Had to raise an eyebrow when I saw this:
Rick Perry hails court decision halting Obama immigration action: http://t.co/rYynav2f9R pic.twitter.com/J0SVSpomFW
— The Hill (@thehill) February 19, 2015
I mean, Perry’s happy with the courts acting on something that the Congress won’t act on? True, this may fall short of judicial activism since it’s the court saying the President can’t do something, rather than doing something itself that it shouldn’t.
But still. If the Congress would just pass a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package — something Obama has essentially begged it to do — we wouldn’t be in this situation.
The really sad part is, now nobody’s doing anything about the problem. And that’s not good at all.
“a sensible comprehensive immigration ” – the problem is the definition of the word sensible. Your idea of sensible – “Awww, c’mon guys, just let these nice people stay!” is not the same as my definition of sensible – “If they broke a law to enter or remain, they have no legal rights to anything”.
As long as there is the battle between those who want an open border and those who support a well defined immigration and deportation process, there will be no traction on this. Thus, let’s enforce existing laws as they are written instead of making stuff up as we go just because we don’t like the laws.
I don’t think anyone who’s here illegally has any “right” to anything. But you see, there’s something a lot of people don’t get about me, because we have such a “rights”-obsessed culture…
I generally don’t think in terms of “rights.” I think in terms of what sort of policy makes good sense.
Frankly, I don’t know what the people who get so angry about these immigrants being here really want. Is it that they all be rounded up and sent back where they came from? That’s insane. That would take a police state that would make Nazi Germany jealous. The resources involved in tracking down all illegals and processing them and sending them home would be an absurd waste of money and energy that could be spent on more worthwhile — and more achievable — projects.
And if you’re not going to do that, what ARE you going to do? A sensible reform plan would figure out something achievable that would get immigrants into the system, so we at least know who they are and where they are. As McCain and Graham have often said, for national security reasons if for nothing else, we need to know who’s in our country and what they’re up to.
So what’s a smart way to do THAT? Well, it certainly isn’t “If you come forward, we’ll arrest you send you home.” So what do you do?
People get all indignant that people don’t “deserve” to be here. I say deserve’s got nothing to do with it. It’s not about who gets to do X, or who gets away with Y. It’s about what makes sense, and introduces some order and functionality to our system of immigration. You know… sensible.
But people’s emotions get in the way, which I’ve always found hard to explain — outside of America’s long history of passionate nativism. (Or, alternatively, about people not wanting the competition for low-wage jobs.) And when I mention that, you get insulted. For you, it’s all about someone getting the proper paperwork, following the correct procedure, before they come here. Fine. I find it hard to believe that’s it for ALL the people who are angry about illegals. Because that’s just not something people normally get really worked up about…
I don’t want to round anyone up. Thanks for making the leap to Nazism, though.
I want to make it unattractive to people who choose to disregard laws in order to come here. I am saying take away the carrot, don’t use the stick.
That means: proof of citizenship for children to attend schools, harsh punishments for those who employ illegal labor (and ramping up the enforcement of that area), no English as a second language education, no government publications in Spanish, no access to any program funded by tax dollars, no DREAM act, no drivers licenses. Deportation should be immediate and automatic for any illegal immigrant who commits a crime.
If some kind soul, church, or charity wants to house, clothe, and feed an illegal, great. Get YOUR church to do it, not my tax dollars.
Or, how about this: let there be an immigration amnesty fee that anyone can pay for an immigrant to make them “legal”. None of this b.s. about paying back taxes, etc. One fee. The fee is $25,00. All you have to do is find someone willing to pay for your green card. That way we allow those who really want the illegals to stay to put their money where their mouths are. Start a charity to collect money and have at it. How much will YOU contribute to help a brother/hermano out?
“I want to make it unattractive to people who choose to disregard laws in order to come here. I am saying take away the carrot, don’t use the stick. ”
What if the wretched conditions in their country of origin are the stick? Even without a so-called carrot, we may likely still be a more attractive place to light.
Some of your carrots are not things we do for immigrants specifically on purpose, though they may benefit. They aren’t the reason we do these things. We do them because they are the right thing to do and our values support these policies. (ESOL education, publications in spanish, drivers licenses, programs that benefit the community)
I realize you probably reject my last statement, but assume for a moment that it is true. In that case, your solution would involve changing who we are at our core. Would that be worth it?
It’s impossible to deport everyone. Most work hard. Many have been here since they were very young. Lastly, many have served in the military. Doug your “solution ” is 100% unworkable. But it does make a nice bumper sticker.
My solution is even simper. Just let everyone stay. Problem solved.
So I guess he’s okay with Roe v Wade and the same sex marriage decisions and nondecisions.
“True, [the court’s holding] may fall short of judicial activism since it’s the court saying the President can’t do something, rather than doing something itself that it shouldn’t.” -Brad
Well…yeah. I would say that’s exactly what a court is for. In this case, the Court has indicated that the President cannot legally do something.
“To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?” – Stuff John Marshall said, Vol. I
Marbury v Madison?
“But still. If the Congress would just pass a sensible comprehensive immigration reform package — something Obama has essentially begged it to do — we wouldn’t be in this situation.”
Congress doesn’t cede power to the Executive simply by failing to do something the Executive wants. That’s not how the system works. Sure, it would be nice if Congress and the Executive came up with a plan to solve the problem, but the failure for these two branches of government to agree does not mean that one branch of the government gets to start unilaterally imposing their will.
Frankly, I think the idea that the Executive can pick and choose which laws he wants to follow is more disastrous of a situation than the immigration problem (and I’m not attempting to minimize the immigration issue, either).
By focusing on this “procedural” issue, does that make me an “ideologue”?
No. Just a little obsessive. 🙂
But the situation is held hostage by ideologues. No, not ideologues. It’s not about ideas. It’s about passion. It’s about anger, indignation, a resentment that I have trouble grokking.
The political branches are prevented from coming together by the passionate faction. Which is an absurd situation.
I think the leadership in the House and Senate would probably have come to a synthesis of some sort with the administration — this one, or the last one — but they are held hostage by the emotional ones.
It’s not about the legislative branch not agreeing with the executive. It’s about this dysfunction in our government. It should not have been hard at all to arrive at a comprehensive approach. But there are too many people who simply seem not to want ANY actual solution. They’d rather be mad, or something…
Why is it when someone has a firmly held belief that you disagree with, that makes him an ideologue? If you have a fundamental belief that people who enter the country illegally should not be allowed to stay nor rewarded with any benefits, that’s not being an ideologue.
Compromising your principles is not an admirable trait… especially when you give up something while the other side gives up nothing. What would you trade for a policy that reduces the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S.? Don’t say a wall because that doesn’t work. If you get X number of amnesties, how many additional deportations will you support?
I just said this is NOT about ideology. If it is, what is the ideology?
I criticize ideologues when they ARE ideologues.
Mark Sanford, for instance. He had little interest in the actual situation in front of him as governor. He preferred to act as though the abstract notions in his head were reality, when they were not…
That’s a bad thing.
Your argument has nothing to do with yesterday’s ruling. The judge there did not rule on the larger issue you’re bringing up — he did not take a position with respect to executive vs. legislative powers. His decision focused narrowly on the notice-and-comment process (something that operates wholly within executive authority), which he said the administration had failed to observe. That process is not mandatory, however; there are exceptions provided to it — in particular when all the government is doing is providing guidance on how it plans to exercise a discretionary power, as appears to be the case here with respect to immigration.
I’m aware the Court granted the injunction on a non-constitutional ground. However, the Court explained why it did not address the constitutional question at this preliminary stage.
Did you read that part?
Actually, now I’m guessing you didn’t read the order, since the Court explicitly found that the Defendant’s characterization of DAPA as merely guidance was “disingenuous” and “contrary to the substance of DAPA”.
Essentially, the government unsuccessfully tried to argue what you just argued – that the process isn’t mandatory in certain situations – and DAPA happened to be such a situation. The Court disagreed, and told the government to go home and get its shine box.
Now I’m seeing ads for other local lawyers here. Brad, is this your subtle way of attempting to get me to buy some advertising space on your blog? If so, I’m not falling for it! 🙂
To quote Frank the Tank in “Old School:”
“Everybody’s doing it!“
The power to sell ads is the power to destroy
Oh, if only I had that power!
To sell ads, I mean…
I’m probably the world’s worst at that…
It’s funny how it works. I recently got an email from one local firm. I clicked on something in that email, which took me to the firm’s website. I glanced for a second and moved on. Since then, ads for that firm have not only been ubiquitous on my blog, but the keep showing up when I view a video on YouTube, etc.
Google is convinced I’m really, really INTO that firm, on rather thin evidence.
I’m not quite worried about the machines taking over, quite yet…
It’s not machines, it’s people and corporate interests. The marketing industry is out to follow your every move — with tracking cookies and other increasingly sophisticated digital tools. Your online behavior — or, really, any behavior — is dollars and cents to them. And where they can’t get at your info through such tools, they’re ready to offer you “advantages” you just can’t refuse to get you to surrender your last shreds of privacy.
While another court found differently. The Texas court’s decision did not trump the former — it merely did something the other didn’t: impose a stay. Moreover, the Texas judge reportedly has a record of opposing the Administration on this issue (and takes a dim view of immigrants generally, referring to them as “terrorists” and “criminals”). So his ruling is colored by that. As is his reading of the law. He argues that the government is promulgating a new rule (which would require the comment period), whereas the administration is saying it is merely setting enforcement priorities to an existing rule. The latter seems to better reflect the reality of the situation. Hanen can use (and you can quote) all the condemnatory adjectives he likes, but his ruling is a stretch and likely will be overturned on appeal.
“Hanen can use (and you can quote) all the condemnatory adjectives he likes, but his ruling is a stretch and likely will be overturned on appeal.“
Eh, I don’t really know enough about the APA jurisprudence to know if this ruling is a stretch or not. Maybe he’ll be reversed and maybe he won’t. I have learned long ago not to try and predict what courts will do with any degree of certainty, so I can’t tell you whether it’s “likely” or not. Since you say it is “likely” he will be reversed, what precedent do you base that on? Do you have some 5th Circuit opinions that support that position?
In any event, we’ll still be left with a practical problem and the Courts are not the place to get it solved. We’re only going to solve it by getting the legislative and executive branch to work together. Unfortunately, both parties have an interest in not solving the problem.
“As is his reading of the law. He argues that…”
One other small note; Judges don’t “argue”. They hear argument from counsel, who appear before them. It’s all rather technical, but this video will explain it all.
🙂 Happy Friday, y’all.
I deal with legal texts often enough to know that, by and large, lawyers are absolutely the last people who should be offering instruction in good English.
Did you even follow the link? It was a joke, my good fellow.
Yep, saw it. And what I wrote above was the essence of the clip.
“Do you have some 5th Circuit opinions that support that position?”
Nope. I draw on my intellectual betters: legal scholars and practitioners who’re in a position to judge these things.