Obama to announce executive order on immigration

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Romney did not lose in 2012 because of immigration or Hispanics. It might have been closer, but Hispanics had nothing to do with Romney losing OH, IA, NH and Wisconsin and Romney needed at least one of those (OH) even with VA, FL and CO where minority voting had an impact.

Romney would have lost amongst Hispanics anyway for the same reason he lost overall because he offered nothing that could promise a better outcome for low income working and middle class voters. No healthcare alternative, nothing stubstantive on education, didn't endorse minimum wage hike until over a year afterwards and so forth.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Message to the GOP...



Obama and the Dems want you to shut down the government over this. They know that the only GOPer to win the PV in the last 6 elections (Bush 2004) got 44% of the Latino vote (by supporting immigration reform) and Mitt Romney got 27% (by pushing 'self-deportation')

The Orwellian language is a great asset for the pro side of this. They can call it reform all the want, but the number of times you give amnesty, is the number of times that the root problem will be perpetuated.

This is perfectly exemplified in the lack of trust towards Obama and doing this will have destroyed any chance to address this legislatively and perhaps that is a good thing considering where the entire media and most of the leadership is now on the issue.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Bush also had six years working with the Hispanic community in Texas and ingratiating himself to both the TX and FL communities, whilst running on a platform that including NCLB and Medicare Part D, as well as a giant tax cut. It should come as now surprise that with a crack team of political operators, Bush was able to cultivate massive returns amongst Hispanics in 2004.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Romney did not lose in 2012 because of immigration or Hispanics. It might have been closer, but Hispanics had nothing to do with Romney losing OH, IA, NH and Wisconsin and Romney needed at least one of those (OH) even with VA, FL and CO where minority voting had an impact.

Romney would have lost amongst Hispanics anyway for the same reason he lost overall because he offered nothing that could promise a better outcome for low income working and middle class voters. No healthcare alternative, nothing stubstantive on education, didn't endorse minimum wage hike until over a year afterwards and so forth.

Mitt Romney actually did better with whites than Bush Jr. (59% vs 58%). So Romney's loss is entirely down to his extremely poor performance with non-whites. Romney 'self-deportation' and hard anti-immigration positions in the primaries (along with others in the party) were definitely a factor.

The 2013 GOP autopsy noted that the party lost because of how poorly it did with the 'Obama coalition' and mostly talked about communicating better with young voters, women, LGBT and minorities. But there was only one single policy position it endorsed: comprehensive immigration reform.  

The math is simple. If the rise in the non-white % continues into 2016 and if the GOP gets the same 18% as the last two elections, they will need 64% of the remaining white vote to win, something they have only done once in the last 10 elections (Reagan 84).

You missed my point. If Romney had never said those words, he would have still lost the Presidential election in the midwest because of the auto bailout and his lack of an appealing agenda. The popular vote doesn't determine the winner and performing better flips FL, VA, CO and maybe NV, as well as the popular vote but Obama still wins. And again, just endorsing amnesty" would not have yielded stronger support to Romney amongst Hispanics.

The so called autopsy is garbage. It's only recommendation is a policy proposal that merely by their own admission gets the foot in the door, it doesn't win anybody. No hispanic is going to fall over his or herself to go and vote Republican because Republicans vote for an immigration bill that OBama signs. They cannot take credit for it without the Presidency and the "taking it off the table" theory fails to account for 1) The victory lap Obama takes for the Dems will earn it greater support in the community and 2) THE GOP STILL OFFERS THEM NOTHING.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The 2013 Autopsy was an embrace by the GOP of the mantra of big money donors who went around going "I Told You So". The values and interests of it and the leaderships approach since then reflects entirely their own and thus has no connection to that of the minority voters that are allegedly are to be obtained by taking their advice. It leads me to believe that their suggestions are not meant to obtain a better, stronger GOP, but to finally derive the long sought objective of a special interest group, which is another flawed immigration bill designed to fail to ensure a constant supply of slave labor for them.

Otherwise there would have been proposals on a broader range of issues designed to appeal to all working and middle class voters, which was noticeably absent.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Obama is behaving like a dictator. He has no right to force amnesty on America.  If he does, impeachment proceedings must begin.

How?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

I am tired of having to either make a wall of text every time I post on this issue or be pestered about postiions I don't hold or accused of haing said stuff that I have said the exact oppositeof with posters who I have discussed the matter with several times over several years.

1. I never said expanding legal immigration posed a problem for the border patrol. I said illegal immigration in large numbers make it easier for a bad actor to slip through.

2. I am not against increasing legal immigration if the numbers dictate such would be mutually beneficial.

3. I have repeatedly stated over and over over again, including in conversations that involved yourself, that the the calls for more border security were a shiny object diversion and would further border security would yield diminishing results. Once again I was responding to the point about havign completely open borders, which is also just as impractical.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Once again I was responding to the point about having completely open borders, which is also just as impractical.

  You do realize that people who are calling for open borders aren't calling for eliminating ICE, they're calling for eliminating any quota on legal immigration and only prevent criminals or other such undesirables from obtaining entry, don't you?

I was responding to a specific poster's point about increases in border security having made the situation worse regarding the number of illegal aliens present in the country. That may very well be the case, but in a post 911 world returning the rather lax security present thirty or forty years ago isn't practical.

That was my entire point, nothing more, nothing less. Quit trying to extrapolate things I never said and do not agree with from that point.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Hastert said on C-span the other day that was never any thing known as the "Hastert Rule", just that a Speaker couldn't long exist as Speaker if he didn't retain the support of a majority of his conference. Seem to endorse having the occassionall all Dems+30 or 40 Republican vote on some things.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would prefer he didn't on immigration. I would rather they form an independent bill or series of bills and send them to the Senate and preferrably go to conference, form a compromise and put it to a vote in both chambers. That is the traditional process.

Just passing a comprehensive bill that the Senate passed without any changes, or amendments, that is also a million pages long sounds a lot like how healthcare was passed. And to the extent that consultants, business and Boehner are pushed to just do that and "get it out of the way" ignore the downside risk from removing the moral standing on which to criticize the process in which Obamacare was passed.

The problem isn't the following of the Hastert rule, it is the doing absolutely nothing.

The place where the Haster Rule is the problem is minimum wage a rather simple change and can be done with a smaller text. Minimum wage would pass if put to an up or down vote or at least some form of minimum wage increase would. A good number of Republicans in PA, NY, NJ, OH, MI and ILL as well as some swing district Reps elsewhere would vote for it. Minimum wage is ironically more difficult in the Senate now.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Poll just showed on CNBC showed at Latino support for this is 43-37. Black support is the largest at 65-12.

Granted a large MOE, but that said, a +6 margin amongst in a group that voted for Obama by 46.

The only way this is a winner for Democrats in 2016 as a political move is if it is at 80% amongst Hispanics or at least 70%. Sub 50% or just above 50% (assuming 9 MOE) just won't cut it. 65-35 is low enough for FL to flip and for CO to be a nailbitter.

The 12% amongst blacks seems kind of low but it is almost three times as large as that which voted Republican in 2008 and 2012. 12% would make OH about 2% closer with regards to the 2012 results. The rest of the gap is all amongst working class whites who are not highly religious (and thus social issues weren't a motivation to overlook the fact that they were turned off by Romney. This is also why Romney didn't do so well in Maine, heavily working class but infrequent church attendence). 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Thirty-seven percent of independents back Obama’s plan to take action if Congress does not move forward on immigration reform, while 47 percent disapprove of such action.

If this poll is accurate there is a winning coalition for a Republican in opposting to this (whilst supporting a compassionate "legislative" reform) with only +6 amongst Hispanics and -9 amongst Indies.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I trust Latino Decisions over a crosstab result from a NBC poll...

Yes, they are the gold standard when it comes to this. I'd be willing to bet this is a 75-25 issue (in terms of approval) among Latinos in a sample in which all understand what is being proposed.

That is potentially the case but wouldn't Latino Decision's history say anything about its ability to deal with languaged barriers? 63% is still not high enough.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Thirty-seven percent of independents back Obama’s plan to take action if Congress does not move forward on immigration reform, while 47 percent disapprove of such action.

If this poll is accurate there is a winning coalition for a Republican in opposting to this (whilst supporting a compassionate "legislative" reform) with only +6 amongst Hispanics and -9 amongst Indies.

The same winning coalition that President Romney used in 2012 after Obama stopped deporting DREAMers.

Romney's problems are well noted and likely he will note be on the ballot in 2016. I would also note that in the scenario I laid out Romney didn't do a key aspect of that, of course in your rush to condescend you may have missed that part of my post.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Disgusting. If Obama is doing this because Congress won't give him an up or down vote, than we should give him an up and down vote. Then we will see if he is really interested in circumventing the law or not.

Can we just have one common sense thing with immigration before you start saying "Criminals will have babies to stay here!!!1!" b/c

1. Criminals will be deported, if you actually listened to Obama's speech.

I'm thankful he did something because congress is full of terrible people who refuse to do anything that would benefit this country.

The best part is obviously:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Though clearly not so terrible as to continue to pass terrible legislation that previous terrible congresses have passed perpetuating this present terrible situation.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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

Odd juxtaposition there.  Wilson's policies during World War I pretty much doomed the world to a repeat.  The idea that American participation in the League of Nations would have prevented World War II is absolutely ludicrous.  Conversely, it was Wilson who segregated the Civil Service, leaving only the most menial of positions open to blacks, even in communities where having blacks in positions of responsibility would have been acceptable.

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

Are you really that ignorant of history?

First off, Washington was not President during the Revolution, and Madison's ineptitude and cronyism during the War of 1812 could easily have led to the British reconquest of North America had they been interested in such a thing.

As for the second one on his list of Presidential Accomplishments, he obviously must have missed a certain great movie that came out two years ago by Steven Spielberg. It also buys into the false narrative that the Emancipation Proclamation ended Slavery when it was still legal in the border states and parts of the CSA afterwards, hence the events in the movie.