Immigration

[Uncle Charlie]

First a disclaimer - my political ideology is somewhere between conservative and libertarian.  While often overlapping, they are in conflict sometimes.

I did not see our President's speach today but have read a number of articles both ahead of and after his statement.  A bit surprisingly, I have difficulty seeing problems with his plan and his actions.  Sure, some of the actions (hiding behind prioritization of resources) can be construed as abuse of power, but POTUSs before and after Obama will do the same thing.  There is a reason that Presidents are called our leader.  While I have not agreed with most of the actions of this President, and more often with foreign policy his inaction, his plan tonight does not fall in that category.  I think the US is a better place under this system than allowing it to languish without doing anything.

[subnuclear]

There are intelligent ways of dealing with immigration. This is pretty far away from those. This ensures the problems caused by illegal immigration remain chronic.

[juliogotay]

There are intelligent ways of dealing with immigration. This is pretty far away from those. This ensures the problems caused by illegal immigration remain chronic.

You get more of what you reward.

[HudsonHawk]

You get more of what you reward.

So you don't ever believe in forgiveness?

[Uncle Charlie]

There are intelligent ways of dealing with immigration. This is pretty far away from those. This ensures the problems caused by illegal immigration remain chronic.

I completely agree that it does not deal with the problem holistically.  That is Congress's job and the President didn't overstep his bounds there.  The fact of the matter is that many of those included in the temporary shield of deportation weren't planning to leave anyway.  They now can become more integrated into the society - be willing to help law enforcement, pay income tax, and more.

The Republicans (of which I generally count myself as one) are on the wrong end of this - they have been trying to reach out to the minority and instead are cutting off their nose to spite their face.  Sure, you can make arguments about the President over reaching, though its not hard to look into the past and see the consistent struggle b/t congress and the POTUS regardless of who is in office.  However, they are looking to win the battle and not the war.  This President is already hugely damaged...working to continue that is not the right move...instead building trust with minorities is where they need to be in prep for 2016.  They have a rare opportunity over the next two years to use the President's desire to re-establish his presidency and to gather support for a working congress moving to inclusive behaviors.  Plan and simple.  Republicans often wonder why hispanics, who are largely conservative and deeply religious, do not vote for them - this is a chance to change that dynamic.  They've started off on the wrong foot though.

[Limey]

There are an estimated 11 million illegal* immigrants in the U.S.  Congress funds deportations to the point that about 400,000 get sent back annually, which is the highest rate in modern times.  So, at that rate, assuming no new entrants (illegal immigration is estimated to be a net zero currently), we'll get around to deporting all the current illegals in 27.5 years.

* As a legal immigrant, I have no issue with the term "illegal immigrant", and think people who try to change the term are missing the point and not helping.  Most entered legally, but they're now here illegally, hence "illegal".


Anyway, a large number of those illegals have legal spouses and/or children born here (and thus citizens).  To enforce the rule of law would mean breaking up those families, or deporting legal citizens along with their illegal relatives, which I think is against the constitution.  It's a thorny issue that requires Congress to act...

The Senate passed a bill - with bipartisan support, no less - that was an effort to fix this.  It's not a great bill, but it's something and that's better than nothing.  It is believed that the current House has more than enough votes to pass this bill, and Obama has said he would sign it in a flash.  The House leadership has declined to take up the Senate bill and bring it to a vote, has declined to offer a competing bill, and has (lately) threatened to shut down the Government (again) if anyone tries to do anything about this vacuum of their creation.

The executive action taken by Obama is, basically, to shield from deportation about 4 million illegals with legal family ties here, in addition to the 1.5 million currently shielded by DACA.  Those to be shielded are required to register themselves, and start paying taxes, or they will still face deportation.  Meanwhile, we can carry on deporting the balance of the illegal population, about 5.5 million, and that gives us a window of about 14 years before we have to start slowing down in order to address the names on Obama's protected list.  If the House doesn't like that timetable, they can authorize more funding for deportations to speed it up.

Yes, this is a more expanded executive action on immigration than anything undertaken before.  But it's on the same principles exactly as executive orders issued by Reagan and Bush Sr.  Currently, the problem is larger, hence the scale of the effect of the executive order.  The freak-out is entirely political, entirely unjustified and entirely craven.  Which is why it's being led by Rafael Cruz.

[MusicMan]

The freak-out is entirely political, entirely unjustified and entirely craven.  Which is why it's being led by Rafael Cruz.

Ding ding fucking ding.

[GreatBagwellsBeard]

There are an estimated 11 million illegal* immigrants in the U.S.  Congress funds deportations to the point that about 400,000 get sent back annually, which is the highest rate in modern times.  So, at that rate, assuming no new entrants (illegal immigration is estimated to be a net zero currently), we'll get around to deporting all the current illegals in 27.5 years.

* As a legal immigrant, I have no issue with the term "illegal immigrant", and think people who try to change the term are missing the point and not helping.  Most entered legally, but they're now here illegally, hence "illegal".


Anyway, a large number of those illegals have legal spouses and/or children born here (and thus citizens).  To enforce the rule of law would mean breaking up those families, or deporting legal citizens along with their illegal relatives, which I think is against the constitution.  It's a thorny issue that requires Congress to act...

The Senate passed a bill - with bipartisan support, no less - that was an effort to fix this.  It's not a great bill, but it's something and that's better than nothing.  It is believed that the current House has more than enough votes to pass this bill, and Obama has said he would sign it in a flash.  The House leadership has declined to take up the Senate bill and bring it to a vote, has declined to offer a competing bill, and has (lately) threatened to shut down the Government (again) if anyone tries to do anything about this vacuum of their creation.

The executive action taken by Obama is, basically, to shield from deportation about 4 million illegals with legal family ties here, in addition to the 1.5 million currently shielded by DACA.  Those to be shielded are required to register themselves, and start paying taxes, or they will still face deportation.  Meanwhile, we can carry on deporting the balance of the illegal population, about 5.5 million, and that gives us a window of about 14 years before we have to start slowing down in order to address the names on Obama's protected list.  If the House doesn't like that timetable, they can authorize more funding for deportations to speed it up.

Yes, this is a more expanded executive action on immigration than anything undertaken before.  But it's on the same principles exactly as executive orders issued by Reagan and Bush Sr.  Currently, the problem is larger, hence the scale of the effect of the executive order.  The freak-out is entirely political, entirely unjustified and entirely craven.  Which is why it's being led by Rafael Cruz.

We need to frame this.  It's the most reasonable, balanced political post I've ever seen here.

[Limey]

PS  There's zero amnesty in this.  It was Reagan who gave illegals amnesty.  Obama is basically saying that deportations should focus on those who have no immediate family members with legal status, and leave those with such ties in place until a permanent fix can be made (by Congress).

All talk of amnesty is dogshit designed to rile the right wing base, ironically.

[Limey]

We need to frame this.  It's the most reasonable, balanced political post I've ever seen here.

Fuck you, commie!

[Bench]

* As a legal immigrant, I have no issue with the term "illegal immigrant", and think people who try to change the term are missing the point and not helping.  Most entered legally, but they're now here illegally, hence "illegal".

"Illegal immigrant" is a term that adequately describes a specific status.  But referring to people with that particular status generally as "illegals" strikes me as intended by a particular segment of political society to dehumanize that group of people.  

Other than that very minor quibble, well put.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

I'm concerned how this effects illegal couples who have had fertility issues.

[Limey]

I'm concerned how this effects illegal couples who have had fertility issues.

Easy.  Congress passes its pending federal "personhood" statute and...poof...IVF becomes illegal.  Problem solved.

[subnuclear]

Fear of deportation is a big deal even if it doesn't happen very often. Almost, every other part of citizenship doesn't matter to most immigrants. Being told they won't be deported is 90% of amnesty.

If you believe that the illegal immigration pool won't refill after this, then I guess it is no big deal and is probably a good thing.

If you think it will eventually it will refill and there is nothing we can do to stop it, then I guess we are going to keep doing this.

Most Americans, I think, would like an immigration system like Canada's which is both generous and responsive to labor markets, but Canada has a much easier time controlling who comes and goes. For America to achieve that level of control would require tracking people with temporary visas, electronic databases of employment status (e-verify) and a better effort of controlling the more porous parts of the border. The political donor class hates all that and it would take years and years to get them through the court. You would have to do it without triggering mass deportations, too. Obama would be the best person to get it started, but I guess he is resigned to thinking its no big deal or that we are helpless to stop it.

[Limey]

Obama would be the best person to get it started, but I guess he is resigned to thinking its no big deal or that we are helpless to stop it.

Seriously?  The problem with immigration is that Obama has done nothing?

W. tried to pass immigration reform in 2007.  He gave a prime time speech on the subject (which was actually carried by the networks).  The bill died in the Senate when it was filibustered by his own party.

At the urging of President Bush, the bill was brought back for discussion in the Senate as bill S. 1639 on June 25.[6] On June 26, a motion to proceed passed the Senate, by a margin of 64-35 (under Senate rules it needed 60 votes).[7] A number of amendments to the bill were considered and rejected. On June 28, the bill failed to get the 60 votes necessary to end debate. The final cloture vote lost 46-53.[8] This effectively ended its chances, and President Bush said he was disappointed at Congress's failure to act on the issue.

Only Congress has the power to make law.  They made one (in the Senate) and it has languished, untouched, in the House for two years.  Obama said he will sign this bill, but Republicans won't bring it to the floor for debate, let alone a vote.  The House has not had a single hearing on immigration.  They have no intention of doing anything on the subject.  How is Obama supposed to get lawmakers, who refuse to make law, get off their arses and do their jobs?

[Mr. Happy]

There are an estimated 11 million illegal* immigrants in the U.S.  Congress funds deportations to the point that about 400,000 get sent back annually, which is the highest rate in modern times.  So, at that rate, assuming no new entrants (illegal immigration is estimated to be a net zero currently), we'll get around to deporting all the current illegals in 27.5 years.

* As a legal immigrant, I have no issue with the term "illegal immigrant", and think people who try to change the term are missing the point and not helping.  Most entered legally, but they're now here illegally, hence "illegal".


Anyway, a large number of those illegals have legal spouses and/or children born here (and thus citizens).  To enforce the rule of law would mean breaking up those families, or deporting legal citizens along with their illegal relatives, which I think is against the constitution.  It's a thorny issue that requires Congress to act...

The Senate passed a bill - with bipartisan support, no less - that was an effort to fix this.  It's not a great bill, but it's something and that's better than nothing.  It is believed that the current House has more than enough votes to pass this bill, and Obama has said he would sign it in a flash.  The House leadership has declined to take up the Senate bill and bring it to a vote, has declined to offer a competing bill, and has (lately) threatened to shut down the Government (again) if anyone tries to do anything about this vacuum of their creation.

The executive action taken by Obama is, basically, to shield from deportation about 4 million illegals with legal family ties here, in addition to the 1.5 million currently shielded by DACA.  Those to be shielded are required to register themselves, and start paying taxes, or they will still face deportation.  Meanwhile, we can carry on deporting the balance of the illegal population, about 5.5 million, and that gives us a window of about 14 years before we have to start slowing down in order to address the names on Obama's protected list.  If the House doesn't like that timetable, they can authorize more funding for deportations to speed it up.

Yes, this is a more expanded executive action on immigration than anything undertaken before.  But it's on the same principles exactly as executive orders issued by Reagan and Bush Sr.  Currently, the problem is larger, hence the scale of the effect of the executive order.  The freak-out is entirely political, entirely unjustified and entirely craven.  Which is why it's being led by Rafael Cruz.

Believe it or not, I actually agree with Limey on this one. It was a very balanced approach. As a right wing conservative, I don't share the indignation on this one.

[subnuclear]

Obama, W and congress would only pass a restrictions bill with the amnesty (or non-deportation) up front. The restrictions will take a long time to get through court and they need an administration willing to walk it through. If you give the amnesty (or non-deportation) up front, no one will follow up with the restrictions which is just an amnesty.

[Limey]

Obama, W and congress would only pass a restrictions bill with the amnesty (or non-deportation) up front. The restrictions will take a long time to get through court and they need an administration willing to walk it through. If you give the amnesty (or non-deportation) up front, no one will follow up with the restrictions which is just an amnesty.

As part of it's can-kicking exercise on the Senate bill, the House said it wanted to break it down into its component parts and pass them individually.  This would mean separating any amnesty provisions from the numerous border-securing provisions.  The Senate and Obama said "go ahead".  Since that time, it's been crickets.

Technically, you're right that it's "Congress" that's holding this up.  In reality, it's House Republicans being puppet-mastered by Ted Cruz.

[subnuclear]

Just because Ted Cruz is an ass, doesn't mean the Democrats have good motives or that Obama needed to do anything on this issue.

[Nate Colbert]

Just because Ted Cruz is an ass...

And who says the right and the left can never agree on anything.

[Ron Brand]

...or that Obama needed to do anything on this issue.

Yeah, because doing nothing is the right thing to do.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Yeah, because doing nothing is the right thing to do.

Sometimes, not necessarily in this case. Thus the axiom: sometimes the best action is no action. And doing something, anything, isn't always the best thing to do. I do think it is a step in the right direction, though not as much of a step as a stumble. I think the government has still done nothing to quell the tide. We US Americans are so full of ourselves whether we think this solves a problem or not. Just wait 18 years and a similar act will be repeated by Chelsea or George P. as their colleagues across the aisle feign indignation. And, hopefully, we'll still get up and live our lives the same way we always have, only with better technology and cuter kittens.