Obama to announce executive order on immigration

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Amazingly, this is the most glaring example of what I have been saying about most of the so called reform bills, in that in a misguided attempt at a "fix" the problem will be worsened. Giving amnesty alone makes it worse by encouraging others to make the same choice (they got amnesty, all I have to do is get there and sooner or later I will too), giving it like this will blow up Congress and heighten animousity towards illegals and potentially move the until now favorable numbers nationwide with regards to support for a path to legalization/citizenship. We have already seen numbers showing opposition in places like IA and many of the midwest swing states even with all the support and promotion from both sides and the media.


I can tell you someone who is really not liking this at all, is Mary Landrieu.

Landrieu is doomed anyway.  So were Pryor, Begich, Braley, and Grimes if Dems were being honest with themselves in October.  By contrast, doing it in September could have easily put Udall and Crist over the line, saved the NV Assembly, NM House and CO Senate, and increased urban turnout in NC and VA enough to save Hagan and give Warner an Obama 2012 level win.

The only winning Dem who could plausibly have been sunk by this was Shaheen.  MN and MI might have gotten closer but the margin was too high for them to flip outright.  Obama severely miscalculated here by not realizing early enough that the Senate was lost.  Having 48 vs. 46 seats would help a great deal going into 2016.

Basically, all of the populist McCain Dems were already doomed and the close races that could have been saved were in diverse Dem leaning states.

The problem is the polling is so overwhelming in opposition o the exeuctive approach. We tend to get so lazer focused on the Hispanic vote and that we begin to think they are the only demographic in a state like CO or NV. This was might point with Romney as to why he would have lost anyway, even in terms of getting more Hispanics more or less overall election. At some point it becomes like Udall with the Women's issues and that in chasing after that vote with such an attempt, if it comes at the expense of several points amongst indies and/or conservative dems and mayve even the Hispanics themselves who are somewhat more conservative leaning  but vote Democrat. The reaction to it could have easily made it worse then it ended up not better.

[ag]

Amazingly, this is the most glaring example of what I have been saying about most of the so called reform bills, in that in a misguided attempt at a "fix" the problem will be worsened. Giving amnesty alone makes it worse by encouraging others to make the same choice (they got amnesty, all I have to do is get there and sooner or later I will too).

Well, considering that last time it was, what over 25 years back, that "sooner-or-later" is not particularly promising. Better put it this way: "they got amnesty, all I have to do is risk my life getting across the border, then spend most of my productive years working three menial jobs for small pay, risking being deported at any time, and then, if I have not been deported, I will too".

Of course, the only way to properly solve the problem is actually providing a legal migration path into the US. But that is not seriously contemplated by anyone in any case.

[ag]

The problem is the polling is so overwhelming in opposition o the exeuctive approach. We tend to get so lazer focused on the Hispanic vote and that we begin to think they are the only demographic in a state like CO or NV.

The people for whom this opposition is important enough to determine their vote are already voting for Republicans. The great source of untapped vote are the Hispanics (though, there are also Asians to be considered).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Amazingly, this is the most glaring example of what I have been saying about most of the so called reform bills, in that in a misguided attempt at a "fix" the problem will be worsened. Giving amnesty alone makes it worse by encouraging others to make the same choice (they got amnesty, all I have to do is get there and sooner or later I will too).

Well, considering that last time it was, what over 25 years back, that "sooner-or-later" is not particularly promising. Better put it this way: "they got amnesty, all I have to do is risk my life getting across the border, then spend most of my productive years working three menial jobs for small pay, risking being deported at any time, and then, if I have not been deported, I will too".

Of course, the only way to properly solve the problem is actually providing a legal migration path into the US. But that is not seriously contemplated by anyone in any case.

If the threat of deportation was seriously considered, and if the threat of death from the perils ofthe trip were sersiouly considered, then we would not have had that surge of illegal alien children this past year, a large part of which was motivated by the false promise from the gangs and cayotes, "There is amnesty waiting for you in the US". It is not the people themselves who know this, they don't read about the Reagan Presidency. Its ones who spread the rumors to encourage them to go and these people are no better then murderors.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I do support a legal means to immigrate here, ag. However you have to set a number based on what is best for both them and for the country and once you have set that number you cannot then undermine that by continously giving amnesty to those who slip through, you cannot defer enforcement until after the next bill is passed and you cannot just elect to not enforce it for political gain. It is about trust and every action that violates that trust, worsens, not improves the situation. Any bill that also violates that trust will do likewise.

[Skill and Chance]

Amazingly, this is the most glaring example of what I have been saying about most of the so called reform bills, in that in a misguided attempt at a "fix" the problem will be worsened. Giving amnesty alone makes it worse by encouraging others to make the same choice (they got amnesty, all I have to do is get there and sooner or later I will too), giving it like this will blow up Congress and heighten animousity towards illegals and potentially move the until now favorable numbers nationwide with regards to support for a path to legalization/citizenship. We have already seen numbers showing opposition in places like IA and many of the midwest swing states even with all the support and promotion from both sides and the media.


I can tell you someone who is really not liking this at all, is Mary Landrieu.

Landrieu is doomed anyway.  So were Pryor, Begich, Braley, and Grimes if Dems were being honest with themselves in October.  By contrast, doing it in September could have easily put Udall and Crist over the line, saved the NV Assembly, NM House and CO Senate, and increased urban turnout in NC and VA enough to save Hagan and give Warner an Obama 2012 level win.

The only winning Dem who could plausibly have been sunk by this was Shaheen.  MN and MI might have gotten closer but the margin was too high for them to flip outright.  Obama severely miscalculated here by not realizing early enough that the Senate was lost.  Having 48 vs. 46 seats would help a great deal going into 2016.

Basically, all of the populist McCain Dems were already doomed and the close races that could have been saved were in diverse Dem leaning states.

The problem is the polling is so overwhelming in opposition o the exeuctive approach. We tend to get so lazer focused on the Hispanic vote and that we begin to think they are the only demographic in a state like CO or NV. This was might point with Romney as to why he would have lost anyway, even in terms of getting more Hispanics more or less overall election. At some point it becomes like Udall with the Women's issues and that in chasing after that vote with such an attempt, if it comes at the expense of several points amongst indies and/or conservative dems and mayve even the Hispanics themselves who are somewhat more conservative leaning  but vote Democrat. The reaction to it could have easily made it worse then it ended up not better.

But the untold story is that it's actually the white vote that is looking completely inelastic now. For the past 3 cycles, it has been 60/38 R +/- 1%.  I don't know what it would take to offend the remaining 38%, but it probably goes far beyond anything Obama has proposed.  Meanwhile, the Hispanic vote fell from 73%D to 62%D and along with the Asian vote and a slight shift in the African-American vote, decided the outcome.

What I am saying is that Democrats can almost safely assume that their remaining white voters are their base and that there are hardly any indies left to flip.  Until that is disproved, focus on turnout first.  If Hillary has 65% approval and is leading her opponent 57/36 in the summer of 2020, then you can try to win back Appalachia.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We were talking about the executive amnesty. The issue was not front and center as it would be if this was done in September. It would not have saved Kay Hagan, the exact opposite is the case as NC is rather anti-illegal immigration, both canidates for Governor tried to pander on it in 2008 and even in 2012, Dalton refused to condemn the AZ immigration law.

The problem with the approach (again speaking of the executive amnesty before the elections) is that it rests on the notion that all Hispanics want amnesty so bad as to be willing to take it through any means necessary, assumes there will be no concern about a backlash or the damage done to the community were such to explode and indeed even the effects of increased legal and illegal immigration down the road would have on working class minorities Hispanics included. Remember you don't need 55%, 45%, or even 40% of Hispanics to either vote on something else or say it goes to far when done this way. 36% voted Republican even Romney's 27% was the third or fourth best performance for any Republican in the last 50 years.

If vast majorities oppose taking a certain approach, it seems kind of foolish to try and use it as a wedge issue in one group at the expense of all others. For all we know executive amnesty is only at 65% or 70% amongst Hispanics, in which case the effects are going to be all negative if done before the election. Has the issue be polled amongst Hispanics?

[Beet]

I doubt this is going to encourage a vast new wave of illegal immigration; illegal immigration has been on the decline for decades now as border security has increased. It's now only a fraction of what it was in the Bush years. And Obama's executive plans actually shift more resources to the southern border.

As for those already here, the fact of the matter is, the vast, vast, vast majority of these people weren't going to be deported anyway. Keeping them in illegal/shadow status will only hinder their assimilation into mainstream American society. The GOP should welcome that, as the quicker Hispanics assimilate, the sooner they will start diversifying their vote and some of them may even start voting Republican. The quicker they move up the economic ladder, the fewer children they will have as well. Keeping them poor and isolated and resentful will only exacerbate the worst tendencies in illegal immigrant "communities." In a way, he's helping out the GOP, although in the very long run.

[Likely Voter]

Polling against it you say?

Pew Oct. 15-20 (Adults)
"Which comes closer to your view about how to handle undocumented immigrants who are now living in the U.S.? They should not be allowed to stay in this country legally. OR, There should be a way for them to stay in the country legally, if certain requirements are met."
Stay:    71    
Not stay:       25    

2012 General Election Voters Exit Poll
"Most Illegal Immigrants Working in U.S. Should Be..."
Offered legal status: 65
Deported: 28

2014 Midterm voters Exit Poll (should be very GOP friendly)
"Most Illegal Immigrants Working in U.S. Should Be..."
Offered legal status: 57
Deported: 39

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Sept. 4-7, 2014 (Adults)
 "If Congress does not act to address the immigration issue, do you think Obama should or should not take action on his own through executive orders?"
Should: 52
Should not: 44

[Likely Voter]

...even Romney's 27% was the third or fourth best performance for any Republican in the last 50 years.

Yes but the 2 of the 3 below Romney were because Perot was splitting the vote and the other time was Ford when Latinos were only 1% of the vote. As for Asians, Romney is the all time worst.

GOP LATINO VOTE
Bush Jr (04) 44
Reagan (80) 37
Bush Jr (00) 35
Reagan (84) 34
McCain (08) 31
Bush Sr (88) 30
Romney (12) 27
Bush Sr. (92) 25 (Perot 15)
Dole (96) 21 (Perot 9)
Ford (76) 18

GOP ASIAN VOTE
Bush Sr (92) 55 (Perot 15)
Dole (96) 48 (Perot 8 )
Bush (04) 43
Bush (00) 41
McCain (08) 35
Romney (12) 26

So in terms of the two party vote, Mitt Romney is certainly the all time loser for both Latinos and Asians. In fact they were two of the only groups that swung away from the GOP between 08 and 12. I wonder why.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have never disagreed regarding the Asian vote. That said I see a general downward trend amongst Asians that was only stopped in 2004 before it continued. Did Romney make it worse, yes, but I have to think that is because of 1) Diversification of the asian community from just Republican leaning groups and 2) issues with the Republican Party in general going back twenty years. That would lead me to believe there is a potential for at least some of that 2012 dismal performance to be rested at the feet of Todd Akin and other such gaffes and not just Romney alone.

The numbers I had heard about were far more hostile to executive action then 52-44. Still one wonders how those numbers would hold up now and with a more specific proposal for executive action described to them in the poll. The question is rather vague for one and doesn't specifically include the part about legalizations.

The numbers have always been lopsided in favor of legalization as opposed to deportations when asking what should be done, Likely Voter. On the other hand we have seen polling that shows a plurality (46-30 I recall) opposed a path to legalization in Iowa, an Obama state. So whilst I don't doubt support is there nationwide, I am inclined to think it is more in the realm of 55%-58% and not 70%. I would also note that the GOP numbers are running higher then the used to, largley thanks to Rubio and the pro-amnesty shift of Fox News' coverage.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If this becomes heated, the Republican numbers in support could plummet significantly as would some independents as well.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

North Carolina Yankee's understanding of immigration is facile.

Very few Mexican or Central American immigrants cross the border with the intention of becoming American citizens. The vast majority of undocumented Latinos come to the US in order to send remittances back to Mexico or Guatemala or El Salvador. Implicit in this objective is the notion that immigrants want to return home to be united with their families. Unfortunately, this goal is often unrealized because the act of crossing the border has become a dangerous gauntlet: undocumented immigrants must evade border security, pay a coyote that is most likely linked to the cartels and avoid being kidnapped by cartels. The militarization of the border created the perfect conditions for mass undocumented migration: migrant laborers are effectively barred from visiting their family. The result is that entire families attempt to migrate to the US in order to be re-united with their family members. As this process played out over the past two decades, many Mexican villages became depopulated and immiserated. The death of community life throughout rural Mexico resulted in a positive feedback loop in which the emigration of most young men necessitated the emigration of many young women and children - even the emigration of abuelos!

This process is largely a historical artifact of the period between 1990 and 2008. Mexican immigration has dramatically decreased over the past six years. Mexico's fertility rate has plummeted, the Mexican economy has strengthened and America's construction industry has not picked up.  Although the same factors that created the conditions for mass Mexican immigration are at play in Central America, there is no reason to believe that there will be another wave of mass migration from Central America. In order to cross the border, Central American migrants must traverse the entirety of Mexico. This is not only an arduous journey: it's dangerous. Central American migrants are at constant risk of being kidnapped for ransom by cartels or being sexually assaulted or being robbed.

In short: there is no reason to believe that Obama's executive "amnesty" will result in increased rates of "illegal" immigration. For better or worse, the vast majority of undocumented immigrants are effectively Americans: they contribute to the economic vitality of the nation, they volunteer at schools, they participate in civic life by protesting the injustices they've experienced. Undocumented immigrants play a critical role in communities throughout the United States and we have a duty to treat them with respect. We can either formally integrate undocumented immigrants into society or we can policies more befitting a police state than a nation of immigrants and deport them en masse to a "homeland" that they hardly recognize.  

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Open borders and a liberalized immigration framework are simple solutions for our immigration woes. Alas, these solutions are politically untenable. Judging by the rhetoric that emanates from the mouth-breathing Republicans, you'd assume that "open borders" are synonymous with the death of America. In the 1950s, we had "open borders" and loose immigration restrictions and we did not experience a massive wave of illegal immigration. Quite the contrary: migrant laborers worked in the US and departed for Mexico once the picking season was over.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/10/everything-you-know-about-immigration-is-wrong/

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is not the 1950's, you can bring bring a WMD in a suitcase now. Open borders is just not a safe route to take in the post 911 world. We have to police the inflow of people into this country in order to protect the people. And we cannot do that effectively whenever there is a massive influx.


I was wondering how long it would before I had to contend with your dismissively insulting responses and chracteristic conveniently defined stawmen.

I am fully aware of the transition in Mexico, and I resent your implication that my knowledge is lacking on the matter. My opinion is that Mexico's situation does not matter. There is still a large percentage of people around he world who want to come here, many for good reasons, some not and he Southern border is a likely crossing point. The decline in population and such forth is a factor, but before we declare the era of illegal immigration (which has been worsening for decades) over, we must consider the impact of th economy and the masking effect it had on the problem. The industries hardest hit included some of the most common in terms of hiring illegal labor. We would need at least two to three years without a surge in illegal immigration during a good economy before we can say "This is no longer a problem" and 2014 was certainly not one of them.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Wait a minute, are you advocating that we facilite self-deportation through open borders? Sounds like it to me.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Why we need "amnesty":







Folks, undocumented immigrants are Americans. They've lived in this country for decades and the future of a generation of Americans depends on their well-being.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This is not the 1950's, you can bring bring a WMD in a suitcase now. Open borders is just not a safe route to take in the post 911 world. We have to police the inflow of people into this country in order to protect the people. And we cannot do that effectively whenever there is a massive influx.


I was wondering how long it would before I had to contend with your dismissively insulting responses and characteristic conveniently defined strawmen.

Because yeah, increasing legal immigration to allow even a million a year more legal immigrants would overwhelm the border agents who already process roughly sixty million tourist entries into this country so as to make it a certainty that suitcase WMDs would make it through where they wouldn't before.

There are some reasonable arguments that can be made in favor of immigration limits.  Border security isn't one of them.  Quite the reverse as it gives smugglers another revenue stream, and any WMDs sent here are almost certainly going to arrive via smuggling rather being sneaked in with the checked luggage of a person arriving here legally.

[muon2]

It seems to me that there is a more straightforward political move at work here. The POTUS knows that there is a Pub Congress, and it's in the Pubs interest to look like they are not the party of "no" for the next two years. Therefore he can assume that they would try to send him a series of bills to deal with immigration, a series that would get some crossover Dems who wouldn't like to be seen as obstructing the issue, yet would generally satisfy the bulk of the Pub voters. The House has been talking about that type of strategy for a year now.

The Pub bills would be anathema to the core of the Obama coalition and might even defuse some activism from immigrant groups. Therefore the POTUS issues an EO that reframes the debate. It throws a wrench into the putative Pub bill sequence and puts the Pubs back into a reactive position. The key is that it serves to preserve the political status quo on the issue.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

If Obama can executive order this I guess I could ban abortion through executive order if I become President.

[Brittain33]

If Obama can executive order this I guess I could ban abortion through executive order if I become President.

I'm curious how someone might do that. Obama's mechanism would be to direct the employees of the executive branch agency responsible for immigration law enforcement to change their priorities. I'm not denying it's an end run around the law, but that's the mechanism he's using. How would a hypothetical Republican President who wanted to ban abortion do so through executive agencies? An interesting thought experiment. I don't know how.

[Brittain33]

It seems to me that there is a more straightforward political move at work here. The POTUS knows that there is a Pub Congress, and it's in the Pubs interest to look like they are not the party of "no" for the next two years. Therefore he can assume that they would try to send him a series of bills to deal with immigration, a series that would get some crossover Dems who wouldn't like to be seen as obstructing the issue, yet would generally satisfy the bulk of the Pub voters. The House has been talking about that type of strategy for a year now.

The Pub bills would be anathema to the core of the Obama coalition and might even defuse some activism from immigrant groups. Therefore the POTUS issues an EO that reframes the debate. It throws a wrench into the putative Pub bill sequence and puts the Pubs back into a reactive position. The key is that it serves to preserve the political status quo on the issue.

All this, plus the quotes and video clips that his opponents will provide in response to this issue that Hillary will be putting into ads in the campaign.

[King]

If Obama can executive order this I guess I could ban abortion through executive order if I become President.

Yes, winning an election to become President of the United States gives you authority to enact the policies you ran on. It's a strange concept, I know.

[Mehmentum]

It seems to me that there is a more straightforward political move at work here. The POTUS knows that there is a Pub Congress, and it's in the Pubs interest to look like they are not the party of "no" for the next two years. Therefore he can assume that they would try to send him a series of bills to deal with immigration, a series that would get some crossover Dems who wouldn't like to be seen as obstructing the issue, yet would generally satisfy the bulk of the Pub voters. The House has been talking about that type of strategy for a year now.

The Pub bills would be anathema to the core of the Obama coalition and might even defuse some activism from immigrant groups. Therefore the POTUS issues an EO that reframes the debate. It throws a wrench into the putative Pub bill sequence and puts the Pubs back into a reactive position. The key is that it serves to preserve the political status quo on the issue.

Honestly, this is whats really happening, and I think the Republicans are falling for it.

The Republicans have been making noises about this 'poisoning the well' and making it harder for them to cooperate.  Refusing to work with Democrats is exactly the reaction that Obama is hoping for.  Despite the fact that Republicans will blame Obama for this, voters will just see more he-said-she said arguments and gridlock.  Besides, even if Obama does get some of the blame, he's already unpopular, there's not going to be any political fallout for him.

If congress just sits on its hands for two years, it will make it much easier for the Democratic nominee to run against them in 2016.  If Republicans become outraged because Obama actually did something about immigration (regardless of how effective it is, its all about perception) after congress had failed to act for 6 years, that will just look bad to Hispanic voters.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

@ King, Presidents are expected to follow a constitutional process to pass their agenda.

If Obama can executive order this I guess I could ban abortion through executive order if I become President.

I'm curious how someone might do that. Obama's mechanism would be to direct the employees of the executive branch agency responsible for immigration law enforcement to change their priorities. I'm not denying it's an end run around the law, but that's the mechanism he's using. How would a hypothetical Republican President who wanted to ban abortion do so through executive agencies? An interesting thought experiment. I don't know how.

I see what you're saying, but this is a very serious change in policy that shouldn't be decided by one person.