The Problem with the House GOP’s Position on Immigration Reform in One Chart
Yes, the evidence shows you can trust Obama to enforce immigration laws.
I know I am a little late in terms of blog time in posting this (the proximate inspiration was over a week ago!), but here we go.
Immigration reform stalled earlier this month when Speaker of the House John Boehner made the following statement to the press:
“There’s widespread doubt about whether this administration can be trusted to enforce our laws. And it’s going to be difficult to move any immigration legislation until that changes.”
Now, I understand that the current attack narrative by the GOP is that the president is refusing to enforce laws he does not like. I am not unsympathetic to the notion that the president is relying too heavily on executive actions, but the GOP seems to be forgetting any number issues in this narrative, not the least of which being things like the history of the American executive over the last century, as well as pesky things like legislative delegation of authority and prosecutorial discretion. However, all of that is part of a different and wider discussion (although it is worth noting that the best way for congress to rein in a president is for that congress to legislate).
In regards to immigration, Boehner is probably referring to the following (back in 2012): Obama to Permit Young Migrants to Remain in U.S.
Administration officials said the president used existing legal authority to make the broad policy change, which could temporarily benefit more than 800,000 young people. He did not consult with Congress, where Republicans have generally opposed measures to benefit illegal immigrants.
It should be noted that whatever enforcement changes created by these orders expires when Obama leaves office, hence the temporary nature of the move. The policy would appear to be predicated on general powers such as prosecutorial discretion and deferred enforcement. I am unclear, beyond that, as to the precise justification.
So, on the one hand, opponents to immigration reform can point to the above and assert that President Obama is not enforcing the laws (although, again, the best way to rein in a president is for the congress to legislate).
On the other hand, it is empirically impossible to assert that President Obama’s administration is not, in the big picture, enforcing the immigration laws. Note the following, which shows deportations through his first term in historical perspective (via the NYT)::
One cannot partake of the numbers and actually accept the claim that the administration is not enforcing immigration laws. As Greg Weeks noted at the time of Boehner’s quote:
As I say until I end up turning blue, President Obama has enforced immigration law and deported more people than any president in the history of the United States. If there is one thing you can trust him on, it is to keep up enforcement.
Indeed.
In fact, like Greg, I have been trying to point this out for a while (for example, I posted on this back in 2010 and again in 2011 wherein I quoted Greg, in fact, in another of his attempts to point to these facts).
The Economist called a piece on this topic “The great expulsion” and provided a chart not unlike the one above as well as the following:
One may not like the executive order route to temporarily put into place elements of the DREAM Act, and I can understand that perspective. However, what one cannot assert (at least if one likes one’s assertions to be backed by facts) is that the Obama administration is not enforcing immigration laws.
Oh, and by the way, have a I mentioned that the best way to rein in a president is for the congress to legislate?
Using facts? That’s just silly.
But politically it’s very possible. As will be demonstrated in the faith based party’s primaries.
(And spell check got you in your conclusion, “reign in”. As my tech writer says, “Microsoft is smarter than ewe are.” )
@gVOR08: Thanks for the correction.I won’t even blame spell check–I just used the wrong word (thrice!) and didn’t even notice.
Well, the choice for Republicans is between expressing the real reason why the base opposes immigration reform (Let’s keep out the greasers!) and argle bargle about “not trusting Obama.” Put that way, the choice is easy for Republican spinmiesters. The question is whether this will work. For the Fox News crowd, the answer is likely yes.
And here I thought our “net-zero immigration from Mexico” was due to voluntary returns based on a bad economy. Looks like it’s more due to us insisting people use the return tickets we buy for them.
So dogs still bite people, the earth still orbits the sun, politicians still lie and Republicans are still averse to facts in relation to Obama. The laws of nature remain inviolate.
@Mu:
It´s both. Middle Class people aren´t willing to live illegally in a foreign country,risking deportation, and more Latin Americans are living in the Middle Class. And the fact is that in the past the difference between purchasing power and wages in Latin America and in the United States was so big that one could open a small business or buy a home in Guajuanato or in Costa Rica after working some years doing menial jobs in Miami. Now, even finding menial jobs in Miami can be difficult.
At least from what I see here in Brazil, it makes more sense for Americans to immigrate to here than the opposite.
Immigration reform stalled earlier this month when Speaker of the House John Boehner made the following statement to the press:
No, it didn’t. That was Boehner backpedaling after Ted Cruz went on TV the day of the announcement of GOP immigration reform “principles” and called them amnesty. Ted Cruz stalled reform, on purpose. Boehner just blamed the president for it, because Ted Cruz is in charge of the party, just like a hijacker is in charge of the flight path.
You can trust President Obama to enforce immigration laws, just as you can trust the GOP will blame him for problems of their own making. Every time.
@mantis: Yes, the overall story is more complicated than Boehner’s press statements, which were a culmination of various issue.
The sad truth is that it does come down to having to “like” being truthful, rather than having a “need” to be truthful. Until someone, anyone, in the courtier press actually laughs in the face of a politician telling a bald faced lie, there is no need for one to have their assertions backed by facts. And until such time that happens, we can continue to expect dysfunctional government.
There are zero, nada, nil consequences for public lying.
@Steven:
The reasons Republicans lie about Obama’s record on immigration, is (1) it’s easy to do because the Administration rarely counters GOP lies, and (2) they do not want to be upfront and clear on their preferences because they know it will continue to have negative electoral consquences.
I honestly believe that the problem the GOP has is that a significant number of base Republicans actually would prefer to identify and deport as many of the those who are here illegally (10 to 12 million people) as is possible.
It seems to me that their preferred immigration reform is: (1) increased border security, (2) increased deportations, and (3) if one has to exist at all, a very punitive path to citizenship.
The Rubio-Whomever bipartisan package that was out there a few months ago talked about a 13 year path to citizenship, replete with significant fines and provisions for back taxes payments. For all intents and purposes it was revisiting Indentured Servitude.
@Scott F.:
Indeed. I think the problem here is our librul media. Instead of folks like Brian Williams of NBC saying bluntly that the GOP position on immigration refoprm is based on a lie,he merely presents it as one of two quite legit positions on immigration reform.
“OK, the Republicans say the Administration can’t be trusted on immigration reform, because its not enforcing the law. The Obama Administration says it can be trusted, and it is enforcing the law. Don’t know how we can settle these differences and tell who is being truthful. Isn’t this partisan bickering from both sides a shame. Reporting from DC, this is NBC.”
This should be a running gag in as many articles as you can shove it in, Dr. Taylor.
On Left, Right and Center a couple weeks ago Rich Lowry was explaining how this is all a huge a lie because the administration has changed what can be classified as a deportation to include turning people away at the border. And then explained that the administration is rounding them up and kicking them out of the middle of the country. And that is the real reason no one can trust Obama to deport people. All of this from the person who in previous episodes couldn’t understand why latinos were supporting Obama at such high numbers since he has deported more people than any other POTUS. It is almost like he is being purposefully misleading.
Republicans being disingenuous?
Shocking.
If you are going to start calling them out on that…you won’t have time for anything else.
@Dave D:
The reason I don’t trust Obama on the issue of deportation is that he has not once made a move to deport Michele Bachmann, Louis Gohmert, Steve King, Allen West, Alan Keyes or Ted Cruz to North Korea – their spiritual fatherland.
This could all be done by Executive Order, right?
Hey Steven, completely OT, but any chance you were planning something on Venezuela? Its been hard finding solid coverage between whats coming out of Ukraine and, less so, Syria.
@al-Ameda:
Only if he is not deporting them to South America, we don´t deserve these people.
The deportation numbers have increased because the Homeland Security changed the way it counts the deportations. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/02/obama-is-accused-of-inflating-his-deportation-numbers-whats-really-happening/
This has been discussed several times here at outsidethebeltway but I guess since it does not support the narrative of open borders and massively increasing legal immigraiton, it has been ignored once again.
The Republicans have correct to oppose amnesty since it dos nothing for conservative politics while lowering the quality of life for the middle class whites who actually do vote for Republicans.
@Andre Kenji: Please consider places for them at a desolate and overrun-by-nature Guinean prison island.
@superdestroyer:
The deportation numbers have increased because the Homeland Security changed the way it counts the deportations.
False. It counts deportations from the ATEP program, which have dramatically increased under Obama, and should be counted, as they a) are deportations, and b) greatly decrease the chances of illegal re-entry. Plus, they account for about 10% of deportations, so even without counting those, deportations are significantly up under Obama.
Nice try, chuckles.
@mantis:
If you do not count the ATEP, then the deportations under Obama are similar to the deportations under Bush II (See the cite above). However, the real question is whether the deportations will continue if the Democrats get amnesty and the increased legal immigraiton that they desire.
Of course, in the long run, it does not matter since the U.S. will soon be a one party state where the Democrats can adopt a policy of open borders. The only hope for the U.S. would be for the Democrat to abandon their desire for open borders, free movement between the U.S. and the third wolrd, and unlimited immigration when it is no longer needed to defeat Republicans.
@Andre Kenji:
Implicitly, you’re saying we do.
….damn it.
@superdestroyer: Was that second paragraph necessary?
@Tillman: I don’t think he can type a comment without it.
@Tillman:
Of course, given the demographic trends of the U.S. it is a lock that the Democratic Party will be the dominant party and the Republicans will be irrelevant. So whatever the Republicans are not doing today will eventually become irrelevant because the Democrats will have a super-majority and be able to do whatever they want. A major question then will be whether the Democrats will fell compelled to follow the same policies they are pursing now or will the lack of a real opposition party cause the Democrats to change their policy positions so that they more closely match the desires of their supporters.
Immigration could be a major policy area where the Democrats could decide that open borders and unlimited immigration are not needed if the Republicans are irrelevant. The parts of the Democratic Party who want higher wages and higher levels of employment may win out over the open borders, cheap labor Democrats.
@Tillman: I don’t believe that it’s lack of necessity is its problem. The idea of the United States becoming a one-party (really more one-party dominant) state in the near future is wildly speculative and even if it comes true, it wouldn’t be so catastrophic or unprecedented. The United States has had several dominant-party periods. The clearest case was the ‘Era of Good Feelings’ between the collapse of the Federalists and Emergence of the Whigs, during which the early Democratic/Democratic-Republican party was dominant. Canada, Ireland and especially Japan have all had dominant-party periods. (Japan’s has spent the lion’s share of the post-war era with such a system; its liberal democratic party has been in power for all of about four and a half years since 1955) Even if superdestroyer’s prophecy comes to pass, the dominant-party period would probably neither be permanent, nor be some fantastical era of tyranny and Conservatives might well carve some niche out within the dominant party. (I imagine that in such a system there would be considerable intraparty conflict)
@superdestroyer:
If you do not count the ATEP, then the deportations under Obama are similar to the deportations under Bush II (See the cite above).
No, the deportations every year under Obama would be at or above the number in 2008, which had the most deportations under Bush, and significantly so. Each year under Obama has had far more than every year under Bush except 2008, even without ATEP.
@mantis: It really doesn’t matter what President Obama has actually done, it only matters what it’s perceived that he has done and what they think he will do based on what they think he has done. You can argue facts all you want, but their position is based on fantasy, and as such, facts have no impact.
@stonetools: it’s more like “get to the back of the line- there’s a bunch in front already”.
you may be profiling the anti-immigrant minority and just assuming it’s a policy now. heck, we all need our lawns taken care of!
@Paludicola:
There are places in the U.S. where the Democrats have been the only relevant political party for more than 50 years such as Chicago. Do you really think there is something that will cause people in Chicago to stop voting for Democrats. You should look at the deltas between Democratic Party and Republican Party voting. There are several counties that the Democrats carry by more than one million votes. There is no place that the Repubican carry by such a margin.
I am surprised that more pundits and wonks have failed to notice the divide in the Democratic Party between those who realize that every demographic trend is in their favor and all they need to do to win more elections is wait versus the activist who want to make short term decisions that benefit them in winning election but make it harder to achieve their long term policy goals. Those activists seem to believe that the U.S. can have both open borders and a massive social welfare state. The long term thinkers realize that those two policies work against each other.
@Paludicola: You are likely not familiar with superdestroyer, as he has a mono-mania on this topic that is very much based in his views on race.
We could be talking about the relative merits of Chicago style v. New York style pizza, and he would turn it into some diatribe about demographics and the coming one-party state.
@superdestroyer: I recognize that you are unlikely to be willing to think through the following, but because it might be of use to someone else, let me note:
1. From the story that you cited as alleged evidence of your position:
Ok, so let’s think that through: we are talking here about enforcing a specific program, which pre-dates the current administration, and, indeed ramping up said program.
This is direct evidence for what I am arguing in this post and is, in fact, further confirmation that the administration is enforcing immigration laws (and at higher levels that the previous administration).
2. ATEP deportations are still, you know, deportations. Do you have a cogent reason why deportations ought not be counted as deportations?
3. Even if you remove the ATEP numbers, what do we find? We still find a substantial and sustained number of deportations. They would certainly be at levels at or above the Bush administration.
In other words, your position, and those who adopt it, are simply wrong.
I write this not to defend the administration, but to defend logic and basic usage of facts and evidence. I recognize this is an uphill battle, but maybe someone reading this will find it helpful.
BTW, if you read the details of the ATEP program, it isn’t exactly a kindness:
So, not only are these individuals foiled in their attempt to enter the US, they are returned to Mexico well away from their point of origin.
You could legitimately gripe, it would appear, that they juiced the 2010 record (see here) by accelerating the exit of some who might not have otherwise exited until 2011. This is perhaps playing a PR game, but the deportations still took place.
@Steven L. Taylor: In the fight between real facts and perceived facts, who do you think will win the day here?
@superdestroyer:
You have a cognitive inability to recognize that immigration is not the Republicans problem…but their own rank bigotry. Blaming others for your own obvious shortcomings…is just another shortcoming.
@David in KC: All one can do is fight the good fight.
Sometimes I think all of these politicians like having the immigration problem to debate and kick around. It gives each side something to feed to their base and villify the other side with. There seems to be certain issues that stay in place decade after decade, even though each side promises to change things. Politicians doing what politicians do.
@Michael S. Doran:
Yes, definitely.
When McCain and Butters won’t even support their own immigration bills….that’s because of…you know… Democrats.
Both sides do it nonsense…Doug, is that you???
When a Republican hero says this kind of crap…and party leaders pretty much refuse to condemn it…immigration is not the Republicans problem.
@C. Clavin: In all fairness, Rand Paul did say that he should apologize. Though as a RINO Obama apologist, his chances on being the nominee just went down.
FTFY Ted Nugent you lame ass sub-citizen…
@David in KC:
That’s one Republican leader.
@Michael S. Doran:
The Republicans and Democrats throught they had dealt with the issue before with the amnesty in the 1980’s. Of course, all that amnesty really showed is how stupid the cheap labor Republicans can be. Those idiot Republicans forgot to think about what the long term costs of importing more cheap third world labor to the U.S. would be. The short term consequence was that government spending had to go up to pay for programs for the immigrants. In the long run, that amnesty turned California from a state that was carried by Reagan to a state where a Republican cannot get elected dog catcher.
In the Republicans pass a second round of amnesty, then conservative politics is over in the U.S. and politics will soon be different ethnic and special interest groups fighting over government entitlements, who gets them, and who pays for them. What is amazing is that progressives know the direction of politics in the U.S. but refuse to think about the impacts.
@superdestroyer:
Thanks for proving my point.
@superdestroyer:
The majority of those same conservatives who apparently still exist but won’t in the future due to amnesty are among the special interest groups fighting over entitlements. Or did you forget Social Security is an entitlement for elderly people, who skew Republican? Remember, nearly all the talk of Social Security reform on the right is never for current beneficiaries, only future ones.
You’ve basically described the present day, but you’re too blind to consider conservative ideologues as just another special interest group fighting to expand their slice of government largesse.
@Tillman:
One of the reasons that the Republicans are irrelevant is that the Bush Clan really did believe that the Republican Party should just be a group of speical interest fighting over entitlements and government benefits while sticking others (such as future generations) with the bill.
If politics is just about fighing over government goodies, then one party is more than enough (see Chicago, See Mass., See Maryland). Since the Republicans refuse to try to be an actual conservative party, they have no reason to exist. If everyone if just going to fight over government goodies, then the party with all of the demographic advantages will always win. Amnesty just makes total demographic victory for the Democrats arrive at an earlier date.
@David in KC:
The problem is that these “facts” are misleading: Take a look at that pie chart at the bottom from the Migration Policy Institute. If you read their report, they could ALL SORTS of non-immigration-related enforcement as “immigration enforcement” in coming up with that statistic. For example, the county everything that ICE does, but the “C” in ICE stands for customs, like making sure fake Adidas shoes from China are stopped at our ports — that’s not immigration. ICE does a million things having nothing to do with immigration, yet they’re all included in that pie chart.
That’s a fact.
@J.D.: If you’re not shocked that ICE spending exceeds the spending on the FBI and all other enforcement agencies combined then you should be. That’s the purpose of the pie chart from the Economist piece that used it to support the proposition that spending on ICE is way, way too high.
The bar graph on the other hand does, in fact, accurately depict the continuation of historically high deportation counts established by the Bush administration.
@superdestroyer:
They’re not becoming irrelevant because they decided to start fighting over handouts and benefits. They’re becoming irrelevant because the handouts and benefits they’ve always fought for apply to businesses and investors over consumers and labor. The vast majority of the country doesn’t own a business or make most of their money from investments. If your base is a minority, you have to convince the majority to your point of view.
For some decades, Republican messaging has managed to convince enough voters that these goodies for businesses and financiers are beneficial to them as well. In some ways, they are. However, especially since 2008, the evidence has been plainly pointing in the other direction.
@rudderpedals:
I guess is one supports open borders, cheap labor, and the free movement of people between countries, then I guess it would make sense to believe that spending on ICE is too high. However, how to progressives plan on increasing spending on entitlements such as those proposed by Elizabeth Warren without controlling the border and limiting immigration to the U.S.
Why do progressives keep pushing the POV that the U.S. can have an open border and nordic style social welfare programs?
@superdestroyer:
You’re citing hurdles for austerians in straightjackets.
That group aside:
(more citizens) + (more consumer spending) = a lively, growing reinvigorated economy
This leftie doesn’t see an insurmountable conflict between American socialism and America as a nation of immigrants.
Controlling the border is one thing, controlling immigration another, and that is not so easy, unless you enact big government measures. For instance, differentiating between Tourists and undocumented workers is very difficult. A single male in his 20´s can be just a guy wanting to visit DisneyWorld, or he might be wanting to work illegally in the US. So, that means that almost everyone coming to DisneyWorld from Emerging Economies has to face a large number of processes to get a Tourist Visa, and many single males in their 20´s are not allowed to do that.
Sure, you can do what many countries to do: require people to show ID to cops(Not only Brown people, everyone) and then require anyone working to register with the government. Pretty big government stuff.
There are many large transnational Metropolitan Areas in the US/Mexico border, so, in these cases the border is a large wall in the middle of the city. Mexico is not in the “Third World”, is right there, on the other side of Nogales and El Paso. Unless most of the territory that the United States gained in the Guadalupe Hidalgo treaty is given back to Mexico, or unless the United States annex the whole Northern portion
@rudderpedals:
As many economist has said, you can have open borders and the free movement of people or you can have a nordic style social welfare state. Trying to have both will do nothing but bankrupt a country as ethnic subgroups learn to take advantage of both the open borders and the entitlements while fewer people become willing to pay the taxes necessary to fund the government.
@superdestroyer:
Because, of course, this is really, to you, all about race.
You know, there is a legitimate debate to be had about borders, social welfare, and any number of other things. However, you are not interested in those debates. You are, and I do not use this term lightly and I deploy it rarely in this fashion, a racist who doesn’t see human beings, but sees color and ethnicity. Enough, already. As a long-time contributor to this site I would invite you to go hang out somewhere else.
All I can hope is that there are folks out there who read your remarks and it gives them pause to reassess their own views. You, yourself, are contributing nothing to the discussion save for an example of how not to use evidence, how not to view the world, as well as a constant example of what a hobby-horse looks like.
@J.D.: You may have a point, as it would be useful to see a further breakdown of that chart into its constituent elements. Could you link to the numerical breakdown to which you are referring?
I do think, however, you are underestimating the degree to which the entire process, customs included, is about border control and how it all works together, It is not quite as separate as you suggest.
@Steven L. Taylor:
There is no way in the U.S. to have a discussion about “borders, social welfare, and any number of other things” because too many people will almost immediately start screaming racist when confronted with any data, any model, any trend that does not fit their politically correct view of the world.
If one really wants to have a discussion on immigration, then you have to be willing to discuss the demographics of the immigrants versus citizens of the U.S. and how those demographics will affect the general culture, politics, governance, taxes, economics, and the long term trends of the U.S. At least a few progressives such as Chris Hayes on MSNBC have been honest enough to admit that comprehensive immigration reform will be a massive loser for conservatives and Republicans. I would just expect the same honest from everyone else who is proposing amnesty for the current illegal aliens in the U.S. while also doubling the number of legal immigrants coming to the U.S.
@superdestroyer:
I disagree pending cites to those economists. It’s not an exclusive-or. New citizens bring new blood and fresh ideas. These sow the seeds for economic growth that quickly exceeds any up front burdens. Examples are the experiences of European immigrants in the 19th and early 20th century and Asians thereafter.
Bravo Sir!
——
February is Black History Month
@superdestroyer: As long as you are basing your arguments on the predicate that demographics are destiny and inherently cast your concerns as “ethnic subgroups” versus the dominant group (i.e., whites) then you argument is inherently based on race and ethnicity. The word that encapsulates that position is “racist.”
Twp simple illustrations:
1. Yes, African-Americans vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. This is not, however, because of their skin color. There are other reasons. You fail to recognize or even seek to understand these facts.
2. Even in the face of evidence that it is possible for Republicans to win hispanic votes in significant numbers, all you do it rant on about the coming one party state.
Seriously, I invite you to self-deport from OTB, or at a minimum from my threads,
My ethnic subgroup is German on my fathers side and British on my mothers side. Over the years I have taken advantage of Low Interest Student Loans, Food Stamps. Unemployment Insurance Benefits. Low Income Heating Assistance. Got a job in the 70’s thanks to Jimmy Carter’s Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA). Have benefited from President Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I am currently taking advantage of the FICA-Federal Insurance Contributions Act Retirement Benefits (Social Security) and Medicare. So did my parents and so did my Grandparents who were anchor babies when their parents immigrated to the United States from Europe.
Since I am white no one ever bitches to me about it.
@superdestroyer:
It seems to me that everyone learns to take advantage of government programs.
@Steven L. Taylor:
I have never said that blacks vote for Democrats because of their skin culture. As I have stated many times, Blacks vote for Democrats because of their culture. when over 70% of black children are born to unwed mothers, it makes complete sense that blacks vote for the more liberal party. However, that does not mean that there is anything that the more conservative party can do to appeal to blacks. In the U.S., the more conservative party will always be accused of being racist. If the Republicans change enough to appeal to blacks, then the U.S. will just have to liberal parties that are so similar that it would be hard to find any differences between them.
Getting 40% of the Latino vote by moving to the left and alienating more white voters is no way to succeed in politics. No matter how hard Republicans try to appeal to Latinos, it is very easy for the Democrats to have much greater success appealing to a demographic group where more than 50% of the children are born to unwed mothers.
@superdestroyer: All you are doing there is attempting to elide what ends up being your basic claim: that blacks and Hispanics are inherently a certain way vis-a-vis government and society (and inherently different from the dominant racial class). You don’t just rant about unwed mothers or social programs. You rant about blacks and Hispanics very specifically.
Perhaps you are lying to yourself or are rationalizing for public consumption or both.
Regardless, my position stands.
@superdestroyer:
If the Republican Party makes efforts to increase their Latino vote count it’s going to alienate White voters? Why? How?
Are you saying that base Republicans are racist? Or are you saying that base Republicans do not want to be perceived as more liberal (than being nearly nativist) on the immigration issue?
Obama has been dismantling our Immigration Enforcement since he took Office. There is ample evidence the administration’s deportation record is severely inflated, or at the very least misrepresented. ICE Agents and Border Patrol Officers have condemned the Obama Administration and taken them to Court. The Obama Administration’s claims about it’s Immigration Enforcement is nothing but deception and lies to convince the American people they are enforcing our Immigration Laws.
@NakedTruth:
So the fact that he’s deported more illegals than any other president has no standing in your non-reality based world. Okay.