Jonah Goldberg: "Obama to Congress: It’s My Way or My Way - Congress’ placating the president on immigration would establish a precedent for lawless executive action." "This guy is supposed to be a lawyer. The question of his authority to do X is independent of what Congress does. The executive branch may not write laws. You could look it up."
Extra - Mark Steyn: "Elections matter?" "But it turns out they don't. Not to him."
8 comments:
Every Immigration-Related Executive Action Of The Last 58 Years
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/every-immigration-related-executive-action-of-the-last-58-years/
"Obama’s actions have plenty of precedent — it’s their scale that’s unusual.
...there have been 39 comparable grants of temporary immigration relief in the past 58 years. They’ve been bipartisan too. Fifteen were enacted by Republican presidents, 20 by Democrats and four spanned the terms of presidents of both parties.
...The number of people affected by this order is unprecedented, but that’s in part due to the similarly unprecedented size of the undocumented population as a whole. Former president George Bush’s 1990 expansion of the Immigration Reform and Control Act affected 1.5 million people, which seems to pale in comparison to Obama’s 4 million. But the nationwide undocumented population at the time was about 3.5 million, according to the Current Population Survey, meaning it affected 43 percent of that population. Bush’s executive action could actually be considered more sweeping than the one Obama announced Thursday night."
Actions by previous presidents to deal with immigration through executive order represented administrative management of existing immigration law. Obama's action represents new immigration policy, which in reality requires legislation (Congress' territory).
You can quote a lefty propaganda site to try to spin this action as just a normal presidential executive order, but here's another lefty propaganda site that admits there's something very different going on here.
Here's what will really clarify the situation. Let's say Congress passes a strict immigration law calling for more enforcement and deportations, and they're able to override Obama's veto. The law specifically cancels what Obama has done.
My simple question to you is, does this action succeed in overriding Obama's wishes, and in your opinion, should it? Or does Obama still get to dictate immigration policy?
IIRC Bush's Sr's amnesty was considered a "clean up" of Reagan's immigration reform law and it had bipartisan support in Congress.
Obama is just making up new law out of whole cloth. Because shut up.
You can quote a lefty propaganda site to try to spin this action as just a normal presidential executive order
The lefty propaganda site just spent the last year forecasting a Republican midterm win. Anyhow, they're citing the data compiled by the nonpartisan American Immigration Council. Even that data only goes back 58 years; in 1930, Herbert Hoover unilaterally slashed all immigration by close to 90 percent. His "stroke of a pen" order stood for six years until it was overridden by another executive order by Franklin Roosevelt.
Here's what will really clarify the situation. Let's say Congress passes a strict immigration law calling for more enforcement and deportations, and they're able to override Obama's veto. The law specifically cancels what Obama has done.
All right, let's say. Congress can do it, it would override Obama's wishes, as it should, and it's been done before. Many Congresses have overridden, amended or endorsed executive orders with subsequent legislation.
What Republicans are crying about, besides the fact that Obama goes around acting like he's still president, is that such "let's say" future legislation comes at a political cost. Just like Obama's order did and does. It was a lot more painless for Republicans to offer "we need to address immigration" lip service while running out the clock. That's no longer an option.
Now, the GOP can go bigger than Obama and piss off their base, or they can reverse Obama and antagonize Latinos. Or they can make noise about emperors and shredded Constitutions, while doing nothing but sucking it up. A, B, or C? Oh, the suspense.
It was a lot more painless for Republicans to offer "we need to address immigration" lip service while running out the clock.
You're aware of the last six years, right? You know that Obama called immigration reform one of his top priorities when originally elected? Or have you been in a coma?
My simple question to you is, does this action succeed in overriding Obama's wishes, and in your opinion, should it? Or does Obama still get to dictate immigration policy?
Well, "dictate" is what dictators do. Fish gotta swim.
Let's assume that Congress passes an immigration bill that is 99% border enforcement and 1% amnesty. Will that satisfy Obama's petulant whining to "pass a bill"?
The petulant whining this week has come from... Obama?!?
Post a Comment