WASHINGTON, D.C. — Members of West Virginia’s congressional delegation responded Friday night to President Barack Obama’s move to shield 5-million undocumented immigrants in the United States.

“I disagree with the President’s decision to use executive action to make changes to our immigration system, and I disagree with the House’s decision to not even take a vote on the bipartisan Senate legislation that overwhelmingly passed in June 2013,” U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin said in a prepared statement.

President Obama said the immigration system is broken and has been for decades.

“We’ll deport felons, not families,” Obama said.

West Virginia First District Congressman David McKinley called Obama’s announcement “a divisive, political calculation that will poison the well for his ability to work with the new Congress that will be sworn in just six weeks from now.

“Earlier this month the American people roundly rejected President Obama’s policies by electing a Republican Senate and larger majority in the House. They sent a message that the President must work with Congress. Tonight’s announcement that he will act alone on immigration shows that he wasn’t listening.”

Under the President Obama’s executive order, the undocument immigrants can stay in the country for up to three years but they will have to pass background checks and pay back taxes.

Manchin is calling on Congress to work toward a solution.

“We will only achieve sustainable, comprehensive immigration reform if all sides work together,” he said.

West Virginia Second District Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito called Obama’s decision “unconstitutional and wrong.”

“These actions by executive order intrude on the constitutional role and responsibility of Congress to write, debate and pass laws. Even President Obama said as recently as last year that he lacked the constitutional authority to take this action unilaterally,” Capito said.


bubble graphic


bubble graphic


  • DJackson

    Sounds like post-election D. C. has returned to normal.

    Our national government has become a train wreck at the hands of those seemingly unwilling to compromise, of those who attack the character of anyone with whom they disagree, and of those who accomplish little for the sake of special interest groups.

    Thankfully I did not vote, so I cannot be blamed. Choosing not to vote is, in itself, a way of expressing displeasure with the hired help in Washington, D. C., both Democrats and Republicans.

    Small wonder so many stayed home.

  • Gary

    Emperor Obama has spoken. We don't need congress anymore even though Obama said over 20 sometimes he couldn't do anything. They invade our country bringing disease and crime and to have their babies so they'll be American citizens and get money. All illegal invaders should be sent home. Just think how much better this country would be if they were sent home. Use the foreign aid money that is given to these countries and send them home. We have a right way to come to this country.

  • Bill

    Let's just let all of the felons out of prison that have been good for the last five years.

    • Dr Pill

      If Obama thought he could do it and have all of them vote straight Democrat ballots each election cycle, he'd do it in a heartbeat!

  • Martinsburg Resident

    **Join me... oops!

  • The bookman

    Mr Glasser, and others,

    There are many opinions about many things that some find surprising about individuals we know. Much of our background and life history shapes and molds us into who we are and what we believe. Ronald Reagan was a great President, and he was certainly entitled to believe in his heart what he felt was good and decent.

    We have a process in this country by which we govern this free land of ours. The Congress passes the Laws, and the President decides if it meets his approval, and the Judiciary determines the constitutionality of the Law where appropriate and when brought before it.

    Reagan followed his heart, and the Law. This President may well be following his heart, or checking off his bucket list as was described in a column I read on the subject, but is most definitely circumventing the law and the process by which we govern. He knows it, and has stated so as an explanation for not addressing this earlier in his term. Congress failing to act is not a reason to act beyond his authority.

    Reagan acted within his authority, and any attempt to compare this action with 1986 begins and ends on that point.

    • Hillboy

      A better comparison probably would be the executive action by George HW Bush in 1990 that lifted the risk of deportation for about 40 percent of the undocumented immigrants in the U.S.

      • William Glasser

        If you keep using facts, I will be ashamed to be on the same side as you.

    • Jason412


      "Congress failing to act is not a reason to act beyond his authority. "

      I agree, how dare a President allow the sale of missiles to a designated State sponsor of terrorism and the funding of a rebel group in direct defiance of Congress.

      Yep. I'm still not letting that go.

      • Hop'sHip

        Reagan is like God. He should get credit for all that is good. Anything bad, well Reagan acted in mysterious ways.

        • Hop'sHip

          People like you or William who would respond when someone simply compares Obama's response to an infectious disease outbreak to Reagan's response to such, by accusing someone making the reasoned comparison as a Reagan hater.

          • Aaron

            Again SH you are wrong. For all his faults, William rarely puts forth the last word. Like you, he says something steeped in ignorance rather than logic and then when challenged cannot substantiate his outlandish claims. You attempt to compare me to him but in doing so demonstrate how he mirrors you. Why didn't I see the similarities before?

          • Hop'sHip

            No like the childlike William, you always have to have the last word. So like with William, it is best to ignore

          • Aaron

            Sorry, Silas hip, I've never said RR was a God. I give him props for the good things he does but criticized for the negative. He should have at the very least underwent congressional scrutiny for the arms for hostage fiasco and I was not particularly happy with his response to the Marine corps bombings. You're trying to pigeonhole me as the same type of individual you are and unfortunately that simply does not fly because while I very well may be a hack, unlike you I am not partisan.

            I'd say nice try but it really wasn't. Actually it was kind of sad.

            Are you going to end on that sorry comment or will there be anything else?

        • Aaron

          Who has said Reafan is a God Silas Hip?

    • William Glasser

      Reagan though Mexicans would bolster the Republican Party. He said:

      "Latinos are Republicans. They just don't know it yet."

      BTW, Reagan went way beyond the law, giving another 2.7 million amnesty (by executive action) that were not covered by the legislation.

      • The bookman

        Mr Glasser,

        Those were actions that attempted to fix issues related to legislation passed by Congress. Both involved family related inconsistencies. This action by the President is in place of legislation, not in conjunction with legislation. There really is no comparison.

        • William Glasser

          So. it was illegal for a good purpose ? Where is that in the Constitution ?

          I am still upset with RR for taking away my open carry rights in California in 1969. Tell me that was Constitutional.

          • Aaron

            Restricting open carry does not infringe upon your right to bear arms. There's the answer to your question. Reagan's action remains constitutional because it did not violate your right to bear arms.

            You've been beating this dead horse on a false claim.

          • William Glasser

            There is no need for an argument that the 2nd Amendment is absolute.

          • Aaron

            The argument lawmakers used regarding the the law is irrelevant to the conversation here and really has nothing to do with why it was constitutional.

            That was what you inquired about wasn't it, the constitutionality of the law?

            I do wonder though, did the law restrict one's right to bear arms or simply the right to open carry? If it was only the latter, what argument would you use to support your right to open carry?

          • William Glasser

            Hi, Aaron,

            I was in the military at the time and did not sue the Governor of California.

            There were plenty of lawyers in 1969 who told Governor Reagan that he had no right to abrogate the 2nd Amendment.

            Basically, he said he did. Neither he nor other supporters of the ban on open carry made a state's rights argument.

            They were afraid of Black Panthers who had showed up in California with guns on their belts.

            The law Reagan signed said open carry was tantamount to viiolence.

            Look it up

          • Aaron

            One could argue that the 14th Amendment affirmed the entire Bill of Rights to the states but the Supreme Court did not take that view. Unless and until a specific case was heard addressing the Constitutional rights of citizens was heard by the Supreme Court that affirmed the specific right to the states, there was no unconstitutionality.

            It wasn't until the Heller decision that the Supreme Court ruled on gun control with the McDonald Decision affirming that ruling to the states in 2010. As Governor Reagan was acting as was his right by under the 10th Amendment, his actions were indeed constitutional. The beauty of our system is that were you a citizen of the state of California as you imply, you had standing and as such, could have challenged his state law as a violation of your guaranteed Constitutional rights.

            Did you?

          • Hillboy

            "You have a bone to pick with Reagan, and you ride that horse well."

            Not to pick on you Bookman but that is one of the best mixed metaphors I've read in some time.

          • William Glasser

            So ... you're right.

            Hey, Bookman. You OK.

            Not your usual combative self, today.

          • The bookman

            You have a bone to pick with Reagan, and you ride that horse well. But those efforts to compare the creation of legislation through executive action versus utilizing the pen to fix deficits in existing legislation are beneath you, sir. Tearing Reagan down will never lift this President to his stature. Obama's die is cast, as well as Reagan's.

  • Martinsburg Resident

    "Going me as we "FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORM" the greatest nation on the face of the earth!" Barack Hussein Obama - 2008... Literally gave me chills when I heard all the "Useful Idiots" in the crowd roar with excitement for that remark... and it was the only truth this imposter has spoken in the last 6 years!

    • Martinsburg Resident

      **Join me... oops!

  • William Glasser

    "I . . . have thought of America as a place in the divine scheme of things that was set aside as a promised land . . . [A]nd the price of admission was very simple . . . Any place in the world and any person from these places; any person with the courage, with the desire to tear up their roots, to strive for freedom, to attempt and dare to live in a strange and foreign place, to travel halfway across the world was welcome here ." - Ronald Reagan

    • Martinsburg Resident

      Taking a legal pathway...

      • William Glasser

        Not necessarily:

        Reagan said: "I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and who have lived here even though sometime back they may have entered illegally.”

        Further, he granted amnesty tp 2.7 million illegals through executive action that did not qualify under the IRCA. So did 41.

  • Mike M

    And what part of "illegal" does Oblahblah not understand? Calling them "undocumented workers" is akin to referring to a drug dealer as an undocumented pharmacist. Our illustrious govt can't control and manage a handful of terrorists in Gitmo, and they're a captive audience (pun intended). Now, the govt claims to be able manage millions. Anything spewing from Oblahblah's piehole is suspect to its level of accuracy and integrity.

  • Beekeeper

    I was feeling low after the WVU game, then I watched about ten minutes of Obama's speech and saw that we have a lot more to be disgusted about than a poor performance on the football field.

  • William Glasser

    "I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and who have lived here even though sometime back they may have entered illegally.” - Ronald Reagan

  • CaptainQ

    It's fairly obvious why Obama is doing this. The Democrats need to expand their voter base so giving all these illegal aliens some sort of quazi-citizenship will allow them all to register to vote as Democrats and to vote straight party tickets in 2016.

    Looks like the Obama Administration is taking a page out of the WV Democrats election 'playbook', attempting to manufacture votes for themselves. What's next? A national Democrat 'graveyard' voting? National 'doller and a swaller' programs? Nationwide adaptation of the 'Lincoln County' absentee voter system? Nothing would surprise me coming from the DNC.

    • Debra

      This is only temporary. And no, these people can't vote. Saying that is rediculous.

      • CaptainQ

        What's 'rediculous' is you can't even SPELL ridiculous, LOL j/k

        Seriously, this might be 'temporary' now, but if Obama has his way, it'll be permanent and yes, he WANTS them to have the right to vote a straight DEMOCRAT ticket every election.

        100% political move, no doubt about it.

        • Debra

          You may be right, but Republicans need this demographic group more than Democrats. So they better get on the bandwagon and pass a bill.

          • Hop'sHip

            Right now it benefits the Republicans to use these people as bogeymen to stir up their xenophobic base. And they vote. Witness the last election.

  • Chef Camille

    Like these gas bags are going to do something about PA PA Doc Obama. He has said this was going to happen for months. I hope they wake up and actually develop a plan and move on. This country deserves better than what represents us.

  • I'm honest at least

    While I try not to speak I'll of our elected president this is for you Mr President. What the hell are you thinking.

  • Debra

    This is not amnesty. It is a temporary reprieve from deportation for parents of Americn born children. It only lasts 3 years and can be reversed with the stroke of a pen by a future president. Reagen and Bush 41 actually granted amnesty. They granted citizenship. And the senate did pass a bill. Granted it was not what the House wanted, but the process involves passing the legislation you want and reconcile the difference. The House did NOTHING with the ball. The solution to his executive order is to pass immigration reform. But that will never happen. So Democrats have the Blue Wall and will continue to hold the White House. Republicans have Gerymandering and will hold the house. The Senate will likely revert back to the Dems in 16. Gridlock will be our fait for several cycles. Dim prediction, but probably correct.

    • Tim C

      Debra........you're stupid!

      • vashti

        tim you are stupid

      • Debra

        Tim C, how so. If you are going to disagree, give me. At least expound on you point. Name calling doesn't continue a meaningful discussion.

      • TLC

        Debra, don't try to say Bush and Reagan did it too. That is either ignorant or lying. Nobody has done anything like this in history and for the sake of our country, I hope it never happens again.

        • vashti

          TLC you need to read some history books.

          • Hop'sHip

            Who needs history books when you have Fox News.

  • jm

    Ms. Capito.................seems that it has been your party controlling the house the last couple years. It is your leadership that has refused to place a comprehensive bill that passed a bipartisan senate up for vote. While I in no way agree with the presidents actions...............I do understand why he did it. In your last month or so in the House..........why don't you stand up to Bonehead and bring up the vote. If you and your cronies don't like it..............vote against it, but why keep it from being voted on?

    • TLC

      The House has sent many more bills to the Senate than the other way around. Why hasn't the Senate done something? Foolish argument to hide the facts.
      Bills have already been passed to make this problem better. Close the border has been passed. See anybody doing that? Start there.

    • ViennaGuy

      - Ms. Capito.................seems that it has been your party controlling the house the last couple years. It is your leadership that has refused to place a comprehensive bill that passed a bipartisan senate up for vote. -

      Question: why did the Senate pass a bill that the House specifically told the Senate it would not consider if it was passed? Why didn't the Senate pass a bill that actually had a chance of passing the House? It's not like the House's position on immigration reform was unknown to the Senate leadership.

      And why did the Senate refuse to take up the bill passed by the House this past August that dealt with the flood of illegal immigrant children coming into the country? Harry Reid refused to even let the Senate discuss it, much less vote on it. Bipartisanship?

      Why must the GOP-controlled House always give in to the Democrat-controlled Senate?

      • jm

        Never mentioned giving in. What I was referring to, is if they did not like it....Vote it down. But at least show some action on it. The same can be said going back the other way.

        It is time to stop this incessant party line bull crap.............at least show the American people that you are doing something (step up and show a position whether anything is getting completed or not)

        Oh wait, they haven't been able to do that for a while now, how easily one forgets....there is no voting on anything meaningful during an election cycle. They care more about keeping an elected position they pay way more to get than it pays.............Hmmmmm, must be some major Perks ($$$$) involved thru kickbacks and such.....LOL

        • Paul

          Our elected reps in the US House have been in session only 17 days over the last four months. They want to talk tough while not in session rather than be in session to work with many critical pieces of legislation.

          • Debra