Obama to announce executive order on immigration

[New_Conservative]

I posted this in the thread in the individual politics board after looking at the executive order a little bit more, it basically sums up my opinions on this.

Somewhat disapprove, I disagree with the way he did it, and the executive action doesn't go far enough securing our border with Mexico, which makes me hesitant to support the other aspects of the law, which I would otherwise gladly embrace.

I still think the order is against Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the authority to enforce immigration laws. The fact he didn't wait for the new Congress to be sworn in, which I think would have passed a new immigration bill, is obviously a political stunt and people thinking it is anything else is delusional. It was ridiculous hearing him telling Congress to "pass a bill" (which I agree with) if they disagree with him, when he failed to do so when his party held both the House and Senate during the first couple years of his Presidency. I find it interesting he voted against immigration reform in 2007, as well, which was probably done with similar political motivation as Tea Party Republicans failing to vote on the Gang of 8 Immigration Bill. Politifact rated John McCain's statement that Senator Obama was in favor of an amendment "gutting the legal temporary worker system" as mostly true. So it is hypocritical of him trying to look like a great hero to immigration reform, and I hope people realize that.

But, as someone that is in favor of the notion of giving temporary work visas to illegal immigrants whose children were born here, have children, have been in the country for at least 5 years as long as they pass background checks, have no criminal records, are forced to pay a fine for breaking law and are added to the tax base of the country; I support the overall action. This allows us to focus our authority on deporting criminals, and helps our economy by giving entrepreneurs the right to contribute to our economy, give those illegal immigrants the opportunity to earn a living, which therefore leads to them contributing to the American economy. The added tax revenue this would create is an a lot better investment for the country than spending the money on rounding up and deporting these families, as someone that wants to reduce government spending, this is something I can support. From what I have read, the law does not give those who are granted temporary visas government subsidies, which is the correct way to handle it.

I don't think the legislation goes far enough protecting the border, I would like states to have an increased role protecting the border, as they have better idea of the hot spots than the federal government. The fence needs upgrades in certain sections of the border crossing. Strengthening our border security is supported by man sheriffs across the country and should be tied into every immigration legislation granting visas. I know it is included in this executive action, but adding more DHS agents is not enough, even though it is start.

Hopefully the 114th Congress can work together on this issue, it is the right thing to do, unlike the President taking it into his own hands.

[KCDem]

^^There is nothing more that can be done to secure the border. Get over it, if there's a will, there's a way to get through it.

[New_Conservative]

^^There is nothing more that can be done to secure the border. Get over it, if there's a will, there's a way to get through it.

Of course, which is why it is a good sign that Obama still wants to keep going with the deportation of those that break the law.

[KCDem]

^^There is nothing more that can be done to secure the border. Get over it, if there's a will, there's a way to get through it.

Of course, which is why it is a good sign that Obama still wants to keep going with the deportation of those that break the law.

Then why did you say his executive order didn't do enough to secure the border?

[New_Conservative]

^^There is nothing more that can be done to secure the border. Get over it, if there's a will, there's a way to get through it.

Of course, which is why it is a good sign that Obama still wants to keep going with the deportation of those that break the law.

Then why did you say his executive order didn't do enough to secure the border?

I don't think the legislation goes far enough protecting the border, I would like states to have an increased role protecting the border, as they have better idea of the hot spots than the federal government. The fence needs upgrades in certain sections of the border crossing. Strengthening our border security is supported by man sheriffs across the country and should be tied into every immigration legislation granting visas. I know it is included in this executive action, but adding more DHS agents is not enough, even though it is start.

[Likely Voter]

How does one define 'protect the border'?  We already have record number of agents and immigration is already at a net zero. Plus almost half of the illegal immigrants flew here and overstayed their visas. The 'secure the border first' thing is a red herring. But even still the Senate comprehensive bill threw a few more billion at the border to appease, so why wasn't that good enough?

[bedstuy]

How does one define 'protect the border'?  We already have record number of agents and immigration is already at a net zero. Plus almost half of the illegal immigrants flew here and overstayed their visas. The 'secure the border first' thing is a red herring. But even still the Senate comprehensive bill threw a few more billion at the border to appease, so why wasn't that good enough?

"Secure the border," is just empty rhetoric to appeal to people with a panoply of vague ethno-nationalist concerns.  If we just passed an immigration bill that legalized the American reality, while using the technology of 1998 like E-Verify, we could secure the border with half the current border enforcement budget. 

Make no mistake, this is all about people who think Hispanics are somehow different than the Germans, Irish, Italians, Jews and Chinese and others who became Americans en masse in years past.    There are plenty of legitimate immigration questions, like family based vs. skills based, how to simply the process, how to guard against terrorism and criminal activity, etc..  Instead, we're agonizing over the pigment of people's skin and how to punish people who came here 20 years ago. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Disagree with the way he did it, and the executive action doesn't go far enough securing our border with Mexico, which makes me hesitant to support the other aspects of the law, which I would otherwise gladly embrace.

The over-emphasis on border security ignores critical enforcement aspects and is part of why we have a bill  that throws a bunch of money at the border combined with amnesty and opponents are left having to square "lack of border security" as a justification with a bill that ostensibly includes a lot of border security.

1. You have to secure the border, but you reach a point where further such resources yields diminishing results...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

"Secure the border" has become a catch all phrase for general enforcement. The emphasis on it is a mistake thus. As we have seen there is no faith in the President to actually enforce the law amongst Republicans and even some independents, and furthering that only puts us further away from an actual resolution to the problem. I should note that the 2007 Immigration bill that crashed and burned was deeply unpopular even as polling showed support for a path of some kind by like a 10% to 15% margin at the time.

The real reason that system is broken, legal immigration problems aside (they need to be fixed) is because there is no desire to keep to the numbers you set. At some point you have say this is the absolute limit and beyond that no, and if you come anyway, you will be deported (and you have to mean it), even as you legalize those that are here now. That is how you arrive at a permenent fix. As long as all you are willing to both now and in the future, is to deport those who commit crimes other than that of illegal immigration to the US, the problem continues and the system will remain broken.

Ironically, the executive branch has done more to break the system then Congress, though both are responsible. So once again the touted fix/reform is the perpetuation of the status quo, which seems to be the going thing on this issue.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The fact he didn't wait for the new Congress to be sworn in, which I think would have passed a new immigration bill, is obviously a political stunt and people thinking it is anything else is delusional.

What is truly delusional is thinking that the incoming Congress would have passed a bill if Obama had merely waited.  They may do so now, but only if it rolls back at least in part what Obama has done with his executive order.

[Brittain33]

Well, I don't know. On the one hand, Congress not doing what you want does not mean Congress is broken.

I mentioned the filibuster and gerrymandering in particular. Because of the filibuster, democratic majorities could not pass laws in reasonable time in 2009-2010. Because of gerrymandering, we had a split Congress in 2013-2014 even when Democrats got over 1 million votes more than Republicans in 2012 House elections. Unified Congresses in either of those terms should have been more productive.

No, I don't consider Congress broken because split or Republican Congresses didn't pass laws I support.

[Brittain33]

I was responding to King's "strong presidency" hypothetical.

If I wanted Obama to knuckle under, I would not have supported ACA. That is proof that the legislative process can work.

...when you have 60 senators from the majority party, which the Dems enjoyed for like 5 months in 2009. Unsustainable.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I was responding to King's "strong presidency" hypothetical.

If I wanted Obama to knuckle under, I would not have supported ACA. That is proof that the legislative process can work.

...when you have 60 senators from the majority party, which the Dems enjoyed for like 5 months in 2009. Unsustainable.

Coakley blew it, but in the end MA of all states voted in number 41 Scott Brown to stop the healthcare law. That says that somewhere along the line Democrats screwed up rather badly in the process of forming and passing the law. The size of he majority bred complacency as did the promises of its forty year longevity. They thought they had time to squabble over different components and such forth.

If Obama had started with immigration he would have had it by August of 2009 most likely.

[Brittain33]

I was responding to King's "strong presidency" hypothetical.

If I wanted Obama to knuckle under, I would not have supported ACA. That is proof that the legislative process can work.

...when you have 60 senators from the majority party, which the Dems enjoyed for like 5 months in 2009. Unsustainable.

Coakley blew it, but in the end MA of all states voted in number 41 Scott Brown to stop the healthcare law. That says that somewhere along the line Democrats screwed up rather badly in the process of forming and passing the law. The size of he majority bred complacency as did the promises of its forty year longevity. They thought they had time to squabble over different components and such forth.

If Obama had started with immigration he would have had it by August of 2009 most likely.

Like I said, requiring 60 votes in the Senate to pass law is a symptom of a broken government. We have natural swings toward the middle and the party in power is judged by their ability to govern. A President with huge majorities in both houses shouldn't be limited to the first 1.5 initiatives he can accomplish before natural trends reduce the majority to just very large. Remember the impact of Norm Coleman's lawsuit.

I don't expect blue avatars to sympathize with the Dem agenda in 2009 but I hope you'll consider the impact of a majority party being judged on their efficacy by voters when the minority party--in some cases, a minority party reduced to a small regional rump--can exercise a veto and then run against the majority for its inability to govern.

[Maistre]

It's a bit funny how lauded Obama is on here for taking essentially a Ted Cruz type action, trolling the other party and sticking a finger into their eye, and dividing the nation. Grandstanding for essentially political purposes. I can respect it as a good political tactic, but I hope now that some of the bullcrap "change we can believe in" stuff can finally subside. This dude is a divider, not a leader. If that wasn't obvious already.

Congressional accomplishments 1776-present:
1. Prolonging slavery, destroying thousands of lives.
2. Rejecting Woodrow Wilson's WWI peace plan, causing World War II.
3. Prolonging our entrance into World War II, destroying thousands of lives.
4. Starting the Civil War
5. Bridge to Nowhere projects
6. McCarthy Hearings, Red Scare, Cold War propaganda
7. Segregation
8. Defense of Marriage Act
9. Debt ceiling crisis

Presidential accomplishments 1776-present:
1. Defeating the British
2. Ending slavery
3. Winning World War I
4. Winning World War II
5. Social Security
6. Medicare
7. Ending the Cold War

Name me one thing the Congress forced a US President to sign that was good for this country. Name me one thing a US President forced the Congress to pass that was bad.

Good God what an awful post. How ignorant are you of history?

[The Mikado]

Regardless of King's argument...I do think there's merit to a system of only having elections every four years, with House members having four year terms like the President and Senators having staggered eight year terms because constant elections lead to massive Congressional mood swings like they have 2006-present, but that's a discussion for another day.

Regarding this particular executive order, I don't really see how the President is encroaching on Congress' grounds. Congress has power over naturalization...Obama's executive order does not grant citizenship to anyone. Congress' control over the naturalization process is not in any way impinged on here. This is an executive who is shifting where the resources of law enforcement are focused and what law enforcement is going to prosecute, something presidents have always had wide latitude to do.

[King]

The lists were obviously hyperbolic bros. 

[Paul Kemp]

This dude is a divider, not a leader. If that wasn't obvious already.

di·vid·er
dəˈvīdər/
noun
1. a person or thing that takes actions that Atlas Forum user Maistre does not like.

[KCDem]

It's a bit funny how lauded Obama is on here for taking essentially a Ted Cruz type action, trolling the other party and sticking a finger into their eye, and dividing the nation. Grandstanding for essentially political purposes. I can respect it as a good political tactic, but I hope now that some of the bullcrap "change we can believe in" stuff can finally subside. This dude is a divider, not a leader. If that wasn't obvious already.

Congressional accomplishments 1776-present:
1. Prolonging slavery, destroying thousands of lives.
2. Rejecting Woodrow Wilson's WWI peace plan, causing World War II.
3. Prolonging our entrance into World War II, destroying thousands of lives.
4. Starting the Civil War
5. Bridge to Nowhere projects
6. McCarthy Hearings, Red Scare, Cold War propaganda
7. Segregation
8. Defense of Marriage Act
9. Debt ceiling crisis

Presidential accomplishments 1776-present:
1. Defeating the British
2. Ending slavery
3. Winning World War I
4. Winning World War II
5. Social Security
6. Medicare
7. Ending the Cold War

Name me one thing the Congress forced a US President to sign that was good for this country. Name me one thing a US President forced the Congress to pass that was bad.

Good God what an awful post. How ignorant are you of history?

Junk post! Junk user!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I was responding to King's "strong presidency" hypothetical.

If I wanted Obama to knuckle under, I would not have supported ACA. That is proof that the legislative process can work.

...when you have 60 senators from the majority party, which the Dems enjoyed for like 5 months in 2009. Unsustainable.

Coakley blew it, but in the end MA of all states voted in number 41 Scott Brown to stop the healthcare law. That says that somewhere along the line Democrats screwed up rather badly in the process of forming and passing the law. The size of he majority bred complacency as did the promises of its forty year longevity. They thought they had time to squabble over different components and such forth.

If Obama had started with immigration he would have had it by August of 2009 most likely.

Like I said, requiring 60 votes in the Senate to pass law is a symptom of a broken government. We have natural swings toward the middle and the party in power is judged by their ability to govern. A President with huge majorities in both houses shouldn't be limited to the first 1.5 initiatives he can accomplish before natural trends reduce the majority to just very large. Remember the impact of Norm Coleman's lawsuit.

I don't expect blue avatars to sympathize with the Dem agenda in 2009 but I hope you'll consider the impact of a majority party being judged on their efficacy by voters when the minority party--in some cases, a minority party reduced to a small regional rump--can exercise a veto and then run against the majority for its inability to govern.

Yes, but with Graham, McCain, Lugar, Bennett, Collins, Snowe, Murkowski, Gregg, Brownback, Martinez, Kyl, Voinovich, Lugar, Specter (who switched of course), there were more then enough votes with all those Democrats to pass amnesty. In our household it was considered a foregone conclusion with no cards left to play to prevent the inevitable. That it didn't happen came as a litteral shock to us all.

Imagine if Republicans had won VA 2006, MT 2006, AK 2008 and MN 2008.

[Brittain33]

Because of Coleman's lawsuit, Kennedy's death, Republican solidarity, and McConnell's exploitation of the rules, there was not time in the legislative calendar to reform our broken immigration system after the economic recovery act was passed and health care reform was undertaken.

Republican votes for Democratic initiatives, even ones Republicans had voted for in the past or authored, tended to evaporate as the actual vote came closer. It was in their best interest to deny Dems the claim of bipartisanship so they could run against Democrats in the next election.