No, it's not all Obama's fault. Neither party has accomplished much of anything toward solving our immigration problems in decades. The Obama administration is in power now and they are not contributing anything toward a solution to our immigration problems therefore, I criticize them. In the future, if there is a Republican administration is not accomplishing anything with immigration, I will criticize them.
There are many hard-line partisans on this board (mostly right-wing but some left-wing) and their comments suggest that they always see problems with the "opposition" but rarely acknowledge problems in their own group(s). More reasonable people (and based on your comments, I suspect you are one) realize that no political group has all the answers and they all have problems.

Murder is not a reasonable response to our immigration problems.

shallow_ender wrote, "Kids brought here a minors by family members... aren't citizens, but they should be allowed to become legal residents is they haven't broken the law and have achieved some educational goals."
While foreign nationals brought to the U.S. illegally as young children by parents or older relatives did not break the law and they are not to blame for the crimes committed by their elders. However, to simply allow those brought illegally into the country as minors to stay rewards those parents or other relatives for breaking our laws so it should not be so simple. We all know of parents who would do anything to help their children, regardless of the consequences to themselves. We must not encourage anyone to break our laws in this way.
So, I believe that Congress should change to the law so that:
The parents (or other older relatives) who illegally brought or kept foreign national minors in the U.S. should be deported, no questions asked. If they value keeping their families together so much, the former children can join their deported parents in their country of origin; OR
They can choose to remain in the U.S. under specific conditions - which, if met, may eventually lead to citizenship. For example, if these former children serve four years in the U.S. Armed Forces honorably or they obtain university and/or post-graduate degrees in specified fields that will benefit the American economy and they work in those fields for a specified number of years without being involved in criminal activity - should have a path to citizenship that should take years.
However, if a student wants to study underwater basket-weaving or is unable or unwilling to complete the necessary work to get an economically valued degree (perhaps in engineering or other sciences, however we define it) should be sent back to their country of origin.

What I don't understand is how unconstitutional bigotry is relevant to this discussion at all. A person is either legally present in the United States or is not. Whether they are of white, Hispanic, Asian, African or any other descent isn't relevant. I believe that when it comes to the immigration debate, those who throw the race card are ultimately interested in undermining both the law and sovereignty of the United States as an independent nation. Every nation state has not only the right but also the duty to secure their borders and to control flow of goods and persons across them.

No, giving them money doesn't give us a say in their elections. But if we don't like what they say in their elections we can (and perhaps should) stop sending them money.

Your "understanding" of Israeli politics is inaccurate. Ironically in what is technically the "Jewish state," the majority of Israelis are Jewish by ethnicity but not by religious practice. The three main parties (Likud - center-right, Labor - center-left and Kadima-centrist) are led largely by primarily secular politicians who only pay occasional lip-service to religion. However, it has not been uncommon for a party not to have enough seats in Parliament to form a government so they sometimes will form coalitions with small religious parties in order to get a majority of seats and thereby form a government.
In Egypt, there are some more moderate Islamic parties but like those who would prefer a more secular state, they have little chance of winning a popular election as the Egyptian news media (such as it is) has been dominated by outlandish conspiracy theories and hard-line religious rhetoric for decades and there have been precious few - if any - dissenting voices in major media.

The President may set enforcement priorities and may decide that immigration enforcement for the specific group he defined is high, medium or low. What Presidents may generally not do is order that the law is not to be enforced at all. Are there any exceptions? Yes. When an urgent and unanticipated crisis emerges to which Congress simply lacks the necessary speed to effectively respond, the President may act. While many might consider immigration issues to be urgent, they are certainly not unanticipated as all three branches of the federal government have been playing footsie with the issue for decades.
What makes it even more egregious is that Congress did consider the DREAM act that President Obama wanted passed and they chose not to pass it. The executive order that President Obama issued goes to the very heart of the same issue that Congress refused to pass.
In my view, this action was an abuse of executive power. Is President the only one who has abused power in such a way? No. But the fact remains that it is wrong, and this action should be opposed because it endangers the balance of powers in our federal government - regardless of how one might feel about the underlying political issues.

Consider this future scenario. The U.S. economy is struggling and the President proposes that dropping the capital gains tax rate from the (at the time) current 50% to 30% might spur investment and help the economy. Congressmen and Senators from the President's party introduce legislation to do this but ultimately Congress doesn't agree and does not pass the legislation. Then the President issues an executive order to the IRS and federal law enforcement that as long as people pay at least the 30% rate, they will not be prosecuted for not paying the full 50% codified in law. Would this be a proper exercise of Presidential prosecutorial discretion? (Hint: this is the same argument that President Obama made to justify his immigration "policy" announcement.)
(This scenario was from a debate on the subject on OPB radio. I regret that I did not catch the name of the man making the argument.)

mfmifm wrote, "So you admit the NRA comments about a operation to stop gunrunning doesn't support the gunrunners?"
That sentence doesn't make much sense but to clarify, I do not believe that the NRA stating valid criticisms about a boneheaded operation constitutes support of gun-smuggling. Was the NRA also critical of somewhat similar operations during the Bush administration? I don't know but probably not - but they should have been.
If law enforcement can come up with an intelligent operation to combat gun-smuggling, I'm all for it. Fast and Furious was profoundly stupid on many levels.

mfmifm wrote, "So you think the US Government was trying to supply guns to the Mexican drug cartels?"
No, I doubt that they were trying to but the fact is that they were doing it - while trying to blame their political opposition for doing what they themselves were doing. The hypocrisy is truly egregious and erodes the trust many have in this administration.

mfmifm wrote,"But you didn't mention that the Republicans in the Senate tried to "De-fund" the ATF so it couldn't continue operations."
I have read of such efforts in the past and it is a threat usually used as leverage to force the BATFE to stop what they view as bad conduct. For example, if the ATF were conducting a stupid and unethical operation - say, like ummm... Fast and Furious, for instance. Or when BATFE was using stupid technicalities to bully law-abiding firearms dealers - including trying to revoke their certifications because of typos or other trivial paperwork errors. (That's very different, of course, from crooked firearm dealers who are cooking the books - they should be shut down and prosecuted.)

Forced sterilizations are wrong and no government should have that power. That doesn't mean that irresponsible parents who bring babies into this world shouldn't face consequences - only that sterilization should not be one of them.