17
   

Obama's executive actions on immigration

 
 
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 09:03 am
Tonight Obama will put into effect executive orders to change immigration policy and deal with part of the immigration mess. He will announce the details of his plan tonight, but everyone knows it will combine border security with deferred action for a few million people (i.e. parents of US citizens).

This is going to be very interesting in a couple of ways. First the legal challenges. The Republicans will claim it is unconstitutional. The supporters of immigration reform will claim that it is perfectly legal and necessary. The courts will decide (although there is precedent and I think Obama is on firm legal ground).

The politics are more interesting. The Republicans have to act outraged to placate their White conservative base, but they have to not appear to be racist. And, if they piss off a large majority Hispanic and Asian voters they are going to have trouble. This tightrope is going to be fun to watch.

This is, of course, a politically risk move for the Democrats. Many people suspect that this will be good for the Democrats in 2016 and beyond (because the influence of angry White men is declining). But of course, any policy that mean more brown-skinned people in the US is going to cause strong emotions.

The next few weeks will be fun.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 17 • Views: 14,398 • Replies: 163

 
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 09:25 am
Michelle Bachmann never disappoints. She is already being widely reported as saying that this policy will increase the number of "illeterate" foreign-born Democratic voters. She has never been very good at walking tightropes.
0 Replies
 
PUNKEY
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 11:09 am
This is a good summary of the issue:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-to-detail-his-executive-action-on-immigration-setting-up-clash-with-gop/2014/11/19/60241e86-7026-11e4-893f-86bd390a3340_story.html

The GOP's challenge will be to not be seen as anti-immigrant, but rather an objection to how Obama is using an executive order instead of using the legislative process. He's been careful to go only as far as his aides think he can, legally.

Should be interesting.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 11:26 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
And, if they piss off a large majority Hispanic and Asian voters they are going to have trouble.


It is not about Asians, at all. It is about buying millions of votes with the taxpayers wallet.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 11:28 am
Quote:
(because the influence of angry White men is declining). But of course, any policy that mean more brown-skinned people in the US is going to cause strong emotions.


Who is the racist here? Sounds like you. Would you like to tell me who the brown people expect to pay for this? And do the brown people expect this kind of economy to be sustainable?
coldjoint
 
  0  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 11:31 am
Quote:
Dem Talking Point Neutered: No Reagan or Bush Precedent for Obama's Imperial Amnesty EO

Quote:
1) Reagan and Bush acted in conjunction with Congress and in furtherance of a congressional purpose. In 1986, Congress passed a full-blown amnesty, the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, conferring residency rights on some 3 million people. Simpson-Mazzoli was sold as a “once and for all” solution to the illegal immigration problem: amnesty now, to be followed by strict enforcement in future. Precisely because of their ambition, the statute’s authors were confounded when their broad law generated some unanticipated hard cases.

The hardest were those in which some members of a single family qualified for amnesty, while others did not. Nobody wanted to deport the still-illegal husband of a newly legalized wife. Reagan’s (relatively small) and Bush’s (rather larger) executive actions tidied up these anomalies. Although Simpson-Mazzoli itself had been controversial, neither of these follow-ups was.

Executive action by President Obama, however, would follow not an act of Congress but a prior executive action of his own: his suspension of enforcement against so-called Dreamers in June 2012.


More twisting of the truth courtesy of an administration determine to weaken America whenever possible.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...ty/382906/
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  3  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 11:37 am
@coldjoint,
Well Coldjoint, you and I are unquestionably on different sides of this issue. And that is fine. I don't want to get into a yelling match with you.

On this thread I am more interested in the political strategy. I think the Republicans are caught in a very difficult position. This will hurt them politically (and I plan to enjoy the thrashing about).

You are going to see the top Republicans trying to get the angry White conservative Republicans to calm down and, more importantly, to keep them from saying anything stupid. The angry White people aren't going to be too happy with the Republican leadership..

The conversation between Republican leaders (who would like the party to remain politically viable in 2016 and beyond) and the angry white conservative (who is worried about what they see as an invasion of brown-skinned people) is going to be fun to watch. There is nothing better than watching your opposition fight among themselves.

Since I am not part of this conversation... I am going out for popcorn.
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 11:48 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
The angry White people aren't going to be too happy with the Republican leadership..


Is it only white people that want the Constitution obeyed? It is very condescending to say that brown people don't care about our countries separation of powers. It ensures our liberty, and government by the people.

It will be easier for progressives to destroy the Constitution after this. And that is, and has always been, their intention. Your brown people are just being manipulated. And when their rights become privileges who are they going to thank?

maxdancona
 
  3  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 11:57 am
@coldjoint,
I happen to be a white person (just not an angry white person).

Executive orders are clearly constitutional. The idea that this is unconstitutional depends on the idea that people crossing the border to mow your lawn constitutes an invasion... which to any rational observer is nonsense. If this particular order is actually unconstitutional, it will go to the Supreme Court. I doubt very much this will happen.

Just to be fair, I will admit that your side does have a right to complain. This is a pretty broad use of executive power. It is definitely not unconstitutional, but it is the type of move that made me very angry when Bush was in power.

This argument will be settled politically-- particularly in 2016. A big move like this presents risks for both sides... but I think the Republicans and conservatives are more in the middle of a political minefield than many conservatives realize.

coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 12:00 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
It is definitely not unconstitutional,

We will definitely find that out.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 01:06 pm
@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The idea that this is unconstitutional depends on the idea that people crossing the border to mow your lawn constitutes an invasion...


It's not an invasion by any reasonable definition, but it surely looks like the Executive is usurping the Legislative right to pass laws. Since you've probably forgotten, supported the old McCain/Kennedy bill at least as a workable compromise. I also liked the Dream Act in its congressional version. I did not like the later actions of the administration when that act failed.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 01:14 pm
Absolute fury coming up on my facebook feed.

Why? because the networks did not provide Mr. Obama the coverage provided to Mr. Bush when he made a related immigration announcement.

Absolute fury. Rightwing-controlled racist American MSM is being blamed.

I haven't seen this much anger since the crazy Paula Deen thing. Oddly, it seems to be the same people. arguing the opposite point.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 01:14 pm
@roger,
Quote:
but it surely looks like the Executive is usurping the Legislative right to pass laws


That's how executive orders have always worked, since the days George Washington. And let me quibble with the wording of your statement. If this is "usurping" anything, it is usurping the Legislative right to not pass laws. The Congress has the power to overrule the president if they have the votes (or impeach him for that matter if some people have their way).

This executive order lasts for 2 years (assuming Congress continues to not do anything). Then we will have an election for a new executive (although I hope she will continue the order).
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 01:16 pm
@ehBeth,
Quote:
Why? because the networks did not provide Mr. Obama the coverage provided to Mr. Bush when he made a related immigration announcement.


That's just silly.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 01:29 pm
@maxdancona,
Definitions of silly obviously vary.


here's a sample

Quote:
My Rant of the Day:
How in the hell can a television network refuse to allow airtime for a Presidential speech when so many lives will be impacted. I remember the waste of television time all day long when the Brits got married, as if that was important. This blatant disrespect for this President is ridiculous and it needs to stop. Eight years ago when George Bush addressed the same issue for legalization of immigrants, all the major networks provided coverage. Why should it be different for President Obama? Then all of you GOP folks claim its not about color; really? We are definitely living in perilous times. Please pray for President Obama. May God continue to bless him because racism is definitely profound. I am certainly glad that he is issuing executive orders as necessary. It is about time!! I don't need to know how you feel about immigration because I really don't care. I am ticked off that President Obama is not shown the respect that is due him as the leader of this country.


0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 01:45 pm
Quote:
Obama’s Amnesty Will Add As Many Foreign Workers As New Jobs Since 2009

Quote:
President Barack Obama’s unilateral amnesty will quickly add as many foreign workers to the nation’s legal labor force as the total number of new jobs created by his economy since 2009.

The plans, expected to be announced late Nov. 20, will distribute five million work permits to illegal immigrants, and also create a new inflow of foreign college graduates for prestigious salaried jobs, according to press reports.

Is that what Americans want? Our graduates can't find work.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/20/obamas-amnesty-will-add-as-many-foreign-workers-as-new-jobs-since-2009/
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 05:19 pm
Ok, We have the details now.

1) He is offering deferred action to anyone who has a US citizen child. He is not offering deferred action to parents of DACA recipients. There is a legal distinction between what Congress has addressed vs. what it hasn't attempted.

2) He is removing the age cap on DACA.

3) He is ordering agencies to shift enforcement priorities away from established families to criminals and recent arrivals.

4) He is creating new visas for entrepreneurs and making it easier for foreign STEM graduates from US colleges to stay and work in the US.

It will be very interesting to see what tone he takes with the Congress. I expect him to tell Congress they have no right to complain unless they are going to do something on their own.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 05:55 pm
The address will be carried by at least one local channel. I suspect those who want to catch it badly enough will find a way. Most, anyway.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 07:08 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
Executive orders are clearly constitutional.

Some executive orders are constitutional. That does not mean that all executive orders are constitutional.


maxdancona wrote:
The idea that this is unconstitutional depends on the idea that people crossing the border to mow your lawn constitutes an invasion...

Not really.


maxdancona wrote:
If this particular order is actually unconstitutional, it will go to the Supreme Court. I doubt very much this will happen.

It is likely headed to the Supreme Court in either case.


For the record, I have no idea if this is unconstitutional or not.

It seems a poor move politically, as Mr. Obama had an opportunity to build bridges with Republicans and actually pass immigration legislation. Instead he continues to burn bridges.

But legally, I'll wait and see what the courts say. Hopefully however they rule, they will back it with a decent argument.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 20 Nov, 2014 07:08 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:
the angry white conservative (who is worried about what they see as an invasion of brown-skinned people)

Why do you always run around falsely accusing other people of racism?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama's executive actions on immigration
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 07/18/2019 at 01:00:57