the per-country limit was included in the S. 744 bill.)

For the most part though, Republicans opposed nearly every bill that Democrats brought up. The likelihood of anything meaningful / highly-impactful / substantive through Congress, in the face of adamant Republican opposition, was unfortunately fairly low.