U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
November 19, 2014 03:43 PM UTC

Obama's Immigration Executive Order and the GOP's Problem(s)

  • 29 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Obama Immigration Action

President Barack Obama is scheduled to speak to the nation tomorrow night to reveal his plan for an executive order to address the issue of illegal immigration. The move is expected to be made official during an event at a Nevada high school on Friday. As CNN reports:

Obama's prime-time address [on Thursday] will be followed Friday by an event in Las Vegas, sources tell CNN. While exact details of his announcement aren't yet public, the basic outline of the plan, as relayed by people familiar with its planning, includes deferring deportation for the parents of U.S. citizens, a move that would affect up to 3.5 million people.

"Everybody agrees that our immigration system is broken. Unfortunately, Washington has allowed the problem to fester for far too long," Obama said in a video posted on his Facebook page Wednesday. "And so what I'm going to be laying out is the things that I can do with my lawful authority as President to make the system work better, even as I continue to work with Congress to encourage them to get a bipartisan, comprehensive bill that can solve the entire problem."…

…The President declared in June he wouldn't wait for Congress to pass a comprehensive overhaul of the immigration system, initially saying he would announce changes by the end the summer. The decision was delayed until after the midterm elections, when the White House believed it wouldn't be caught up in campaign politics.

But Republicans are expressing deep anger at the anticipated move, saying unilateral action on immigration would forestall any legislative action.

Republicans are revving up the angry rhetoric machine, but they need to be careful how they respond to President Obama's executive order (EO). Every political journalist in the country knows this has been coming for some time, and the message has been clearly sent that President Obama's actions are a direct result of Republican inaction on the issue, so there's no room for Republicans to feign surprise at this point. The Obama administration has also made it clear that the President expects the GOP to move on this issue eventually; they have been up front about acknowledging that an EO should not be a substitute for Congressional legislation and should be replaced by a broader legislative change, which puts the ball squarely in the hands of Republicans once the order is signed.

While the President's EO is an important step for the immigration issue in general, in many ways this is also going to be a story of Republican inaction. As Jonathan Capehart explained in the Washington Post on Monday:

The introduction of a new report from American Bridge about Obama’s forthcoming executive action succinctly details what the president did over the course of a year to allow House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to move on the comprehensive immigration bill that passed the Senate with 68 votes in June 2013…

…If congressional Republicans don’t want Obama to take action on immigration, they should move on the comprehensive immigration reform bill sitting in the House. In the meantime, as I’ve written before, if the president is going to make people mad, he might as well do it to help people and let the GOP figure out what to do with the poisoned chalice of their own making.

Reagan and Bush Sr
Presidents Reagan, left, and Bush Sr. provide cover for Obama’s pending Executive Order.

President Obama is certainly making Republicans angry, even drawing out new threats of impeachment over the pending EO. But again, Republicans need to be careful not to go too far down the rhetoric hole, because railing on and on about the constitutionality of Obama's decision puts them at odds with history. Two other Presidents have acted alone on immigration reform: Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Republicans will argue that those actions took place under different circumstances, but that's just semantics; it's hard to call Obama out for something that was also done by two previous Republican Presidents. In fact, Executive Action providing discretionary relief from deportation has been used by every President since Eisenhower.

Furthermore, Republicans will have trouble trying to make the President's EO seem more nefarious than it is. Alicia Caldwell of The Associated Press does a good job in breaking down what Obama can and cannot do via Executive Order, which largely involves deferred action through clear policies of enforcement and resource allocation. Obama can't "change the law" on immigration any more than you can, and the Administration has worked for months — along with other partners — in laying out the facts for the media to counter ridiculous charges from Congressional Republicans that the President won't work with them on the issue. Don't believe us? Check out today's editorial in the Denver Post calling on Republicans to stop complaining and get to work on their own legislation.

There's no way around it for the GOP: When they take control of both the House and Senate in January, they can either move forward with immigration reform or not. There is nobody left for Republicans to blame if they don't take action themselves. The GOP painted themselves into a corner with inaction on immigration, and the only way out is to make their own footprints. Ultimately, if Republicans don't actually move on the issue, 2016 voters aren't going to care why they failed to act with their Congressional majority — as Yoda might say, there is only "do" or "do not."

 

Tweet
Share

Comments

29 thoughts on “Obama’s Immigration Executive Order and the GOP’s Problem(s)”

  1. In short, it could have been handled via normal legislative process if Boehner had been willing to bring it to a vote in the House, legislation already having passed in the Senate, so all GOTP hysteria surrounding any up and coming perfectly legal executive action in the absence of action in the House is nothing but hypocrisy.

    1. Congressional Republicans could have passed immigration legislation in 2005 and in 2011. It's not as if the existing Senate bill is the first time the issue has been undertaken.

      1. And Democrats could have passed it when they controlled both the Senate and the House as Obama promised.

        In as much as the Senate has hundreds of bills passed by the House that were not taken up in the Senate, it is just part of the process that there be bills passed by the Senate not taken up in the House.  That tends to be how things work when the House and Senate are controlled by different parties.

        1. In today's Wall Street Journal there is a story about the Federalist Society meeting in Washington, DC recently. One of the panels focused on the power of the President to issue an executive order on immigration. The conclusion of the Federalist Society – President Obama is well within in his executive prerogatives to issue such an order as was President George H. W. Bush and President Reagan. 

          1. R 36, Obama can issue an order, for example, declining to prosecute people who are in the country illegally.  You can make the argument that would be some type of prosecutorial discretion.

            To the extent there are laws that delineate who is entitled to get a work permit, Obama can't cause to be issued work permits if they are not authorized under existing law.

            The House starts the process for funding the government.  It can prohibit any funding of work permits for different categories of people. If the Congress wants to get personal, it can not fund transportation for the President and his staff within the US and it can not fund security for the President outside of the White House.

            Both sides have their levers and when you punch someone in the face it is usually wise to expect the other person to hit back.

        2. Democrats never really had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. For most of the short time they had an on-paper 60-vote majority, they had Senators who were sick and dying, unable to attend most sessions. But of course you know that, because we've told you that before. It's just a joke to you – or an exercise in partisan rhetoric.

        3. So we all agree that there have been years worth of opportunities to pass an immigration reform bill via the legislative process. President Obama's decision to do what he is legally allowed to do in the face of the refusal to take action on the part of past Dem led and present split legislatures, most recently the House under Boehner's leadership, is perfectly legit. It does not constitute unlawful usurpation of power, shredding of the constitution or any other such nonsense any more than it did when similar action was taken by former Republican Presidents.

          Glad we're all on the same page, AC.  Who'd uh thunk?laugh

        4. Not true. They never had a filibuster proof majority and there was weak support for immigration reform from Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor, and other Southern conservative Dems. Besides, when would they have done it? They had a lot on their plate such as insuring the uninsured (still waiting on how you Repubs would actually accomplish that). 

  4. "Republicans will argue that those actions took place under different circumstances, but that's just semantics"

    They won't do anything such. They will bank on the American people not knowing enough and not giving enough of a shit to research an issue. They will demagogue the issue, paint Obama as a tyrant and use racism to motivate Baby Boomers to support their agenda. 

    Most people make emotional decisions about politics, not logical ones. You can't expect the dude working a 10 hour shift fixing cars to go investigate the history of Executive Orders. 

    Democrats have got to stop justifying our actions via this type of rhetoric. Who cares whether or not Reagan did it? The voters don't. Obama needs a message that says A. this is the right thing to do and B. this is the right move economically. And, he needs anyone with money to start backing him up to thwart the Koch lie machine. 

    This customer service representative justifying his actions based on technicalities schtick is the reason why the public thinks we are annoying. It's time for the Dems to really make an appeal to pathos and ethos, 'cause we already won the logos crowd long ago and they comprise like 10% of the population. 

    1. Chicken dinner!

      The opposition will make noise, but not about how it was ok when Reagan did it.

      It will Ben Gazee!

      Kenya!

      Muslims!

      Obamacare!

      Hillary!

      Keystone!

      And a little fake net neutrality.

       

      I wish Senator Gardner and hisCongressional majority would take up Personhood. And Iran, invasion of. But even if they do it will be quietly.

  5. I suppose this was the President's way of paying back all those illegal aliens who voted for Democrats in the mid-terms?

    (It's not like you actually have to listen to any right-wing crap to have a pretty good sense of what the numbskulls are saying . . . )

  6. I know some illegal aliens. Some have been here for years, some are fresh from their native countries. Some speak English, some don't, but their children do. Every one of them contributes to their families, the ethnic community they belong to and the community at large.

     

    In short, all of them are better Americans, right now, than these privileged, white, Republicans will ever be.

    1.  all of them are better Americans, right now, than these privileged, white, Republicans will ever be.

      +1

      I live in a quiet trailer park with a community of brown-skinned, spanish speaking people. They are hard working, honest people trying to raise their families in peace.  I daresay a number of them are always on the lookout for "la pinche migra".

      I would much rather have them for neighbors than any of the Republican yuppies at Highlands Ranch.

    2. I don't know about "better Americans". Diversity in thought and expression of views is one American ideal, after all. Perhaps your neighbors are better at expressing the American Dream: through hard work, anyone can succeed – there are no inborn limits to how far one can rise.

      All of my current students are immigrants. Many are refugees from home countries torn with violent conflict, and ruled by warlords or gangsters who truly believe that might makes right. And you'd best believe that these kids, trying to become American citizens, and to learn English, are pretty darn patriotic – they may miss their home countries, but they appreciate our orderly society and the rule of law.

      From Honduras, from Somalia,and other east African countries, from tribal states around Burma, these families have fled chaotic anti-government "leaders". Those anti-government gangsters would be in perfect sync with our corporate decision makers who believe that money, or power, gives the right to rule. They would also be in accord on the rights and responsibilities society grants to women and children.

      1. I get your point, mama. I guess I am referring specifically to that quaint notion of democracy we once held as a primary American value. That old "“Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" stuff.

        The lifestyle mandated to us by the corporate advertising medium is considered a birth right by too many in this country. There was a brief time in this nations' history when we honored work above wealth. Was…

      2. Also get your point but do believe that the absolute worst Americans are those devoted, as are the elected Republicans in state legislatures and Governor's mansions all over the country, to denying legitimate voters, American citizens all, the right to vote if they are connected to demographic groups whose members are most likely to vote for Democrats.

        These elected Republicans are both the face and the reality of what the Republican party has become and everyone who votes for any of them is complicit in their anti- American war on the legitimate democratic process. Since that covers the overwhelming majority of elected Republican pols and all those who vote for them, it seems legit to characterize 21st century Republicans, as a group, as being hostile to the democratic process and therefore hostile to the bedrock of what it means to be an American. That makes them pretty poor excuses for Americans in my book.

        I also reject any notion that calling voter suppression just a single issue among many that voters should consider, making it OK for decent Americans to vote for these people, as pretty much the old trains running on time excuse. Every  American citizen's right to participate in the democratic process is not just another issue. It's the fulfilling of the central promise of the existence of our nation, a promise that has taken and is still taking over two hundred years, many of them blood soaked, to become a reality.

    1. As dKos points out today, Republicans have been saying that action by Obama could "poison the well" on immigration since 2010. They've had 4 years (and much much more) to deal with it, and have spent 4 years threatening "consequences".

      Gridlock favors those who don't want action taken. Obama should act; these clowns certainly won't.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

90 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!