PLANK JUNE 15, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
This morning brought the biggest immigration news of Barack Obama’s presidency: Effective immediately, hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children will be granted relief from the threat of deportation and will be able to obtain work authorization. To quote Joe Biden, this is a big f-ing deal.
Immigration reform advocates, whose mounting discontent over the administration’s policy dysfunction has become a serious political dilemma for the White House, are ecstatic. Marshall Fitz, an immigration expert at the Center for American Progress, called it “huge, beyond big” and said “it’s the biggest thing that we could have possibly hoped for.” That sentiment was widely echoed: America’s Voice, a leading reform advocacy group, sent out a blast email hailing “the biggest news on immigration in 25 years,” and advocates are planning celebrations at the White House later today.
Why are advocates so excited? Because this is the most important reform the White House can make without going to a deadlocked Congress for new legislation. With Republicans blocking even the most trivial legislation, no one has any realistic hope for a comprehensive immigration reform law in the near future. Even the DREAM Act, which passed the Democratic-controlled House in late 2010, was blocked by a minority in the Senate (55 votes in its favor were not enough).
But this policy will provide relief to so-called DREAMers: people who were brought to the United States at a young age; who count America as their home country; who, though here illegally, are not here as a result of intentionally breaking the law. They will now be able to come forward and apply for deferred action, which will grant them relief from deportation for two years. They’ll also be able to apply for work authorization, so they can support themselves as well. The policy may affect as many as one million undocumented immigrants who would have been eligible for the DREAM Act. After the two years are up, they can reapply for an extension of those benefits.
An announcement from the Department of Homeland Security outlines just who is eligible for this relief. Applicants must have come to the U.S. before turning 16; they must not be older than 30; they must have continuously resided here for five years; they cannot have committed a felony, serious misdemeanor, or multiple misdemeanors; and they must be in school, have graduated high school, obtained a GED, or be an honorably discharged veteran. In other words: This is not a blanket policy for anyone who arrived here as a child—applicants must demonstrate some merit. Nor, as Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano emphasized this morning on a press call, is this “amnesty.” The policy does not provide a path to citizenship or legal permanent resident status. “It is not immunity; it is not amnesty,” she said. “It is an exercise of discretion.” Immigration policy, she argued, is “not designed to remove productive young people” to countries they don’t know.
And while earlier moves by the administration on immigration have brought disappointment, this policy could actually mean relief for hundreds of thousands who deserve it. First, the directive is written in clear, strong language—and it appears to actually be more of a directive than a “recommendation.” In the past, discretion has been, well, discretionary, and non-compliance among field-level immigration officers has hampered attempts by headquarters to change enforcement. This time, there seems to be a firmer, more mandate-like approach from the leadership. (Though, to be sure, people will be watching closely to make sure the policy is implemented.)
Second, this is an affirmative process: Anyone, including those who have never been subject to enforcement action, can come forward and apply for these benefits. Prosecutorial discretion, as I have documented, is something that people who are already in the midst of enforcement actions request of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—the agency responsible for enforcing the law. But this process will be handled by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is the agency that handles benefits, not enforcement. The culture and mentality are different, and the affirmative nature of the process means that the emphasis will be on granting these benefits whenever possible, to whoever comes forward.
There is much more to say about this, and I’ll have more commentary in the days to come—and perhaps later today, if the President makes more news in his remarks at 1:15. I haven’t even addressed the possible electoral implications of the move (a question I’ll leave to TNR’s in-house campaign whizzes). But from a policy angle, and from a humanitarian angle, today’s news is truly monumental. As David Leopold, former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, told me this morning, “The president has used his authority to stop the deportation of promising young DREAMers while giving Congress space to fix the system.” It’s a bold move—one that has already drawn a sharp response from many Republicans, and which will doubtlessly be controversial. But for nearly a million young people who call this country home, today’s news means something much more fundamental: relief from the nightmare of deportation and the chance to earn a living without hiding in the shadows.
32 comments
Gee, and I'm sure that this has nothing to do with Romney and Obama both addressing the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials in Florida next week on the 21st and 22nd respectively. Nope, nothin'.
- dlevin23
June 15, 2012 at 1:24pm
Oh - politicians acting political; who'd a thunk it. Nevertheless it is the right thing to do, absent Congressional passage of The Dream Act - which, back in the halcyon days on sanity, had bipartisan support. People attacking Obama for not going to Congress with this issue make me laugh. Plus, CNN just treated us to interviews with Sheriff Arpaio, who would have arrested my grandparents on suspicion of not looking right, and demanding their papers.
- Sophia
June 15, 2012 at 2:39pm
When "playing politics" actually provokes a politician to do the right thing, I'm all for "playing politics."
- cspencef
June 15, 2012 at 3:11pm
I can't wait for the screams of all those Republicans in protest against this. And yet, those same Republicans are supposedly "courting the Hispanic vote". It's about time Obama gave the Republicans a serious paradox to have to deal with. Ideally, it's almost a no-brainer -- accept that productive, well-trained, well-educated children of illegal immigrants deserve a chance to continue their success. But in the Republican Win-Lose world-view these are criminals stealing jobs from "real" Americans who should be deported as soon as they're identified. Yet they still want Hispanic votes. What to do, what to do.
- AllanL5
June 15, 2012 at 4:18pm
Will these Anchor babies be allowed to request asylum or citezship for their parents? These young children have done nothing wrong and they should be able to have their parents with them. There has to be a plan to protect their parents, otherwise why would they come forward and jepordize that situation?
- CRS9TNR
June 15, 2012 at 5:31pm
Congratulations to BHO. He has done the right thing. It is a magnificent winner. More actions like this and he will be re-elected. Mabel Tov all around.
- JAIMECHUCH
June 15, 2012 at 6:27pm
Now we need a big action to help the 50% Black youth unemployed. Pleaaaaaase.
- JAIMECHUCH
June 15, 2012 at 6:30pm
Jaimechuch's comment would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. African-American youth unemployment is over 40% and they've just been given 800,000 to 1,000,000 no-holds-barred competitors (as-if the status quo wasn't hard enough). I wonder how many people praising this action have ever looked at the research as to the effect of illegal immigration on African-American unemployment. I'd ask them to before opining further. Is there any other issue which turns liberals turn into the Tea Party - you know, no logic, no facts, just slogans and righteousness? Is there another major issue where liberals agree wholeheartedly with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce? Yes, as Sophia notes, the DREAM Act had bipartisan support - until Louis Guitierrez bloated it beyond recognition and made Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins get skittish. This is very different from that original DREAM Act, which required either military service or a decent education in exchange for residency. Sophia, I'm about to make you laugh - when I attacked George W. Bush for bypassing Congress, I meant it. But the really funny part - I thought my fellow liberals meant it too.
- Lymon1
June 15, 2012 at 6:49pm
CRS9TNR, this applies only to young adults who do not need their parents living here. And if, in the long term future there is a path to citizenship you seem to have little understanding of just how difficult it is to get parents of legal immigrants US citizenship. I cannot even get a tourist visa for my in laws to visit here and no way in hell will they be staying here.
- blackton
June 15, 2012 at 9:36pm
Be very worried when a president tells you he is going to stop enforcing laws in order to facilitate that which he wants done. Here, President Obama is saying he's going to stop deporting younger immigrants who are here illegally IF they have no criminal record. Next up, a president might tell you he's going to stop enforcing Roe V. Wade. We should all be very upset by this. Not by the intentions, but by the means. Selective enforcement of laws is a very, very bad thing.
- seattleeng
June 15, 2012 at 11:29pm
Don't know enough about immigration policy to say whether or not this is a good idea, but if it represents the campaign going all-in on a Rust Belt/Southwest Combo Pack and (thank the Lord) disposing of fantasies about North Carolina and (probably) Virginia, I think it works well. Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania are each increasingly looking good (PA in part because of the boost fracking is giving the manufacturing economy---go figure). The immigration initiative should lock up New Mexico and meaningfully move the undecided needle in Nevada, Colorado and maybe even Arizona. But even absent Arizona and fatalistically viewing Florida, Iowa and Wisconsin (the best possibility of the last three), then he's at exactly 270 and re-elected. Generously toss in Wisconsin (maybe after a Big Labor initiative like card-check, or something) and he pulls away. Well played, TeamBama, well played.
- SteveJudd
June 15, 2012 at 11:56pm
Obama's been trying for a couple years to get Republicans in Congress to help him with immigration reform, but they had signed a pledge saying they wouldn't help him with anything (real patriots, they). And they've kept their word. This may cost the GOP in November. But all I can say to Republicans is live with it. There's a thin line between stubbornness and stupidity. I hope Team Obama comes up with ways for the president to use executive orders in other areas besides immigration. Republicans don't care what happens to America. Somebody in our leadership has to. If that somebody is the president, so be it.
- magboy47.
June 16, 2012 at 1:30am
Magboy, remember, these tactics you so adore now will be used increasingly by future presidents. And you can be certain they will be used for things you and I detest. It is convenient intellectually for you to brand the other side as lunatics that must be stopped. But that isn't how a society works. And tools such as this are bad for the country. Whether or not the republicans are stubborn is irrelevant. Obama is saying he will refuse to enforce a law that is on the books purely because he wants the votes. This is very, very bad precedence no matter how you slice it. Politics is always about getting things DONE in the face of incredible adversity and opposition, not whining 24x7 how hard it is. Today's climate is no better or worse that it has always been. Leading is about getting those across the table from you to meet you part way. Clinton and Reagan were masters at it, each going against principles many times to pick up something larger that they wanted (eg Reagan raised taxes, Clinton cut taxes). That is how leaders operate.
- seattleeng
June 16, 2012 at 3:32am
seattle, Dick Cheney and G.W. Bush were the ones who were obsessed with building an imperial presidency, and they succeeded. I knew if a Democrat ever got back in the Oval Office that Republicans would regret doing that. Be careful what you wish for. And today's climate is much worse than it's ever been. Never before has an American political party signed a pledge saying that it will not cooperate in any way with an opposition president. And never before has a party said publicly that its only goal is to get a president out of office. Republicans are in link-step in much the same way that the Bolsheviks and the Nazis were. Jeb Bush criticized the extremism of his party this week, and Grover Norquist, who wants to starve the U.S. government into non-existence, tore into him. Bush backed up so fast that he almost tripped over his own feet. The real danger in America is not Obama's executive power, which Cheney and Bush dramatically increased, but an increasingly radical political party that has the power that the GOP still does.
- magboy47.
June 16, 2012 at 11:14am
Lock-step, not link-step.
- magboy47.
June 16, 2012 at 11:26am
Magboy, if you are going to assert, you should give examples. 1. What is the biggest example you can cite of Bush's imperialist presidency? 2. Why is the climate today worse than ever? By what metric? Yes, it's bad. But bad is the norm. 3. Do you really think that dems were FOR keeping repubs in office in 2004 and 2008? Don't be such a child. You don't remember the "drain the swamp" and "Bush is worst president ever"comments from Pelosi et al? You need to realize this is politics. Your problem here is you are trying to assert this is the worst it's ever been AND THUS it's OK to throw laws and procedures out the window. Assume for a minute what is happening is fairly normal. If that is the case, is it reasonable to take extraordinary steps and throw laws and procedures out the window?
- seattleeng
June 16, 2012 at 1:34pm
Seattle - a quick list of behaviors of the Bush admin that support the imperial presidency claims: 1. Declining to presecute Karen Ryan after the GAO declared her actions, that the Bush WH had paid for company for, were illegal. 2. See also newspaper columnists, bribing thereof 3. Illegal wiretapping 4. Declaring that if the Patriot Act was not renewed, he'd enforce it's provisions anyway, even without current law to support this 5. Investigations into Gauntanamo and Abu Ghraib (see Taguba, Crawford) that identified government officials as having violated statues that mandate prosecution for their violation. Still waiting to hear back on that one. And try not to confuse the situation by saying "well, neither did Obama".
- Nari224
June 16, 2012 at 2:53pm
Ooh, just thought of another one - declining to notify local law enforcement agencies after shooting someone in the face! That would seem to avoid those pesky drug & alcohol tests the rest of us might expect.
- Nari224
June 16, 2012 at 3:06pm
seattle, Bush also diverted funds secretly and illegally from the Afghan War to the Iraq War. But illegal wiretapping was the big one. Nari224 mentioned it. And then Bush lied to the FBI Director and said he was not wiretapping without warrants. That lie in itself is a full felony. FBI Director Robert Mueller verified that Bush lied to him. When Mueller found out, he was appalled. Presidents cannot legally lie to heads of intelligence when our nation's defense is involved. Between Nari and me, is that enough for ya? And there's more. Bush was one of the biggest criminal presidents in U.S. history. He and Cheney's arrogance was Napoleonesque. You and Fox News are out of touch, seattle.
- magboy47.
June 16, 2012 at 4:13pm
This news just in. American Indians (also known as "native Americans" and if you speak with a Canadian accent "aboriginal peoples") have just decided to "grandfather and grandmother and grand-cross-gender in" everyone who immigrated to the United States after 1492 and allow them to apply for citizenship. If you wish to apply, report to the nearest Indian casino or fireworks stand.
- skahn
June 16, 2012 at 4:43pm
Nari and Magboy, these are your greatest examples of evidence that Bush was an imperialistic president? Are you kidding? Nari, #1 on your list is Karen Ryan? In response to that, 99.999% of American's would say "who?" Since you both bring up wiretapping, let's look the facts 1) The taps involved calls where at least one party was outside of the US. Does anyone in this world believe a call to another country is not monitored by at least one of the governments? Seriously? You call from the US to China and you expect it to be private? If so, you are simpleton. 2) Congress authorized most all aspects of the program beginning in 2008. If it was so terrible, why did they do it? 3) In 2011, Obama signed a bill that authorized most all key elements of the Patriot act and took the wiretapping aspects even further. 4) Obama promised more oversight over the wiretaps, but nothing in 2008 or 2011 laws delivered such 5) Obama argued for even TIGHTER secrecy over wiretap rules and procedures in the case of Al Haramain. 6) Much has been written (from the left and right) that Obama has taken this even further than Bush. This is seriously about the weakest example you could cite if you are trying to argue Bush is being an imperialist. My point is that executive power is creeping. What one president does, the next president will do AND take it even further. And wiretapping really underscores my point. If Obama decides he will refuse to enforce certain laws you don't like, what will you do when the next president refuses to enforce laws you DO like? What will we do when the equivalent of Jerry Fallwell decides he will do nothing if a rogue governor in a backwater state decides abortions are illegal? This is very, very bad for our country.
- seattleeng
June 16, 2012 at 5:53pm
Right, seattle, a president secretly misappropriating billions of dollars of Congressionally-authorized funds and lying to an intelligence head about an illegal activity is nothing. You're proof that Republicans have become radicalized. BTW, Obama didn't lie to Mueller about wiretapping like Bush did.
- magboy47.
June 16, 2012 at 7:53pm
Seattle - you seem unable to hold to a theme for more than one post. With regards to you question "What is the biggest example you can cite of Bush's imperialist presidency?" your entire reply in one big red herring. The obscurity, later legalization of or expected differences within a single party communist are all totally irrelevant to the legality of the actions at the time. Since you didn't dispute the factuality of any listed instance, I accept your concession that there might have been the odd case of presidential overreach during the Bush administration. Now once congress reauthorised the Patriot act (or authorized the wiretapping), it's obviously expected to he president to enforce/utilise it. If you don't understand why it's not OK for him to do this without legislation I can only recommend you take a remedial civics course. You do seem rather confused about the differences between the US & China and hence apparently fail to understand why different standards apply; said course may help with that as well. I included Karen Ryan (and anyone can see that the list is unlikely to be in ascending order of importance) as personally I find it one of the most egregious. In that, while I disagree with and am supported by people far better equipped than I in my opinion that the other items were illegal, I can at least understand perceive a non-pernicious motivation. In the case of outright bribing columnists and commissioning propaganda to masquerade as journalism, I can only see the most craven motivation. That no-one has heard of it is sufficient proof for me that there is no liberal bias, and it's a crying shame. The great irony here is that most people here (myself included) prop ably share your concern about this action of the president, for the reasons you list. However your handwringing might be a bit more convincing if you were able to suppress your blatant partisanship (howl about Obama, airily dismiss Bush) just for a few posts.
- Nari224
June 16, 2012 at 8:20pm
Argh. Posts on smart phone are rarely smart. Hopefully the point is still intelligible, if not the grammar
- Nari224
June 16, 2012 at 8:22pm
Magboy writes: "Right, seattle, a president secretly misappropriating billions of dollars of Congressionally-authorized funds and lying to an intelligence head about an illegal activity is nothing." Secretly misappropriating billions? Billions? As in 0.2% of the budget? Gads man, you need a few more zeros to get me to pay attention. Obama has a similar slush fund. All presidents do. Nari, themes evolve as we close issues and move on to others. Gonzales asserted the president had the authority to monitor a phone call where one party was OUTSIDE of the US and believed to be a member of AQ or affiliated with AQ. This impacts what percentage of the population? If I had to guess, it would be 0.0001% of the population. Anyone under 30 in the country illegally may now compete openly with citizens for jobs. That impacts what percentage of the population? If I had to guess, it'd be 15% of the population. The millions of US job Obama claims to have created on his watch will now disappear as this efforts ads that many more workers to the roles. Perspective, Nari, perspective.
- seattleeng
June 17, 2012 at 4:14am
Yes, allowing people who are already here and have all the signs of becoming productive members of society is comparable to torturing people to death or using wiretaps that require warrants without them. Watergate (from whence many modern restrictions on the president cane) only affected a trivial number of not only Americans but even democrats. Makes it OK? Executing an innocent person, whether legally or in a hail of police bullets, only directly affects an infinitesimal number of Americans. Makes it OK? You are either a nation ruled by law and care about it (and there is nothing expressly prohibiting Obama making this enforcement decision, unlike almost all of the Bush items I listed above) or you're not. The impact and "perspective" of the decision isn't important here. And lest we lose sight of this, the only attempt you've made to dispute the factuality of our assertions is Gonzales rather weak, and completely unsupported outside of the right wing echo chamber assertion, equivocation. Which is also not supported by congress' later changing of the law. Curious that this was done if it was unnecessary. And as you noted, there was no problems getting congress to amend the law afterwards. They just chose not to, and hence clearly broke it. And lest you be confused, themes aren't evolving here. I misspoke above and meant to say "topic", but your evolving (as nothing is actually getting closed) is actually just evasion. I will confess that I am rather confused by your equivocation here. You have previously intimated that you believe that laws are so inviolate that the mere lack of prosecutions regarding the mortgage collapse is, by itself, proof (not just evidence) that no laws were broken. Yet here you are all over the place attempting to justify (since you basically aren't disputing anything) breaking explicit laws on the basis of the impact. Cognitive Dissonance?
- Nari224
June 17, 2012 at 11:06am
The good news here is when the next republican president is up to bat, and he has the option of enforcing EPA laws or not, he can opt to not enforce them and put people to work pumping oil in some protected wetlands someplace. And you can think back to this precedent and revel in how good it felt at the time. And we can resume the discussion then.
- seattleeng
June 17, 2012 at 12:48pm
Is that your way of admitting to be a flagrantly partisan hack-job, Seattle? We accept.
You remind me of this shill on another board, who touted an article regarding the stimulus saying how egregious the waste and fraud was; even though the article was highlighting how the stimulus was showing less fraud, waste and abuse than any other government spending in history. At least you don't claim to be rational or some such.
- GSpinks
June 18, 2012 at 12:44pm
Yup, GSpinks, usually, when you legitimately criticize somebody on the Right, either proving their point(s) wrong or catching them in a lie, their response is to repeat their point(s) or their lie ad infinitum. I've seen this many times in the media. Darth Cheney was a master at it.
- magboy47.
June 18, 2012 at 12:57pm
First it was the unprecedented nature of the act, then it was the economic impact and now its a door for for Republican Presidents to not enforce EPA laws. Such a broad impact! However we only know too well what GOP Presidents not enforcing EPA laws looks like. It started in 2001, when the (guess who!) administration started running a scare campaign about clean air laws threatening blackouts and energy shortages, that 2001 was a record year for power plants notwithstanding. And they then proceeded to get stuck into the clean air act, opening up loopholes and in fact destroying years of effort (and millions of taxpayer dollar's value) in basically telling energy companies that the EPA was just in the process of settling with to "why don't you wait a bit". The list of Bush actions in this area is pretty long (but I'll just have to assume that you didn't hear about them either, similar to missing decades of "liberal" writings on the best solution to illegal immigration being developing Mexico's economy). Regan wasn't exactly an argent EPA enforcer either. Got any more opportunity for the next GOP President's overreach that this has offered him, but unfortunately been beaten to it by his predecessor? Oh, and I don't remember a similar outcry when Bush carved out exceptions to immigration law for Chinese in a similar fashion. While apparently not actually enforcing the immigration laws very well anywhere else, if Obamas considerably larger deportation record (in the face of a massive economic downturn and dropping illegal immigration) in, what, less than half the time?
- Nari224
June 18, 2012 at 3:46pm
Actually, perhaps I can paraphrase a little shorter. Seattle: We should be afraid, very afraid, when a Democrat does something like this. When a Republican does it? (shrug).
- Nari224
June 18, 2012 at 3:47pm
Lymon- Can you point to the Borjas article/study you are referring to? The one I am looking at -- Increasing the Supply of Labor Through Immigration, May 2004 -- posits that increases in immigration generally, whether legal or illegal, depressed wages among certain populations between 1980 and 2000 by between 4 and 8 percent. I have not taken the time to evaluate the methodology, but taking it at face value, it is not remotely the same thing as positing that illegal immigration has been a primary cause of a 40% unemployment rate among young blacks. Do you have a cite for that? Dhurtado
- NR143296
June 19, 2012 at 8:36pm