Vox’s Ezra Klein gives it the old college try in giving arguments for and against “Obamnesty”
(Vox) For: The president clearly has the power
At this point, fairly few people, even on the right, are arguing that Obama doesn’t have the power to exempt broad classes of people from deportation. President George H.W. Bush granted about 1.4 million unauthorized immigrants a blanket deferral from deportation — that was about 40 percent of America’s unauthorized population, a number similar to what Obama is considering now. And it’s not just Bush: a variety of other presidents have used this power in a variety of other ways.
Except, they were doing it under Congressional authorization based on the 1980’s amnesty, not making it up out of whole cloth. As Jazz Shaw points out, what Obama is looking to do is tell law enforcement to no longer enforce actual law. “This is an executive order to officers of the law to stand down from their duty entirely and ignore criminals who they may – in at least some cases – be able to find and prosecute.” Furthermore, where does Obama get the statutory authority to give pay raises?
Against: The president might have the power — but that doesn’t mean he should use it
“The executive branch is effectively acting in direct defiance of the electoral process,” writes Ross Douthat. “This is where the administration has entered extraordinarily brazen territory.”
Of course, Klein finds that thinking “fuzzy”.
For: It’s sensible and humane
The backdrop to this debate is 11 million unauthorized immigrants live in the United States right now. They work, raise families, pay taxes, start businesses, contribute to their communities — and live under constant, unrelenting fear of deportation.
They commit crimes, they steal social security numbers and identities, ruining countless lives, deflate wages, oh, and how does one start a business without the proper documentation? As far as humane, what about our legal citizens?
Against: The constant, unrelenting fear of deportation is the point
Yes, it is. Obviously, Klein is not happy with the view that criminals should be concerned about being caught.
For: Congress is broken, and that means the president must do more
Whether Congress is broken or not, a separate debate, they are the lawmakers. Otherwise, we might as well be a dictatorship, where the whims of 1 person are forced upon 300+ million citizens.
Against: This could turn paralysis into crisis
This is really what Obama wants. Mr. Nobel Peace Prize prefers strife, conflict, and hyper-partisanship. Along with things being his way or the highway.
We’re either a nation of law, or a nation of whim.
“what about our legal citizens?”
Exactly, and also, what about all of the immigrants who played by the rules and obeyed the laws, went through the process and became citizens the right way? Seems like a slap in the face for those people.
Anyone who thinks Obama and the democrats care about the poor and the middle class are delusional.
Only the Executive Branch determines who should be prosecuted
And as Darth Cheney said in wartime a POTUS. Has near unlimited powers
Obama was the first POTUS since Eisenhower to get over 50% of the vote twice
Millions of Americans break laws every day.
Police use discretion daily on speeders, jaywalkers, spitters, litterers, polluters… lawbreakers all. Should we expand the police presence to catch every criminal, including those driving 1 mph over the speed limit, which is against the law?
Prosecutors use discretion daily as well. Charges are reduced or prosecution is not pursued. The IRS uses discretion – they do not audit everyone – millions of Americans underpay what the law says they owe.
How many Wall Streeters were prosecuted for wrecking the financial system? How many were even investigated?
Many Americans carry firearms in violation of Federal and local laws.
Why do you favor a full court press on Mexicans?
“Many Americans carry firearms in violation of Federal and local laws.” Yes, and that would be a good analogy if someone wanted to give blanket amnesty to all who carried guns illegally. But they don’t, so it’s not. Most of what you listed aren’t felonies, but that’s irrelevant because no one is advocating not prosecuting all speeders, litterers, ect. “Why do you favor the full court press on Mexicans?” Well, can you name one other group that so disrespects US law that numbers about (at least) 11.5 million?
The President said:
Of course, this is a false premise. The are prioritizing their time. If they see you speeding in a school zone or passing a stopped school bus, you can bet they will bust your ass, Jeff. No one is telling the police to intentionally ignore people breaking the law. However, that is exactly what Obama is directing authorities to do: ignore the law on certain illegal aliens. Which will have the effect of doing this to almost all illegals.
Other than at the border, officials generally are not looking for illegals, unless they get a tip that there are illegals working at some company. When they catch them, they are supposed to put them through the procedure to deport them.
Heck, the newspapers identify them all the time.
Let me ask you: what if Obama was a big gun rights supporter, and put through an executive order telling law enforcement to ignore all laws on, say, ownership of high capacity magazines, or true automatic weapons? Would you agree with that?
Yet, that is exactly what will happen.
And my point was that authorities ignore laws all the time.
Now we will prioritize our efforts to deport dangerous criminals not parents of young citizens. They will be able to apply for work permits if they meet certain criteria (paying back taxes, time of residence, background etc). Some 5 million American residents will be able to fully participate in America, being “productive members of our society”.
The President who said:
was Ronald Reagan.
Jeff,
At the end of the day, always remember that the party you support has deemed you as stupid and malleable.
I know that you have a love fest with Reagan, I also think highly of him, but his amnesty deal was not a better part of his presidency. Same thing as a very beautiful woman with a crooked nose.
And my point is that authorities are not told to ignore the law. That is what Obama is doing. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
If authorities ignore the law, is that OK? If someone comes and robs your home, Jeff, and the authorities decide to ignore that, are you OK with that? Before you start yammering in Liberal, no, you aren’t OK with that.
Now, take it a step further: say that the mayor of your town says “ignore any home burglaries for the next 4 months.” You good with that?
Why can’t we do both? If people are here illegally and get caught, they all need to go. Of course, there’s no proof that Obama will actually prioritize catching the bad ones. And, this order will create havoc among law enforcement in terms of catching them.
They aren’t American residents: they are illegal aliens. People who shouldn’t be here, and are taking advantage of America.
But, hey, you’re good with law breakers. Thanks for informing us. So, in the future, you cannot complain about anyone acting illegally. Have an illegal gun? You can’t complain, because you’ve made your position.
Not all lawbreakers are equal, now are they?
The parents of an American citizen, both working 50 hrs a week as migrant farmworkers, are not the same as a burglar, an armed robber or a murderer.
Although the far-right would love to round up 11 million Mexicans and deport them, we all realize that that is just a Tea Party wet-dream. It’s not going to happen.
Facing that reality, why not start the process making life better for those living and working in the US for 5, 10 or 20 yrs?
Why not try to solve the problem?
Yes. If the lawbreakers are hard-working residents who have been here for several years.
Do you really believe all lawbreakers are equal? Do you really think that not deporting the hard-working parents of an American citizen is the same as not pursuing a mass murderer?
These “illegal aliens” that you despise pick your strawberries, cherries, lettuce and apples.
dave,
They have? Anyway, I don’t support a party but rather ideas and policy. I used to vote for Republicans before they went crazy. I did not support President Reagan – a charming man with naïve and dangerous ideas. This nation and its people are still suffering from his legacy. Mr. Reagan gave us a military buildup, massive debt and importantly, income inequality. But even a conservative as ignorant and backward as Mr. Reagan recognized the futility of deporting millions (not out of compassion but from his fixation for rewarding the wealthy for their “service to America”).