US Politics: The Chief Executive's Immigration Smackdown

[The Fallen]

Being told a video on YouTube was responsible was a lie. But it came from the Obama administration. You need to be refreshed?

From the link:

The report defends then-UN Ambassador Susan Rice by concluding that her comments on September 16 attributing the attacks to a protest came before the CIA concluded there was no protest.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

From the link:

The report defends then-UN Ambassador Susan Rice by concluding that her comments on September 16 attributing the attacks to a protest came before the CIA concluded there was no protest.

Liberal logic.

Embassy attacked in the Middle East. Possible causes: terrorist attack or angry YouTubers

Who in the hell carries and rpg to a protest? Besides the guys down in Ferguson, of course.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/11/obamas-actions-same-as-past-presidents/

Reagan had legislation people. Obama doesn't. Simple.

The Immigration Reform And Control Act was passed in 1986, Reagan deferred deportation in 1987. AFTER LEGISLATION!!

[ThinkerX]

The Immigration Reform And Control Act was passed in 1986, Reagan deferred deportation in 1987. AFTER LEGISLATION!!

For people not covered in the original act. That point seems to be beyond your comprehension.

Say you have a town of 100,000 where 10% of the population is illegals. These people buy groceries. They rent or own places to live. They buy gas and vehicles.

Now, imagine your fondest dream comes true, and they all get magically deported overnight. Result: half the businesses in town go out of business. Ten percent of their customer base gone. Ten percent drop in income for those businesses. This situation is permanent. Yet you seem to be fool enough to think this is a good price to pay.

Another point you don't seem to grasp is that the republican elite does not want illegal immigrants deported - they represent a cheap, easily abused source of labor for the monied people behind the republican party. As of now, they are on the anti-illegal bandwagon solely to drum up support among the base - whom they regard as 'useful idiots.' Your posts here confirm that impression.

[Starkess]

Check out Justice Jackson's concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer. It describes the SCOTUS framework for analysis in Executive Power cases in great detail.

An interesting read, thanks.

I'm not sure that I find the situations completely analogous, as the Youngstown case refers to government seizure in a case where the administration itself wasn't even trying to make an argument based on constitutional powers or legislative authority. Based on the three scenarios Jackson defines, I would think the current situation is closest to the second, that is:

2. When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain. Therefore, congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence may sometimes, at least as a practical matter, enable, if not invite, measures on independent presidential responsibility. In this area, any actual test of power is likely to depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables rather than on abstract theories of law.

I would say that Congress is certainly absent, having refused to produce a bill over the past several years (Boehner sitting on the Senate bill is a crying shame), and given the precedent of enforcement in relation to immigration, the President and Congress do have concurrent authority here. I believe the numbers were quoted upthread--something like only having funds to deport 400,000 people out of the several millions eligible--and Obama's action here merely sets priorities for the selective enforcement, working within the restraint of time, funding, and effort to deport criminals and recent arrivals over long-established undocumented immigrants. There is no amnesty, no path to citizenship, and the extension of authorization to work to those in deferred action status falls to the executive branch under the Immigration and Nationality Act so that's fine too.

I wouldn't say it's my preferred course of action--wouldn't we all like to see a functional, bipartisan government?--but it's hardly Emperor-like and not an unprecedented power grab.

[sToNED_CAT]

Like I already said, just because there's precedent for something doesn't mean it's legal. FDR imprisoned hundreds of thousands of Japanese without trial, does it mean it's legal? Reagan's, Bush's and co. actions were never really challenged on courts (I believe), because Congress agreed with them. But I think if challenged, they'd have been overturned too.

Besides Obama himself admitted, in many past speeches, that what his law does now would be illegal:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/11/18/obamas-flip-flop-on-using-executive-action-on-illegal-immigration/

In 2011, the president said he could not take action to help “dreamers’—immigrants aged 30 and younger whose parents had brought them to this country when they were children– from being deported.

Question: Mr. President, my question will be as follows: With an executive order, could you be able to stop deportations of the students? And if that’s so, that links to another of the questions that we have received through univision.com. We have received hundreds, thousand, all related to immigration and the students. Kay Tomar through Univision.com told us — I’m reading — “What if at least you grant temporary protective status, TPS, to undocumented students? If the answer is yes, when? And if no, why not?”

Obama: Well, first of all, temporary protective status historically has been used for special circumstances where you have immigrants to this country who are fleeing persecution in their countries, or there is some emergency situation in their native land that required them to come to the United States. So it would not be appropriate to use that just for a particular group that came here primarily, for example, because they were looking for economic opportunity.

With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed — and I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.

There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.

Few years later (after he violated his previous legal analysis and granted Dreamers deferred action).

Question: Won’t you at least consider unilaterally freezing the deportations for parents of deferred-action kids?

Obama: Here’s the problem that I have, Jose, and I have said this consistently. My job in the executive branch is to carry out the laws that are passed. Congress has said, here’s the law when it comes to those who are undocumented, and they allocate a whole bunch of money for enforcement. What I have been able to do is make a legal argument that I think is absolutely right, which is that given the resources we have, we can’t do everything that Congress has asked us to do, what we can do is then carve out the DREAM Act folks….

But if we start broadening that, then essentially, I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that’s not an option.

I mean, how can you defend legality of his actions, when the man himself clearly said they were illegal (before implementing them anyway)? He said they shouldn't be granted to group such as Dreamers and only issued in limited cases, like emergency situation in native land. His words.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

For people not covered in the original act. That point seems to be beyond your comprehension.

Say you have a town of 100,000 where 10% of the population is illegals. These people buy groceries. They rent or own places to live. They buy gas and vehicles.

Now, imagine your fondest dream comes true, and they all get magically deported overnight. Result: half the businesses in town go out of business. Ten percent of their customer base gone. Ten percent drop in income for those businesses. This situation is permanent. Yet you seem to be fool enough to think this is a good price to pay.

Another point you don't seem to grasp is that the republican elite does not want illegal immigrants deported - they represent a cheap, easily abused source of labor for the monied people behind the republican party. As of now, they are on the anti-illegal bandwagon solely to drum up support among the base - whom they regard as 'useful idiots.' Your posts here confirm that impression.

1987

By executive order, rescinded deportation of 200,000 Nicaraguans.

1987

By executive order, deferred deportation of undocumented children of 100,000 families

Both executive orders were after an immigration bill was law. That's the point. It was in RESPONSE to a LAW. Obama's is not. Therefore, one cannot point to Reagan and Bush for justification. The attempts to connect them are either intentionally misleading or actual ignorance. Which is it? Considering the recent Gruber comments, I'd be willing to bet it's the intentional misleading of the "stupid Americans" on the left.

[TrueMetis]

Both executive orders were after an immigration bill was law. That's the point. It was in RESPONSE to a LAW. Obama's is not. Therefore, one cannot point to Reagan and Bush for justification. The attempts to connect them are either intentionally misleading or actual ignorance. Which is it? Considering the recent Gruber comments, I'd be willing to bet it's the intentional misleading of the "stupid Americans" on the left.

Well not a response to a recent law. It's very much a response to immigration law. Or are you going to argue that Obama's actions have nothing to do with how immigration is set up?

[sToNED_CAT]

Well not a response to a recent law. It's very much a response to immigration law. Or are you going to argue that Obama's actions have nothing to do with how immigration is set up?

Well, first of all, temporary protective status historically has been used for special circumstances where you have immigrants to this country who are fleeing persecution in their countries, or there is some emergency situation in their native land that required them to come to the United States. So it would not be appropriate to use that just for a particular group that came here primarily, for example, because they were looking for economic opportunity.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But if we start broadening that, then essentially, I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that’s not an option.

I agree, that it's absurd to argue, that those previous EOs were legal. They were illegal as well, just not challenged, because they were seen as non controversial. So those EOs were saved by politics (Bush EO was actually confirmed by Congress just few months later). This won't happen this time and Obama knows it. He knows he'll likely lose the case on courts (hence his previous comments on legality). This is just post midterms Hail Mary. He hopes political considerations will save his EO again or that Democrats will at least be able to gain some political capital from it.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Well not a response to a recent law. It's very much a response to immigration law. Or are you going to argue that Obama's actions have nothing to do with how immigration is set up?

Many of you were claiming Reagan acted before a bipartisan bill was signed into law. Many of you were clearly wrong. Gruber effect.

How is it a response to the current law? Current law states that if they enter the country illegally, they will be deported. The proper response to current immigration policy would be deportation. Therefore, he is choosing to not enforce the law.

If Obama is worried about how the law is set up, he should have stayed in the Senate. As president, he can neither create law nor repeal law.

My previous post was to point out that, yes presidents have some discretion as to how the law is enforced. And all, presidents have used executive action. But Obama's is unique because he's doing it in defiance of congress rather than in cooperation.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

I agree, that it's absurd to argue, that those previous EOs were legal. They were illegal as well, just not challenged, because they were seen as non controversial. So those EOs were saved by politics (Bush EO was actually confirmed by Congress just few months later). This won't happen this time and Obama knows it. He knows he'll likely lose the case on courts (hence his previous comments on legality). This is just post midterms Hail Mary. He hopes political considerations will save his EO again or that Democrats will at least be able to gain some political capital from it.

But how long will it take to get to the courts? If it's longer than two years, will it matter?

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

At any rate, SC, he has made the case against his action pretty clear as your quotes show

[sToNED_CAT]

But how long will it take to get to the courts? If it's longer than two years, will it matter?

Exactly, that is the real problem. He hopes the new political reality will make the legality of EO irrelevant. Or that the challenge will be denied on procedural grounds (lack of standing) That's the reason why should it be addressed by new Congress immediately. It would be great if Congress or just some group of Congressmen was legally able to appeal to SC directly and the issue was resolved swiftly.

[Ned Snow]

Well, of course the facts are different. I'm not implying stare decisis is coming into play. Youngstown is important because it provides the test: indeed, Youngstown is the precedent for Federal Executive power.

I agree, it's the second scenario.

[TrueMetis]

Many of you were claiming Reagan acted before a bipartisan bill was signed into law. Many of you were clearly wrong. Gruber effect.

And I am not one of those people, so no point in bringing it up to me.

How is it a response to the current law? Current law states that if they enter the country illegally, they will be deported. The proper response to current immigration policy would be deportation. Therefore, he is choosing to not enforce the law.

If Obama is worried about how the law is set up, he should have stayed in the Senate. As president, he can neither create law nor repeal law.

My previous post was to point out that, yes presidents have some discretion as to how the law is enforced. And all, presidents have used executive action. But Obama's is unique because he's doing it in defiance of congress rather than in cooperation.

Are you saying that the law said during 1987 that those 200,000 Nicaraguans and undocumented children of 100,000 families weren't to be deported? Cause if so it's rather odd that Reagan needed an EO to do what the law was already doing.

I'm mean I admit I don't know much about the situation but if Reagen need to sign an EO to say "don't deport those people" then the law said "deport those people"

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

And I am not one of those people, so no point in bringing it up to me.

Are you saying that the law said during 1987 that those 200,000 Nicaraguans and undocumented children of 100,000 families weren't to be deported? Cause if so it's rather odd that Reagan needed an EO to do what the law was already doing.

I'm mean I admit I don't know much about the situation but if Reagen need to sign an EO to say "don't deport those people" then the law said "deport those people"

http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/20/no-reagan-did-not-offer-an-amnesty-by-lawless-executive-order/

I'll quote a bit just in case...

"In 1986, faced with a large and growing population of illegal aliens, Congress created a new, time-limited form of immigration relief for certain aliens who, among other things, had to have come to the United States more than six years previously. This is the much ballyhooed Reagan amnesty. It was, unfortunately, riddled with fraud in its execution, the uncovering of which is still roiling the immigrant community."

[TrueMetis]

I know the usual defense from you guys if to attack the link, but just read it.

I am going to read your link, but for the completely unwarranted personal attack here your gonna be the first person on my ignored list. Congratulations.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

And...

"Congress’ amnesty was large—just shy of 3 million people—and it had the unanticipated effect of splitting up freshly-legalized parents from their illegally-present minor children who did not qualify for relief.

So Reagan, seeing this family unity problem that Congress had not anticipated or addressed when it granted amnesty to millions of parents, issued an executive order to defer the removal of children of the people who had applied for immigration amnesty under Congress’ new law. He allowed those children to remain in the United States while their parents’ applications for amnesty were pending. A few years later, Bush 41 extended this bit of administrative grace to these same children plus certain spouses of the aliens who had actually been granted immigration amnesty under Congress’ new law."

Finally...

"Congress, though it had desired to grant amnesty, had not considered and not included the spouses and children. Importantly, nor had it excluded them. So Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 filled that statutory gap. “What do we do with spouses and children?” INS asked. “Well,” the executive branch leaders said, “defer their deportation. Decline to exercise your lawful authority for the particular cases that are related to those Congress has offered amnesty.”

I am going to read your link, but for the completely unwarranted personal attack here your gonna be the first person on my ignored list. Congratulations.

I wasn't trying to attack you personally man. Sorry. Just acknowledging that most of the time that's what happens. More of a plea just to check the link.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I do love the desire to defend St. Ronnie in the face of everything. No, it can't be the case that he did something Obama is doing! Reality-deny mode, activate!

Congress has appropriated funds to deport about 400,000 people a year, while at the same time giving explicit statutory authority to the Department of Homeland Security to determine enforcement and prosecution priorities. The result of this is that it has already been the case that we only deport the recently arrived or the criminal, as a matter of basic sense. Congress clearly anticipates that the executive will be unable to deport everyone, and invites the executive to exercise discretion. Deferred action has always been exercised by executive discretion, and the executive is specifically authorized to grant work permits to people under deferred action. All of this is in harmony with Congress' intent. Obama's reaction is exactly the same as Reagan's reaction to gaps in the 1986 law.

Obama's Immigration Plan Is Perfectly Constitutional

The contradiction between ideological opposition to guest workers and the huge demand for cheap foreign labor is the key to the present controversy. To avoid the appearance of a legally recognized caste system while allowing one to exist in reality, Congress has given nearly full legal rights to legal immigrants and passed tough laws to keep everyone else out—while appropriating far too little money to enforce them. This throws to the executive the task of deciding whom to enforce the laws against. Because Congress appropriates only enough money to deport 400,000 people per year out of 11 million, the president by necessity must pick and choose whom to deport. It’s no surprise that for decades every president has deported mainly criminals while leaving most everyone else alone.

For example, in 2014, immigration authorities deported 368,644 people, which may sound like a lot. But 98 percent of them were criminals, were caught just after entering, or had engaged in various serious forms of immigration fraud. The probability of a noncriminal undocumented alien living in the interior being deported is less than 1 in 1,000.

Nor does the government put much pressure on employers. In 2012, immigration authorities fined only 495 employers for illegally hiring undocumented aliens; the aggregate fines amounted only to $12.5 million, a pittance when you consider that 8 million unauthorized migrants are employed. (Republicans might be interested to know that zero employers were fined in 2006 and two employers were fined in 2007, under the Bush administration.)

Thus, the president’s discretion to enforce the immigration laws has always been the cornerstone of a de facto guest-worker (or, if you want, caste) system from which most Americans have greatly benefited. That’s why Republicans’ claim that the president is shredding the Constitution sounds so odd to people knowledgeable about immigration law. He’s just doing what countless Congresses have wanted him to do, and have effectively forced him to do, so that Congress itself could avoid charges that it has created a two-tier system of citizenship where the bottom tier is allowed to stay in this country and work, but is not allowed to vote, to benefit from welfare programs, to travel freely, or to enjoy the full protection of workplace laws. Of course, you might say that the whole illegal immigration system, with its two-tier system of rights, violates the Constitution or at least constitutional values, but the fault for that lies with Congress, not with the president.

Obama Has the Law- and Reagan- on His Side on Immigration

Indeed, presidents of both parties have tailored immigration policy to their own goals. In 1987, the Reagan administration took executive action to limit deportations for 200,000 Nicaraguan exiles, even those who had been turned down for asylum. Similarly, President George H.W. Bush in 1990 limited deportations of Chinese students and in 1991 kept hundreds of Kuwait citizens from being deported. President Bill Clinton regularly used his power of prosecutorial discretion to limit deportations; in 1993 he gave 18-month extensions to Salvadoran residents, in 1997 he limited deportations for Haitians, and in 1998 he limited deportations to Central American counties that had been devastated by hurricanes.

President George W. Bush also took major steps to limit deportations on humanitarian grounds. In 2001, he limited deportation of Salvadorian citizens at the request of the Salvadorian president who said that their remittances were a key part of their nation’s economy. The Bush administration embraced prosecutorial discretion and ordered the consideration of factors such as whether a mom was nursing a child or whether an undocumented person was a U.S. military veteran in making the determination on whether to order a deportation.

The Bush administration explicitly recognized that humanitarian factors must play into the deportation decision. The 2005 Howard memorandum issued by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) stated that “Prosecutorial discretion is a very significant tool ...to deal with the difficult, complex and contradictory provisions of the immigration laws and cases involving human suffering and hardship.” Today, the Obama administration can build on that to stop deportations that separate parents from their children. The breaking up of families due to deportations undoubtedly causes human suffering and hardship: The Applied Research Center in its “Shattered Families” report found that over 5,000 children live in U.S. foster homes because their parents were deported.

Obama's Immigration Action Has Precedents, but May Set a New One

In 1986, Mr. Reagan signed the so-called amnesty bill passed by Congress that granted legal status to three million undocumented immigrants, and then acted on his own the following year to expand it to about 100,000 more. That action extended the amnesty to immigrants who had left the country and then used fraudulent documents to be readmitted, and shielded from deportation minor children whose parents qualified.

Mr. Bush moved in 1990 to allow 1.5 million undocumented spouses and children of immigrants who were in the process of becoming legal permanent residents to stay in the country and obtain work permits. At the time, that amounted to about 40 percent of the immigrants living without documentation in the United States. Mr. Obama’s order would affect about 45 percent of the undocumented immigrants.

The numbers matter because legal scholars say a president’s discretionary power on immigration is not unlimited. Were he to refuse to deport any immigrants, Mr. Obama could open himself to a constitutional challenge that he was failing to live up to his duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

[sologdin]

so, impeachment's back on the table, then? that took all of two weeks.