Noting in 2008 that he “taught constitutional law for ten years,” and in consequence took “the Constitution very seriously,” Obama determined that “the biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all.” “That,” the candidate assured his audience, is “what I intend to reverse when I’m president of the United States of America.”Every Obama statement has an expiration date.
Thursday, November 20, 2014
All hail the Emperor
Charles C.W. Cooke: "Obama's imperial transformation is now complete - The president has become everything he ran against."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
"The president has become everything he ran against."
You'd think Republicans would like him, then.
Right, right...the narrative...got it...
...how about an analysis of the points of his speech, with the Vike's very own proposals for rational options on those points with which you disagree?
He'll be done in a couple of years, patriot. You guys need to start reacquainting yourselves with the art of positive thinking or you'll find yourselves in a vacuum.
I missed the speech. My son had a school concert.
Did it have an appeal to "common sense" with the implicit suggestion that those opposed to Caesar were acting out of pure malice? Did it have schmaltzy stories of struggling immigrants? Did it strenuously ignore every argument about Constitutionality recently espoused by a certain former Constitutional Law professor?
Here's my proposal: the Congress makes laws and the President enforces them. But that's just me and Madison talkin'
Nigel will slowly back away...no sudden moves...
Here you go:
My fellow Americans, tonight, I'd like to talk with you about immigration.
For more than 200 years, our tradition of welcoming immigrants from around the world has given us a tremendous advantage over other nations. It's kept us youthful, dynamic, and entrepreneurial. It has shaped our character as a people with limitless possibilities — people not trapped by our past, but able to remake ourselves as we choose.
But today, our immigration system is broken, and everybody knows it.
Families who enter our country the right way and play by the rules watch others flout the rules. Business owners who offer their workers good wages and benefits see the competition exploit undocumented immigrants by paying them far less. All of us take offense to anyone who reaps the rewards of living in America without taking on the responsibilities of living in America. And undocumented immigrants who desperately want to embrace those responsibilities see little option but to remain in the shadows, or risk their families being torn apart.
It's been this way for decades. And for decades, we haven't done much about it.
When I took office, I committed to fixing this broken immigration system. And I began by doing what I could to secure our borders. Today, we have more agents and technology deployed to secure our southern border than at any time in our history. And over the past six years, illegal border crossings have been cut by more than half. Although this summer, there was a brief spike in unaccompanied children being apprehended at our border, the number of such children is now actually lower than it's been in nearly two years. Overall, the number of people trying to cross our border illegally is at its lowest level since the 1970s. Those are the facts.
Meanwhile, I worked with Congress on a comprehensive fix, and last year, 68 Democrats, Republicans, and Independents came together to pass a bipartisan bill in the Senate. It wasn't perfect. It was a compromise, but it reflected common sense. It would have doubled the number of border patrol agents, while giving undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship if they paid a fine, started paying their taxes, and went to the back of the line. And independent experts said that it would help grow our economy and shrink our deficits.
Had the House of Representatives allowed that kind of a bill a simple yes-or-no vote, it would have passed with support from both parties, and today it would be the law. But for a year and a half now, Republican leaders in the House have refused to allow that simple vote.
Now, I continue to believe that the best way to solve this problem is by working together to pass that kind of common sense law. But until that happens, there are actions I have the legal authority to take as President – the same kinds of actions taken by Democratic and Republican Presidents before me – that will help make our immigration system more fair and more just.
Tonight, I am announcing those actions.
First, we'll build on our progress at the border with additional resources for our law enforcement personnel so that they can stem the flow of illegal crossings, and speed the return of those who do cross over.
Second, I will make it easier and faster for high-skilled immigrants, graduates, and entrepreneurs to stay and contribute to our economy, as so many business leaders have proposed.
Third, we'll take steps to deal responsibly with the millions of undocumented immigrants who already live in our country.
I want to say more about this third issue, because it generates the most passion and controversy. Even as we are a nation of immigrants, we are also a nation of laws. Undocumented workers broke our immigration laws, and I believe that they must be held accountable — especially those who may be dangerous. That's why, over the past six years, deportations of criminals are up 80 percent. And that's why we're going to keep focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security. Felons, not families. Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a mother who's working hard to provide for her kids. We'll prioritize, just like law enforcement does every day.
But even as we focus on deporting criminals, the fact is, millions of immigrants — in every state, of every race and nationality — will still live here illegally. And let's be honest – tracking down, rounding up, and deporting millions of people isn't realistic. Anyone who suggests otherwise isn't being straight with you. It's also not who we are as Americans. After all, most of these immigrants have been here a long time. They work hard, often in tough, low-paying jobs. They support their families. They worship at our churches. Many of their kids are American-born or spent most of their lives here, and their hopes, dreams, and patriotism are just like ours.
As my predecessor, President Bush, once put it: "They are a part of American life."
Now here's the thing: we expect people who live in this country to play by the rules. We expect that those who cut the line will not be unfairly rewarded. So we're going to offer the following deal: If you've been in America for more than five years; if you have children who are American citizens or legal residents; if you register, pass a criminal background check, and you're willing to pay your fair share of taxes – you'll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily, without fear of deportation. You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law.
That's what this deal is. Now let's be clear about what it isn't. This deal does not apply to anyone who has come to this country recently. It does not apply to anyone who might come to America illegally in the future. It does not grant citizenship, or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive – only Congress can do that. All we're saying is we're not going to deport you.
I know some of the critics of this action call it amnesty. Well, it's not. Amnesty is the immigration system we have today – millions of people who live here without paying their taxes or playing by the rules, while politicians use the issue to scare people and whip up votes at election time.
That's the real amnesty – leaving this broken system the way it is. Mass amnesty would be unfair. Mass deportation would be both impossible and contrary to our character. What I'm describing is accountability – a commonsense, middle ground approach: If you meet the criteria, you can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. If you're a criminal, you'll be deported. If you plan to enter the U.S. illegally, your chances of getting caught and sent back just went up.
The actions I'm taking are not only lawful, they're the kinds of actions taken by every single Republican President and every single Democratic President for the past half century. And to those Members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill. I want to work with both parties to pass a more permanent legislative solution. And the day I sign that bill into law, the actions I take will no longer be necessary. Meanwhile, don't let a disagreement over a single issue be a dealbreaker on every issue. That's not how our democracy works, and Congress certainly shouldn't shut down our government again just because we disagree on this. Americans are tired of gridlock. What our country needs from us right now is a common purpose – a higher purpose.
Most Americans support the types of reforms I've talked about tonight. But I understand the disagreements held by many of you at home. Millions of us, myself included, go back generations in this country, with ancestors who put in the painstaking work to become citizens. So we don't like the notion that anyone might get a free pass to American citizenship. I know that some worry immigration will change the very fabric of who we are, or take our jobs, or stick it to middle-class families at a time when they already feel like they've gotten the raw end of the deal for over a decade. I hear these concerns. But that's not what these steps would do. Our history and the facts show that immigrants are a net plus for our economy and our society. And I believe it's important that all of us have this debate without impugning each other's character.
Because for all the back-and-forth of Washington, we have to remember that this debate is about something bigger. It's about who we are as a country, and who we want to be for future generations.
Are we a nation that tolerates the hypocrisy of a system where workers who pick our fruit and make our beds never have a chance to get right with the law? Or are we a nation that gives them a chance to make amends, take responsibility, and give their kids a better future?
Are we a nation that accepts the cruelty of ripping children from their parents' arms? Or are we a nation that values families, and works to keep them together?
Are we a nation that educates the world's best and brightest in our universities, only to send them home to create businesses in countries that compete against us? Or are we a nation that encourages them to stay and create jobs, businesses, and industries right here in America?
That's what this debate is all about. We need more than politics as usual when it comes to immigration; we need reasoned, thoughtful, compassionate debate that focuses on our hopes, not our fears.
I know the politics of this issue are tough. But let me tell you why I have come to feel so strongly about it. Over the past few years, I have seen the determination of immigrant fathers who worked two or three jobs, without taking a dime from the government, and at risk at any moment of losing it all, just to build a better life for their kids. I've seen the heartbreak and anxiety of children whose mothers might be taken away from them just because they didn't have the right papers. I've seen the courage of students who, except for the circumstances of their birth, are as American as Malia or Sasha; students who bravely come out as undocumented in hopes they could make a difference in a country they love. These people – our neighbors, our classmates, our friends – they did not come here in search of a free ride or an easy life. They came to work, and study, and serve in our military, and above all, contribute to America's success.
Tomorrow, I'll travel to Las Vegas and meet with some of these students, including a young woman named Astrid Silva. Astrid was brought to America when she was four years old. Her only possessions were a cross, her doll, and the frilly dress she had on. When she started school, she didn't speak any English. She caught up to the other kids by reading newspapers and watching PBS, and became a good student. Her father worked in landscaping. Her mother cleaned other people's homes. They wouldn't let Astrid apply to a technology magnet school for fear the paperwork would out her as an undocumented immigrant – so she applied behind their back and got in. Still, she mostly lived in the shadows – until her grandmother, who visited every year from Mexico, passed away, and she couldn't travel to the funeral without risk of being found out and deported. It was around that time she decided to begin advocating for herself and others like her, and today, Astrid Silva is a college student working on her third degree.
Are we a nation that kicks out a striving, hopeful immigrant like Astrid – or are we a nation that finds a way to welcome her in?
Scripture tells us that we shall not oppress a stranger, for we know the heart of a stranger – we were strangers once, too.
My fellow Americans, we are and always will be a nation of immigrants. We were strangers once, too. And whether our forebears were strangers who crossed the Atlantic, or the Pacific, or the Rio Grande, we are here only because this country welcomed them in, and taught them that to be an American is about something more than what we look like, or what our last names are, or how we worship. What makes us Americans is our shared commitment to an ideal – that all of us are created equal, and all of us have the chance to make of our lives what we will.
That's the country our parents and grandparents and generations before them built for us. That's the tradition we must uphold. That's the legacy we must leave for those who are yet to come.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless this country we love.
Eric needs a spam filter for the comments section...
"And to those Members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill."
This statement should send a shiver down the spine of any American who has ever read the Constitution.
Spine shivers? Do you keep your copy of the Constitution in your refrigerator?
If not, the last 222 years offer a rebuttal. Yesterday's executive order was the 13,489th by a president.
Many previous Congresses have amended, overridden or endorsed previous presidential orders through the chilling act of "passing a bill."
Meanwhile, I worked with Congress on a comprehensive fix, and last year, 68 Democrats, Republicans, and Independents came together to pass a bipartisan bill in the Senate. It wasn't perfect. It was a compromise, but it reflected common sense. It would have doubled the number of border patrol agents, while giving undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship if they paid a fine, started paying their taxes, and went to the back of the line. And independent experts said that it would help grow our economy and shrink our deficits.
Had the House of Representatives allowed that kind of a bill a simple yes-or-no vote, it would have passed with support from both parties, and today it would be the law. But for a year and a half now, Republican leaders in the House have refused to allow that simple vote.
Now, I continue to believe that the best way to solve this problem is by working together to pass that kind of common sense law. But until that happens, there are actions I have the legal authority to take as President – the same kinds of actions taken by Democratic and Republican Presidents before me – that will help make our immigration system more fair and more just.
If only Obama had similar concern for the hundreds of bills that died without a vote in the Senate. At least, after six years, they voted on the "Save Mary Landrieu" bill.
When Obama says "pass a bill" he means "pass a bill I want or I'll do it anyway." This is not how our Republic is supposed to work. Obama said so two months ago - what changed?
Our country is about freedom, and freedom is about choice. Well, Obama was allowing Congress to freely choose - they could enact his immigration policies in a bill, or he would do so with a wave of his hand by fiat. What could be more fair than that?
He even went above and beyond the call of duty. Congress' ability to choose extends even after the wave of Obama's hand - if they pass Obama's wishes into legislation, he will tear up his fiat. Only haters of freedom would scorn an offer like that.
"It wasn't perfect. It was a compromise, but it reflected common sense. It would have doubled the number of border patrol agents, while giving undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship if they paid a fine, started paying their taxes, and went to the back of the line. And independent experts said that it would help grow our economy and shrink our deficits.
Had the House of Representatives allowed that kind of a bill a simple yes-or-no vote, it would have passed with support from both parties, and today it would be the law. But for a year and a half now, Republican leaders in the House have refused to allow that simple vote."
Nigel has a question: Without deflecting, can the Vike state unequivocably whether or not he belives this is an accurate statement? If the answer is "no", what is the basis for believing that?
Cut and paste was supposed to contain the first sentence referencing the support in the Senate.
It is an accurate statement.
To which I add: SFW?
The houses of Congress have their own rules about moving legislation and, for some reason, John Boehner didn't call a vote. Harry Reid didn't call the Keystone pipeline for six years.
As they said on Hot Air: this doesn't give the President the right to invoke the "Sick and Tired" clause of the Constitution.
There are rules for both chambers as well as the President. If they won't allow a vote on a compromise bill that would otherwise pass, the argument that he won't work with Congress falls apart. The rules allow him to use executive orders within certain limits. If there is something illegal he's doing it will certainly be challenged in court. Hard to understand why this executive order would be viewed as distinct from others. Easy to understand why Republicans would like to think that (or repeat it over and again until it becomes 'true' by don't of the sheer number of Google hits saying so.
'Dint'. Gosh darn autocorrect.
Can Nigel answer this question:
For the past year and as recently as a month ago, Obama said he did not have the executive authority to do the very thing he has now ordered.
What changed?
Here's some helpful reading:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/11/18/obamas-flip-flop-on-using-executive-action-on-illegal-immigration/
Aaahhh...so that's where this obsession with 'imperial' imagery comes from. Didn't know that. Nice 'gotcha' on the prez.
But it doesn't change anything about the question of whether or not he is overstepping his bounds.
You dismiss political posturing as business as usual at times and then become aghast at it at other times.
It is pretty clear he was posturing to pressure Congress to act on immigration, using imagery that would appeal to right wingers.
But the House wouldn't act because they didn't want to give him even a partial victory on such a big issue. So he flip flopped relative to the rhetoric. You know debating the righteousness of this is pointless and would consist of dueling examples of politicians from both sides doing exactly the same thing.
If this 'gotcha' is the basis for this full flame on rage then there is no 'there' there - you're just playing games.
What is the law he is breaking? Why isn't he allowed to sign executive orders?
On another note - this executive order can be overturned by Congress if they don't like it and by the Supreme Court if it's illegal.
If either of these things happen it will be an easy way for the GOP to drive home the point that what he's doing is either unpopular or improper.
But neither of these things will happen. The knowledge of this is more likely the source of the rage than anything else.
I see how this is going to go: I'm going to cite the "Take Care" clause of the Constitution and the "faithfully execute" the law oath and you're going to respond with "darn those House Republicans."
Some intelligent liberals (I know!) have sensed the danger at hand. Law professor Jonathan Turley has come out against this extra-Constitutional power grab. Other former Constitutional law professors have also weighed in but...oh never mind anymore.
The danger is, having opened this Pandora's box of "anything goes" what prevents a future Republican President from, say, refusing to enforce tax laws? George Stephanapoulos asked the Emperor this very question yesterday and he responded with gobbledygook.
There's this crazy notion that Presidents have to enforce laws - even ones they don't like. They don't get to change it unilaterally and then demand that Congress change it back.
Or maybe they do! When President Perry or Walker or Paul decides that he has the "proprietorial discretion" to wipe out the Obamacare personal mandate (which the Supreme Court ruled is a tax code), I'm sure all the Democrats across this great nation will accept his diktat, forged by the precedent of their great Caesar.
"prosecutorial" discretion
Vike the hypotheticals you're relying on to make your argument are truly scaring sounding and quite unreal. It would be fascinating to hear the justification for an executive order ending taxes. How long would it take the Supreme Court to decide on that one?
The things he's doing right now were chosen to stay within legal bounds but still make some kind of progress on the issue. They fall far short of what the President wants. If he were on some mad power grab, which is the consistent accusation on this blog, he would have done a lot more than what he did.
He's using well-established Constitutional powers to make an executive order that you don't like. Just like "those darn Republicans" in the House used their well-established Constitutional powers to do nothing, which America dislikes.
Post a Comment