May 28, 2015

Does this mean Obama's immigration plan will only be carried out if the next President wants to do it?

I'm trying to delve into the true import of this NYT article titled "Immigration Overhaul May Be in Limbo Until Late in Obama’s Term." The headline seems to inject some optimism into the scenario. Let's look closely:

1. There's a preliminary injunction in place preventing Obama from going forward with his plan, and the Justice Department has chosen not to go to the Supreme Court now. So the litigation continues on the merits in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which will take some time. When it ends, whoever wins will seek Supreme Court review. That's going to take some time.

2.  How much time? The NYT says: "That legal battle may extend for a year or more, officials said, undermining any hope of putting the president’s plan into effect until right before the 2016 election." I take that to refer to the possibility that the Supreme Court (assuming it takes the case) would come out with a decision before it goes on its summer break, which would leave Obama with half a year to go forward with his plan.

3. Would Obama start up his program right on the eve of his successor's election? It's a political problem, but it's not just a political problem. Politically, it might help the Democratic candidate to have the program begun so that she (or he) can say you need me to continue it. Pressure could be put on the Republican to say whether he'd keep it going or not and what he'd do with the problem instead. Obama could choose whichever works better for the Democrat, when the time comes. At a late point in the campaign, he'll have the power to affect the factual context of the immigration issue.

4. But it's also a practical problem. It's a program that invites undocumented immigrants to "come out of the shadows." Who will want to do that in late 2016? If it won't work, because those who are eligible to come out lack confidence that the program will stay in place, then why do it? Well, the reasons discussed in point #3 might still hold. Begin the program for show. You've got a safe haven for people but the people are too afraid to use it. Look! Isn't that sad! Don't you want to vote for the candidate who will make it possible for people to use this wonderful plan Obama thought up? That's the political argument that could be built on the practical problem.

5. The political argument built on the practical problem only works if it turns out that voters in the swing states want the reform and approve of Presidents acting independently of Congress. But, as noted in point #3, Obama will make the decision close to the election, so he'll have up-to-date  information about how people feel — not only what they think about immigration but whether they're susceptible to the argument that it's important for Obama to end his presidency on a high note. His word is "HOPE." Wouldn't it be beautiful if he ended with this success that is the very essence of hope? Will that idea resonate in the summer and fall of 2016? He can decide when the time comes.

6. Points ##3, 4, and 5 all assume Obama will win in the Supreme Court. That's unlikely, I think. If he loses, however, he hands his party's candidate an excellent issue: those terrible conservatives on the  Supreme Court who are ruining everything.

74 comments:

damikesc said...

If you haven't been following the case, Obama is seemingly trying to get lawyers to lose their license. They have been nailed to the wall for intentionally violating the injunction twice now and the judge is livid that they first lied to him and then next ignored his order anyway. Judge Hanen has basically said he is unable to trust the word of DoJ lawyers.

I don't see how this can pass muster when they are penalizing officers who do not abide by the new policy. If you have the manpower to punish people who uphold the law as written, you have the manpower to uphold the law.

Vet66 said...

I think he is more interested in his legacy than setting the stage for someone else to run with immigration issue. Narcissists are more interested in doing it their way which trumps the value of amnesty and hope. He is not a team player.

Brando said...

Regardless of the illegality of Obama's plan--and "politically selective enforcement of the law" is clearly an abuse of power--the GOP needs sooner or later to address the millions of illegal aliens in this country. Not because it's a political winner (immigration reform won't suddenly make Hispanics vote for them, though railing against illegals isn't helping) but because keeping millions of residents in legal limbo is not good for the country. These people include border crossers and visa-overstayers, skilled and unskilled, longtime residents and new arrivals, Hispanic and non-Hispanic alike--and while some ought to be deported (particularly if they've committed other crimes) and others ought to be amnestied (particularly if they have key job skills or serve in our armed forces) after paying a reasonable fine. But the status quo is not sustainable, and with control of Congress the GOP can get ahead of this issue.

Brando said...

"I think he is more interested in his legacy than setting the stage for someone else to run with immigration issue. Narcissists are more interested in doing it their way which trumps the value of amnesty and hope. He is not a team player."

That, and I get the sense he really can't stand the Clintons.

StoughtonSconnie said...

The administration has already been shown in court to have lied about implementing the Executive Amnesty, and their track record leads me to believe that they are most likely continuing to implement it under the radar. A delay in court proceedings won't put a dent in that, because who is going to stop them? By 2016, the amnesty will be in place. Facts on the ground trump legal theory every day.

Sebastian said...

Right: upholding basic rule of law would be "ruining everything" (from Prog, not AA point of view).

damikesc said...

Regardless of the illegality of Obama's plan--and "politically selective enforcement of the law" is clearly an abuse of power--the GOP needs sooner or later to address the millions of illegal aliens in this country. Not because it's a political winner (immigration reform won't suddenly make Hispanics vote for them, though railing against illegals isn't helping) but because keeping millions of residents in legal limbo is not good for the country. These people include border crossers and visa-overstayers, skilled and unskilled, longtime residents and new arrivals, Hispanic and non-Hispanic alike--and while some ought to be deported (particularly if they've committed other crimes) and others ought to be amnestied (particularly if they have key job skills or serve in our armed forces) after paying a reasonable fine. But the status quo is not sustainable, and with control of Congress the GOP can get ahead of this issue.

Simple: You cannot become citizens. Period. You have to leave, wait a year, then attempt to enter legally. And the high-skill visa system is being horribly abused (ny Progressives, naturally) so kill it. Kill it dead.

If you're FIRST act in this country is to violate the law, you're not exactly somebody we need.

Anybody who is given a court date due to possible illegal immigration and does not appear forfeits any right to ever become a citizen in perpetuity.

Anonymous said...

There's a preliminary injunction in place preventing Obama from going forward with his plan

The preliminary injunction only exists because the agency failed to follow the notice and comment period requirements. The administration could moot this case in 30 days if they wanted.

Michael K said...

"But the status quo is not sustainable, and with control of Congress the GOP can get ahead of this issue."

The only way this will be acceptable to most voters is if the border is secure, the illegal criminals are caught and deported and the remaining law abiding are self supporting.

Unions are really at risk of destroying their own members if they keep pushing illegal immigration. Wait until the first hamburger robots start to appear.

Blacks may remain politically stupid but maybe they will get smarter when Obama is gone.

damikesc said...

The preliminary injunction only exists because the agency failed to follow the notice and comment period requirements. The administration could moot this case in 30 days if they wanted.

It won't become moot since the agency lied to the judge with the initial order and then ignored the second, more clarified order. The judge isn't going to give them any leeway given the track record.

damikesc said...

Unions are really at risk of destroying their own members if they keep pushing illegal immigration. Wait until the first hamburger robots start to appear.

The $15 minimum wage push will do that. And they know that because unions are already trying to exempt unionized firms from that law.

Which means that the union is now fighting to LOWER people's wages. Yeah, they are quite needed.

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-83635492/

Anonymous said...

Brando said...
Regardless of the illegality of Obama's plan--and "politically selective enforcement of the law" is clearly an abuse of power


selective enforcement based on resource allocation has always been fair game in Law enforcement as long as it isn't "by name" selective.

However, this is blanket immunity in contravention of Congressionally passed legislation AND they are taking steps to SPEND money on the programs rather than save money to use elsewhere.

It's not selective resource allocation when you implment new programs without Congressional mandate. That opens up Antideficiency Act issues and subjects Federal employees to criminal penalties.

Anonymous said...

Althouse,

Do you think that there is time to have a District court trial, appeal, and a SCOTUS Appeal in 18 months?

Can't the SCOTUS Dodge the issue until after the election if it arrives in the Summer of 16?

Larry J said...

Brando said...
That, and I get the sense he really can't stand the Clintons


If true, that would be one of the very few subjects of agreement between Obama and myself.

MayBee said...

Brando- I suspect you are right. His people really tried to destroy the Clintons in 2008.

I also suspect having someone from his party following Obama wouldn't really work for him. I think he'd rather have someone he can blame for bungling what he'd left in place, than take acceptance that his policies didn't work in the long run.
The man is a blamer, and blamers gotta blame.

Ann Althouse said...

"Can't the SCOTUS Dodge the issue until after the election if it arrives in the Summer of 16?"

It doesn't have to take the case, but I think it will see that it must.

Anonymous said...

It doesn't have to take the case, but I think it will see that it must.

Can you expand on that? Isn't somewhat analogous to a request for a stay? If the SCOTUS takes the case and rules in favor it irreparably damages Congressional power and alters the immigration landscape.

In the Summer of 16 in't it more appropriate to not take it an allow the new President, working in theory with a new Congress to decide the issue?

By your reasoning, the SCOTUS ought to allow a POTUS to implement by EO any number of permanent things? e.g sell off vast tracks of Federal lands? Dam Yosemite valley? Freeing all Federal Prisoners? Granting work permits to all illegals?

Bob Boyd said...

"Obama's immigration plan will be carried out only if the next President wants to do it."

That's the problem with ruling by executive order, isn't it?
At least until enough executive orders have been given to create what is effectively a permanent one party system.

Hagar said...

I think his game is to make such a mess of it that his successor(s) will have to do something to straighen it out, and then the Democrats can criticize the hell out of that and keep the hubbub going, so it is all good.
Except that a lot of people are going to get hurt as collateral damage, but what the heck, they are only the little people.

traditionalguy said...

Obama is intent on his goal which was from the beginning to punish Americans for their very existence as a functioning free people under a Christian God's providence. And he wants to leave behind him a "legacy" of scorched earth of destroyed social order and institutions.

His victims so far include the US Military, the US energy generation systems, the US alliances all over the world, and the US Scientific establishment, the US southern border , and the US Constitution's balance of powers scheme .

He uses his special smile to mask a patented racist generated hatred that ignites any divisions between "brown" colored peoples and white peoples as a disguise of those real activities. The eternal race war is his smoke screen and his sheild.

And noticing that Obama is doing those things does not make one into a racist. It makes one into a realist.

mccullough said...

People either came here illegally or overstayed, which is illegal. They wanted to live here "in the shadows." Better than where they were from. The status quo is fine. Its what they chose to live with. Nothing unfair about it.

Michael K said...

I am reading a book called, Days of Rage about the radical underground where Obama got his philosophical grounding. It really is interesting to see how these people think. I am finding lots of points of understanding with Obama and his mentor Bill Ayres, although Bill was less a mover and shaker than a rich kid who wanted to be the boss. Bernadine Dohrn was a bigger force in the Weatherman. Largely because of her sex according to the book.

lgv said...

re: #3 - he will implement it even if it is in the last days of his presidency, because once it happens, it will be hard to undo, which is why we have an injunction.

Democrats are overplaying their hand on immigration. While 90% publicly support his plan (I'm making that up), only 40% really support it. It's just like gay marriage in California of all places. Holy crap, over half the people what to define marriage as between a man and a woman. They just won't do it in public.

Brando said...

"If true, that would be one of the very few subjects of agreement between Obama and myself."

I've got to admit I'm sympathetic to Obama on this one. And I'll always appreciate him doing the one thing the GOP never could--beat and humiliate the Clintons even when they played their dirtiest.

"I also suspect having someone from his party following Obama wouldn't really work for him. I think he'd rather have someone he can blame for bungling what he'd left in place, than take acceptance that his policies didn't work in the long run."

I agree--particularly because if the economy takes a dive in the next term (and it's due for that) it'll look more like a Republican failing to keep up Obama's great legacy than if a Democrat was stuck holding the bag. Also, if Obamacare unravels, wouldn't it be better for him to be able to say the GOP screwed it up? A Democrat stuck with it would make it look more like it was ill-conceived from the start.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Ann Althouse said...

It doesn't have to take the case, but I think it will see that it must.

Does the it must depend on the lower court ruling, or do you assume that whichever way the lower court rules, there will be four Justices that disagree, and those four believe they at least have a chance of persuading a fifth?

Hagar said...

It is Chicago-style politics. These people see the national government just as Chicago on a larger scale.

Brando said...

"Simple: You cannot become citizens. Period. You have to leave, wait a year, then attempt to enter legally. And the high-skill visa system is being horribly abused (ny Progressives, naturally) so kill it. Kill it dead."

Unfortunately, it is not so simple--and not just because of the legal appeals and process of getting someone deported (cases of deportees claiming that they are legal but INS screwed up their paperwork, mistaken identity, etc.). It also means breaking up families, separating people from jobs, etc. Sure, we could say it's worth it to deport everyone who can't prove they are here illegally, and change the laws granting legal rights to those suspected of being here illegally (as of course not every case will be easy to prove either way) but the resources required to do so would cost far more than we're willing to spend. Complete deportation is simply never going to happen.

I'm willing to live with limited amnesty (for otherwise law abiding people who are here and working, or have needed skills, or do military service, have been here a while) if it means getting more of these people documented so they're paying taxes (and of course agree to pay back taxes owed) and our resources can be more focused on finding and deporting those who don't fit that category, and preventing more illegal entry in the first place. It's dealing with the problem we have rather than wishful thinking.

Sloanasaurus said...

" I think. If he loses, however, he hands his party's candidate an excellent issue: those terrible conservatives on the Supreme Court who are ruining everything. "

This assumes the low information voter understands any of this. The low information voter may also decide that Obama blew it rather than blame it on individuals they don't know (conservative Justices), on a court they have never heard of.

Why didn't Obama pass immigration reform when he had all of Congress under his control? It seems that Obama's immigration plan has more to do with this failure than anything else. Obama is trying to prevent his "legacy" from being shredded by the left. So Obama goes and decides to implement an amnesty program that is obviously illegal hoping that the lefties in his party will then blame republicans when it goes down in flames. But after the Court rules 7-2 that Obama acted illegally (prosecutorial discretion does not equal giving someone a de facto green card), people will go back and remember his failures in 2009-2010.

Anonymous said...

Brando: ...the GOP needs sooner or later to address the millions of illegal aliens in this country. Not because it's a political winner...but because keeping millions of residents in legal limbo is not good for the country...while some ought to be deported (particularly if they've committed other crimes) and others ought to be amnestied (particularly if they have key job skills or serve in our armed forces) after paying a reasonable fine. But the status quo is not sustainable...

I agree, having millions of residents in legal limbo is not good for the country. But, sorry, amnesties do not fix the problem. If you can point me to one instance in the modern West where mass amnesties did not result in increased illegal immigration, and an even bigger mess further down the road, I'd like to know about it. They certainly haven't had any effect in this country but to make the problem worse.

The only way an amnesty could possibly fix anything is if there were some mysterious mass conversion of the denizens of our political and legal institutions, such that meaningful employer sanctions and effective border control rules were not only legislated but enforced. (The return to rule of law and stability would also require massive reform of the benefits system, that the ethnic grievance industry and preferences/affirmative action for immigrants be dismantled, and that all the hangers-on and enablers of the above be taken out and shot - but I'm getting ahead of myself here.)

But you know and I know that none of the above is going to happen, so amnesty is an exercise in futility, advanced as a "solution" by 1) people who benefit from the status quo, 2) whore politicians, 3) people unaware of anything that happened more than two weeks ago, or 4) people who think "doing something" is doing something.

The non-answer to the above is always "but we can't deport 11 (15, 20, 30, whatever it is now) million people!" - as if an alternative non-solution to a non-solution is a solution. (Well, to niggle, you actually can deport millions of people - happens all the time. We mean "won't", which is true.)

You're wrong that the situation is "not sustainable", or right only in the sense that a country can't sustain its quality of life, rule of law, etc. under such conditions. It is sustainable, because exaclty the same conditions come to prevail after any amnesty is passed, as existed before. And it's perfectly sustainable in the sense of "just going on existing". Look around. Countries like that all over the world. They're not going anywhere, they trundle right along. Things blow up from time to time, yes, but its remarkable how adaptable people are to injustice, corruption, and all around crap living conditions. Sustainable as hell.

...and with control of Congress the GOP can get ahead of this issue.

That's pretty funny, Brando. There are a lot of things the GOP could do with control of Congress, but...sorry, please excuse me while I wipe away the tears of laughter here.

dbp said...

I think the court slapping down the Obama administration on its immigration amnesty perversely helps the Democratic candidate.

I don't think the people want unfettered illegals flooding into our country. This works against the Democrat candidate since (if the presidential order was upheld) they would continue with this lawless plan. If the court stops this plan, then the Democrat is powerless to do the thing people don't like.

Kind of like the way Roe v. Wade helps pro-life Republicans: The law prevents them from banning abortion, so who cares if they want it banned from conception with no exceptions? (I know most are not this hardcore, but the point stands.)

Brando said...

"But, sorry, amnesties do not fix the problem. If you can point me to one instance in the modern West where mass amnesties did not result in increased illegal immigration, and an even bigger mess further down the road, I'd like to know about it. They certainly haven't had any effect in this country but to make the problem worse."

Amnesty (as I'd propose) would not solve the problem of people wanting to come here illegally (or overstay, as is often the case) because that's caused simply by the benefits of being here illegally outweighing remaining in the original country. But it would solve the problem about what to do about the large numbers currently here--and if these can become documented, productive residents paying taxes and working and raising their families--I'd prefer that to having them operate in the shadows.

Our last amnesty was about thirty years ago--I haven't seen evidence that the amnesty itself had caused immigrants to get here illegally because they believed another amnesty was right around the corner. Surely after that amnesty was a quarter century old most potential entrants would have given up hope?

But if the idea is that amnesty will encourage more illegal entrants, that's an argument for more border security and focusing resources on getting more recent entrants ejected.

Hagar said...

@Michael K,
I think the author, and you, are misreading the Ayerses. Dohrn is the apparently loud and domineering one, but I bet it is Bill who gets his way in the family - and in The Weatherman.

Which is alive and well, BTW. They just stopped planting bombs and went to infiltrating college administrations and work from there.

Bruce Hayden said...

The preliminary injunction only exists because the agency failed to follow the notice and comment period requirements. The administration could moot this case in 30 days if they wanted.

This is maybe somewhat simplistic, and misses the fact that the APA violation was the low hanging fruit. It was one of a number of claims in the complaint,many of which would have been sufficient for the preliminary injunction. It was just the easiest for the courts - departments and agencies need to do X, Y, and Z to enact regulations. They failed to do X and Y, so couldn't do Z either. The Administrative Procedures Act (APA) is pretty central to how out federal government operates, and has been for decades. Courts routinely reject rules and regulations that haven't been promulgated correctly. (Guys I know killed some USPTO rules this way a couple years ago). So, if the agency goes through proper notice, comment, and consideration of comments, then what? The courts look at the plaintiffs' other claims.

That assumes that they survive the APA requirements. But most often agencies get dozens, and some times hundreds, of comments to review. Here, they are likely to get hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of comments to review. I know I would submit mine, as others here probably would too. Only time in the past with anything like that number was with the unAPA implementation. The problem is that the agency promulgating a rule has to not only accept the comments, but also must consider them. Each and every one. Which they couldn't possibly do over night - rather it would take months, maybe many months, to properly consider the volume of comments they would likely get if they properly proposed these rules.

Anonymous said...

6. Points ##3, 4, and 5 all assume Obama will win in the Supreme Court. That's unlikely, I think. If he loses, however, he hands his party's candidate an excellent issue: those terrible conservatives on the Supreme Court who are ruining everything.

An "excellent issue"? What does it excel at, exactly? The country is already bitterly divided over "amnesty", and having Obama's extra-legal/unconstitutional actions quashed will likely have no effect on the few "independent"
squishes who haven't made up their vacuous minds.

If the GOP played its cards right ---which it never does---it would campaign hard on stemming the tide of illiterate and no-skilled illegals, and target its message on African-Americans and young people frozen out of the labor market by the hordes of
Yard Aztecs who are literally and figuratively eating their lunch.

Bruce Hayden said...

Continuing from my last post - even the most hyper-partisan Obama judge would have a problem with ignoring the APA violations. These are the (primary - there are others) rules by which the government promulgates and enacts the rules and regulations that are so essential to the operation of the modern bureaucratic state. Instead, leftist judges attack the PI on the basis of whether or not they can hear the case in the first place. States are dis favored in challenging the pending enactment of regulations. One usual problem is that of speculative damages. The trial judge though accepted as fact that the regulations would cost the states money, in the form of drivers' licenses and the like that they would have to provide the illegals. And, if the federal courts cannot hear the case in the first place, they can never get to the APA violations. And cannot grant a preliminary injunction.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

Immigration is hardly an "excellent issue". Whatever the rights or wrongs of the issue, out here in the real world you could start mass deportations of illegals tomorrow and the average person couldn't care less. And many, many would absolutely cheer. Neither party is likely to get this right and I'm guessing it's a wash politically. Like abortion, the smart politician (of any stripe) will say as little about it as possible.

damikesc said...

Unfortunately, it is not so simple--and not just because of the legal appeals and process of getting someone deported (cases of deportees claiming that they are legal but INS screwed up their paperwork, mistaken identity, etc.)

They'd better keep their evidence. And if they fail to turn up for a court date, as most do, they shouldn't be stunned when we boot them.

It also means breaking up families, separating people from jobs, etc.

I, admittedly, couldn't give less of a shit about that. Prison does the same. I don't feel a need to suspend a law because it might inconvenience law breakers.

I'm willing to live with limited amnesty (for otherwise law abiding people who are here and working, or have needed skills, or do military service, have been here a while) if it means getting more of these people documented so they're paying taxes (and of course agree to pay back taxes owed) and our resources can be more focused on finding and deporting those who don't fit that category, and preventing more illegal entry in the first place. It's dealing with the problem we have rather than wishful thinking.

I'm for copying Mexico's illegal immigration policy, personally.

But it would solve the problem about what to do about the large numbers currently here--and if these can become documented, productive residents paying taxes and working and raising their families--I'd prefer that to having them operate in the shadows.

It'll lead to them voting which I oppose vehemently.

Anonymous said...

If hwe can't deport illegals and we can build a fence and we can't stop them from coming, and we can't afford to send them home, and 20-25% of the Mexicans have already come to the US, and the next wave will be another 10-15%, then:

Mexico is a failed state, and we might as well annex it and get this disaster over with.

Apparently Mexicans would rather live in the US than Mexico. Let's keep them in place...

TreeJoe said...

Here's an immigration solution:

1. You want to be a citizen? Great. You are granted probationary citizenship status after a brief process and test, with full rights and responsibilities. Anyone who wants to join this country comes through easy to find/convenient processing stations

2. DHS/ICE converts entirely to setting up and running those stations and a combination of random and targeted monitoring of probationary citizens to ensure they remain non-criminal, find employment, pay taxes. Males age 16-65, particularly demonstrating characteristics of certain nationalities or beliefs, receive extra monitoring

3. The border is secured aggressively and if you are crossing in a non-processing area you are immediately rejected - no processing, simply dumped on the other side.


....

There are millions of hard-working hispanics in this country sending money back to their families in Mexico, a net drain on this country. I want them bringing their families to the U.S., joining the melting pot, with their families working too, and becoming full citizens.

I understand that they lived in a tough life in mexico, crossed our unsecured border because they could, and took up gray market jobs to send money back home. I'd do it too. If things back home are so tough, encourage them to come here and become long-term prosperous.

TreeJoe said...

Oh, and in addition to the above post, and I think anyone caught crossing illegally after we secure our borders should have a marker tattoo'd on them indicating how many times they've been caught crossing illegally. Anyone caught 2-3x is permanently rejected from a path to citizenship.

Make it so appealing to cross legally, and so unappealing to cross illegally, that only true criminals seek to enter outside the eyes of immigration.

Kyzer SoSay said...

Ann Coulter has a column up today about immigration Very interesting reading.
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-05-27.html

Anonymous said...

Brando: Our last amnesty was about thirty years ago--I haven't seen evidence that the amnesty itself had caused immigrants to get here illegally because they believed another amnesty was right around the corner. Surely after that amnesty was a quarter century old most potential entrants would have given up hope?

There have been six large-scale amnesties enacted since the 1986 IRCA. Not sure about the number of nickel-and-dime acts passed for the benefit of illegal groups not numbering in the six to seven figure ranges covered by the former. It's not surprising that someone who thinks IRCA was the last amnesty might have overlooked evidence of a relation between amnesties and increased illegal immigration.

But if the idea is that amnesty will encourage more illegal entrants, that's an argument for more border security and focusing resources on getting more recent entrants ejected.

D'oh! Why hasn't anyone thought to argue for greater border security and stricter enforcement as a way to avoid having to pass any more amnesties in the future?! That's gold. I'll write my Congressman right now.

I'm Full of Soup said...

Daaughter: Daddy, can my friends stay over for the weekend ? or maybe longer?

Dad: How many friends are there?

Daughter: I am not certain. Maybe 10 million or 30 million?

Dad: Jeez, that is a lot. Where are they from ? Do you know them very well?

Daughter: Sorta kinda. A little bit - I have not met them all.

Dad: Tell you what honey. Get a good accurate count of all your friends, their names, ages, etc and we can discuss if and how long they can stay.

Brando said...

"D'oh! Why hasn't anyone thought to argue for greater border security and stricter enforcement as a way to avoid having to pass any more amnesties in the future?! That's gold. I'll write my Congressman right now."

I never said that would completely eliminate further illegal immigration--that's something we're always going to have as long as people want to get in here far more than they're afraid of the consequences of being caught. It's no different from trying to stem the trade in guns, or drugs. But what are you proposing as an alternative? Mass deportation is simply never going to happen, and the status quo has obviously not worked. Legalizing the most productive and valuable among them at least benefits our country and frees up resources.

I get that you don't agree with that, though--and clearly a lot of people don't. So I don't expect much to change.

Sebastian said...

"Surely after that amnesty was a quarter century old most potential entrants would have given up hope?"

Umm, no.

"But if the idea is that amnesty will encourage more illegal entrants, that's an argument for more border security and focusing resources on getting more recent entrants ejected."

Since such security and ejection remain chimeras, the Prog argument reduces to further encouragement via amnesty.

I'm Full of Soup said...

Brando:

I would invite them to come out of the so-called shadows to register their illegal presence and after the census is done and only after the census is done and a border fence is complete and we have stopped new illegals from getting in, the citizens of America would get to decide what to do with them.

I don't trust any estimates of how many illegals are here now.

As to making them productive and valuable- illegal or not they are supposed to be paying taxes just like citizens so what extra value are you talking about?

Brando said...

"Since such security and ejection remain chimeras, the Prog argument reduces to further encouragement via amnesty."

Well, why are they chimeras? Is it that such provisions can never pass as part of a reform law, or no president could ever enforce such measures? I don't see why such measures are impossible.

"As to making them productive and valuable- illegal or not they are supposed to be paying taxes just like citizens so what extra value are you talking about?"

As an example, let's assume someone is a skilled electrician who could be making good money and providing services in that field, but with an expired Visa is taking day laborer work and still paying taxes. I'd rather have that person pay their back taxes and be able to work at their skill level than continue doing the lower profile and lower paid work. As for anyone who has been working but not paying taxes (as I'm sure can happen with seasonal day laborer work) I'd rather have that person pay their fine and back taxes than to remain in the shadows.

I know it's tempting to say "anyone here illegally broke the law, therefore get them the hell out" but no matter who is president, that has not happened and never will happen for a lot more reasons than it being politically unfeasible (even Republicans are divided on the issue). I'd rather some reform that accomplishes some fo the goal (of reducing the inflow) as well as other benefits than to keep a status quo that clearly hasn't worked (unless by "worked" you mean creating a shadow society).

Fabi said...

Perfectly said by traditionalguy at 8:08.

Mr. Fabulous said...

It seems to me that almost everyone overlooks the culpability of Mexico in this issue. As a country, they effectively encourage their citizens to cross the border illegally, and as both a political entity and as a society they benefit greatly, at our expense. They also facilitate the illegal immigration of non-Mexican citizens into the US.

I would suggest that we consider recouping the cost to the US of illegal immigration from Mexico directly from the Mexican government. These costs include, but are not limited to wages from jobs lost by US citizens to illegal immigrants, who then send those wages back to their families in Mexico. The cost of providing social services, such as medical care and emergency services, to illegal immigrants who are not paying taxes. The cost of dealing with known, convicted criminals who are routinely caught then released back into society to prey upon our citizens. There are other costs that could be listed.

We should send Mexico the bill, and if they don't pay it, use the courts to get a judgement to seize their assets that we can reach.

The point of this is that we'll never get a handle on the illegal immigration issue along our southern border unless Mexico cooperates with efforts to stem the flood of illegal immigrants, instead of facilitating and benefiting from illegal immigration. While preventing all illegal immigration is probably impossible, we will never get a handle on this issue without cooperation from the Mexican government. And they will never cooperate as long as they benefit greatly from the situation. There are many other issues that need to be addressed regarding illegal immigration (amnesty, for example) but we will continue to have a massive illegal immigration problem on our southern border as long as it is all gain and no pain for Mexico.

Ann Althouse said...

"Does the it must depend on the lower court ruling, or do you assume that whichever way the lower court rules, there will be four Justices that disagree, and those four believe they at least have a chance of persuading a fifth?"

I think it's the sort of thing that requires an answer from the Supreme Court, whichever way it goes. It's too important whether it's stopping the president or giving him the stamp of approval.

Note to Drill Sargeant: It will be a decision on the merits.

Brando said...

"We should send Mexico the bill, and if they don't pay it, use the courts to get a judgement to seize their assets that we can reach."

If it weren't for one diplomat in the 1840s who didn't want to U.S. to take too much Mexican territory after the war, we might have avoided all of this. The Mexicans would have been better off too--aren't Mexican Americans whose ancestors were in the American Southwest better off than those currently in Mexico?

damikesc said...

There are millions of hard-working hispanics in this country sending money back to their families in Mexico, a net drain on this country. I want them bringing their families to the U.S., joining the melting pot, with their families working too, and becoming full citizens.

We should drop a massive tax on that kind of thing as well.

I don't see why such measures are impossible.

Dems and the Chamber of Commerce wing of the GOP will never pass an actual border security bill.

As an example, let's assume someone is a skilled electrician who could be making good money and providing services in that field, but with an expired Visa is taking day laborer work and still paying taxes. I'd rather have that person pay their back taxes and be able to work at their skill level than continue doing the lower profile and lower paid work. As for anyone who has been working but not paying taxes (as I'm sure can happen with seasonal day laborer work) I'd rather have that person pay their fine and back taxes than to remain in the shadows.


If there is, literally, ZERO Americans who can do the job, fine. We've seen that it isn't the case.

Kyzer SoSay said...

Seriously, what would it take to declare war on Mexico? They're enabling an illegal invasion of our sovereign, I've read stories of their military engaging our Border Patrol in actual, no-shit combat, and they refuse to seriously take on the drug cartels that are situated right across the border and also routinely engage in acts of violence, along with the human trafficking, drug smuggling, and money laundering that goes on.

At this point, I think many nations (especially if equipped with a military as powerful and capable as ours) would have said "enough is enough" and either create a militarized border or move directly to the ever-popular "regime change" option.

No, I don't wanna burn the nation down to bedrock or knock them back to the Stone Age. That would create more problems. But I wouldn't mind a couple hundred machine gun nests on the border, with 24/7 drone surveillance and/or a surprise cruise missile strike on their Presidential residence.

Birches said...

People either came here illegally or overstayed, which is illegal. They wanted to live here "in the shadows." Better than where they were from. The status quo is fine. Its what they chose to live with. Nothing unfair about it.

This is true. I'm constantly annoyed by the modern illegal activist who somehow seems indignant that his and family's life choices are restricted because of their choice to illegally enter the country. Our border enforcement is lax; it always has been. We say we don't want illegals, but then let them through. Back in my father and grandfather's time, the deportation was seen as inconvenient, but they got caught and that's how you play the game. They recognized their status, lived with their deportation, and came back the second they could. They didn't throw a big stink about the injustice of it all. I hate that.

Most illegals will self deport if employment prospects dry up. There were entire empty blocks in my old neighborhood when the crash in 08 happened. Start fining employers big time. Stop increasing the minimum wage. And gt the IRS involved with sharing the information it has on suspected stolen SSNs. The IRS pretty much knows who is probably using someone else's SSN; but they don't care, as long as the illegal is withholding at the highest rate and never asks for a tax return.

Birches said...

they refuse to seriously take on the drug cartels

Kyzernick, you have no idea what you're talking about. The whole reason the cartel war is raging is because the Mexican government FINALLY decided to do something about the cartels. The cartels don't kidnap and behead and shoot down helicopters if the government allows them to conduct their business unmolested.

Kyzer SoSay said...

Let me just go ahead and say it again, since Birches seems to have caught a case of Indignant. Mexico is refusing to seriously take on the drug cartels.

Why are they not bombing flat the compounds and warehouses these cartels use?

Why are they not declaring them terrorists and inviting America to send in Special Forces to take them down?

Why are they encouraging illegal immigration, which in turn enables human trafficking, drug mules, and cross-border money laundering?

Why are they telling their citizens to fight the druggies on their own, rather than committing heavy armor and mech.infantry to bring the fight to the cartel's front door?

Yeah, Birches, go ahead and answer those questions, with decent attribution. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.

Kyzer SoSay said...

Hell, the US Government seems to have used more force on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco than I see the Mexican't government using on the cartels.

We probably had more assets in place to "recover" Elian Gonzalez too.

It would be funny except for all the dead Mexican citizens.

Anonymous said...

Brando: I never said that would completely eliminate further illegal immigration...

And nobody was taking issue with your views on that basis.

But what are you proposing as an alternative?

I'm not. Absent certain actions that you insist can't happen (mass deportation), and I know won't happen (employer sanctions, serious enforcement), there is no solution.

Mass deportation is simply never going to happen...

Dude, how many times does it have to be explained to you that pointing this out tells us nothing about the efficacy of amnesties?

...and the status quo has obviously not worked.

A system of rolling amnesties and non-enforcement, punctuated by party-political clown shows about "immigration reform", is the status quo. You just haven't been paying attention.

I get that you don't agree with that, though--and clearly a lot of people don't. So I don't expect much to change.

None of your "solutions" will result in any change, either. People are merely trying to point out to you, and forgive the cliché, that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is crazy.

When people point out that perhaps you're a bit underinformed about amnesties, or note the political realities that will prevent the removal of existing incentives to migrate (which must be removed if amnesty is to be any kind of solution), you simply blow it all off and return to reciting vacuous talking points about "bringing them out of the shadows" and "taxing productive workers" and "legalizing the most productive and valuable". (Really? How's that going to work? Does that mean that it's OK to deport and break up the families of people who turn out to be net drains on the economy and not net contributors? Because that category surely includes a whole lot of hardworking but unskilled illegals.)

If you think non-stop amnesties are our only choice (because there's absolutely no reason to believe there's any end in sight if we pass another one), fine. Let's move on and talk about the implications of the accelerating banana republicization of this country like adults.

Well, why are they chimeras? Is it that such provisions can never pass as part of a reform law, or no president could ever enforce such measures? I don't see why such measures are impossible.

Sorry, my mistake. I was actually taking you somewhat seriously here. Nice "born yesterday" troll act, Brando.

Birches said...

Ha, I'm being indignant and you're the one saying the US needs to declare war on Mexico!?!

The Mexican government isn't going to bomb its own citizens--I'd like you to picture how that would go over in the International Press. Think hamas and Israel if you need help. You're dealing with another entity that has the firepower, manpower, and resources of another State within your own borders. The answers on how to deal with that are not easily found.

As for asking for America's help, well, that I suppose is a valid option, but would be condemned by most of the world as well, with most of the vehement opposition from Central and South America. And I'd wouldn't support it either. Let Mexico take care of Mexico's messes. If America wants to solve its own messes, it should start prosecuting cocaine users and not just the sellers. Throw a couple of Senators' sons into prison for the weekend, and perhaps, just perhaps demand might go down. I don't think legalization is a complete answer. The cartels will lose too much to go down without a fight.

Hell, the US Government seems to have used more force on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco than I see the Mexican't government using on the cartels.

And look how well that turned out. Bombing and shooting everything that moves doesn't usually win over hearts and minds.

Birches said...

Amnesty is not necessary. By virtue of the 14th Amendment, illegals will always die out eventually. The government just needs to figure out how to keep new ones from coming. You make it impossible to get a job? They'll go home, even if their kid is a dual citizen.

Kyzer SoSay said...

"The Mexican government isn't going to bomb its own citizens--I'd like you to picture how that would go over in the International Press."

Headline: Mexican Air Force Flattens Known Sinaloa Cartel Compound with Smart Bombs

You really think that the world would condemn that? Really? Maybe the lace-panty crowd would care, the rest of the world (read: the majority of the world) would be fine with it.

"As for asking for America's help, well, that I suppose is a valid option, but would be condemned by most of the world as well, with most of the vehement opposition from Central and South America."

Dude, there's a reason they're called Special Forces. The rest of the world doesn't have to know who did it. All they'll know is the deed was done. If anything, the only clue that it was American forces and not internal Mexican't forces is that if our SF raids a compound, they generally get shit done for real.

"And I'd wouldn't support it either. Let Mexico take care of Mexico's messes."

Amen to that. Let Germany deal with Hitler. They're his problem. /sarc
In case you haven't noticed, it's our mess too. If your neighbor runs a methlab out of his house, do you just sit there and let it happen or do you do something?

"Bombing and shooting everything that moves doesn't usually win over hearts and minds."

Right, because we're trying to convince the cartels to give up their criminal ways. We better make sure to say "pretty please with a cherry on top", to be safe.

Kyzer SoSay said...

One last one for the hit parade . . .

"If America wants to solve its own messes, it should start prosecuting cocaine users and not just the sellers."

Right. Because if I get caught with my personal stash of yayo, nothing bad is going to happen to me at all.

Jeebus dude, half the debate on "over-incarceration" in America is about low-level drug offenders who are behind bars for just being users or addicts, and it's not just Mary Jane that's putting them behind bars. I'd bet there's more cokeheads in prison than potheads. You act like we're just letting them all go without charges, and you accuse me of now knowing what I'm talking about? Gawd.

Kyzer SoSay said...

I found one more golden oldie for review:

"You're dealing with another entity that has the firepower, manpower, and resources of another State within your own borders. The answers on how to deal with that are not easily found."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America

Read the whole thing. Get back to us when you're through. Yowzers.

I'm Full of Soup said...

Birches said:
"Most illegals will self deport if employment prospects dry up. There were entire empty blocks in my old neighborhood when the crash in 08 happened. Start fining employers big time. Stop increasing the minimum wage. And gt the IRS involved with sharing the information it has on suspected stolen SSNs. The IRS pretty much knows who is probably using someone else's SSN; but they don't care, as long as the illegal is withholding at the highest rate and never asks for a tax return. "

I agree 100%. We need to insist our govt [it is our govt right?] do its f-ing job.

Steven said...

but because keeping millions of residents in legal limbo
They aren't in legal limbo. Their presence is plainly contrary to law.

is not good for the country.
What's not good for the country, any country, is rewarding lawbreakers for breaking a proper law. Amnesties for breaking a law are only non-destructive if and when the law itself is repealed with the understanding its very existence in the first place was unjust. Otherwise all you're doing is undermining the rule of law.

Kyzer SoSay said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kyzer SoSay said...

I will go ahead and agree with you about a couple of things though, Birches. Like AJ Lynch, who quoted an earlier post by you, I agree with MOST of what you say concerning limiting the employment options for illegals (not 100%). Points of contention below:

"Most illegals will self deport if employment prospects dry up."

I would say "many", but "most" is a stretch. Plenty of them will find under-the-table work. It's easy to do. I could go and get an off-the-books busboy job right now if I were so inclined. Or they'll sell drugs. There is no E-Verify for your neighborhood crack pusher. You think every bean farmer has a 100% on-the-books labor force?

"The IRS pretty much knows who is probably using someone else's SSN"

The . . . wait. Wait. Just. A. Minute.


The same crowd who can't find a thousand emails and claims to have computers frying left and right is supposed to really, really, know who is using a stolen SSN? Think about that assertion.

Richard Dolan said...

Trying to figure out the political implications of any move necessarily begins with trying to figure out who you are imagining will be impacted by the move. It won't be the 46+% of the electorate that, except in rare circumstances, will habitually vote for the Rep candidate, or the 47+% that will do that for the Dem candidate. that slice of in-between voters isn't paying close attention, and is moved by more emotional appeals than policy issues.

My guess is that the small segment of the electorate up for grabs will find more emotional resonance in the argument about protecting American jobs and the American citizens who are down on their luck and need those jobs. That's the way some of the Rep candidates (Walker comes to mind) are already framing this issue. But it's very tricky political territory for both sides. What makes it exceptionally tricky for the Dems is that Obama refuses to listen to anyone else's political judgment -- he's the guy who knows best. I suspect Obama will take the first opportunity to put in place his immigration plan, because he's always right and anyone who disagrees is wrong (or worse, wrong for evil reasons).

Birches said...

The same crowd who can't find a thousand emails and claims to have computers frying left and right is supposed to really, really, know who is using a stolen SSN? Think about that assertion.

It's not an assertion. I know it's true. I know a guy in manufacturing who had a plant in Guadalajara he had to work out of for a couple of years. While he was there, his SSN was stolen). He didn't know about it. It was used at first by one other person in Kansas City, then someone else in Texas, then someone else in Colorado. This went on for a few years--I think 4. The IRS came after him after the third person in Ft. Collins because the collective income added up to enough that they collectively went red in the government's account. Before, the cumulative was still enough that the government was making money off the SSN and they didn't really care. Of course, the IRS didn't say that. They said they noticed discrepancies or what not and started investigating. But he found it interesting the "discrepancies" didn't come up until there was money lost and they came after him for the difference.

Kyzer SoSay said...

I'm willing to stipulate that the IRS can catch this activity sometimes, especially when they lose money. But I don't have enough faith in that organization to entertain the thought that they catch anything more than slim majority of the cases. I think a significant percentage slip through, and maybe they get caught and flagged eventually, but in that time even more SSNs have been stolen and used.

I'm not opposed to using the IRS to help find and catch illegals. I do NOT think that it's a standalone solution. And politically, there might be some actors within the IRS who feel illegal immigrants are not a "priority", let's say. Just like server backups were not a "priority".

cubanbob said...

I'm a legal immigrant myself ( legally) and married to an immigrant ( also here legally) so I have to admit but for the grace of God go I. However if the government is really serious about stemming illegal immigration then make it much more uncomfortable and unprofitable to be here for the illegals. That can be done relatively easy by making it a lot harder to send funds back to their countries, requiring employers to first e-verify before they can hire, limit entitlement spending to citizens, make being here illegally a crime in of itself and an aggravating circumstance in conjunction of the commission of another crime and requiring the states to send illegal alien convicts to federal prisons for full completion of sentence with an additional sentence for being here illegally to be served consecutively. Then obviously tighten border security. As for citizenship, whats the point of being one just to pay taxes to subsidize or maintain those that aren't? Anchor babies need to be eliminated by limiting citizenship to those who are born to an American citizen parent and as for benefits, as per the Nestor decision, they are merely welfare benefits, not a property right, so those can and ought to be limited to US citizens only.

Anonymous said...

I agree, having millions of residents in legal limbo is not good for the country. But, sorry, amnesties do not fix the problem. If you can point me to one instance in the modern West where mass amnesties did not result in increased illegal immigration, and an even bigger mess further down the road, I'd like to know about it. They certainly haven't had any effect in this country but to make the problem worse.

The problem isn't that amnesty can't work. The problem is that we don't have the political will to make it work. We know it's a trick. They will talk tough about fines and such, but they don't mean it. They will talk tough about border controls and such, but they don't mean it. They never do. Which is why amnesty doesn't work.

How could it work?

1) If you were unable to ever immigrate anyone else, thus, no family fairness, no bringing your mom or dad or anyone to continue the immigration chain.

2) Unable to become a citizen. Ever. Hell, I'd require a 2/3rds vote to change this, because you know the moment they passed this, they'd try and amend it. Which is why we can't trust them.

3) No criminals. Period. Even if you've been fined for littering. Do we have 10-20 million illegals in this country? Then let's start with those who haven't broken more laws than our immigration laws. But, this is why it doesn't work. Because we offer waivers. Littering? That's no big deal! Pretty soon, rape of a child is acceptable too. It's sickening the waivers we have for criminals.

4) No welfare recipients. If you've been living off of our welfare system anytime in the past 5 years, you're out. Goodbye. We don't want you. What? The State you live in won't share that information with the Federal Government? Ok. Anyone from that State is also out.

But, you know they'd never do this, right?

5) You must speak English. No waivers. No waivers for age. No waivers for education level. Period. You must speak English. What? A lot of them don't speak English? Well great! That's that many less who don't want it bad enough to immigrate. It must not be that bad living in the shadows, eh?

Again, we know they won't do this, right?

Don't tell me I'm opposed to amnesty. I'm not.

I'm opposed to blanket amnesty with fake sounding tough talk.

Scott said...

Mandatory E-Verify for both employment and housing, with onerous penalties for non-compliance.
Proof of citizenship for any and all welfare benefits.

Problem solved.

But, Never going to happen...

Bad Lieutenant said...

That all sounds great, now first secure the border. First. Secure. The. Border. Then we'll talk.