The House plan went further than expected, not only trying to block President Obama’s recent executive actions, but also seeking to undo a protected status for young immigrants.
Comments: 175
If the GOP wants to take an anti immigration stance, so be it. They are simply making themselves irrelevant for presidential and senate races. Democrats ceded the south after the civil rights bill. The Republicans will cede the nation after anti immigration bills. Too bad the country is divided along racial and ethnic lines!
Actually, prohibiting illegal immigration is more likely to fix the real immigration problem, that legal immigration is way too difficult and onerous to accomplish, for the very few who are in the special categories that are allowed in legally. Fixing illegal immigration is not separable from fixing legal immigration.
Apparently, the GOP doesn't want to compete for the Presidency in 2016.
You are underestimating the effect of the executive order on white, blue collar workers.
It's funny. With all of the horrific news coming out of France concerning their undocumented alien terrorist attacks, any effort to control immigration is seen as 'something from the right'?
We already have a $14T national debt, people. Do you REALLY want to see that grow as we pay for illegal immigrants?
CBO says immigrants are accretive to the US treasury (revenue)
I think the French terrorists were actually French citizens.
What about the estimated $50-$100 billion sent out of the country every year? What about the higher costs and taxes paid by citizens to support the education and healthcare of illegal immigrants? Will the Treasury give me a credit to offset these costs I incur while some business owner gains? Immigrants may be 'accretive' to the US treasury but they are a drag on most local taxpayers
Many of us may not like or agree with what the GOP SHOP will do in the next two years. We may as well be prepared to accept it. That is how it is. The truth is that due to the way Congressional districts are subject to gerrymandering, the skewed power of less populated states in the Senate, and a Supreme Court that refuses to allow line item veto or to place restraints on corporate political funding -- that GOP SHOP can do pretty well as it pleases. It will do just that!
Agreed. Unless districts are changed we will continue to have the situation where the party with 20 million more votes are in the minority.
The geographic distribution of Democrats and Republicans has at least as much to do with control of the House of Representatives as does partisan gerrymandering.
Red meat for the Republican extremists. Why does the Republican party allow the extremists to drag them into highly unpopular positions, which will cost them dearly, in terms of support in the 2016 elections?
For instance, the vital independent voters, who determine electoral outcomes, strongly object to the Republican move to remove the protection of the Dreamers.
When the Republicans are led by extremists, they become a party of extremists. Extremists do not win elections.
They just did!
This was expected. But with a veto in hand the President will nullify this symbolic measure. Many in the establishment GOP do not want the DHS to be de-funded , and with 2016 just a year away, an anti Hispanic image may not benefit the GOP. The Hispanic vote was crucial in 2012, and even more crucial in 2016..With the Cuba announcement and the immigration action, this issue will create the wedge the Dems need to win..
Reps should also declare some of their ancestors as criminal trespassers, to be "fair"
Rather than spew sophomoric witticisms (the one you make is cliche and has been addressed ad nauseam), you ought to address specific points of the Republicans' proposals that you take issue with. You might actually make a coherent argument that way.
And the 114th Congress is off! The top of the agenda, of course, is anti-Obama movements with both immigration and Keystone.
I await responses from Senators John McCain (who, in his earlier incarnation, supported immigration reform very close to President Obama's) and Rubio (whose mother cautioned him not to mess with the immigrants). My bet is they toe the party line with rhetoric they know is wrong.
'Governing responsibly' has not taken long to go out of style with the republican majority. Trying to pass such idiotic legislation can do nothing but hurt them. As others have said, this is good news for the democrats in 2016.
Thank you. A thousand times thank you. Both of my parents came here legally through Ellis Island. Republicans -- Do not let Democrats reward criminal behavior in a vote buying scheme. Democrats -- Do not allow the precedent of this type of "executive action". It will surely come back to bite your party and the country.
Ellis Island closed in 1924.
1) No sir. Ellis Island closed in the mid 1950's. Both of my parents threw-up on Liberty ships on a ten day voyage across the Atlantic and were processed on Ellis Island in 1948 and
2) The closing date of Ellis is surely not the core of my objections to President Obama's actions on this particular issue.
When your parents came here, through Ellis Island, there were no immigration laws to break. So they are no model immigrants, for coming "legally."
That is the problem. The immigration door has been slammed shut so hard that it no longer meets the needs of our economy. The immigration law is the problem, not the illegal immigrants. Change the law.
Disenfranchising immigrants and preventing their ability to be socialized and integrated into society is one of the root causes of the events unfolding in France. The Republicans are creating a severe threat to our national security that is easily avoidable, by honoring the real spirit of the American ideal they pay lip service to so glibly.
So now the 'American ideal' is lawless opportunism? I can just ignore laws, like paying taxes, because doing so gives me personally 'a better life'? The national security threat comes from uncontrolled illegal immigration and an border that might as well be open.
Your comment highlights the most disingenuous obfuscation of the open borders crowd - conflating legal and illegal immigration. No one is talking about disenfranchising immigrants. The debate is over whether to enfranchise illegal immigrants or not.
Lets socialize and integrate our own struggling workers.
Shh... Let the Republicans be. They will be the best advertisement for Democrats in 2016. They will also be forcing Jeb Bush to respond. If he agrees with them, it's a Democratic win. If he does not then let the Republican self- destruct infighting begin.
Republicans who want to hold Homeland Security hostage take note: The United States does not negotiate with terrorists.
So now defending low skill and trade jobs from competition and wage depression brought by unfettered illegal immigration is 'right-wing'? When did Democrats decide to abandon working class and middle class Americans who have been most burdened by the federal government's refusal to uphold immigration laws? Lower wages, higher taxes and the acceptance, even encouragement, of lawless opportunism in exchange for votes is a Faustian bargain for Democrats.
Don't try to suggest that the GOP has any interest in the average working man in America. Don't co-opt the idea that government can help the middle class because your party has never demonstrated that. The GOP have demonstrated their disdain and lack of concern for the middle class American. Any improvement for the middle class in the last 6 years are because of Democratic initiatives. None whatsoever from the Republicans.
Intelligent comments but I'd disagree that immigrants have this effect as they take jobs no one else wants or that too few are qualified for, we see it at both extremes.
We've had 2 decent positions paying well above minimum wage open at my office for months. These jobs require a modicum of professional training. Last week a candidate didn't even bother to show up for her interview.
Ironically but not surprisingly the right does not support the types of policies that could ameliorate this problem. We'll see how they respond to the proposal to provide free community college but I'd predict their response will be negative.
Meanwhile many industries simply can't find qualified people.
To accomplish anything, go for the employers, not the workers. You might accidentally nail a few Republicans, but wouldn't it be worth it?
The Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. They should be framing, loudly, this issue as one where conservatives are placing the nation in grave danger by threatening to defund DHS at a time when terrorists are shooting up France.
I mean, the timing couldn't be more perfect for the Dems to paint the GOP as, once again, the party you cannot trust with the nation's security.
But, true to Dick Durbin's words yesterday, the Democrats are going to be a better minority. Translation: appeasement at all costs.
The Dems should also be mocking the GOP for not voting, as they did in the 113th over 50 times, to repeal Obamacare, especially since they now control the Senate. I mean, the president's veto pen was ready then, as it is now and that didn't stop the 113th.
I bet they will. It's just they like to wait for a decent interval before they politicize tragedy.
And just like that the Dems are going to win the Presidency! Just as Obama planned, force the GOP into a corner and they'll shoot themselves in the foot every time.
It's now abundantly clear that the Republicans have decided to wage legislative war on Obama, no matter what he does, and on whatever progress the country might try to make. Shameful, and incredibly sad.
All true, and in response, we have one word for them: Veto.
Nothing the Republicans pass that is not to the President's liking will end up being signed into law. They have majorities, but not 2/3 majorities, and they have no hope of over-riding any Presidential veto in either chamber of Congress, let alone both. So all of the Republican sound and fury will in the end signify nothing other than their preference for Kabuki theater over real legislation.
Obama’s executive order was blatantly unconstitutional, yet another step down the road towards an autocratic, post-western security state. The Constitution grants Congress the power to make laws of naturalization: it does not give this power to the president. We cannot allow Obama to unilaterally dictate immigration policy!
The Constitution was designed with separation of powers and checks and balances so that no single individual would concentrate too much authority. President Obama's expansive conception of “prosecutorial discretion” and “deferred action” sets a dangerous new precedent. Executive orders were intended to give the president leeway to enforce the law already on the books; they were never intended to allow the president to preempt the legislative process. Such broad, unchecked authority in the hands of the executive upsets the balance of power between the branches of government and destabilizes democratic society.
The demographics of the nation are changing. This provides us great opportunity, but it also increases the risks posed by demagoguery and ethnic politics; these risks can be mitigated, but if we do not respect the rule of law and the Constitution, our chances are poor.
Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is willing to defenestrate the Constitution in order to politicize ethnic polarization. Under such circumstances the rise of an imperial presidency will only lead to dysfunction and strife.
[[Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is willing to defenestrate the Constitution in order to politicize ethnic polarization.]]
Alright, smarty pants. Just say "throw the constitution out the window."
Congress has the power to provide the resources to fully enforce current immigration law. However, as they have not done so, and have not specified enforcement priorities, it's the purvue of the executive to most efficiently use the resources provided. Not deporting dreamers and instead using the funds to enforce border security (and we have seen fewer immigrants under the present administration, although that may be due to recession) seems like a good idea to me.
It's like drug laws. We all know they can't be enforced 100%, so the executive gets to decide priorities, and wisely has chosen to focus on drugs other than marijuana. So I guess the dreamers are the marijuana of immigration.
Congress had their chance to address the problem. They still can pass a sensible law that can actually be 100% enforced and then provide the budget to do so. Meanwhile the executive gets to decide.
Apparently you do not understand the traditional and proper role of the Executive Branch.
Congress passes laws, including provision for funding the execution of the law. Seldom is the appropriated money sufficient to discharge every part of a given law.
For instance, in this case Congress provided visa and citizenship fees as the means of funding the patrolling of the border and the deportation of 11 million illegal immigrants. That amount of money available for that huge task is ridiculously inadequate.
The role of the President is to assign priorities in the execution of the law, so that its most important goals are met.
That is in no sense unconstitutional. It is the way things have always been done.
In this case, President Obama has placed a higher priority on deporting illegal immigrants, who have committed felonies, as opposed to deporting peaceable fathers and mothers. Would you agree with that priority?
President Obama also has judged it more important to send agents to our southern border, rather than to have them deport fathers and mothers. Do you think that that is a sensible prioritizing of the available funds?
It is the role of the President to make these difficult choices about how best to execute the laws passed by Congress.
Senate Majority Leader McConnell is quoted in today's paper, " At the end of the day, we're going to fund the department, obviously." So, in the meantime, expect more grandstanding, more immigrants' status in limbo, more tit-for-tat politics, until the inevitable comes to pass.
Obama, who ran for office on a platform of being a "constitutional law professor" and a personal tale of parental abandonment, particularly paternal abandonment, has had numerous chances to advocate for constitutional reform in places that are sending lots of illegal immigrants to the US. He could also have advocated this in Kenya, which might have helped prevent the ISIS problem.
Paternity is provable now and the constitutional implications of this need to be acknowledged (i.e. that both men and women are responsible for meeting the needs of their children, and may not dump them on other countries, other taxpayers within their countries).
Similarly Pope Francis has had numerous chances to acknowledge the role of Catholicism (and the legacy of the Roman / Spanish Empire) in the poverty, corruption, violence issues, including the slave trade in the Americas (the Spanish, heavily aided by Catholicism) brought more slaves to the Americas by 1660 than would ever be brought to the British North American colonies and the United States. Even after slavery was abolished in Northern US states in 1787 at the founding of the US, and after Britain abolished it in the 1830s and the US fought a Civil War abolishing it in the US, Pope Pius endorsed slavery in 1866.
"It would also undo the protected status that Mr. Obama bestowed in 2012 on the so-called Dreamers"
TheRepublicans wish to send a message to young dreamers which is fear! They can never be certain of their status as long as xenophobic members of the party are around, nor as long as republicans are in the majority.
This bill is nothing more than a form of terrorism!
And those kids, the so-called "Dreamers," are exactly the kind of people this country needs -- hardworking, family-centered, community oriented and young enough to contribute to the Social Security Trust Fund for a long time.
I am a staunch Democrat but on one issue that I am aghast is The President decision to allow these illegal migrants to stay following Reagans precedent back in 1983 to allow those who were illegal to stay which will now in the future will eventually become standard I am sorry to say.
However, to my great dismay and what is much much worse, is the GOP threatening in a tit for tat, to harm the legal status of those staying here which is extremely annoying. I am a American born Sudanese from New York, 1st generation American if you like, with a foreign born Japanese wife. How can I explain that white America does not care for her presence in this country because she is a foreigner?
Foreigners are welcome as long as they follow our immigration rules.
Republicans are stepping with both feet into the trap laid by President Obama with his executive action and his rhetoric surrounding it. The political calculus for Democrats was that Republicans would be so inflamed by the President's action that they would over-react - as they so often do where partisanship is concerned - and end up alienating Latino voters to curry favor with their base. The President wagered that there is more for Republicans to lose than to gain, from an electoral standpoint, by defining themselves, even more strenuously than they have already, as the anti-immigration party.
And so here we have one of the President's parting gifts for Democrats who will be running for Congress and the White House in 2016. The other, of course, is the surging economy and the plummeting unemployment rate.
The Republicans are setting us back. We should have open borders, and no-go areas which ban outsiders and police. There is no reason for the mean-spirited Pubs to do this. We need to be more like France and Europe.
France and Europe are drowning in massive numbers of unskilled illegals as well. Let's not emulate them. Latinos need to take care of their own underclass not ship them here.
It's probably worth keeping in mind that one of the "selling points" of the executive action was that it could be rescinded--that the President was not "inventing" laws that could never be changed or revoked.
This extreme action on the Republicans' part may open the door for a dialogue between the parties on immigration that has been closed. And that would be welcome.
The only chance American voters had to express themselves directly on illegal immigration was in liberal Oregon, where they voted 2-1 against giving driver's licenses to illegals. They were overturning a bill already passed, and signed by the governor, and they were outspent by more than 10-1.
The elite from both parties want more immigration, legal or not.
Under Obama's policies anyone who crosses the border is a defacto American, eligible and encouraged to take a job here.
And what would an immigration story be without a quote from Frank Sharry?
Obama's EO acknowledge realities that the Republicans in congress will not. That is, the 11 million illegal immigrants in the US right now will not be deported, and doing so would be wasted energy. The right thing to do is to acknowledge that our system is broken, and grant a version of amnesty to those that are already here. Then fix the system. Like the 19th century school teacher, the Republicans want to enforce the class rules, without acknowledging the dynamics of the room. The law is there, yes, but that does not mean we should not adapt to the realities on the ground. Too often, on so many issues, the Republicans do not acknowledge reality.
The country was tricked first by the amnesty first/security second ploy in 1986. Reverse it this time. Fine tune the security portion until we have data showing that it works. Then amnesty of some sort.
House GOP now firmly on the record supporting the unconditional mass deportation of all undocumented children by removing all executive discretion. Of course they haven't funded it, being fiscal conservatives and all. Hopefully spmeone will ask them to defend that position instead of giving them their usual "press pass" in the name of "even-handed" coverage.
Children can go home with their parents. What's wrong with that?
So you really would deport minor children who are citizens? Given that Congress would never appropriate money to deport all 11,000,000, what's wrong with keeping them here with their parents? Obviously little kids are a severe threat to Republicans.
Lets see if they will fund it.
after Republicans lost the last two Presidential elections, they lamented their ways and promised to "embrace" women and minority voters, yet they continue push policies that will have the same result. i'm always telling my friends, don't listen to what Republicans say, watch what they do.
Absent from the Republican criticism of President Obama's immigration reforms is acknowledgment that their own failure to pass a bill set the scene. Suing the President has been more likely from Congress than producing their own legislation.
An immigration bill passed by the Republicans in the house in 2011 sat on Harry Reid's desk for 3 years as he would not let the Senate even vote on it. Know you facts.
The Republicans have been incapable of producing an immigration bill that even they can support much less one Democrats can accept.
What bill are you referring to?
Just more game playing, and fund raising of course, while the real problems go untouched. Shame on you Washington.
The proposed bill does not required unconditional mass deportation illegal children. Or anyone else.
No, that will be in the next bill passed by the Republicans.
So much for Mitch McConnell's 'just don't be scary' plan. God bless the GOP, they set another record for stupidity every single day. The only other group that even comes close are the ignoramuses that keep voting for them...It doesn't make-up for it of course, but the coming Republican meltdown will be fun to watch.
The extreme right-wingers are in total control of the Republican party now. This isn't much of a surprise.
The ultra-rich old white "christian" man who represents the district that I live in, Robert Pittenger (R-NC) is all about sending everyone back. During the past election, when asked at a town hall if he realized that many of the refugees would face violence or death upon repatriation, his reply was that it was a shame, but we just didn't have the resources in this nation to help them. Mind you now, this guy is a full-blown, religion-on-his-sleeve proponent of Jesus Christ turning his back on the unsavory idea of "charity" and opting instead for what is, in this district, the politically safe response. Here's what so unsettles me about that: he ran unopposed. We have plenty in this nation to help these people. The choice not to is political. Hopefully the right-minded people will prevail.
Republicans on Friday were clear that they did not want to risk a shutdown of the Homeland Security agency..." That's funny!
Republicans don't like government which they have been very clear about and have shut down several times when they couldn't get their way. I guess their real concern is shutting down Homeland Security might attract concern even from the rubes that mindlessly voted them into office this past November.
I suppose they'll save another threat of shutting down the government for a more important issue...like the Keystone Pipeline which they want us to believe will single-handedly solve America's energy needs, end unemployment, balance the budget and restore security to the middle-class. Problem is, the rubes that voted for them believe it.
What I want are workable, pragmatic solutions and what I keep seeing are big ideas that won't fly. None of this is good. And, by the way, are the so-called skilled worker visa increases being considered?
Microsoft lobbied Congress for more H1B visas, in addition to the current 800,000, a few days after laying off 200,00 US workers.
Does that answer your question?
All anyone needs to know about Republican's approach to immigration reform is to look at the case of the indicted ex-Congressman Michael Grimm. Besides other counts in the indictment Grimm was accused of hiring undocumenteds in his restaurant. Grimm paid these workers illegally off the books to avoid labor laws that would have cost more.
Republicans want to maintain the status quo. In this way a shadow workforce is available to work for less, easily exploited and also acts as a bludgeon against all workers who demand more pay and benefits. The status quo serves the GOP best. They can make noise and act like they will do something, to please their base. And that is what the GOP will do, make a lot of noise to stymie progress do their best to change nothing in the current broken down immigration laws.
Where are the calls from Republicans for expanded enforcement of E-Verify? Where are the investigations and prosecutions of employers who routinely skirt labor laws? Not there, the GOP talks from both sides of their mouth. They say they want reform but really prefer the current situation.
Workplace enforcement?? You bet. Let's get going: Federally mandated, nationwide, uniform, biometric ID system, applicable to everyone (citizen and non-citizen), at the workplace and at the government bennies offices. No excuses about "losing" or "forgetting" your ID. Yout ID is your iris, or your fingerprint, or other biometric marker. It goes with you, everywhere. Most Americans will support it. Who will not? Who will scream first, loudest and longest? The pro-open-borders immigration activists and their Dem champions? or the pro-cheap-labor-employers and their GOP champions.
Since this is just the beginning of two years of hard hearted, self-serving GOP actions to stomp down children, the poor, the disenfranchised, whomever isn't or can't put money into their reelection campaigns, I'd just like to say thank goodness for the veto! VETO, VETO, VETO, yeah! And let's get out the vote in 2016 to do whatever we can to throw these vicious clowns out of office.
So the House Republicans continue to pass legislation without a chance of success for the benefit of their political campaigns. Good example of governing...not.
They are incapable of "governing." Now, they CAN run things... into the ground.
Repatriating people with their home countries....there's nothing more heart warming than that.
What's wrong with sending Mexicans back to Mexico? At least there they'll speak the language and not hurt law abiding American citizens.
Exactly how many "law abiding" Americans have been actually hurt by Mexican immigrants? Provide some statistics to show that Mexican immigrants cause physical harm to others at a greater rate than any other group. Betcha can't do it.
A majority of the immigrants are not Mexican.
The Party of No is going to overplay their hand and blow it for themselves in 2016. They continue to waste taxpayers time and money operating in their alternate universe. Will they ever do anything productive?
Is this how the Republicans plan on attracting the Hispanic vote in 2016? Adios, GOP.
Hope you are right about this
Most Americans want much better immigration control. Every American can make his/her own decision. But most want much better immigration control. I would think that Hispanic voters would get sick and tired of having Dem pols and activists and media pundits telling them how to vote -- but that is really up each Hispanic voter. Meanwhile, most non-Hispanic voters want more control -- much more control.
The Senate passed a bi-parisan bill a couple of years ago. It never came to a vote in the House.
Anybody who doesn't believe in the right wing agenda of the Republicans and didn't vote in the recent elections should be ashamed of themselves. The Republicans boasted of their intention to roll back immigration moves and Obamacare and now they are going to do just that.
So this is how the GOP plans to demonstrate it's ability to govern. Is anyone still in doubt about where we're heading for the next two years??
and..can anyone believe that their so-called political views, opinions and/or beliefs are anything more than biased and self-serving demagoguery? "The will and good of the people" is easily mouthed as a bedrock catch phrase for a hidden agenda that secretly serves the speaker and not the spoken for. A policy of "just say no" should not be implemented Before a person actually offers up an idea, unless of course that is what the hearer intends to say..no matter what..
As an immigrant I walked off the democratic camp when Mr. Obama signed these executive orders. I have an issue with supporting law breakers as I believe this country' s bedrock foundation is the fairness enshrined in its legal framework.
When it becomes politically expedient to change one law then where does it end. My fear is that this precedence sets the country down a slippery slope of expediency in law. Couple this with people that can bend the laws to their benefit and we will wind up in world of oligarchs and self serving vote banks controlling the Economy, Polity and social causes that benefit the few capable of manipulating it.
Laws need to be tweaked and broken when enforcing them is untenable. Our history is filled with instances where we bend laws, or break them, because of our moral evolution.
Well stated. The bending of the laws to favor these illegals is exactly the way their home countries got into trouble resulting in the chaos they are trying to escape. I am not a member of either of major parties but I am finding my way reluctantly turning right.
So tell us how you would go about deporting 11 million illegal immigrants? Because if it is unreasonable to expect that you can deport them all, the pragmatic alternative is to proceed with selective deportation starting with the least desirable; which happens to be the essence of the Obama executive order. In spite of the deliberate misrepresentation the executive order does nothing that changes the law.
The Republicans lust for power and control of Congress has begun to consume them.
Good for the Republican Party. We finally have legislators that follow the will of the citizens.
Speak for yourself. They're not following the will of this citizen.
They are following the will of only 32% of the American people who bothered to vote.
They aren't even following the will of the citizens of "conservative" AZ, where polls show a solid majority support sensible legislation on immigration, including especially legalizing the young "Dreamers."
• House Republicans introduced legislation Friday that would drastically roll back President Obama’s executive actions on immigration....
SURPRISE!!!!!
Bow? How kind of you. Grovel, cave into, or cowered might be a more appropriate title.
it only took one week for the House to prove they have retained their interest in making sure they never work with the President. Surprise.
This is a plan to cede the Presidency to the Democrats for at least 3-4 more election cycles. And no Hoover needed.
I fully appreciate the deliberate obfuscation in the "reporting" but this is about illegal immigration and not legal immigration.
No one is immune from such draconian thinking and actions. If silence and disgust with our political scene opened up the door for the successful election to office of these Republicans then we need only look in the mirror to see who is to blame. The Democrats ran from President Obama because they could not explain clearly what they stood for and what they expected of our Government and our Country.
We have no hope of resolving the real problems if we cannot even agree on the problems that need to be solved, the terms we are using, the direction of our Country and who we are as a people and who we want to be.
Wow and this is only the midpoint of an ongoing failure of conscience.
I have to trust in the Presidential veto.
Bottom line, Hispanic immigrants and their extended families don't figure in the Republican calculus for at least the next 8 years and by then the bet is that voters will just forget what was done to them. I'd say that was a pretty good bet.
Why should they? Amnesty won't turn them into Republicans anymore than the 1986 amnesty Reagan signed did. Moreover, many Americans oppose amnesty and want our borders secured against illegal immigration.
This is not surprising given Boehner's feckless history. One can only hope his continuing pandering to the extreme right will backfire as the next presidential election approaches. The GOP may be in control of Congress but as a party, they continue to be out of control.
Well, they've just lost the Hispanic vote with this foolishness. And, adding $400 million to Homeland Security's billions? Throwing money at this organization is not going to make them function any better. You'd think there was a war on with this type of funding. This is all about politics now; dismantle everything President Obama has accomplished so they can crow about what a great job they are doing - phooey!
4-5 million Conservatives and Republicans did not come out to vote in 2012 because the Republicans did not appear to be Conservative. Actions of this order will probably bring them out 2016.
I'm Canadian and Liberal (Democrat in the USA). I cannot understand the venomous hatred that this Republican Party has for anything that is not in their interests or those who support the. I don't see compromise, I don't see compassion. What I see is is a selfish group bent on promoting BIG- big business, big oil, big military, big lobbyists.
The majority of the elected Republican senators and congressmen are rich, and so far removed from what they vote against (health care, immigration), that they cannot fathom what America was as recently as the early 1900's, when millions of immigrants came to America for a better life.
We currently have an elected Conservative government that seems to get motivation from the Republican party, and in 2016 the people of Canada will have their say ( I can only hope hope). Cutting programs all over, reduced government testing of food and pharmaceuticals, reduced help for veterans all seem similar to the Republican Agenda, reduced monitoring of railroad (crash after crash), reduced fines and monitoring of oil spills, and on and on.
From Canada also and I totally agree. Show the world how to get rid of Cons next year and maybe, America will follow suit.
It has been the policy of Canada for as long as I can remember to allow immigration only to those who bring marketable and needed skills with them. Why should it be any different for the US?
No matter how anyone feels about immigration, threatening to defund the dept of homeland security after the Paris shootings is shameful. If they want to change the immigration system they should pass a bill they way congress is intended to function. Blackmailing the american people is like this is unnaceptable.
A people deserves the party it votes into power.
Yes, and I am very happy with this action and hope they keep it up. Thank you for considering me deserving.
Good news! The American people want immigration control, not amnesty, whatever its thin disguise. This is a step in the right direction. Now the full House needs to follow through and actually vote in favor and send it on to the Senate. And don't be scared off by blustering threats from the likes of Joaquin Castro or Frank Sharry -- there's nothing the GOP can do to make them happy, short of totally caving in to the open borders.
Enforcement should be targeted on illegal immigrants in the states where such immigration is viewed with the most concern, as measured by the votes of their Senators and Congressmen.
Maybe those oil field workers facing layoffs in North Dakota can find a new career mowing lawns or washing dishes in Texas.
Just curious, are the Republicans attempting to get the fewest votes ever recorded for their party in the presidential election of 2016? If so, this is a good move.
That's one way to sway hearts and minds of Latino voters, deport their parents and relatives. Good thinking GOP
If funding through Homeland Security (a really stupid name for an agency which is pretty much worthless) is not available after the GOP gets through with it, the President should just stop deporting anyone. That will save a lot of money. You'd think Boehner would be happy about that.
I can't understand why anyone would want to deport someone who was brought here as a young child back to a country about which they most likely know little or nothing including the culture and the language. It's cruel, and it certainly doesn't conform to any religious principles known to me. While I understand that it's Republican policy to oppose anything that President Obama advocates, they need to put politics aside, and for the sake of common decency drop this issue.
Our politicians work for us, the US citizens. Not for latin america, not for the EU, not for Asia, not for the middle east, and certainly not for illegal immigrants, regardless of their sad stories. There are at least 2 billion people, and many have a sadder story than a parent bringing in a young child to the US when they don't know the 'culture and the language.'
It is not common decency to accept this nonsense. It is the law to remove illegal immigrants, regardless of their story.
Well Democrats won a bare majority of Latinos in the last election and many of the rest stayed home. So this is what you get. Surely none of this comes as a shock to anyone.
According to Pew Research, 60% of Latino voters voted for Democrats in 2010, and last year 62% voted for Democrats. A 24 point spread is hardly what I would call a "bare majority".
It's worth noting that giving amnesty in 1986 didn't win Republicans Latino votes. Anything but. Reagan won the WH with 37% of the Latino vote. He signed the 1986 amnesty. However, his VP, George Bush, got only 30% of the Latino vote when he ran for president a mere two years later.
Thank God!! If it wasn't for the right wing of the Republican Party, it would be SO much harder for the Democrats to win the Presidency in 2016.
Keep it up, guys, we Democrats are counting on you!!
Although I am a Democrat and support Obama, in this case I agree with the House GOP. "Illegal Immigrants" should have no advantage over those "legals" who come here by following the rules. Any mention of any kind of amnesty in any form will simply open the flood gates to millions more "illegals" flooding over our borders.
Shameful. This is not governance. It is the continuation of bigotry and racism. It does nothing to resolve the complex and long-standing problems in this nation's immigration policies. If Republicans expect this to demonstrate they can govern, they are starting off on the wrong foot.
How wonderful to know that we have entered an era where not only the House but the Senate can let loose with policies which proves just how fear-filled, hate-filled and ignorant our elected representatives can be.
Now as to what that says about us ....
What you see as fear and hate filled others see as dedicated to the rule of law and the constitution. The republicans are not rewriting any laws they are simply enforcing the laws that have been on the books for decades.
The Republicans are playing a dangerous game... they truly need to be careful what they wish for. The humanitarian aspect of what they have tried to accomplish will insure a member of their party will not occupy the White House, and they will alienate not just those who cannot feel accepted in what they consider to truly be "their country", but so many of us who understand the human tragedies which will continue thanks to the Republican party members and their insistence that present day immigrants are less worthy than their parents were so many years ago. As long as the right wing of America insists on pulling the ladder out from under those who want to improve their own lives and the lives of their children, as well as paying taxes and helping the United States, they will never understand the pain and hurt they bring upon not just those who belong here as did immigrants long ago, but so many other people who have long been citizens of these United States. They should all be ashamed.
I thought Mr. Obama was fairly clear when he pointed to the resources that were being squandered over non-threatening immigrants, and instead focused them on the bad apples for deportation. Hasn't his administration deported more folks than the previous President?
I thought his "dreamers" order allowed young adults who essentially grew up here (1M) to stay and work toward their citizenship. I was under the impression that the new "family" order allowed about 1/3 more of the total (another 4M) to begin work towards their own assimilation as Americans over the next 14-years or so, by "bringing them into the light." That still leaves some 8M folks without rules.
If the goal of the President is to make this a manageable effort with regards to trans-border migrants, I would ask that Congress step up to figure out a way toward engineering that goal. Simply cutting off funding doesn't solve the problem. It only pokes a finger in the eye of the man trying to get a policy in place. Some in Congress seem to want only to look at the immediate order and complain, when instead they can sit-down and organize a policy that might claify the reasonable, humane effort.
I don't at all remember this kind of "crazy" when Regan made his sweeping amnesty in the early 1980s. I thought it was the "realistic" thing to do.
Remember that Obama changed the rules on how deportations were counted. Before those caught at the border and sent back didn't count. Now it does while at the same time deportation of those caught further in country have dropped. Obama's policy have also allowed as many as 34,000 with criminal records to stay. We need to enforce our laws while finding a way to allow temporary worker permits that can be monitored. Coming here illegally so not be rewarded and more than any other crime. Like it or not, by coming here illegally is a crime
That change (returns vs removals) was made by Bush at the start of his second term and simply continued since then. We need to remember what it was like to be a country of compassionate people.
This must the new compassionate Republican Party that promised to government with honesty and integrity.
Well, advocating wholesale disregard of immigration law reflects neither honesty nor integrity.
This executive action sets a bad precedent on many levels, and Republicans have moved up a notch on my respect scale for fighting this. I support immigration because it makes our country stronger, but illegal immigration is just that – unlawful and criminal. If Democrats believe they can win the support of minorities and immigrants with this action, they are deluding themselves.
It is extremely difficult to understand what the Republicans in the House are thinking and feeling, it seems like they are setting out to destroy their own party. What in the world are they reaching for, what constructive legislation have they presented, are they mindful of the repercussions of their decision regarding the immigrants? And it has only been a week since they reconvened in a Congress controlled by the Republicans. If they continue like this, they will make it very difficult for their Presidential candidate to win.
@ charles - "...are they mindful of the repercussions of their decision regarding the immigrants?"
Yes, yes and yes more jobs for unemployed US citizens and legal permanant residents. What exactly is wrong with that "repercuission"?
What "repercussions" regarding illegal aliens? Most Americans, some 80%, according to a Washington Post/ABC poll, want our borders secured against illegal immigration. Many Americans across the political spectrum also oppose the President's EO.
Democrats lost the "we can't help you if you don't vote for us" message in 2014. Perhaps for 2016, Dems should try the slogan "Can you hear us now".
I don't hear the Dems cause I haven't been able to find a job since 2008. And I have a Masters degree. I would vote (Democratic) if I lived in a part of the country where Republicans were making significant incursions on social issues.
Lousy politics by the Democrats now have Pubs controlling more seats nationwide than in almost 100 years. And elections have consequences.
"Lousy politics by the Democrats" -- including lousy politics on immigration.
"And elections have consequences" -- including consequences -- adverse consequences -- for the entire remaining Dem agenda, and for the entire non-Latino Dem base.
If elections have consequences, then the previous elections in 2008 and 2012 should have meant that the Republicans worked with the Dems. But no, Obama Derangement Syndrome took hold and so did the idea that when the Dems win, Republicans should refuse to do anything and when Republicans win, Dems should come slobbering with gratitude to the Republican agenda.
As a immigrant myself who did it the legal way and long way (it takes almost a decade to legally apply for and get a green card), I fell that all of these "get-out-of-jail-free" policies advocated by President Obama represent poor judgement. It represents a pathetic attempt at trying to win elections at all cost. Why should anyone, irrespective of age, be allowed to break the law and go free?. People need to understand that such amnesties only encourage others. At any given time, there are more than a billion people who would happily give up a kidney to come live in the US. So while I feel sorry for the challenges of their day to day life, I do have to look at what is also in the best interests of the US, and myself. And simply forgiving all those who broke the law is not in our best interest.
That being said the US does have a legitimate need for immigrant labor to work in our farms and in a variety of other low paying, manual labor jobs. What we need is to accept this as fact and introduce some kind of lottery system. The Middle East (UAE, Saudi, etc) is full of immigrant labor. They come legally, earn a better wage than they would at home and then they leave. There is no option to stay longer, and the law is enforced. That is what we need.
Please do not mistake me for a Republican either. They are a bunch of idiots too - with their stance on gun rights and host of other things.
"The Middle East (UAE, Saudi, etc) is full of immigrant labor. They come legally, earn a better wage than they would at home and then they leave. There is no option to stay longer, and the law is enforced. That is what we need."
The Middle East system works ONLY IF the workers who go there are sponsored by a host country employer who guarantees (to the government) wages, taxes, health care, etc. for the worker during a fixed, finite stay and who guarantees that the worker will be repatriated at the end of the fixed, finite stay, and also that system works ONLY IF there is NO birthright citizenship, and ONLY IF the men that go to the ME to work are not allowed to bring their wives and kids with them and, instead, leave their wives and kids at home, and ONLY IF the women that go to the ME to work are not allowed to bring their kids with them and, instead, leave their kids at home with grandparents and aunts and uncles, and ONLY IF women who go to the ME and become pregnant there by anyone other than a host country man (who is willing to acknowledge his paternal status) are required leave and give birth back home and/or to send their kids back home to stay with grandparents and aunts and uncles.
IF that system were tried in the USA, just imagine the outcry.
That the US still needs laborers to work on farm and other similar jobs is precisely why a distinction must be made between those who enter with H1B visas and those from Mexico and Central American countries. Those who arrive on H1B usually enter the high tech industries and do take jobs that many US citizen graduates in the tech field want. By contrast, those from Central American countries are more likely to end up working on farms or as gardeners, nannies, house cleaners. If you doubt me, come to California and look around--look at those working in the fields then look at those in many tech companies.
While I am sympathetic that the illegal immigrants are here to seek better lives, as we all do. I am not convinced however, within the context of a national economy, their presence do not have adverse effect upon our work market. Philosophically, I wonder what "sovereignty" means if it has become politically incorrect to call people who cross border illegally as "illegal"? Why even have a border? In any case, these discussions are all to petty to the problem of illegal immigrant, here in America or anywhere else.
Ultimately, the solution to "undocumented" workers is Americans establishing an equitable sharing of wealth for workers and a business model that pay living wage, then "exporting" this globally. Globalization of equitable reward for our work is the globalization of a race to the top. So they don't have to leave.
Whatever one's position on the immigration question may be, we should welcome this action; it gives each member of Congress and the President a chance to publicly express how they feel. I hope this goes to an actual vote in each house and is not buried in some committee or another, as so many controversial bills have been in the past. Have the courage of your convictions and cast a vote.
On April 18, 1890, when the federal government assumed control of immigration, the population of the United States was 62,979,766.
When the last census was taken in 2010, the population of the United States was 308,745,538 - in short, the population quintupled during this span of time. But the land area controlled by the United States did not increased in any significant way during the same period.
It's great that so many of our grandparents were able to come to this country in the past; but the reason they were able to come, had nothing to do with liberty and justice, and everything to do with the fact that the United States was an underpopulated country in 1890.
While it is true we still have open areas left in our country, those areas are primarily arid areas or mountain ranges, which are basically uninhabitable. Therefore, adding more people, especially unskilled people, at this time in our history is not a good idea; not because they are bad people, but simply because we are out of space.
Plus, More than two thirds of recent immigrants come from Latin America, countries with at least as much land and resources as the USA. They can stay there with just as much opportunity as here. Or is it our singular "Anglo" culture that makes the USA more attractive than all those wonderful countries. If so, why are they always criticizing us?
It is one thing to tighten limits on future immigration. It is another thing discriminate heavily against children born in America, simply because their parents came to America illegally rather than by trying to operate within an often quite dysfunctional system for legal immigration.
The NYT is astounded that the GOP would prevent children who were brought here illegally from remaining here. But how would a school-age child be able to remain here if his parents were told to leave? A child needs his parents’ emotional support and guidance. Plus, where would the child live and who would support him? The GOP is being realistic. If you allow an illegal school-age to stay in our country, then his parents and other relatives will say they have to be allowed to stay in order to support him emotionally and financially.
The young adults who were brought here illegally as children, did not thank the American people when the president said he would not deport them. Rather, one of their leading organizations immediately demanded that their extended family members also be allowed to remain. It might not be possible to let one group remain while deporting the rest.
Besides, it would be better for their own countries if the people who are here illegally would return with the knowledge they have gained from living in our country. They could help their countries reform and develop.
Kids don't have to thank anyone. It a privilege of childhood & youth. In fact. parents who are expecting gratitude from their own children for their sacrifices should never have been parents. It's more than enough to see one's own children and the children of others grow up to be sensible, compassionate adults.
DAPA, the executive directive that energized the nativists, was designed to protect the families of US citizens. The scenario you champion deports one or both of the parents and presumes the collateral removal of citizen children. Surely you realize that those children, our fellow citizens, will have every right to return if they survive to majority. All you will have accomplished will be to have denied them their basic rights as citizens. I hope I will never understand the level of distain for citizen children repeatedly displayed by advocates of your "Penultimate Solution".
How do many of the Cubans who arrived on rafts and small boats without papers remain here? They enter their community. How they manage to earn citizenship and vote is the real mystery.
We used to value the diversity immigrants brought. The businesses they started, their contributions to society, their value of family... My own parents were off the boat. ALL of our families came here, one way or another, at some time. Shame shame shame on these legislators.
As a child of first generation immigrants of another era, I wonder today what they ever saw in this country...
We still value the diversity that legal immigrants bring. That is no reason to open the borders to anyone who wishes to ignore our laws and bring their families here illegally. Legals are welcome. Illegals are deported. Don't confuse the two types of immigrants.
Jude: I assume your parent and relative came here legally (otherwise they need to go back.). The GOP legislation is about preventing illegal immigration and as a legal immigrant myself, I fully support it.
Your last comment says everything. I suggest you live in the country your parents left for five years and report back to us.
The absurd argument that *we are a nation of immigrants* and therefore we must always continue to lower workforce wages through immigration, and increase an already huge population of 360 million by importing women who have large families must be exposed for the cynical argument it is. We were also a nation that was saddled with slavery, why not continue that?
We need no more immigrants. All our resources must be employed to educating all the Black, Hispanic and White children who are here and are functionally illiterate. We need all our resources to develop employment for American citizens and to pay them living salaries, not depressed immigrant wages.
I suggest that Republicans add to their immigration legislation a tax on all remittances sent abroad. End this de facto foreign aid and have the money now sent abroad spent to redevelop our much maligned *infrastructure*.
Finally the politicians (Republicans) are listening to the vast majority of. American people who are against rewarding illegal aliens with social Security cards, drivers licenses working papers,and Social Security benefits to The illegal alien parents of the legal and illegal children, the latter of which is preposterous! when Obama came back from his multimillion dollar Hawaii vacation, his first order of business was taking care of illegal aliens by meeting with Niento , the president of Mexico,, seeking his support by providing documentation of Mexico's citizens to our government to support his amnesty program. Think about it this was his first priority. Americans first. Republicans keep up the good work
As a liberal, I have never supported anything the GOP has done. Until now. Outside of those connected to the military, there should be no support for those that entered the country illegally. The money that will be spent on those that broke the law needs to be spent on those that have yet to feel the "economic recovery", particularly low-income Americans that have been ignored and forgotten by both parties for decades.
defunding Homeland Security is the best idea in a long time. This massive agency created by George Bush in reaction to 9-11 is the biggest boondoggle in American government. Look to it for the militarization of our police, and public spaces. The sooner it is broken up and reduced in size the better. it is too unwieldy to be effective, a huge money suck and is the source of billions in fraudulent and unnecessary contracts.
If Republicans insist on undoing Obama's immigration rules, then they must include all Cubans, Chinese, Indian, and other Asians who have arrived with flaws in their immigration papers. The Republican initiatives appear to be aimed solely at Mexican and other Central Americans. They must also end H1B visas unless the individual immigrating is firmly established, recognized in his/her field, and has at least 8 years of employment in the field. No more H1B for new graduates or those who are recently minted graduates. Defunding Homeland Security is a great idea. Let's rein them in at airports so that some semblance of dignity might be restored to those who are paying to travel--the passengers.
This is just the legislative game of "Chicken." House passes absurd bill (base is happy). Senate Dems block bill from consideration. Modified "bipartisan" bill moves through Senate hoops. House rejects Senate bill. Deadline approaches to fund DHS. Senate GOP uses "reconciliation" to secure funding for a limited time and add some immigration restrictions. House and Senate pass stopgap funding of DHS, with House vowing to get more next time. Prez signs bill to get the funding and then uses the Bush II get-around called a signing order to announce that he won't put any resources into enforcement of the restrictions. And magically the status quo is preserved while everybody can claim victory.
Proving once again that all motion is not action!
Enforce the laws already on the books, secure the border (as promised), then we can talk about what reform is needed. The conversation starts with "what part of illegal" don't you understand? Go to Mexico as an "undocumented immigrant" and see what their law does! Hint: it starts with going to jail, and ends with deportation.
As much as I despise the Republicans, I have to agree that people invading our country should be shown the door as quickly as possible, and their kids should go with them. Rules need to curb the flow of "refugees" also.
Preventing immigrants from having the real ability to be socialized and integrated into society is one of the root causes of the events unfolding in France. The Republicans are creating a severe threat to our national security that is still avoidable. The GOP has decided to wage legislative war on Obama, no matter what he does, and on whatever progress the country might try to make. Shameful, and incredibly sad. Let it be a good lesson for illiterate voters.
A real immigration bill would send to jail the managers and c.e.o's of companies who hire undocumented workers, and who hire sub-contractors who do the same (so they cannot hide behind the "sub-contracting" farce). And, also the soccer moms who hire illegal nannies and gardeners.
Any other legislation is just a smoke-screen for the un-thinking right-wing masses.
No jobs, no people coming in illegally. No increasing of the labor pool that lowers Americans' wages.
It's really quite simple. There is no need to deport anyone, or do much else. If everyone who hires illegals, from c.e.o.'s to soccer moms faces arrest, legal fees, and possible jail time, the problem is simply fixed.
Let's consider a prototypical "dreamer" - say someone who came to the U.S. as a young child and is now an honor graduate or a member of military.
What the Republicans are saying, in effect, that it's more important to deport this kid than to fund programs to protect the nation from terrorism (following the attacks in France).
That, plus tax cuts for the richest 0.1%, is what today's GOP stands for. Think about it.
Deporting Dreamers is especially cruel. These young people have known no other home but the U.S. and may well not speak another language than English. Their families would be broken up. The same is true about deporting the parents of children born in this country who need their families or be deserted. Add to this the sheer scale and expense of deporting millions of young people who are constructive members of America, who want to contribute to the country in various ways. This would be a new Trail of Tears.
This Do Nothing Congress is doubling down -- it is beginning with attacks on the environment and on young immigrants, harming the planet, destroying families, and crushing Dreamers. These are 19th century policies in the 21st century. The Republican autopsy and the "Growth and Opportunity" report from earlier this year emphasized the need to develop immigration reform, and the bipartisan Senate bill should be brought to a vote. Instead Republicans seem to be exhibiting bigotry towards Latinos in their very first week.
Will Rogers said, "Never blame a legislative body for not doing something. When they do nothing, they don't hurt anybody. When they do something is when they become dangerous." The Do Nothing Congress looks better in retrospect.
This all makes me more convinced that the lack luster performance by Democrats in the last election was deliberate. Called Rope-A-Dope. They wanted to give the Republicans two years to rile the Democratic base, in preparation for the 2016 presidential election. Democrats are cunningly playing out the rope, and Republicans are responding exactly as intended. The whole governance of our country has turned into an electoral game. Learn to speak Spanish, is my advice.
This would seem to be a win-win for Democrats. It will further alienate Latinos while having no chance of actually affecting immigration policy -- thus providing more proof of Republican inability to govern. Plus it will appear to endanger homeland security during a very tense period. And if, God forbid, there is a terrorist attack in the U.S. during this time, Republicans will have "blood on their hands."
If the GOP wants to take an anti immigration stance, so be it. They are simply making themselves irrelevant for presidential and senate races. Democrats ceded the south after the civil rights bill. The Republicans will cede the nation after anti immigration bills. Too bad the country is divided along racial and ethnic lines!
Actually, prohibiting illegal immigration is more likely to fix the real immigration problem, that legal immigration is way too difficult and onerous to accomplish, for the very few who are in the special categories that are allowed in legally. Fixing illegal immigration is not separable from fixing legal immigration.
Apparently, the GOP doesn't want to compete for the Presidency in 2016.
You are underestimating the effect of the executive order on white, blue collar workers.
It's funny. With all of the horrific news coming out of France concerning their undocumented alien terrorist attacks, any effort to control immigration is seen as 'something from the right'?
We already have a $14T national debt, people. Do you REALLY want to see that grow as we pay for illegal immigrants?
CBO says immigrants are accretive to the US treasury (revenue)
I think the French terrorists were actually French citizens.
What about the estimated $50-$100 billion sent out of the country every year? What about the higher costs and taxes paid by citizens to support the education and healthcare of illegal immigrants? Will the Treasury give me a credit to offset these costs I incur while some business owner gains?
Immigrants may be 'accretive' to the US treasury but they are a drag on most local taxpayers
Many of us may not like or agree with what the GOP SHOP will do in the next two years. We may as well be prepared to accept it. That is how it is.
The truth is that due to the way Congressional districts are subject to gerrymandering, the skewed power of less populated states in the Senate, and a Supreme Court that refuses to allow line item veto or to place restraints on corporate political funding -- that GOP SHOP can do pretty well as it pleases. It will do just that!
Agreed. Unless districts are changed we will continue to have the situation where the party with 20 million more votes are in the minority.
The geographic distribution of Democrats and Republicans has at least as much to do with control of the House of Representatives as does partisan gerrymandering.
http://www.politicsbythenumbers.org/2012/11/21/accounting-for-geography/
Red meat for the Republican extremists. Why does the Republican party allow the extremists to drag them into highly unpopular positions, which will cost them dearly, in terms of support in the 2016 elections?
For instance, the vital independent voters, who determine electoral outcomes, strongly object to the Republican move to remove the protection of the Dreamers.
When the Republicans are led by extremists, they become a party of extremists. Extremists do not win elections.
They just did!
This was expected. But with a veto in hand the President will nullify this symbolic measure.
Many in the establishment GOP do not want the DHS to be de-funded , and with 2016 just a year away, an anti Hispanic image may not benefit the GOP.
The Hispanic vote was crucial in 2012, and even more crucial in 2016..With the Cuba announcement and the immigration action, this issue will create the wedge the Dems need to win..
Reps should also declare some of their ancestors as criminal trespassers, to be "fair"
Rather than spew sophomoric witticisms (the one you make is cliche and has been addressed ad nauseam), you ought to address specific points of the Republicans' proposals that you take issue with. You might actually make a coherent argument that way.
And the 114th Congress is off! The top of the agenda, of course, is anti-Obama movements with both immigration and Keystone.
I await responses from Senators John McCain (who, in his earlier incarnation, supported immigration reform very close to President Obama's) and Rubio (whose mother cautioned him not to mess with the immigrants). My bet is they toe the party line with rhetoric they know is wrong.
'Governing responsibly' has not taken long to go out of style with the republican majority. Trying to pass such idiotic legislation can do nothing but hurt them. As others have said, this is good news for the democrats in 2016.
Thank you. A thousand times thank you. Both of my parents came here legally through Ellis Island. Republicans -- Do not let Democrats reward criminal behavior in a vote buying scheme. Democrats -- Do not allow the precedent of this type of "executive action". It will surely come back to bite your party and the country.
Ellis Island closed in 1924.
1) No sir. Ellis Island closed in the mid 1950's. Both of my parents threw-up on Liberty ships on a ten day voyage across the Atlantic and were processed on Ellis Island in 1948
and
2) The closing date of Ellis is surely not the core of my objections to President Obama's actions on this particular issue.
When your parents came here, through Ellis Island, there were no immigration laws to break. So they are no model immigrants, for coming "legally."
That is the problem. The immigration door has been slammed shut so hard that it no longer meets the needs of our economy. The immigration law is the problem, not the illegal immigrants. Change the law.
Disenfranchising immigrants and preventing their ability to be socialized and integrated into society is one of the root causes of the events unfolding in France. The Republicans are creating a severe threat to our national security that is easily avoidable, by honoring the real spirit of the American ideal they pay lip service to so glibly.
So now the 'American ideal' is lawless opportunism? I can just ignore laws, like paying taxes, because doing so gives me personally 'a better life'? The national security threat comes from uncontrolled illegal immigration and an border that might as well be open.
Your comment highlights the most disingenuous obfuscation of the open borders crowd - conflating legal and illegal immigration. No one is talking about disenfranchising immigrants. The debate is over whether to enfranchise illegal immigrants or not.
Lets socialize and integrate our own struggling workers.
Shh... Let the Republicans be. They will be the best advertisement for Democrats in 2016. They will also be forcing Jeb Bush to respond. If he agrees with them, it's a Democratic win. If he does not then let the Republican self- destruct infighting begin.
Republicans who want to hold Homeland Security hostage take note: The United States does not negotiate with terrorists.
So now defending low skill and trade jobs from competition and wage depression brought by unfettered illegal immigration is 'right-wing'? When did Democrats decide to abandon working class and middle class Americans who have been most burdened by the federal government's refusal to uphold immigration laws? Lower wages, higher taxes and the acceptance, even encouragement, of lawless opportunism in exchange for votes is a Faustian bargain for Democrats.
Don't try to suggest that the GOP has any interest in the average working man in America. Don't co-opt the idea that government can help the middle class because your party has never demonstrated that. The GOP have demonstrated their disdain and lack of concern for the middle class American. Any improvement for the middle class in the last 6 years are because of Democratic initiatives. None whatsoever from the Republicans.
Intelligent comments but I'd disagree that immigrants have this effect as they take jobs no one else wants or that too few are qualified for, we see it at both extremes.
We've had 2 decent positions paying well above minimum wage open at my office for months. These jobs require a modicum of professional training. Last week a candidate didn't even bother to show up for her interview.
Ironically but not surprisingly the right does not support the types of policies that could ameliorate this problem. We'll see how they respond to the proposal to provide free community college but I'd predict their response will be negative.
Meanwhile many industries simply can't find qualified people.
To accomplish anything, go for the employers, not the workers. You might accidentally nail a few Republicans, but wouldn't it be worth it?
The Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. They should be framing, loudly, this issue as one where conservatives are placing the nation in grave danger by threatening to defund DHS at a time when terrorists are shooting up France.
I mean, the timing couldn't be more perfect for the Dems to paint the GOP as, once again, the party you cannot trust with the nation's security.
But, true to Dick Durbin's words yesterday, the Democrats are going to be a better minority. Translation: appeasement at all costs.
The Dems should also be mocking the GOP for not voting, as they did in the 113th over 50 times, to repeal Obamacare, especially since they now control the Senate. I mean, the president's veto pen was ready then, as it is now and that didn't stop the 113th.
I bet they will. It's just they like to wait for a decent interval before they politicize tragedy.
And just like that the Dems are going to win the Presidency! Just as Obama planned, force the GOP into a corner and they'll shoot themselves in the foot every time.
It's now abundantly clear that the Republicans have decided to wage legislative war on Obama, no matter what he does, and on whatever progress the country might try to make. Shameful, and incredibly sad.
All true, and in response, we have one word for them: Veto.
Nothing the Republicans pass that is not to the President's liking will end up being signed into law. They have majorities, but not 2/3 majorities, and they have no hope of over-riding any Presidential veto in either chamber of Congress, let alone both. So all of the Republican sound and fury will in the end signify nothing other than their preference for Kabuki theater over real legislation.
Obama’s executive order was blatantly unconstitutional, yet another step down the road towards an autocratic, post-western security state. The Constitution grants Congress the power to make laws of naturalization: it does not give this power to the president. We cannot allow Obama to unilaterally dictate immigration policy!
The Constitution was designed with separation of powers and checks and balances so that no single individual would concentrate too much authority. President Obama's expansive conception of “prosecutorial discretion” and “deferred action” sets a dangerous new precedent. Executive orders were intended to give the president leeway to enforce the law already on the books; they were never intended to allow the president to preempt the legislative process. Such broad, unchecked authority in the hands of the executive upsets the balance of power between the branches of government and destabilizes democratic society.
The demographics of the nation are changing. This provides us great opportunity, but it also increases the risks posed by demagoguery and ethnic politics; these risks can be mitigated, but if we do not respect the rule of law and the Constitution, our chances are poor.
Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is willing to defenestrate the Constitution in order to politicize ethnic polarization. Under such circumstances the rise of an imperial presidency will only lead to dysfunction and strife.
[[Unfortunately, the Obama Administration is willing to defenestrate the Constitution in order to politicize ethnic polarization.]]
Alright, smarty pants. Just say "throw the constitution out the window."
Congress has the power to provide the resources to fully enforce current immigration law. However, as they have not done so, and have not specified enforcement priorities, it's the purvue of the executive to most efficiently use the resources provided. Not deporting dreamers and instead using the funds to enforce border security (and we have seen fewer immigrants under the present administration, although that may be due to recession) seems like a good idea to me.
It's like drug laws. We all know they can't be enforced 100%, so the executive gets to decide priorities, and wisely has chosen to focus on drugs other than marijuana. So I guess the dreamers are the marijuana of immigration.
Congress had their chance to address the problem. They still can pass a sensible law that can actually be 100% enforced and then provide the budget to do so. Meanwhile the executive gets to decide.
Apparently you do not understand the traditional and proper role of the Executive Branch.
Congress passes laws, including provision for funding the execution of the law. Seldom is the appropriated money sufficient to discharge every part of a given law.
For instance, in this case Congress provided visa and citizenship fees as the means of funding the patrolling of the border and the deportation of 11 million illegal immigrants. That amount of money available for that huge task is ridiculously inadequate.
The role of the President is to assign priorities in the execution of the law, so that its most important goals are met.
That is in no sense unconstitutional. It is the way things have always been done.
In this case, President Obama has placed a higher priority on deporting illegal immigrants, who have committed felonies, as opposed to deporting peaceable fathers and mothers. Would you agree with that priority?
President Obama also has judged it more important to send agents to our southern border, rather than to have them deport fathers and mothers. Do you think that that is a sensible prioritizing of the available funds?
It is the role of the President to make these difficult choices about how best to execute the laws passed by Congress.
Senate Majority Leader McConnell is quoted in today's paper, " At the end of the day, we're going to fund the department, obviously." So, in the meantime, expect more grandstanding, more immigrants' status in limbo, more tit-for-tat politics, until the inevitable comes to pass.
Obama, who ran for office on a platform of being a "constitutional law professor" and a personal tale of parental abandonment, particularly paternal abandonment, has had numerous chances to advocate for constitutional reform in places that are sending lots of illegal immigrants to the US. He could also have advocated this in Kenya, which might have helped prevent the ISIS problem.
Paternity is provable now and the constitutional implications of this need to be acknowledged (i.e. that both men and women are responsible for meeting the needs of their children, and may not dump them on other countries, other taxpayers within their countries).
Similarly Pope Francis has had numerous chances to acknowledge the role of Catholicism (and the legacy of the Roman / Spanish Empire) in the poverty, corruption, violence issues, including the slave trade in the Americas (the Spanish, heavily aided by Catholicism) brought more slaves to the Americas by 1660 than would ever be brought to the British North American colonies and the United States. Even after slavery was abolished in Northern US states in 1787 at the founding of the US, and after Britain abolished it in the 1830s and the US fought a Civil War abolishing it in the US, Pope Pius endorsed slavery in 1866.
"It would also undo the protected status that Mr. Obama bestowed in 2012 on the so-called Dreamers"
TheRepublicans wish to send a message to young dreamers which is fear!
They can never be certain of their status as long as xenophobic members of the party are around, nor as long as republicans are in the majority.
This bill is nothing more than a form of terrorism!
And those kids, the so-called "Dreamers," are exactly the kind of people this country needs -- hardworking, family-centered, community oriented and young enough to contribute to the Social Security Trust Fund for a long time.
I am a staunch Democrat but on one issue that I am aghast is The President decision to allow these illegal migrants to stay following Reagans precedent back in 1983 to allow those who were illegal to stay which will now in the future will eventually become standard I am sorry to say.
However, to my great dismay and what is much much worse, is the GOP threatening in a tit for tat, to harm the legal status of those staying here which is extremely annoying. I am a American born Sudanese from New York, 1st generation American if you like, with a foreign born Japanese wife. How can I explain that white America does not care for her presence in this country because she is a foreigner?
Foreigners are welcome as long as they follow our immigration rules.
Republicans are stepping with both feet into the trap laid by President Obama with his executive action and his rhetoric surrounding it. The political calculus for Democrats was that Republicans would be so inflamed by the President's action that they would over-react - as they so often do where partisanship is concerned - and end up alienating Latino voters to curry favor with their base. The President wagered that there is more for Republicans to lose than to gain, from an electoral standpoint, by defining themselves, even more strenuously than they have already, as the anti-immigration party.
And so here we have one of the President's parting gifts for Democrats who will be running for Congress and the White House in 2016. The other, of course, is the surging economy and the plummeting unemployment rate.
The Republicans are setting us back. We should have open borders, and no-go areas which ban outsiders and police. There is no reason for the mean-spirited Pubs to do this. We need to be more like France and Europe.
France and Europe are drowning in massive numbers of unskilled illegals as well. Let's not emulate them. Latinos need to take care of their own underclass not ship them here.
It's probably worth keeping in mind that one of the "selling points" of the executive action was that it could be rescinded--that the President was not "inventing" laws that could never be changed or revoked.
This extreme action on the Republicans' part may open the door for a dialogue between the parties on immigration that has been closed. And that would be welcome.
The only chance American voters had to express themselves directly on illegal immigration was in liberal Oregon, where they voted 2-1 against giving driver's licenses to illegals. They were overturning a bill already passed, and signed by the governor, and they were outspent by more than 10-1.
The elite from both parties want more immigration, legal or not.
Under Obama's policies anyone who crosses the border is a defacto American, eligible and encouraged to take a job here.
And what would an immigration story be without a quote from Frank Sharry?
Obama's EO acknowledge realities that the Republicans in congress will not. That is, the 11 million illegal immigrants in the US right now will not be deported, and doing so would be wasted energy. The right thing to do is to acknowledge that our system is broken, and grant a version of amnesty to those that are already here. Then fix the system. Like the 19th century school teacher, the Republicans want to enforce the class rules, without acknowledging the dynamics of the room. The law is there, yes, but that does not mean we should not adapt to the realities on the ground. Too often, on so many issues, the Republicans do not acknowledge reality.
The country was tricked first by the amnesty first/security second ploy in 1986. Reverse it this time. Fine tune the security portion until we have data showing that it works. Then amnesty of some sort.
House GOP now firmly on the record supporting the unconditional mass deportation of all undocumented children by removing all executive discretion. Of course they haven't funded it, being fiscal conservatives and all. Hopefully spmeone will ask them to defend that position instead of giving them their usual "press pass" in the name of "even-handed" coverage.
Children can go home with their parents. What's wrong with that?
So you really would deport minor children who are citizens? Given that Congress would never appropriate money to deport all 11,000,000, what's wrong with keeping them here with their parents? Obviously little kids are a severe threat to Republicans.
Lets see if they will fund it.
after Republicans lost the last two Presidential elections, they lamented their ways and promised to "embrace" women and minority voters, yet they continue push policies that will have the same result. i'm always telling my friends, don't listen to what Republicans say, watch what they do.
Absent from the Republican criticism of President Obama's immigration reforms is acknowledgment that their own failure to pass a bill set the scene. Suing the President has been more likely from Congress than producing their own legislation.
An immigration bill passed by the Republicans in the house in 2011 sat on Harry Reid's desk for 3 years as he would not let the Senate even vote on it. Know you facts.
The Republicans have been incapable of producing an immigration bill that even they can support much less one Democrats can accept.
What bill are you referring to?
Just more game playing, and fund raising of course, while the real problems go untouched. Shame on you Washington.
The proposed bill does not required unconditional mass deportation illegal children. Or anyone else.
No, that will be in the next bill passed by the Republicans.
So much for Mitch McConnell's 'just don't be scary' plan. God bless the GOP, they set another record for stupidity every single day. The only other group that even comes close are the ignoramuses that keep voting for them...It doesn't make-up for it of course, but the coming Republican meltdown will be fun to watch.
The extreme right-wingers are in total control of the Republican party now. This isn't much of a surprise.
The ultra-rich old white "christian" man who represents the district that I live in, Robert Pittenger (R-NC) is all about sending everyone back. During the past election, when asked at a town hall if he realized that many of the refugees would face violence or death upon repatriation, his reply was that it was a shame, but we just didn't have the resources in this nation to help them. Mind you now, this guy is a full-blown, religion-on-his-sleeve proponent of Jesus Christ turning his back on the unsavory idea of "charity" and opting instead for what is, in this district, the politically safe response. Here's what so unsettles me about that: he ran unopposed.
We have plenty in this nation to help these people. The choice not to is political. Hopefully the right-minded people will prevail.
Republicans on Friday were clear that they did not want to risk a shutdown of the Homeland Security agency..." That's funny!
Republicans don't like government which they have been very clear about and have shut down several times when they couldn't get their way. I guess their real concern is shutting down Homeland Security might attract concern even from the rubes that mindlessly voted them into office this past November.
I suppose they'll save another threat of shutting down the government for a more important issue...like the Keystone Pipeline which they want us to believe will single-handedly solve America's energy needs, end unemployment, balance the budget and restore security to the middle-class. Problem is, the rubes that voted for them believe it.
What I want are workable, pragmatic solutions and what I keep seeing are big ideas that won't fly. None of this is good. And, by the way, are the so-called skilled worker visa increases being considered?
Microsoft lobbied Congress for more H1B visas, in addition to the current 800,000, a few days after laying off 200,00 US workers.
Does that answer your question?
All anyone needs to know about Republican's approach to immigration reform is to look at the case of the indicted ex-Congressman Michael Grimm. Besides other counts in the indictment Grimm was accused of hiring undocumenteds in his restaurant. Grimm paid these workers illegally off the books to avoid labor laws that would have cost more.
Republicans want to maintain the status quo. In this way a shadow workforce is available to work for less, easily exploited and also acts as a bludgeon against all workers who demand more pay and benefits. The status quo serves the GOP best. They can make noise and act like they will do something, to please their base. And that is what the GOP will do, make a lot of noise to stymie progress do their best to change nothing in the current broken down immigration laws.
Where are the calls from Republicans for expanded enforcement of E-Verify? Where are the investigations and prosecutions of employers who routinely skirt labor laws? Not there, the GOP talks from both sides of their mouth. They say they want reform but really prefer the current situation.
Workplace enforcement??
You bet.
Let's get going:
Federally mandated, nationwide, uniform, biometric ID system,
applicable to everyone (citizen and non-citizen),
at the workplace
and at the government bennies offices.
No excuses about "losing" or "forgetting" your ID.
Yout ID is your iris, or your fingerprint, or other biometric marker.
It goes with you, everywhere.
Most Americans will support it.
Who will not?
Who will scream first, loudest and longest?
The pro-open-borders immigration activists and their Dem champions?
or the pro-cheap-labor-employers and their GOP champions.
Since this is just the beginning of two years of hard hearted, self-serving GOP actions to stomp down children, the poor, the disenfranchised, whomever isn't or can't put money into their reelection campaigns, I'd just like to say thank goodness for the veto! VETO, VETO, VETO, yeah! And let's get out the vote in 2016 to do whatever we can to throw these vicious clowns out of office.
So the House Republicans continue to pass legislation without a chance of success for the benefit of their political campaigns. Good example of governing...not.
They are incapable of "governing." Now, they CAN run things... into the ground.
Repatriating people with their home countries....there's nothing more heart warming than that.
What's wrong with sending Mexicans back to Mexico? At least there they'll speak the language and not hurt law abiding American citizens.
Exactly how many "law abiding" Americans have been actually hurt by Mexican immigrants? Provide some statistics to show that Mexican immigrants cause physical harm to others at a greater rate than any other group. Betcha can't do it.
A majority of the immigrants are not Mexican.
The Party of No is going to overplay their hand and blow it for themselves in 2016. They continue to waste taxpayers time and money operating in their alternate universe. Will they ever do anything productive?
Is this how the Republicans plan on attracting the Hispanic vote in 2016? Adios, GOP.
Hope you are right about this
Most Americans want much better immigration control.
Every American can make his/her own decision.
But most want much better immigration control.
I would think that Hispanic voters would get sick and tired of having Dem pols and activists and media pundits telling them how to vote -- but that is really up each Hispanic voter.
Meanwhile, most non-Hispanic voters want more control -- much more control.
The Senate passed a bi-parisan bill a couple of years ago. It never came to a vote in the House.
Anybody who doesn't believe in the right wing agenda of the Republicans and didn't vote in the recent elections should be ashamed of themselves. The Republicans boasted of their intention to roll back immigration moves and Obamacare and now they are going to do just that.
So this is how the GOP plans to demonstrate it's ability to govern. Is anyone still in doubt about where we're heading for the next two years??
and..can anyone believe that their so-called political views, opinions and/or beliefs are anything more than biased and self-serving demagoguery? "The will and good of the people" is easily mouthed as a bedrock catch phrase for a hidden agenda that secretly serves the speaker and not the spoken for. A policy of "just say no" should not be implemented Before a person actually offers up an idea, unless of course that is what the hearer intends to say..no matter what..
As an immigrant I walked off the democratic camp when Mr. Obama signed these executive orders. I have an issue with supporting law breakers as I believe this country' s bedrock foundation is the fairness enshrined in its legal framework.
When it becomes politically expedient to change one law then where does it end. My fear is that this precedence sets the country down a slippery slope of expediency in law. Couple this with people that can bend the laws to their benefit and we will wind up in world of oligarchs and self serving vote banks controlling the Economy, Polity and social causes that benefit the few capable of manipulating it.
Laws need to be tweaked and broken when enforcing them is untenable. Our history is filled with instances where we bend laws, or break them, because of our moral evolution.
Well stated. The bending of the laws to favor these illegals is exactly the way their home countries got into trouble resulting in the chaos they are trying to escape. I am not a member of either of major parties but I am finding my way reluctantly turning right.
So tell us how you would go about deporting 11 million illegal immigrants? Because if it is unreasonable to expect that you can deport them all, the pragmatic alternative is to proceed with selective deportation starting with the least desirable; which happens to be the essence of the Obama executive order. In spite of the deliberate misrepresentation the executive order does nothing that changes the law.
The Republicans lust for power and control of Congress has begun to consume them.
Good for the Republican Party. We finally have legislators that follow the will of the citizens.
Speak for yourself. They're not following the will of this citizen.
They are following the will of only 32% of the American people who bothered to vote.
They aren't even following the will of the citizens of "conservative" AZ, where polls show a solid majority support sensible legislation on immigration, including especially legalizing the young "Dreamers."
• House Republicans introduced legislation Friday that would drastically roll back President Obama’s executive actions on immigration....
SURPRISE!!!!!
Bow? How kind of you. Grovel, cave into, or cowered might be a more appropriate title.
it only took one week for the House to prove they have retained their interest in making sure they never work with the President. Surprise.
This is a plan to cede the Presidency to the Democrats for at least 3-4 more election cycles. And no Hoover needed.
I fully appreciate the deliberate obfuscation in the "reporting" but this is about illegal immigration and not legal immigration.
No one is immune from such draconian thinking and actions. If silence and disgust with our political scene opened up the door for the successful election to office of these Republicans then we need only look in the mirror to see who is to blame. The Democrats ran from President Obama because they could not explain clearly what they stood for and what they expected of our Government and our Country.
We have no hope of resolving the real problems if we cannot even agree on the problems that need to be solved, the terms we are using, the direction of our Country and who we are as a people and who we want to be.
Wow and this is only the midpoint of an ongoing failure of conscience.
I have to trust in the Presidential veto.
Bottom line, Hispanic immigrants and their extended families don't figure in the Republican calculus for at least the next 8 years and by then the bet is that voters will just forget what was done to them. I'd say that was a pretty good bet.
Why should they? Amnesty won't turn them into Republicans anymore than the 1986 amnesty Reagan signed did. Moreover, many Americans oppose amnesty and want our borders secured against illegal immigration.
This is not surprising given Boehner's feckless history. One can only hope his continuing pandering to the extreme right will backfire as the next presidential election approaches. The GOP may be in control of Congress but as a party, they continue to be out of control.
Well, they've just lost the Hispanic vote with this foolishness. And, adding $400 million to Homeland Security's billions? Throwing money at this organization is not going to make them function any better. You'd think there was a war on with this type of funding. This is all about politics now; dismantle everything President Obama has accomplished so they can crow about what a great job they are doing - phooey!
4-5 million Conservatives and Republicans did not come out to vote in 2012 because the Republicans did not appear to be Conservative. Actions of this order will probably bring them out 2016.
I'm Canadian and Liberal (Democrat in the USA). I cannot understand the venomous hatred that this Republican Party has for anything that is not in their interests or those who support the. I don't see compromise, I don't see compassion. What I see is is a selfish group bent on promoting BIG- big business, big oil, big military, big lobbyists.
The majority of the elected Republican senators and congressmen are rich, and so far removed from what they vote against (health care, immigration), that they cannot fathom what America was as recently as the early 1900's, when millions of immigrants came to America for a better life.
We currently have an elected Conservative government that seems to get motivation from the Republican party, and in 2016 the people of Canada will have their say ( I can only hope hope). Cutting programs all over, reduced government testing of food and pharmaceuticals, reduced help for veterans all seem similar to the Republican Agenda, reduced monitoring of railroad (crash after crash), reduced fines and monitoring of oil spills, and on and on.
From Canada also and I totally agree. Show the world how to get rid of Cons next year and maybe, America will follow suit.
It has been the policy of Canada for as long as I can remember to allow immigration only to those who bring marketable and needed skills with them. Why should it be any different for the US?
No matter how anyone feels about immigration, threatening to defund the dept of homeland security after the Paris shootings is shameful. If they want to change the immigration system they should pass a bill they way congress is intended to function. Blackmailing the american people is like this is unnaceptable.
A people deserves the party it votes into power.
Yes, and I am very happy with this action and hope they keep it up. Thank you for considering me deserving.
Good news!
The American people want immigration control,
not amnesty, whatever its thin disguise.
This is a step in the right direction.
Now the full House needs to follow through and actually vote in favor and send it on to the Senate.
And don't be scared off by blustering threats from the likes of Joaquin Castro or Frank Sharry -- there's nothing the GOP can do to make them happy, short of totally caving in to the open borders.
Enforcement should be targeted on illegal immigrants in the states where such immigration is viewed with the most concern, as measured by the votes of their Senators and Congressmen.
Maybe those oil field workers facing layoffs in North Dakota can find a new career mowing lawns or washing dishes in Texas.
Just curious, are the Republicans attempting to get the fewest votes ever recorded for their party in the presidential election of 2016? If so, this is a good move.
That's one way to sway hearts and minds of Latino voters, deport their parents and relatives. Good thinking GOP
If funding through Homeland Security (a really stupid name for an agency which is pretty much worthless) is not available after the GOP gets through with it, the President should just stop deporting anyone. That will save a lot of money. You'd think Boehner would be happy about that.
I can't understand why anyone would want to deport someone who was brought here as a young child back to a country about which they most likely know little or nothing including the culture and the language. It's cruel, and it certainly doesn't conform to any religious principles known to me. While I understand that it's Republican policy to oppose anything that President Obama advocates, they need to put politics aside, and for the sake of common decency drop this issue.
Our politicians work for us, the US citizens. Not for latin america, not for the EU, not for Asia, not for the middle east, and certainly not for illegal immigrants, regardless of their sad stories. There are at least 2 billion people, and many have a sadder story than a parent bringing in a young child to the US when they don't know the 'culture and the language.'
It is not common decency to accept this nonsense. It is the law to remove illegal immigrants, regardless of their story.
Well Democrats won a bare majority of Latinos in the last election and many of the rest stayed home. So this is what you get. Surely none of this comes as a shock to anyone.
According to Pew Research, 60% of Latino voters voted for Democrats in 2010, and last year 62% voted for Democrats. A 24 point spread is hardly what I would call a "bare majority".
It's worth noting that giving amnesty in 1986 didn't win Republicans Latino votes. Anything but. Reagan won the WH with 37% of the Latino vote. He signed the 1986 amnesty. However, his VP, George Bush, got only 30% of the Latino vote when he ran for president a mere two years later.
Thank God!! If it wasn't for the right wing of the Republican Party, it would be SO much harder for the Democrats to win the Presidency in 2016.
Keep it up, guys, we Democrats are counting on you!!
Although I am a Democrat and support Obama, in this case I agree with the House GOP. "Illegal Immigrants" should have no advantage over those "legals" who come here by following the rules. Any mention of any kind of amnesty in any form will simply open the flood gates to millions more "illegals" flooding over our borders.
Shameful. This is not governance. It is the continuation of bigotry and racism. It does nothing to resolve the complex and long-standing problems in this nation's immigration policies. If Republicans expect this to demonstrate they can govern, they are starting off on the wrong foot.
How wonderful to know that we have entered an era where not only the House but the Senate can let loose with policies which proves just how fear-filled, hate-filled and ignorant our elected representatives can be.
Now as to what that says about us ....
What you see as fear and hate filled others see as dedicated to the rule of law and the constitution. The republicans are not rewriting any laws they are simply enforcing the laws that have been on the books for decades.
The Republicans are playing a dangerous game... they truly need to be careful what they wish for. The humanitarian aspect of what they have tried to accomplish will insure a member of their party will not occupy the White House, and they will alienate not just those who cannot feel accepted in what they consider to truly be "their country", but so many of us who understand the human tragedies which will continue thanks to the Republican party members and their insistence that present day immigrants are less worthy than their parents were so many years ago. As long as the right wing of America insists on pulling the ladder out from under those who want to improve their own lives and the lives of their children, as well as paying taxes and helping the United States, they will never understand the pain and hurt they bring upon not just those who belong here as did immigrants long ago, but so many other people who have long been citizens of these United States. They should all be ashamed.
I thought Mr. Obama was fairly clear when he pointed to the resources that were being squandered over non-threatening immigrants, and instead focused them on the bad apples for deportation. Hasn't his administration deported more folks than the previous President?
I thought his "dreamers" order allowed young adults who essentially grew up here (1M) to stay and work toward their citizenship. I was under the impression that the new "family" order allowed about 1/3 more of the total (another 4M) to begin work towards their own assimilation as Americans over the next 14-years or so, by "bringing them into the light." That still leaves some 8M folks without rules.
If the goal of the President is to make this a manageable effort with regards to trans-border migrants, I would ask that Congress step up to figure out a way toward engineering that goal. Simply cutting off funding doesn't solve the problem. It only pokes a finger in the eye of the man trying to get a policy in place. Some in Congress seem to want only to look at the immediate order and complain, when instead they can sit-down and organize a policy that might claify the reasonable, humane effort.
I don't at all remember this kind of "crazy" when Regan made his sweeping amnesty in the early 1980s. I thought it was the "realistic" thing to do.
Remember that Obama changed the rules on how deportations were counted. Before those caught at the border and sent back didn't count. Now it does while at the same time deportation of those caught further in country have dropped. Obama's policy have also allowed as many as 34,000 with criminal records to stay. We need to enforce our laws while finding a way to allow temporary worker permits that can be monitored. Coming here illegally so not be rewarded and more than any other crime. Like it or not, by coming here illegally is a crime
That change (returns vs removals) was made by Bush at the start of his second term and simply continued since then. We need to remember what it was like to be a country of compassionate people.
This must the new compassionate Republican Party that promised to government with honesty and integrity.
Well, advocating wholesale disregard of immigration law reflects neither honesty nor integrity.
This executive action sets a bad precedent on many levels, and Republicans have moved up a notch on my respect scale for fighting this. I support immigration because it makes our country stronger, but illegal immigration is just that – unlawful and criminal. If Democrats believe they can win the support of minorities and immigrants with this action, they are deluding themselves.
It is extremely difficult to understand what the Republicans in the House are thinking and feeling, it seems like they are setting out to destroy their own party. What in the world are they reaching for, what constructive legislation have they presented, are they mindful of the repercussions of their decision regarding the immigrants? And it has only been a week since they reconvened in a Congress controlled by the Republicans. If they continue like this, they will make it very difficult for their Presidential candidate to win.
@ charles - "...are they mindful of the repercussions of their decision regarding the immigrants?"
Yes, yes and yes more jobs for unemployed US citizens and legal permanant residents. What exactly is wrong with that "repercuission"?
What "repercussions" regarding illegal aliens? Most Americans, some 80%, according to a Washington Post/ABC poll, want our borders secured against illegal immigration. Many Americans across the political spectrum also oppose the President's EO.
Democrats lost the "we can't help you if you don't vote for us" message in 2014. Perhaps for 2016, Dems should try the slogan "Can you hear us now".
I don't hear the Dems cause I haven't been able to find a job since 2008. And I have a Masters degree. I would vote (Democratic) if I lived in a part of the country where Republicans were making significant incursions on social issues.
Lousy politics by the Democrats now have Pubs controlling more seats nationwide than in almost 100 years. And elections have consequences.
"Lousy politics by the Democrats" --
including lousy politics on immigration.
"And elections have consequences" --
including consequences -- adverse consequences -- for the entire remaining Dem agenda, and for the entire non-Latino Dem base.
If elections have consequences, then the previous elections in 2008 and 2012 should have meant that the Republicans worked with the Dems. But no, Obama Derangement Syndrome took hold and so did the idea that when the Dems win, Republicans should refuse to do anything and when Republicans win, Dems should come slobbering with gratitude to the Republican agenda.
As a immigrant myself who did it the legal way and long way (it takes almost a decade to legally apply for and get a green card), I fell that all of these "get-out-of-jail-free" policies advocated by President Obama represent poor judgement. It represents a pathetic attempt at trying to win elections at all cost. Why should anyone, irrespective of age, be allowed to break the law and go free?. People need to understand that such amnesties only encourage others. At any given time, there are more than a billion people who would happily give up a kidney to come live in the US. So while I feel sorry for the challenges of their day to day life, I do have to look at what is also in the best interests of the US, and myself. And simply forgiving all those who broke the law is not in our best interest.
That being said the US does have a legitimate need for immigrant labor to work in our farms and in a variety of other low paying, manual labor jobs. What we need is to accept this as fact and introduce some kind of lottery system. The Middle East (UAE, Saudi, etc) is full of immigrant labor. They come legally, earn a better wage than they would at home and then they leave. There is no option to stay longer, and the law is enforced. That is what we need.
Please do not mistake me for a Republican either. They are a bunch of idiots too - with their stance on gun rights and host of other things.
"The Middle East (UAE, Saudi, etc) is full of immigrant labor. They come legally, earn a better wage than they would at home and then they leave. There is no option to stay longer, and the law is enforced. That is what we need."
The Middle East system works ONLY IF the workers who go there are sponsored by a host country employer who guarantees (to the government) wages, taxes, health care, etc. for the worker during a fixed, finite stay and who guarantees that the worker will be repatriated at the end of the fixed, finite stay,
and also that system works ONLY IF there is NO birthright citizenship,
and ONLY IF the men that go to the ME to work are not allowed to bring their wives and kids with them and, instead, leave their wives and kids at home,
and ONLY IF the women that go to the ME to work are not allowed to bring their kids with them and, instead, leave their kids at home with grandparents and aunts and uncles, and ONLY IF women who go to the ME and become pregnant there by anyone other than a host country man (who is willing to acknowledge his paternal status) are required leave and give birth back home and/or to send their kids back home to stay with grandparents and aunts and uncles.
IF that system were tried in the USA, just imagine the outcry.
That the US still needs laborers to work on farm and other similar jobs is precisely why a distinction must be made between those who enter with H1B visas and those from Mexico and Central American countries.
Those who arrive on H1B usually enter the high tech industries and do take jobs that many US citizen graduates in the tech field want. By contrast, those from Central American countries are more likely to end up working on farms or as gardeners, nannies, house cleaners.
If you doubt me, come to California and look around--look at those working in the fields then look at those in many tech companies.
While I am sympathetic that the illegal immigrants are here to seek better lives, as we all do. I am not convinced however, within the context of a national economy, their presence do not have adverse effect upon our work market. Philosophically, I wonder what "sovereignty" means if it has become politically incorrect to call people who cross border illegally as "illegal"? Why even have a border? In any case, these discussions are all to petty to the problem of illegal immigrant, here in America or anywhere else.
Ultimately, the solution to "undocumented" workers is Americans establishing an equitable sharing of wealth for workers and a business model that pay living wage, then "exporting" this globally. Globalization of equitable reward for our work is the globalization of a race to the top. So they don't have to leave.
Whatever one's position on the immigration question may be, we should welcome this action; it gives each member of Congress and the President a chance to publicly express how they feel. I hope this goes to an actual vote in each house and is not buried in some committee or another, as so many controversial bills have been in the past. Have the courage of your convictions and cast a vote.
On April 18, 1890, when the federal government assumed control of
immigration, the population of the United States was 62,979,766.
When the last census was taken in 2010, the population of the United States was 308,745,538 - in short, the population quintupled during this span of time. But the land area controlled by the United States did not increased in any significant way during the same period.
It's great that so many of our grandparents were able to come to this country in the past; but the reason they were able to come, had nothing to do with liberty and justice, and everything to do with the fact that the United States was an underpopulated country in 1890.
While it is true we still have open areas left in our country, those areas are primarily arid areas or mountain ranges, which are basically uninhabitable. Therefore, adding more people, especially unskilled people, at this time in our history is not a good idea; not because they are bad people, but simply because we are out of space.
Plus,
More than two thirds of recent immigrants come from Latin America, countries with at least as much land and resources as the USA. They can stay there with just as much opportunity as here. Or is it our singular "Anglo" culture that makes the USA more attractive than all those wonderful countries. If so, why are they always criticizing us?
It is one thing to tighten limits on future immigration. It is another thing discriminate heavily against children born in America, simply because their parents came to America illegally rather than by trying to operate within an often quite dysfunctional system for legal immigration.
The NYT is astounded that the GOP would prevent children who were brought here illegally from remaining here. But how would a school-age child be able to remain here if his parents were told to leave? A child needs his parents’ emotional support and guidance. Plus, where would the child live and who would support him? The GOP is being realistic. If you allow an illegal school-age to stay in our country, then his parents and other relatives will say they have to be allowed to stay in order to support him emotionally and financially.
The young adults who were brought here illegally as children, did not thank the American people when the president said he would not deport them. Rather, one of their leading organizations immediately demanded that their extended family members also be allowed to remain. It might not be possible to let one group remain while deporting the rest.
Besides, it would be better for their own countries if the people who are here illegally would return with the knowledge they have gained from living in our country. They could help their countries reform and develop.
Kids don't have to thank anyone. It a privilege of childhood & youth. In fact. parents who are expecting gratitude from their own children for their sacrifices should never have been parents. It's more than enough to see one's own children and the children of others grow up to be sensible, compassionate adults.
DAPA, the executive directive that energized the nativists, was designed to protect the families of US citizens. The scenario you champion deports one or both of the parents and presumes the collateral removal of citizen children. Surely you realize that those children, our fellow citizens, will have every right to return if they survive to majority. All you will have accomplished will be to have denied them their basic rights as citizens. I hope I will never understand the level of distain for citizen children repeatedly displayed by advocates of your "Penultimate Solution".
How do many of the Cubans who arrived on rafts and small boats without papers remain here? They enter their community.
How they manage to earn citizenship and vote is the real mystery.
We used to value the diversity immigrants brought. The businesses they started, their contributions to society, their value of family... My own parents were off the boat. ALL of our families came here, one way or another, at some time. Shame shame shame on these legislators.
As a child of first generation immigrants of another era, I wonder today what they ever saw in this country...
We still value the diversity that legal immigrants bring. That is no reason to open the borders to anyone who wishes to ignore our laws and bring their families here illegally. Legals are welcome. Illegals are deported. Don't confuse the two types of immigrants.
Jude: I assume your parent and relative came here legally (otherwise they need to go back.). The GOP legislation is about preventing illegal immigration and as a legal immigrant myself, I fully support it.
Your last comment says everything. I suggest you live in the country your parents left for five years and report back to us.
The absurd argument that *we are a nation of immigrants* and therefore we must always continue to lower workforce wages through immigration, and increase an already huge population of 360 million by importing women who have large families must be exposed for the cynical argument it is.
We were also a nation that was saddled with slavery, why not continue that?
We need no more immigrants. All our resources must be employed to educating all the Black, Hispanic and White children who are here and are functionally illiterate. We need all our resources to develop employment for American citizens and to pay them living salaries, not depressed immigrant wages.
I suggest that Republicans add to their immigration legislation a tax on all remittances sent abroad. End this de facto foreign aid and have the money now sent abroad spent to redevelop our much maligned *infrastructure*.
Finally the politicians (Republicans) are listening to the vast majority of. American people who are against rewarding illegal aliens with social Security cards, drivers licenses working papers,and Social Security benefits to The illegal alien parents of the legal and illegal children, the latter of which is preposterous! when Obama came back from his multimillion dollar Hawaii vacation, his first order of business was taking care of illegal aliens by meeting with Niento , the president of Mexico,, seeking his support by providing documentation of Mexico's citizens to our government to support his amnesty program. Think about it this was his first priority. Americans first. Republicans keep up the good work
As a liberal, I have never supported anything the GOP has done. Until now. Outside of those connected to the military, there should be no support for those that entered the country illegally. The money that will be spent on those that broke the law needs to be spent on those that have yet to feel the "economic recovery", particularly low-income Americans that have been ignored and forgotten by both parties for decades.
defunding Homeland Security is the best idea in a long time. This massive agency created by George Bush in reaction to 9-11 is the biggest boondoggle in American government. Look to it for the militarization of our police, and public spaces. The sooner it is broken up and reduced in size the better. it is too unwieldy to be effective, a huge money suck and is the source of billions in fraudulent and unnecessary contracts.
If Republicans insist on undoing Obama's immigration rules, then they must include all Cubans, Chinese, Indian, and other Asians who have arrived with flaws in their immigration papers. The Republican initiatives appear to be aimed solely at Mexican and other Central Americans.
They must also end H1B visas unless the individual immigrating is firmly established, recognized in his/her field, and has at least 8 years of employment in the field. No more H1B for new graduates or those who are recently minted graduates.
Defunding Homeland Security is a great idea. Let's rein them in at airports so that some semblance of dignity might be restored to those who are paying to travel--the passengers.
This is just the legislative game of "Chicken." House passes absurd bill (base is happy). Senate Dems block bill from consideration. Modified "bipartisan" bill moves through Senate hoops. House rejects Senate bill. Deadline approaches to fund DHS. Senate GOP uses "reconciliation" to secure funding for a limited time and add some immigration restrictions. House and Senate pass stopgap funding of DHS, with House vowing to get more next time. Prez signs bill to get the funding and then uses the Bush II get-around called a signing order to announce that he won't put any resources into enforcement of the restrictions. And magically the status quo is preserved while everybody can claim victory.
Proving once again that all motion is not action!
Enforce the laws already on the books, secure the border (as promised), then we can talk about what reform is needed. The conversation starts with "what part of illegal" don't you understand? Go to Mexico as an "undocumented immigrant" and see what their law does! Hint: it starts with going to jail, and ends with deportation.
As much as I despise the Republicans, I have to agree that people invading our country should be shown the door as quickly as possible, and their kids should go with them. Rules need to curb the flow of "refugees" also.
Preventing immigrants from having the real ability to be socialized and integrated into society is one of the root causes of the events unfolding in France. The Republicans are creating a severe threat to our national security that is still avoidable. The GOP has decided to wage legislative war on Obama, no matter what he does, and on whatever progress the country might try to make. Shameful, and incredibly sad. Let it be a good lesson for illiterate voters.
A real immigration bill would send to jail the managers and c.e.o's of companies who hire undocumented workers, and who hire sub-contractors who do the same (so they cannot hide behind the "sub-contracting" farce). And, also the soccer moms who hire illegal nannies and gardeners.
Any other legislation is just a smoke-screen for the un-thinking right-wing masses.
No jobs, no people coming in illegally. No increasing of the labor pool that lowers Americans' wages.
It's really quite simple. There is no need to deport anyone, or do much else. If everyone who hires illegals, from c.e.o.'s to soccer moms faces arrest, legal fees, and possible jail time, the problem is simply fixed.
Let's consider a prototypical "dreamer" - say someone who came to the U.S. as a young child and is now an honor graduate or a member of military.
What the Republicans are saying, in effect, that it's more important to deport this kid than to fund programs to protect the nation from terrorism (following the attacks in France).
That, plus tax cuts for the richest 0.1%, is what today's GOP stands for. Think about it.
Deporting Dreamers is especially cruel. These young people have known no other home but the U.S. and may well not speak another language than English. Their families would be broken up. The same is true about deporting the parents of children born in this country who need their families or be deserted. Add to this the sheer scale and expense of deporting millions of young people who are constructive members of America, who want to contribute to the country in various ways. This would be a new Trail of Tears.
This Do Nothing Congress is doubling down -- it is beginning with attacks on the environment and on young immigrants, harming the planet, destroying families, and crushing Dreamers. These are 19th century policies in the 21st century. The Republican autopsy and the "Growth and Opportunity" report from earlier this year emphasized the need to develop immigration reform, and the bipartisan Senate bill should be brought to a vote. Instead Republicans seem to be exhibiting bigotry towards Latinos in their very first week.
Will Rogers said, "Never blame a legislative body for not doing something. When they do nothing, they don't hurt anybody. When they do something is when they become dangerous." The Do Nothing Congress looks better in retrospect.
This all makes me more convinced that the lack luster performance by Democrats in the last election was deliberate. Called Rope-A-Dope. They wanted to give the Republicans two years to rile the Democratic base, in preparation for the 2016 presidential election. Democrats are cunningly playing out the rope, and Republicans are responding exactly as intended. The whole governance of our country has turned into an electoral game. Learn to speak Spanish, is my advice.
This would seem to be a win-win for Democrats. It will further alienate Latinos while having no chance of actually affecting immigration policy -- thus providing more proof of Republican inability to govern. Plus it will appear to endanger homeland security during a very tense period. And if, God forbid, there is a terrorist attack in the U.S. during this time, Republicans will have "blood on their hands."