A Sensible Short-Term Immigration Strategy for the GOP
[guest post by JVW]
Given that President Obama is apparently bound and determined to enact “immigration reform” via executive order imminently, the GOP finds itself at disadvantage. With Democrats controlling the Senate for the rest of the year, the GOP will only be able to lodge complaints and hope to rally public opinion against Obama’s irresponsible and unconstitutional acts. Impeachment, as a practical matter, is off the table and intervention from the courts seems to be highly unlikely.
So given that, what are Republicans and other opponents of immigration to do? A very intriguing idea has been proposed by Mark Kirkorian at National Review Online, with some additional thoughts from Paul Mirengoff at Powerline. First of all, Mirengoff argues, the GOP has to let go of the idea of a full government shutdown as a negotiation tactic, and be willing to pass a continuing budget resolution that lasts into the spring:
The Republican leadership’s desire for a long-term deal is not surprising. No sensible Republican wants another government shutdown. Moreover, other things being equal, it’s arguably in the Party’s interest (though also arguably not) to clear the decks of budget squabbles in order to enact substantive legislation.
But Obama’s aggressive immigration posture means that unless Republicans are willing to accept amnesty by executive fiat, they should not pass a long-term budget deal.
Once the GOP has been given breathing room, they can focus on fighting Obama’s immigration moves during the spring. Yes, we have to accept that his unlawful executive order will already be in motion, but within the framework of a spring 2015 budget, the GOP can take the following steps as Kirkorian explains:
While [Congress] cannot stop Obama’s passive abuse of discretion. . . it can use that power to prevent active abuses, like the provision of work permits, Social Security cards, and driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, which would be politically irreversible.
. . . [I]n the next Congress, the House could pull out the Homeland Security budget (rather than fold it into an omnibus funding bill for the whole government) and attach the rider [preventing the issuing of work permits, drivers licenses, and Social Security cards to illegal immigrants] just to that, so when Obama vetoes it, only DHS will be subject to a “shutdown.” The reason for the quotation marks is that it won’t be much of a shutdown since law-enforcement components continue to function as “essential personnel,” including the Border Patrol, the Secret Service, the Coast Guard, ICE, and the TSA. In fact, the chief component of DHS that actually would be idled by a budget battle would be US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the very bureau that would have to implement Obama’s lawless amnesty.
Purists might scoff that this is a timid way of fighting Obama’s lawlessness, but I think for the next two years we ought to be focusing on results more than striking a noble pose for Constitutional government. The key is to build upon the momentum of last week’s election, and present a workable conservative plan to undo the folly of the last six years that the GOP can run on in 2016.
– JVW
Wouldn’t any citizenship granted by the executive be overturned in the courts? Even without impeachment.
DejectedHead (532aac) — 11/13/2014 @ 4:09 pmI think we should quit referring to it as immigration reform.
JD (fb69bb) — 11/13/2014 @ 4:19 pmYeah, more like stacking the voter rolls.
DejectedHead (532aac) — 11/13/2014 @ 4:21 pmThe TSA is “essential”? I’m serious.
San Francisco, Kansas City, and other major airports do NOT have the TSA. Why not defund the whole thing and turn it over to the private sector?
Mike Smith (7707c3) — 11/13/2014 @ 4:36 pmAs I said elsewhere, the Repubs picked up a greater majority in the House which I take as an endorsement of those candidates. I would give them the burden of communicating to the public the issues involved, just as they were able to communicate effectively to get elected.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/13/2014 @ 4:43 pmI guess the problem with this is that they all had budgets to run a campaign, and do not have the same funds at this time to communicate with the public again just as hard.
Just about any executive order or DOJ regulation regarding immigration and naturalization which is not pursuant to an act of Congress is illegal. There may be an estoppel, against future prosecution, created in some cases. For example, in a case of overstay, “The highest law enforcement officer said I could”. In a hiring case, “The highest law enforcement officer said I could”. But mostly it’s the sympathy factor when a future Congress and President try to undo it. “How is it out fault that you elected a JEF for President and we detrimentally relied on the Kenyan gentleman of dubious masculinity?”
nk (dbc370) — 11/13/2014 @ 4:49 pmAn education campaign would be to the states. “Obama’s executive order does not fall under the Supremacy Clause, because it’s not pursuant to the Constitution, so you can have laws that forbid the hiring of illegal aliens or are otherwise in conflict with it.” Would not mean anything in California or Illinois but it might in Texas or Arizona.
nk (dbc370) — 11/13/2014 @ 4:57 pmThe only executive order that would be legal, would be if Obama pardoned all people illegally in the United States.
DejectedHead (532aac) — 11/13/2014 @ 5:03 pmFrom criminal prosecution for any crimes up to the point of the pardon. Not for future illegal activities, including remaining in the US after his pardon.
nk (dbc370) — 11/13/2014 @ 5:08 pmI agree with the strategy and illegals should be assured that, unless they obey the law and await proper procedures, their amnesty will be revocable. I have no problem, once the border is secure, with legalizing long term residents with clean records who are regularly employed. The Republicans are too fearful of Hispanic voters but they are mostly Democrats anyway. Those that are persuadable are interested in law enforcement, too.
Mike K (90dfdc) — 11/13/2014 @ 5:16 pmI think Obama is going to continue to talk about signing an executive order on immigration for weeks or months, possibly well into 2015, because he’s trying to change the subject to GOP efforts at impeachment and/or a government shut-down. It doesn’t matter that the GOP won’t do either. What matters is that the media talks about how it might.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 11/13/2014 @ 5:17 pmHere is a quaint idea. Put forward a bill to reform immigration. And fight for it.
kishnevi (294553) — 11/13/2014 @ 5:23 pmYour problem is that is border control and amnesty merely work on symptoms.why are there so many illegals here? Why are there so many people crossing the border illegally? Because they can’t get here legally! reform the process and both symptoms will come under control all on their own.
The beauty of this is that if you reform the system to let people come here legally, amnesty will not be a credible option. It will be easier to go back home and apply for legal entry.
All 7 billion, kishnevi?
nk (dbc370) — 11/13/2014 @ 5:31 pmThe immigration problem really dates back to 1965 and Teddy Kennedy’s bill that turned immigration policy on its head.
The Hart-Celler Act abolished the national origins quota system that was American immigration policy since the 1920s, replacing it with a preference system that focused on immigrants’ skills and family relationships with citizens or U.S. residents. Numerical restrictions on visas were set at 170,000 per year, with a per-country-of-origin quota, not including immediate relatives of U.S. citizens or “special immigrants” (including those born in “independent” nations in the Western Hemisphere, former citizens, ministers, and employees of the U.S. government abroad).[1]
This is where chain migration started. Europeans with skills and assets are using a lottery system to get visas while Mexicans and central Americans that are illiterate flood the country.
Mike K (90dfdc) — 11/13/2014 @ 5:35 pmAn OT LOL must see:
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/13/2014 @ 5:41 pmhttp://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/11/hallelujah-climate-salvation-in-our-time.php
kishnevi (294553) — 11/13/2014 @ 5:23 pm
We have a system in place now to apply for legal entry. You didn’t know that?
Gerald A (d65c67) — 11/13/2014 @ 5:51 pmThe courts may or may not interfere, but that does not mean you don’t try. It also depends on exactly how far Obama goes. If, for example, he begins to offer work permits or green cards to illegals, contrary to law, someone with standing, such as a construction union, could ask for an sue to prevent the illegal workers from entering the workforce. An injunction against the issuance of work documents would be reasonable in such a case.
Legislatively, state governments (and there are now 24 utterly controlled by the GOP) could pass laws against employers in those states accepting special federal work documents, and requiring police in those states to remand persons presenting them to ICE after diligent processing. A supremacy argument is difficult when there is no law in support, and in fact the supremacy argument might well backfire here (“So, what you are arguing is that the law that says you cannot do what you are doing, is supreme?”).
If the feds debase their own documents by issuing green cards to illegals, state might refuse to honor any of them, or those issued after a certain date. Hard on legal immigrants, perhaps, but whose fault is that?
Come January, Congress can begin the normal budgetary process, but leave the budgets of ICE, USCIS, and other reprobate agencies as TBD, and leave the appropriations for them out of the normal bills. You won’t be shutting down the government if you neglect to fund a few programs or agencies.
Kevin M (d91a9f) — 11/13/2014 @ 5:57 pmthere have been waves of immigration, coincident with banking crisis, as with Lopez Portillo’s dance of the millions in ’76, then came another in ’82, the ’86 amnesty was supposed to deal with that,
narciso (ee1f88) — 11/13/2014 @ 5:57 pmthen there was a subsequent one after the devaluation in ’94, and a steady flow northward since then,
The only executive order that would be legal, would be if Obama pardoned all people illegally in the United States.
Of what? Being here illegally? Unless they all go home they are still here illegally tomorrow. His pardon power does not extend to things that are status, and naturalization is a SPECIFIC power of Congress.
Kevin M (d91a9f) — 11/13/2014 @ 5:59 pm#17: could
Kevin M (d91a9f) — 11/13/2014 @ 6:02 pmask for ansue to preventI am pretty sure this kind of appropriations rider was used by the Democrat Congress to prevent Reagan from sending arms to the Contras. When they sent the arms anyway, OHHHHH was there hell to pay.
We have gone from a president unable to conduct foreign policy due to a Congressional rider, to a president who claims the power to rule by decree. There may come a time when the imperative to impeach overrides short-term political needs. Hopefully when it does, Obama’s popularity is around 20% and the Dems will have to decide whether to impeach and be damned by blacks, or acquit and be damned by everyone else.
Kevin M (d91a9f) — 11/13/2014 @ 6:10 pm#19. Yes, you are correct I believe. That is how I understand it too.
DejectedHead (532aac) — 11/13/2014 @ 6:13 pmyes, that seems to be right:
The Boland Amendment is a term describing three U.S. legislative amendments between 1982 and 1984, all aimed at limiting U.S. government assistance to the Contras in Nicaragua. The first Boland Amendment was part of the House Appropriations Bill of 1982, which was attached as a rider to the Defense Appropriations Act of 1983, named for the Massachusetts Democrat, Representative Edward Boland, who authored it. The House of Representatives passed the Defense Appropriations Act 411–0 on December 8, 1982 and it was signed by President Ronald Reagan on December 21, 1982.[1] The amendment outlawed U.S. assistance to the Contras for the purpose of overthrowing the Nicaraguan government, while allowing assistance for other purposes.[2]
but any action to fight communists, is deemed criminal, apriori,
narciso (ee1f88) — 11/13/2014 @ 6:19 pmGerald @16.
kishnevi (294553) — 11/13/2014 @ 6:28 pmThe current system is totally screwed up and until it is straightened out you will not get secure borders.
Think of it this way.
You are a dirt poor Mexican. If you had a legal way of getting here that did not require you to risk your life to cross the desert of the Southwest, pay out the wazoo to a coyote to get you across the border, and live in the shadows at the mercy of employers who can cheat and even enslave you if they wish, would you not try to get in the legal way?
NK…7 billion? What figure is that?
kishnevi (a5d1b9) — 11/13/2014 @ 6:30 pmNo, kishnevi, not if the wait is three generations. Your plan only works if there’s visas on demand. This is an oldie. https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/3057568512/hA77C46A6/
nk (dbc370) — 11/13/2014 @ 6:32 pm“Wouldn’t any citizenship granted by the executive be overturned in the courts? Even without impeachment.”
Two questions: (1) You think the defferred action includes naturalization? (2) And which branches of government do you think are involved in naturalization now?
jbroulie (da8bcd) — 11/13/2014 @ 6:37 pmNK…7 billion? What figure is that?
The world’s population.
nk (dbc370) — 11/13/2014 @ 6:38 pmAnd which branches of government do you think are involved in naturalization now?
Hey, dingleberry! Do you also think the Bureau of Prisons can keep you locked up without a law passed by Congress? It’s *involved* in keeping people prisoner.
nk (dbc370) — 11/13/2014 @ 6:43 pmIf they did, you’d certainly have standing to go to court.
jbroulie (da8bcd) — 11/13/2014 @ 6:48 pmImdw is precious
JD (fb69bb) — 11/13/2014 @ 6:55 pmWell, there is just this thing about the immigrant debate. If they all leave or get deported half the urban, upscale resturants in the country will close. And most of the slaughterhouses. And pruning and harvesting the grapes? Forget it. So, dude, do what you feel. They are called consequences.
f1guyus (647d76) — 11/13/2014 @ 7:11 pm#32. So you’re saying they’re responsible for the obesity epidemic too!?
DejectedHead (532aac) — 11/13/2014 @ 7:15 pmHow did this country ever survive without them?
nk (dbc370) — 11/13/2014 @ 7:18 pmActually, I had a discussion with a few natives of South Jersey last summer, and they reminisced about how they always worked in the fields as teenagers, big buses would round kids up and take them there and back.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 11/13/2014 @ 7:31 pmThat doesn’t happen anymore, as the kids stay home and watch TV while illegal immigrants work the fields.
NK@26
kishnevi (a5d1b9) — 11/13/2014 @ 8:03 pmThat is the point. They come illegally because there is no chance of a visa. Does not have to be visas on demand. Need only visas for a large minority of would be emigrants, enough that your typically Central American will accept as a reasonable chance at getting here. And once they do, borders will be under control.
But until we do something like that, there is no chance of a secure border. It is a case of “Your majesty, may I present the high tide? High tide, you are in the presence of King Canute.”
Only I think nowadays the preferred spelling is Knut.
Well, that’s the definition of flood gates. The actual ones. They’re opened to cause a small flood so the dam won’t burst and cause a big one. I understand your point.
I’d suggest detention camps for all immigrants caught in the country illegally. In Alaska. Until their cases could be reviewed. No release pending review. That would make them less sure of finding work to support their families back home.
nk (dbc370) — 11/13/2014 @ 8:15 pm#35, so that’s a yes on the obesity epidemic.
Kevin M (d91a9f) — 11/13/2014 @ 11:29 pmThere’s another way to play this. Start asking questions like: if Obama can ignore the actual law and resolve immigration as he sees fit, and you base this on a president’s discretion in applying the law, why couldn’t a President Cruz just round them all up and ship them home?
Kevin M (d91a9f) — 11/13/2014 @ 11:32 pmJVW wrote:
I have already written about the solution. The Congress has been appropriating with about a dozen — sometimes it varies — annual appropriations bills. The solution is to break those up into many more, much smaller appropriations bills, which would mean that a presidential veto of one would shut down a much smaller part of the government. Don’t give the President the ability to shut down the national parks over a dispute about funding Obaminablecare regulators.
The second part is to go to staggered, biennial appropriations, so the Congress has to consider only half of the appropriations in any given year. There is nothing in the Constitution which forbids two-year appropriations, or even longer appropriations for anything other than the Army.
The Republicans need to think outside the box on this one. If they keep doing business the way that they have always done business, there’s no reason to think that the results will be any different.
The Dana with the solution (f6a568) — 11/14/2014 @ 6:11 amwhat form of mental midget is it that thinks a government shutdown is not a viable tool? nobody will be in the offices to process any of the paperwork so no amnesties could possibly be granted.
Rorschach (61bf43) — 11/14/2014 @ 8:44 amRorschach wrote:
It also means that there won’t be anyone to process action against illegal immigrants.
The Dana who could see the problem. (f6a568) — 11/14/2014 @ 9:19 amLonger-term strategy: begin dismantling the executive’s regulatory powers.
They could start by using congressional vetoes of regulatory agency actions. This may or may not be constitutional, but congressional veto authority exists in most of the agency enactments. INS v. Chadha suggests that it is not, but a two-house veto was not directly addressed and Justice White’s dissent is even more valid today.
1) the legislative veto power is absolutely necessary to modern government
Kevin M (d91a9f) — 11/15/2014 @ 10:25 am2) the absence of constitutional provisions for alternate methods of action does not imply their prohibition by the Constitution
3) most of the regulatory agency enactments included legislative veto provisions and probably would not have been passed without them.
They could eliminate the white house travel and golf budgets.
Jim (84e66d) — 11/16/2014 @ 5:02 am