Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston





Thursday, November 20, 2014

President Obama's Deferred Action Program

Cartoon found via Jobsanger

President Obama:

"Mass amnesty would be unfair. Mass deportation would be both impossible and contrary to our character," [President Obama] said. "What I’m describing is accountability – a commonsense, middle ground approach: If you meet the criteria, you can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. If you’re a criminal, you’ll be deported. If you plan to enter the U.S. illegally, your chances of getting caught and sent back just went up."

Talking Points Memo:

The cornerstone of Obama's executive action is a new "deferred action" program to authorize undocumented parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents temporarily live and work in the country, as long as they've resided here for at least 5 years and can show that their child was born before the date of Obama's announcement. 

This huge action covers more than 4 million people. Separately, Obama will expand his 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which currently covers people born after 1981 who came to the country before June 15, 2007 — the expanded program will scrap the age cap and move the cutoff date to January 1, 2010. 

It's expected to cover some 270,000 new so-called DREAMers. Despite intense lobbying by immigrant-rights groups, the action will not cover parents of DREAMers, or DACA beneficiaries. A senior administration official said that after an exhaustive review of the White House's legal options, "we made a determination that the law essentially did not support that. ... By executive action he can only do so much."

All You Need To Know About Obama's Executive Action To Legalize 5 Million

 The TeaPublican Party reacts:

We didn't do squat on immigration and Obummer did!!!!!!!!!!

Charlie Pierce:

"There will be time in the coming days to talk about the politics, and the process, and about what is very likely to be a staggering overreaction by the president's political opponents. But, for now, when I saw the video of the people who were most directly affected by the president's actions, the people with a glimmer of hope in their eyes, the people waving the little flags a little more vigorously, I knew that the president had the moral and historical high ground on this issue. I saw my grandmother among them, come to America and a job folding sheets for the swells, first in Boston and then in Worcester. The heart of the experience is the same. The hope is the same. And the rest is all for later."


dmarks said...

Good enough; pretty close to what I have wanted for years. Pat Buchanan is having a conniption over this... all the more reason to support it.

Ducky's here said...

I think this excerpt from a blog post indicates the likelihood of any right wing compromise:

XX, I TOTALLY understand what you mean. I even just lost XXXXXXX’s friendship forever by emailing him back just now that I didn’t hate the plan as much as I’d thought I would… until I listened to the truth on FOX and hate it more now!

Don't it drag on. What would we do without Fox.
We've known for some time that there is no way to compromise with these people. Maybe Obama's figured that out

(O)CT(O)PUS said...

In some respects, the current state of our body politic is akin to a troubled marriage. Borrowing a metaphor and methodology from marriage counseling, there are rules of engagement, i.e. how to have a fair fight:

Avoid character assassination (never hit below the belt);
Argue only the current impasse (never dredge up ancient history);
Never let arguments fester (keep them timely and relevant);
Anger should be proportional to the issue;
A constructive argument means leaving your partner’s dignity intact;
If your goal is to destroy your partner, you will destroy the relationship.

If you compare the commenting styles of various blogging communities, you can discern (metaphorically speaking) which marriages are troubled versus which ones are broken. Among the Cringe Fringe, posted topics are rarely discussed. By default, the comment threads beneath virtually every topic devolve into character assassination, invective, off-topic rants, and demonizing. Conversing with the Fringe is akin to a bad marriage with an abusive spouse. This is why I refuse to converse with these people. Pointless!

In contrast, we have friends of various persuasions who visit this forum and engage us in conversation. What makes their motives different from the Fringe? We share a mutual interest in wanting to fix this troubled marriage called “Democracy,” not break it. Compare discussion threads: Although sometimes heated, ours are far more constructive than destructive and rarely degenerate into the kinds of constant antagonism that characterize the Fringe.

The topic of immigration reform offers a paradigm glimpse into a troubled marriage between partisans. A Republican bill (the Marco Rubio plan) is acceptable to both parties. Yet, Speaker Boehner and the Tea Party Fringe refuse to consider it. Threats of litigation and/or impeachment are examples of disproportionate anger that poison the well. Uncompromising attitudes that seek to “destroy” the president undermine this marriage of government. After six years of brinksmanship, we deserve better.

So which will it be: Marriage counseling or divorce?

Dolores V. said...

One president declares war on the wrong country, killing 100,000+, and he’s lauded. The next president allows American children to continue living with their parents and he’s the lawless one?

Wait, what are family values again?

dmarks said...

Dolores: Didn't happen. Besides, it has nothing to do with immigration. One can make a case for this President's policies without making false statements about another President as you have.

Anonymous said...

To say Republicans have done it (presidential decrees) so it should not be attacked when a Democrat does it diverts from the fact that Congress should be doing it. This is not a law and can be rescinded the day Obama leaves office; that's why only Congressional action (law) will bring stability, even if you disagree with what a Republican Congress will make law about the issue. The worst thing that can happen, is for millions to file for Obama's offer, get accepted, and then be reversed by Republicans 3 years from now. Then, of course, the government will have all the information (names, addresses, etc.) they need to mass deport.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Anon, I don't think anyone is saying President Obama's speech on deferring deportation shouldn't be criticized.

What, I think, is being said is that when other presidents have acted on immigration because Congress did not, the opposing party did not predict blood in the streets, anarchy, law suits, and impeachment.

The reaction from the GOP has been deranged. Where is their proportionality on this? It is pretty apparent to liberals that it's not just Mr. Obama's proposal for immigration reform that ignites the TeaPublicans, but ANYTHING this president does. Even to the point of their losing their minds over a tan suit.

Dave Miller said...

Anon... the situation you bring up is indeed a number. Whether Latinos step up and register is hard to say. Many come from a background that defaults to distrust of government.

One thing I am seeing are activists from the Latino community urging people to indeed sign up.

We will see how this plays out. One thing is certain, every single presidential candidate in 2016 will be asked where they stand on this issue.

Since the GOP will struggle to win the White House without the latino vote, it will interesting to see how they answer, or dodge the coming question.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Andy Borowitz gets it:

"In a sharp Republican rebuke to President Obama’s proposed actions on immigration, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell accused the President, on Thursday night, of “flagrantly treating immigrants like human beings, in clear defiance of the wishes of Congress.”

McConnell was brutal in his assessment of the President’s speech on immigration, blasting him for “eliminating the fear of deportation, which is the great engine of the American economy.”

“Fear is what keeps immigrants working so hard and so fast and so cheap,” McConnell said. “Remove the fear of deportation, and what will immigrants become? Lazy Americans.”

In a dire warning to the President, McConnell said, “If Mr. Obama thinks that, with the stroke of a pen, he can destroy the work ethic of millions of terrified immigrants, he’s in for the fight of his life.”

He added that Obama’s comments about deporting felons were “deeply offensive” to political donors."

dmarks said...

"Then, of course, the government will have all the information (names, addresses, etc.) they need to mass deport."

The sight of the modern version of the old German cattle-cars used to deport them would make for quite a media circus. And perhaps a "third rail" that many might bluster about but few might actually touch.

Ducky's here said...

Dave, maybe you understand this dilemma.

The action to stop deportation is temporary. Now anyone signing on for a work permit is giving the government their information and frankly, taking a risk that this will lead to permanent status.

Given the approaching Republican majority, how many are likely to take the chance?

Dave Miller said...

Duck... we have seen about a 60% rate of signing up for the dreamers... 60% of 4 million is still a lot of folks, if they only get to that percentage.

But imagine how this plays out if the GOP says, after folks sign up, that they will use the list for deportations...

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't put mass deportations out of the mix, especially when these loons have majority in both houses. I have no faith that they will find sanity any time soon.