Immigration Reform – Sooner Rather Than Later
[guest post by Dana]
So it looks like the president’s move on immigration will be happening sooner than expected, and will be more far-reaching than what was being discussed:
President Obama is planning to unveil a 10-part plan for overhauling U.S. immigration policy via executive action — including suspending deportations for millions — as early as next Friday, a source close to the White House told Fox News.
The president’s plans were contained in a draft proposal from a U.S. government agency. The source said the plan could be announced as early as Nov. 21, though the date might slip a few days pending final White House approval.
Along with increasing security at the border and increasing the pay for immigration officers, the proposed plan also serves up a significant call for deferred action:
The plan calls for expanding deferred action for illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children — but also for the parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents.
The latter could allow upwards of 4.5 million illegal immigrant adults with U.S.-born children to stay, according to estimates.
Another portion that is sure to cause consternation among anti-“amnesty” lawmakers is a plan to expand deferred action for young people. In June 2012, Obama created such a program for illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children, entered before June 2007 and were under 31 as of June 2012. The change would expand that to cover anyone who entered before they were 16, and change the cut-off from June 2007 to Jan. 1, 2010. This is estimated to make nearly 300,000 illegal immigrants eligible.
It’s not as if this comes as a surprise: the president has repeatedly said that he is tired of waiting for congressional movement on immigration and as such, he simply has no choice but to act alone. No matter that some Democrats feel a bit nervous about the the president’s decision to act alone. And no matter that Republicans have suggested they will use immigration as a benchmark in Loretta Lynch’s confirmation hearing to replace Attorney General Eric Holder. None of this seems to phase the president who appears more determined than ever to have his way in the matter.
–Dana
Hello.
Dana (8e74ce) — 11/12/2014 @ 6:13 pmWho would stop him?
Nobody. That’s who.
The dirty little secret is that Republicans also want “amnesty.” And Obama knows that.
So it will occur.
Oh, the Republicans will make hay out of it. Of that, there is no doubt.
So it’s almost perfect.
They get Obama to do the dirty work, then campaign on it, eviscerating Democrats.
It’s perfect.
someguy (37038b) — 11/12/2014 @ 6:15 pmUsama was a piker.
DNF (d34af1) — 11/12/2014 @ 6:24 pmI think the “Chamber of Commerce” wing of the GOP wants open borders but the party is being taken over (not fast enough) by the Tea Party which, while libertarian on many social things, is concerned with law enforcement. The Border Patrol is an ally, as best I can tell, of the GOP in Congress because they feel they are scapegoats and vulnerable to the increasingly violent environment they have to work in.
I have no objection to legalization of peaceful, working illegals who have clean records on law breaking and who are self supporting. However, the border MUST be closed or this will just incite more illegal immigration. That is what the 1986 amnesty did. A law delaying voting for ten years might be another alternative. Maybe a vote ban in anything but local elections.
If Obama does this, I will have no problem with tough enforcement of work laws like E-Verify. The blacks may be finally realizing what the Democrats are doing with the open border thing. The first terror attack in this country will bring a fierce reaction.
Mike K (90dfdc) — 11/12/2014 @ 6:39 pmSmoque BBQ, Chicago
mg (1f9584) — 11/12/2014 @ 6:50 pmtomorrow @ noon.
Princess among her peers:
DNF (d34af1) — 11/12/2014 @ 6:54 pm6. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-12/more-humiliation-china-furious-disrespectful-nicorette-chewing-obama
DNF (d34af1) — 11/12/2014 @ 6:54 pmIt’s interesting you mention clean records on law breaking as I just read that the Obama ordered the release of what he considers low-priority criminals. You know, like DWI and identity thieves:
Dana (8e74ce) — 11/12/2014 @ 6:56 pmAnd no matter what compromise (sellout) is reached, Congress will continue to ignore the people who have been waiting in lien legally for years. Talk about creating hatred for the US!
The border can be sealed somewhat, and that would be the entire border, north and south, but the real bar would be full implementation of e-verify.
I also have no faith whatsoever in the feds’ capacity to enforce all these investigations into backgrounds of illegals. This is the same government, remember, that granted visas to the 9/11 bombers six months after 9/11!
Patricia (5fc097) — 11/12/2014 @ 7:21 pmSo, Congress sues to demand the executive follow the law. Immediately ask for an injunction against work permits.
In the long run this is going to be solved by appropriations. By avoiding the one-big-bill, agencies can be targeted through action or inaction. EPA, IRS, NSA, USCIS and other agencies can have their budgets cut, or zeroed, to prevent these actions. Congress might just not fund the EPA at all.
Kevin M (d91a9f) — 11/12/2014 @ 7:26 pmIf he pulls this stunt, the first order of business of the Republican President and Congress in 2017 should be as follows:
1. Pull his office staff.
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 11/12/2014 @ 7:28 pm2. Pull his security detail
3. Pull any unfunded component of his pension.
4. Strip him of his propriety rights to official papers.
5. Debar the construction of any presidential library.
Congress might just not fund the EPA at all.
The EPA is irrelevant to this. If he wants to freeboot, he can do it without the protection ordinarily accorded a federal official. Refuse him an office staff and refuse any appropriations for dignitary protection. Cut Valerie Jarret’s salary and Mooch’s beauty parlor budget.
Art Deco (ee8de5) — 11/12/2014 @ 7:31 pmPerhaps Congress should throw down:
Any agency following illegal orders by the President will have its budget cut. 25% the first year, 25% more the second, etc. If at all possible, criminalize the act of processing government applications contrary to law.
Kevin M (d91a9f) — 11/12/2014 @ 7:31 pmArt,
EPA is irrelevant to this, but there have been other developments today regarding the EPA enforcing non-laws at Obama’s whim.
Kevin M (d91a9f) — 11/12/2014 @ 7:33 pmIf he tries this,defund everything . He is not a king and this is still a constitutional republic. If the GOP won’t get on their hind legs about this they are useless.
Bugg (f0dbc7) — 11/12/2014 @ 7:37 pmIllegal immigration is the single biggest threat to black employment. Does Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton have an opinion on this?
Denver Todd (77a6d5) — 11/12/2014 @ 7:53 pmBugg, if you defund everything you are “shutting down the government” and people hate that. But shutting down the IRS or whatever doesn’t evoke the same fear.
Kevin M (d91a9f) — 11/12/2014 @ 8:09 pmDoes Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton have an opinion on this?
I suspect they’ll just argue for more set-asides.
Kevin M (d91a9f) — 11/12/2014 @ 8:10 pmPatricia,
Unless you are a family member of someone already here, there is NO legal immigration from Mexico. Sorry, quota used up again. This contributes to the problem.
Kevin M (d91a9f) — 11/12/2014 @ 8:12 pmOur laws require us to import dependents and reject workers. Obama’s plan is to speed up the importation of dependents.
Kevin M (d91a9f) — 11/12/2014 @ 8:13 pmIn honor of the person in the White House, I post the following. After all, his ilk (ie, mainly the left, along with some amoral, semi-laissez-faire, big-business types, or the successors to US slave traders of yore) want to eventually illustrate to the onlooking world that if the US can’t go to Mexico, Mexico can come to the US.
Mark (c160ec) — 11/12/2014 @ 8:47 pmFrankly, the GOP seems afraid to use the power of the purse. They fear the dying MFM too much.
Which might be critical if government were not able to conjure greenbacks out of thin air.
DNF (d34af1) — 11/13/2014 @ 1:32 amMixed families.
Sammy Finkelman (652c5b) — 11/13/2014 @ 1:39 amConstitutional crisis, here we come?
Sammy Finkelman (652c5b) — 11/13/2014 @ 1:41 amMike K (90dfdc) — 11/12/2014 @ 6:39 pm
That’s a problem, because the border CAN’T be closed, any more than it is already.
And if you say the president doesn’t WANT to close it, then if let’s say he DOES as part of a deal, or some other president does, what’s to say it will STAY closed?
This idea, that if there is to be an amnesty, it must be the last amnesty, is what’s killing amnesty, and the proponents are too cowardly to argue for amnesty for those who are yet to come
Opponents argue that whatever arguments for amnesty exist, will exist in the future too, nand have “won” the argument on that point.
They are establishing a condition (which is not even a condition, because they don’t say do both, but do border control FIRST and then we’ll think about it)- they are establishing a condition that can never, ever, be met. There is no metric. And they like it that way. And this is besides the point that President Bush the younger made, that if you allow more legal immigration, especially from nearby countries, you make it
easier more within the realm of possibility, to control the border. Oh, and by the way, what about people who overstay visas? They’re against that too, but they don’t talk about it, and their main effort would wreck normal relations and trade with many other countries, by denying visas for ten years to people who had overstayed in the past, and we’re talking about Europe and Canada here *, and there are more than many people want to find out.That exists already.
* Obama just agreed to give 10-year tourist and business visas to people from China. People from Europe and Canada don’t need vsas, but their stays, since shortly after Sept 11th, 2001, are limited to 90 days at a time, I think.
Sammy Finkelman (652c5b) — 11/13/2014 @ 1:58 amDidn’t cancel the strikeout successfully.
Kevin M (d91a9f) — 11/12/2014 @ 8:12 pm <Unless you are a family member of someone already here, there is NO legal immigration from Mexico. Sorry, quota used up again. This contributes to the problem. Do you think people know that?
Sammy Finkelman (652c5b) — 11/13/2014 @ 1:59 amAgain, fail.
Do you think people know that? is my comment.
16. Denver Todd (77a6d5) — 11/12/2014 @ 7:53 pm
No, it isn’t. That is an economic fallacy (which politicians do nothing to argue against, since they like counting jobs)
And if it is, a threat, it would be all immigration, legal or illegal. And if it is only illegal immigration, bcause say they can be paid less than the minimum wage, than you can cure it by making illegal immigrants legal.
Sammy Finkelman (652c5b) — 11/13/2014 @ 2:05 amBu!!$h!t
hadoop (657247) — 11/13/2014 @ 3:59 am@ Sammy,
Why can’t it be controlled more effectively and more efficiently than it currently is?
Dana (8e74ce) — 11/13/2014 @ 5:16 amCertainly the border can be closed. Washington just lacks the will to do it.
creeper (24bf97) — 11/13/2014 @ 7:04 amKevin M, sure, there’s no legal spots left for Mexicans. So the problem is, if you are not going to have open borders, who do you allow to come in? I would say Mexicans are overrepresented right now, if we are going by country. Or is the criteria education, skill level, etc.?
I think the present bill ignores legal immigrants because the immigrant of choice to politicians is a person with no education who has lived as a dependent his whole life. Easier to please.
Patricia (5fc097) — 11/13/2014 @ 7:52 amEasier to please, thus easier to be assured of their allegiance.
Dana (a259c1) — 11/13/2014 @ 8:35 am29. Dana (8e74ce) — 11/13/2014 @ 5:16 am
It probably can be, although possibly at the cost of human life, and strengthening drug gangs, but when do you say, enough is enough?
Also, allowing another way in, and allowing in most of the most interested people, can get things to the point where the expense of smuggling is higher than most people would be willing or able to pay.
Sammy Finkelman (dfa011) — 11/13/2014 @ 10:14 amPatricia (5fc097) — 11/13/2014 @ 7:52 am
You have to pay attention to the strength of teh desire to come to the United States, and we do.
For instance, immigration is allowed with no quota in cases of marriage. Of course this gets the government into the business of determining whether or not a marriage is real. It can be comoletely legal and formal and yet not considered real.
I think the present bill ignores legal immigrants because the immigrant of choice to politicians is a person with no education who has lived as a dependent his whole life. Easier to please.
The bill doesn’t, but Obama’s executive order would largely not affect that. And it would only apply to people already present in the United States.
The date of arrival in the United States to be eligible for amnesty keeps moving up (it now moves from 2007 to 2010) and will continue moving up the longer legalization is delayed. So if you want to avoid an incentive, fighting this isn’t exactly the way to go.
Sammy Finkelman (dfa011) — 11/13/2014 @ 10:20 am“Illegal immigration is the single biggest threat to black employment.
No, it isn’t. That is an economic fallacy (which politicians do nothing to argue against, since they like counting jobs)”
Sammy – Prove it! Show your work.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 11/13/2014 @ 10:51 amSammy, first you said the border can’t be controlled anymore than it already is, and now you say it can. Do you see where readers might question your statements?
I don’t know why you think that a more secure border will provoke lives lost or strength narco-traffickers . The securing the border would not cause this, however, if people chose to breach the border illegally, then they would be putting themselves at risk.
Do you see that if the price of smuggling people in kept climbing, less people would be able to come through illegally?
Dana (a259c1) — 11/13/2014 @ 1:21 pmThe republicans should introduce immigration reform tied to a newly defined unemployment rate. No guest workers until the general unemployment rate and the black unemployment rates are both below 5%. Heck we oould even include a $15 minimum wage as part of this new law and split off two groups from the democrat plantation. Would 0bama dare veto this?
ET (996b9d) — 11/13/2014 @ 2:16 pmDana (a259c1) — 11/13/2014 @ 1:21 pm
Well, when you asked a question I modified it. I should have said the border can’t be controlled more than about it already is.
But that’s not exactly right. Actually, the two statemements do not contradict each other. The border can’t be controlled more than (about) it already us, and more could be done. The point is,
what is usually conceived of border control is not the important factor. It’s push (what circumstances outside the United States are pushing people toward the United States – crime, disasters, insecurity, lack of freedom, the state of the economy where they are) and pull (what factors are pulling them toward the United States – the state of the U.S. economy, people that would welcome them or not, or other things not usually called “border control”) and these things affect this much more than any modifications anyone would make to the border.
You already have reached the point of diminishing returns. That was my point.
Now what Obama says (not completelty true) that the Senate bill gives the pro-border control people everything they want. The meaning is: name specific measures a lot of people want taht they are willing to pay for, and he’ll do it. Saying that’s not enough is saying you don’t trust him. If you don’t trust him why would you trust him even after the fact? If you don’t trust him, no deal and no amnesty is possible.
What the “border first” people do is say:
1) Nothing should be done until the border is controlled.
2) We won’t tell you how to tell that the border is controlled.
and
3) And even if it is controlled, we’ll only think, maybe about changing any law -and in fact if the border is controlled there won’t be any need to change any law.
They know perfectly well they are asking for something that cannot and will not happen. That’s the idea.
You also said “can it be controlled more effectively and more efficiently?” Anything can be done more effectively. Efficiently requires a totally different approach. In fact “more effective” would be “less efficient.”
Sammy Finkelman (ae0b12) — 11/16/2014 @ 12:06 pmMore catching up:
Dana:
Because that’s what it’s done till now. Is the sky blue? That’s what logically should follow.
People largely can’t cross the border on their own – they need criminal groups. And the more chancy it gets the more brutal it gets. I mean this is obvious. It’s happened in Europe, too, and with regard to Australia.
Now you can definitely pretty much stop border crossings at any particular locality with meaures tghat are called “border control” because it then makes better sense to try somewhere else.
The somewhere else, though, is usually a more hazardous journey.
The people who would shy away from breaking the law are already deterred.
What’s left is people who take a risk, and what will deter more beyond a certain point is only one thing: the prospect of death or rape or other crime. In fact, the Obama Administration knows this and used that as an argument in their propaganda in Central America to stop the child migration and it more or less worked.
Of course. And if placed a ceiling on what they could charge, by allowing entry upon payment of a fee, it would practically stop.
You could maybe go very far toward stopping it by putting a price tag on immigration: If it cost say $3,000 to go to the United States from Mexico, and whatever price from different parts of the rest of the world, and then you made it more difficult for smugglers, you could drive up the price that the smugglers would need to charge for smuggling so that as a business proposition it didn’t work, because it would need to be higher than the amount the U.S. government itself charged. If it was forced high enough they wouldn’t make the investment in ladders, and tunnels and boats false papers and whatever. You could then exclude a small minority of would-be entrants who would not be enough, orudually wealthy enough to justify a business. If suddenly something developed you would know there is a problem somewhere in the world.
George W. Bush had a somewhat similar idea – to stop illegal
immigrationborder crossing from Mexico, you have to increase legal entry. That’s a no-brainer, but some people are stuck on the idea that there is some issue of morality here.It depends on what you think is anormal situation.
But without a ceiling created a open admissions fee you would not get down to zero, or close to zero, and therefore the border would not be “controlled” nor could you ever determine very easily that it had been.
Sammy Finkelman (ae0b12) — 11/16/2014 @ 12:15 pm