Short And To The Point
President Obama just gave one of the shortest and most succinct speeches of his political career, laying out his new immigration and deportation policy. The speech seemed heartfelt and personal. There were few digressions into side issues or personal stories. It clocked in at somewhere near 15 minutes, which is notably short for not just any Obama speech but for any modern politician's speech.
Normally, during an Obama speech, I take notes to remind me of the overall themes as well as individual turns of phrase worth quoting. Tonight, this was almost not possible due to the quick cadence and brevity. Obama intelligently didn't get down into the weeds of his new policy, although I'm sure the details have been released to the press by now. There'll be plenty of time later to dissect those details, but tonight I'm going to focus just on the speech itself, and my personal reactions.
President Obama made the strongest case he could for his new immigration policy tonight, leaning on our country's history, our national character, and the scope of the problem as it exists today. He addressed most of the complaints we've already been hearing from Republicans, and challenged them to do their jobs if they don't like the way he's doing his. On the subject of the immigrants affected, Obama consistently framed the issue as one of taking responsibility and coming out of the shadows of society.
Obama started with a frank appraisal of where we are now, saying: "Our immigration system is broken, and everyone knows it." He moved on to highlighting a record conservatives never give him credit for -- the border is more heavily patrolled now than ever, and deportations are at an all-time high. "Those are the facts," Obama said, and he is right (ask any immigrants' rights group, they'll tell you).
He moved on to the history of the Senate bipartisan bill, which he rightly called "a compromise" and which would have doubled the Border Patrol by now, if the House had ever allowed a vote on it. He also pointed out he's been waiting a year and a half since the bill passed.
Obama laid out a short list of three things his new policy would change. The first would be further beefing up the Border Patrol (this will be completely ignored in the resulting political fray, that's my guess at any rate). The second is adding more H-1B visas (although he didn't name them) for high-tech workers and college graduates, which has been what the tech industry has been fighting for. The third dealt with people who are currently in America without papers.
The third item on this list was the only one Obama gave any details on, but even so this speech didn't explicitly lay out exactly what's going to happen or what's going to change or even when it's going to change. As I mentioned, I'm sure the details were provided to the press and we'll be hearing all about them shortly.
More than a policy speech, Obama laid out a moral argument for his executive actions. Although he never used the phrase, the heart of this argument is: "make the punishment fit the crime." People here illegally broke the law. But holding them accountable for breaking this law should not mean barring them from ever getting right with the law. He did explicitly point out that "deport them all" is not only impractical, but it's also never going to happen. This is a direct challenge to those critics who have no real answer to the question of what we should do with these 11 million people.
Obama also made the case for setting priorities. He said he wants to go after "felons, not families," and target them for deportation rather than parents of an American citizen who have kept their noses clean. His list of who this will benefit (again, these were hurried notes, so I can't claim this list is complete) included people: who had been here for more than five years, whose children had legal status (either citizens or legal residents), who register with the government, who pass a criminal background check, and who are willing to pay a fine just like anyone else who has broken a law here.
Obama then quickly listed who this would not affect. He began by stating that nobody who arrived recently or in the future would be covered. He also pointed out (for his critics) that nobody was going to get citizenship or even a path to citizenship by his actions -- as he pointed out, only Congress has the power to do so. He shot down the "it's amnesty" argument as forcefully as he could, stating baldly: "It's not." Several times during the speech, Obama pointed out the fact that every president back to Eisenhower had made similar executive actions on deportation and immigration -- including Republican presidents.
This was an attempt to head off his critics, although it's doubtful it'll give any of them pause for thought. He did use an interesting argument about "what we have now is de facto amnesty," which is notable for who prominently used this argument in the recent past: Senator Marco Rubio.
Obama did not shy away from taking on his critics either rhetorically or head-on during the latter part of his speech. He tossed a gauntlet down in front of Congress -- if they don't like what he's doing, then "pass a bill." It's doubtful they will, but it was a forceful challenge nonetheless.
Obama did make a halfhearted plea for comity in the upcoming debate, but you could tell he knew this would be a lost cause even as he was speaking the words. He derided the idea that because Republicans disagreed with him on one issue that they should fight to the death on every issue, but again, this likely won't change any hearts and minds over on the other side of the aisle. He explicitly called for Congress not to shut down the government, but again, we'll have to wait and see what happens.
At the end of the speech, Obama did very briefly detour into what might be termed "speechwriter language," where he painted word pictures of the greatness of America and how sympathetic individual cases could be. He spoke of immigrants "making amends" and "taking responsibility." He had a series of questions beginning with "Are we a nation that..." complete with vivid contrasts of right and wrong. He called for a political debate "that focuses on our hopes, not our fears." He held up the ideal of the immigrant, a person who "came to work, to study, to serve in our military," and then ended on a scriptural note about how we should treat strangers among us.
There was only one amusing bit of snark in the entire speech, and it was aimed not at Republicans but at the television broadcast networks. He specifically mentioned, in the personal story he told, of an immigrant who "learned to speak English by watching PBS." This is amusing, because PBS was the only network to carry his speech live tonight -- the big four networks all stuck to their regular programming (it being sweeps month and all).
Overall, I'd say Obama made about the best case he could for the moral imperative of him taking action now. He gave a speech that was short, snappy, and to the point. The heart of his argument is really: "It is the right thing to do." This is what he's got to convince the country of in the upcoming political fray. How effective he will be at this task remains to be seen. But if tonight's speech is any indicator, he's off to a pretty good start, at least from where I sit.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
The Republicans warned him. Now they're going to have to retaliate by doing exactly what they were going to do anyway.
John From Censornati -
You could even turn that around:
The Republicans warned him. Now they're never going to do what they were never going to do anyway.
"Poisoned well" my patootie...
:-)
-CW
"It is the right thing to do."
Answer just one question to my satisfaction and I'll never mention the subject again..
If it's the right thing to do, why did it have to wait until after an election to do it???
Michale
Having said that, I have to say that I am not as against Obama's plan as I thought I would be...
"'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."
That sounds downright rational...
But I know that Obama won't stick with that plan.. I know he is going to ignore any criminal history, that he is going to ignore the back taxes provisions and he is just going to legalize 5 million freshly minted Democrat voters...
If Obama has proven ANYTHING in the last 6 years, it's that he knows what words to say...
But, his follow thru is abysmal, as NO ONE here can deny...
He can't be trusted to follow even his own laws, as TrainWreckCare has aptly proven...
Like the Senate legislation, this executive overreach is reasonable, logical and rational..
But I still oppose it because I simply cannot trust Obama to implement it as it is written..
And the blame for that is solely completely and unequivocally on Obama...
Even though Obama has done horrible (in yer eyes) things, ya'all trust Obama simply because he has a '-D' after his name.. Ya'all HAVE to trust him or yer not good Democrats...
I have no such restrictions placed on me...
Michale
The Republicans warned him. Now they're never going to do what they were never going to do anyway.
You don't KNOW that...
King Obama did not exhaust all possibilities before he issued his decree...
Even Biden was on board with giving the new GOP Congress time to get the job done.. But Obama shut him down..
On the other hand, there will be some good coming from Emperor Obama's royal edict...
The GOP won't have ANY problem with getting photo ID laws passed in EVERY state. With millions and millions of legal immigrant criminals floating around and the Democrats proven track record of allowing illegals to vote, no court in the country is going to stand against Photo ID....
Michale
Interesting letter to the new GOP POTUS, dated 21 Jan 2017...
The Next Prez and the Obama Way
Prosecutorial discretion? OK, how about not enforcing the 73,954 pages of tax code?
http://online.wsj.com/articles/kim-strassel-the-next-prez-and-the-obama-way-1416528052
Remember this moment when a GOP POTUS exercises "Prosecutorial Discretion" and pushes thru a complete and unfettered GOP Agenda...
When that happens, ya'all will only have yourselves and Obama to blame...
Michale
, Obama pointed out the fact that every president back to Eisenhower had made similar executive actions on deportation and immigration -- including Republican presidents.
This is simply not factually accurate..
Past Presidents have issued executive orders as addendums to immigration legislation that has recently passed..
There has NEVER been a POTUS who has issued executive orders in violation of the will of the people or the actions of Congress.
Obama is setting a very dangerous precedent, which ya'all simply cannot deny...
Michale
There has NEVER been a POTUS who has issued executive orders in violation of the will of the people or the actions of Congress.
Except possibly in the areas of National Security or Public Safety...
Michale
@Michale [8]
Really? Wikipedia's list of presidential executive orders
Since you call the rest of the readership out, I deny that Pres. Obama has set "a very dangerous precedent" [emph. mine]. In fact, simultaneous (or nearly so) to the release of his speech text, the WH released their legal reasoning for how the action is in line with the President's constitutional authority. That is actually a very welcome precedent.
The GOP won't have ANY problem with getting photo ID laws passed in EVERY state. With millions and millions of legal immigrant criminals floating around and the Democrats proven track record of allowing illegals to vote, no court in the country is going to stand against Photo ID....
that depends entirely on how the laws are written. If so much as a penny must be spent (directly or indirectly) in order to attain an ID for voting, it's a violation of the 24th amendment.
JL
Really? Wikipedia's list of presidential executive orders
How many of those executive orders were solely and completely without ANY Congressional support and totally and completely against the will of the people??
That is actually a very welcome precedent.
Of course you would say that. Because you approve of the agenda..
Now, postulate a scenario where a GOP POTUS issues an executive order that states any persons who commit violations of any Campaign Laws as they pertain to donations won't be prosecuted as long as the violations do not include violence and the donations were made to Republicans...
I bet you would have a BIG problem with THAT kind of executive order, right???
Of course you would...
I don't have a problem with Executive Orders.. They are sometimes very necessary (in addition to being a great book.. :D)
MY problem is that the Executive Orders that Obama has issued have been A) solely and completely to further the Democrat Party agenda... And 2) are detrimental to the country...
But let me ask again, since no one seems to be able to answer...
If issuing this executive order on behalf of immigrant criminals is the right thing to do....
WHY DID IT HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION????
Michale
that depends entirely on how the laws are written. If so much as a penny must be spent (directly or indirectly) in order to attain an ID for voting, it's a violation of the 24th amendment.
So, you would support Photo Voter ID if it involved no cost to the voter??
Michale
that depends entirely on how the laws are written. If so much as a penny must be spent (directly or indirectly) in order to attain an ID for voting, it's a violation of the 24th amendment.
I think a strong slogan for the democrats to run on and work toward would be voter re-enfranchisement. Use the issue against photo ID card laws but also spend some of that political money on getting people in states where these laws have been enacted to get their ID's. I would bet more votes could be gotten by offering rides and other help in registering for voter ID's than spending on attack ads...
If so much as a penny must be spent (directly or indirectly) in order to attain an ID for voting, it's a violation of the 24th amendment.
So, if someone has to use gas or have bus fair to get to the DMV for their ID, that would violate the 24th Amendment??
I think not.. :D
Having a photo ID is a fact of life in the here and now.... That's why arguing against a photo ID for voting is re-donk-ulus :D
Michale
So, if someone has to use gas or have bus fair to get to the DMV for their ID, that would violate the 24th Amendment??
Hmm, that's an excellent point; i hadn't even thought that far into it. Voting isn't just a privilege, it's a right. If the poor have to pay bus fare to get something that the rich already have (in order to exercise that right), they should absolutely be entitled to get paid back for any documented expenses. Failing that, yes - to some extent it is a poll tax and should be struck down.
Having a photo ID is a fact of life in the here and now.... That's why arguing against a photo ID for voting
the political issue is that such laws make it harder for people to vote, when factual support for the rationale is flimsy (and even that's being kind). even if such laws were enacted in strict accordance with the 24th amendment, i still wouldn't really agree with them.
however, the laws as currently conceived are NOT in accordance with the constitutional principles in the 24th Amendment. the legal issue isn't whether or not a photo ID is required, it's which photo ID's are accepted, and what steps are necessary to take in order to get one. most states with the new legislation require 5 different forms of ID (which not everybody has handy) just to get one "legit" ID - creating an undue hardship to exercise a constitutionally protected right. THAT is elephanticulous (TM).
JL
@Michale [11]
How many of those executive orders were solely and completely without ANY Congressional support and totally and completely against the will of the people??
It might be wise to avoid words like "any", "all", "never", "totally and completely". Those generally weaken your arguments. To wit, the immigration bill that was passed by the Senate and languished in the House for the past 18 months would likely have passed in the House by a large bipartisan vote had Speaker Boehner not held to the Hastert Rule. In other words, the Senate wanted immigration change and the House would have likely passed a version of immigration change. There was at least some Congressional support.
As for "the people", that's one of those vague and inclusive phrases that can mean what you like. Clearly, some voting citizens are in support of immigration change including the President's action last night. Until a vote (or at least a neutral poll) on specific terms of what the President outlined is taken among all citizens, I genuinely don't know what "the people" want and instead just see fear, uncertainty, and doubt being roused by most media outlets. Clearly, some of the people are genuinely upset and appalled too. There's a range of reaction.
Of course you would say that. Because you approve of the agenda..
Now, postulate a scenario where a GOP POTUS issues an executive order that states any persons who commit violations of any Campaign Laws as they pertain to donations won't be prosecuted as long as the violations do not include violence and the donations were made to Republicans...
I bet you would have a BIG problem with THAT kind of executive order, right???
Fallacy of the strawman argument here: create an extreme version and then argue back from it.
Two things, Michale. First, the precedent I was specifically referring to as welcome was a release of the legal justification for Pres. Obama to make the EO he spoke of last night. Now, to be fair, I haven't seen that release and I don't know if such a release has been done before, so perhaps it's not a precedent after all.
Second, I might allow your example were the donations not limited to just Republicans (since that seems clearly unjust and partisan) and there was a legal basis that present law in those circumstances was unsupported by a constitutional reading. For instance, I might disagree with unlimited campaign contributions as a policy, but I do allow that there might be cogent legal support under the first amendment. IOW, I might be dismayed and disagree with the substance but (all else being equal) might allow the president issuing that EO could have some level of executive authority to do so. And, like you, I would strongly prefer it be done through Congress and not through EO.
MY problem is that the Executive Orders that Obama has issued have been A) solely and completely to further the Democrat Party agenda... And 2) are detrimental to the country...
And here you and I will perhaps agree to disagree (though again you use "solely and completely", an overreach characterization). Personally, I think something needed to be done, but wish it didn't have to be done this way (through EO). I disagree that last night's EO substance is bad for the country -- I personally want more immigration, not less. As long as citizenship itself remains either a birthright or is earned, I see little threat. In general, the US has always improved as a result.
If issuing this executive order on behalf of immigrant criminals is the right thing to do.... WHY DID IT HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION????
I'm sympathetic to your position. Like you, I see the delay to after the election to have been a political calculation, not a policy or moral one, and so was a weaker decision. We could debate mitigating details, but really, as I've said before elsewhere, if it's right to do, then it's (usually) right to do now. The more political the basis of a decision, the less it demonstrates meaningful leadership. OTOH, political consequences are always part of any leadership equation and so have to be reckoned with (in or out of governmental politics) lest the kingdom be lost for want of a nail.
And Michale, thanks for sparring with me... :)
the following is a document explaining in detail the hardship created by a strict "voter ID" requirement to approximately 10 million citizens.
http://brennan.3cdn.net/2232d41548789ffdf6_9km6b4d67.pdf
It might be wise to avoid words like "any", "all", "never", "totally and completely". Those generally weaken your arguments.
Agreed... :D
Those generally weaken your arguments. To wit, the immigration bill that was passed by the Senate and languished in the House for the past 18 months would likely have passed in the House by a large bipartisan vote had Speaker Boehner not held to the Hastert Rule.
My take is that the Senate Immigration bill might have passed in the House by a large bipartisan vote if Obama could actually be trusted to enforce the legislation as it is written..
As for "the people", that's one of those vague and inclusive phrases that can mean what you like. Clearly, some voting citizens are in support of immigration change including the President's action last night. Until a vote (or at least a neutral poll) on specific terms of what the President outlined is taken among all citizens, I genuinely don't know what "the people" want and instead just see fear, uncertainty, and doubt being roused by most media outlets. Clearly, some of the people are genuinely upset and appalled too. There's a range of reaction.
Would such equivocation be present here in Weigantia if the election had gone for the Democrats in the same manner it went for Republicans??
You and I both know the answer is no.. :D
So, it's hard to buy into that argument knowing how situational it truly is...
(since that seems clearly unjust and partisan)
No more unjust then minting fresh new Democrat voters...
And here you and I will perhaps agree to disagree (though again you use "solely and completely", an overreach characterization)
Because that is what the facts show..
If there was a need for this EO beyond the strictly political advantage to the Dem Party, it would have been done BEFORE the election..
I'm sympathetic to your position. Like you, I see the delay to after the election to have been a political calculation, not a policy or moral one, and so was a weaker decision. We could debate mitigating details, but really, as I've said before elsewhere, if it's right to do, then it's (usually) right to do now. The more political the basis of a decision, the less it demonstrates meaningful leadership. OTOH, political consequences are always part of any leadership equation and so have to be reckoned with (in or out of governmental politics) lest the kingdom be lost for want of a nail.
I disagree... There is a point in any crisis where LEADERSHIP is front and center and politics is not an option..
President Bush said as much in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks...
"There will be NO DISCUSSION of politics as it relates to our response to these attacks" or words to that effect...
THAT is leadership...
If there was a real and pressing humanitarian reason for this EO, then there shouldn't have been ANY reason to wait til after the election...
There wasn't any need to even wait this long. Obama and the Democrats could have done it when they had a near super majority...
The simple fact that POLITICS was front and center simply proves that it's JUST about politics...
Now, having said all of the afore, I must re-iterate that the gist of the plan seems to me to be reasonable and rational. If it was ANYONE but Obama pushing this plan, I would be all for it...
But it is a proven and indisputable fact that Obama simply cannot be trusted to enact legislation as it is written..
And Michale, thanks for sparring with me... :)
Are you kidding!!!?? I am in hog heaven!! Meaningful and insightful discussions of this nature have become all too rare here in Weigantia..
So, THANK YOU! :D
Michale
the following is a document explaining in detail the hardship created by a strict "voter ID" requirement to approximately 10 million citizens.
http://brennan.3cdn.net/2232d41548789ffdf6_9km6b4d67.pdf
Are you serious!!???
Nearly 500,000 eligible voters do not have access to a vehicle and live more than 10 miles from the nearest state ID-issuing office. Many of them live in rural areas with dwindling public transportation options.
Well, if they can't get a ride to get an ID, then they can't get a ride to go vote, so no biggie...
Many ID-issuing offices maintain limited business hours. For example, the office in Sauk City,
Wisconsin is open only on the fifth Wednesday of any month. But only four months in 2012
— February, May, August, and October — have five Wednesdays. In other states — Alabama,
Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas — many part-time ID-issuing offices are in the rural regions
with the highest concentrations of people of color and people in poverty.
Voting has EXTREMELY "limited business hours"... It's only once every two years...
Look, I am sure between us we can come up with THOUSANDS of reasons why someone can't vote...
But if voting is such a major responsibility and a major right, then it's going to require a LITTLE bit of effort...
NO ONE can be dis-enfranchised from voting unless they give tacit approval....
It's THAT simple...
Michale
The integrity of the election is paramount...
ALL efforts to insure that only those who can legally vote are the ONLY ones voting are reasonable...
Once again, I am constrained to point out that if illegal voters swung overwhelmingly for the GOP, ya'all would be right up there, shoulder to shoulder with me...
Michale
If you want it in a different context...
An illegal voter dis-enfranchises a legal voter...
Michale
But if voting is such a major responsibility and a major right, then it's going to require a LITTLE bit of effort...
you mean like in mississippi, where you can't get a voter ID without a birth certificate but you can't get a copy of your birth certificate without a voter ID? that is not election integrity, it's creating hardship. How exactly is a little effort going to change that situation?
Once again, I am constrained to point out that if illegal voters swung overwhelmingly for the GOP, ya'all would be right up there, shoulder to shoulder with me...
that is offensive and untrue, not to mention speculation unsupported by factual evidence.
JL
you mean like in mississippi, where you can't get a voter ID without a birth certificate but you can't get a copy of your birth certificate without a voter ID? that is not election integrity, it's creating hardship. How exactly is a little effort going to change that situation?
If we threw out laws because somewhere there is an inconsistency, we wouldn't have any laws at all..
that is offensive and untrue, not to mention speculation unsupported by factual evidence.
It wasn't directed specifically to anyone here... I have made it clear on MANY occasions that when I make statements like that it's directed at the totality of the Left not specifically at Weigantians......
And I stand by it. It's speculation supported by TONS of factual evidence, plus years of observation on how the Left operates..
I know you would dispute it and I respect that...
Michale
that is offensive and untrue, not to mention speculation unsupported by factual evidence.
Just as I speculate that, if illegal voters overwhelmingly swung to the GOP, the GOP would be as against Photo ID for voters as the Left is now...
I am sure you would agree with me on that, eh?? :D
Michale
And so it begins...
New DHS immigration rules: Drunk drivers, sex abusers, drug dealers, gun offenders not top deportation priorities
The new priorities are striking. On the tough side, the president wants U.S. immigration authorities to go after terrorists, felons, and new illegal border crossers. On the not-so-tough side, the administration views convicted drunk drivers, sex abusers, drug dealers, and gun offenders as second-level enforcement priorities. An illegal immigrant could spend up to a year in prison for a violent crime and still not be a top removal priority for the Obama administration.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/after-obama-action-dhs-sets-new-immigration-rules-drunk-drivers-sex-abusers-drug-dealers-gun-offenders-not-top-deportation-priorities/article/2556517
So, if you raped a child or killed someone by driving drunk, you are not automatically deported...
Good call.. :^/
Michale
My take is that the Senate Immigration bill might have passed in the House by a large bipartisan vote if Obama could actually be trusted to enforce the legislation as it is written..
For the sake of argument, let's say the House would have passed it, but didn't trust Pres. Obama. I see two possible rationales for such distrust: (1) the President had routinely (or at least commonly) ignored laws that had passed and so gave objective reason to distrust him, or (2) enough members of the House simply decided to distrust him a priori and, through confirmation bias, wouldn't accept that he could be trusted (at least in most cases) even when he generally did follow the laws passed.
And all of that still doesn't answer why Spkr. Boehner refused to let it come to a vote. I would think that should the distrust you suggest be that widespread, it would not have passed. The reason it didn't pass, AFAIK, is that it wasn't allowed to come to a vote. That's a political decision on the part of the Speaker.
Would such equivocation be present here in Weigantia if the election had gone for the Democrats in the same manner it went for Republicans??
You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment. ;) Really, I actually haven't been in too many conversations with others here and have yet to have a beer with any of you. In general, Internet forums do seem to have people harden positions that need not harden. Doubt is the beginning of rational thought.
So, it's hard to buy into that argument knowing how situational it truly is...
Fair enough. I agree that situation counts for a lot.
No more unjust then minting fresh new Democrat voters...
Nothing I've seen in the EO suggests that the undocumented immigrants affected would gain voting rights, so no "minting" voters there as far I can tell. Nor do I see how someone could register to vote without being documented even if allowed to stay in the country.
I disagree... There is a point in any crisis where LEADERSHIP is front and center and politics is not an option..
President Bush said as much in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks...
"There will be NO DISCUSSION of politics as it relates to our response to these attacks" or words to that effect...
THAT is leadership...
I too completely agreed with his sentiment in that occasion. Like most Americans of any political bent, I rallied to that sentiment. Not to take us down old rabbit holes that are off-topic, it wasn't until the Patriot Act or Iraq that I lost faith with that. Initially, though, yeah, right there with you, Michale.
But I don't find this example to invalidate what I wrote earlier...
If there was a real and pressing humanitarian reason for this EO, then there shouldn't have been ANY reason to wait til after the election...
There wasn't any need to even wait this long. Obama and the Democrats could have done it when they had a near super majority...
The simple fact that POLITICS was front and center simply proves that it's JUST about politics...
There is a difference though between 9/11 and the current scenario. 9/11 was a "bright line" event, an explicit, undeniable, and specific act of war by terrorist given have in a foreign nation that resulted in mass American deaths. Undocumented immigration in the U.S. has been a slow building issue over decades; the need for immediate response by a specific date is blurrier and some political deliberation was appropriate.
You raise a good question. I too think action on immigration should have happened sooner. So why wait so long? We're 6 years into the Obama presidency. Was it to allow Congress to act and only when it was clear that it was futile to work with such a polarized Congress, Pres. Obama finally threw up his hands? It would seem trust/distrust goes both ways.
I however don't see how you could simply assert that the timing was ONLY about politics. That seems overly reductionist. I agree that politics were involved, and could agree that perhaps too much so.
Now, having said all of the afore, I must re-iterate that the gist of the plan seems to me to be reasonable and rational.
And I'm glad the EO didn't go too far. Sounds like on the policy itself, you and I have common ground. Yea! (and, no, I'm not being ironic or snarky)
If it was ANYONE but Obama pushing this plan, I would be all for it...
But it is a proven and indisputable fact that Obama simply cannot be trusted to enact legislation as it is written..
Not that you have to, but I assume you could state some "proven and indisputable" occasions where the President earned such strong distrust? Enough to overcome situations where he followed through? Are there occasions where his response has been appropriate? I find your statement here too stark to be compelling. For it to be "indisputable", at least some reasonable people who are supporters of the President would also agree with those occasions are betrayals of trust.
Having said that, since I voted for him, I appreciate I'd be more forgiving of any Obamian (TM!) trespasses than you might. But I was also disliked when some Democrats were overly polarized against Pres. Bush. At a certain point, an opponent becomes so polarized that they cease to consider they might be wrong or unfair. The proposition -- that Pres. Obama can't be trusted -- has to be falsifiable or it's just blind opposition.
rdnewman,
At the risk of it being taken the wrong way....
Holy crap, dood!!! Where ya been all my life!!! :D
I intend to address your comment in full, but my day is winding down.. Then it's mandatory TV time (think it's going to be either the latest episode of THE 100 or PERSON OF INTEREST) with my lovely wife and then in bed by 1900....
So I'll jump on your comment tomorrow and address it fully...
Michale
So, if you raped a child or killed someone by driving drunk, you are not automatically deported...
Unless of course you know how to read. Both of those are felonies. If you are convicted makes you a felon. I know reading is tough for you but try to find that word in your quote above...
Second, try reading the actual policy [www.dhs.gov] rather than a biased retelling. You will find three levels of enforcement to spend resources on. nothing in there about not enforcing any of it but to first go after Priority
1 conditions for removal. Then Priority 2, then Priority 3 then if you have any money left, the rest.
drunk drivers, sex abusers, drug dealers, and gun offenders as second-level enforcement priorities
This part of your quote above should be qualified by "misdemeanor". Felony versions of all listed crimes are covered in Priority 1.
Talk about injecting in hysteria just to make political points. Isn't that what you accuse the left of?
@Michale [27]
Not the wrong way at all. Until then, my friend.
Richard
P.S., just started watching The 100 a couple of weeks ago myself.
(1) the President had routinely (or at least commonly) ignored laws that had passed and so gave objective reason to distrust him, or
Which HAS happened on many MANY occasions...
othing I've seen in the EO suggests that the undocumented immigrants affected would gain voting rights, so no "minting" voters there as far I can tell. Nor do I see how someone could register to vote without being documented even if allowed to stay in the country.
In the last election there were numerous documented cases where Dem poll workers encouraged illegals to vote.. In North Carolina, hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants were found on the voting rolls...
however don't see how you could simply assert that the timing was ONLY about politics. That seems overly reductionist. I agree that politics were involved, and could agree that perhaps too much so.
If there was ANY shred of real need in this, Obama could have done it in the first 2 years, like he had promised. Back then, nothing could have stopped immigration legislation from passing..
Why wait til this late in the game to issue the EO?? The ONLY thing that explains the delay is politics..
But we don't even have to divine meaning from the delay. Obama and the Democrats baldly stated that the immigration EO had to wait til after the election to help Democrats IN the election...
I will gladly concede that there MIGHT have been a real need about this EO.. Say 10% real need.. But 90% of this EO was strictly politics..
Not that you have to, but I assume you could state some "proven and indisputable" occasions where the President earned such strong distrust?
"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. PERIOD"
"Make no mistake. Syria's use of chemical is a clear Red Line for military action"
"I welcome debate on domestic surveillance."
"I haven't changed my position regarding my capability to issue executive orders regarding immigration."
Those are just the ones I can remember off the top of my head. I am sure if I google'ed it, I could come up with dozens more..
Rest assured, Obama has earned the distrust...
Having said that, since I voted for him, I appreciate I'd be more forgiving of any Obamian (TM!) trespasses than you might.
Yea, I voted for him too...
But I was also disliked when some Democrats were overly polarized against Pres. Bush. At a certain point, an opponent becomes so polarized that they cease to consider they might be wrong or unfair. The proposition -- that Pres. Obama can't be trusted -- has to be falsifiable or it's just blind opposition.
Exactly!!!
Around these here parts, Bush was a DAILY target for scorn and ridicule.. As hard as I am on Obama, Weigantians were JUST as hard, if not harder, on Bush..
And I am only one person... Imagine 20 of me slamming Obama on a daily basis and you will get the idea of how things were like around here during the Bush years... :D
Michale
In the last election there were numerous documented cases where Dem poll workers encouraged illegals to vote.. In North Carolina, hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants were found on the voting rolls...
For the first, I assume you'd have citations. I don't recall reading about anything widespread (which I suppose says more about what I read than anything), although I certainly could imagine isolated incidents. For the NC case, that says as much about how the Secretary of State conducts elections than anything. You've refuted my earlier claim that non-citizens can't vote, but still nothing you've said here suggests that the EO actually contributes to the cases you've put on the table. The EO covers undocumented non-citizens that are already here and so where voting registration holes might occur, they're not made worse by this EO. If anything, we'll have at least documented them and so could better control the rolls.
If there was ANY shred of real need in this, Obama could have done it in the first 2 years, like he had promised. Back then, nothing could have stopped immigration legislation from passing..
And back then, Pres. Obama was still trying to collaborate with Republicans which could explain at least some of the delay. Even with the ACA, he tried to make attract bipartisan behavior rather than ram legislation through even though in the first two years, legislative fiat was generally possible. Nonetheless, to your point, those are political considerations. But considerations I find hard to take fault with.
Why wait til this late in the game to issue the EO?? The ONLY thing that explains the delay is politics..
OK, politics: Pres. Obama tried to work a deal with Spkr. Boehner for something that could pass the House. He gave them time to do so. You could fairly discount this, but he even went so far as to give them the summer to pass something in response to the Senate bill. Since we both agree that an EO should be a last (or late) recourse, at least some of these delays so as to better involve Congress seem reasonable and not because of a more cynical political gamesmanship.
But we don't even have to divine meaning from the delay. Obama and the Democrats baldly stated that the immigration EO had to wait til after the election to help Democrats IN the election...
I will gladly concede that there MIGHT have been a real need about this EO.. Say 10% real need.. But 90% of this EO was strictly politics..
There are two parts to your claim. One is that the EO was done and second that the EO was timed as it was. For the first, once realistic options for working with Congress (more specifically the House) seemed exhausted, there was little option left but the EO. After everything else, the EO was the last, right thing to do.
The timing of the EO though? No argument from me with regard to the last few months. Although Pres. Obama represented to Spkr. Boehner that he'd have the summer, clearly this was convenient to Democratic candidates for the mid-term. Simply political gamesmanship and not really defensible when one is trying to take the moral high ground on the topic. But then you and I would just be quibbling about short time delays. From my POV, once it was clear that nothing more could be done in collaboration with the House, it was immediately appropriate to issue an EO.
"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. PERIOD"
I took it to be an inappropriate oversimplification rather than a personal lack of integrity, but for the people that relied on the statement, that's splitting hairs. He shouldn't have stated it that way.
"Make no mistake. Syria's use of chemical is a clear Red Line for military action"
Turned out to be a bad bluff. It actually is a red line, but one the US wasn't prepared to back up. He shouldn't have said that, but again I don't see it be dishonest, just calculated to put pressure on Syria. Without being prepared to back it up, it was a foolish statement.
"I welcome debate on domestic surveillance."
I don't know that he's shown he doesn't welcome debate. It is a complex subject though and I don't know enough to respond with any detail. Our government, under either party, is all to eager to succumb to fear and erode civil liberties when convenient. And if anything erodes my faith in Pres. Obama, particular given his rhetoric in his first run for office, it has been a lack of willingness to stand, fight, and deliver on civil liberties protections (Guantanamo Bay, anyone?). On this subject, I'm profoundly disappointed in both parties, esp. since 9/11. However, although there have been disappointments, I find it hard to follow you to a place where Pres. Obama can be characterized as a liar. He still has made progress or fulfilled many promises he made and I don't want perfect to be enemy of good.
"I haven't changed my position regarding my capability to issue executive orders regarding immigration."
This is less a lie and more a negotiating position. Any moderate president that was being attacked on the left to go it without Republicans and attacked on the right against any immigration reform is reasonably going to try to deflect the political pressure back on Congress. First, because Congress should pass immigration reform rather than a President issuing an EO. There are negotiating positions, poker bluffs, and outright lies. I suppose for me there is the matter of intent: did he mean to be dishonest or was there a greater good in play?
But still, Michale, while you've listed some failings, trust is a continuum, not black and white. Pres. Obama has followed through on much of what he's said too. Those occasions just don't get much attention because it's not sexy to do talk about them in the press.
Around these here parts, Bush was a DAILY target for scorn and ridicule.. As hard as I am on Obama, Weigantians were JUST as hard, if not harder, on Bush.
I know I'm preaching to the choir on this, but this is a central problem in American political discussion today. Our president isn't just the one we voted for, but the one that was duly elected. I might be very dismayed at the policy decisions he made, even to the point of protesting, but Pres. Bush was my president while he was in office. I'm old enough to have voted in the early 80s and so old enough to remember when most of us behaved that way. I hated when the far-right used to say "Charles Heston is my president" as if Pres. Clinton wasn't, and loathed it when that rhetoric was used against Pres. Bush. It's not right, regardless of what side one identifies with. Of course, red meat politics is good ratings and click bait for both sides. Its too bad that much of the electorate responds to it. It's time to stop wearing blue and red jerseys like it's some kind of gladiator sport. And I think it good to have critical, but civil, voices in any forum to keep group-think and vacuum chambers in check. I suppose that's why you participate here, Michale.
I took it to be an inappropriate oversimplification rather than a personal lack of integrity,
You may have taken it that way, but the vast majority of Americans took it for what it was.. A bald-faced lie to sell a bill of goods that COULDN'T have passed without the lies..
Turned out to be a bad bluff.
It was utter and complete incompetence... As ANY leader will tell you (I was an MI Elltee during Desert Storm) you simply DO NOT issue ultimatums and then don't follow thru...
Bluffs are fine in poker...
But when dealing with WMDs on the world stage, only a frak'in moron would bluff..
I don't know that he's shown he doesn't welcome debate.
Because he only "welcomed the debate" *AFTER* he was caught....
CW can tell you more about Obama's Lie Of The Year... :D
Pres. Obama has followed through on much of what he's said too.
For example???
Is Gitmo closed??
But getting back to the Executive Order...
It's obvious that Obama issued this EO to push the GOP into doing something stoopid..
But what if the GOP doesn't play Obama's game???
And that's not even taking into account that the American people unequivocally and without reservation told Obama and the Democrats to knock everything off...
Do you think that the Democrats can come out on top if they ignore the will of the people TWICE???
Michale
On another note...
How do you like THE 100??
I wasn't going to watch it, as it's a CW show and I figured it would be a teeny-bopper 90210/TWILIGHT BS fest...
But I have to admit, it's a pretty decent show.. Good story line.. A lot of teeny-bopper influence but still decent.. The wife even likes it which is an added bonus.. :D
I have also taken a liking to CONSTANTINE.. It's kind of a down and dirty, gritty SUPERNATURAL....
Michale