'Temporary Legal Status'

BedellBrave said:
Certainly the devil is in the details. If they still are considered illegal, I'm fine with this. If legal (which I'd be inclined to support - just not this way) then he is abusing his Executive action authority.

I'm all for immigration reform and on the surface I like what the President is saying. I don't like what he is doing though. What is so pressing that he couldn't have waited until 4 months into the new Congress to take action?
Click to expand...

Agreed all the way around. As to your last sentence, "elections have consequences" only when Obama's party wins.
 
I agree with ole Sav that is a great political move by Obama. I think the only two plays here for the pubs is to put an immigration bill on Obama's desk with amnesty in it. A true bipartisan bill if you will. Or just ignore it.
 
weso1 said:
I agree with ole Sav that is a great political move by Obama. I think the only two plays here for the pubs is to put an immigration bill on Obama's desk with amnesty in it. A true bipartisan bill if you will. Or just ignore it.
Click to expand...

You're right on the mark weso.

I think it is more raw politics than partisan, although the former spills into the latter. I don't know if Harry Reid was protecting Obama--as he claims he was--or simply protecting his members from having to take votes on bills the House sent over to the Senate, but come January, fielding the House's stuff will fall to McConnell and we'll see what he does. The House Republicans have concocted this internal rule to their operations that any bill that does not have a majority of votes of the Republican caucus can't go forward. That's really put Boehner in a bind.

The shoe is on the other foot to some extent now, because the Senate and House are of the same party and Obama has laid down the gauntlet for Congress to pass a reform bill and he has the veto and can force the action to some extent. He'll be demonized to a great extent by his opponents, but we'll have to see how that plays in the press and with the voting public. I think Obama is challenging Congress to hoist a banner on the issue. The thing I've noticed during the past two administrations is that the American people want action until they get action. Then it's "Crap. Socks and underwear for Christmas yet again."

There will be a partisan element to this, but I think the raw President v. Congress contest is the more interesting one. Of course, given the differences in political party control of those branches, there will be spillage.
 
I'm out of my depth when it comes to whether Obama's actions are Constitutional, but I thought this article was pretty interesting, especially this part:

Finally, it is worth noting that the the immigration laws covered by the president’s executive order may go against the original meaning of the Constitution. Under the original understanding, Congress did not have a general power to restrict immigration (though it did have power over naturalization). That may not matter to adherents of “living constitution” theories of legal interpretation. It also should not matter to those who believe that the Constitution generally means whatever Supreme Court precedent says it means. Immigration restrictions have been deemed permissible under longstanding precedent dating back to 1889.

But it should matter to those who consider themselves constitutional originalists, which includes many of the conservatives who have been most vehement in opposing Obama’s actions today. If you believe that the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with its original meaning, and that nonoriginalist Supreme Court decisions should be overruled or at least viewed with suspicion, then you should welcome the use of presidential discretion to cut back on enforcement of laws that themselves go against the original meaning.

 
acesfull86 said:
I'm out of my depth when it comes to whether Obama's actions are Constitutional, but I thought this article was pretty interesting, especially this part:

Finally, it is worth noting that the the immigration laws covered by the president’s executive order may go against the original meaning of the Constitution. Under the original understanding, Congress did not have a general power to restrict immigration (though it did have power over naturalization). That may not matter to adherents of “living constitution” theories of legal interpretation. It also should not matter to those who believe that the Constitution generally means whatever Supreme Court precedent says it means. Immigration restrictions have been deemed permissible under longstanding precedent dating back to 1889.

But it should matter to those who consider themselves constitutional originalists, which includes many of the conservatives who have been most vehement in opposing Obama’s actions today. If you believe that the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with its original meaning, and that nonoriginalist Supreme Court decisions should be overruled or at least viewed with suspicion, then you should welcome the use of presidential discretion to cut back on enforcement of laws that themselves go against the original meaning.
Click to expand...

Nice snippet. I think this shows the problem of originalism, because it will be tossed around on an issue-by-issue basis. I support the basic direction of what the President is trying to do, but all these executive orders we've been seeing over the past couple of decades are a terrible precedent.

Here's an article from our online news provider in Minnesota that's sums up my feelings fairly closely.

Link: http://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-...gration-maneuver-isn-t-how-it-s-supposed-work
 
Obama's actions, the non-action by Congress, the political chess matches aside........I think this country needs to be much more opening and welcome to immigrants, especially those who are high-skilled. There is as much economic literature suggesting immigrants boost the wages of native born Americans, or have little/no impact, as there is suggesting the opposite. The whole "they took er jerbs!" argument may not hold water. The stock of jobs isn't fixed, and if we're bringing in people who are innovative, entrepreneurial, and willing to work, they're going to contribute to economic growth, not drag it down. As to the argument that people are going to come here and live off welfare and gov't assistance, well I have a solution for that, but I don't think the left of center folks are going to like it one bit.
 
Add to that he fact that many immigrants do jobs that somehow most Americans believe are no "beneath them," (thinking farm work, meat processing, unskilled and semi-skilled work), we'd be up sh*t creek if someone didn't do those jobs.

Tough issue. There has to be some control to have an orderly entry into the country and, as you say, we just don't let people in to lounge around. It's all doable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top