Obama’s royal flip-flop on using executive action on illegal immigration

I saw that myself, but being that it is a Law school and Law is not my profession I cannot comment on it's validity one way or the other.
One last point I would add though; this is not the first time this sort of power has been used on the same issue, it has been done twice before,
as they say; just some food for thought:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/1f5e041c11294c318d11779be7d22119/reagan-bush-also-acted-alone-shield-immigrants

 

The article you cite points out that Ronald Reagan and G.H.W. Bush acted from a general national consensus, and that no such consensus exists now. They allowed relatives of legal immigrants to stay, which seems humane. Interestingly, President Obama will not propose such a familial extension. He will say that people brought here as children should be allowed to stay, which makes sense to me. But he'll say that people who've been here at least 5 years should get work permits. The argument is that if they've gotten away with illegal behavior for a long time, that earns a pass. Would the same logic apply to bank robbers?

Ask yourself the consequences of such a policy. Doesn't it tell people that if they sneak into the US and stay hidden for 5 years they'll be rewarded? And isn't that an incentive for more people to sneak in? If we don't want unlimited uncontrolled immigration, with unknown people in unknown numbers sneaking across the border, the President's proposal seems designed to worsen the problem. If the President claims the immigration system is "broken," isn't the obvious reply that the existing law is not being strictly enforced because he has not issued an executive order saying that it should be? Why won't he issue that order?

The Administration likes to claim that it deports more people than any previous Administration, but the truth is that they're counting the many people turned away at the border, something which has not been counted before. The President is trying to spin this as an attempt to gain control of a flawed system, but the logical outcome of his proposal will be an increase in the number of illegals, since they must still hide for 5 years before applying for a permit, and the number and identity of those crossing the border will remain unknown. The President has an unchallenged right to order a more stringent application of the existing law, but that is clearly not what he wants to do. He wants to offer cheap labor to the businesses that fund Democrats, and he wants plenty of present and future Hispanic voters. (Presumably the beneficiaries of this policy will vote Democrat if they eventually become citizens.) He is urgent to do this before the new Republican Congress sits in January. I see no reason to support him, and good reason to oppose.

 

First off, I disagree with the idea that American do not support the current action, at least that acvtually know what is being suggested, many of those asked that question have no idea what it means. Secondly I would point out that a work permit has an expiration date, meaning if they want to apply for citizenship they need to do so, it is not easy to get. I would also add that I saw nothing that says this program is on going forever but I d not know the paticualrs on that at this point. So coming after it is applied does not automatically mean it will apply to people coming now.
They still are sneeking in, and will continue to, so long as their is a reason to, Work, they will continue to come. Why does he not enforce the laws that make it illegal to hire them, I have my opinion and it covers why Neither Party will enforce it, $$$$$$$. Should he? Well I have said for years that the ONLY answer to resolve the issue is not fences and walls, even though they do have their place, but the ONLY way to stop the flow is to take away the reason they come here and that is Work. So the answer is Yes, he should be, I never have said I agree with everything Obama has done, there are plenty of issues I disagree with him on.
On your last point I agreed completely until you went down the road that it is about cheap labor for Democratic Business owners. I say that because Neither Party has enforced the law against hiring them and Neither ever will. Lots of tak about border security, notice the apsence of talk about going after business owners hiring them. They are all owned and it is not by Us, once that realization sets in your POV will change, it will not be for the better buit at least it will then be a clear view of what is really happening and so few seem to grasp that simple fact.
Oh and Thanks for the civil and informative discussion, they are hard to find on this or any other site.Well done.

 

Yea, guess they are stupid...right? Only lib's REALLY understand...lol

 

he is really doing the GOP a immense favor with this

 

Re the public response -

Here's a quote from the NY Times - "But accusations of a presidential abuse of power appear to have gained some traction in recent days, as a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found just 38 percent support for Mr. Obama’s executive actions even as there is broad support for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. In the poll, 48 percent said they oppose Mr. Obama’s actions. Even a few Democrats have expressed concern about the propriety of the president’s actions." See http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/us/obama-immigration-speech.html?_r=0

Gallup reports that only 7% of Americans see immigration as our greatest problem. See http://www.gallup.com/poll/178742/ebola-debuts-americans-list-top-problems.aspx It came in fifth, behind the economy 17%, dissatisfaction with government 16%, unemployment 10%, and healthcare 8%. Note that the big problems are the areas where Obama claims major accomplishments.

Gallup also reports that more Republicans than Democrats see immigration as the most important issue. 22% of Republicans thought it was most important, but only 11% of Democrats. See http://www.gallup.com/poll/175310/republicans-likely-view-immigration-top-problem.aspx You know that those concerned Republicans are not supporters of the President, so Obama faces strong opposition, but only tepid support on this issue among informed voters.

So it's not clear that the President enjoys broad support, though, as you say, many people are probably not familiar with the issue.

 

Nope, I know a few Cons that also understand it and have met and have seen more than a few here that obviously do not understand what is being suggested. Nice try.

 

While that may be true, I do not consider it the top priority, nor do I see Keystone as being the top priority as Cons seem to think at this time. I would remind you that taxes were not a top priority with Americans yet Bush made that His No.1 priority. What that tells me is nether Party goes by what the People consider their op priority, they pick their own top priority issue, or should we the real powers that be picked what they want most.

 

President Obama never flip-flops. That would imply principles. He simply lies. His goal is to "fundamentally change" the U.S. He's never said exactly what he wants to change it into but I'm thinking Cuba, North Korea, or Venezuela.

Will the Democrats survive President Barack Obama?

 

Agreed. I see partisan politics as Obama's chief motive.

 

Yes, but do you see the same within the GOP? When you can you will then truly be free from the leash so many wear with pride.

 

Of course. Political parties are partisan by definition. They exist to win power. But there's an essential distinction between a willingness to do anything for power, even knowing that the country will be harmed as votes are won, and the pursuit of power to enact a beneficial agenda. I believe that at this moment - and things may be different next year - Democrats are pressing several issues such as "comprehensive immigration reform" and steep increases to the minimum wage - that they know will hurt people, but that make them sound good. Republicans' chronic weakness is that they usually put the country before their partisan interests.

 

Impressive.

The reigning Politifact Liar of the Year has taken his Alinskyite game to a whole new level.

Hail the Emperor!

 

Liberals will say " he's evolved" on the issue.

 

I have to disagree, I do not believe allowing those here for over five years to get work permit hurts anyone, not supportive of some of the raises in minimum wage but do believe it should be raised every four years to keep up with inflation. I would add that the Republicans pushing Keystone are not doing so for the good of the country, it does nothing good for the Nation so that kills the idea that they are only looking out for the good of the Nation. I would also point out that passing laws that bans gays from getting married, cutting education funding, wanting to cut social programs for those in need and shutting down the government are not good for the country either, I see the majority of their agenda as self serving in that they believe it gives them more support in order to gain more power. In my opinion is the Republicans have shown their biggest weakness to be complaining about what the Dems do about everything yet rarely propose any real solutions other than to repeat the same mistakes of the past and expecting different results. If the Repubs acted more as statesmen and spent more time trying do work on the issues people would be far more supportive than they have been and now that they do have the power what I am seeing suggested seems to be nothing more than more of the same, I doubt that the American voters are going to be happy with the progress the Repubs will have accomplished by the time the elections come around, but hey who knows I might be surprised, I will wait and see. Read quickly, this might not be here long.

 

Yes, he has and he's probably just getting started. It's clear from this action, he has no intension of working within our constitutional system to implement his transformation of America. He's going rogue regardless of the will of people, Congress or even the courts, because he knows no one can really stop him for the next two years. Hell, the guy came out after the elections denying it had anything to do with his polices and people just voted to end gridlock or some such nonsense. He's knows full well that's not true, but it gives him an excuse to take action (unilaterally) and say he's doing so because it's what the country deserves. So, don't be surprised when he acts on Gitmo or climate change or wages or gun control either without a congressional debate, because those are all things HE's demeaned are best for the country.
Hail the Emperor![/QUOTE]

 

He's no different than any other lying leftist. They'll scream that it's the law until they don't get their way.

Gruber was right.

 

I don't have the energy for the detailed response you deserve, so I'll try for brief bites.

I've already pointed out that the 5 years in hiding, followed by work permit program rewards people for illegal immigration, so we may expect it will make the problem of ungoverned anonymous immigration worse, rather than better.

Minimum wage - the CBO estimates an increase to $10 would cost 500,000 jobs. Raising the minimum only helps people with jobs, but the huge problem of people in that socio-economic stratum is unemployment. (This has become much worse under Obama.) A policy that raises wages for some while worsening the situation for most (there's already steep competition for entry level unskilled jobs) hurts rather than helps. Democrats know this because they're talking about raising the minimum slowly in stages. If it would be an immediate good, they would want to do it immediately.

Keystone pipeline - the opposition comes from the faction that wants to quit fossil fuels. Unfortunately, there's no immediate replacement. All the trendy sources of "alternative energy" - wind, solar, etc. - have technical or economic problems making them inadequate to meet more than a small percent of our energy needs. If the US acts unilaterally to destroy its economy in the name of reducing CO2 emissions, the more practical countries will thrive at our expense. The pipeline is part of the energy economy. It will take business away from railroads, especially Buffet's Burlington Northern. As Canada has pointed out, it can easily sell its oil and gas to other countries by other means. Why exclude the US? The US now produces about 85% of the energy it consumes, and is expected to reach 100% within two years. We've begun exporting oil and gas instead of importing. You may have noticed the price of gasoline is coming down. US production is why, specifically fracking. Of course, the very people who resist Keystone also insist fracking is an environmental disaster (the evidence is the opposite). Energy politics has become the vanguard of the anti-American left. It's far too big a subject for this post. I've written several long pieces on PF about it. Suffice it to say that "climate" change is a fraud.

Gay marriage - the overwhelming majority of all Americans, regardless of party, were opposed 5 years ago. In the 2008 VP debate, Joe Biden made a point of his opposition, not willing to be outdone by Sarah Palin. Then, following some court rulings, a tipping point was reached, and opinion rapidly changed. Democrats may be commended for seizing the opportunity. I'm bisexual and strongly support gay marriage. There are plenty of gay Republicans. But I regard Democrats' very late embrace of the issue as no more than political opportunism. When gays were routinely hated and threatened with violence, Democrats were in the forefront of haters, just as they were once in the forefront of racists.

Cutting education funding - I'm unaware. Please tell me where and how.

Wanting to cut social programs - even though the number of food stamp recipients has increased, the size of the benefit has been cut by this Democrat government twice in the last two years. What other cuts are you talking about? "Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence." ~ Ronald Reagan

Shutting down the government - large parts of the government "shut down" every day after 5 PM and every weekend and holiday. Essential services - social security, medicare, the military, etc., are specifically exempted and have never been shut down. The whole "shut down" issue is a fraud. The last time, Obama was embarrassed when it came out the White House had been seeking and ordering shut downs of popular services. Of so little effect was the "shut down" that the Administration had to create problems to publicize. The so-called shut downs (there have been 17 in modern times) are largely accounting and legal events rather than actual cessation of services.

I'll cut it off here. I'd have to write a small book to respond fully to you.

"It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so." ~ Ronald Reagan

 

I keep hearing our borders are not secure.
Can someone please post some substance to back up the claim?

Take away the political lens and I think a case can easily be made that the border is much more secure than many would have you believe.

We share a southern border with a country that has a population of 125 million people. Of which, 52% live in poverty and experience an incredibly high crime rate. Mexico's own border with Guatamela is extremely easy to cross (as we know from the influx of refugee children through Mexico to the US) Countries to the south of Mexico are also impoverished and experience incredibly high crime rates.

There are 100s of millions of people to our south that have motivation to come to America.
Hundreds of millions.

Yet the best estimate is that we have 11.4 million undocumented immigrants in this country.
And 2 million more deported by the Obama Administration the past few years.
13 million people. 52% of which are Mexicans. 48% Not Mexican.

Sure, we could probably reduce the numbers.
But the conservative in me wants to see the cost v benefit analysis.

We're going to hire even more border agents on gov't payroll and build even more fence?
To what end? To balloon the deficit even further?
You really think you are going to stop the flow of illegal immigration totally?
What are you willing to spend out of your paycheck to drop the number by 5%, 10%, 95%

Let's get real folks.
We can make a car safer too -- but no one could afford to buy it.

Commonsense tell us the argument that the border is not secure is pretty weak.

Only politics can trump commonsense and make a "Conservative" want to grow gov't and throw money at a problem that isn't really a problem.

max

 

So earlier in his presidency Obama said and felt that he could not expand the Dream Act to include parents.

Obama failed to get the policy moving in the first two years when his political party held both chambers of congress and spent the next 4 years hearing it from a sizable portion of the American electorate.

So in the spring of this year he asked his Justice Department and other top aides to research how far he could go to effect the change that a sizable number of Americans wanted. In fact he held a press conference to announce this. Pretty much saying I'm going to investigate whether I was wrong in my assertion that I could go no further via executive action on Immigration Policy.

His aides obviously laid out the case that he could go this far.
Under pressure from those that elected him, he did.

That's just business as usual isn't it?
I'm blown away by the outrage a flip flop like this could spurn.
Another reason Obama sucks.

Presents as a bunch of drama queens to this new member.

max

 

Here is some more information:

In any case, some on the left believe pomoting the general welfare means just that, not any Thing and every Thing as the right would have us believe.

Our federal Congress should be busier fixing mass transit Standards for the Union, than providing for the specific welfare of the fossil fuel sector. I believe we should, at the very least, get an Infrastructure "backbone" that can mass transport goods and service for the private sector.