Obama To Delay Action On Immigration Reform Until After Election
For purely political reasons, the Administration is delaying the announcement of new executive action on immigration.
As expected, the Obama Administration has announced that it will delay any announcement of executive action on immigration until after the November elections:
WASHINGTON — President Obama has delayed action to reshape the nation’s immigration system without congressional approval until after the November elections, bowing to the concerns of Senate Democrats on the ballots, White House officials said on Saturday.
The decision is a striking reversal of Mr. Obama’s vow to take action on immigration soon after summer’s end. The president made that promise on June 30, standing in the Rose Garden, where he angrily denounced Republican obstruction and said he would use the power of his office to protect immigrant families from the threat of deportation
“Because of the Republicans’ extreme politicization of this issue, the president believes it would be harmful to the policy itself and to the long-term prospects for comprehensive immigration reform to announce administrative action before the elections,” a White House official said. “Because he wants to do this in a way that’s sustainable, the president will take action on immigration before the end of the year.”
White House officials insist that Mr. Obama is more determined than ever to do that — eventually. But the president and his top aides have concluded that an immigration announcement before November could anger conservatives across the country, cripple Democratic efforts to retain control of the Senate, and severely set back any hope for progress on a permanent immigration overhaul.
White House aides began calling elected officials and immigration advocates Saturday morning to inform them that the president had decided not to act before the election. The president is expected to talk about the issue during an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” to be broadcast on Sunday.
The delay is certain to frustrate Hispanic activists who have been pressing Mr. Obama for months to sidestep Congress. Leaders of several immigration groups said their members would be furious with the president for raising — and then dashing — their hopes.
Mr. Obama’s advisers appear to have persuaded the president that he will be able to win back the support of immigrant activists, and create a personal legacy, if he waits until after the midterm elections to announce the sweeping executive actions.
The announcement’s timing has developed into a political problem for Mr. Obama. By saying that he would act on his own, the president heightened expectations among Hispanics that he would finally address the deportation fears of 11 million illegal immigrants, many of whom have been in the United States for decades.
Among the possibilities that administration officials have explored is the unilateral expansion of a program that would provide many illegal immigrants with work permits to allow them to legally live and work in the country indefinitely.
As I noted when I wrote about this last month, there had been hints for the better part of August that the Administration was considering pushing back any announcement of executive action on immigration until after the election. For the most part, this was due to the fact that Democrats in red states such as Arkansas, Louisiana, Alaska, and North Carolina who are already facing tough re-election fights were privately urging the White House to not take any action that would potentially harm the party’s chances in the battle for control of the Senate. The theory, obviously, is that whatever action the President is contemplating would do more to energize Republicans in these states than it would to get Latino and other voters who might favor the actions to vote in a midterm election where turnout among such groups is expected to be low to begin with. Given this, and the fact that the Senators in each of these states are all in battles that put them within or near the margin of error with their Republican opponents. Given that, the politically smart thing to do is to delay the action until after the midterms.
Of course, it’s unclear whether this delay is actually going to avert the negative reaction that Democrats feared from the executive actions to begin with. It’s fairly obvious that the delay is purely political, and while we don’t know what the substance of the actions the President is contemplating might end up being, it seems fairly clear from reports that what we’re looking at is some kind of expansion of the Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals program that the President announced in 2012. From the beginning, the Tea Party and other anti-immigration reform activists have branded that move, falsely, as some form of amnesty. In this case, it seems obvious that they’ll use the the announcement of the delay to rally their supporters in the same way they would have used the announcement of executive action itself. In that regard, one wonders whether the President shouldn’t have just gone ahead and announced his plans now and let the chips fall where they may.
…. anger conservatives across the country, cripple Democratic efforts to retain control of the Senate, and severely set back any hope for progress on a permanent immigration overhaul.
I’m pretty sure that that ship has already sailed.
Well, yes, the bad faith of the Tea Party caucus is a given. So why play into it?
Obama knows any executive action he takes today will show up in attack ads tomorrow. He also knows that this Congress or the next one will not do anything about immigration: won’t reform it, nor will they attempt to prevent Obama from doing so.
So this is a shrewd move, politically and practically. Announcing now would give “aid and comfort” to the opposition, provide them with election season ammunition, and, more importantly, jeopardize the whole endeavor. It would be counter-productive and politically stupid.
It would have been nice if he was able to find some small, widely supported policy change to make the Republicans vilify it and run against it. Prioritizing the deportations of violent offenders, perhaps.
@James Pearce:
Just out of curiosity, do Obama’s extra-constitutional powers have any limits at all? Would it be possible for him to institute single payer healthcare tomorrow? Turn around the trickle-down economic policies this country has been suffering under for the last 30 years? Oh wait, he already had his turn at bat on those and kinda struck out
Think about how David Axelrod and the other members of the Democratic Party brain trust will look at this issue. If you make it an issue today, it is a short term loss for a bigger victory in the distant future. However, if the Democrats put the issue off until after the election the Democrats cannot lose. If the Democrats retain control of the Senate then the Democrats make it an issue and hope the Republicans in the House shut down the government and thus, give the Democrats a win. Or The Republicans win control of the Senate, the Republicans feel that they need to appeal to Latinos for 2016 and thus, vote for immigration reform and give the Democrats a huge victory. Or, the Republicans win control of the Senate and to pay off their biggest donors (Sheldon Adelson, Koch Brothers, etc) pass immigration and amnnesty and thus, give the Democrats a huge victory.
Unless Democrats and progressives are so partisan and blind themselves, it should be obvious that in the long run, the Democrats are going to win on amnesty, open borders, and maintenace of ethnic set asides for Latinos. Of course, that will make the U.S. a one party state but that is something that the Democratic strategist know but just do not allow themselves to talk about it.
Maybe people should at least admit that there is no way the Republicans can win on immigration in the long run and that Republicans are so stupid on immigration that they refuse to push for policies that will at least offset the worst impacts of amnesty and open borders.
@edmondo:
You’re asking the wrong guy. I’m interested in getting things done, not sitting on my hands doing nothing and then complaining about “Obama’s extra-constitutional powers,” which is the line of swill you’re peddling.
@James Pearce:
Yes, I remember the guy who preceded Obama was a huge advocate of “getting things done” too. How’d that work out?
There is a mechanism for “getting things done” called the Constitution. We would be well aware that there won’t always be a president with a “D” after his name sitting in the executive office. And therein lies the rub.
From Twitter, I see two groups mad about this: emo-progs who are angry Obama didn’t do a Pickett’s charge type pro immigrant action, Red state Senate Democrats be damned-and Republicans, angered that the delay took away a juicy issue that they could demagogue about.
Translating Mitch McConnell: it’s harder to run against a possible executive action than an existing executive action, whose words I can twist and put in a political ad aimed at scaring white people in red states.
Good move, Obama. To the emo-progs, PBO is playing chess, checker people.
@edmondo:
And therein lies the problem. The process says Congress should handle this. Congress doesn’t want to, and they won’t.
They’re a cluster of lifers and demagogues, as useless as hubcaps on a tractor. You want to seek Harry Reid’s input? You want to put this out to Nancy Pelosi? Shall we wait for John Boehner or Mitch McConnell?
I’m really having trouble seeing this kind of nonsense as a procedural complaint. You would be fine with immigration reform if it was coming out of Congress? Sure ya would….
@edmondo:
OK Edmondo, why don’t you outline your constitutional plan to achieve CIR, given the existing Congress. Let me get you started:
1.
2.
3.
You seem to know better than PBO how to get the job done, so this should be easy for you. Go ahead, make our day.
@James Pearce:
Kings were noted for being exceptionally good at getting things done. Dictators too.
Democracies tend to prefer to limit that with rule of law, even if it means things go slow at times. I, for one, am quite glad that Bush didn’t get to get everything done that he might have wanted … and I’d argue there are more bad presidents than good ones.
@stonetools: Here is an idea: appoint an independent committee of average citizens (politicians take a break) that will hold community meetings to get input, then come up with a program that the people agree on and can live with. Then Congress and the president would have to approve it. Since the president is putting off any action, that gives them time.
A novel idea: the average people coming up with a plan instead of having something forced on them by the politicians.
Warning!!! Weak Leftist spin, mind reading and a pathetic picture in this thread. Proceed t your own risk.
@george:
Sure, but there are certain things that have been on “go slow” for decades: the drug war, civil equality, immigration reform.
@Guarneri: “Weak Leftist spin”
Ha! Dude, what you’re seeing in this thread may be “weak” but if you think it’s “leftist spin” then you wouldn’t know “leftist spin” from your left hand.
@stonetools:
If PBO is such a brilliant chess player, then why did he promise on june 30 that he would do something before the midterms? Seems to me all he’s managed to accomplish here is to piss off the “emo-progs.” If he was so brilliant, he would have just kept his mouth shut rather than make a promise and renege on it 6 weeks later.
@Gavrilo:
The president broke a promise?
Maybe this is why:
So….still chess.
@James Pearce:
So, the President totally misjudged the reaction of his june 30 announcement. Perhaps chess isn’t his game.
@Gavrilo:
This comment makes me think that maybe chess isn’t your game.
@stonetools:
You seem to know better than PBO how to get the job done, so this should be easy for you. Go ahead, make our day.
Now, now, stonetools, you know that’s not how we do things in the Democratic Party, We run for president advocating one set of principles and then do something completely different once elected. In other words, I’ll give you my plan on immigration reform right after Obama closes Guantanamo, passes a universal healthcare plan that doesn’t have an individual mandate, gets us out of Iraq (again- I guess the first time didn’t count) and actually earns that Nobel Peace Prize – essentially, never. But thanks for playing cut and paste with the DNC press releases.
@edmondo:
Are any of these things something you actually support?
@Tyrell:
If there was such a thing, it would have been instituted already, or at least it would be discussed publicly. The problem is, there ain’t no such animal. The goals and desires of the people are incompatible.
To all those conservatrolls mad at the President for not taking the most politically disadvantageous action- we see you, we actually do. LOL.
The group of people most angered by Obama’s very practical decision to sit this one out and NOT take executive action are Republicans – they were ginning up for the fight, and probably had pre-produced political ads denouncing ‘King Obama.’
Republicans are only interested in deportation, there is nothing to be negotiated with the GOP, even Republicans reject Marco Rubio’s immigration proposals, why would they be interested in Obama’s policy? They’re not, and Obama out maneuvered Republicans again.
@James Pearce:
Are any of these things something you actually support?
Yeah. that’s why I supported and voted for Obama until he decided he was against them after he was for them.
Bwahahaha
http://www.mediaite.com/online/jorge-ramos-takes-to-twitter-to-slam-obama-for-broken-promises-on-immigration/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/09/06/how-president-obama-mishandled-immigration/
@Gavrilo:
(Shrug)
They’ll get over it , exactly the same way as the gay emo progs who attacked Obama for “abandoning” the gays before DADT passed. There are stupid liberals out there also.
@James Pearce:
And if you allow one president to change them on decree, nothing will stop the next president to reverse those changes on assuming office.
I can’t think of a single president (or actually human being) I’d trust with that kind of power.
So conservatives are mad at the President for delaying a move they were planning to demagogue and impeach him for and liberals are mad at him for not making a move that would invite an impeachment attempt and a big conservative backlash vote in 2014 red state Senate races.
Still looks like the right move to me.
@Gustopher:
They are already prioritized.
it gets kind of confusing, we have a less than stellar jobs report- record high food stamp recipients (to go with record high food costs), burger flippers demanding $15/hr and we still need to import people to pick fruit and such? maybe we could drop people off the dole, and see what happens then? as if that’ll happen, they know how to vote.
@george: With a stroke of his pen, he wants to nullify the importance of following the law to become a legal citizen and efforts of generations of immigrants who followed those rules. The man’s arrogance is unbelievable. Reform, definitely,
amnesty, no.
@edmondo: Well for sure, the ” anger conservatives across the country” ship sailed on about the first Wednesday in November, 2008.
@superdestroyer: Is it possible that immigration reform will prevail (not while Obama is President, but someday) simply because it is a good idea? I realize that it may not be a good idea for Superdestroyerland, but imagine that you live in the USA for just a minute. You noted that Adelson and the Koch brothers are likely supporters of this reform. Who could be better conservative avatars for this than the most famous of the “producer” class? These are the guys who make America work–if they are for immigration reform, there must be a reason.
Unless…is it possible that Adelson and the Kochs are really deep cover moles dedicated to a one-party state and only pretending to be Republicans? Wow! You’re right! Obama is an evil genius!
@Just ‘nutha ig’rant cracker:
If you look at most of the political positions held by Sheldon Adelson, he is not a conservative but just another liberal, Israel-first Neo-con. The Koch brothers are actually libertarians and libertarians always support open borders because those libertarians believe that they are clever enough to take advantage of cheaper labor while avoiding all of the downside costs of an increasing poor underclass.
As I have asked before and no one ever answers, how does one sell amnesty and slow motion open borders to an audience of middle class, private sector employed whites. The two positions provide as to why they should support comprehensive immigration reform are that the past screw ups on immigration reform and border enforcement were so bad that the U.S. is now forced to accepted 20 million or so illegal aliens living here and that white people are racist and should just give the illegal immigrants whatever they want.
So, if one looks at immigrants from the POV of what is in it for middle class whites the answer is higher taxes, more expensive real estate in the good neighborhoods with the good schools, more crime, more sprawl, more traffics, fewer children, much fewer grand children, and a tougher rate race to stay ahead of the poor underclass. Why should middle class whites have to accept a lower quality of life just so rich elites will not call them racist. The real question for establishment Republicans is why do they hate the people who actually vote for them so much that they want to replace them with third world immigrants (looking at you, Jeb Bush).
This makes sense to me…it’s sends the message that if you want reform…real reform…the only way to get it is thru a congress run by Democrats. So get out there and vote for Democrats.
Whatever Obama can do is minimal at best anyway.
Immigration activists have to get out and elect Democrats and scare Republicans…who are notorious cowards anyway.
Obamas slogan was yes we can…not yes I can.
@C. Clavin:
Thank you for reinforcing the preception that progressives hate politics and believe we will all be better off living in a one party state where policy and governance are decided in bank room (more like Harvard Club Room) deals among the elite.
The reason this is a hot issue is that the reforms being proposed will lower the quality of life of many American citizens while improving the quality of life of illegal aliens from third world countries.I guess the only way to change politics in the U.S. is to change the population until almost everyone just votes for whoever they are told to support.
@superdestroyer:
The reason this is a hot issue is that the Republican base is still made up of racists like you.
Apparently you also have reading comprehension problems.
Some of the politicians say “bring them on in”, then tell the states and communities “now you got them”. Town and communities that already strapped for funds and can’t afford services for the people already here: the social services, schools, police, and health departments are underfunded and over loaded in most places.
Its not the GOP and their reax causing Obama to do this.
Its the Democrat rank and file the DNC is worried about.
Its as I’ve said before…. the Democrats can’t run on their actual goals, and they know it.
Apparently, they also know a goodly chunk of their own party is against their goals, too.
@Eric Florack:
Well…other than Obama winning by a landslide.
WTF are you talking about?
Maybe you need to go back and check what Bush said and what he did. Diametrically opposed.
@superdestroyer:
Well put. Maybe they think the immigrants will eventually vote republican. I am afraid that all they will accomplish is to cause their base to sit out the election, which, of course, will be wonderful for the democrats.
@C. Clavin: Apparently you’ve not noticed the 38%% approval rating.Euqally apparent the polling data telling us the Democrats are already going to take a serious butt kicking in the midterms has also gotten by you.
As for Bush, lessee…
Says it fairly well.
And you know, with a 38% approval rating, it appears Democrats have begun to figure this stuff out as well.
@C. Clavin:
I guess wanting good public schools for your children, an easy commute to work, and dealing with workers who can speak and understand English is now considered racist. I guess not wanting to pay higher taxes for ESL and alternative schools, not wanting to pay higher automobile insurance, and not wanting to struggle to pay for a good home in a good neighborhood is now considered racist.
Once again, the race card is the only argument that liberal have for conservatives to support de facto open borders and unlimited immigration.
@Another Mike:
What is amazing is how Bush, Rove, McCain, and Rubio are willing to spit in the faces of those who may actually vote for them in the stupid pursuit of Latino votes and the donations of Sheldon Adelson. If anyone wants to know why the Republicans are destined to the dust bin of history, one needs to look no further than the idiots who believe that the U.S. should replace middle class whites with poor third world immigrant just so a few employers can pay less in the short run.
@superdestroyer: i know, this esl crap is the worst- it turns public schools into free day care for some while those who are there to learn get hung out to dry.
I’m glad you guys can all agree your immigration positions are based in racism and cultural resentment.
Bitching about the Spanish language? Pathetic……
@James Pearce:
Is calling names all you got?
Racism has nothing to do with the immigration issues. So don’t try to pull that on us. A person can oppose illegal immigration and not be a racist. People can have varying views on how to improve this immigration program. Racism is not involved in all of this.
@Another Mike:
What “names?” But no, I got more. What do you got?
“Maybe they think the immigrants will eventually vote republican.”
Real smart, Mike.
@Tyrell:
Can they? Or is the temptation just too great?
For instance, racist:
Bill: “this esl crap is the worst”
Superdestroyer: “the idiots who believe that the U.S. should replace middle class whites with poor third world immigrant just so a few employers can pay less in the short run.”
Another Mike: “Maybe they think the immigrants will eventually vote republican.”
Not racist:
Robin Cohen: “With a stroke of his pen, he wants to nullify the importance of following the law to become a legal citizen and efforts of generations of immigrants who followed those rules.”
So your “Racism is not involved in all of this” has been demonstrated to be false. Indeed, racism has a 3 to 1 advantage here. Nice try, though.
(And seriously…..this is my first clue as to when I’m dealing with a “racist” perspective on the immigration issue: the Hispanic fixation.)
@James Pearce:
Is there nothing you will not rationalize? You see racism in everything, therefore you see it anywhere. Do you people swallow, or spit it out? Is there nothing Obama does that outrages you? Apparently not. When you call people racist for being against immigration, please don’t neglect the many Hispanics and blacks who oppose it. You do not hold the moral high ground. You slither along in your slime, as do most.on the left. The Democrat party has ceased to exist but that seems to be lost on most of you. What do you call yourselves these days?
@Ken James:
Whatchoo saying about my people?
Seriously, Ken….I get it. You hate. Good for you.
That’s exactly why I’m not even going to pretend you guys have a reasoned, dispassionate position on this issue. Because you don’t.
@James Pearce:
If resources that could be used for lab science, foreign language, or advanced classes is reduced in order to fund ESL, remedial classes, and alternative high schools, then yes, amnesty, de facto open borders, and other forms of comprehensive immigration reform can be a bad deal for Americans.
Of course, middle class and blue collar whites seem to be the only group that is being asked to make sacrifices and to accept a lower standard of living so that the Democratic Party can grow and so that Sheldon Adelson can lower his labor costs.
@superdestroyer:
Honest question, SD. Where do you live?
Like, what city? I’m just curious.
I mean, I agree that the middle/working class “seem to be the only group that is being asked to make sacrifices and to accept a lower standard of living” but it’s so the rich can get richer, not so that the Democratic Party can grow.
@James Pearce:
Considering that the the immigrants put on the track to citizenship and their children will be automatic Democratic party voters, then yes, comprehensive immigration reform is just a program to give the Democratic Party an unbeatable demographic edge. Any rich person who thinks that they can take advantage of cheaper labor while avoidng higher taxes is a fool. They are as short sighted and narrowly focused as the establishment Republicans have been the last 20 years.
@superdestroyer:
Maybe Bush had the same idea when he first proposed a “path to citizenship” in 07. Well, not that that these people will become “automatic Democratic party voters” but that they will become voters, and that they will probably vote for the party that helped them and didn’t try to get them deported.
But in truth, it’s not really about votes. It’s about lives. It’s about people. It’s about families.
I was just reading a long article by Radley Balko about some of the law enforcement stuff going on in St. Louis. People getting traffic tickets they can’t pay, towns operating like shakedown rackets. People’s lives are getting ruined because they were late on their insurance payment, got a ticket, missed a court date. They go to jail, lose their jobs, lose their dignity and for what?
Because they didn’t dot all the i’s on the government form? They’re not criminals. They’re human beings who made a mistake. Do we really need to be so harsh and unforgiving? Wouldn’t it be better to allow them a second chance?
In the case of illegal immigrants, it’s very similar. Whether they crossed the border illegally, or overstayed their visa, or believed their parents lies about the paperwork, they made a mistake. They didn’t dot all the i’s on the government form. Can’t we give them a second chance too?
@James Pearce: as a matter of fact, Bush was too interested in what the chamber of commerce wanted, under the guise of ‘compassionate conservatism’ , (Rove’s idea) to be real. Funny how now you figure Rove was worth something.
But lets try reality, huh?
63%… in other words,a goodly chunk of Democrats… unless youre going to tell us the GOP makes up 63% of the country.
If you and Obama doesnt know this, harry Reid and senate Dems know it, and are deathly worried.
@James Pearce: The esl issue is a problem, such as in schools where the systems do not have the money to hire more esl trained teachers. If I had esl training I would go to the courthouse, private business, or hospital and get a job. They pay more than the schools do. And no papers to take home and grade. So the esl is a real problem, not something some racist came up with. It is hard to find esl trained people.
@James Pearce:
I guess now the a argument is that only middle class and higher socio-economic level whites are suppose to pay their tickets on time, drive the speed limit, or pay their bills on time. Gee, is there not one topic that does not get translated into the need for separate and unequal treatment for blacks and Latinos.
There is not reason for the U.S. to have a policy of open borders and unlimited immigration from the third world unless one supports lowering the pay of workers in the U.S. or they want the U.S. to be a one party state where elections just reinforcement the power of the elites.
@superdestroyer:
First…no one is talking about open borders and unlimited immigration…if you have to lie to make your point maybe you should reconsider your point.
What’s racist is that you think those things automatically come with a reasonable immigration policy.
Dude…based on your every comment you are a racist…we all know it…own it.
@Eric Florack:
Maybe we should go back and visit your previous predictions as an indicator of your current predictions.
@C. Clavin:
You just keep hoping.
Two of the most absurd arguments against reform and/or amnesty are “It’s unfair to the legal immigrants who worked hard to get here” and “It will bring about one-party Democratic rule.”
Suppose that in the hypothetical nation of Freedonia, all men can vote, and so can women but only if they’ve done a certain amount of community service. The question of of expanding women’s suffrage is raised. Opponents say “If we make it any easier for women to vote, then do you tell those who worked so hard for the privilege — “Whoops, sorry you wasted your time, all you had to do was wait a bit”? Furthermore, our side has been arguing against expanding womens’ suffrage for so long that women don’t like us and are a permanent demographic for the other party — so if they’re allowed to vote, the other party will rule forever! Why do you hate democracy?”
I’m not trying to say that the moral question is directly equivalent to women’s suffrage. My point is that these arguments are meaningless and quasi-circular, and they can make a reductio ad absurdum out of any situation.
@Eric Florack:
Dude…we’ve all seen your predictions.
Romney in a landslide!!!
Who is hoping beyond hope?
The GOP will take the Senate but not with a filibuster proof majority. They will then nuke the filibuster…but will still not have a veto-proof majority.
The GOP will win a few House seats…but not as many as they should…or as many as you predict.
@Lenoxus:
Once again, the only argument for slow motion open borders (everyone who sneaks across the border or over stays their visa gets to stay and eventually become a citizen) is that the is no real benefit to being a U.S. citizen. If people can decide on their own to come into the U.S. and get all of the benefits of citizenship without any of the obligations, then what are the long term consequences of such policies.
I see the U.S. becoming a one party state one of the consequences with more than 50% of th e population voting for the party that promises to tax others (read whites) and given them the money.
@superdestroyer:
No, dude, the argument is that petty bureaucratic BS should not over-rule the lives of actual people.
@James Pearce: funny thing… the majority thinks the current laws should actually be enforced.
Are they not “actual people”?
Oh, and by the way…. if this was so foundationally important to Dear Leader, why didn’t he do this in the first two years of his residency, when he had an insuperable number in both houses of Congress?
The reason is simple enough… he knows not enforcing the current laws is wildly unpopular, and to do it then would have hung a huge stone around the neck of the Democrats.
@James Pearce:
That not what was said. It implied that poor blacks and Latinos are not capable of paying their tickets on time and thus, cities and law enforcement should not write tickets to people who cannot pay.
It is the same argument that since many poor people are lousy parents that the government should excuse them and make up the difference but that the middle class should be held to a different standard.