| > 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. |
> 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.