Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama will unveil his long-awaited immigration plan Thursday evening, changing rules governing deportations that could affect millions of undocumented immigrants and setting off an explosive battle with Republicans.
Obama's prime-time address will be followed Friday by an event in Las Vegas, sources tell CNN. While exact details of his announcement aren't yet public, the basic outline of the plan, as relayed by people familiar with its planning, includes deferring deportation for the parents of U.S. citizens, a move that would affect up to 3.5 million people.
"Everybody agrees that our immigration system is broken. Unfortunately, Washington has allowed the problem to fester for far too long," Obama said in a video posted on his Facebook page Wednesday. "And so what I'm going to be laying out is the things that I can do with my lawful authority as President to make the system work better, even as I continue to work with Congress to encourage them to get a
bipartisan, comprehensive bill that can solve the entire problem."
Obama invited congressional Democratic leaders to the White House for a dinner Wednesday night to discuss his plans for an executive order, a source told CNN.
Actions 'huge' for Hispanic community Red News/Blue News: Debating immigration What's at stake in immigration debate?
The President declared in June he wouldn't wait for Congress to pass a comprehensive overhaul of the immigration system, initially saying he would announce changes by the end the summer. The decision was delayed until after the midterm elections, when the White House believed it wouldn't be caught up in campaign politics.
But Republicans are expressing deep anger at the anticipated move, saying unilateral action on immigration would forestall any legislative action.
Two House Republicans who would play a key role in crafting immigration legislation made a fresh call for Obama to hold off on his plans Wednesday -- and warned that if he goes ahead, they'll try to stop the White House from implementing his executive order.
"Instead of proceeding with ill-advised executive action, we implore you to work with Congress to enact legislation to address our broken immigration system," Homeland Security Chairman Michael
McCaul (R-Texas) and Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said in a letter to Obama.
"We strongly urge you to respect the Constitution and abandon any unconstitutional, unilateral executive actions on immigration. Let's secure the border, enforce our immigration laws in the interior of the United States, and build a broad consensus for immigration reform," they wrote. "Otherwise, as the chairmen of the committees with oversight over border security and our nation's immigration laws, we will be forced to use the tools afforded to Congress by the Constitution to stop your administration from successfully carrying out your plan."
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest chided the GOP during his briefing Wednesday, saying concerns about how Obama's immigration move could affect the government funding debate and presidential nominations in the weeks ahead are "predicated on at least the premise that Republicans have been exceedingly cooperative with the president."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- the Nevada Democrat who will lose his post once Republicans take control of the chamber in January -- lauded Obama's move, saying the GOP forced his hand.
"Comprehensive immigration reform brings relief to families being torn apart by our broken system," he said. "Comprehensive immigration reform is an economic issue and one we must address. That's why I have been so disappointed that Republicans have ducked, dodged and skirted taking up legislation this Congress forcing President Obama to act administratively."
What's in the plan
The contours of Obama's announcement have been the subject of speculation among immigration activists for months, though the White House has yet to officially relay what Obama will announce when he speaks to the American people on Thursday night.
Administration officials say a key part of the announcement will be allowing the parents of American citizens, who are undocumented immigrants themselves, to remain in the United States without the threat of deportation. That would include the parents of legal residents, but not the parents of children eligible for delayed deportation under a rule Obama enacted in 2012.
Up to 3.6 million people would be affected by that change, according to an estimate from the Migration Policy Institute, though the figures are smaller if Obama's announcement includes a minimum number of years spent in the country.
Mandating parents live in the U.S. for at least 5 years before becoming eligible would bring the number affected to 3.3 million; a 10-year minimum would bring it down further to an estimated 2.5 million people.
Other potential areas of reform include extending the deportation deferment for immigrants who were brought to the United States as children. Altering the age restrictions on that action could allow hundreds of thousands more people to remain in the United States.
Officials also said the plan could include a stronger focus on deporting criminals who are undocumented immigrants and an expansion of worker visas in areas like technology.
Lastly, the plan could include new resources to bolster security on the border. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said the "reforms will be comprehensive," and that border security measures will be included.
Obama's position on immigration could be a popular one. Despite an overall wave of support for GOP candidates, 57% of this year's midterm election voters believe undocumented immigrants should have a chance to apply for legal status, while just 39% want them deported to the country they came from, CNN's exit polls found.
Those exit polls found that 71% of U.S. midterm voters believe undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay in the country legally if they meet certain requirements -- while 25% said those immigrants shouldn't be allowed to stay.
A September CBS/New York Times poll found 51% saying Obama should use his executive powers to address immigration if Congress fails to act while 43% said he should not. A similar ABC/Washington Post survey earlier that month found 52% support for Obama acting on his own.
A September CBS/New York Times poll found 51% saying Obama should use his executive powers to address immigration if Congress fails to act while 43% said he should not. A similar ABC/Washington Post survey earlier that month found 52% support for Obama acting on his own.
I find these numbers fascinating. 20 years ago I wouldn't think any executive action of this scale was fathomable, but now? I don't think it's even about Obama, or even Immigration, but another sign that voters are just getting increasingly tired of Congress. Even when a party holds a a super majority, they struggle to get legislation passed, and numerous long running issues in the US, like the budget and immigration, have become impossible for the legislature to even tackle.
A September CBS/New York Times poll found 51% saying Obama should use his executive powers to address immigration if Congress fails to act while 43% said he should not. A similar ABC/Washington Post survey earlier that month found 52% support for Obama acting on his own.
I find these numbers fascinating. 20 years ago I wouldn't think any executive action of this scale was fathomable, but now? I don't think it's even about Obama, or even Immigration, but another sign that voters are just getting increasingly tired of Congress. Even when a party holds a a super majority, they struggle to get legislation passed, and numerous long running issues in the US, like the budget and immigration, have become impossible for the legislature to even tackle.
I'm actually reserving judgment until I see the actual EO.
I remember when Obama was first elected, he said he'd "do more" to enact more gun controls.
He had something like 25 "gun control" EO and when reviewing them... I was like "meh".
I more curious what might happen if this trend 1) proves true and that voters really are getting fed up with Congress, and 2) what will come of it?
I'd really like the 17th Amendment repealed. I think that particular change has been disastrous for us, and the old system of state legislatures appointing Senators worked much better. Not perfect, but I think I prefer it to the current status quo.
LordofHats wrote: I more curious what might happen if this trend 1) proves true and that voters really are getting fed up with Congress, and 2) what will come of it?
I'd really like the 17th Amendment repealed. I think that particular change has been disastrous for us, and the old system of state legislatures appointing Senators worked much better. Not perfect, but I think I prefer it to the current status quo.
UNIVISION: Mr. President, my question will be as follows: With an executive order could you be able to stop deportations of the students? And if that’s so, that links to another question that we have received through Univision.com. We have received hundreds, thousands, all related to immigration.
J. Tamar, through Univision.com told us, I’m reading: What if at least you grant temporary protective status, TPS, to undocumented students. If your answer is yes, when? If no, why not?
OBAMA: First of all, temporary protective status historically has been used for special circumstances where you have immigrants to this country who are fleeing persecution in their countries. Or there’s some emergency situation in their native land that required them to come to the United States. So it would not be appropriate to use that just for a particular group that came here primarily, for example, because they were looking for economic opportunity.
With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case. Because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed. And I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.
There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply, through executive order, to ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president. That does not mean, though, that we can’t make decisions, for example, to emphasize enforcement on those who’ve engaged in criminal activity. It also doesn’t mean that we can’t strongly advocate and propose legislation that would change the law in order to make it more fair, more just, and ultimately would help young people who are here trying to do the right thing and whose talents we want to embrace in order to succeed as a country.
Oh gosh, I hope that goes through. Obama would sabotage himself to such a ridiculous degree as he'd heavily offend Republicans and shut down any chance for cooperation in the long-term future.
Sigvatr wrote: Oh gosh, I hope that goes through. Obama would sabotage himself to such a ridiculous degree as he'd heavily offend Republicans and shut down any chance for cooperation in the long-term future.
It'll be hilarious.
That long term future where he's never again a political leader?
Sigvatr wrote: Oh gosh, I hope that goes through. Obama would sabotage himself to such a ridiculous degree as he'd heavily offend Republicans and shut down any chance for cooperation in the long-term future.
It'll be hilarious.
That long term future where he's never again a political leader?
LordofHats wrote: The Lame duck years where cooperation won't happen anyway? Oh yeah. A shame to ruin his chances of getting something he'll never get XD
Well.. that's true since Republicans control both houses. But, not all Lame Ducks are the same.
A September CBS/New York Times poll found 51% saying Obama should use his executive powers to address immigration if Congress fails to act while 43% said he should not. A similar ABC/Washington Post survey earlier that month found 52% support for Obama acting on his own.
I find these numbers fascinating. 20 years ago I wouldn't think any executive action of this scale was fathomable, but now? I don't think it's even about Obama, or even Immigration, but another sign that voters are just getting increasingly tired of Congress. Even when a party holds a a super majority, they struggle to get legislation passed, and numerous long running issues in the US, like the budget and immigration, have become impossible for the legislature to even tackle.
Here's what Congress should do. Just a few thoughts. 1. Pass a border security act. Fund it appropriately. You'know its working when the price of illegal drugs skyrockets. 1a. devolve illegal drug legislation back to the states. 2. Pass a budget including #1 above. You have a constitutional duty inthis area. Quit ducking. 3. Begin tax reform. 4. Begin ACA reform (Frazzled translation-how can we quietly turn this into the Canadian System 'eh?) 5. Take six months for detailed analysis of what other countries are doing well economically and educationally. Steal their ideas and moon them when we do it. 6. Mandate full auto wiener dogs for every American. 7. Declare war or not against ISIS. You have a constitutonal duty in thia area. Quit ducking. 8. Review executive nominees with speed. With the exception of the judiciary, absent something significant, approve. 9. I forgot after 1 year with #1 working then pass comprehensive immigration reform, and by that I mean a one liner- " All illegal immigrants who can prove they were here before 2015, will now be granted visa as legal immigrants following a ful back ground check. Any criminal convictions during this time will result in immediate deportation."
Frazzled wrote: Here's what Congress should do. Just a few thoughts.
1. Pass a border security act. Fund it appropriately. You'know its working when the price of illegal drugs skyrockets.
1a. devolve illegal drug legislation back to the states.
2. Pass a budget including #1 above. You have a constitutional duty inthis area. Quit ducking.
3. Begin tax reform.
4. Begin ACA reform (Frazzled translation-how can we quietly turn this into the Canadian System 'eh?)
5. Take six months for detailed analysis of what other countries are doing well economically and educationally. Steal their ideas and moon them when we do it.
6. Mandate full auto wiener dogs for every American.
7. Declare war or not against ISIS. You have a constitutonal duty in thia area. Quit ducking.
8. Review executive nominees with speed. With the exception of the judiciary, absent something significant, approve.
9. I forgot after 1 year with #1 working then pass comprehensive immigration reform, and by that I mean a one liner- " All illegal immigrants who can prove they were here before 2015, will now be granted visa as legal immigrants following a ful back ground check. Any criminal convictions during this time will result in immediate deportation."
We disagree a lot on many things and that's probably not going to change but I agree with every single item on this list, except 6, because I'm a bulldog man.
I'm actually really excited for Obama to be out of office. Not because I dislike him or his policies, but because we've had 8 years of scapegoating him and I'm excited to see what the Republicans do when he's no longer available to blame.
I honestly could care less about this immigration EO. Immigration has always been a mess and no president will ever fix it.
And to everyone saying that he refuses to work with Republicans, pretty sure Democrats and Republicans have never agreed to work together. Each side has always played to their own games, rather than work together for the sake of the people.
A September CBS/New York Times poll found 51% saying Obama should use his executive powers to address immigration if Congress fails to act while 43% said he should not. A similar ABC/Washington Post survey earlier that month found 52% support for Obama acting on his own.
I find these numbers fascinating. 20 years ago I wouldn't think any executive action of this scale was fathomable, but now? I don't think it's even about Obama, or even Immigration, but another sign that voters are just getting increasingly tired of Congress. Even when a party holds a a super majority, they struggle to get legislation passed, and numerous long running issues in the US, like the budget and immigration, have become impossible for the legislature to even tackle.
I'm inclined to agree with you.
I can understand where people are coming from, as long as I can remember, the executive branch and the legislative branch haven't done much to get along and pass impacting legislation, other than the stuff right after 9/11.
It can look good temporarily, but is that really how we want our government to function? By Imperial decree?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jreilly89 wrote: I'm actually really excited for Obama to be out of office. Not because I dislike him or his policies, but because we've had 8 years of scapegoating him and I'm excited to see what the Republicans do when he's no longer available to blame.
I honestly could care less about this immigration EO. Immigration has always been a mess and no president will ever fix it.
And to everyone saying that he refuses to work with Republicans, pretty sure Democrats and Republicans have never agreed to work together. Each side has always played to their own games, rather than work together for the sake of the people.
Wait.....ive seen more people blaiming bush for gak over the last 8 years then obama.
jreilly89 wrote: I'm actually really excited for Obama to be out of office. Not because I dislike him or his policies, but because we've had 8 years of scapegoating him and I'm excited to see what the Republicans do when he's no longer available to blame.
I honestly could care less about this immigration EO. Immigration has always been a mess and no president will ever fix it.
And to everyone saying that he refuses to work with Republicans, pretty sure Democrats and Republicans have never agreed to work together. Each side has always played to their own games, rather than work together for the sake of the people.
I'm with supertony on this. People are still blaming Bush for things and Obama is on his way out soon
This is what it is like for legal migrants to enter the US (and this is omitting a lot of steps), so this may be one of the many reasons people are not in favour of amnesty
I can understand where people are coming from, as long as I can remember, the executive branch and the legislative branch haven't done much to get along and pass impacting legislation, other than the stuff right after 9/11.
Let's face it, a lot of that post 9/11 "cooperation" was basically because anyone could say "if you're against this law/bill/plan, then the terrorists win" and get just about whatever they want passed, because it was political suicide to even hint that you might not be strongly anti-terrorist enough.
It can look good temporarily, but is that really how we want our government to function? By Imperial decree?
What I want is for Congress to do it's fething job, something they have yet to do in this millenium (and even some time before that).
Here's what Congress should do. Just a few thoughts.
1. Pass a border security act. Fund it appropriately. You'know its working when the price of illegal drugs skyrockets.
1a. devolve illegal drug legislation back to the states.
2. Pass a budget including #1 above. You have a constitutional duty inthis area. Quit ducking.
3. Begin tax reform.
4. Begin ACA reform (Frazzled translation-how can we quietly turn this into the Canadian System 'eh?)
5. Take six months for detailed analysis of what other countries are doing well economically and educationally. Steal their ideas and moon them when we do it.
6. Mandate full auto wiener dogs for every American.
7. Declare war or not against ISIS. You have a constitutonal duty in thia area. Quit ducking.
8. Review executive nominees with speed. With the exception of the judiciary, absent something significant, approve.
9. I forgot after 1 year with #1 working then pass comprehensive immigration reform, and by that I mean a one liner- " All illegal immigrants who can prove they were here before 2015, will now be granted visa as legal immigrants following a ful back ground check. Any criminal convictions during this time will result in immediate deportation."
I can understand where people are coming from, as long as I can remember, the executive branch and the legislative branch haven't done much to get along and pass impacting legislation, other than the stuff right after 9/11.
Let's face it, a lot of that post 9/11 "cooperation" was basically because anyone could say "if you're against this law/bill/plan, then the terrorists win" and get just about whatever they want passed, because it was political suicide to even hint that you might not be strongly anti-terrorist enough.
It can look good temporarily, but is that really how we want our government to function? By Imperial decree?
What I want is for Congress to do it's fething job, something they have yet to do in this millenium (and even some time before that).
Here's what Congress should do. Just a few thoughts.
1. Pass a border security act. Fund it appropriately. You'know its working when the price of illegal drugs skyrockets.
1a. devolve illegal drug legislation back to the states.
2. Pass a budget including #1 above. You have a constitutional duty inthis area. Quit ducking.
3. Begin tax reform.
4. Begin ACA reform (Frazzled translation-how can we quietly turn this into the Canadian System 'eh?)
5. Take six months for detailed analysis of what other countries are doing well economically and educationally. Steal their ideas and moon them when we do it.
6. Mandate full auto wiener dogs for every American.
7. Declare war or not against ISIS. You have a constitutonal duty in thia area. Quit ducking.
8. Review executive nominees with speed. With the exception of the judiciary, absent something significant, approve.
9. I forgot after 1 year with #1 working then pass comprehensive immigration reform, and by that I mean a one liner- " All illegal immigrants who can prove they were here before 2015, will now be granted visa as legal immigrants following a ful back ground check. Any criminal convictions during this time will result in immediate deportation."
Fully agreed.
I think the problem is that congress forgot that its job is to recommend and pass bills into law, not play brinkminship politics with whomever the opposition is.
A September CBS/New York Times poll found 51% saying Obama should use his executive powers to address immigration if Congress fails to act while 43% said he should not. A similar ABC/Washington Post survey earlier that month found 52% support for Obama acting on his own.
I find these numbers fascinating. 20 years ago I wouldn't think any executive action of this scale was fathomable, but now? I don't think it's even about Obama, or even Immigration, but another sign that voters are just getting increasingly tired of Congress. Even when a party holds a a super majority, they struggle to get legislation passed, and numerous long running issues in the US, like the budget and immigration, have become impossible for the legislature to even tackle.
Here's what Congress should do. Just a few thoughts.
1. Pass a border security act. Fund it appropriately. You'know its working when the price of illegal drugs skyrockets.
1a. devolve illegal drug legislation back to the states.
2. Pass a budget including #1 above. You have a constitutional duty inthis area. Quit ducking.
3. Begin tax reform.
4. Begin ACA reform (Frazzled translation-how can we quietly turn this into the Canadian System 'eh?)
5. Take six months for detailed analysis of what other countries are doing well economically and educationally. Steal their ideas and moon them when we do it.
6. Mandate full auto wiener dogs for every American.
7. Declare war or not against ISIS. You have a constitutonal duty in thia area. Quit ducking.
8. Review executive nominees with speed. With the exception of the judiciary, absent something significant, approve.
9. I forgot after 1 year with #1 working then pass comprehensive immigration reform, and by that I mean a one liner- " All illegal immigrants who can prove they were here before 2015, will now be granted visa as legal immigrants following a ful back ground check. Any criminal convictions during this time will result in immediate deportation."
1. Agreed, of course the devil is in the details though
2. Agreed, when was the last time we actually passed a budget anyway?
3. What kind of reform?
4. We already spend more on helthcare then any other nation, is nationalizing it going to fix the problems, or make it worse? I have the VA for my coverage, and I can guarentee, that if that is the model we would be using....it might not be a good idea
5. Anything in paticular that you're thinking of?
6. How about Siberian huskies?
7. How do you declare war against a non-nationstate?
8.How would we go about doing this?
9. The problem goes deeper then this, From the added costs to our social safety nets, too the immorality of wiping clean of law breaking.
Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama is ordering the most sweeping overhaul of the immigration system in decades, despite Republican claims he is acting illegally by moving unilaterally to shield five million undocumented immigrants.
Obama rejected accusations by conservatives that he is offering a free pass to undocumented immigrants and warned in a prime-time address that he would bolster border security and make it harder for unauthorized outsiders to get into the country.
"Today our immigration system is broken and everybody knows it," Obama said. "It's been this way for decades and for decades we haven't done much about it."
Obama is pressing ahead and making broad changes to the immigration system without the consent of Congress, which has failed to pass a comprehensive reform bill. The announcement prompted an angry response from House Speaker John Boehner.
"By ignoring the will of the American people, President Obama has cemented his legacy of lawlessness and squandered what little credibility he had left," Boehner said. "Republicans are left with the serious responsibility of upholding our oath of office."
A key element of Obama's plan is to instruct immigration authorities to target those undocumented immigrants who are dangerous rather than law-abiding undocumented parents of U.S. citizens and residents and others.
He said they will go after "felons, not families. Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a Mom who's working hard to provide for her kids."
"We'll prioritize, just like law enforcement does every day," he said.
The changes will offer those who qualify the chance to stay temporarily in the country for three years, as long as they pass background checks and pay back taxes. But they will not be offered a path to eventual citizenship or be eligible for federal benefits or health care programs. And, in theory, the measures could be reversed by a future president.
"If you meet the criteria, you can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. If you're a criminal, you'll be deported. If you plan to enter the U.S. illegally, your chances of getting caught and sent back just went up," Obama said.
The President argued that ordering a mass amnesty would be unfair but mass deportation would "be both impossible and contrary to our character."
Republicans are slamming Obama's use of executive authority as a mammoth presidential power grab. But Obama said he was acting in a manner consistent with action taken by Republican and Democratic presidents.
"To those members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill."
Officials insist that Obama's moves are deeply grounded in law and constitutional precedent, despite claims by Republicans that they represent an unlawful overreach of his authority as president and his oath of office.
"The actions you see here reasonably sit within his powers," one senior administration official said. "I think that they are bold and they are aggressive but they are in keeping with precedent."
Congressional Republicans are weighing their response, juggling ideas that range from a government shutdown to holding up Obama's nominees in the Senate.
The most far-reaching changes in Obama's order will offer papers and work authorization to up to four million people who are undocumented parents of U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents, as long as they have lived in the U.S. for five years or longer.
Obama will also remove the upper age limit of 30 years old from a program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) or Dreamers that allows those brought illegally to the country as children to stay, offering relief to thousands more people.
The program will cover anyone who arrived in the country before 2010 and will extend a previous two-year guarantee of relief to three years.
But White House lawyers concluded the president did not have the power to offer parents of those covered under DACA permits to stay in the country and work, a move that will disappoint some immigration reform lobby groups.
In one concession however, parents of the so-called "Dreamers" will be removed from priority lists for deportation.
Officials said that the broad sweep of the immigration measures were within Obama's powers because he was directing authorities to prioritize which groups of the 11.4 million undocumented immigrants in the country should be deported.
"Deferred action is not a pathway to citizenship. It is not legal status. It simply says that for three years, you are not a law enforcement priority and are not going to go after you," said one senior official. "It is temporary and it is revocable."
Officials said law enforcement officials made similar decisions each day about which categories of offenders to target with prosecution and the president was simply charting a new way to apply existing immigration laws.
The new approach, which will begin to be phased in next spring, will include a more robust effort to target gang members, suspected terrorists, and felons.
It will also focus more sharply on undocumented immigrants who have recently crossed U.S. borders in a bid to slow the flow of illegal immigration, the officials said. New resources are also expected to be announced to secure borders, following claims that enforcement is lax and contributed to the flow of thousands of undocumented child migrants into the U.S. earlier this year, which sparked a hot political controversy.
In moves likely be applauded by the business community, the administration will also reform immigration rules to make it easier for science and technology students to study in the U.S. There will also be a new program to attract entrepreneurs to come to the U.S. if they can show they have sufficient investors.
The changes that Obama announced, however, fall far short of the reforms that could be enacted were Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration bill.
The president has no power to put undocumented immigrants on the long road to citizenship. He cannot grant permanent residence permits known as Green Cards, and all of his changes could be struck down by a future president.
Officials insisted that Obama's moves were consistent with immigration actions ordered by presidents, including Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, for decades. The magnitude of the numbers involved here, however, surpass anything any president had done before.
One almost wonders if at this point Obama is just tired of the arguments and offering something nobody likes just to make them act. While the legislature is arguing about what to eat for dinner Obama puts a plated turd on the table and says "here, either cook your own dinner or eat gak".
Immigration is a weird bag, and the GOP is pulled apart on both sides of it by their supporters. Many individual conservatives are going to be against fixes that make it easier to stay, but big business is going to be in favor of reforms since it helps them out. Obama acting alone might be the best solution for the GOP since it lets them continue on the anti-Obama train and gets them reform without having to get their hands dirty.
Whatever the final result is going to be, executive action or forced legislative actions, it will have to include an amnesty component and a path to legal status for those already here.
d-usa wrote: One almost wonders if at this point Obama is just tired of the arguments and offering something nobody likes just to make them act. While the legislature is arguing about what to eat for dinner Obama puts a plated turd on the table and says "here, either cook your own dinner or eat gak".
Immigration is a weird bag, and the GOP is pulled apart on both sides of it by their supporters. Many individual conservatives are going to be against fixes that make it easier to stay, but big business is going to be in favor of reforms since it helps them out. Obama acting alone might be the best solution for the GOP since it lets them continue on the anti-Obama train and gets them reform without having to get their hands dirty.
Whatever the final result is going to be, executive action or forced legislative actions, it will have to include an amnesty component and a path to legal status for those already here.
You make some good points here...
Gut reaction? Meh.
I hope there's statutory justification for each of these EO... If not, and it pushes through... the damage would be unknown.
IE, I can’t wait for President Scott Walker to unilaterally order all federal agencies to stop withholding union dues and refuse to enforce mandatory fees because Congress hasn’t acted on PEU reform quickly enough or to his satisfaction. Unions can then thank Obama for setting the precedent of presidential authority on Walker’s behalf.
All of us take offense to anyone who reaps the rewards of living in America without taking on the responsibilities of living in America. And undocumented immigrants who desperately want to embrace those responsibilities see little option but to remain in the shadows, or risk their families being torn apart.
Want the responsibilities of living in the US? Then there is an option; you apply like everyone else.
I want to say more about this third issue, because it generates the most passion and controversy. Even as we are a nation of immigrants, we are also a nation of laws. Undocumented workers broke our immigration laws, and I believe that they must be held accountable -- especially those who may be dangerous. That's why, over the past six years, deportations of criminals are up 80 percent. And that's why we're going to keep focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security. Felons, not families. Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a mother who's working hard to provide for her kids. We'll prioritize, just like law enforcement does every day. . .
Now here's the thing: we expect people who live in this country to play by the rules. We expect that those who cut the line will not be unfairly rewarded. So we're going to offer the following deal: If you've been in America for more than five years; if you have children who are American citizens or legal residents; if you register, pass a criminal background check, and you're willing to pay your fair share of taxes -- you'll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily, without fear of deportation. You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law.
So where is the accountability? The POTUS is telling us that we are a nation of laws, and those who break the laws will be held accountable. But not really.
And not being rewarded? The people who ran down the clock are getting the chance to be left alone by ICE. Sounds like a decent reward to me
Why are we calling them undocumented immigrants now? If they entered the country illegally, they're illegal immigrants, right?
Our system certainly needs to be reformed- but I don't think just accepting a large group of known lawbreakers into the fold is a great approach to it.
Perhaps provide an expedited procedure for any illegal immigrant who can document 5 years of occupancy- and let the IRS pull 5 years of back taxes from them in exchange for the privilege of being citizens and wiping the slate clean. The US makes some income, the illegals have been suitably fined, and there is now an expedited policy in place that can be repeated by anyone willing to squat for 5 years.
To balance it, we need a way to make legal immigration faster and ultimately cheaper for the immigrants.
Co'tor Shas wrote: What's face-palm-worthy about that? Kind of hard to judge out of context.
Do me a favor, read his speech (Dreadclaw posted just before mine).
Then, come back to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gitzbitah wrote: Why are we calling them undocumented immigrants now? If they entered the country illegally, they're illegal immigrants, right?
Right.
Our system certainly needs to be reformed- but I don't think just accepting a large group of known lawbreakers into the fold is a great approach to it.
Perhaps provide an expedited procedure for any illegal immigrant who can document 5 years of occupancy- and let the IRS pull 5 years of back taxes from them in exchange for the privilege of being citizens and wiping the slate clean. The US makes some income, the illegals have been suitably fined, and there is now an expedited policy in place that can be repeated by anyone willing to squat for 5 years.
To balance it, we need a way to make legal immigration faster and ultimately cheaper for the immigrants.
The problem... as I understand it, is that if you're an illegal immigrant, you are NOT allowed to work in the US. Full Stop!
Obama is created new "laws" to some illegals to be eligible for work permits, allowing them to be employed in the country legally and compete with citizens and legal residents for better-paying jobs.
This is purely a selfish, political ploy in which the Republicans will be glad to fight Obama over with. Namely, no more political appointees. Zero.
We wouldn't need a boarder fence if we'd just enforce the laws on people hiring illegals. A lot fewer people would be crossing if there were no easy jobs available.
We wouldn't need a boarder fence if we'd just enforce the laws on people hiring illegals. A lot fewer people would be crossing if there were no easy jobs available.
Exactly. And I think we might need to have some sort of separation of minimum wages for ag-workers.*
It could get thousands of USAmericans jobs as well. As long as the stigma against low-wage, hard-labor work is dropped.
We might do well with some sort of seasonal workers program as well, and get some tax revenue to fund whatever agency is in control of immigration to make them hurry the hell up.
What also would be great for us in the long run is to help Mexico and the rest of South America to fix the problems it has.
*Don't really know. I don't know economics. I know they used to do it.
Sigvatr wrote: Oh gosh, I hope that goes through. Obama would sabotage himself to such a ridiculous degree as he'd heavily offend Republicans and shut down any chance for cooperation in the long-term future.
It'll be hilarious.
That long term future where he's never again a political leader?
The long term with a Republican president
So Obama really wants to burn all bridges. This gun' be good.
This clearly is just a political ruse with the democrats blatantly trying to increase their amount of voters.
Illegals, with work permits or without, are not voters. So that argument is always a bit silly.
Business coalitions, which almost always lean Republican, want these workers. Which is what makes it hard for republicans to kick them out.
The logistics for getting rid of all illegals is the same as getting rid of all guns: it is never going to be a realistic expectation so there is no point in even entertaining the thought. Everyone needs to realize that there is no way to ever get rid of them, so any plan has to include them.
So there has to be an amnesty component. The first step of which would require us to throw out anyone that has broken the law (besides the whole being here thing). Treat non-offenders like someone on parole: check in every so often, require mandatory classes, taxes and/or fines, etc.
Break any other law before or during that process: deport with extreme prejudice, no second chances.
And congress still has the option they always had: pass their own plan.
Will that happen? No. Congress is no longer in the business of legislating, they would rather just continue to play petty political games for their own personal political gains.
Co'tor Shas wrote: What's face-palm-worthy about that? Kind of hard to judge out of context.
They also have all the construction jobs and many of the manufacturing jobs. Maybe not in NY but in most of the South.
NOLA was rebuilt with foreign labor. There's a little Honduras there now.
As I am not working class it doesn't impact me negatively. If I were, I'd be royally now.
But again, they're here now and hard working. Get the criminals out and put the majority onto the legal immigration path, and secure our borders before ISIS tries to sneak more people over.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is purely a selfish, political ploy in which the Republicans will be glad to fight Obama over with. Namely, no more political appointees. Zero.
Sure they will. They serve the same paymasters.
He's openly challenging them to join the party so he can shut the government down. He even said it with a glint in his eye. Thats what this is really about.
Will that happen? No. Congress is no longer in the business of legislating, they would rather just continue to play petty political games for their own personal political gains.
What if they pass a bill mandating immediate expulsion-you know the existing law?
UNder this view any future President can call for a law, wait a few months and then do what he wants. Yerp.
The existing law won't get repeated. Many won't like Obama's plan, but pretty much everyone in DC agrees that the current laws are useless and that reform needs to happen. It's the split loyalty in the GOP that is a big road block.
John Boehner has been wanting to address this for quite a while, but he has a caucus that is split on the subject and quite a few of his republican members are worried about a tea party challenge if they appear soft on throwing every single illegal out. At the same time the chambers of commerce across the nation are whispering in his ear "look at all that cheap labor we could have...".
I do think that this is an area where the bipartisan desire for a fix is there, but it's an internal split in the GOP that is keeping things from progressing.
Which is why I think that this might be the best option for everyone. Obama gets what he wants, democrats get what they want, republicans get the reform they want without getting their hands dirty, and they get the added bonus of vilifying a guy that is going to never occupy a political office again and who has nothing to lose.
His plan, as stated, will also allow millions of eligible illegal immigrants to receive work permits and compete for jobs alongside American citizens.
Obama effectively codified the principle that bringing a child into the United States is a ticket to legal status, which will inevitably result in new waves of immigrants from South and Latin America sweeping across the border.
The president also declared millions of illegal immigrants, without much specificity, ineligible for deportation which expands the powers of prosecutorial discretion to a ludicrous degree.
Here's the key, imo, why this can backfire: The executive has the power to accelerate or decelerate enforcement priorities... which is called Prosecutorial Discretion™, but not to ABJURE the enforcement of the law entirely.
whembly wrote: His plan, as stated, will also allow millions of eligible illegal immigrants to receive work permits and compete for jobs alongside American citizens.
no, it won't because having easier access to a work visa is't going to suddenly give Jose working knowledge of the english language and a first-world education, and that's what you need to compete for a job that isn't the same minimum-wage exploitation crap that illegals have been predominantly working and that no American citizen would touch for decades.
Obama effectively codified the principle that bringing a child into the United States is a ticket to legal status, which will inevitably result in new waves of immigrants from South and Latin America sweeping across the border.
no he didn't, because a one-time amnesty deal =\= policy. his speech makes it very clear that once this amnesty deal is completed, money is going to be pumped into border-enforcement and illegals that missed the boat on it (pun not intended) are going to have to get in the same way they have been for years (legally and illegally).
whembly wrote: His plan, as stated, will also allow millions of eligible illegal immigrants to receive work permits and compete for jobs alongside American citizens.
no, it won't because having easier access to a work visa is't going to suddenly give Jose working knowledge of the english language and a first-world education, and that's what you need to compete for a job that isn't the same minimum-wage exploitation crap that illegals have been predominantly working and that no American citizen would touch for decades.
Let me break it down for you: Illegal immigrants by statutory law is forbidden to work in the US. Only way that changes is for Congress to pass a law to allow this.
Obama effectively codified the principle that bringing a child into the United States is a ticket to legal status, which will inevitably result in new waves of immigrants from South and Latin America sweeping across the border.
no he didn't, because a one-time amnesty deal =\= policy. his speech makes it very clear that once this amnesty deal is completed, money is going to be pumped into border-enforcement and illegals that missed the boat on it (pun not intended) are going to have to get in the same way they have been for years (legally and illegally).
*sigh*
I don’t think Obama even thinks it will work. The only reason he did this is because his base needed some red meat to help them get over the ass-kicking they took in the midterms.
Besides... ask yourself this: Why Now? What changed that precipitated this? Keep in mind, that in 2009 and 2010, Obama had a 79-seat majority in the House and 60-seat majority in the Senate. He could've gotten his party to pass this if this was urgent.
whembly wrote: His plan, as stated, will also allow millions of eligible illegal immigrants to receive work permits and compete for jobs alongside American citizens.
no, it won't because having easier access to a work visa is't going to suddenly give Jose working knowledge of the english language and a first-world education, and that's what you need to compete for a job that isn't the same minimum-wage exploitation crap that illegals have been predominantly working and that no American citizen would touch for decades.
Let me break it down for you: Illegal immigrants by statutory law is forbidden to work in the US. Only way that changes is for Congress to pass a law to allow this.
No, the only way that changes is for businesses to stop employing illegal immigrants.
A September CBS/New York Times poll found 51% saying Obama should use his executive powers to address immigration if Congress fails to act while 43% said he should not. A similar ABC/Washington Post survey earlier that month found 52% support for Obama acting on his own.
I find these numbers fascinating. 20 years ago I wouldn't think any executive action of this scale was fathomable, but now? I don't think it's even about Obama, or even Immigration, but another sign that voters are just getting increasingly tired of Congress. Even when a party holds a a super majority, they struggle to get legislation passed, and numerous long running issues in the US, like the budget and immigration, have become impossible for the legislature to even tackle.
Here's what Congress should do. Just a few thoughts.
1. Pass a border security act. Fund it appropriately. You'know its working when the price of illegal drugs skyrockets.
1a. devolve illegal drug legislation back to the states.
2. Pass a budget including #1 above. You have a constitutional duty inthis area. Quit ducking.
3. Begin tax reform.
4. Begin ACA reform (Frazzled translation-how can we quietly turn this into the Canadian System 'eh?)
5. Take six months for detailed analysis of what other countries are doing well economically and educationally. Steal their ideas and moon them when we do it.
6. Mandate full auto wiener dogs for every American.
7. Declare war or not against ISIS. You have a constitutonal duty in thia area. Quit ducking.
8. Review executive nominees with speed. With the exception of the judiciary, absent something significant, approve.
9. I forgot after 1 year with #1 working then pass comprehensive immigration reform, and by that I mean a one liner- " All illegal immigrants who can prove they were here before 2015, will now be granted visa as legal immigrants following a ful back ground check. Any criminal convictions during this time will result in immediate deportation."
You forgot 10. 20% of money made on those who make more than a million dollars a year must go to the government and charities.
But this country is highly conservative apparently.
The united states will always be quite weird to me.
whembly wrote: His plan, as stated, will also allow millions of eligible illegal immigrants to receive work permits and compete for jobs alongside American citizens.
no, it won't because having easier access to a work visa is't going to suddenly give Jose working knowledge of the english language and a first-world education, and that's what you need to compete for a job that isn't the same minimum-wage exploitation crap that illegals have been predominantly working and that no American citizen would touch for decades.
Let me break it down for you: Illegal immigrants by statutory law is forbidden to work in the US. Only way that changes is for Congress to pass a law to allow this.
No, the only way that changes is for businesses to stop employing illegal immigrants.
No, that's not what I'm talking about...
Obama is stating that those approx 5 million illegal immigrants would be qualified for work visa, social security cards, etc... there's no statutory law that empowers the Executive Branch to do that. The only way THAT changes, is for Congress to pass a law to do so.
He's effectively concocting arbitrary lines out of thin air that separate illegal immigrants worthy of work permits and Social Security numbers, from other illegal immigrants who get nothing.
Why should parents of legal residents get benefits but not parents of DACA recipients? Why should an illegal immigrant who entered the country before 2007 be eligible for DACA but not one who entered in 2008?
All of these illegal immigrants will be forced to play under very different sets of rules, rules completely made up by Obama.
Unless someone can show me statutory laws that grant Obama from doing this... he's looking for a battle with Congress.
Sigvatr wrote: Oh gosh, I hope that goes through. Obama would sabotage himself to such a ridiculous degree as he'd heavily offend Republicans and shut down any chance for cooperation in the long-term future.
It'll be hilarious.
That long term future where he's never again a political leader?
The long term with a Republican president
So Obama really wants to burn all bridges. This gun' be good.
This clearly is just a political ruse with the democrats blatantly trying to increase their amount of voters.
Or you know its been done in history before.
This is like the third time this has happened from taiwan to vietnam, and to koreans coming to the united states to live here.
A lot of people that are illegal immigrants are people running away from the drug war in mexico. I mean they are technically refugees then.
Sigvatr wrote: Oh gosh, I hope that goes through. Obama would sabotage himself to such a ridiculous degree as he'd heavily offend Republicans and shut down any chance for cooperation in the long-term future.
It'll be hilarious.
That long term future where he's never again a political leader?
The long term with a Republican president
So Obama really wants to burn all bridges. This gun' be good.
This clearly is just a political ruse with the democrats blatantly trying to increase their amount of voters.
Or you know its been done in history before.
This is like the third time this has happened from taiwan to vietnam, and to koreans coming to the united states to live here.
A lot of people that are illegal immigrants are people running away from the drug war in mexico. I mean they are technically refugees then.
There is a process to claim refugees status.
We have laws on the book for a reason... enforce it.
What are the actual "laws" regarding work permits? Don't feel like diving head first into legislative records today.
If there is actually real laws passed by congress that say who is eligible for permits there could be problems. But what if the law just says something to the effect of "department X shall issue work permits and develop guidelines for doing so"? If the actual decision of developing criteria is passed along to the executive branch then he can decide whatever he wants.
Obama might be an egotistical megalomaniac, but he is a constitutional lawyer and not an idiot. There has to be some reason why he thinks he can do what he did.
A September CBS/New York Times poll found 51% saying Obama should use his executive powers to address immigration if Congress fails to act while 43% said he should not. A similar ABC/Washington Post survey earlier that month found 52% support for Obama acting on his own.
I find these numbers fascinating. 20 years ago I wouldn't think any executive action of this scale was fathomable, but now? I don't think it's even about Obama, or even Immigration, but another sign that voters are just getting increasingly tired of Congress. Even when a party holds a a super majority, they struggle to get legislation passed, and numerous long running issues in the US, like the budget and immigration, have become impossible for the legislature to even tackle.
Here's what Congress should do. Just a few thoughts.
1. Pass a border security act. Fund it appropriately. You'know its working when the price of illegal drugs skyrockets.
1a. devolve illegal drug legislation back to the states.
2. Pass a budget including #1 above. You have a constitutional duty inthis area. Quit ducking.
3. Begin tax reform.
4. Begin ACA reform (Frazzled translation-how can we quietly turn this into the Canadian System 'eh?)
5. Take six months for detailed analysis of what other countries are doing well economically and educationally. Steal their ideas and moon them when we do it.
6. Mandate full auto wiener dogs for every American.
7. Declare war or not against ISIS. You have a constitutonal duty in thia area. Quit ducking.
8. Review executive nominees with speed. With the exception of the judiciary, absent something significant, approve.
9. I forgot after 1 year with #1 working then pass comprehensive immigration reform, and by that I mean a one liner- " All illegal immigrants who can prove they were here before 2015, will now be granted visa as legal immigrants following a ful back ground check. Any criminal convictions during this time will result in immediate deportation."
You forgot 10. 20% of money made on those who make more than a million dollars a year must go to the government and charities.
But this country is highly conservative apparently.
The united states will always be quite weird to me.
Thats just a graduated tax system. We used to have a similar millionaires surcharge. Cool with me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: What are the actual "laws" regarding work permits? Don't feel like diving head first into legislative records today.
If there is actually real laws passed by congress that say who is eligible for permits there could be problems. But what if the law just says something to the effect of "department X shall issue work permits and develop guidelines for doing so"? If the actual decision of developing criteria is passed along to the executive branch then he can decide whatever he wants.
Obama might be an egotistical megalomaniac, but he is a constitutional lawyer and not an idiot. There has to be some reason why he thinks he can do what he did.
Well there has to be a law in the first place allowing work permits to even be issued.
You forgot 10. 20% of money made on those who make more than a million dollars a year must go to the government and charities.
Yes, because rich people are evil and it's ok to steal from them.
No its more of the fact that they should pay more taxes than someone who makes 100k, not the same.
It should be based on higher precentage. So if you make a billion dollars. A millon dollars is sent to the government.
And it increments. only up to 25%
Its not because they are evil. But because that would help devy up the rich's wealth and allow it to spread and not remain within the few.
AS Historically the rich never give up their money and they have a lot of money. Infact some have too much money.
1% of the united states own 99% of the wealth of the united states. With that in place it would start to shrink and become more acceptable.
Where the middle class would be able afford more luxuries and the poor becoming a dwindling number due to the influx of money from the rich.
It would also allow for technological and economic progression. As those who could not afford go to school can now go. So we would start to also see dwindling of the poor class and more middle class compatriots and more critical thinking and a better country overall.
You forgot 10. 20% of money made on those who make more than a million dollars a year must go to the government and charities.
Yes, because rich people are evil and it's ok to steal from them.
No its more of the fact that they should pay more taxes than someone who makes 100k, not the same..
You're describing the current system. The only difference is the % of the top rate (or maybe the re-imposition of a millionaire rate).
Yes but where there not cutbacks a while ago during the bush adminstration?
That were massive cutbacks for the wealthy?
I know there were was a discrepancy somewhere. I mean I am not an economist, just a theorist in this case.
So it may be my misunderstanding of the whole issue. We touched on it quite often in my Political Science Classes. Which was also not really an introduction but an indepth study of economics in the united states compared to other countries. (Seeing as there is more white collar crime nowadays than any other time.)
But that does not mean my views were skewed. I think it should be a flat precentage on those who make millions of dollar a year, and they have to pay more in terms of taxes like 20% of their money intake. Which is quite a bit if your making a million dollars.
You forgot 10. 20% of money made on those who make more than a million dollars a year must go to the government and charities.
Yes, because rich people are evil and it's ok to steal from them.
No its more of the fact that they should pay more taxes than someone who makes 100k, not the same..
You're describing the current system. The only difference is the % of the top rate (or maybe the re-imposition of a millionaire rate).
Yes but where there not cutbacks a while ago during the bush adminstration?
That were massive cutbacks for the wealthy?
I know there were was a discrepancy somewhere. I mean I am not an economist, just a theorist in this case.
So it may be my misunderstanding of the whole issue. We touched on it quite often in my Political Science Classes. Which was also not really an introduction but an indepth study of economics in the united states compared to other countries. (Seeing as there is more white collar crime nowadays than any other time.)
But that does not mean my views were skewed. I think it should be a flat precentage on those who make millions of dollar a year, and they have to pay more in terms of taxes like 20% of their money intake. Which is quite a bit if your making a million dollars.
The top of the tax brackets pays plenty in taxes:
Spoiler:
(FYI: if you want to debate this some more, create a thread! )
Unless, you'd think Obama should unilaterally decree that the rich should pay more.
You forgot 10. 20% of money made on those who make more than a million dollars a year must go to the government and charities.
Yes, because rich people are evil and it's ok to steal from them.
No its more of the fact that they should pay more taxes than someone who makes 100k, not the same..
You're describing the current system. The only difference is the % of the top rate (or maybe the re-imposition of a millionaire rate).
Yes but where there not cutbacks a while ago during the bush adminstration?
That were massive cutbacks for the wealthy?
I know there were was a discrepancy somewhere. I mean I am not an economist, just a theorist in this case.
So it may be my misunderstanding of the whole issue. We touched on it quite often in my Political Science Classes. Which was also not really an introduction but an indepth study of economics in the united states compared to other countries. (Seeing as there is more white collar crime nowadays than any other time.)
But that does not mean my views were skewed. I think it should be a flat precentage on those who make millions of dollar a year, and they have to pay more in terms of taxes like 20% of their money intake. Which is quite a bit if your making a million dollars.
The top of the tax brackets pays plenty in taxes:
Spoiler:
(FYI: if you want to debate this some more, create a thread! )
Unless, you'd think Obama should unilaterally decree that the rich should pay more.
This may sound like Hersey. But obama does not match my Views. And he is apparently 'left' in this country.
It is quite skewed in this country it is kind of hilarious.
I agree, but then why do we have the top 1% dealio.
I mean this executive order is well within the Presidents Power.
I mean Bush did it, Regean did, George Washington did it.
I don't get the kerfuffle of a president doing what the congress refuses to do. Act. I mean this congress has only shown to be moronic and know little of what their people want. Especially after they tried to push a certain bill. That will go nameless and was attacked for being.... not well written.
But hey my opinion is moot because I think no child left behind actually leaves more children behind than it helps. And I also think the immigration is a smaller issue compared to education and economics. But again, I think the economic system should be reformed into a newer system. So it is both controlled in certain areas, (like public water, food, fire, police, security, healthcare etc.) but everything else is controlled by the free market.
You forgot 10. 20% of money made on those who make more than a million dollars a year must go to the government and charities.
Yes, because rich people are evil and it's ok to steal from them.
No its more of the fact that they should pay more taxes than someone who makes 100k, not the same..
You're describing the current system. The only difference is the % of the top rate (or maybe the re-imposition of a millionaire rate).
Yes but where there not cutbacks a while ago during the bush adminstration?
That were massive cutbacks for the wealthy?
I know there were was a discrepancy somewhere. I mean I am not an economist, just a theorist in this case.
So it may be my misunderstanding of the whole issue. We touched on it quite often in my Political Science Classes. Which was also not really an introduction but an indepth study of economics in the united states compared to other countries. (Seeing as there is more white collar crime nowadays than any other time.)
But that does not mean my views were skewed. I think it should be a flat precentage on those who make millions of dollar a year, and they have to pay more in terms of taxes like 20% of their money intake. Which is quite a bit if your making a million dollars.
The top of the tax brackets pays plenty in taxes:
Spoiler:
(FYI: if you want to debate this some more, create a thread! )
Unless, you'd think Obama should unilaterally decree that the rich should pay more.
This may sound like Hersey. But obama does not match my Views. And he is apparently 'left' in this country.
It is quite skewed in this country it is kind of hilarious.
I agree, but then why do we have the top 1% dealio.
?? someone has to be the top 1%. o.O Right?
I mean Bush did it, Regean did, George Washington did it.
Okay... I need to stop you there...
What Regan and Bush did were NOTHING of the sort Obama is claiming he can do. What we're basically talking about is Deferred Enforced Departures (ded).
Most of these deds done by prior Presidents have been done on a country-specific basis, usually in response to war, civil unrest, or natural disasters.
Now? It is not country-specific... nor does it arise from a critical humanitarian emergency in the home country.
I don't get the kerfuffle of a president doing what the congress refuses to do. Act. I mean this congress has only shown to be moronic and know little of what their people want. Especially after they tried to push a certain bill. That will go nameless and was attacked for being.... not well written.
That still doesn't excuse the President for unilaterally acting on his own.
But hey my opinion is moot because I think no child left behind actually leaves more children behind than it helps. And I also think the immigration is a smaller issue compared to education and economics. But again, I think the economic system should be reformed into a newer system. So it is both controlled in certain areas, (like public water, food, fire, police, security, healthcare etc.) but everything else is controlled by the free market.
What Regan and Bush did were NOTHING of the sort Obama is claiming he can do. What we're basically talking about is Deferred Enforced Departures (ded).
Most of these deds done by prior Presidents have been done on a country-specific basis, usually in response to war, civil unrest, or natural disasters.
Now? It is not country-specific... nor does it arise from a critical humanitarian emergency in the home country.
You know how this works right? Legal scholars on both sides will be crawling out of the woodwork so, to play devil's advocate, and present the other side, here:
Pushing back on Republicans who have blasted Obama’s action as unconstitutional and unlawful, the signatories include Columbia University President Lee Bollinger, Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe, conservative legal scholar Eric Posner, and former Yale Law School Dean and former State Department Legal Advisor Harold Hongju Koh.
“While we differ among ourselves on many issues relating to Presidential power and immigration policy, we are all of the view that these actions are lawful,” the professors wrote. “They are exercises of prosecutorial discretion that are consistent with governing law and with the policies that Congress has expressed in the statutes that it has enacted.”
If you look into the backgrounds of these people, they're not left-wing nutjobs looking to turn the US into a communist paradise.
I have conflicted views on this. On one hand, my wife is Japanese and we had to spend a year and a half apart after we were married while her paperwork made its slow way through several different federal offices so it makes me angry (putting it lightly) when people can just willy-nilly jump line in front of all of the people patiently waiting. On the other hand, we have limited federal resources to secure 8000 miles of border and I'd rather these resources were focused on kicking criminals out rather than trolling neighborhoods for families. Now, if we're talking Congress acting like big boys and girls and actually ponying up the cash to secure the border, I'm all in; otherwise, it's about allocation of resources. Bloomberg estimated last year that another $28billion per year would be needed to make a meaningful impact on illegal immigration, the justice department is severely undermanned and underresourced for this.
I'm all for solutions, I'm all against more mud-slinging and nothing much coming out of DC.
I mean Bush did it, Regean did, George Washington did it.
Okay... I need to stop you there...
What Regan and Bush did were NOTHING of the sort Obama is claiming he can do. What we're basically talking about is Deferred Enforced Departures (ded).
Most of these deds done by prior Presidents have been done on a country-specific basis, usually in response to war, civil unrest, or natural disasters.
Now? It is not country-specific... nor does it arise from a critical humanitarian emergency in the home country.
I don't get the kerfuffle of a president doing what the congress refuses to do. Act. I mean this congress has only shown to be moronic and know little of what their people want. Especially after they tried to push a certain bill. That will go nameless and was attacked for being.... not well written.
That still doesn't excuse the President for unilaterally acting on his own.
But hey my opinion is moot because I think no child left behind actually leaves more children behind than it helps. And I also think the immigration is a smaller issue compared to education and economics. But again, I think the economic system should be reformed into a newer system. So it is both controlled in certain areas, (like public water, food, fire, police, security, healthcare etc.) but everything else is controlled by the free market.
Opinions are cool.
Because you know Socialism its evil.
Because boot-strapping is bad?
Are you also ignoring history it has been done before. Congress does nothing and the president gets involved. During the early 19th century. The Irish were illegal imigriants in fact they like the current illegal immigraint problem happened because of famine and issues in their country.
The article talks about the parrells between the two. We are dealing with people here, who are resources in this country. So getting more resources is not bad. We have enough food to last us for quite sometime.
Immigrating to the united states is a pain in the arse. This is something that many people can attest to. We even have translators stuck in the middle east currently who have snuck into the united states and are techincally illegal. Yet they served our country but were never approved because of Buecratic bull .
?? someone has to be the top 1%. o.O Right?
Not always. You could be the top 30%. You don't need 1% of the population talking for the many. That doesn't allow for equality or freedom.
That still doesn't excuse the President for unilaterally acting on his own.
While I agree. There are examples of it happening and those were not stopped. Because they were republican presidents. Whenever a democratic president does it. He hits a wall whenever it is a conservative congress.
Opinions are cool.
Well. Yes, they are. But it doesn't mean my opinion and your opinion can't be both wrong. We are human after all.
Because boot-strapping is bad?
It doesn't work all the time. I mean if we look at examples in history lifting someone by their bootstraps teaching someone how to fish to become self sufficient doesn't work if that person has no idea where the hell to get fishing supplies. You can't teach someone how to fish, if there is no readily available place to get fish.
Socialism is an interesting system though and it has merits and negatives to it.
whembly wrote: Maybe you should ask for a refund from the government for all that time/money you your efforts.
Seriously though, like Kan said earlier, just hammer those employers who knowingly hire illegals.
Disrupt the incentive.
That I could agree with. I think the only disruptive peoples are the ones who abuse the systems set up for the people who need it. But we really can't tell who is doing it.
whembly wrote: Maybe you should ask for a refund from the government for all that time/money you your efforts.
Seriously though, like Kan said earlier, just hammer those employers who knowingly hire illegals.
Disrupt the incentive.
Good idea, one that is supposed to already be in operation, but the complete execution is unfeasible. Too many of the jobs that illegal immigrants take are cash-based. Having worked in construction, during and after college, what happens is that if anyone questions your workforce, your books show that the Joe Smiths and Bob Johnsons on staff are really hard workers while you have 30 people with names like Jorge and Jesus working there off of the books.
whembly wrote: Maybe you should ask for a refund from the government for all that time/money you your efforts.
Seriously though, like Kan said earlier, just hammer those employers who knowingly hire illegals.
Disrupt the incentive.
Good idea, one that is supposed to already be in operation, but the complete execution is unfeasible. Too many of the jobs that illegal immigrants take are cash-based. Having worked in construction, during and after college, what happens is that if anyone questions your workforce, your books show that the Joe Smiths and Bob Johnsons on staff are really hard workers while you have 30 people with names like Jorge and Jesus working there off of the books.
I disagree with it being unfeasible.
I've been working at my job for over 15 years... and just THIS YEAR ALONE, I had to go to my HR office and show them my MO drivers license, SS card and my birth certificate to PROVE that I'm a citizen, and thus legally able to work here.
So, to say that ICE personnel cant channel Sherlock Holmes seems dubious to me.
I've been working at my job for over 15 years... and just THIS YEAR ALONE, I had to go to my HR office and show them my MO drivers license, SS card and my birth certificate to PROVE that I'm a citizen, and thus legally able to work here.
So, to say that ICE personnel cant channel Sherlock Holmes seems dubious to me.
Man, your company is really slow...
Still, cash jobs are the bulk of what is worked and there is literally no current way to verify off-the-book employees short of following company trucks around.
I've been working at my job for over 15 years... and just THIS YEAR ALONE, I had to go to my HR office and show them my MO drivers license, SS card and my birth certificate to PROVE that I'm a citizen, and thus legally able to work here.
So, to say that ICE personnel cant channel Sherlock Holmes seems dubious to me.
Man, your company is really slow...
Still, cash jobs are the bulk of what is worked and there is literally no current way to verify off-the-book employees short of following company trucks around.
Then do that.
The goal isn't to catch EVERY one of them.
The goal is to make the penalty so high, that these companies WON'T risk it.
I've been working at my job for over 15 years... and just THIS YEAR ALONE, I had to go to my HR office and show them my MO drivers license, SS card and my birth certificate to PROVE that I'm a citizen, and thus legally able to work here.
So, to say that ICE personnel cant channel Sherlock Holmes seems dubious to me.
Man, your company is really slow...
Still, cash jobs are the bulk of what is worked and there is literally no current way to verify off-the-book employees short of following company trucks around.
Then do that.
The goal isn't to catch EVERY one of them.
The goal is to make the penalty so high, that these companies WON'T risk it.
Huh. I remember having an argument over this, reminds me of the debate with the death penalty where people say that if people are given more of a penalty for doing things that might also prevent people committing murder or heinous crimes.
If you are a desperate person no matter what laws are around you will break them.
If you are in the heat of passion you don't care about the law, you only care about killing and vengeance or something along those lines.
It only works if it is enforced and it probably won't. The problem is the root source. Where are all these people coming from Mexico. Why? Drug Wars, fighting and poverty. Another way to ensure that they don't come to our country is to make their home more appealing by helping that country.
Oh my goodness! Baffling huh?
Helping people might solve our problems. We should also get rid of our strict borders, do what Europe does. They have a very superior system. The Americas should band together to become equal to the EU.
The benefits would be endless. From Unity, to more protection, to more wealth, to also being a new hegemonic power. This would also increase stability and the more of the liklihood of the south americas wanting to become more stable because they want to join in the wealth.
This idea has been thrown around for quite a bit, and would fix alot of issues especially among the illegal immigrants.
I've been working at my job for over 15 years... and just THIS YEAR ALONE, I had to go to my HR office and show them my MO drivers license, SS card and my birth certificate to PROVE that I'm a citizen, and thus legally able to work here.
So, to say that ICE personnel cant channel Sherlock Holmes seems dubious to me.
Man, your company is really slow...
Still, cash jobs are the bulk of what is worked and there is literally no current way to verify off-the-book employees short of following company trucks around.
Then do that.
The goal isn't to catch EVERY one of them.
The goal is to make the penalty so high, that these companies WON'T risk it.
Limited resources. Remember, we're in a period of "small government" and still have sequestration hanging over our heads. You want real border security, you'll have to pay for it.
Huh. I remember having an argument over this, reminds me of the debate with the death penalty where people say that if people are given more of a penalty for doing things that might also prevent people committing murder or heinous crimes.
If you are a desperate person no matter what laws are around you will break them.
If you are in the heat of passion you don't care about the law, you only care about killing and vengeance or something along those lines.
It only works if it is enforced and it probably won't. The problem is the root source. Where are all these people coming from Mexico. Why? Drug Wars, fighting and poverty. Another way to ensure that they don't come to our country is to make their home more appealing by helping that country.
Oh my goodness! Baffling huh?
Helping people might solve our problems. We should also get rid of our strict borders, do what Europe does. They have a very superior system. The Americas should band together to become equal to the EU
We tried that in Central America and all we did is learn that we suck at nation building. We can pour limitless resources into corrupt countries and all we'll do is line the pockets of the people we're trying to fight.
Limited resources. Remember, we're in a period of "small government" and still have sequestration hanging over our heads. You want real border security, you'll have to pay for it.
And heavens forbid that you start talking about people presenting their documentation...
Well never mind. People like Whembly only give a crap when it inconveniences them.
Limited resources. Remember, we're in a period of "small government" and still have sequestration hanging over our heads. You want real border security, you'll have to pay for it.
And heavens forbid that you start talking about people presenting their documentation...
Well never mind. People like Whembly only give a crap when it inconveniences them.
People just don't seem to get that you can't have everything you want from the federal government without "big government". Just imagine for a minute a double-size department of justice.....brrrrrr....
We tried that in Central America and all we did is learn that we suck at nation building. We can pour limitless resources into corrupt countries and all we'll do is line the pockets of the people we're trying to fight.
Thats not what I was suggesting XD
Read it again.
I didn't basically mean support them with monetary gifts. It is called lead by example. Basically purpose something that would open up borders between countries, this would inspire other countries to follow in the united states' foot steps.
I've been working at my job for over 15 years... and just THIS YEAR ALONE, I had to go to my HR office and show them my MO drivers license, SS card and my birth certificate to PROVE that I'm a citizen, and thus legally able to work here.
So, to say that ICE personnel cant channel Sherlock Holmes seems dubious to me.
Man, your company is really slow...
Still, cash jobs are the bulk of what is worked and there is literally no current way to verify off-the-book employees short of following company trucks around.
Then do that.
The goal isn't to catch EVERY one of them.
The goal is to make the penalty so high, that these companies WON'T risk it.
Limited resources. Remember, we're in a period of "small government" and still have sequestration hanging over our heads. You want real border security, you'll have to pay for it.
And that is the reason why nothing has happened yet.
The same crowd that wants something done about illegal immigration is also against everything that would be required to accomplish anything and we would have the same arguments that we always have.
More rules for businesses? "Regulations are bad", "it hurts the job creators", "it would reduce income and in the long run it would result in less income for the government and increase the deficit".
Want to follow business trucks around? "Government can't spy on us", "focus on real criminals", "hiring more people for enforcement is expensive and will increase the deficit".
The actions needed to actually do what a lot of conservatives want done go against many o f the principles that they believe in. Which is why nothing has been done with regards to reform even though many folks in the republican caucus are for reform.
We tried that in Central America and all we did is learn that we suck at nation building. We can pour limitless resources into corrupt countries and all we'll do is line the pockets of the people we're trying to fight.
Thats not what I was suggesting XD
Read it again.
I didn't basically mean support them with monetary gifts. It is called lead by example. Basically purpose something that would open up borders between countries, this would inspire other countries to follow in the united states' foot steps.
We did that. We built factories, created jobs, improved healthcare, trained the workforce then we even warred against their drug lords, it's still a cesspool.
That is why most moderate-thinking Americans are against the idea of having to carry identification, because that is exactly what it sounds like.
This beyond the fact that there's a huge industry in providing illegal immigrants with falsified documentation/stolen SSNs/etc that will pass both casual inspection as well as the sorts of inspection that an employer performs to prove citizenship.
We did that. We built factories, created jobs, improved healthcare, trained the workforce then we even warred against their drug lords, it's still a cesspool
Actually, we half-assedly did that by arming one gang of druglords to fight another gang of druglords, and then stopped doing it when it seemed like it wasn't working, rather than actually supporting reformist politicians because said populist reformists were Socialists.
I've been working at my job for over 15 years... and just THIS YEAR ALONE, I had to go to my HR office and show them my MO drivers license, SS card and my birth certificate to PROVE that I'm a citizen, and thus legally able to work here.
So, to say that ICE personnel cant channel Sherlock Holmes seems dubious to me.
Man, your company is really slow...
Still, cash jobs are the bulk of what is worked and there is literally no current way to verify off-the-book employees short of following company trucks around.
Then do that.
The goal isn't to catch EVERY one of them.
The goal is to make the penalty so high, that these companies WON'T risk it.
Limited resources. Remember, we're in a period of "small government" and still have sequestration hanging over our heads. You want real border security, you'll have to pay for it.
And that is the reason why nothing has happened yet.
The same crowd that wants something done about illegal immigration is also against everything that would be required to accomplish anything and we would have the same arguments that we always have.
More rules for businesses? "Regulations are bad", "it hurts the job creators", "it would reduce income and in the long run it would result in less income for the government and increase the deficit".
Want to follow business trucks around? "Government can't spy on us", "focus on real criminals", "hiring more people for enforcement is expensive and will increase the deficit".
The actions needed to actually do what a lot of conservatives want done go against many o f the principles that they believe in. Which is why nothing has been done with regards to reform even though many folks in the republican caucus are for reform.
Basically. Cognitive dissonance comes to mind to be frank.
Though this might have to deal with the fact that people have their ideals screwed up.
This political sidings remind me of Bioshock Infinite. I mean the propaganda spread by it does.
The left leaning at least have some sense. The right does have people that are trying to reform. But right now it is really hard to tell the difference between right and left.
The rest of the world is already light years ahead of the US in terms of social resolutions and economics that it is quite sad.
We tried that in Central America and all we did is learn that we suck at nation building. We can pour limitless resources into corrupt countries and all we'll do is line the pockets of the people we're trying to fight.
Thats not what I was suggesting XD
Read it again.
I didn't basically mean support them with monetary gifts. It is called lead by example. Basically purpose something that would open up borders between countries, this would inspire other countries to follow in the united states' foot steps.
We did that. We built factories, created jobs, improved healthcare, trained the workforce then we even warred against their drug lords, it's still a cesspool.
No. We didn't. That doesn't even help pulling by the bootstraps only works if you teach people correctly. They are developing nations. It would take years. Not months.
Its called long term planning which seems to be lost on some americans :/
And that is the reason why nothing has happened yet.
The same crowd that wants something done about illegal immigration is also against everything that would be required to accomplish anything and we would have the same arguments that we always have.
More rules for businesses? "Regulations are bad", "it hurts the job creators", "it would reduce income and in the long run it would result in less income for the government and increase the deficit".
Want to follow business trucks around? "Government can't spy on us", "focus on real criminals", "hiring more people for enforcement is expensive and will increase the deficit".
The actions needed to actually do what a lot of conservatives want done go against many o f the principles that they believe in. Which is why nothing has been done with regards to reform even though many folks in the republican caucus are for reform.
My tinfoil hat side wants me to believe that these people know all of this but they've got several camps to cater to; there's the "They're taking our jobs!" camp of blue-collar, red-blooded 'merican and there's the corporate camp that wants tax breaks and loose regulations, there's the small government camp that wants to dismantle all but a few federal agencies, and the tea party derpheads that just want freedom as long as it doesn't hurt them.
Anyone who examines the Republican party closely realizes that they have a major identity issue that they are actively avoiding dealing with from fear of alienating any of these camps.
Don't get me wrong, Dems has plenty of issues too but they at least know how to work together most of the time.
No. We didn't. That doesn't even help pulling by the bootstraps only works if you teach people correctly. They are developing nations. It would take years. Not months.
Its called long term planning which seems to be lost on some americans :/
It goes all the way back to the 1930's and FDR's Good Neighbor policy. The problem is that along the way there were administration changes, changes in stance and several diplomatic mistakes etc that resulted in most of the central american countries despising the US...usually for good reason.
I agree the Dems in general, seem to do a better job pulling together, but I think that with a 2 party system, both the dems and pubs are trapped in a country over 300 million strong with an extremely diverse range of interests, and they're constantly playing 52 pickup trying to keep as many pleased as they can.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
agnosto wrote: It goes all the way back to the 1930's and FDR's Good Neighbor policy. The problem is that along the way there were administration changes, changes in stance and several diplomatic mistakes etc that resulted in most of the central american countries despising the US...usually for good reason.
Yeah we kind of fethed that one up for ourselves. Also something to blame on the CIA Great job guys (I know you're reading this! *puts on tin foil hat*)
I've been working at my job for over 15 years... and just THIS YEAR ALONE, I had to go to my HR office and show them my MO drivers license, SS card and my birth certificate to PROVE that I'm a citizen, and thus legally able to work here.
So, to say that ICE personnel cant channel Sherlock Holmes seems dubious to me.
Man, your company is really slow...
Still, cash jobs are the bulk of what is worked and there is literally no current way to verify off-the-book employees short of following company trucks around.
Then do that.
The goal isn't to catch EVERY one of them.
The goal is to make the penalty so high, that these companies WON'T risk it.
Limited resources. Remember, we're in a period of "small government" and still have sequestration hanging over our heads. You want real border security, you'll have to pay for it.
And that is the reason why nothing has happened yet.
The same crowd that wants something done about illegal immigration is also against everything that would be required to accomplish anything and we would have the same arguments that we always have.
More rules for businesses? "Regulations are bad", "it hurts the job creators", "it would reduce income and in the long run it would result in less income for the government and increase the deficit".
Want to follow business trucks around? "Government can't spy on us", "focus on real criminals", "hiring more people for enforcement is expensive and will increase the deficit".
The actions needed to actually do what a lot of conservatives want done go against many o f the principles that they believe in. Which is why nothing has been done with regards to reform even though many folks in the republican caucus are for reform.
Then again, since controlling immigration is actually a responsibility given to the Feds in the constitution, perhaps some conservatives would like to see resources channeled away from crap the feds should not be involved in and instead used towards things like this... One could make the argument that MOAR gov't may not be the solution, but instead a govt that focuses on the correct things could be a solution.
That's why I think that Boehner is pro-reform and he has a bi-partisan majority in the house that would be able to pass a bill today. I don't think it's a case of the GOP being anti-reform. It's just a case of a fractured GOP having such divided loyalties from different segments that they can't come up with a bill that wouldn't alienate at least one of the groups that leans republican.
Throw in that the mainline Republicans are scared shitless of a Tea Party take over within the party, and you have another reason they're really reluctant to even try testing their positions. Either way the mainline guys go, and Tea Partiers can swoop and start userping them by taking the other side. Rock. Hard place.
d-usa wrote: That's why I think that Boehner is pro-reform and he has a bi-partisan majority in the house that would be able to pass a bill today. I don't think it's a case of the GOP being anti-reform. It's just a case of a fractured GOP having such divided loyalties from different segments that they can't come up with a bill that wouldn't alienate at least one of the groups that leans republican.
This. I'm amazed Boehner's not dead yet with all the crap he's had to do to keep the party together in the House.
d-usa wrote: That's why I think that Boehner is pro-reform and he has a bi-partisan majority in the house that would be able to pass a bill today. I don't think it's a case of the GOP being anti-reform. It's just a case of a fractured GOP having such divided loyalties from different segments that they can't come up with a bill that wouldn't alienate at least one of the groups that leans republican.
This. I'm amazed Boehner's not dead yet with all the crap he's had to do to keep the party together in the House.
You can see he is done with the BS. I wouldn't mind seeing him as President. But instead being a bit more progressive than his compatriots. :/
We wouldn't need a boarder fence if we'd just enforce the laws on people hiring illegals. A lot fewer people would be crossing if there were no easy jobs available.
See, that's talking sense. Which is why Washington will never consider it Many of the illegal immigrants in this country are here for economic reasons. Remove the economic incentive and the problem will resolve itself
The logistics for getting rid of all illegals is the same as getting rid of all guns: it is never going to be a realistic expectation so there is no point in even entertaining the thought. Everyone needs to realize that there is no way to ever get rid of them, so any plan has to include them.
Except, as detailed above, people here for economic reasons will not remain if their economic opportunities are no longer viable. You cannot do the same with an inanimate object
Asherian Command wrote: A lot of people that are illegal immigrants are people running away from the drug war in mexico. I mean they are technically refugees then.
Then come to the US, present yourself to a Border Agent, and claim asylum. There are programs and assistance available for genuine asylum seekers.
d-usa wrote: Obama might be an egotistical megalomaniac, but he is a constitutional lawyer and not an idiot. There has to be some reason why he thinks he can do what he did.
He is a Constitutional lawyer, who also said that he could not do the actions that he has just done
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Under the "Obama Dctrine" any president can now unilaterally act on major issues if he/she disagrees with Congress. Thats a nice step to dictatorship.
Then come to the US, present yourself to a Border Agent, and claim asylum. There are programs and assistance available for genuine asylum seekers.
Yes because people who are fleeing their country in complete fear will be able to do that. Some can, but most can't. The amount of rejection that the US Gives out to people is staggering.
whembly wrote: Maybe you should ask for a refund from the government for all that time/money you your efforts.
Seriously though, like Kan said earlier, just hammer those employers who knowingly hire illegals.
Disrupt the incentive.
Easily done too. Expand e-verify. FInes and jail time for those knowingly hiring illegal immigrants
Thanks, I couldn't remember the system that was put in place to stem the hiring of illegal immigrants.
The issue still stands that e-verify doesn't do spit to stop someone from hiring off-the-books labor. Your books say you have 20 employees but you're actually paying 40 or more; not even the IRS will catch that.
whembly wrote: Maybe you should ask for a refund from the government for all that time/money you your efforts.
Seriously though, like Kan said earlier, just hammer those employers who knowingly hire illegals.
Disrupt the incentive.
Easily done too. Expand e-verify. FInes and jail time for those knowingly hiring illegal immigrants
Thanks, I couldn't remember the system that was put in place to stem the hiring of illegal immigrants.
The issue still stands that e-verify doesn't do spit to stop someone from hiring off-the-books labor. Your books say you have 20 employees but you're actually paying 40 or more; not even the IRS will catch that.
Well that money they're being paid with has to be on the books somewhere, unless you are also understating your revenue. Which is also illegal by the way.
The IRS doesn't have the time or manpower to check every receipt (unless as I point out in every thread, you want a police state). Cooking the books is easy and IRS just doesn't have the resources to test them all unless they get pointed to look somewhere.
That and I can always say "Cash transaction. Receipt? I think I threw it away. It's a hammer why would I keep the receipt Mr. IRS man?"
Editor's note: David Gergen is a senior political analyst for CNN and has been an adviser to four presidents. A graduate of Harvard Law School, he is a professor of public service and director of the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. Follow him on Twitter: @david_gergen. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his.
(CNN) -- There is something deeply troubling about President Obama's decision to grant legal safe haven to unauthorized immigrants by executive order.
It isn't the underlying policy that is troubling. Just the opposite. We have known for years that we would never deport some 11 million people from our midst. Many have become hard-working, productive members of our society, and Congress, working with the White House, should long ago have provided them a safe pathway out of the shadows.
In that sense, this policy is good. One wonders indeed why the President, having decided to take the plunge, didn't go further and build a pathway to fuller benefits such as health care for those who establish a solid record of work and good behavior.
Nor is it even the questionable legality that disturbs. On many occasions during our history, presidents have tested the boundaries of their constitutional power through executive orders: Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, his Emancipation Proclamation, Franklin D. Roosevelt's creation of the Works Progress Administration, FDR's awful internment of Japanese-Americans, and Harry Truman's integration of the armed forces were all accomplished through controversial executive orders.
During the 19th century, conventional wisdom held that presidents had only as much authority as the constitution explicitly granted; Teddy Roosevelt famously flipped that proposition on its head -- unless the Constitution explicitly forbids, he argued, the president has implied authority to act, especially as commander-in-chief. Many of his successors have agreed and usually the courts have gone along with them.
Even so, President Obama's executive order on immigration seems to move us into uncharted, dangerous waters. It is one thing for a president like Lincoln or FDR to act unilaterally in national emergencies. In nearly all the big examples of the past -- like the Emancipation Proclamation -- they were also acting as commander-in-chief. As the one foremost responsible for protecting the nation's existence, a president as commander-in-chief has long been recognized as having inherent powers that stretch well beyond those of normal governance.
Not an emergency
But the challenges of immigration policy do not represent a national emergency, nor do they touch upon the military authorities of a president. Rather, they represent the chronic, abysmal failures of politicians in Washington to govern well from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. They helped create this immigration mess over a long number of years and working together, they have a public duty to solve it.
The White House has repeatedly pointed to immigration-related executive orders issued by past presidents, notably Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, to support the legality of President Obama's order and to palliate its partisan sting.
Both the executive orders cited, however, can be distinguished from the case at hand. Reagan granted amnesty to 100,000 undocumented immigrants to close a loophole in the comprehensive immigration reform bill passed in 1986.
Bush's order, which granted amnesty to at most 1.5 million people (although the actual number who benefited is likely much smaller), also attempted to clean up a piece of legislation. As Mark Krikorian writes in National Review, the Reagan and Bush examples were presidents trying to implement congressional directives, as is constitutionally permissible, whereas the current action is the President telling Congress "I'm going to implement my own directives."
While the President's impatience is understandable and his anger at Republican intransigence is well placed, that does not justify an abandonment of traditional ways of addressing hard public problems.
Against the spirit of the Constitution
One can argue whether this executive order is legal, but it certainly violates the spirit of the founders. They intentionally focused Article One of the Constitution on the Congress and Article Two on the president. That is because the Congress is the body charged with passing laws and the president is the person charged with faithfully carrying them out.
In effect, the Congress was originally seen as the pre-eminent branch and the president more of a clerk. The president's power grew enormously in the 20th century but even so, the Constitution still envisions Congress and the president as co-equal branches of government -- or as the scholar Richard Neustadt observed, co-equal branches sharing power.
For better or worse, Americans have always expected that in addressing big, tough domestic issues, Congress and the president had to work together to find resolution.
For a president to toss aside such deep traditions of governance is a radical, imprudent step. When a president in day-to-day operations can decide which laws to enforce and which to ignore, where are the limits on his power? Where are the checks and balances so carefully constructed in the Constitution?
If a Democratic president can cancel existing laws on immigration, what is to prevent the next Republican from unilaterally canceling laws on health care?
A bad way to start with new Congress
Coming on the heels of midterm elections that were a clear call for a change of course in Washington, starting in the White House, this is also a discouraging way to open the final years of this presidency.
A new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll finds that by 53-40%, Americans feel positive about the election results; by 56-33%, they want Congress to set policy for the country, not the President; by 57-40% they favor a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants but by 42-32%, they disapprove of Obama overhauling immigration through executive order. Why isn't the White House listening to the public?
In retrospect, it would have been far better if coming out of the elections, the President had said he had promised he would act through executive order before the end of the year, but in light of the election results, he would work with the new Congress for six months. If there were no legislation, he would act on his own.
That would have been a much fairer proposition, would have started out with Republicans on better footing, and would have rallied the public behind him if the GOP refused to cooperate.
Sadly, we instead have an action from the White House that will cast a dark shadow over prospects for legislative cooperation, falls short of what the immigrant population had hoped and steers us into deep, unknown waters in our governance.
Washington (CNN) -- It was the summer of 2007 and Senator Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., unloaded on his junior colleague, then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois.
"You can't come in here and undo everything!" Kennedy told Obama, according to Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC.
Kennedy was angry, Graham would later recall, because Obama had signed on to be part of a bipartisan coalition of senators pushing a comprehensive immigration package, and yet he kept straying from the group's agreements.
The bipartisan team, led by Kennedy and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., would consult before voting on amendments, voting against them as a group even when they personally supported them if they felt the amendments would hurt the bill's chance of ultimately passing. Obama -- who by then had launched his presidential campaign -- on several occasions offered or supported amendments that if they passed might defeat final passage of the bill.
Which is how he aroused Kennedy's ire, Graham said, in a story he first told The Hill newspaper last year.
The '07 immigration bill was ultimately filibustered by both Republicans and Democrats. Kennedy, Obama and Graham all voted in favor of moving forward with it.
More than seven years later, Kennedy is dead, unable to corroborate Graham's story. Obama is president, having defeated both McCain and another Republican, Mitt Romney, who took a much harder line against immigration reform. President Obama is today flying across the country to campaign for his executive actions, which will defer deportation for an estimated five million undocumented immigrants.
There hasn't been much coverage of this chapter of Obama's senatorial history. But from the perspective of the members of the McCain/Kennedy coalition, Obama took actions that threatened their very delicate legislative dance, an interesting historical note given the president's announcement and his remarks about congressional inaction.
In his speech to the nation Thursday night announcing his plan, the president had a simple response for GOP critics assailing him for bypassing the legislative branch: "to those members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill."
But to those who were part of the effort to pass a bill in 2007, Obama's incredulity at legislative inaction rings a bit false. To them -- many of whom did not want to be identified because of the sensitivity of criticizing a president publicly -- President Obama sees the immigration effort strictly through a political lens. He is for it when it helps him politically, and when it was politically more problematic to be part of a bipartisan effort, he did what was good for him.
Without question, the efforts that have failed more recently are because of House Republicans. The U.S. Senate passed legislation with overwhelming bipartisan support and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, failed to bring in to the floor for a vote. Opposition to immigration legislation among Republican House rank and file was so strong, Boehner wouldn't even allow a vote on legislation that had made it out of the House Judiciary Committee.
At the time, the alliance was a risky endeavor. In May 2007, Graham was booed at the South Carolina Republican State Convention because of his immigration alliance with Kennedy.
"There are some people tell me, 'I'll never vote for you again if you do this,'" Graham told CNN for a June 2007 profile. "Well, if I based every decision as a senator on that statement, I would do nothing. So what I'm going to do is lead."
Many forces threatened to scuttle the fragile bipartisan group, big business and labor unions alike. And yet, even though he was part of the coalition, Obama offered an amendment that the larger group opposed, one that would have sunsetted the merit-based evaluation system for immigrants after five years. That amendment failed 42-55.
But Obama also supported four other amendments that the coalition opposed. Two from Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-ND, to sunset both the temporary guest worker visa program and the Y-1 non-immigrant temporary worker visa program after five years; and two amendments from Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-NM, that would have removed the requirement that 'Y' non-immigrant visa holders leave the United
States before they are able to renew their visa, and would have lowered the annual visa quota for guest workers from 400,000 to 200,000 per year.
Obama voted for all five; Kennedy voted against all five, as this reporter noted six years ago.
Dorgan's amendment to sunset the temporary guest worker visa program was of particular issue, since it passed, 49-48, despite calls from the coalition that it constituted a "deal-breaker." Future votes to bring the legislation up for a vote on final passage failed.
"Byron Dorgan did an amendment, and it scuttled the bill," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, said at a press conference on January 31, 2013.
There is much dispute about whether the union-backed amendments Obama supported "were intended to kill the legislation," as McCain has asserted. Clearly the counter-argument is that Obama, Dorgan and Bingaman were attempting to improve the legislation, not kill it.
Still, those involved credit Obama with working hard to make immigration reform happen in 2006, but playing a decidedly different role in 2007.
"The general feeling by those involved is that he parachuted into the meetings a lot," Graham told The Hill. "He was certainly there at all the press conferences but we had a lot of problems with him and quite frankly a couple others who wanted to renegotiate things after they had been closed out by the main group."
The White House was contacted by CNN, but did not immediately respond.
The IRS doesn't have the time or manpower to check every receipt (unless as I point out in every thread, you want a police state). Cooking the books is easy and IRS just doesn't have the resources to test them all unless they get pointed to look somewhere.
That and I can always say "Cash transaction. Receipt? I think I threw it away. It's a hammer why would I keep the receipt Mr. IRS man?"
Random auditing. and you can get in trouble for not keeping receipts.
Do you seriously think the IRS doesn't already do random auditing?
Oh yeah. Only, lots of people don't keep receipts, and the trouble usually amounts to extra sit down time with some IRS paper pusher who has a dozen other cases they have to finish by the end of the week. The IRS is funny like that. They can seize your bank account without a warrant for something as stupid as not putting enough money into it, and then they can't prosecute for tax fraud because they lack sufficient evidence (we actually might want to work on that first one).
Do you seriously think the IRS doesn't already do random auditing?
Oh yeah. Only, lots of people don't keep receipts, and the trouble usually amounts to extra sit down time with some IRS paper pusher who has a dozen other cases they have to finish by the end of the week. The IRS is funny like that. They can seize your bank account without a warrant for something as stupid as not putting enough money into it, and then they can't prosecute for tax fraud because they lack sufficient evidence (we actually might want to work on that first one).
So now we advocate random searches of persons at any location at any time to see if they're legal? You know who else does that kind of thing? Police states
ICE already does random inspections to the best of my knowledge. It's not hard for people to jump out the backdoor when the lone inspector shows up. As evidenced that lots of places are still hiring under the table illegal labor despite risks of IRS audits and ICE inspections.
d-usa wrote: ICE already does random inspections to the best of my knowledge. It's not hard for people to jump out the backdoor when the lone inspector shows up. As evidenced that lots of places are still hiring under the table illegal labor despite risks of IRS audits and ICE inspections.
Increase the frequency and the penalties and perhaps that will change
d-usa wrote: How much money are you willing to throw at the problem before everybody starts complaining about wasteful Washington bureaucrats?
Frankly, if it is wasteful any money spent is too much, but that is the point. If instead, it was done smartly, with decent analysis and targeting/profiling you could do a lot of good with out wasting resources, even at current spending levels. But as long as Big Business has Big Govt covering for it and enabling this crap, throwing more money at it won't solve anything.
How many legal residents/citizens are you willing to ask for documentation with your profiling program? No one that looks like you, I'm sure.
True story. My best friend is Native American, we took a trip to metamuros during college and were stopped by border patrol on the way back to Brownsville. The agent asked my friend for his green card, he laughed and asked the agent to show him his documents (we were on foot and were walking back after a night of drinking). Guy starts to look irate and blusters, buddy pulls out his tribal citizen card and shows it to him and says, "from my side of the table, you the illegal alien buddy."
agnosto wrote: How many legal residents/citizens are you willing to ask for documentation with your profiling program? No one that looks like you, I'm sure.
A cynic might say that you're trying to insinuate racism. For now I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm unsure what you mean when you say "your profiling program". When did I espouse a profiling program?
agnosto wrote: How many legal residents/citizens are you willing to ask for documentation with your profiling program? No one that looks like you, I'm sure.
A cynic might say that you're trying to insinuate racism. For now I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm unsure what you mean when you say "your profiling program". When did I espouse a profiling program?
The one in the post above mine, Cpt Jake's. I don't know where you got that I was speaking to anything that you wrote since he's the only one to write about profiling so far.
I agree with securing our borders and adequately funding the agencies responsible for that; I vehemently disagree with profiling and other jackboot tactics that create the feeling of a police state in a supposedly otherwise " free" society.
"from my side of the table, you the illegal alien buddy."
Brass balls son
He's notorious for saying undiplomatic things while intoxicated. There was this one time in Itaewon, Seoul... I'll just say that we made some new MP friends that night..
The IRS doesn't have the time or manpower to check every receipt (unless as I point out in every thread, you want a police state). Cooking the books is easy and IRS just doesn't have the resources to test them all unless they get pointed to look somewhere.
That and I can always say "Cash transaction. Receipt? I think I threw it away. It's a hammer why would I keep the receipt Mr. IRS man?"
Chances are your going to have a sitdown with an IRS Revenue Officer, not a random "paper pusher".
If you are picked for an audit (they are random unless a tip is called in), and are unable to substantiate the credits/expenses that you have taken in a sit-down with your tax examiner, they do not allow the credit/expense on your taxes. While we do not have the manpower to audit everyone's taxes, and honestly since sequester we audit less every year, when they do pick an audit they don't mess around. They will ask for every receipt or bank statement necessary to satisfy burden of proof for the expense.
Secondly, it doesn't make the news often, but the IRS works closely with outside agencies when other criminal activity is found, and if an auditor thinks there are some shenanigans going on in the business they will share that info with the appropriate authorities.
In short, "Cash transaction. Receipt? I think I threw it away. It's a hammer why would I keep the receipt Mr. IRS man?" would get a response similar to: "Because it was claimed as an expense on your taxes, no receipt, no deduction." To further this, if the examiner discovers that there are a lot of items that can't be substantiated they start getting itchy on the "frivolous return penalty" trigger, which really starts to add up.
I work for IRS collections, the people that do what you are talking about above are the ones that usually end up talking to me, its only a matter of time.
agnosto wrote: The one in the post above mine, Cpt Jake's. I don't know where you got that I was speaking to anything that you wrote since he's the only one to write about profiling so far.
I agree with securing our borders and adequately funding the agencies responsible for that; I vehemently disagree with profiling and other jackboot tactics that create the feeling of a police state in a supposedly otherwise " free" society.
My apologies. I missed his comment about profiling and thought your comment was to me after I proposed expanding e-verify. I am still a little perturbed about your comment about any profiling will mean "No one that looks like you, I'm sure".
I agree with securing our borders and adequately funding the agencies responsible for that; I vehemently disagree with profiling and other jackboot tactics that create the feeling of a police state in a supposedly otherwise " free" society.
But what, exactly, does "securing our borders" mean? Not exactly directed at you, but a general observation here. It's a pretty damned big border (2000 miles with Mexico, and let's not forget the 5500 mile one on the north side, too, and the 95000 miles of shoreline). How secure is secure? And what does it take to make it that secure? Do we buy the Great Wall of China and ship it here block by block (metaphorically speaking)? Do we rebuild the Berlin Wall, but make it 2000 miles long instead? Do we plop down a tower every few miles with some agents camped out in them? Constant drone surveillance? Cameras everywhere? Roving wiener dog attack packs? I like the idea of border security as much as the next person, but sometimes my mind boggles when I try to think about exactly what that entails.
agnosto wrote: The one in the post above mine, Cpt Jake's. I don't know where you got that I was speaking to anything that you wrote since he's the only one to write about profiling so far.
I agree with securing our borders and adequately funding the agencies responsible for that; I vehemently disagree with profiling and other jackboot tactics that create the feeling of a police state in a supposedly otherwise " free" society.
My apologies. I missed his comment about profiling and thought your comment was to me after I proposed expanding e-verify. I am still a little perturbed about your comment about any profiling will mean "No one that looks like you, I'm sure".
I suppose I could have been bothered to use the quote function.
My comment was in regards to the vast majority of people who seem to think profiling is a great idea. There really is no way to defend it without inserting an ism (racism, jingoism, sexism, etc), it's just plain bad policy in a free society. I've lived in two other countries and have been on the receiving end of it often enough to know what it feels like; I've also heard first hand accounts of Navajos being stopped and asked for ID in Arizona because of that silly law they passed and Arpaio's overzealous people.
So, profiling targets specific populations, inevitably those who fit a certain phenotype, for different treatment under the law, the same law that guarantees equal treatment? That's a slippery slope to the Japanese-American internment camps in the US during WWII while German-Americans were treated as citizens. Law enforcement personnel gp around hasseling american citizens for their papers and then cart deport them when they can't produce any....because they're American; it's happened, a quick search on google will show you numerous cases.
Yes, illegal immigration is a problem but profiling is not the answer, not if anyone wants America to even come close to resembling the "land of the free" or does that freedom end if you look too brown like Mark Little?
agnosto wrote: How many legal residents/citizens are you willing to ask for documentation with your profiling program? No one that looks like you, I'm sure.
I am talking of profiling businesses, because certain types (those making use of low skilled labor, especially in a few select industries) are the ones hiring illegals. All targeting involves some type of profiling, nothing to do with race/racism in this case at all, has to do completely with the profile of the business. You want to make a program to take down companies hiring illegals effective (both from a cost and from a results perspective)? Then you need to target the correct business.
Here is my original post, which was in reply to wasteful spending in the effort to stop the hiring of illegals.
d-usa wrote: How much money are you willing to throw at the problem before everybody starts complaining about wasteful Washington bureaucrats?
Frankly, if it is wasteful any money spent is too much, but that is the point. If instead, it was done smartly, with decent analysis and targeting/profiling you could do a lot of good with out wasting resources, even at current spending levels. But as long as Big Business has Big Govt covering for it and enabling this crap, throwing more money at it won't solve anything.
NOTHING in there, if taken with even the tiniest bit of context, could be considered racist, so shame on you for taking it out of context.
agnosto wrote: How many legal residents/citizens are you willing to ask for documentation with your profiling program? No one that looks like you, I'm sure.
I am talking of profiling businesses, because certain types (those making use of low skilled labor, especially in a few select industries) are the ones hiring illegals. All targeting involves some type of profiling, nothing to do with race/racism in this case at all, has to do completely with the profile of the business. You want to make a program to take down companies hiring illegals effective (both from a cost and from a results perspective)? Then you need to target the correct business.
Here is my original post, which was in reply to wasteful spending in the effort to stop the hiring of illegals.
d-usa wrote: How much money are you willing to throw at the problem before everybody starts complaining about wasteful Washington bureaucrats?
Frankly, if it is wasteful any money spent is too much, but that is the point. If instead, it was done smartly, with decent analysis and targeting/profiling you could do a lot of good with out wasting resources, even at current spending levels. But as long as Big Business has Big Govt covering for it and enabling this crap, throwing more money at it won't solve anything.
NOTHING in there, if taken with even the tiniest bit of context, could be considered racist, so shame on you for taking it out of context.
My misunderstanding thenm I apologize. It's something that I'm sensitive to and may have incorrectly construed it from your statement.
My state has a history of legislatively following Arizona around like a puppy dog and a few years ago this resulted in a near mass-exodus of Hispanic residents due to a law that flirted with outright profiling. Police were actually stopping people in the streets and asking for proof of residency. Local police and highway patrol set up "license checkpoints" in areas of Oklahoma City densely populated by Hispanic families but don't do so across town in majorly African-American or Caucasian areas.
I'm sensitive to it as well. I have two adopted brothers who are oriental, and all three of my kids are adopted, my daughter also oriental.
I got into plenty of fights when someone called one of my little brothers a chink or similar. And I've talked to other kids parents after their little crap bags made fun of my daughter (who at the time was the only oriental kid in her school).
Also spent 2 years living overseas as a kid and was the only white kid in my school the first year, and again took and gave my share of lumps over it.
On active duty I worked in a couple places with local tribes who were 'different' than most of the locals and again dealt with issues where due to skin color my guys took gak they should not have to, and did my best to squash it like a fething bug when it happened.
I agree with securing our borders and adequately funding the agencies responsible for that; I vehemently disagree with profiling and other jackboot tactics that create the feeling of a police state in a supposedly otherwise " free" society.
But what, exactly, does "securing our borders" mean? Not exactly directed at you, but a general observation here. It's a pretty damned big border (2000 miles with Mexico, and let's not forget the 5500 mile one on the north side, too, and the 95000 miles of shoreline). How secure is secure? And what does it take to make it that secure? Do we buy the Great Wall of China and ship it here block by block (metaphorically speaking)? Do we rebuild the Berlin Wall, but make it 2000 miles long instead? Do we plop down a tower every few miles with some agents camped out in them? Constant drone surveillance? Cameras everywhere? Roving wiener dog attack packs? I like the idea of border security as much as the next person, but sometimes my mind boggles when I try to think about exactly what that entails.
See... this line of thought bugs the hell out of me.
In other word, it says: Meh... it's too hard, so why bother?
With that mindset, how the feth did we send a man to the Moon?
CptJake wrote: I'm sensitive to it as well. I have two adopted brothers who are oriental, and all three of my kids are adopted, my daughter also oriental.
I got into plenty of fights when someone called one of my little brothers a chink or similar. And I've talked to other kids parents after their little crap bags made fun of my daughter (who at the time was the only oriental kid in her school).
Also spent 2 years living overseas as a kid and was the only white kid in my school the first year, and again took and gave my share of lumps over it.
On active duty I worked in a couple places with local tribes who were 'different' than most of the locals and again dealt with issues where due to skin color my guys took gak they should not have to, and did my best to squash it like a fething bug when it happened.
I find it weird that a memorial established to honor the thousands of American citizens killed each year by Illegal Aliens only manages to list less than 25 people killed in 2014.
CptJake wrote: I'm sensitive to it as well. I have two adopted brothers who are oriental, and all three of my kids are adopted, my daughter also oriental.
I got into plenty of fights when someone called one of my little brothers a chink or similar. And I've talked to other kids parents after their little crap bags made fun of my daughter (who at the time was the only oriental kid in her school).
Also spent 2 years living overseas as a kid and was the only white kid in my school the first year, and again took and gave my share of lumps over it.
On active duty I worked in a couple places with local tribes who were 'different' than most of the locals and again dealt with issues where due to skin color my guys took gak they should not have to, and did my best to squash it like a fething bug when it happened.
Oriental means Asian right?
Can be used to indicate east Asian but is usually used in relation to those of Chinese decent.
"With that mindset, how the feth did we send a man to the Moon?"
But you never sent a man to the moon. It was a fake landing. Adjusts tinfoil hat...
But it's a valid point. A determined man (or woman) will always make their way into the America, simply because it's impossible to guard every square mile of border.
A better solution to the immigration problem IMO would be to help the Latin American countries blighted by the war on drugs.
America can do this by legalising recreational drugs. Washington and Colorado? have set the ball rolling.
As I've said before, America is a country that prides itself on individual freedom, the right to bear arms is living proof of that, but one of the great mysteries to me is it's reluctance to allow individuals to ingest whatever drugs they wanted.
Of all the countries in the world where individuals would tell the government to butt out of what an individual puts inside their own body, you'd think it would be the USA...
But you never sent a man to the moon. It was a fake landing. Adjusts tinfoil hat...
But it's a valid point. A determined man (or woman) will always make their way into the America, simply because it's impossible to guard every square mile of border.
A better solution to the immigration problem IMO would be to help the Latin American countries blighted by the war on drugs.
America can do this by legalising recreational drugs. Washington and Colorado? have set the ball rolling.
As I've said before, America is a country that prides itself on individual freedom, the right to bear arms is living proof of that, but one of the great mysteries to me is it's reluctance to allow individuals to ingest whatever drugs they wanted.
Of all the countries in the world where individuals would tell the government to butt out of what an individual puts inside their own body, you'd think it would be the USA...
We pride ourselves on freedom its true, but its not total freedom. because that would be anarchy and chaos.
Weed is certainly a borderline case because its not immediately harmful(although we are finding out more and more about the bad things it does to your brain, and how it actually is addictive) but no way in hell are we legalizing Coke or Heroine.
But you never sent a man to the moon. It was a fake landing. Adjusts tinfoil hat...
But it's a valid point. A determined man (or woman) will always make their way into the America, simply because it's impossible to guard every square mile of border.
A better solution to the immigration problem IMO would be to help the Latin American countries blighted by the war on drugs.
America can do this by legalising recreational drugs. Washington and Colorado? have set the ball rolling.
As I've said before, America is a country that prides itself on individual freedom, the right to bear arms is living proof of that, but one of the great mysteries to me is it's reluctance to allow individuals to ingest whatever drugs they wanted.
Of all the countries in the world where individuals would tell the government to butt out of what an individual puts inside their own body, you'd think it would be the USA...
We pride ourselves on freedom its true, but its not total freedom. because that would be anarchy and chaos.
Weed is certainly a borderline case because its not immediately harmful(although we are finding out more and more about the bad things it does to your brain, and how it actually is addictive) but no way in hell are we legalizing Coke or Heroine.
The federal government would probably destroy that trillion dollar deficit if drugs were legalised. Think of all that lovely taxation.
I disagree about anarchy ruling. I've always said that with rights, come responsibilities. For example, sure you can get drugged up on cocaine and drive a car, but if you kill somebody, that's 25 years in jail without parole. I'm going by UK standards, but it's a carrot and stick approach.
You set ground rules and I would guarantee that deaths from drug abuse would be no higher than DUI, or firearms offences or anything else similar in America.
I believe if you start treating adults like adults, then problems are not as bad as first feared.
There wouldn't be that many outlets where you could legally buy this hypothetical legal and taxed Coke or Heroin.
So people would still make their own/buy it from the cartels. That infrastructure already exists and is thoroughly entrenched. And no legal supplier would be able to compete with that.
So you still have an illegal drug problem, its just now more difficult to attack. You still have the junkies getting it from their dealer, except now you have no ability to turn the junkies into informants in exchange for laxer sentencing.
Illegal cigarettes are big money still because you can get around the taxes, illegal drugs will remain even bigger money.
Tannhauser42 wrote: But what, exactly, does "securing our borders" mean? Not exactly directed at you, but a general observation here. It's a pretty damned big border (2000 miles with Mexico, and let's not forget the 5500 mile one on the north side, too, and the 95000 miles of shoreline). How secure is secure? And what does it take to make it that secure? Do we buy the Great Wall of China and ship it here block by block (metaphorically speaking)? Do we rebuild the Berlin Wall, but make it 2000 miles long instead? Do we plop down a tower every few miles with some agents camped out in them? Constant drone surveillance? Cameras everywhere? Roving wiener dog attack packs? I like the idea of border security as much as the next person, but sometimes my mind boggles when I try to think about exactly what that entails.
See... this line of thought bugs the hell out of me.
See, people misinterpreting what I say in order to pursue their own agenda bugs the hell out of me. You completely dodged the question and proved you didn't understand my line of thought at all.
The question is simple: What, exactly, does "securing our borders" mean, and what does it take to make it "secure?"
This is a question that politicians refuse to be pinned down on to answer directly and completely. "Border Security" is nothing more than political buzzword jargon used to score points with voters and is used to obfuscate the real underlying issues.
Interpretation is the Judiciary branch's job. The President is supposed to enforce, nothing more.
Enforcement requires interpretation, unless you expect the interpreters to hold the hands of the enforcers. Which, of course, strips the enforcers of power and eliminates that whole separation of powers thing
Maybe if something like amnesty goes through they might but as of now actually becoming a citizen has far more benefits than being forcibly removed if you are discovered to be here illegally. The idea that undocumented immigrants* are living some freewheelin' lifestyle seems a bit odd.
I'd say people entering the country now, at this moment after the EO has been put into effect, have a case that maybe charging them for entry is unfair. To them, I think it very reasonable that all immigration fees be waved for the time being until the government can get it's gak together.
But someone who entered in 2008, or in 2014 the day before the EO, they have no case. Ex Post Facto. The EO was not in effect at those times and they are entitled to nothing. Times change and sometimes you end up paying for things people who come after you don't have to.
I'd say people entering the country now, at this moment after the EO has been put into effect, have a case that maybe charging them for entry is unfair. To them, I think it very reasonable that all immigration fees be waved for the time being until the government can get it's gak together.
But someone who entered in 2008, or in 2014 the day before the EO, they have no case. Ex Post Facto. The EO was not in effect at those times and they are entitled to nothing. Times change and sometimes you end up paying for things people who come after you don't have to.
Could be. My reaction is in sympathy to a friend that jumped though all the legal hoops to have his wife from Canada be able to join him here. There definitely needs to be reform, but not something that ammounts to totaly throwing open the borders and encouraging more illegals the way Obama did.
Relapse wrote: There definitely needs to be reform, but not something that amounts to totally throwing open the borders and encouraging more illegals the way Obama did.
Maybe you could get your representatives to do something about immigration finally, but then they haven't done anything about it for many moons so I doubt they will do something substantial now. It is easier to easier to get reelected if you are intractable until the point that someone else gets fed up and does something about it, and then you complain and use it to score political points for it. Actually do something about it would mean doing something beyond rhetoric and attacking the opposition. You don't get to ride the gravy train governing responsibly.
Washington Post somehow felt the need to fact check the skit. Seems reasonable since they've done it for skits about conservative presidents, like...er... forget about that statement.
I don't see how a President exercising the authority granted to him by law can be mocked for stating that the US is a nation built on the rule of law. At least absent the "feth Obama!" refrain that article is clearly grounded in.
Mr. Constitutional Professor Obama thinks he changed the law... which is something EOs and executive actions cannot legally do.
I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt by assuming he simply misspoke, as people speaking off the cuff in front of large crowds are wont to do.
Mr. Constitutional Professor Obama thinks he changed the law... which is something EOs and executive actions cannot legally do.
I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt by assuming he simply misspoke, as people speaking off the cuff in front of large crowds are wont to do.
Dogma, giving someone the benefit of a doubt?!!!? Truly my dimemsion shift experiment has worked!
So... when there's "bad governance" I should shut up?
I neither said nor implied that you should "shut up" when "bad governance" occurs. I said that you seem more interested in "good gloating" than "good governance" due to the fact that you stated you are "...enjoying the schadenfreude." and have long held yourself to be vitriolically opposed to Democrats.
So... when there's "bad governance" I should shut up?
I neither said nor implied that you should "shut up" when "bad governance" occurs. I said that you seem more interested in "good gloating" than "good governance" due to the fact that you stated you are "...enjoying the schadenfreude." and have long held yourself to be vitriolically opposed to Democrats.
Well... I can have my cake... and EAT it too!
I vote. So I had "my say" at the voting booth.
I call/email my politicians... they can at least "listen" to what I have to say.
I call/email my politicians... they can at least "listen" to what I have to say.
That doesn't jive with your claim to apathy. Based on your statements you seem to hate Democrats (especially Obama) while also being frustrated by Republicans and the complications of American politics.
I call/email my politicians... they can at least "listen" to what I have to say.
That doesn't jive with your claim to apathy. Based on your statements you seem to hate Democrats (especially Obama) while also being frustrated by Republicans and the complications of American politics.
I was unaware that your "civic duty" involved putting words in people's mouths.
I was also unaware that you strive to nitpick everything. You seem to take abject pleasure in pulling the minute thread and try to discredit the opposing viewpoints.
I was also unaware that you strive to nitpick everything. You seem to take abject pleasure in pulling the minute thread and try to discredit the opposing viewpoints.
I merely try to point out when people are wrong about issues that interest me, while simultaneously objecting to having my statements deliberately mischaracterized.
dogma wrote: I merely try to point out when people are wrong about issues that interest me, while simultaneously objecting to having my statements deliberately mischaracterized.
That seems to ascribe malice. Should you notice it happen often, perhaps you should try to determine if could better elucidate what you're trying to say.
If you read up-thread there are several clear mischaracterizations of my statements. They may have been (among other things) malicious, defensive, or ignorant; I can't speak with authority on the matter.
now.
