My week of vacation had to come to an end sometime. Your top stories:
- Obama ‘lifts shadow’ of deportation for young (The Guardian) — The pres shows some cojones in a bid for Hispanic votes, putting Republicans in the position of having to decide how much outrage to evince. Oh, and sorry (not really) if some readers object to my using some Spanish in that sentence (for English, press 1…)
- Egyptian generals shutter parliament, order its dissolution, state media say (WashPost) — The Arab Spring hasn’t quite led to Nirvana yet.
- Russia Sending Air and Sea Defenses to Syria, Exporter Says (NYT) — Nobody but the NYT was playing this up, but it sounds hairy to me. It’s like the Russkies are ticked they never got to use that stuff against our stuff, toe to toe, in the Cold War, so they’re setting up a confrontation here, just in case we decide to intervene.
- S.C. jobless rate rises to 9.1% in May (SCBR) — Was this in the paper this morning? I don’t think so, but I don’t remember. In any case, even if it’s a little old, it’s important.
- ECB ready to act ‘if necessary’ (BBC) — Head of the Euro central bank tries to ease worries leading into Greece’s general election Sunday.
- Election officials uphold decision in 7th (thestate.com) — Well, that didn’t work, did it, Dick? Any other ideas for salvaging the party elite’s preferred candidate?
I believe #1 is going to come back and bite Obama. Pretty much everyone who isn’t a Gold Level member of the Nancy Pelosi Fan Club is screaming about this pandering for votes move.
It may have been pandering for votes but so what; it was still the right thing to do. Good on the president for that.
@David – “But so what?” Good answer. Maybe we should just open the borders, many think that’s the right thing to do so it must be okay. Do you actually get a gold card or just a pin?
Isn’t it interesting that Obama’s definition of “young” is anyone up to the age of 30?
What’s the difference between an “illegal alien” and a “dreamer”?
Do they just mingle in line with those who came here legally and follow the rules for citizenship? Knowing Obama he’ll create a fast line for them, on another executive order of course.
His definition of “young” is under 16, not under 30. If your parents brought you here and you had no choice (no moral hazard issue) and now you are estranged from your home country, and in school, the military, etc., why would we let you stay?
Many Egyptians look at their two Presidential choices, a guy who says he admires Mubarak and probably wants to reinstate much of the previous regime, and then a guy from the Muslim Brotherhood, and they say: THESE are the only two choices we have?
Welcome to the democracy club, Egyptians!
But seriously, from everything I’ve read, it really just seems like all the basic machinery of the Egyptian state remained more-or-less intact. There was no real revolution at a structural level. If Morsi really wins but is thwarted, denied victory by the military, then unfortunately the chances of a REAL revolution, this one more militant, more radically-Islamicized, increases.
“Do they just mingle in line with those who came here legally and follow the rules for citizenship? Knowing Obama he’ll create a fast line for them, on another executive order of course.”
No, this is mearly kicking the can down the road. It is a great strategic move because it is very similar to the Rubio plan. So if he is opposing it he is basically going against one of the parties rising stars.
Also It forces him to go against young people who were dragged here by their parents and have lived here the majority of their life.
There will be no long term immigration reform before the election. They can’t even pass a budget in the senate much less tackle a problem like this.
Mark my words, convicted prisoners will not be omitted from this Marxist’s landscape. Only the vote of legitimate citizens is determinative in deciding what is “the right thing to do”, Mr. Obama.
You have yet to consult them, so they will impact your capricious and arbitrary conclusion with their own.
@Kathryn – “The reprieve is aimed at those who might be described as most likely to succeed: an estimated 800,000 people, under 30 years old…”
@ Steven —but the young part is that they had to come here before they were 16. Under 30 is still young in most universes, FWIW.
The under 16 is because they likely had no option but to come here, and to go back would be a hardship they don’t personally deserve. If you allow adults to claim it, you run the risk that they could come here to gain working rights–but kids have no choice in the matter.
@Kathryn – How do you prove when you came into the country if you’re an illegal? I bet every every single 30 year old illegal is going to say they came here when they were 12 years old… even if they just came into the country last week.
Obama knows he had to issue an executive order for his plan to go through because that’s the only way it’d make it. Since when are executive orders used for social issues? Was the country in crisis? Was this something that needed to be decided immediately without discussion? Nope, just a leader who is digging deep to try to please a demographic that he’s losing in the polls.
Emergency or not, an executive order is about the only way anything is going to happen on this issue. Congress has demonstrated its utter powerlessness to wrestle with immigration.
The comprehensive bill that Bush and McCain and Graham were all pushing in 2007 (or was it 06?) should have passed back then. But instead, the bill stirred a lot of emotions, and nothing happened.
The problem is that the people who are passionate on this bill won’t accept any reasonable, comprehensive solution that anyone else would vote for. So for several years now, legislation has been out of the question.
It’s one of the reasons why Congress is held in such contempt by the electorate.
“Emergency or not, an executive order is about the only way anything is going to happen on this issue.”
Said the Dictator. This is nothing more than an abuse of power by Obama. Executive Orders should be the last option and used only in situations of national emergency, which this is not.
“June 15, 2012 at 6:28 pm
I believe #1 is going to come back and bite Obama. Pretty much everyone who isn’t a Gold Level member of the Nancy Pelosi Fan Club is screaming about this pandering for votes move.”
This is great logic. It was done only to get votes and that will cost him votes. I see the brilliance of the stupidity and the stupidity of the brilliance.
New Mexico is already lost to Romney because of the backwards attitude about immigration as espoused by the Republican elites. That elitist attitude is putting Arizona in play and could be a factor in Florida (although FL Latinoes are demographically somewhat different from those in western states). Obama is playing a political card here no doubt but at the same time he’s also doing the right thing. It’s high time we had some rational attitude about immigration.
“right thing”… who decides what is right?
“It’s high time we had some rational attitude about immigration.”
Which means what? If you make it across the border today without getting caught, you are entitled to what rights and privileges?
“But officer, I stole that money three years ago.. you mean it’s still a crime?”
If it’s a crime to cross the border, enforce the law. If you want to change the law, change it the right way, not via an executive order (which presumably could be reversed immediately by Romney if he wins thus creating even more chaos).
Please let me know which laws I can selectively choose to follow. There are plenty of tax laws that I think I should just ignore.
Obama is using a policy implemented by GWB in 2003:
Yes, yet another way we have reasonable, moderate continuity in policy — despite the best efforts of the major parties to portray themselves as night-and-day alternatives. It’s rather comforting to know our government is more reasonable than our politics.
And Doug, these kids didn’t ignore any law of any kind. They were brought here without regard to their own volition.
Brad – You are correct, it’s not the kids fault that they were brought here as children.
However, it is completely inappropriate to give them any type of preferred fast track to citizenship based on that. I know that’s not what the executive order is doing, overtly, but we are certainly headed down the road towards the DREAM act.
Giving amnesty to illegal immigrants every so often encourages illegal immigrants to continue to break the law, either by coming, or staying. I applaud people for trying to improve their situation, but why should scofflaws be given preference over law abiding people who utilize legal channels and means to immigrate?
How do we determine who was here, and when? We are talking about people without “documents” so how do you determine who qualifies?
It was my understanding that the president swears an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Does the president really get to choose what laws to uphold? I thought that congress passed laws and the president (as executive) had to carry them out, not ignore them if he feels like it.
The GOP doesn’t want more immigrants so they take this extremely hardline approach that would deport even young people who came here as 3 year olds, attended high school in the USA and even joined the military. Seriously folks let’s at least do the small stuff that is completely non-threatening. The GOP is only taking this stance because they are unlikely to ever attain so much as 40% of the Hispanic vote. With an increase in Hispanics the GOP knows its doomed.
I would say at the very least rational immigration policy would not be to not use limited resources to deport people who came here as children and who have showed themselves to be productive members of society.
And Obama’s executive order is not simply about changing the law or ignoring it. In fact, as you point out this is hardly a permanent solution; the law still needs to be changed. But in the meantime he has discretion to temporarily divert the use of limited resources away from deporting immigrants who have grown up here, who are not a threat to this country, and who bear little culpability for their status as illegal immigrants.
This policy specifically targets those who did not “selectively choose” to violate a particular law. That’s why it makes sense to me. On the other hand, to the extent that this makes passage of something like the DREAM Act less likely, as some have suggested, it’s a real shame.
I applaud people for trying to improve their situation, but why should scofflaws be given preference over law abiding people ..
Anyone notice a theme? Whenever we discuss immigration issues a sure-fired line of attack is to always use terms like “law breakers” or “scofflaws” rather than discussing the merits of the issue. It’s tried and true tactic that works well for conservatives as they persuade through fear and bigotry. Lee Atwater would be proud.
“It’s rather comforting to know our government is more reasonable than our politics.”
So what you’re saying is that a dictatorship is more reasonable than a democracy. That’s in a nutshell what an “executive order” is. Why is this being used for a social issue, and not anything resembling a national emergency?
“They were brought here without regard to their own volition.”
So when we catch their parents and ship them back we can ship the kids back at the same time regardless of age.
@bud – “With an increase in Hispanics the GOP knows its doomed.”
“Increase”, as in coming into a country illegally. What other country can I just walk into and automatically consider myself a citizen and use their educational and medical resources and not pay a dime? I don’t care if you came here when you were 3 or 33, you’re here illegally. Go back and come back through the proper channels just like the thousands of others trying to gain citizenship.
“However, it is completely inappropriate to give them any type of preferred fast track to citizenship based on that.”
Exactly, you come here illegally and get caught… you don’t only go back into the line, you go to the back of the line.
So how does it work – if you can get across the border and you have kids with you, you get special treatment? Does this apply going forward as well? You get a better deal if you are cunning enough to avoid the border patrol?
If the parents steal a car and give it to their kid, can he keep it because the kid didn’t commit the actual crime?
I use the term “illegal” because their actions are illegal. If you don’t want to have a border nor a process to control the flow of people into the country, just say so. Open the borders, let them all in. If we want to be like Mexico, let’s shoot for that high standard.
@Doug–If YOU come across the border and have kids with you, YOU don’t get special treatment. Your innocent kids do.
Also, the law makes a distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum. In se would include stealing; prohibitum is breaking a rule. Furthermore, immigration violations are civil offenses, not criminal ones.