ADDED: The story at the top left, by Michael D. Shear, is "Obama, Daring Congress, Acts to Overhaul Immigration." That headline stresses the political interplay with Congress, not the reason for independent presidential action or the legal argument for it. The first words of the article are: "President Obama chose confrontation...."
The story that goes with the picture of Reagan is "Obama’s Immigration Action Has Precedents, but May Set a New One," by Julie Hirshfield Davis. This article addresses the legal argument, which looks at past presidential actions:
Although Mr. Obama is not breaking new ground by using executive powers to carve out a quasi-legal status for certain categories of unauthorized immigrants — the Republican Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush all did so — his decision will affect as many as five million immigrants, far more than the actions of those presidents.At that link, the photo of Reagan is uncropped, and the figure standing right behind Reagan is George H.W. Bush.
पोस्ट्स
६१ टिप्पण्या:
Presidents aren't supposed to be "daring" Congress in our system. Past presidents understood that.
And, for that matter, so did the media.
"Overhaul" means to take apart, inspect, and fix if necessary. This isn't what Obama is doing. The fact we pay attention to these NYT' lies is reason enough for them to do it, but the main reason, as always, is power. If the word "overhaul" can retain or gain power for the Left, by God that is the word they shall use.
"So Mr. president you haven't inspected the immigration clustermuck yet? You don't even know if it needs fixing according to your word choice, or are you lying again Barry?"
"Barry you said all the economic indicators show America doing better since you were first elected POTUS, yet inequality is up. Was your goal to make the rich richer so as to increase income inequality? Why did you claim you improved this measure if you now claim you do not like increasing income inequality? Barry, look me in the eye now, are you lying again?"
The libs cheering on Oblamo fail to realize there may an R in White House someday. And he may be more radical than the current occupant.
The child was bored so he broke the vase. Drama ensued and he was once again where he knew he belonged, at the very center of the universe, able to provoke the bit players around him to tears and fury whenever he wanted.
New precedents are like moral discoveries.
So the best they could do was come up with a photograph of Reagan...
signing a law...
duly passed by Congress?
"there may an R in White House someday"
Exactly. How stupid are they? Don't they realize they're setting a precedent for all presidents, not just Democratic ones?
The wisdom of Homer Simpson:
But I want it now
What's the time limit for legislation before the President uses a pen?
Good news is I can now replace all my legal assembly workers with fresh green carded immigrants.
Hispanics are split on the issue. Twenty years ago a factory I factory I used to run was raided by the INS. The complaint was filed by Hispanic U.S. citizen that wasn't hired for a job.
"So the best they could do..."
When you're doing propaganda you've got to work with what you've got. No matter how inconvenient.
The real (and eternal) question is, why is the New York Times doing propaganda? Especially on the front page?
As I understand it all those past Presidents did it with the co-operation of Congress.
Long live the King!
Ike, Reagan, and 41 did indeed issue EOs relating to immigration. They were executive interpretations of laws passed by Congress.
The immense difference this time is that it is an executive refutation of a law passed by Congress. Interpretations fall under the rubric of "faithfully execute" ... under Article II.
Given that the net support for this particular move amongst *Hispanics* is only about 6%, I suspect that Obama has miscalculated rather badly.
Please read this.
Reagan signed a law Congress passed giving amnesty to illegals. He did not act as a dictator, creating law, or refusing to enforce law. Bush acted in accord with the same law.
The numbers of affected immigrants was much smaller, about 1.5 million.
The result? Increased illegal immigration and fraud. Not a good precedent.
Obama is attempting a frightening power grab.
"How stupid are they?"
They simply look at Senator Graham, and his vanity fronting as "courage," to independently tell his caucus why they are barbarians too stupid to understand our amazingly great best-in-the-history-0f-the-world body of deliberation.
60 votes are needed for advancement if the GOP "controls" the senate, and 50 if Dems do, if Graham is to be given credit.
No matter to Graham if Bork was Borked and Wise Latinas, sexist Latinas too of course, waltz on through, we got Kennedy, and Graham just needs to feed his ego a study diet of "I am much more profound than my constituents who don't understand Our grand Senate traditions." Harry Reid is his friend. Really.
Think of it.
How stupid are they, to see what is before their eyes constantly.
Mitch McConnell hates you too.
Pat Roberts thinks, along with Johnny Mac, you are a racist moron.
Ted Cruz might be the only man in D.C. worth a prayer, or billion of 'em. Thank Texas the crapheels in the GOP didn't get their guy into office but instead Cruz crossed the rubicon.
That's just what liberals were saying to conservatives when W was issuing all of HIS executive orders - don't they know a Democratic president can do the exact same thing? Didn't exactly begin with Obama.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but, Didn't Reagan sign immigration legislation that was passed by both houses of congress - you know- the lawful way-- following constitutional process?
My wife is a legal immigrant. She played by the rules to come here. Eventually, she became a US citizen and worked for decades, paying taxes and contributing to society. She's now retired.
I guess she was a chump. She could've come here illegally and demanded free stuff.
HT, what executive orders signed by Bush were the most alarming?
"HT said...
That's just what liberals were saying to conservatives when W was issuing all of HIS executive orders - don't they know a Democratic president can do the exact same thing? Didn't exactly begin with Obama."
I believe you are confusing executive orders and signing statements. Two very different things.
Clinton: The nation has spoken. I got the message about the direction the country is moving.
Obama: The nation has spoken, and I need to get a message out they can understand, and also pick a fight with Congress.
HT: how convenient to forget that BOTH Reagan and Bush Sr. Did their executive action AFTER legislation was passed by Congress.
But, I get it, whatever works for this dictator and his butt sniffers like you to do whatever you want to do, damn the consequences, the law, and the division it creates.
Eisenhower, Reagan and Bush where acting based on Congressional legislation that compelled them to act.
Larry J said...
My wife is a legal immigrant. She played by the rules to come here. Eventually, she became a US citizen and worked for decades, paying taxes and contributing to society. She's now retired.
I guess she was a chump. She could've come here illegally and demanded free stuff.
Just guessing she would not have been happy or proud of doing it that way.
If we end all illegal immigration and jail or deport all those already here, who will serve as the nannies and maids for all the rich people, and who will pick fruit for slave wages for the produce farmers and who will work in the slaughterhouses and do other such miserable work for miserable pay?
pamwini, I probably needed to provide more detail to my comment in order to head off what I consider to be ignorant comments with repulsive name-calling. From the little I know about this process, I do not approve of it, I was just trying to provide some historical context. Let me add (further to the repulsive name in your email), I do not approve of the content of what Obama is doing either. I have definite ideas about immigration, I think there are solutions, but I admit, I have not dedicated the time to see if what I think could ever realistically fit into the current political situation we have now.
HT, what EO's are you referring to?
Name one.
A George Mason Univ. prof said on the radio yesterday that what Obama did was orders of magnitude bigger than the previous presidents and that those presidents did their EO in cooperation with the congress and the laws that were already coming down the pike. Typical Obama, if you can't govern in a classy accepted way, go and poke the other side in the eye and slap them in the face and do something so nasty that everybody will be wasting their time addressing that than the real issue.
It could be a perverse sort of fun to watch Slick Willie dance - like f. ex. his State of the Union speech while under impeachment proceedings.
There is no entertainment fun in Obama.
@Owen has it right.
If we end all illegal immigration and jail or deport all those already here, who will serve as the nannies and maids for all the rich people, and who will pick fruit for slave wages for the produce farmers and who will work in the slaughterhouses and do other such miserable work for miserable pay?
I don't think this is the place to ask that question.
The result? Increased illegal immigration and fraud. Not a good precedent.
Indeed. It was a well meant law, that didn't have the effect we had hoped. Time to try something different.
I have a family friend who has married a girl from Mexico. His mom was telling me all the hoops they had to jump through, even though they are legally already married! She can't come to the US till they jump through these hoops. They went ahead and got married, because apparently the hoops involved in an engagement are even more annoying and have to be repeated when you get married.
answer to all our problems...my wifes grandfather thought of this 50 years ago...shoot all Democrats. period. end of problem. I would have liked the old bastard.
The really weird thing is, we do have laws. We've even had reform. Isn't Reagan signing immigration reform in the photo?
So what has gotten us to the point where we need reform RIGHT NOW? What is broken, why, and how? Aren't those the important questions to ask?
While recognizing why conservatives and Mickey Kaus are upset, I will repeat what NotquiteBuckley said:
This is not an overhaul.
This is a stopgap. And next year we'll have the same problems and conflicting opinions about illegal immigration as this year.
There are two ways to do an overhaul.
One is a legal overhaul. Congress passes a broad set of legislation that revisits all aspects of immigration law. This didn't happen.
The other type of overhaul is administrative. The executive, in this case, could examine all of the facets of the current law, replace people who are administering it poorly, clarify rules, streamline bureaucratic procedures, respond to abuses, and increase the efficiency and fairness of the whole lasagna.
But this administration is incapable of that kind of overhaul, even it had any inclination to pursue it.
lgv said...
Hispanics are split on the issue. Twenty years ago a factory I factory I used to run was raided by the INS. The complaint was filed by Hispanic U.S. citizen that wasn't hired for a job.
My Uncle in Delano, CA used to rent to Saint Caesar Chavez, now the patron Saint of La Raza and the illegal immigrant Lobby.
Chavez was organizing the farm workers in CA. The Legal farm workers and he was dead set against illegal immigrants. Why?
Because the farmers used them to undercut the union and hurt his people. He understood the law of labor supply and demand.
Reagan the actor knew how to speak. Obama the Law School lecturer only knows how to lecture.
Two very different means of communicating.
Reagan's EO on immigration cam after Congress passed a law and they discovered that the law as passed split up some families. The EO went into place as a stopgap, with the support of Congress until they could solve the problem.
Article I Section 8 of the Constitution says that Congress shall: establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,
@ The Drill SGT:
Unfortunately, Chavez is dead and his farm workers union lost the fight, as have unions in general in America.
"Who will pick fruit for slave wages for the produce farmers and who will work in the slaughterhouses and do other such miserable work for miserable pay"
At least some of these jobs (e.g., slaughterhouses) used to pay well, before the labor markets were flooded with illegal immigrants.
Others did not, and were mostly done by guest or seasonal workers. Although many could probably be automated (and probably would be, if wages were high).
Perhaps a better question would be, "If the number of low-skilled jobs available in the USA is expected to decline due to globalization and automation, is it in our interests to admit millions of immigrants who will compete with citizens for the few jobs that are left?"
In any case, I expect that many low-skill jobs here will have to be subsidized by government (EITC or similar) if we're not going to have a huge, idle, dependent-on-welfare class.
Raising the minimum wage may be good politics, but it doesn't work so well when the labor performed is worth less than the price demanded for it. And while education or training may be the answer for some, but not everyone has the capacity to benefit from it.
In short, if we're going to look at the long view here, depressing the wages for low-skilled work further via massive immigration is not such a bargain, as it has huge external costs.
I seem to recall that Obama's response to the election was to demand that congress pass immigration reform by the end of the year, or he would act alone.
The election was less than three weeks ago. Indeed it was earlier this same month. So much for good faith. This is not politics as usual. This is political scorched earth.
I wonder how many of Obama's supporters back in the day thought this was what he meant when he was spouting his litany of "fix Washington" platitudes.
Silly me, I thought we already had a "path to citizenship." It even has a name: naturalization.
"who will serve as the nannies and maids for all the rich people, and who will pick fruit for slave wages for the produce farmers and who will work in the slaughterhouses and do other such miserable work for miserable pay?"
That's close to Bloomberg's argument for doing what Obama did last night. "Who will rake the sand traps ?"
Do you know why there are no legal dry wall installers ?
"Unfortunately, Chavez is dead and his farm workers union lost the fight, as have unions in general in America."
And you think this action will help ?
The next flood of illegals is watching this. If we closed the border and THEN allowed amnesty for the law abiding, as Republicans want to do, a lot will be solved.
Michael K: "Unfortunately, Chavez is dead and his farm workers union lost the fight, as have unions in general in America."
And you think this action will help?
To be fair to Cookie, I think people are misreading the sardonic intent of his original comment and follow-ups.
The next flood of illegals is watching this. If we closed the border and THEN allowed amnesty for the law abiding, as Republicans want to do, a lot will be solved.
Depends on what you mean by "Republicans". The base wants enforcement, always has. The GOP establishment absolutely does not want enforcement, never has. They only pretend to care about ordinary people's concerns about uncontrolled immigration at election time.
That the base will never stop letting itself be played on this issue is apparent from post-game commentators everywhere, who think that the Republicans want to act against Obama's overreach, and they're just trying to "play it smart" or some such nonsense.
Good grief. They're on the same team as Dear Leader. I heard Mitch McConnell yesterday expressing deep serious thoughtfully thoughtful brow-furrowing concernful concern about the terrible unfairness of O's diktat to all the patient applicants in the queue. Comedy gold. Yeah, Mitch, you're all tore up about that, I'm sure.
As NQUB says above, in a rare moment of lucidity, Mitch McConnell hates you too.
Cookie said: "... who will serve as the nannies and maids for all the rich people, and who will pick fruit for slave wages for the produce farmers and who will work in the slaughterhouses and do other such miserable work for miserable pay?"
Here's the deal. I don't give a fuck who will. I guarantee this: If the fruit was left to rot on the fucking vine bankrupting the ag corporations and the rich houses went uncleaned, lawns unmowed and children unwatched, Someone would figure out a way to get the crops in or find someone to do the job.
That's what I dispise about liberal thought. "OH, no one will be there to pick the grapes. I guess wine will no longer be available. No one will be there to slaughter hogs. Goodbye bacon."
Bullshit. A way will be found for the rich to continue being rich and the poor will be better for it.
Also if you are too good to do a menial job that is below your status? Fucking starve and make room on the planet for someone who is willing to work.
Zedediah Grimm: I don't give a fuck who will. I guarantee this: If the fruit was left to rot on the fucking vine bankrupting the ag corporations and the rich houses went uncleaned, lawns unmowed and children unwatched, Someone would figure out a way to get the crops in or find someone to do the job.
Again, I don't think Cookie is arguing here in favor of an imported serf class working under miserable conditions. (Whether he thinks we should allow millions more Third Worlders in and give them all living wages and free health, I do not know.)
That's what I dispise about liberal thought. "OH, no one will be there to pick the grapes. I guess wine will no longer be available. No one will be there to slaughter hogs. Goodbye bacon."
Bullshit. A way will be found for the rich to continue being rich and the poor will be better for it.
Well yeah, it would and we would. But why are you just picking on liberals here? That same "crops rotting in the fields, meat unslaughtered and unpacked, hotel beds unmade, OH MY GAWD TEH ECONOMY WILL CRASH AND WE WON'T BE ABLE TO COMPETE WITH CHINA AND INDIA IF WE DON'T IMPORT HALF THE THIRD WORLD!" bullshit is spewed out by "conservatives" at least as often as it is by liberals. They're not behind-hand with the tear-jerking "separated families! saintly hard working family values paragons cringing in the shadows!" propaganda, either.
So, the NYT exploits Reagan's image to manufacture equivalence. They are known to do this. Legislation is not a precedent for unilateral executive action.
Mr. Grimm obviously has no capacity to detect sarcasm: my point is, obviously, that illegal immigrants--as will any cohort who can be made to work for a pittance, as we all soon will be--serve the purposes of the wealthy.
As such, illegal immigrants will continue to be present in our country. All else is theater. The entire "crisis of illegal immigrants" is phony, ginned up by the wealthy who profit by them, as a means to deflect attention from the real culprits for our collapsing, rotting society: the wealthy.
"Who will pick fruit for slave wages for the produce farmers and who will work in the slaughterhouses and do other such miserable work for miserable pay"
How much money is "miserable pay" these days?
Employers today are breaking the law if they hire illegals.
I suppose Obama (and Bush before him) cannot imagine Mexican people doing roofing, carpentry, air conditioning, auto body and paint, drywall and painting, electrical work, or any other blue collar work, much less doing all the paperwork involved in running these businesses. Or so it would seem by the way they talk.
From the docile working class illegal point of view, this is one way for the government to get your information so they can round you up and ship you out later.
How will they prove five years of residence? Doing so admits breaking the law all those years.
Its all about this.
“These illegal aliens are willing to do the work that Americans will no longer do — namely, vote Democrat.”
https://www.bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnists/howie_carr/2014/11/carr_desperate_dems_change_their_tune
NYT said Obama was like Reagan, the amiable dunce.
How disrespectful!
"How much money is 'miserable pay. these days?"
Well, that may vary according to where one is located, but this article provides reason to assume it is what most working Americans today earn.
A takeaway quote:
"Thus, 'In 2014 … there is no state in the United States where a typical low-income worker can afford a two-bedroom apartment.'”
"Employers today are breaking the law if they hire illegals."
Heh. Has that ever stopped anyone before?
You can rent a two bedroom apartment in LR for under 400 dollars a month.
" bullshit is spewed out by "conservatives" at least as often as it is by liberals. "
Not true. If it was we would win more elections. The conservative wing of the GOP, which is in the hands of 2/3 libertarians and 1/3 social conservatives, is not the wing that spends a lifetime in Washington.
The people in Washington know that, if they don't at least pay lip service to the GOP voters back home, they might have to try find a job back there themselves. Fortunately, the big government brought to us by the left has opened a whole new world for lobbyists and the rejected politicians are working for those jobs if they lose an election.
Democrats, on the other hand, are fully in sync with the big government and have no conflict with its aims. Their only problem is with reality.
Michael K to me: " bullshit is spewed out by "conservatives" at least as often as it is by liberals."
Not true. If it was we would win more elections.
Yes, true. The bullshit in question was a particular class of bullshit (clearly spelled out) about immigration, which "conservatives" (note the scare quotes) most certainly do spew out at least as often as liberals.
The conservative wing of the GOP, which is in the hands of 2/3 libertarians and 1/3 social conservatives, is not the wing that spends a lifetime in Washington.
So what? Nothing to do with my point. The wing that spends its life in Washington, ya know, those scare quote conservatives, peddles the same amount of bullshit about immigration (and sometimes the exact same bullshit about immigration) as the Dems. And frankly, the non-scare quote conservatives - libertarians and social conservatives - are not exactly what I'd call sound on immigration, either. Which is what I was talking about, not what you're going on about here.
The problem isn't immigration, it's a separate state mentality.
Get rid of all social welfare programs, including Social Security and Medicare, and open the borders.
"Get rid of all social welfare programs, including Social Security and Medicare, and open the borders."
First, you can't do that.
Second, California passed Prop 187 in 1994 by 61% vote and a federal judge declared it unconstitutional and Gray Davis, the Democrat governor declined to appeal.
Prop 187 would simply limit what illegals could collect.
A person shall not receive any public social services until he or she has been verified as a United States citizen or as a lawfully admitted alien.
A person shall not receive any health care services from a publicly funded health care facility until he or she meets the requirements above.
A public elementary or secondary school shall not admit or permit the attendance of any child until he or she meets the requirements above.
By 1996, each school district shall verify the legal status of each child enrolled within the district and the legal status of each parent or guardian of each child.
Horrors !
Michael K to mccullough: "Get rid of all social welfare programs, including Social Security and Medicare, and open the borders."
First, you can't do that.
Second, California passed Prop 187 in 1994 by 61% vote and a federal judge declared it unconstitutional and Gray Davis, the Democrat governor declined to appeal.
Exactly.
It's almost like people think the problem with illegal immigration appeared out of nowhere yesterday and the last thirty years of slapped down citizen revolt and bad faith amnesty "fixes" never happened.
No get rid of Social Security, Medicare and all other social welfare programs for everyone.
Citizens don't get them either.
You can have open borders or a welfare state but you can't have both.
mccullough: No get rid of Social Security, Medicare and all other social welfare programs for everyone.
Citizens don't get them either.
You can have open borders or a welfare state but you can't have both.
Uh, we do have both, pretty much.
That you can't have both without inevitable disaster doesn't mean you can't have both until inevitable disaster.
Dude, the joint is so corrupt that the most minimal enforcement of immigration law has been stymied for decades, and nobody in D.C. gives a shit about of the people for the people. But you think mouthing libertardian bromides is some kind of genius slam dunk action plan.
Well, what are you waiting for? Hey, repeal the 19th Amendment and the birth-right citizenship interpretation of the 14th Amendment while you're at it. The cream of internet blowhards has assured us for years that this will make all our dreams come true, so I just can't figure out why they haven't been done yet. Where's the hold-up?
Idiot.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा