"The executive order taking advantage of prosecutorial discretion in deportation cases will cover individuals brought to the United States through no fault of their own before the age of 16 who have:
- lived in the U.S. at least five years
- have no criminal record
- have earned a high school degree
- or served in the military,
- and still be under 30.
Those who meet the criteria can get deportation proceedings (or the threat of same) deferred for two years and seek work permits."
This isn't "amnesty." The young people who are here through no fault of their own can earn their way toward citizenship.
The obstructionists in the GOP would not and did not address this issue, and we're glad the president used his executive power to act on it.
"Sure, this is election-year positioning, but sometimes good policy is good politics. And not only will this be good for Obama's electoral chances directly, but it presents Republicans with an excruciating dilemma: either lay low and piss off their base or else follow their usual anti-Obama playbook and unleash a blizzard of criticism that will torpedo their efforts to attract Latino voters for years to come." --Kevin Drum
"Republicans will call this "amnesty." Yet this move doesn't grant citizenship or legal status. It's essentially a promise not to deport and permission to work—unless the order is reversed. This is a temporary solution to a policy problem that Congress has consistently lacked the courage to resolve: the presence of undocumented immigrants who are here through no fault of their own and who have never known another home. And the devil is in the implementation. Previous promises to excercize discretion by the administration haven't panned out as advertised." --Erica Johnson
To put a personal face on this story and understand how this issue affects people, read Maria Gomez's story in the LA Times:
"It was early Friday morning, and UCLA graduate Maria Gomez had only heard some of the news -- something about President Obama granting immunity to young illegal immigrants like herself -- when the congratulatory text messages began flying in.
She would be able to apply for a work permit, and a driver's license, according to texts from her friends. Although Obama is paving the way for work permits, obtaining driver's licenses are a matter of state law and unaffected by his announcement.
For Gomez, these little privileges mean so much. "
For Gomez, these little privileges mean so much. "
INTERESTING. SOUND FAMILIAR?
Maureen Gill:
"The Know-Nothing movement of the mid-1800s would be very much at home in modern America. Know-Nothings were native-born, white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant males – women could not yet vote; the movement was a xenophobic, anti-immigrant response to massive waves of Irish and German immigrants flooding America between 1830-60, most especially Irish Catholics; however, Know-Nothings also railed against Jews, and in California, they targeted Asians, primarily the Chinese.
The movement’s name was the result of its semi-secret organization; when asked about the movement’s activities, members were instructed to reply “I know nothing.” The Know-Nothing platform called for: Severe limits on immigration, especially from Catholic countries; restricting political office to native-born Americans of English and/or Scottish lineage and Protestant persuasion; mandating a wait of 21 years before an immigrant could gain citizenship; restricting public school teacher positions to Protestants; mandating daily Bible readings in public schools; restricting the sale of liquor; restricting the use of languages other than English."
41 comments:
The GOP did not address the issue, true. Obama, on response addressed it wrong. Yup, we'te so much better off now.
As Rubio said "welcome news for many of these kids desperate for an answer, but it is a short term answer to a long term problem."
Last September the President said he could not do this because we had laws that prevented him from doing it. In light of that, today's action raises an eyebrow.
On a separate note, the reporter from the Daily Caller that yelled questions and comments in the middle of the President's speech should never, ever, be credentialed again at the White House.
WOW!
Now... let's be honest, it is amnesty and it is also the right thing to do.
This particular group of people is no more Mexican than most of you. I dare say, as will my closest friends that I am more Mexican, and speak more Spanish than many of the people who will get to stay in the US because of this action.
They will love America, as most already do, work hard, have already shown an ability to avoid trouble, and will be making money and paying taxes.
What's not to like.
If the individual parties are unable to legislate, I predict we will see much more Presidential power shown in the years to come.
Think the power of the unitary executive.
KP, i hope you are right on the Daily Caller guy. very disrespectful. tucker Carlson said he was no different from the old Sam Donaldson, but i beg to differ. Donaldson shouted questions at Presidents yes, but not in the middle of an official presidential Statement. Only afterwards.
And... any thought on the book?
Dave, you may have missed this in my post:
"Republicans will call this 'amnesty.' Yet this move doesn't grant citizenship or legal status. It's essentially a promise not to deport and permission to work—unless the order is reversed. This is a temporary solution to a policy problem that Congress has consistently lacked the courage to resolve: the presence of undocumented immigrants who are here through no fault of their own and who have never known another home. And the devil is in the implementation."
KP, the White House press corps called that Munro character a "boor," and a reporter standing right next to him said it was no "mistake." He planned the disruption.
RN, I disagree.
Shaw... I saw it, but the reality is, for all intents and purposes it is... they are just using a different name because as long as the order is not repealed, they can legally stay, of which, of course I support.
Obama is using this as a political cudgel to beat up on an obstructive congress that would prefer to score political points than deal with the real issues of governance.
Dave, you are correct , it is amnesty. As LP said, it does nothing to solve the long term problem. Therefore it IS flawed. It is more kicking the can down the road.
Les... of course it is kicking the can down the road, but what are we to do?
President Bush and Sen McCain proposed a plan that Dems could buy off on, and they were ripped alive.
The current group of Republicans has no interest in making any kind of deal with president Obama that could potentially make him look good.
Now when we are talking about a President looking good, that only happens when the country looks good. So what do we have?
One party that has a vested interest in making sure the president of the other party has absolutely no legislative accomplishments of which to speak.
Then they can campaign and say he has done nothing.
I salute President Obama in this case for doing the right thing, in the face of Republican obstruction.
While it is not a comprehensive deal, given lock step opposition from the GOP, it is all he could get.
I will be waiting to hear the GOP, it it can retake the White House, support the Dems when they use the same strategy.
Just like judges... the GOP has blocked Obama's nominees for almost all of his term. Now they invoke the "Thurmond" rule to say it is too close to an election to vote on lifetime appts. to the bench.
What a load of hooey these guys are selling...
It's amnesty. Amnesty is not a dirty word, is it? But I happen to generally support it.
@Dave said:
<< Obama is using this as a political cudgel to beat up on an obstructive congress that would prefer to score political points than deal with the real issues of governance. >>
I agree with you, this is amnesty. As well, it is much needed, as does Romney and Rubio. However, the President has created a hornet’s nest. I can't tell you how angry I am with him. Because the idea is a good one is not enough. We have two branches of government. Congress makes laws and the Executive branch ensures they are executed.
The Dream Act was first introduced in 2001 and was voted down in 2003. Some form of it has been in a mostly democratic congress since then. Each time it has been voted down.
Let me be clear, I agree with the idea of amnesty for this specific group of people. However, for the President to run around Congress in this way, after ten years of Congress saying no, and the Prez himself saying it was illegal for him to do so just 8-9 months ago, is a big problem. Once again, he has divided us right when he should be uniting us.
He will be sued by Congress so swiftly that the issue will no longer be about amnesty, but about a President who continues the abuse the separation of powers and making Congress more irrelevant than they have made themselves.
@ Dave - I love the book!
Of course we have three braches of government; Executive, Legislative and Judicial :-)
It solves a problem for 800, 000 people. I guess some call that nothing.
The president announced it was a temporary measure.
The idea that it does not solve all our immigration problems therefore is a failure, is an irrational, tunnel vision, view of the reality of everyday politics.
The Republican House is doing nothing (the dream act has been around for years) I'm glad the president is doing something.
@Sammy -- you comments seem out of context. Do you mean to Tweet them to Hannity?
The Know-nothing Party; does sound familiar. It had a spectacular 3-4 year run and disappeared. We should be so lucky...
Right, it's the president who is dividing us. It's ok to say you are going to vote for Romney KP.
KP said,
"Of course we have three braches of government; Executive, Legislative and Judicial"
Gee, thanks for that first grade lesson.
Come back when you graduate to the second grade.
@Sammy, I am sorry I made the comment to you about the context of your post. It was my comment to you that was out of place and was not helpful.
I think this needed to be done, but not this way.
We are a democratic republic, not a monarchy where the king issues edicts and commands from the throne.
This was a good move on the president's part and the right thing to do. He's got the GOP boxed in on this one. Their base can bitch and moan, but the politicians know they can't criticize the policy. On "Face the Nation" this morning, Romney kept ducking and dodging Bob Schieffer's questions on whether or not he'd repeal President Obama's executive order if he won the White House.
Malcolm, most of us agree that the young adults and kids needed this type of relief. Some of us don't like the way it was done. Others applaud the end around Congress; and still others like it because it boxes in the GOP (or some combination of those).
Let's assume numbers one and three are correct, and that we agree on that. My point made earlier is that Bush and Obama have been divisive when using executive orders.
Without pointing fingers, as there is plenty of blame to go around, our system of government appears to me to be deteriorating. And each time one of our Presidents acts this way there is a ripple effect. The pendulum swings faster and lower.
What's wrong with America and our all politics all the time government:
"He's got the GOP boxed in on this one."
It's more important to find ways to "box them in" than to be right apparently. Goes for both useless parties.
"Yet this move doesn't grant citizenship or legal status. It's essentially a promise not to deport and permission to work"
We have needed a permanent path that this is not.
It was a very smart political move and nothing more. When Obama was running he said he would pass a solution to the immigration issue. He had two years of free rein and did nothing. When he saw his base erode he decides to do something that two years ago he said he couldn't do.
This is much like the proposal Rubio is working on and is another disingenuous move by the The Leader to buy votes. What will his next evolving move be, grant voting rights to felons in prison or lower the voting age to 14.
Presidential proclamations have been used for many things, by all presidents, since George Washington. It is the power of the executive given to him by the Constitution, not some "backdoor" process. Of course Obama can't use what every other president has used, because he is an illegitimate (black) president. More racist crap.
Solving a problem for over 800,000 people is nothing?
Thanks for letting us know you care little about people, and deny a black president the same process (proclamation) all other presidents have used.
Typical hate filled Republican.
Typical ignorant a** RR, whoever you are.
What about all of the immigrants of other nationalities who have been working through the process for years. I guess in The Leader's mind, they just don't matter. Why did it take him so long to do something he should have done three years ago when he had a total majority. Because at the time he didn't need to shore up his Hispanic support so they didn't matter. Instead of doing the right thing and come up with permanent immigration reform he does a temporary move to buy votes.
Instead of reforming our tax code when he had the opportunity, he demonizes the "rich". He is a good politician and has good handlers but we need a leader with Obama has shown he is not it.
Lets see, an illegal immigrant is going to stroll into the immigration office and say his parents are illegal but he is an upstanding person and should not be deported. How many do you really think are going to do that?
Like many government ideas, they are shooting from the hip without any thought as to how to accomplish it and ramifications of it.
RR,, if you have no argument or anything to say just proclaim people racist and solve all problems.
Tell us about presidential proclamations RN. A**
Call names, don't address what was said.
I guess you cannot hear, or read. This proclamation was not intended to solve the immigration problem, just one aspect of it. The Republicans have been sitting on this bill for years, they are the ones obstructing legislation.
You didn't address the question, you just added more crap.
Now it's about Obama not reforming the tax code? Like the House Republicans would let him do that.
Nothing but nasty, swearing, attackers on this blog. that's fine, I have a life of swear words I can call on.
RR,
Obama had two years to pass immigration and tax reform because he had a huge, sometime super, majority in both houses yet he picks 5 months before the election to put this out, must have been another of his evolving moments.. He chose not to act on it when he could have and you blame the republicans.
It is all about the GOP obstruction but never about Obama not talking to the other side, he doesn't even talk to his own party so why should he talk to the republicans.
Skud and others... as far as the super majority is concerned, it is/was a myth.
President Obama, and the Democrats never had a super majority in the Senate. Never!
Show us any evidence that there were 60 Democrats, not independents, in the Senate and I will make a donation to the charity of your choice.
But let's be honest about this...
Al Franken did not take his seat until of 2009, eight months after the election, giving the Dems 58 seats. Then, within a few weeks, Ted Kennedy died and Scott Brown took that seat, leaving the Dems with 57 seats.
Now as you know, it is virtually impossible to get people with varied interests to vote as a block, unless of course that block wants to totally obstruct a President and the letter after their name is R.
As for immigration policy, yes this is band aid of a policy. But given that President Bush, and then candidate John McCain were unable to get support from their own party for any type of comprehensive reform, how do you propose the president, or any president move forward?
You know as well as I do that the GOP is not going to approve any, any legislation that might make President Obama look good, so what options does he have in light of their continued obstruction?
Sorry guys, I'd like to a final fix on this, I really would. Many of my friends on both sides of the border have been harmed by the situation as it stands now.
But our political process will not allow any president to propose a full blown solution to the problem right now.
Sometimes you have to do the humane thing and take the consequences.
That's what Obama did.
Dave, I am sure you agree that some polite discussion about how this went down is okay. When we comment (with a name) we make ourselves more transparent; over time, like an anatomical chart.
That goes for reasonable comments and commentators as well as the kooky ones.
I am _strongly_ in favor of helping the young adults and the kids identified in the executive order. Like you, it is a personal issue involving real people, whom I love and strikes close to home.
Still, I cannot sign off on the way it was done.
KP... I would like to imagine another way... How could it have realistically been done differently?
The first thought I have is about the people who call themselves “conservatives” today, and their fully-deserved designation as Randiots. It wasn’t all that long ago that people on the hard right understood that some Government intervention in the economy wasn’t evil, but an actual necessity. There were once right-wingers I didn’t have much use for philosophically, but I still respected. People like Barry Goldwater, and Warren Rudman. Somehow, the people of that generation raised the biggest bunch of selfish, ignorant morons that any society has ever produced. Where McCarthy was denounced as a fringe lunatic by the people of Goldwater’s generation, the generation of his descendants regard McCarthy is an idol. The old-time conservatives also despised and denounced dishonesty and corruption, while their children celebrate and embrace both things. Which is not to say that the children of old-style liberals were any better; in many cases they turned out to be even MORE Randiot than kids raised in winger households. I do not know exactly what happened here, and I don’t know exactly why it happened, but it would be wonderful for the Randiots to be studied, and queried, so we might know what to tell parents to avoid in the future.
Objectivism, itself, is complete stupidity, utterly insane, and the basis of a social structure that even wild dogs would not practice. I will assume that Rand came up with Objectivism during one of her meth binges, because nobody who wasn’t high on something could ever have offered up such a blatantly unworkable proposition. A society full of Objectivists is a society full of Ted Bundys and Jeffrey Dahmers, doing what they want to do, and never mind who has to be hurt or killed in order for them to do it. I have long suspected that most Randiots don’t actually understand Objectivism, but use it as a cover for their own selfishness and greed. In their way of thinking, somehow Rand saying that greed is okie-dokie makes it an intellectual kind of philosophy. Well, you know…. it sure doesn’t mean that at all. Calling yourself “smart” because Rand agrees with your greedy nature is like calling shit “fragrant” because there are some dogs that will roll around in it.
And last but not least, once you get above a couple of kids trading baseball cards, there is no such thing as a “free market.” Every mom-and-pop shop owner on Earth would like to be bigger than Mao-Mart, and Mao-Mart would like to shut down every mom-and-pop shop on Earth. Without Government to act as a fair arbiter in the interests of BOTH parties, you eventually wind up with whatever quality and price that the monolith decides you’ll get. The Randiots that cry about REGALASHUNS on giant corporations are actually arguing the Stalinist position, since Stalin shut down all the small traders in the USSR and made everyone go to Government stores for whatever items Stalin thought that consumers should be able to get. A privately-owned Stalinism is what you inevitably wind up with in a totally-unregulated “free market” system. Regulation KEEPS markets free.
It may be that the Randiots will be completely discredited in another election cycle or two (if we have that many left,) but the damage they’ve done will now carry over into the next century. The people who have suffered from the effects of Randiot economics are going to outlive us all, and we are not going to be able to undo a lot of what they’ve had to endure, any more than we could fix the heartbreak of so many who lived through the last Republican Depression. My hope is that the suffering people of today will turn out to be as wise as those who suffered through the last Depression.
Actually, I hope they’re even wiser, and remember to watch their children for any signs that the kids might be Randiots. Let no society ever again have to endure the kind of greed and hate-blinded stupidity we’ve had to suffer through.
Dave,
58 Democrats and 2 independents voting democrat = super majority. It was short lived but for two years he had Control of both houses and chose not to even bring up immigration reform because, at that time he had their support.
Obama is not gaining that many new votes just shoring up his base. He had the Hispanic and gay vote but their support was waning so he came out in support of gay marriage, which he knew didn't mean a thing because it is a States issue then muddies the immigration status with his temporary non-fix.
Anon,
Wow, that was all over the place. There are many people who want to take responsibility for their lives, have minimal government intervention and pay reasonable taxes to support the government services.
Then there are people who blame everything on someone else and want to be taken care of.
As an objective and advocate if Rand's philosophy I can only thank the illustrious, however somewhat misinformed anon for providing the incentive for yet another accurate exposure to Rand and Objectivism. Coming soon to a site near you.
On a more philosophical note, and to crib Mr "T" in one of the Rocky movies, I can safely say "I pity the fool."
Skud, you're just factually incorrect...
As I stated, Franken took his seat on July 8, 2009. On August 25, Brown took over for a Ted Kennedy who had not voted in months.
So... even counting the independents, the Dem caucus got to 60 on July 8, for 6 weeks, not the two years you, and other conservatives claim.
It should be noted too that, as you mentioned, two of those 60 members were not part of the Dem party.
You forget about the blue dogs who voted with the republicans
RN,
As a follower of the Randian cult, you are not objective and your "pity" response, is typically Randian. Selfish and intolerant.
You are the intolerant and non objective one anon. But of course thinking people already knew that.
<< How could it have realistically been done differently? >>
Dave -- for the past three months, Rubio has been crafting his version of the Dream Act that would give legal residency to young immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally by their parents.
"for the past three months, Rubio has been crafting his version of the Dream Act"
The republicans are accused of not working with Obama but it goes the other way as well. By making this slip shod proposal, he took Rubio out of the picture.
There are 30+ bills in the senate that won't get to the floor because Reid wants to make the republicans the bad guys. Instead of working for the good of the country both sides are only working for their greater glory and the blame game continues.
This proposal of His Mighty is nothing but buying votes and if the disaster happens and His Highness is re-elected he will back pedal on this proposal as well.
@ skudrunner... "There are 30+ bills in the senate that won't get to the floor because Reid wants to make the republicans the bad guys. Instead of working for the good of the country both sides are only working for their greater glory and the blame game continues."
Methinks you've hit the nail squarely on the head!
Post a Comment