• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Obama to use Executive Action on Immigration

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
the point of the matter is what in the world is the difference between what obama is doing, and what any of the other presidents did?

First, "the point of the matter" is that you just called those who disagree with this racist.What's your response to those Republicans who opposed IRCA in 1986, or who oppose what Bush tried to do in? We're all just opposed to what Obama did because he's black?

You know, I'd typed out a response to the substance of what you said, but playing the "you're all just racists" card is so damn offensive I'm just putting you on ignore. Congrats -- you're the first and only person I've ever done that to here. I'll respond to others who can discuss the issue without race-baiting.
 
Purposefully vague.

My post, or the bill? In either case, I'd say that the border clearly is not close to being secure, as the events of this last summer proved. The head of the border patrol testified recently that they had "operational control" over only 44% of the southern border. Obama cancelled the border fence that had been approved during the Bush Administration, and refused to spend the money.

We could quibble about how much control is necessary, but right now, it's not even close. And deliberately so.
 
My post, or the bill? In either case, I'd say that the border clearly is not close to being secure, as the events of this last summer proved. The head of the border patrol testified recently that they had "operational control" over only 44% of the southern border. Obama cancelled the border fence that had been approved during the Bush Administration, and refused to spend the money.

We could quibble about how much control is necessary, but right now, it's not even close. And deliberately so.

Was talking about the bill, if your posts are anything they certainly aren't vague. :chuckle:

The term "secure" is just too vague to quantify, you're never going to fully secure an entire border. Wall, exponentially increasing border patrol, whatever the plan is...no plan brought by either side represents a solution that is both fiscally responsible and equally effective.
 
Last edited:
Was talking about the bill, if your posts are anything they certainly aren't vague. :chuckle:

Terms "secure" is just too vague to quantify, you're never going to fully secure an entire border. Wall, exponentially increasing border patrol, whatever the plan is...no plan brought by either side represents a solution that is both fiscally responsible and equally effective.

I see your point, but I don't really see much of a way around that issue. If the border got to the point where a credible argument could be made that it is "reasonably secure" or "secure enough", I think your point would have more practical relevance, and we could have the debate of "is it secure enough". But very clearly, we're not there yet.

One problem is that President has refused to pass a bill that only addresses the issue of border security, even though he claims to favor tighter control over the border. My wife forced me to listen to his speech last night, and I was struck by how strongly he made the case that keeping people out of this country is both anti-American, and immoral. He even quoted Scripture. So after he makes that moral case, he then made a short aside about his commitment to getting more control over the border. But those two things are contradictory -- how can you truly believe in border security when you just got done telling everyone how keeping out prospective immigrants who just want to improve their lives is immoral?

Honestly, you could get a lot of Republican agreement in terms of legalizing those already here if there was a reasonable basis to believe that the illegal immigration would substantially end. But that's not the case, and to me, it feels like the IRCA bait-and-switch all over again. We'll trade legalization for border security, but never get the border security. And if we can't get border security, then screw the legalization.

Just as an aside, I think we need a much tighter, more reliable system for restricting employment of illegals, which could be part of obtaining better border security.. But that's a point on which the Chamber of Commerce wing of the GOP agrees with Democrats, which leaves the rank-and-file to raise the stink.
 
Last edited:
Trying to make this a partisan issue is a mistake: Republicans and Democrats want immigration reform. It was actually a cornerstone of both Obama and Romney's platform.

That said, Obama could have forced the issue his first two years in office, but chose instead to focus on Healthcare. (Different discussion) Obama likely didn't do anything"illegal" here, but he did manage to draw a line in the sand that will likely dictate the atmosphere in Washington for the next two years. The most frustrating part of Obama's terms in office is how quick he is to pick a fight with the Republican party. How often has he spent a few months trying to build partisan relationships only to burn the bridges in a political tantrum? He could have been so much more.

A new Republican controlled Senate is taking form. New republicans are sitting in the house. In many cases, these flips came from Republicans championing more liberal platforms (very different from the influx of Tea partiers we had last two cycles) and instead of trying to work with the new House and Senate, Obama elected to act on his own. What message does that send? Welcome to Washington, bring your boxing gloves.

I hope whoever inherits the office next election is capable of repairing partisan relationships. And while we all expected 2 years of gridlock, I anticipate is going to get very ugly.
 
There is a difference, blacks had no say in the matter to begin with. Im quite sure they would have much rather stayed in their own country. Its not even comparable and it makes me nauseous when people try to compare the two.

There is nothing wrong with immigration, illegal immigration on the other hand.... thats another story.
Not saying that this particular move didnt need to be done but over all, this is really an issue that needs to be fixed

I know there is a difference between illegal immigration and slavery. The similarity, which is what I wanted to illustrate is we have millions of people here already, that part is already done. Are you going to pay for them to go back? It is prohibitively expensive. Long run, short run, whatever, it is going to cost more to send people away and round them up than just make them citizens. There is no good way to do it. I'm not making a moral comparison between the 2 at all.

It's just that when you are talking millions of people, I don't think people realize how many that is. It's just not practical in any way.

As to the President's actions. They had a conservative bi-partisan bill that supposedly everyone could agree on. They were going to vote it into law and the Boehner shot it down by himself. They have only themselves to blame.

Border security has increased because immigrant groups are pissed at the President. That's how you know he has actually been doing something.

So what's the problem? The president has a low approval rating in the upper 30's or low 40's, but the congress has an approval rating below 20. Anyone who is honest knows they are dragging their feet on non-controversial items that everyone wants passed. It is a farce.
 
Trying to make this a partisan issue is a mistake: Republicans and Democrats want immigration reform. It was actually a cornerstone of both Obama and Romney's platform.

Well, glad you agree with that, because the President keeps telling everyone that Republicans are against immigration reform. We're not -- we just disagree on what form that reform should take.

That said, Obama could have forced the issue his first two years in office, but chose instead to focus on Healthcare. (Different discussion)

Good point, and a big mistake, I think.

Obama likely didn't do anything"illegal" here, but he did manage to draw a line in the sand that will likely dictate the atmosphere in Washington for the next two years. The most frustrating part of Obama's terms in office is how quick he is to pick a fight with the Republican party. How often has he spent a few months trying to build partisan relationships only to burn the bridges in a political tantrum? He could have been so much more.

I agree, and on the legality/illegality thing as well from a technical perspective. But I think he's taken selective enforcement/implementation to a dangerous place. By the logic of unilaterally not implementing the business mandate (and accompanying taxes/revenue) while going ahead with the rest of the ACA, he essentially did a line-item veto. A future President could simply direct the IRS not to collect other taxes that a President doesn't like. And if this President announces a blanket refusal to enforce a whole category of laws, then another President could do the same in the area of Civil Rights or anything else. It's not good.

I hope whoever inherits the office next election is capable of repairing partisan relationships. And while we all expected 2 years of gridlock, I anticipate is going to get very ugly.

Well, I think the worst thing about the last two years is that we didn't just have gridlock -- we had gridlock in which both sides avoided taking votes. That makes it much more difficult for voters to know who to hold accountable. With a GOP Congress, though, we'll get bills passed that the President can either sign, or veto. And then both he, they, and the 2016 who will be asked about them can be held to their opinions.
 
First, "the point of the matter" is that you just called those who disagree with this racist.What's your response to those Republicans who opposed IRCA in 1986, or who oppose what Bush tried to do in? We're all just opposed to what Obama did because he's black?

You know, I'd typed out a response to the substance of what you said, but playing the "you're all just racists" card is so damn offensive I'm just putting you on ignore. Congrats -- you're the first and only person I've ever done that to here. I'll respond to others who can discuss the issue without race-baiting.

no Q-tip. i called the arizona sheriff a racist. as i said you can disagree with obama all you want, but when you start threatening impeachment and lawsuits over something every single president has done for the last 50 years... well whats the difference?

One problem is that President has refused to pass a bill that only addresses the issue of border security,

i um... the president pass a bill??? um??? huh?
 
What has changed? Why good prewar, bad post war? I just asked what the plan is.

You are a republican, we know that. I get it. You realize the party is held hostage by evangelicals and tea partiers. Are you down with those guys? Their plan is for everyone to voluntarily go back home and try to do it the right way. Even those families who have kids who are us citizens. That will never ever happen. It's just stupid.


I'm not republican or a democrat. I'm a pragmatist, and I haven't heard a single plan that makes sense.

Nafta destroyed Mexico's economy and made the United states a lot of money and now we whine about immigration. It's a joke.

The plan should be to legally pass a law for border security and immigration reform. It shouldn't be just a Republican plan or a Democrat plan.

That said, my issue isn't as much with his plan as it is in using an executive order. There's 22 different instances where he admitted he couldn't do it...then he did it! He is again pissing on the Constitution and setting an awful precedent. When Bush and Reagan used Executive Action with regards to immigration they were taking action on an amnesty law that had already been passed by Congress. Obama is making his own laws now...that's what i have an issue with, much moreso than the plan. All future Presidents will cite this event when they pull a loner too.

We are just coming off fresh elections where he got his ass kicked. Instead of saying "ok, message received, I'll try to reach across the aisle to the new guys" he's saying "fuck you, i'm going alone" and creating a constitutional crisis. He is the most divisive President we have had in a very long time and just an atrocious leader. This action is an admission of failure. Even if they do find some legal loophole to pull this off, the spirit of this move damages the presidency.
 
the point of the matter is what in the world is the difference between what obama is doing, and what any of the other presidents did? they are using executive order to make immigration changes as they see fit. He has ask congress, repeatedly, to come together to present him somethign he can sign. STILL. WAITING. Because we all know that congress as a whole will never come together for anythign-not even benefits for soldiers.

so why is it a total shock when Obama takes matters into his own hands, something literally every other president has done over the last 50 years. So if some idiot wants to try and bring a lawsuit against him. i say go for it. youre allowed to disagree with the president all you want, what youre not allowed to do is sue him or threaten impeachment because you dont like him.

Well the White House's plan is apparently working again. They and the media just have to say "Bush and Reagan did the same thing...Presidents do this all the time", then count on the "the stupidity of the American voter" to believe it and repeat it.
 
No, Reagan Did Not Offer An Amnesty By Lawless Executive Order

By Gabriel Malor
NOVEMBER 20, 2014

Today is the big day, and the Progressive media is in full spin to mitigate the anger Americans are expressing about President Obama’s decision to offer legal status to millions of people who broke the law. That spin has taken many forms, including the novel arguments that the executive branch is empowered to act whenever the legislative branch declines and that the executive branch’s enforcement discretion includes the affirmative grant of benefits not otherwise authorized by law. Most recently, however, Progressive columnists have settled on an old favorite tactic: justify Democratic misbehavior by claiming (falsely, as you will see) that a Republican did it first.

Democrats across print, web, and cable media have been repeating the claim that Obama is doing nothing more than what Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 did first. They point to executive actions taken in 1987 and 1989 that deferred the removal of certain aliens. But, as usual for Progressive commentators, they elide the crucial facts that distinguish those actions from Obama’s. The sign that you’re being swindled isn’t so much what the con artist tells you, but what he does not tell you. What the Progressive commentariat is not telling you is that the Reagan and Bush immigration orders looked nothing like Obama’s creation of a new, open-ended form of immigration relief.

Legally, illegal immigration is dealt with in two steps. First, the Department of Homeland Security (in Reagan and Bush 41′s time, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, or INS) has to show that an alien is removable (deportable, in Reagan and Bush 41′s lingo) from the United States. Then the alien gets a chance to show that they are eligible for some form of relief from removal or deportation. Ordinarily, those forms of relief are created by Congress. There is asylum and adjustment and cancellation of removal, and so on and so forth, all set down in statute by Congress over the decades (more than a century in the case of certain waivers) in an overlapping mess of eligibilities and disqualifiers and discretionary decisions.

With some regularity, however, the existing forms of immigration relief have been overtaken by circumstances. When that has happened, Congress steps in. In 1986, faced with a large and growing population of illegal aliens, Congress created a new, time-limited form of immigration relief for certain aliens who, among other things, had to have come to the United States more than six years previously. This is the much ballyhooed Reagan amnesty. It was, unfortunately, riddled with fraud in its execution, the uncovering of which is still roiling the immigrant community. But even setting that aside it left President Reagan with a moral dilemma. Congress’ amnesty was large—just shy of 3 million people—and it had the unanticipated effect of splitting up freshly-legalized parents from their illegally-present minor children who did not qualify for relief.

So Reagan, seeing this family unity problem that Congress had not anticipated or addressed when it granted amnesty to millions of parents, issued an executive order to defer the removal of children of the people who had applied for immigration amnesty under Congress’ new law. He allowed those children to remain in the United States while their parents’ applications for amnesty were pending. A few years later, Bush 41 extended this bit of administrative grace to these same children plus certain spouses of the aliens who had actually been granted immigration amnesty under Congress’ new law.

Congress, though it had desired to grant amnesty, had not considered and not included the spouses and children. Importantly, nor had it excluded them. So Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 filled that statutory gap. “What do we do with spouses and children?” INS asked. “Well,” the executive branch leaders said, “defer their deportation. Decline to exercise your lawful authority for the particular cases that are related to those Congress has offered amnesty.”

These Reagan and Bush 41 executive actions were obviously different than what Obama is doing now. They were trying to implement a complicated amnesty that Congress had already passed. Congress’ action was a form of immigration relief that obviously fit within our constitutional system. Moreover, Congress left a gap when it came to immediate family members, including minor children, of individuals who qualified for the amnesty. Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 forbore from deporting people in that select group.

Obama, in contrast to Reagan and Bush 41, is not trying to implement a lawfully created amnesty. There has been no congressional amnesty. In fact, there has been no immigration action from Congress in the past few years except the post-9/11 REAL ID Act of 2005, which made it harder, not easier, for aliens to qualify for immigration relief. More than that, Congress declined to pass a legalization of the type Obama is issuing during both Obama’s term and in a hotly-contested bill during President Bush 43′s term.

Thus, Obama is clearly contravening both ordinary practice and the wishes of Congress—as expressed in statute—by declaring an amnesty himself. This is nothing like Reagan’s or Bush’s attempts to implement Congress’ amnesty. The progressive media’s claims otherwise are blatant lies, relying on their readers’ ignorance of events in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Such attempts should be rejected wherever they are found.

If Obama wants to justify his lawless immigration action, he will have to do it some other way than citing (blaming, more like) prior Republican presidents. They, to their credit, were trying to implement Congress’ will. Obama, on the other hand, has declared that his government will act despite Congress, or, I suspect, to spite Congress. Such pettiness finds no support in the presidencies of Reagan and Bush.

Gabriel Malor is an attorney and writer in Washington, D.C. Follow him on Twitter.
 
It's just that when you are talking millions of people, I don't think people realize how many that is. It's just not practical in any way.

I agree it's not practical to round up everyone and send them back. But that's not a reason to go to the opposite extreme and tell them all they're free to stay without even the threat of deportation. That simply encourages more people to immigrate illegally and hope to get the same deal.

There's also the option of tightening up employment eligibility via biometric data and investments in verification. Right now, it can take as long as 6 months for the government to respond to an employer's request to verify the eligibility of SSN numbers. That's ridiculous, and enables illegals to evade the requirement by job-hopping every few months.

As to the President's actions. They had a conservative bi-partisan bill that supposedly everyone could agree on. They were going to vote it into law and the Boehner shot it down by himself. They have only themselves to blame.

It wasn't a conservative bill, and everyone couldn't agree to it. It didn't pass in the House not because just Boehner objected, but because a majority of House Republicans didn't support it. Just as a majority of Senate Republicans didn't support it. Even then, it looked like the House Democrats and some breakaway Republicans might pass it anyway until the public started burning up the phone lines in opposition.

So what's the problem? The president has a low approval rating in the upper 30's or low 40's, but the congress has an approval rating below 20. Anyone who is honest knows they are dragging their feet on non-controversial items that everyone wants passed. It is a farce.

The Congress that is in office right now is still the pre-election Congress, so it's no wonder it's numbers are so low. Divided Congresses are never going to get good ratings. You have Republicans unhappy that Congress didn't act because of Senate Democrats, and Democrats unhappy that Congress didn't act because of the House Republicans. As for not acting on "non-controversial" items, I'm not sure what you mean. Immigration is controversial as hell, which is why the last major reform was more than a quarter century ago.
 
Last edited:
I think it's a reasonable point that he's going a bit beyond what Reagan did on immigration.

With that said, I see little negatives in the actions being taken.

President Obama is obviously not going to "find Republican support" on any action he takes, regardless of the positive effect it may have on the country.
 
President Obama is obviously not going to "find Republican support" on any action he takes, regardless of the positive effect it may have on the country.

Sure he would. He just doesn't want to do the same things as Republicans. That's not necessarily bad-faith on either side. It's just what happen when you have two sides with some pretty fundamental disagreements.

If he'd have announced a crackdown on immigration, you wouldn't have gotten the outrage.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top