If I were against such a suit, what better way to ensure crushing it, than to file it in J. Hanen's Ct? Those against it would lose, but get a lined-up whack at a more enduring win on appeal. In like ways, Wm O Douglas masterfully engineered outcomes he thought were needed.
1
Good point!
Most conservatives, indeed, most Americans, can't seem to comprehend that "illegals" aren't criminals in the sense of breaking a criminal law. Instead, they've broken a civil law, handled entirely through civil and administrative courts, not the criminal justice system. Now, many end up in the criminal justice system by virtue of a violation of criminal laws (drugs, theft, etc.), but the simple act of being the U.S. without documentation is NOT a criminal act, punishable by time in jail, but only a hearing and deportation (in theory).
I say "in theory" because the CBO estimated a few years ago that the cost to find, round up and actually deport all the "illegals" in the U.S. would be about $130 billion in one year! In fact, ICE's budget for deportations hasn't even kept up with President Obama's rate of deportation, forcing him to make executive decisions who gets deported and who doesn't. Perhaps if Republicans were really serious about deporting "illegals" they'd find $100 billion somewhere and actually pay to deport them. But limiting how many can be deported annually and then complaining about the limit they themselves put in place is hypocritical, to say the least!
Most conservatives, indeed, most Americans, can't seem to comprehend that "illegals" aren't criminals in the sense of breaking a criminal law. Instead, they've broken a civil law, handled entirely through civil and administrative courts, not the criminal justice system. Now, many end up in the criminal justice system by virtue of a violation of criminal laws (drugs, theft, etc.), but the simple act of being the U.S. without documentation is NOT a criminal act, punishable by time in jail, but only a hearing and deportation (in theory).
I say "in theory" because the CBO estimated a few years ago that the cost to find, round up and actually deport all the "illegals" in the U.S. would be about $130 billion in one year! In fact, ICE's budget for deportations hasn't even kept up with President Obama's rate of deportation, forcing him to make executive decisions who gets deported and who doesn't. Perhaps if Republicans were really serious about deporting "illegals" they'd find $100 billion somewhere and actually pay to deport them. But limiting how many can be deported annually and then complaining about the limit they themselves put in place is hypocritical, to say the least!
10
All the discussions about illegal immigration miss one basic point. Increasing the supply of labor reduces wages. Company managements like illegal immigrants who are willing to work for less. Wages in the US have not increased in real terms in 30 years. We now have over 10 million illegals in the US - well above the tipping point to affect wages. If there were no illegals available American company managers would be forced to hire young American citizens (and train them) and be forced to invest in more capital equipment which would increase US productivity and the wages that could be paid.
26
Be careful what is ridiculed on these pages and in these comments - it could come back to haunt you.
1
It's always interesting to see how every time there's an article on immigration in the NYT, a whole herd of anti-immigrant commenters suddenly pop up, many of them people who comment on nothing else at all. One wonders....
4
Can you 'splain to us how that is wrong? And, do you mean "immigration", which is working fine, or "illegal immigration" which is a total mess?
24
Easy for someone in New York to say that the states have no claims to damage. Your taxes don't go to pay for people who are living and working in the US without any legal right to do so.
You complain that people who oppose Obama's actions are "nativists". But may they just want to favor people who followed the rules, applied for work visas, and *waited* for approval. Maybe they are people who want those with a legal right to work to be considered *first* for jobs and taxpayer dollars ahead of those who smuggled themselves in.
You want to besmirch their motivation and engage in ad-hom attacks because you have no real defense against their real argument: why should our immigration policy favor cheaters over rule followers? Why should our public policy give benefits to those who broke the rules, when that necessarily means fewer benefits for those who didn't?
You complain that people who oppose Obama's actions are "nativists". But may they just want to favor people who followed the rules, applied for work visas, and *waited* for approval. Maybe they are people who want those with a legal right to work to be considered *first* for jobs and taxpayer dollars ahead of those who smuggled themselves in.
You want to besmirch their motivation and engage in ad-hom attacks because you have no real defense against their real argument: why should our immigration policy favor cheaters over rule followers? Why should our public policy give benefits to those who broke the rules, when that necessarily means fewer benefits for those who didn't?
31
Why the term "Nativist"? I find it ironic that the people who complain about the phrase "illegal immigrant" feel comfortable calling their opponents nativists. Furthermore, the term is grossly inaccurate. Although you could argue that Republicans have nativist tendencies, their stated position is that they support legal immigration and oppose illegal immigration. How that is "nativist" is beyond me.
49
Well, then. I guess everything is beyond you. It is rather clear to me.
5
Oh. I get it. The federal immigration laws (that currently pertain to millions of applicants waiting in line) are no longer in effect. When did that happen?
34
As soon as the first "sneaker wearing sneakers" crossed our border without the proper authorization. Which, according to the U.S. Code, is a "federal offense" and should render the sneaker forever ineligible for legal status.
15
No you obviously don't get it...
1
The mass deportation of children or their parents would be a crime against humanity. The dreamers have known no other home; many only speak English. Some such as the refugee children are seeking refuge from danger or death. The parents of children who are U.S. citizens would be forced to desert them. Whatever happened to Republican family values?
Abraham Lincoln was strongly against the nativist Know Nothing Party of the mid-19th century. In the early part of that century, residency was one of the few requirements. He noted that half of the Americans at that time came from other countries, and while they found no connection to the American Revolution war days by blood, they were united by values. "When they look through that old Declaration of Independence…they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men….That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together,…as long as the love of freedom exists.”
Mr. Boehner would never let the Senate's bipartisan immigration bill come to a vote. The attempted legislative substitute of mass deportations, and the desperate legal manipulations to undo the president's actions, represents a Republican nadir for inhumane treatment of fellow human beings.
Abraham Lincoln was strongly against the nativist Know Nothing Party of the mid-19th century. In the early part of that century, residency was one of the few requirements. He noted that half of the Americans at that time came from other countries, and while they found no connection to the American Revolution war days by blood, they were united by values. "When they look through that old Declaration of Independence…they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men….That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together,…as long as the love of freedom exists.”
Mr. Boehner would never let the Senate's bipartisan immigration bill come to a vote. The attempted legislative substitute of mass deportations, and the desperate legal manipulations to undo the president's actions, represents a Republican nadir for inhumane treatment of fellow human beings.
5
History dragged Lincoln kicking and screaming from his youthful views that freed slaves should be sent "back" to Africa.
Steve, with all due respect, I believe you are distorting Lincoln's views.
10
Yes, he was capable of change.
1
The reasons why illegal alien keep coming are:1) they can find jobs here, and 2) they can produce US citizen children (at the US tax payers' cost). So, it is really shame on us that nobody in Washington has really identified or eradicated the roots of illegal crossing and staying. If we were to taking these two factors out of the equation, majority of the illegal aliens will self deport. And if this country really needs workers to take jobs that Americans won't do, issue qualified legal aliens work visas. We have visas for every single category after all.
36
Absolutely. It is impossible to get compliance with the law if you are loudly advertising the benefits of breaking it. And this is precisely what we have been doing for a long time. Obama might as well have taken out Public Service Announcements on Univision.
37
Mitt, is that you?
5
"There is no evidence that executive action will do anything to increase illegal immigration, and there is clear data showing that giving work permits to immigrants who are already here helps, not hurts, state economies."
Wrong. Mass legalization after the IRCA of 1986 led to massively increased illegal immigration in the years that followed. Isn't that why we are having this debate all over again? And driving down the cost of labor with newly legalized "immigrants" benefits those who control capital while sticking it to working Americans. That's one cause of inequality right there.
By pushing for amnesty and open borders, the Board is validating the corruption that has allowed millions of illegals to sneak in and make their lives here. When is the Board going to value Americans ahead of illegals?
Wrong. Mass legalization after the IRCA of 1986 led to massively increased illegal immigration in the years that followed. Isn't that why we are having this debate all over again? And driving down the cost of labor with newly legalized "immigrants" benefits those who control capital while sticking it to working Americans. That's one cause of inequality right there.
By pushing for amnesty and open borders, the Board is validating the corruption that has allowed millions of illegals to sneak in and make their lives here. When is the Board going to value Americans ahead of illegals?
44
The purpose of the Republican motivated lawsuit has nothing to do with resolving the problem of illegal immigration. The purpose is to try to make the president look bad. Bear in mind, too, they are building a background case for impeachment, something that has been on the agenda from the start.
No, they are not planning impeachment, but they are getting ready for it. Even if they don't hold such a vote, the idea is to implant in the public mind the idea that Obama should be impeached. They are building a case so that, when they do move, they will have wider support than they would otherwise.
We are never going to solve our longstanding problems with such ignorant political posturing. Both Democrats and Republicans bear responsibility for not finding a way to address this issue. They appear unable to do so, but at least the President is trying to move forward constructively.
Doug Terry
No, they are not planning impeachment, but they are getting ready for it. Even if they don't hold such a vote, the idea is to implant in the public mind the idea that Obama should be impeached. They are building a case so that, when they do move, they will have wider support than they would otherwise.
We are never going to solve our longstanding problems with such ignorant political posturing. Both Democrats and Republicans bear responsibility for not finding a way to address this issue. They appear unable to do so, but at least the President is trying to move forward constructively.
Doug Terry
8
For an interesting image of Obama playing deer in the headlights, see his videotaped response to the question of whether prosecutorial discretion would allow a Republican president to inform anyone who did not pay capital gains taxes that they had nothing to fear from the IRS because the group intended to focus its resources elsewhere. And if you think it unconstitutional that a republican president could override the will of Congress and assert such a thing, then ask yourself how you can support this loser of a president's equivalent assertion on immigration. It is politics at its worst. He should be ashamed.
34
Bingo. Best comment of the day..
11
This type of "politics at its worst" began long before Obama graduated from high school. Of course, he has been blamed for every condition in the world, including the Ebola outbreak. Go figure.....
5
According to the NY Times,
"The country is not going to deport everybody — even many Republicans admit that, but they continue to refuse to do anything to fix the system."
Here is a suggestion for "fixing the system."
Let's take one step now. Establish everify. Require employers to obey the law. That is a single step that WOULD INDEED likely have Republican support.
The longer term of what to do about illegal immigrants already here is a thorny one. But why not just take one step to start enforcing existing laws so that the jobs of American citizens, who did not break any laws, are conserved?
There are other steps of course.
One of these is recognizing that the countries of Latin America have rich heritages. Thus for example, Peru has a long history of Inca civilization, Mexico and Guatemala have a rich Mayan heritage.
Why not build up these cultures within the countries themselves?
Why not help Latin Americans be proud of their own heritage?
That does not mean condoning invasion of other countries and sinking the lifeboats we have constructed for our own poor.
We have perhaps 11 million illegal immigrants, maybe more.
But we also have 47 million Americans on food stamps. Our first obligation should be to lift OUR OWN POOR out of poverty.
Then of course we should help Mexico establish policies that help its poor.
But that DOES NOT MEAN turning a blind eye to illegal immigration or condoning it after the fact with amnesty.
"The country is not going to deport everybody — even many Republicans admit that, but they continue to refuse to do anything to fix the system."
Here is a suggestion for "fixing the system."
Let's take one step now. Establish everify. Require employers to obey the law. That is a single step that WOULD INDEED likely have Republican support.
The longer term of what to do about illegal immigrants already here is a thorny one. But why not just take one step to start enforcing existing laws so that the jobs of American citizens, who did not break any laws, are conserved?
There are other steps of course.
One of these is recognizing that the countries of Latin America have rich heritages. Thus for example, Peru has a long history of Inca civilization, Mexico and Guatemala have a rich Mayan heritage.
Why not build up these cultures within the countries themselves?
Why not help Latin Americans be proud of their own heritage?
That does not mean condoning invasion of other countries and sinking the lifeboats we have constructed for our own poor.
We have perhaps 11 million illegal immigrants, maybe more.
But we also have 47 million Americans on food stamps. Our first obligation should be to lift OUR OWN POOR out of poverty.
Then of course we should help Mexico establish policies that help its poor.
But that DOES NOT MEAN turning a blind eye to illegal immigration or condoning it after the fact with amnesty.
30
One of the huge problems in regard to Mexico is the difference in the exchange rates between our currency and theirs. Because goods in Mexico, such as food and shelter, have to be priced so that people can pay for them, prices for most things are far lower than here. Thus, when someone jumps the border, they not only get a much higher wage working at menial jobs here, their relatives get a financial bonus when immigrants send money back.
100 dollars (US) buys a lot more than 100 pesos there. In fact, 100 dollars will get you somewhere around 1,300 pesos in Mexico. Many of the things you can buy in Mexico are priced lower than the equivalent exchange rate, while other goods would actually cost more in dollars. Someone making the equivalent of 30 thousand a year living in Mexico can enjoy a solid, middle class life. Try that anywhere in the US.
Mexico has a growing middle class, freeways, growing cities and many successful people earning decent wages. Those who come here do so because they have no real prospects there. An immigrant can help his relatives there to have closer to a middle class life or can have a house built for himself and his family as a place to return.
My overall point is that we are not addressing the fundamental problems. Many Republicans actually favor illegal immigration secretly, because it helps employers, including farmers, get cheap labor and to keep lower wages generally here.
Doug Terry
100 dollars (US) buys a lot more than 100 pesos there. In fact, 100 dollars will get you somewhere around 1,300 pesos in Mexico. Many of the things you can buy in Mexico are priced lower than the equivalent exchange rate, while other goods would actually cost more in dollars. Someone making the equivalent of 30 thousand a year living in Mexico can enjoy a solid, middle class life. Try that anywhere in the US.
Mexico has a growing middle class, freeways, growing cities and many successful people earning decent wages. Those who come here do so because they have no real prospects there. An immigrant can help his relatives there to have closer to a middle class life or can have a house built for himself and his family as a place to return.
My overall point is that we are not addressing the fundamental problems. Many Republicans actually favor illegal immigration secretly, because it helps employers, including farmers, get cheap labor and to keep lower wages generally here.
Doug Terry
4
The other step to kick off right now is developing and implementing a modern system for tracking visa holders into and OUT of this country so we can curtail the 40% of illegal immigrants who come in legally, then just stay, because we currently have no way to tell whether they ever left. The fact that it is 2015 and we lack this system is beyond comprehension.
Remember the movie "Argo"? Even Iran has a system for checking you back out of the country!
Remember the movie "Argo"? Even Iran has a system for checking you back out of the country!
18
Another inexpensive step, and one which could solve the whole mess: deny any "illegal" the possibility of sending money out of the country and back to their home of record. If they cannot do that, they will deport themselves. By the way, they send over ONE BILLION DOLLARS - that is one billion! - out of the U.S. Every Year!!. Dollars lost to our economy permanently. And that amount of dollars is larger than the annual budgets of 26 of our states.
9
Unlike the author of this article from NYT's editorial board, I actually worked on appeal from an important decision by Judge "Andy" Hanen as a law clerk on the Fifth Circuit. I found his reasoning and judicial demeanor extremely impressive. Judge Hanen could easily make much more money in the private sector and not have to put up with meritless attacks from the nation's most important newspaper. Instead, he is a dedicated public servant (and from what I can tell a rather good one at that).
27
He said President Obama's administration conspired with Mexican drug cartels. Many would rightfully find it difficult to find Judge Hanen's "reasoning and judicial demeanor extremely impressive" given his clearly false statement. And many would properly question his fitness for the position he holds.
12
This lawsuit makes a LOT of sense and reminds us of those days when the states were partners with the federal level instead of freebie-clients who get stuck with the bill the next year or two.
The President not only gives away federal taxpayers' money to buy votes, but fives away states' dwindling funds to buy votes with his collectivist dreams - open borders, free healthcare, etc.
Go read up on how single-payer just blew up in Vermont!
The President not only gives away federal taxpayers' money to buy votes, but fives away states' dwindling funds to buy votes with his collectivist dreams - open borders, free healthcare, etc.
Go read up on how single-payer just blew up in Vermont!
24
Obama has never advocated open borders, nor have his policies encouraged that concept. The biggest contribution to the idea of repeated amnesties came when President Reagan signed legislation legalizing vast numbers of those already in the country in 1986.
The states get massive subsides from the federal government. Indeed, many if not most of the so called red states take in more from the federal government than they pay in. Billions of dollars in farm subsidies, somehow, are never questioned.
Obama, by the way, has consistently increased border enforcement and deported far more people than the previous president did during his 8 yrs. in office. This is open borders?
The ACA does not involve "free health care", except those, because of poverty, who qualify for Medicaid. What would you have us do with those people, dump them dying in the streets? Something desperately needed to be done. Having hordes of the poor pressing into emergency rooms for free care on the hospital's tab doesn't much work for anyone.
The states get massive subsides from the federal government. Indeed, many if not most of the so called red states take in more from the federal government than they pay in. Billions of dollars in farm subsidies, somehow, are never questioned.
Obama, by the way, has consistently increased border enforcement and deported far more people than the previous president did during his 8 yrs. in office. This is open borders?
The ACA does not involve "free health care", except those, because of poverty, who qualify for Medicaid. What would you have us do with those people, dump them dying in the streets? Something desperately needed to be done. Having hordes of the poor pressing into emergency rooms for free care on the hospital's tab doesn't much work for anyone.
7
Oh, dear. Every time there's been even the specter of amnesty, illegal immigration has increased.
As for the claim that the public favors so-called comprehensive immigration reform, which basically means open borders, whenever people being polled have been given the choice of attrition through enforcement, rather than simply amnesty versus round-em-up-and-deport-em, the majority has opted for attrition through enforcement.
Similarly, when immigration is framed as work permits for illegal immigrants, the public opposes amnesty.
Why doesn't the editorial board simply admit that it favors open borders?
As for the claim that the public favors so-called comprehensive immigration reform, which basically means open borders, whenever people being polled have been given the choice of attrition through enforcement, rather than simply amnesty versus round-em-up-and-deport-em, the majority has opted for attrition through enforcement.
Similarly, when immigration is framed as work permits for illegal immigrants, the public opposes amnesty.
Why doesn't the editorial board simply admit that it favors open borders?
33
Congress has done nothing but whine about immigration for years now. The House of Representatives has never been permitted to even consider the issue.
The obvious conclusion is that the refusal to act by the Republican controlled house is very likely a matter of Republican policy.
Consider the benefits to Republicans from not acting:
1. They keep an issue alive that can inflame the racist component of the party when needed (each election).
2. They maintain an underclass that can be used to keep wages low, and threaten the jobs of their employees. Keeping employees in fear for their jobs and paychecks is a great way to force them accept far lower raises than their productivity gains warrant. Given that funding for Republican negative ads and career-class politician/lobbyists comes from corporations and those who own corporations, not addressing the immigration issues with either mass deportations or legalizing work with permits is in fact the best outcome for the owners of the Republican party.
Well over 90% of the gains from a more efficient economy have gone to the top .1% of the citizens in this country since 2008. Keeping a large, completely vulnerable, and hard-working underclass is one of the key components for the "success" of the "We want it all!" pattern we are following as a country.
The obvious conclusion is that the refusal to act by the Republican controlled house is very likely a matter of Republican policy.
Consider the benefits to Republicans from not acting:
1. They keep an issue alive that can inflame the racist component of the party when needed (each election).
2. They maintain an underclass that can be used to keep wages low, and threaten the jobs of their employees. Keeping employees in fear for their jobs and paychecks is a great way to force them accept far lower raises than their productivity gains warrant. Given that funding for Republican negative ads and career-class politician/lobbyists comes from corporations and those who own corporations, not addressing the immigration issues with either mass deportations or legalizing work with permits is in fact the best outcome for the owners of the Republican party.
Well over 90% of the gains from a more efficient economy have gone to the top .1% of the citizens in this country since 2008. Keeping a large, completely vulnerable, and hard-working underclass is one of the key components for the "success" of the "We want it all!" pattern we are following as a country.
7
I'll put the quality of my Spanish or my familiarity with the cultures below our southern border up against those of any of the NYT editors and the likelihood is high that I'll clean the floor with you. Despite this confidence, I disagree with the essence and thrust of this editorial completely.
To recognize the "rights" that Mr. Obama seeks to confer on millions of illegal immigrants is to tell the millions of others who wait patiently to enter this country legally that they're chumps. Beyond that, such recognition allows a tidal wave of cultural attenuation to crash against our society and incentivizes millions of others to come here illegally, confident in THEIR ability to flaunt our laws, challenge our culture, and get away with it as certainly as those Mr. Obama means to forgive.
To make such unilateral determinations regarding our priorities as a people is NOT what we elect a president to do. But he has arrogated such power regularly, as if we've left it to him alone to determine who and what we are to become, what we are to believe. These are decisions we take as a PEOPLE, not by presidential fiat.
He seems to believe that if he can't get Congress to agree with him that he must impose his will anyway. He doesn't seem to realize that if he can't convince, he just doesn't get to do it. Period. I support the states challenging this outrageous arrogation of presidential power. If George Washington had attempted this we would have shot him as a traitor to America.
To recognize the "rights" that Mr. Obama seeks to confer on millions of illegal immigrants is to tell the millions of others who wait patiently to enter this country legally that they're chumps. Beyond that, such recognition allows a tidal wave of cultural attenuation to crash against our society and incentivizes millions of others to come here illegally, confident in THEIR ability to flaunt our laws, challenge our culture, and get away with it as certainly as those Mr. Obama means to forgive.
To make such unilateral determinations regarding our priorities as a people is NOT what we elect a president to do. But he has arrogated such power regularly, as if we've left it to him alone to determine who and what we are to become, what we are to believe. These are decisions we take as a PEOPLE, not by presidential fiat.
He seems to believe that if he can't get Congress to agree with him that he must impose his will anyway. He doesn't seem to realize that if he can't convince, he just doesn't get to do it. Period. I support the states challenging this outrageous arrogation of presidential power. If George Washington had attempted this we would have shot him as a traitor to America.
35
Huh???
10
There is only one immigration law needed: criminal prosecution of all who hire undocumented workers. From CEOs who use "sub-contractors", and accept false social security documents, to parents who pay nannies in cash. And, the funding to actually prosecute and enforce the criminal laws passed.
With this one action, there is no need to deport anyone, or act against anyone except Americans who hire the undocumented. Period. No need for anything else.
But, cynically, our politicians ignore this one issue that benefits both corporate profits and soccer moms: donors and voters.
And, even anti-immigrant groups only blame the immigrant, and forget the CEO.
With this one action, there is no need to deport anyone, or act against anyone except Americans who hire the undocumented. Period. No need for anything else.
But, cynically, our politicians ignore this one issue that benefits both corporate profits and soccer moms: donors and voters.
And, even anti-immigrant groups only blame the immigrant, and forget the CEO.
22
Ha Ha Ha.
Try to deport the uber-wealthy 1% that depend on indentured slaves.
Try to deport the uber-wealthy 1% that depend on indentured slaves.
6
The Republicans could kill several birds with one stone: Declare war, within the United States, on undocumented immigrants. This would bring our boys home - so they could fight on US soil. It would also please the war hawks, enrich the munition-industrial complex, and placate their jingoistic base.
What's not to like? Forget those far-away terrorists. Let's declare war on ourselves.
What's not to like? Forget those far-away terrorists. Let's declare war on ourselves.
4
If the states wish to hold unauthorized aliens and the entities that entice them accountable they should sue congress for (a) not providing enough funds to arrest and repatriate greater numbers of illegals and (b) not providing enough funds to the IRS to vastly expand the agencies capacity to conduct I-9 audits of companies suspected of hiring illegally present foreign nationals. Law enforcement - be it directed at environmental polluters, Wall Street crooks or illegal aliens - costs money.
9
Think of all the money a national ID card would save the states.
7
What, and give up our vaunted "sovereign" individual state drivers licenses and non-driver IDs -- each looking different and more often than not having somewhat different requirements to obtain? Oh, the horror!
Actually, I now live in a country with a national ID. It's no big deal. Okay, mine is different because I'm a foreign resident, but that's part of the plan too.
Actually, I now live in a country with a national ID. It's no big deal. Okay, mine is different because I'm a foreign resident, but that's part of the plan too.
2
The US never seems to study what any other country has done about anything before reinventing a mousetrap.
7
Once upon a time, prosecutorial discretion was a concept applied one person, one case at a time. It is an honorable concept. Doing it by class of people in the millions and with billions of dollars in cost associated with those decisions it seems more appropriate to work with the congress to craft an appropriate response.
One judge will not ultimately decide this issue, nor should he. It deserves debate and disclosure. There are many issue involve which are not reflected in this article nor i the comments.
One judge will not ultimately decide this issue, nor should he. It deserves debate and disclosure. There are many issue involve which are not reflected in this article nor i the comments.
16
Precisely. Choosing not to prosecute 5 million individuals and giving them work permits has nothing to do with not prosecuting a single borderline criminal case. This policy may cost billions in processing fees. When you profoundly affect millions of lives and dedicate billions of dollars, that's legislation, not executive discretion.
17
Prosecutorial discretion evidently includes not even telling you why you're detained.
1
I lived (and worked) in Texas from 2006 to 2013. The so called 'Texas Miracle' claimed by Putz Perry was as much a result of undocumented workers as it was due to hydro fracking oil and gas. (In Texas and the Dakotas by the way, hydraulic fracturing of Shake produces mostly oil, not gas).
The reason why I say this is because Texas was the place least affected by the bursting of the housing bubble. The brand new four bedroom 2700 soft home I bought in Katy (a suburb of Houston) in 2006 cost under $200,000. A similar home in a similar neighborhood in most places would have cost two to three times as much. At the bottom of the market two years later it dropped to $150,000. By 2010 it was back to $195~$200,000. In a ten block area, which I walked most every day, there was no more then one or two foreclosures.
Both new homes and restored homes benefit from an overwhelming incidence of undocumented workers in both the building and maintenance trades. It may not be right that so many small businesses, independent contractors and farmers benefit from this large pool of inexpensive workers. But it is disengenuous of Texans to argue that they face an economic burden as a result.
The loudest complaints I heard while there came from upper middle class homeowners, sitting around a dining table in a country club, being served by being served by Latinos while their sisters were watching the kids at home and their brothers had just finished mowing their lawn.
The reason why I say this is because Texas was the place least affected by the bursting of the housing bubble. The brand new four bedroom 2700 soft home I bought in Katy (a suburb of Houston) in 2006 cost under $200,000. A similar home in a similar neighborhood in most places would have cost two to three times as much. At the bottom of the market two years later it dropped to $150,000. By 2010 it was back to $195~$200,000. In a ten block area, which I walked most every day, there was no more then one or two foreclosures.
Both new homes and restored homes benefit from an overwhelming incidence of undocumented workers in both the building and maintenance trades. It may not be right that so many small businesses, independent contractors and farmers benefit from this large pool of inexpensive workers. But it is disengenuous of Texans to argue that they face an economic burden as a result.
The loudest complaints I heard while there came from upper middle class homeowners, sitting around a dining table in a country club, being served by being served by Latinos while their sisters were watching the kids at home and their brothers had just finished mowing their lawn.
8
It most certainly is not disingenuous for person in the skilled and unskilled labor market to say that they have lost work to undocumented workers who would accept lower pay and less amenable work conditions, and it is a fact that those exploitation wages drive down wages in those labor markets.
"Inexpensive workers"?!?
Please do not identify yourself as a humanist or progressive.
"Inexpensive workers"?!?
Please do not identify yourself as a humanist or progressive.
19
Ted, the original poster is spot on. Very few native-born Americans are losing out, and it is the upper class - and middle class who are trying to act like them - who are hiring undocumented workers.
When I was a kid, no one in our middle-class neighborhood had a gardener/landscaper (in fact, we kids were the one who mowed the grass, trimmed, watered, etc.) Now, it seems half the neighborhood has one, and I am sure they are not checking for green cards. Same for shoveling snow. Same for home repair, painting, etc. - go down to the day-labor pick-up and get some $15/hour guys for the day. No native-born American would do this work (you think a recent college graduate, or a guy in his 40s who was laid off from his job, is going to do day labor for $15/hour, no benefits? Please ...)
Perhaps if the country club set - and the wannabees - paid full price for their servants, gardeners, painters, etc., we would not be having this argument.
When I was a kid, no one in our middle-class neighborhood had a gardener/landscaper (in fact, we kids were the one who mowed the grass, trimmed, watered, etc.) Now, it seems half the neighborhood has one, and I am sure they are not checking for green cards. Same for shoveling snow. Same for home repair, painting, etc. - go down to the day-labor pick-up and get some $15/hour guys for the day. No native-born American would do this work (you think a recent college graduate, or a guy in his 40s who was laid off from his job, is going to do day labor for $15/hour, no benefits? Please ...)
Perhaps if the country club set - and the wannabees - paid full price for their servants, gardeners, painters, etc., we would not be having this argument.
1
"Prosecutorial discretion", taken to mean prioritization, makes sense. It makes no sense to argue that it means that the law is enforced against some, but not others who are in a protected class, given special benefits.
6
I'd say the most naive issue regarding all this is that belief that amnesty will improve the situation when history clearly shows us that it will not. I understand that for so many politics is a team sport but there's no excuse for people leaving their intellectual curiosity at the door in order to support their team. Neither side of the political aisle has shown in sincere interest in addressing the problem of illegal immigration but repeating past failed policy and expecting different results is nonsensical at best.
16
Amnesty is not being offered.
1
If businesses small to large wouldn't hire the illegal immigrants, they would not come.
The right says they don't want illegal immigrants, but their actions show otherwise.
The right says they don't want illegal immigrants, but their actions show otherwise.
6
The problem is, the American legal system is exactly like the box of chocolates in Forest Gump - "You never know what you're gonna get!", and you'll most likely never know why either.
Life in prison, exonerated by DNA, the glove doesn't fit, convicted by 12, freed by 3, ten years for swearing, no years for choking someone to death, you're guilty, no wait you're pardoned, who knows?
In other words, our legal system is as fickle as a heroin addict - only less predictable. And just like addicts, they defer to those with cash.
Life in prison, exonerated by DNA, the glove doesn't fit, convicted by 12, freed by 3, ten years for swearing, no years for choking someone to death, you're guilty, no wait you're pardoned, who knows?
In other words, our legal system is as fickle as a heroin addict - only less predictable. And just like addicts, they defer to those with cash.
We've got 50 different state venues to file a lawsuit about anything!
Would someone somewhere start asking the Republicans what they mean by "secure the borders?" Obviously, they think that sounds like a great solution to stopping immigrants from Mexico, but they never give details on how we accomplish that.
What are the exact plans offered that will make them more secure than they are now? Do we try to cover every foot so no one slips by? Do we shoot anyone who tries to cross? How much will the whole operation and its side issues cost? Who's going to cover those areas non-stop where immigrants die from heat and lack of water? Drones don't seem to work.
And how does securing the border take into account those who are already here? Can we really round up and ship off millions of people? Do we load them on boxcars? Where will Mexico put them? Do we think we will be unaffected? Let's get real, with real, humane, workable solutions to the situation as it now exists, and quit accepting the pie-in-the-sky "secure the border" answer.
What are the exact plans offered that will make them more secure than they are now? Do we try to cover every foot so no one slips by? Do we shoot anyone who tries to cross? How much will the whole operation and its side issues cost? Who's going to cover those areas non-stop where immigrants die from heat and lack of water? Drones don't seem to work.
And how does securing the border take into account those who are already here? Can we really round up and ship off millions of people? Do we load them on boxcars? Where will Mexico put them? Do we think we will be unaffected? Let's get real, with real, humane, workable solutions to the situation as it now exists, and quit accepting the pie-in-the-sky "secure the border" answer.
5
Intimidation, exclusion, and fear. Sounds like the campaign slogan of every republican senate candidate in the mid terms. And they won. Sad devolution of our country. Just plain sad.
5
Fear of consequences is what makes laws work. Fear of getting stopped for speeding slows traffic. The lack of enforcement, the resulting lack of fear among illegal immigrants, is what has allowed this mess to balloon and become so hard to fix.
15
Since Texans don't seem to value Federal government, why don't they just quit and leave the Union, again! They seem to have left the planet years ago. I think we should be able to get along just fine without them.
8
They know they will quickly be engulfed by Mexico if they do that.
4
Proof positive Mr. Bolger that living on the 40th parallel does nothing to inform you of the situation in Texas. We have already been engulfed. Mainly due to a federal government that does not care to tackle the problem. Folks like you who live a thousand or more miles away can easily say we are being ignorant and hypocritical. You don't deal with it much. It's just a topic to comment on. I'd like to see the response of New Yorkers should thousands of undocumented Canadians cross into New York and begin appearing at hospitals for free hospital care (you're not sending money for that indigent care, that comes straight out of my property taxes), or enrolling their children your schools, or signing up for WIC programs with illegal documentation. I really wonder just how benevolent you would be then. We have enough poor people who are legal to take care of as it is. We don't need kind-hearted folks like you in other states signing us up for more.
15
Let's not forget that Richard Nixon often ignored programs he disapproved of, failing to spend any of the money allocated for them. President Obama is spending the money allocated to the INS, and in a way approved of my most Americans.
4
"... [T]he principle of prosecutorial discretion, under which Mr. Obama’s Homeland Security Department intends to use its limited resources to go after dangerous, high-priority immigration violators instead of low-priority ones..."
___
While that may be well intended, without unambiguous and meaningful border enforcement on BOTH sides of the border it merely boils down to more wasteful spending. Imposing financial sanctions on Mexico until such time as they burro up to the table and faithfully do their part to enforce both the northern and southern borders of Mexico of drugs and immigrants should be a contingent.
___
While that may be well intended, without unambiguous and meaningful border enforcement on BOTH sides of the border it merely boils down to more wasteful spending. Imposing financial sanctions on Mexico until such time as they burro up to the table and faithfully do their part to enforce both the northern and southern borders of Mexico of drugs and immigrants should be a contingent.
3
The overwhelming negative reader comments here prove that even the most liberal elements of the American public do not reject "mass deportations" of illegal Mexicans, or support Obama's refusal to enforce federal immigration law. The NYT's Editorial Board knows this because they spew a different version of this pro-illegal immigration sentiment almost every month and see pretty much the same level of reader push-back.
Continuing to push this unreasonable and unpopular liberal agenda will not engender support. But it will clearly highlight the gulf between ivory tower liberal elites and us common folk that have to live in this land of foolish social experiments.
Respect for the law and wanting to protect US jobs and curtail wasteful spending to support and educate the illegals among us, does not make us racist or anti-immigration. The Board will continue to ignore this fact at its own ideological peril.
Continuing to push this unreasonable and unpopular liberal agenda will not engender support. But it will clearly highlight the gulf between ivory tower liberal elites and us common folk that have to live in this land of foolish social experiments.
Respect for the law and wanting to protect US jobs and curtail wasteful spending to support and educate the illegals among us, does not make us racist or anti-immigration. The Board will continue to ignore this fact at its own ideological peril.
38
These negative comments are not from your normal New York Times commenters.
Most have given up on the onslaught of orchestrated negative comments from right-wing groups whenever the New York Times publishes an article on immigration.
Most have given up on the onslaught of orchestrated negative comments from right-wing groups whenever the New York Times publishes an article on immigration.
2
Einstein, these comments are from regular New York Times readers, who have generally voted Democrat, and have often supported more radical politics as well.
We are adults who understand that this administration - or rather, the DNC - is making a cynical vote grab that will create real costs in the immediate and near future (the Office of Management and Budget concedes, in an otherwise positive report, that the policies at issue will likely result in reduced wages for skilled and unskilled workers, and that the market will not recover until ~2024).
We are adults who support a strong social safety net, and public education, and know that these policies will significantly burden both that safety net and our public education system. We are adults who know that these policies create a perverse incentive, just as Reagan's amnesty did: come here illegally, stay out trouble, and wait for the next "reform".
And you are the sort of person who conflates legal immigration with illegal immigration in order to feel self-righteous.
We are adults who understand that this administration - or rather, the DNC - is making a cynical vote grab that will create real costs in the immediate and near future (the Office of Management and Budget concedes, in an otherwise positive report, that the policies at issue will likely result in reduced wages for skilled and unskilled workers, and that the market will not recover until ~2024).
We are adults who support a strong social safety net, and public education, and know that these policies will significantly burden both that safety net and our public education system. We are adults who know that these policies create a perverse incentive, just as Reagan's amnesty did: come here illegally, stay out trouble, and wait for the next "reform".
And you are the sort of person who conflates legal immigration with illegal immigration in order to feel self-righteous.
25
@Ted - Give us a break.
1
We can solve this problem and all the New Yorker Opinions: Put busses on the border, let "illegals" board them. Provide food and drink during the drive to down town Manhatten...and let them off the bus. I suspect New York may change their opinion MIGHTY QUICKLY!
19
Another classy headline from the folks at the New York Times. Assuming that the experts that the paper relies on are correct, there is absolutely no justification for leveling a pejorative ad homonem attack using the word "nativist" with its insinuation that those who brought the lawsuit are narrow minded white bigots.
The law suit has nothing to do with those who live here productively without legal status, and whose plight should, certainly, be addressed. If the suit is a "divisive screed", so is the editorial. Rather than solving anything, it is little more than an appeal to frustration and prejudice.
The law suit has nothing to do with those who live here productively without legal status, and whose plight should, certainly, be addressed. If the suit is a "divisive screed", so is the editorial. Rather than solving anything, it is little more than an appeal to frustration and prejudice.
15
Prosecutorial discretion is subject to numerous limitations. It can't be used to justify racial discrimination or otherwise abusive decision-making. It typically is raised by the government when a defendant shows that he was prosecuted for a minor or technical violation while others whose violations were more flagrant were not charged. Generally, the government prevails. Occasionally, it does not. Moreover, the government has never raised the argument to justify withholding prosecution of 5 million offenders. So, while prosecutorial discretion is a powerful argument, it is certainly not "rock solid" here.
As for standing, I would think that the states would argue that all their expenses for services provided to illegals -- including public schooling -- would allow for a tenable standing argument. For most of the illegals the government refrains from prosecuting, the states bear the burden of schooling their children. Speculative? Maybe, maybe not.
I don't know who the experts are that are claiming that the government's case is overwhelming. But their conclusions seem pretty shaky to me.
As for standing, I would think that the states would argue that all their expenses for services provided to illegals -- including public schooling -- would allow for a tenable standing argument. For most of the illegals the government refrains from prosecuting, the states bear the burden of schooling their children. Speculative? Maybe, maybe not.
I don't know who the experts are that are claiming that the government's case is overwhelming. But their conclusions seem pretty shaky to me.
9
For those who believe in "Prosecutorial discretion" and the baselessness of this lawsuit, I have a question. If a future president announced that the Federal government was no longer going to prosecute bias cases, racial or gender, unless some other felony such as murder, assault, or rape was involved, would that be a legitimate allocation of scarce resources argument?
If not, why?
If not, why?
12
Yes, but it also bears the question - who would that benefit?
1
To accuse Americans who favor enforcement of immigration laws of nativism is absurd. The United States has the world's most generous immigration policy. It accepts one million permanent legal immigrants each year, more than all other developed nations of the world combined.
30
Exempting millions of people from existing law is not prosecutorial discretion. It is rewriting the law, which is beyond the legal purview of the executive branch.
The Texas case is indeed flimsy but the executive action is unprecedented in scope and rests on very flimsy ground as well.
The Texas case is indeed flimsy but the executive action is unprecedented in scope and rests on very flimsy ground as well.
18
Exclusion? Isn’t “exclusion” kinda, sorta why borders exist?
What's the problem with demanding that people who broke the law go home? It’s easy to “get right with the law”; go home and get in line. It’s entirely possible you’ll make great Americans. But your lawless behavior cannot be condoned.
But the threat facing America is less lawless invaders than a lawless administration, which simply ignores laws it doesn’t like. This Administration realized that, absent impeachment – which simply isn’t going to happen – there’s no way to force a POTUS to actually do his job, to obey the law. (The left long ago figured this out with respect to the judiciary; its judges simply make up the law as they go along) So, vis a vis e.g., immigration or the ACA, the Administration blithely ignores any law when it finds obeying it inconvenient.
Our system depends upon those in power obeying the law, even when they know there’s no real mechanism to force them to do so. Experience demonstrates that the left rejects that notion.
That said, this precedent offers interesting possibilities. When a Republican is elected, he can simply use “prosecutorial discretion” to unilaterally cut taxes: who would pay if they knew they would not be prosecuted? And, unlike this Administration’s lawless policies, they would actually produce economic benefits. I anticipate reading the Times’ op-ed on the “rock solid” legal basis for this policy with breathless anticipation.
What's the problem with demanding that people who broke the law go home? It’s easy to “get right with the law”; go home and get in line. It’s entirely possible you’ll make great Americans. But your lawless behavior cannot be condoned.
But the threat facing America is less lawless invaders than a lawless administration, which simply ignores laws it doesn’t like. This Administration realized that, absent impeachment – which simply isn’t going to happen – there’s no way to force a POTUS to actually do his job, to obey the law. (The left long ago figured this out with respect to the judiciary; its judges simply make up the law as they go along) So, vis a vis e.g., immigration or the ACA, the Administration blithely ignores any law when it finds obeying it inconvenient.
Our system depends upon those in power obeying the law, even when they know there’s no real mechanism to force them to do so. Experience demonstrates that the left rejects that notion.
That said, this precedent offers interesting possibilities. When a Republican is elected, he can simply use “prosecutorial discretion” to unilaterally cut taxes: who would pay if they knew they would not be prosecuted? And, unlike this Administration’s lawless policies, they would actually produce economic benefits. I anticipate reading the Times’ op-ed on the “rock solid” legal basis for this policy with breathless anticipation.
12
Lets see... cutting taxes like, in Kansas? No, thanks.
No, it is most definitely NOT easy to "get right with the law" and go home. And as far as lawless behavior goes what about changing the illegal drug use laws so that you don't go to prison for 20 years for possession of an ounce of pot? Point is, some laws are not good, and sometimes you can't wait for them to change on their own. Peoples' lives are at stake. Reagan thought it was the moral, ethical and practical right thing to do when he did the same thing as Obama.
No, it is most definitely NOT easy to "get right with the law" and go home. And as far as lawless behavior goes what about changing the illegal drug use laws so that you don't go to prison for 20 years for possession of an ounce of pot? Point is, some laws are not good, and sometimes you can't wait for them to change on their own. Peoples' lives are at stake. Reagan thought it was the moral, ethical and practical right thing to do when he did the same thing as Obama.
1
It's obvious we're not going to deport these people so then we have two choices. Educate and integrate these people into our society so the can contribute or push them into the dark corners of society that will only breed resentment and hostility. Look at Europe and their problems with their immigrants, they've been pushed into the dark corners and now resent their host nations and are now rising as terrorists. Either we deport them or we integrate them. Obviously we need to integrate now!
3
Beni, I like what you say, and in a general way agree with your major point: Educate and integrate.
But there's a HUGE difference between the immigrants in Europe and those coming over the Texas-Arizona borders. In Europe, a substantial part of the immigrants are Muslims. Mexicans and Central Americans are mostly devout Roman Catholics. Integrating Muslims into the secular societies of Europe is like mixing oil and water; integrating people whose major difference from US culture is their language is more like mixing whiskey and water. Both parts are improved in the process!
But there's a HUGE difference between the immigrants in Europe and those coming over the Texas-Arizona borders. In Europe, a substantial part of the immigrants are Muslims. Mexicans and Central Americans are mostly devout Roman Catholics. Integrating Muslims into the secular societies of Europe is like mixing oil and water; integrating people whose major difference from US culture is their language is more like mixing whiskey and water. Both parts are improved in the process!
2
Sound like a great plan! Now how about a substantial increase in the appropriate Vermont tax to cover the cost of 10,000 new children in your school system, all of whom need special classes for English as a second language. Are you good with that?
14
"Nativist"? More name calling by rich, insular, east coast elitists who know nothing about the United States and don't want to know. Your only connection being these regular spewings of these "pearls before swine" pronouncements about now beneath you the people of this country are. Go get a real job, parasites.
20
Without these NY elitist parasites, thousands of limo drivers, maids, psychiatrists and dog walkers would be out of work.
3
I suspect most conservatives support deporting illegal immigrants not because of concerns for American workers but their fear of non-whites taking over America and increasing the burden to our existing welfare system. But that does not mean all their arguments are wrong.
I fail to understand why a big influx of low skill immigrants will not adversely affect the low skill American workers or our welfare system which is increasingly being cut as it is. Demand and supply, right?
As I see it, the biggest challenge for workers in a flat globalized world is losing negotiation power with the Capital. When production (by workers) yield $100, who decide how much is paid to workers and how much to shareholders? Power begets power, and money is power. Capital/shareholders have more money and therefore more power to demand a bigger share. That's the whole argument behind calling some "wealth-makers" and others "takers." For those whose stake in production is capital, they are classified as "makers," whereas the actual production workers, "takers." And "takers" do not deserve anything! How clever?
The best we can do, as humanitarians, to help the illegal immigrants and our workers and not pit them against each other, is to reclaim the reality of the workers everywhere as makers and not just takers. In a world where 1% own half of our wealth, we can't resolve the suffering of people world wide by just taking them in. Their problems need to be solved at the root, in their own countries.
I fail to understand why a big influx of low skill immigrants will not adversely affect the low skill American workers or our welfare system which is increasingly being cut as it is. Demand and supply, right?
As I see it, the biggest challenge for workers in a flat globalized world is losing negotiation power with the Capital. When production (by workers) yield $100, who decide how much is paid to workers and how much to shareholders? Power begets power, and money is power. Capital/shareholders have more money and therefore more power to demand a bigger share. That's the whole argument behind calling some "wealth-makers" and others "takers." For those whose stake in production is capital, they are classified as "makers," whereas the actual production workers, "takers." And "takers" do not deserve anything! How clever?
The best we can do, as humanitarians, to help the illegal immigrants and our workers and not pit them against each other, is to reclaim the reality of the workers everywhere as makers and not just takers. In a world where 1% own half of our wealth, we can't resolve the suffering of people world wide by just taking them in. Their problems need to be solved at the root, in their own countries.
4
"The party has reverted back to its original strategy: intimidation, exclusion and fear."
It is almost a half century that the reactionary right wing of the republican party has used fear to convince poor working white guys to fear poor working black and brown guys, so their bosses could steal everything from everyone of us.
It is very sad to think that it is possible that we in America will never again be able to see our fellow citizens as just that; fellow citizens. If voters don't wake up and stop voting for those who only work for some of us our Country is doomed.
It is almost a half century that the reactionary right wing of the republican party has used fear to convince poor working white guys to fear poor working black and brown guys, so their bosses could steal everything from everyone of us.
It is very sad to think that it is possible that we in America will never again be able to see our fellow citizens as just that; fellow citizens. If voters don't wake up and stop voting for those who only work for some of us our Country is doomed.
1
Foreign nationals who circumvent our immigration and border check points and collude with unethical businesses to subvert our employment eligibility laws are not "our fellow citizens."
21
Common sense says that the US economy does not need 11-15 million unqualified and poorly educated illegals. Only Obama, discriminators or unscrupulous business owners really support that.
The country may require some highly qualified STEM graduates to keep competitive advantage with overseas companies; we may need, about 1-2 million laborers for construction and farm work type jobs; but the country does not need any immigrants to fill middle class jobs, as working middle class citizens are either suffering from high unemployment, are underemployed, or are financially struggling. It would be dumb to add to this group’s population, unless undermining their future prosperity is your plan.
This means having needs based immigrant quota like Canada and Australia. It also means opening up the STEM’s quotas to qualified graduates, opening up visas for those prospective immigrants from all countries who are waiting in line for unskilled jobs, and it means deporting the illegals already here.
To avoid continual invasion of the southern border by illegals, it will mean completion of the full border fence to manage controlled entry like all US port of entry controls. No other efforts have worked. The fence is the most cost effective and will have at least 99% effectiveness.
A clarification to the 14th Amendment is also required to avoid future misinterpretation of the intent for citizenship to be granted only to lawful citizens and permanent residents, not visitors or illegal aliens.
The country may require some highly qualified STEM graduates to keep competitive advantage with overseas companies; we may need, about 1-2 million laborers for construction and farm work type jobs; but the country does not need any immigrants to fill middle class jobs, as working middle class citizens are either suffering from high unemployment, are underemployed, or are financially struggling. It would be dumb to add to this group’s population, unless undermining their future prosperity is your plan.
This means having needs based immigrant quota like Canada and Australia. It also means opening up the STEM’s quotas to qualified graduates, opening up visas for those prospective immigrants from all countries who are waiting in line for unskilled jobs, and it means deporting the illegals already here.
To avoid continual invasion of the southern border by illegals, it will mean completion of the full border fence to manage controlled entry like all US port of entry controls. No other efforts have worked. The fence is the most cost effective and will have at least 99% effectiveness.
A clarification to the 14th Amendment is also required to avoid future misinterpretation of the intent for citizenship to be granted only to lawful citizens and permanent residents, not visitors or illegal aliens.
14
The Republicans are showing their true colors and I couldn't be happier. Better that the Mexican-Americans understand which party is in their corner and which is not.
They are so tone deaf and mean spirited, that they just can't help themselves. No, no, no. A thousand times no is their platform. Helping to address the problem? Apparently they don't see it as their job.
So, keep it up GOP. We appreciate your honesty.
They are so tone deaf and mean spirited, that they just can't help themselves. No, no, no. A thousand times no is their platform. Helping to address the problem? Apparently they don't see it as their job.
So, keep it up GOP. We appreciate your honesty.
2
bythesea, Mexican-Americans would do well to understand that they and their families are the ones most likely to be competing for jobs with illegal aliens and that such competition is what keeps wages down.
As for being "tone deaf" and "mean spirited", some 80% of Americans want our borders secured against illegal immigration. Is that "mean spirited"? This administration is the party that's tone deaf.
As for being "tone deaf" and "mean spirited", some 80% of Americans want our borders secured against illegal immigration. Is that "mean spirited"? This administration is the party that's tone deaf.
18
I find it fascinating that this idea comes from Texas. They seem to have some kind of divine right to their state. Texans who are doing this now were immigrants to their state brought in by Mexico in the 1820's to populate a fairly uninhabited state. Now these same immigrants to a country full of chicanos want to throw out those same chicanos because there is a time difference in their migration. What a crock. Should borders be controlled, sure they should. For reasons that have more to do with public safety than illegal immigration. But people who have been in this country for 50-100 years already without proper documentation and a work history that would put shame to those same detractors, should be allowed to stay and be a recognized part of our society if they can meet the legal requirements. All of our families are immigrants and not all of them came legally either.
1
The federal judiciary has the JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND DISABILITY. Judge Hanen should have been reported to the Committee based on his 2013 ruling described in the editorial.
The plaintiffs in the present case obviously forum shopped to get him which is in itself a violation of the ethical rules attendant to practice before the federal judiciary. If the judge rules in favor the the plaintiffs on their facially and substantively baseless claims in the present case he should be subject to suspension or worse from the Committee. The procedure for reporting a rogue federal judge to the Committee is found at:
http://www.uscourts.gov/Viewer.aspxdoc=/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/conduc...
The plaintiffs in the present case obviously forum shopped to get him which is in itself a violation of the ethical rules attendant to practice before the federal judiciary. If the judge rules in favor the the plaintiffs on their facially and substantively baseless claims in the present case he should be subject to suspension or worse from the Committee. The procedure for reporting a rogue federal judge to the Committee is found at:
http://www.uscourts.gov/Viewer.aspxdoc=/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/conduc...
Obama administration "Conspired with Mexican drug cartels to smuggle children over the border"
This is the kind of bat sh. crazy opinions that come out of Texas. I really wish they could secede. That state is are an embarrassement to the entire country and the stronghold for right wing Republicans.
This is the kind of bat sh. crazy opinions that come out of Texas. I really wish they could secede. That state is are an embarrassement to the entire country and the stronghold for right wing Republicans.
11
Your sanctimony notwithstanding, I believe Texans will find living in Mexico less of a culture shock than members of the New York Times editorial board are going to.
18
Once again, I am very surprised at the normally liberal commenters on the NYT who turn into outright reactionaries in response to immigration op-eds.
What's going on here?
What's going on here?
7
Most of us are tired of seeing lawbreakers rewarded when we know of legal immigrants who had to go through the tortuous, years-long process of doing it the right way.
7
Maybe respect for the law?
19
I'm tired of the hypocrisy of people who say that illegal immigrants have too many children and then proceed to shut down all the family planning clinics in areas where they are concentrated. It looks to me that the real agenda is making workers too cheap and too desperate to need to pay.
5
If businesses small to large wouldn't hire the illegal immigrants, they would not come.
The right says they don't want illegal immigrants, but their actions show otherwise.
The right says they don't want illegal immigrants, but their actions show otherwise.
54
Their actions leave little doubt that cheapening labor is their prime objective.
4
@ Charles That's a very good point. What it shows, I think, is that the "right" is not a single monolith but is composed of two parts.
One is the super-rich, the corporations, capitalists in general. Their interest is not especially ideological. Rather, they want lower taxes, lower tariffs, less regulation and, of course, cheap labor.
The other is the frustrated, white "little guy" -- the Tea Party -- mostly racist and rural/suburban -- almost entirely Christian. (Of course, there are plenty of white Christian rural people who are not Tea Party.) These angry Tea Party folk are, in my opinion, deluded. They are fueled by fear, hatred and unreason.
For the most part, the capitalist-group is able to use the little-guy-group for its own purposes. The capitalist-group must at least pretend to share their concerns. On this particular issue -- cheap foreign labor -- there is a split. My guess is that this whole anti-immigrant thing will go nowhere.
One is the super-rich, the corporations, capitalists in general. Their interest is not especially ideological. Rather, they want lower taxes, lower tariffs, less regulation and, of course, cheap labor.
The other is the frustrated, white "little guy" -- the Tea Party -- mostly racist and rural/suburban -- almost entirely Christian. (Of course, there are plenty of white Christian rural people who are not Tea Party.) These angry Tea Party folk are, in my opinion, deluded. They are fueled by fear, hatred and unreason.
For the most part, the capitalist-group is able to use the little-guy-group for its own purposes. The capitalist-group must at least pretend to share their concerns. On this particular issue -- cheap foreign labor -- there is a split. My guess is that this whole anti-immigrant thing will go nowhere.
2
Why not just enforce the laws already on the books? Immigration is not broken, but the laws are being ignored
25
The NYT is amnesic again in forgetting the declarations that the Constitutional Professor in the White House argued for years that he was powerless to take this precise action to defer prosecution. How does the NYT explain this. Was Obama wrong then or is he wrong now? It doe not explain, simply adopting the party line, as usual.
The legal action to challenge a shameless expansion of executive power is being brought by 24 states, nearly half the nation, yet the NYT decries this as meritless screed. Oh the NYT's tune would be different if even 1 state brought a legal action for a cause it supported. The criticism of the federal judge would instead be praised as bold had the judge supported a leftist pet project.
The assertion that data exists to show that that giving work permits to illegal immigrants helps the economy is a fabrication. That assertion should not be conflated with the effects of legal immigrants who are an entirely different social set.
At the same time, the administration maintains that it needs to use its limited resources to go after dangerous priority immigration violators, it is hiring at least 1000 workers to process paperwork for the illegals. This limited resource should instead be used for administrative judges to remove the illegals from the country.
By the way, in the first paragraph, the NYT says that two dozen states bring the action but in the last paragraph it references 25 states. Wasn't there an editor for this shameless screed?
The legal action to challenge a shameless expansion of executive power is being brought by 24 states, nearly half the nation, yet the NYT decries this as meritless screed. Oh the NYT's tune would be different if even 1 state brought a legal action for a cause it supported. The criticism of the federal judge would instead be praised as bold had the judge supported a leftist pet project.
The assertion that data exists to show that that giving work permits to illegal immigrants helps the economy is a fabrication. That assertion should not be conflated with the effects of legal immigrants who are an entirely different social set.
At the same time, the administration maintains that it needs to use its limited resources to go after dangerous priority immigration violators, it is hiring at least 1000 workers to process paperwork for the illegals. This limited resource should instead be used for administrative judges to remove the illegals from the country.
By the way, in the first paragraph, the NYT says that two dozen states bring the action but in the last paragraph it references 25 states. Wasn't there an editor for this shameless screed?
17
Obamacare was just the right thing to do when it was Romneycare, wasn't it?
2
The executive branch is empowered by Congress in most legislation to fill write rules and regulations implementing the intent of Congress clearly expressed in the framework of the statute. It is not empowered to alter the framework itself. That equates to legislative action by the executive, not exercise of "prosecutorial discretion"; and that is what the Obama administration is attempting to accomplish.
If a Republican president were undertaking a legislative initiative this bold the NYT editors would be screaming unconstitutional abuse of power. But that goes without saying.
If a Republican president were undertaking a legislative initiative this bold the NYT editors would be screaming unconstitutional abuse of power. But that goes without saying.
13
Congress is evidently empowered to intimidate bureaucrats by forcing them to lawyer up to explain things like their reluctance as IRS officials to give a federal seal of approval to organisations whose stated missions are to undermine the ability of the IRS to collect taxes, driving them both bankrupt and insane.
Really Chris from La Jolla? 10 million illegals are going to take all the jobs "from our very poorest of citizens, from the blacks, asians and hispanics"? Are you referencing history here, like how the Irish destroyed our country (1840s), or the Germans (1820s-1880s) or the chinese (1850s-1890s)? You say they didn't destroy our country? That's so weird! Not only is your statement horribly racist and xenophobic. It couldn't be further from the truth. Immigration has consistently helped our country. When more people enter our economy, the "economic pie" grows. More products are produced, more people consume those products, more jobs are created to meet the demand. If Obama could magically make all illegals citizens (which he can't and hasn't tried to) it is estimated that tax revenue and job creation would increase by at least 90 million and 8000 jobs respectively (Texas would see 4.1 billion and 193,000 new jobs, California would see 5.1 billion and 633,000 new jobs). Immigrants are not destroying our country, the ultra-rich are. Conservatives protecting them to their own (and everyone else's) detriment, foolishly believing that immigrants are causing stagnant wages rather than the accumulation of 50% of the worlds wealth in the hand of less than 100 people. But, hey, nothing new about conservatives being on the wrong side of history or just plain being wrong.
11
Thank you for bringing some clarity to the discussion.
4
Clarity? Throwing out garbage statistics, uncited, about job creation? Think. If having more people is so desirable, which is basically what immigration does, then why aren't the home countries of these illegal aliens fighting to keep them or get them back, instead of palming them off on us? And if what makes them valuable is being here illegally, well, you can't legalize them or you'd lose that benefit.
Fact is, just adding people to a country expands its GDP. However, CBO says that if the Senate amnesty bill had gone through, we would have had continued high unemployment and stagnant wages for at least 10 years, and we would have seen GDP PER CAPITA decrease.
Fact is, just adding people to a country expands its GDP. However, CBO says that if the Senate amnesty bill had gone through, we would have had continued high unemployment and stagnant wages for at least 10 years, and we would have seen GDP PER CAPITA decrease.
11
Economic demand comes from people who are paid and have leisure time.
2
So here we go again with the "Nativist" talk and labeling. Laws, sovereignty... all just so yesterday. Lawrence Downes, is that you?
15
It certainly does smell like Downes. Sanctimony and trash-talk.
4
Nativist propaganda has surfaced throughout our history. It is intended generally to distract a certain class of voters from the fundamental beliefs of the party that promulgates the nativist philosophy. In the 1850s, the age of the Know-Nothings, its purpose was to defeat Jacksonian democracy. The Know-Nothings, in an odd mix of promotion of temperance, anti-Catholicism and pro-abolition of slavery, fused with the Whigs which later fused into the Republican party.
The current Republican propmoters are using nativism in conjunction with socially conservative "values" in order to attract those voters who would otherwise reject the R agenda of fostering their wealthy clients.
We've seen this before.
The current Republican propmoters are using nativism in conjunction with socially conservative "values" in order to attract those voters who would otherwise reject the R agenda of fostering their wealthy clients.
We've seen this before.
5
Although I have tried, I have yet to find an American citizen who believes illegal immigration is good for the country and should be rewarded with work papers or amnesty. Where are these liberals? As far as the President's executive action, how many times are we going to try an approach that failed to fix the problem? Pure insanity, that is what Einstein called it!
23
Perhaps you should leave Michigan, for starters. It's a big country.
The constantly repeated canard here by the 'gentle' right is that illegals having been here for years are taking jobs away from Americans, especially in the low wage sector.
Which party has constantly lobbied on behalf of their monied supporters to not raise the minimum wage to at least an amount enough to put food on the table for a family, without the breadwinner having to work another one or two part-time job?
Which party now wants health benefits under the ACA for only those who work at least 40 hours a week, thus creating even more extreme hardship for low paid workers.
As someone living in on of the richest top ten counties in the country, I never see 'real' Americans show up before 8 in the morning knocking on our door to clear the drive way and side walk of snow in order to make some extra money. Should it snow all day, they often return after work to do it over again.
They are all Hispanics, and no, I do not ask them about their 'legal' status. The one person driving a car with VA license plate clearly has legal status. As to relatives, both male and female helping out I have no clue.
Now, someone tell me again why all those suffering lower educated 'real' Americans never try to make some extra money snow shoveling early in the morning, and how they supposedly lose jobs because of all those "Others".
Which party has constantly lobbied on behalf of their monied supporters to not raise the minimum wage to at least an amount enough to put food on the table for a family, without the breadwinner having to work another one or two part-time job?
Which party now wants health benefits under the ACA for only those who work at least 40 hours a week, thus creating even more extreme hardship for low paid workers.
As someone living in on of the richest top ten counties in the country, I never see 'real' Americans show up before 8 in the morning knocking on our door to clear the drive way and side walk of snow in order to make some extra money. Should it snow all day, they often return after work to do it over again.
They are all Hispanics, and no, I do not ask them about their 'legal' status. The one person driving a car with VA license plate clearly has legal status. As to relatives, both male and female helping out I have no clue.
Now, someone tell me again why all those suffering lower educated 'real' Americans never try to make some extra money snow shoveling early in the morning, and how they supposedly lose jobs because of all those "Others".
20
Here's the deal- once the 5 million /- are granted deferred prosecution (the Obama order is not a change of law ir the participants' legal status- they still have no legal status or right to be here) they should move up into the job food chain (anecdote: a 50 year old salvadoran asked me with help to find an indoor job as he could no longer tolerate outdoor labor; lacking documents, there wasn't much I could do) while another group move in to replace them in the now famous "jobs Americans won't do"- of course they would if welfare benefits were contingent on job search, with a safety net in place for "down time" endemic to capitalist economies- but I digress.
So the result is more illegal immigration to fill said jobs. The whole situation is not only ridiculous but beyond corrupt. The repubs' donor/ owners want cheap labor/wage suppression/destruction of organized labor. The dems think they are improving their voter pool, a false dream. The American worker? Neither care.
So the result is more illegal immigration to fill said jobs. The whole situation is not only ridiculous but beyond corrupt. The repubs' donor/ owners want cheap labor/wage suppression/destruction of organized labor. The dems think they are improving their voter pool, a false dream. The American worker? Neither care.
5
I guess shoveling snow is beneath their "dignity"!
2
BRAVO! for the Times Editorial Board. This particular Opinion is a definitely a precious work of art! It's a Keeper.
I think I will copy and frame it.
I think I will copy and frame it.
2
We really don't have a problem absorbing the already here, 4 million immigrants. That is undisputable. We have the problem of future immigration and the other 7 million undocumented, illegals, or whatever word you like. It doesn't change the numbers. And I doubt that whatever solution finally is decided upon nothing about people crossing into our country will change. The conditions that are faced by the average Peon, or Campasino and their children are not going to change without direct US military, diplomatic, and economic intervention. We again have to face up to the consequences of our abject neglect and corruption of the countries south of the border.
Apparently some of us want nothing less than an 11 or 12 million person roundup to be dumped into Mexico and other nations. I can imagine what that would look like to the rest of the world. But who cares what anyone else thinks? I wonder how this would be explained to our children
Apparently some of us want nothing less than an 11 or 12 million person roundup to be dumped into Mexico and other nations. I can imagine what that would look like to the rest of the world. But who cares what anyone else thinks? I wonder how this would be explained to our children
5
I am a Hispanic-American. I was born in the United States. For the record, I am staunch member of the Republican Party. The problem I have with this entire debate is that people on both sides need to cool it down and look at this objectively.
Regardless of the legality or the constitutionality of Obama taking it upon himself to give temporary amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants (and believe me there are significant problems with his approach) I sympathize with the desire to fix the system.
The problem is that we don't even enforce the laws that are on the books, we turn a blind eye to the stream of illegal immigration and that's why we have 12 to 16 million illegal immigrants living here.
What CONGRESS should do is respond to Obama's use of an executive order by putting forward a comprehensive reform of immigration, much along the lines of what President George W. Bush and Senator John McCain wanted to do more than 7 years ago.
I think people who have been living in this country for more than 2 years, should have a path to legal citizenship. If we wanted, we could even make it 5 years instead of 2. The others would be able to take advantage of a guest worker program which could let them return home or stay here and become citizens.
We should establish a new Ellis Island on the Rio Grande so we could process the millions who want to cross and give them a safe way to do so. But once we do that, we have to enforce the laws and prevent illegal crossings.
Sound good?
Regardless of the legality or the constitutionality of Obama taking it upon himself to give temporary amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants (and believe me there are significant problems with his approach) I sympathize with the desire to fix the system.
The problem is that we don't even enforce the laws that are on the books, we turn a blind eye to the stream of illegal immigration and that's why we have 12 to 16 million illegal immigrants living here.
What CONGRESS should do is respond to Obama's use of an executive order by putting forward a comprehensive reform of immigration, much along the lines of what President George W. Bush and Senator John McCain wanted to do more than 7 years ago.
I think people who have been living in this country for more than 2 years, should have a path to legal citizenship. If we wanted, we could even make it 5 years instead of 2. The others would be able to take advantage of a guest worker program which could let them return home or stay here and become citizens.
We should establish a new Ellis Island on the Rio Grande so we could process the millions who want to cross and give them a safe way to do so. But once we do that, we have to enforce the laws and prevent illegal crossings.
Sound good?
6
O.A., problem is, if the President is allowed to legislate with his EOs, well, it doesn't matter what Congress does or doesn't do, because he'll do what he wants. No reason for passing a new bill which he wouldn't enforce, when he's not even enforcing CURRENT law.
5
If the United States cannot block the vicious attack of undocumented people sneaking across the Red River, creeping thru Waterton and surging south from the Thousand Lakes then we will forever be at the mercy of people searching for badly paying jobs, inadequate health care and oppressive gun violence. God save us all!
8
I had only limited space, but we should have passed the following bills in the period between 2005 and 2007 (and mind you even George W. Bush went against some of the hardliners in his and mine party to urge passage of the bills):
1) Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act ("McCain-Kennedy Bill," S. 1033)
2) Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S. 2611)
3) Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1348)
The idea of a guest worker program would be fascinating, the original bill (the last one on this list) began with a whopping 400,000 legal workers being allowed in every year...this was dropped down to 200,000 as a compromise.
But here's the crazy thing that bugs me...it's true that hardliners in my own party didn't want to pass these bills. But why didn't the Democratic majority that took over pass them or some variation of them? Why didn't this happen when Obama was elected in 2008? Why does he have to use an executive order now when he could have easily passed this legislation at the same time as he passed Obamacare?
I mean seriously, he shoved healthcare down our throats, he could have done the same thing with immigration reform, to say nothing for a comprehensive job bills.
My problem with this president is that he had (for the first 2) a supermajority in both houses of Congress. He could have passed and handed down to us an impressive legislative and policy legacy...but he chose not to go that route....
1) Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act ("McCain-Kennedy Bill," S. 1033)
2) Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S. 2611)
3) Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1348)
The idea of a guest worker program would be fascinating, the original bill (the last one on this list) began with a whopping 400,000 legal workers being allowed in every year...this was dropped down to 200,000 as a compromise.
But here's the crazy thing that bugs me...it's true that hardliners in my own party didn't want to pass these bills. But why didn't the Democratic majority that took over pass them or some variation of them? Why didn't this happen when Obama was elected in 2008? Why does he have to use an executive order now when he could have easily passed this legislation at the same time as he passed Obamacare?
I mean seriously, he shoved healthcare down our throats, he could have done the same thing with immigration reform, to say nothing for a comprehensive job bills.
My problem with this president is that he had (for the first 2) a supermajority in both houses of Congress. He could have passed and handed down to us an impressive legislative and policy legacy...but he chose not to go that route....
3
It is true that Democrats controlled the House and had a super majority in the Senate at the beginning of President Obama's first term, but it was not at all easy to get all 60 votes in the Senate. It took only one Democrat to drop out for the Republicans to filibuster. This is the reason we have no public option in the Affordable Care Act.
2
He chose to try to work with the Republicans. Big mistake. He didn't realize yet how impossible that would be. He didn't shove health care down anyone's throat (hmmm, have I heard that talking point before?). It was voted on.
1
With all the delay getting Al Franken confirmed to the Senate after dozens of Republican funded recounts of the vote, President Obama had control for all of a few weeks before Scott Brown won the election in Massachusetts for Ted Kennedy's seat.
2
This speaks volumes about our justice system and how easily it is manipulated, in this case for political ends, and in other cases by the wealthy and corporations. We all like to think of the Federal judiciary as a wonderfully competent and unbiased force for obtaining justice when in reality it is frequently no different than any backwater judicial official anywhere.
2
What's wrong with demanding that people who came here illegally return home and get in line like everyone else?
24
Okay, demand away.
Then what?
Then what?
For openers, it would break up families whose children are US citizens. That's wrong, and unnecessary. Please remember, this is about human beings – individuals just like you. Each case may be different.
And have you not read, countless times by now, that the US needs to prioritize deporting less-desirable immigrants, which takes up most of the available resources? Surely that makes more sense than a one-size-fits-all round-up.
And have you not read, countless times by now, that the US needs to prioritize deporting less-desirable immigrants, which takes up most of the available resources? Surely that makes more sense than a one-size-fits-all round-up.
Sallyb, stop spewing lies. It doesn't break up families at all. They simply don't want to take their children back with them. The children, all of whom are by definition anchor babies, should never be allowed to be the key to any type of legal status for their parents; if you allow it, the 11 million or however many illegal aliens there are in the country will quickly become 111 million. And the fact that you say we have read, countless times that the US needs to prioritize doesn't make it so.
8
It's basically "nativism" vs. mob rule and squatters' rights.
When will the NYT come out and admit it wants an open border with Mexico?
When will the "reformers" admit that they really just want a 20-year amnesty cycle?
You either have immigration law and enforce it, or you let people move freely with all the consequences thereof. Those who want enforceable law are dismissed as nativists. Those who do the dismissing don't seem to have any ideas at all other than periodic amnesty. By forcing people to live clandestinely until the next Great Pardon, the amnesty brigade are causing more suffering, not less.
When will the NYT come out and admit it wants an open border with Mexico?
When will the "reformers" admit that they really just want a 20-year amnesty cycle?
You either have immigration law and enforce it, or you let people move freely with all the consequences thereof. Those who want enforceable law are dismissed as nativists. Those who do the dismissing don't seem to have any ideas at all other than periodic amnesty. By forcing people to live clandestinely until the next Great Pardon, the amnesty brigade are causing more suffering, not less.
20
"All the anti-immigrant side has to do is keep trying to block reform ..."
The NY Times continues to mix up the notion that the Right is against immigrants and immigration - when in actuality, we are against ILLEGAL immigrants and immigration.
Secondly, "nativist" means "A sociopolitical policy, favoring the the interests of established inhabitants over those of immigrants." The NY Times like to use the term with spittle spewing disparagement of those that are "nativists" - I choose to think of a nativist as being the sane one in the argument.
The NY Times continues to mix up the notion that the Right is against immigrants and immigration - when in actuality, we are against ILLEGAL immigrants and immigration.
Secondly, "nativist" means "A sociopolitical policy, favoring the the interests of established inhabitants over those of immigrants." The NY Times like to use the term with spittle spewing disparagement of those that are "nativists" - I choose to think of a nativist as being the sane one in the argument.
18
They aren't "immigrants", they're illegal aliens. Illegal Alien is the LEGAL DEFINITION IN OUR FEDERAL CODE OF LAWS for these people. By ignoring the absolute and incontrovertible fact that they're breaking the law with their mere presence, you taint the entire conversation with dishonestly.
21
if illegal immigrants went on strike for 2 or 3 days, they would stop the engine of this country.
7
I wish they would. Then there would be job openings for the countless of American citizens who need work.
11
"Prosecutorial discretion" is evidently the only way to cope with the hopeless US morass of uncoordinated faith based laws that makes everyone technically guilty of something.
5
Migrants from south of our border have worked in our nation since before I was born 61 years ago, and the problem of the undocumented has festered since the flood of migration starting taking place in the 90's thru the middle of the end of the last decade. The origin of the massive migration is rather simple to comprehend: poverty in the nations to our south and a booming economy to the north. Our nation's businesses, both large and small gladly paid for cheap labor, as did many households. To many of the impoverished in Mexico and Central and South America, the draw was irresistible. These 'law breakers' were encouraged to come and to deny that fact is simply dishonest.
Now, millions have lived here for many years. Many have kids that are U.S. citizens by birth. The only rational and human solution is to enable them to come out of the shadows and to join us legally. Yes, strengthen our border patrols and prevent another wave of 'illegals', but also finally face up to the fact that those that have been assets in the USA deserve to stay because we wanted them to come until we found them inconvenient. Obama's prosecutorial discretion is rational. His proposal to allow these folks to register and stay makes sense both economically and morally.
Now, millions have lived here for many years. Many have kids that are U.S. citizens by birth. The only rational and human solution is to enable them to come out of the shadows and to join us legally. Yes, strengthen our border patrols and prevent another wave of 'illegals', but also finally face up to the fact that those that have been assets in the USA deserve to stay because we wanted them to come until we found them inconvenient. Obama's prosecutorial discretion is rational. His proposal to allow these folks to register and stay makes sense both economically and morally.
26
[Migrants from south of our border have worked in our nation since before I was born 61 years ago, ] They were working here before there was a border.
2
Peter,
During WWII, the US instituted the "Bracero" program to bring Mexican laborers to the US to fill agricultural and other jobs, replacing men who went to war. After the war, it was renewed because those same American workers no longer wanted those low paying, backbreaking jobs. The program formally ended in 1964.
Since the jobs still went unfilled by American workers, the farmers, stockyards and other industries first recruited "south of the border" and paid to have them smuggled in., Eventually, they stopped paying to have workers smuggled across the border because, with Latin America in turmoil and poverty, a flood of illegals came in.
The employers either assisted their illegals in getting fake ID or paid labor providers to do it. Several years ago here in California, the flow of illegals dried up one summer. The farmers could not get Americans to do the work, no matter what they paid them. Fields were plowed under, fruit was left to rot and food prices rose.
Today, American agriculture, meat packing, construction, and the "hospitality" industry would collapse with out illegal workers.
It is ironic that the same people who want to "seal" our borders and deport all the illegal workers are the same ones who make a lot of money off of them.
During WWII, the US instituted the "Bracero" program to bring Mexican laborers to the US to fill agricultural and other jobs, replacing men who went to war. After the war, it was renewed because those same American workers no longer wanted those low paying, backbreaking jobs. The program formally ended in 1964.
Since the jobs still went unfilled by American workers, the farmers, stockyards and other industries first recruited "south of the border" and paid to have them smuggled in., Eventually, they stopped paying to have workers smuggled across the border because, with Latin America in turmoil and poverty, a flood of illegals came in.
The employers either assisted their illegals in getting fake ID or paid labor providers to do it. Several years ago here in California, the flow of illegals dried up one summer. The farmers could not get Americans to do the work, no matter what they paid them. Fields were plowed under, fruit was left to rot and food prices rose.
Today, American agriculture, meat packing, construction, and the "hospitality" industry would collapse with out illegal workers.
It is ironic that the same people who want to "seal" our borders and deport all the illegal workers are the same ones who make a lot of money off of them.
3
Strengthening the Border Patrol will not stop illegal immigration. Nearly 50 percent of illegal immigrants enter the country legally but overstay their visas. The Obama Administration's prosecutorial description policy gives them a free pass.
3
Next editorial will be on pardoning the Rosenbergs.
11
Wow. I've thought we shouldn't kill people who do egregious things (Timothy McVeigh, for example) but try and understand how they got that way. That is, knowledge trumps revenge.
Perhaps you could articulate this bit of Foxism in more detail? The President's executive action may be constitutionally weak but this lawsuit sits much further out in a legal never never land.
I think that the President's executive action was wrong. I identify as democrat but I fail to realize how hoards of illegal immigrants help the citizens of the United States. Further the argument that the so called minor migrants was fleeing South America for a safe have in the US was ludicrous. I think the kids were brought here with the explicit permission the the Obama Administration. No minor will risk the dangerous journey traveling thousands of miles alone to reach the US as the media would have us believe. I really like Mr. Obama but a lot of his decision making and reasoning was a little flawed. There is going to be immense cost to states associated with these migrants whic tax payers like me will bear the cost. its is not fair or right.
59
"I fail to realize how hoards of illegal immigrants help the citizens of the United States."
Some people want to bring back the old European immigrant Southern Democrat Party that was pro-slavery.
Why this is a New York Times pick is baffling.
Some people want to bring back the old European immigrant Southern Democrat Party that was pro-slavery.
Why this is a New York Times pick is baffling.
5
Your objections are based on a complete misunderstanding of the facts of the situation. But, that is not your fault. The media has been filled with misinformation regarding this issue for a long time.
What you think you know about the kids from Central America and the reality are not compatible. Not only were kids showing up at the U.S. border, they were also going to Costa Rica and Nicaragua and even to Mexico to flee the violence in Honduras and El Salvador. Last time I checked, President Obama was not the leader of those three nations. In addition, the total number of these children that recently showed up is less than 100,000, and they have virtually nothing to do with Obama's Executive Orders.
The Executive Orders focus on the undocumented that have been living in the United States for at least 5 years. The people that would be affected by the orders are only those that can prove residency for at least that period of time, and who have not been convicted of crimes. Most of these people who are adults are already working here, and us taxpayers would benefit by their being included in the tax rolls. They will not now suddenly take jobs from people because they are already working.
What you think you know about the kids from Central America and the reality are not compatible. Not only were kids showing up at the U.S. border, they were also going to Costa Rica and Nicaragua and even to Mexico to flee the violence in Honduras and El Salvador. Last time I checked, President Obama was not the leader of those three nations. In addition, the total number of these children that recently showed up is less than 100,000, and they have virtually nothing to do with Obama's Executive Orders.
The Executive Orders focus on the undocumented that have been living in the United States for at least 5 years. The people that would be affected by the orders are only those that can prove residency for at least that period of time, and who have not been convicted of crimes. Most of these people who are adults are already working here, and us taxpayers would benefit by their being included in the tax rolls. They will not now suddenly take jobs from people because they are already working.
9
I think that you are wrong especially about the permission by the Obama administration part....that smells like right wing fantasy in it full paranoid splendor to me. There is at this time, more cost associated with dislodging them from this country than keeping them here. It's the war on drugs and the gangland horror that accompanies that trade that is causing the flight of so many children north. Obama is allowed a few executive actions when dealing with a Congress incapable of anything but obstruction. This action is merely a stopgap measure to preserve YOUR tax dollars to remove the more undesirable immigrants with criminal tendencies first.
9
What's always overlooked is "supply and demand". Using lawn work as an example: With less immigrants, the labor supply would decrease; when the supply decreases, the lawn service providers would have to increase wages to attract enough laborers, increasing their standard of living. The cost would be borne by those earning enough to hire these services, usually upper middle class to high class earners.
Result: less unemployment, higher standard of living, small "tax" on upper income households, and perhaps, more exercise for those who now would mow their own lawn. I've lived in my home for 40+ years. In this time, less and less owners mow their own lawns, houses have gotten bigger, more pesticides, weed killers are being used. This could actually help the environment.
This example could be used for many industries, fast food, construction, retail employment; the bottom 25-40 % would gain, and the higher classes would buy less "things" they really don't need.
Result: less unemployment, higher standard of living, small "tax" on upper income households, and perhaps, more exercise for those who now would mow their own lawn. I've lived in my home for 40+ years. In this time, less and less owners mow their own lawns, houses have gotten bigger, more pesticides, weed killers are being used. This could actually help the environment.
This example could be used for many industries, fast food, construction, retail employment; the bottom 25-40 % would gain, and the higher classes would buy less "things" they really don't need.
40
By the same token, when undocumented workers are made legal, they would now be part of the system whereby "fair" wages would have to be paid, making those jobs more attractive to "others." If these people are poor workers then the employers will have other options and the poor employee will have to find other work (pretty much what always happens); if these people are good workers, then they keep their jobs (pretty much what always happens, exclusive of prejudice and bigotry).
2
That does nothing to solve the unemployment, low wage problem of low skilled American citizens
3
How is this not a case of Original Jurisdiction for the Supreme Court?
9
Because the states did not sue the federal government, but instead, officials thereof. Additionally, there are non-state parties, which destroys the original jurisdiction (suit between a state and another, or the state and the federal government).
1
The liberals always delight in talking about those conservatives who vote against their own interests. Well, in this case… Obama will unilaterally legalize 10+ million illegals, all of whom take the jobs away from our very poorest of citizens, from the blacks, asians and hispanics who are legal, who use our medical resources and now want to steal our educational resources, who bring their gangs and crime with them, who bring their third-world culture into our country and overwhelm us with their birth rate. Do you actually think the rich care? It's the poor who will be terribly affected. And for what? for Obama to get some sort of 'legacy", and for the Democrats to get a whole lot of new votes.
This is beyond disgusting and calculating. For decency's sake, I hope the President skips blowing hard about this in his State of the Union address.
This is beyond disgusting and calculating. For decency's sake, I hope the President skips blowing hard about this in his State of the Union address.
65
I hope that you learn that everything you've written is arrant nonsense, self-delusional and actively bigoted. I hope you learn all this, but I doubt that you will.
15
Racism and xenophobia are disgusting.
3
Chris, Prove your claim. We're waiting. Provide facts, research, statistics etc. Until you can do that what you are saying is simply your opinion not the truth. And we've learned over the past several decades that truth to a conservative is only what they claim for believe, not A statement that is supported by facts because facts don't matter to conservatives (think climate change).
So, let's see those facts that support your opinion.
So, let's see those facts that support your opinion.
4
The vituperative tone of many of these comments only serves to underscore my view that the right wing of this country lives in fear, hatred, and contempt for reality. They have no human hearts, are jealous, greedy, violent, and cannot hear any ideas that might not be in agreement with their own. They don't understand the law they claim to uphold. They don't understand the Constitution they wave in others' faces. But they are rock solid in their attitudes and opinions. I have to wonder what has happened to these people, that they are so miserably rigid and bigoted.
Our immigration situation is complex, involving real lives and families. The right wing doesn't want to see that. Too hard for them to come up with complex, compassionate solutions. They don't want facts and data. They want to pout and punish. They are the real "takers," who have forgotten that just a few generations back, their families were immigrants, and very possibly reviled by the haters of that time.
Nevermind, the President has the authority to take executive action, has taken fewer executive actions during his administration so far than presidents of the last 50 years or so. Those disliking it can call him names, but that only shows how infantile these folks are.
"Generosity is the virtue that produces peace." --Buddhist prayer
Our immigration situation is complex, involving real lives and families. The right wing doesn't want to see that. Too hard for them to come up with complex, compassionate solutions. They don't want facts and data. They want to pout and punish. They are the real "takers," who have forgotten that just a few generations back, their families were immigrants, and very possibly reviled by the haters of that time.
Nevermind, the President has the authority to take executive action, has taken fewer executive actions during his administration so far than presidents of the last 50 years or so. Those disliking it can call him names, but that only shows how infantile these folks are.
"Generosity is the virtue that produces peace." --Buddhist prayer
236
The problem with our immigration law is a failure of enforcement which goes back as far as 1986. We gave and amnesty then but the promised enforcement never came - now we have a lot more illegals to deal with.
I think ultimately, however we resolve the problem, citizenship should never be granted to those who came here illegally and brought their children here illegally.
We must end chain migration -- we give out too many family visas for distant relatives - family should only include husband, wife and minor children - also we must end birth right citizenship and stop birth tourism from China.
But rather than new immigration laws, lets try and enforce the ones we have on the books -that should work out well for the county if we would just enforce the laws instead of trying to do an end-run around them.
I think ultimately, however we resolve the problem, citizenship should never be granted to those who came here illegally and brought their children here illegally.
We must end chain migration -- we give out too many family visas for distant relatives - family should only include husband, wife and minor children - also we must end birth right citizenship and stop birth tourism from China.
But rather than new immigration laws, lets try and enforce the ones we have on the books -that should work out well for the county if we would just enforce the laws instead of trying to do an end-run around them.
11
There are both left and right wing denials that human population growth threatens the whole planetary ecosystem.
4
We welcome legal immigrants, we are against illegal aliens who break our laws.....end of story. We are a nation of laws. We are also the only country in the world with open borders, who do not protect our citizens from being invaded.
3
Illegal immigrants are the new slaves. Americans have had a love/hate relationship with slavery since the country was born. Use and abuse those without rights in order to grow the economy and enrich the capitalists. The ruling class is afraid to let them become citizens in case they retaliate.
Perhaps it's time to treat people fairly and see what happens.
Perhaps it's time to treat people fairly and see what happens.
26
The ruling class is absolutely not afraid of letting them become citizens because the ruling class intends to replace the newly-minted citizens with a whole new crew of slaves lured north by this amnesty.
8
The Executive Order does not grant amnesty or citizenship. Anyone who disagrees , give Obama a bill.
If the NYT's editorial board lived along the border, as I do, then the idea of conspiring with cartels would not seem so far fetched. If Obama or anyone in his administration negotiated with any member of the Mexican government then they were most likely talking to drug cartel members or associates or flunkies. No matter how clean the Mexican politician may seem, the cartels will have infiltrated his staff and learn everything about any talks with U.S. officials about everything of interest to the cartels, and that certainly includes organized human trafficking into the USA.
21
Having spies within a politician's staff and having them learn of any talks with the politician is not the same as "conspiring with Mexican drug cartels to smuggle children across the border". The talks might well have been about organized (by the cartels) human trafficking. Why would the US government be interested in bringing illegal aliens into the country?
1
The cartels survive in the US ONLY because Americans buy their drugs. If we start punishing the drug users instead of only focusing on the suppliers we might have better luck at reducing drug use and there goes the primary source of income to the cartel.
The Obama administration has sent move Mexicans home than any other administration and a tight policy on the border is favored by both Democrats and Republicans. Tighter policing costs money and the money has not been offered up from Washington by either party.
Insofar as established families of illegals are concerned, I don't believe America is really willing to destroy families to send the parents home and leave their citizen children here. They are staying and the sooner we bring them on board as citizens the better off America will be. We have always been a land of assimilation and it has worked pretty well for everyone but the real Americans, just ask your Indian friends - if you can find any.
The Obama administration has sent move Mexicans home than any other administration and a tight policy on the border is favored by both Democrats and Republicans. Tighter policing costs money and the money has not been offered up from Washington by either party.
Insofar as established families of illegals are concerned, I don't believe America is really willing to destroy families to send the parents home and leave their citizen children here. They are staying and the sooner we bring them on board as citizens the better off America will be. We have always been a land of assimilation and it has worked pretty well for everyone but the real Americans, just ask your Indian friends - if you can find any.
I agree, living along the border with the drug wars is scary.
But as long as there is demand, there will be cocaine coming into the US.
People often blame Colombia and Mexico, but we need to look in the mirror. As long as Americans create the demand, there will be "entrepreneurs" to fulfill this demand.
Same goes for illegal workers. As long as someone is willing to hire them, they will come.
But as long as there is demand, there will be cocaine coming into the US.
People often blame Colombia and Mexico, but we need to look in the mirror. As long as Americans create the demand, there will be "entrepreneurs" to fulfill this demand.
Same goes for illegal workers. As long as someone is willing to hire them, they will come.
1
Intimidation, exclusion and bullying to sow confusion and fear comes from the standard playbook of right-wing bigotry. Sometimes this is expressed through lethal violence; at other times via judicial robes or designer suits. But the result never differs. Demonized people are systemically abused, to the enduring shame of a nearly-great nation.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
www.endthemadnessnow.org
13
One could sensibly ask what's wrong with our foreign policy towards Mexico and Central America? Everything. From exploitation of these nations natural resources, supporting police state legal systems, the Drug Wars, to immigration, and trade agreements. There is nothing that hasn't been overlooked, sabotaged, and cruelly implemented and ignored. There's nothing that the last 100 years, from Marine Commandant Gen. Smedley Butler's remarks that he and his military expositions were nothing more than "enforcers of gangster capatalists"(or words to that effect), to the continual nod to unlimited corruption and graft to manipulation of the political systems for each and every nation there.
I hope the federal judge does in fact make some outlandish ruling, complete with similar rogue statements about our President. Perhaps this could turn into a greater expose' comcerning all of our criminal mishandling of keeping Latin America safe for US business. Someone might finally explain why Bolivians were arrested for catching rainwater instead of paying for their water from the then US backed dictator proir to Evo Morales. You can look it up in the National Geographic magazine from 6 or 7 yewrs ago. Yes I realize that Bolivia is in South America, but the example is apt.
I hope the federal judge does in fact make some outlandish ruling, complete with similar rogue statements about our President. Perhaps this could turn into a greater expose' comcerning all of our criminal mishandling of keeping Latin America safe for US business. Someone might finally explain why Bolivians were arrested for catching rainwater instead of paying for their water from the then US backed dictator proir to Evo Morales. You can look it up in the National Geographic magazine from 6 or 7 yewrs ago. Yes I realize that Bolivia is in South America, but the example is apt.
12
Texas has not always been in a state of reactionary nativist bigotry. Texas was part of Native America, then the Spanish Empire and Mexico for most of it's history. Long before the illegal white European invasion and occupation.
Texas was still part of Mexico on 16 September 1829 when the first African and Native President in North America Mexican President Vincente Guerrero ordered the abolition of slavery and emancipation of all slaves.
In order to thwart the power of the Comanche and their Kiowa, Southern Cheyenne and Arapaho allies, Mexico encouraged immigration from outside of Mexico to Texas. Moses Austin was among the first to take advantage. No less a prominent Texas personage than his son Stephen F. Austin extolled the virtues of " This is the most liberal and munificent Government on Earth to emigrants-after being here one year you will oppose a change even to Uncle Sam." It is doubtful that slaves ever felt that way.
Texas and it's slaves got a temporary pass. But they still bolted Mexico and became a Republic in 1836 before becoming part of the spoils America's imperial war of conquest against Mexico in 1845. Texas and it's slaves and slave masters seceded from the Union in 1861.
Legal immigration is too slow, too costly, too complicated, too confusingly inconsistent and too contrary to American values and interests to be worthy of a great nation. Even the white Canadian Cuban American Rafael Eduardo Cruz, Jr. is smart enough to know that. Cruz is no Ted.
Texas was still part of Mexico on 16 September 1829 when the first African and Native President in North America Mexican President Vincente Guerrero ordered the abolition of slavery and emancipation of all slaves.
In order to thwart the power of the Comanche and their Kiowa, Southern Cheyenne and Arapaho allies, Mexico encouraged immigration from outside of Mexico to Texas. Moses Austin was among the first to take advantage. No less a prominent Texas personage than his son Stephen F. Austin extolled the virtues of " This is the most liberal and munificent Government on Earth to emigrants-after being here one year you will oppose a change even to Uncle Sam." It is doubtful that slaves ever felt that way.
Texas and it's slaves got a temporary pass. But they still bolted Mexico and became a Republic in 1836 before becoming part of the spoils America's imperial war of conquest against Mexico in 1845. Texas and it's slaves and slave masters seceded from the Union in 1861.
Legal immigration is too slow, too costly, too complicated, too confusingly inconsistent and too contrary to American values and interests to be worthy of a great nation. Even the white Canadian Cuban American Rafael Eduardo Cruz, Jr. is smart enough to know that. Cruz is no Ted.
10
"Legal immigration is too slow, too costly, too complicated, too confusingly inconsistent and too contrary to American values and interests to be worthy of a great nation."
How did you reach the conclusions that our laws are complicated? Have you tried to immigrate to France, Germany, Russia? Most countries do have complicated immigration laws - it is too protect the country and that is what ours do - protect the country from those looking for handouts and to live on welfare. The more that welfare forms a greater part of a state's budget, the greater will be the desire of the lazy, or unskilled to take advantage of it. There used to be no welfare and that was better as you either succeeded by the sweat of your brow or you failed. Today we pay failures to sit at home and watch TV.
How did you reach the conclusions that our laws are complicated? Have you tried to immigrate to France, Germany, Russia? Most countries do have complicated immigration laws - it is too protect the country and that is what ours do - protect the country from those looking for handouts and to live on welfare. The more that welfare forms a greater part of a state's budget, the greater will be the desire of the lazy, or unskilled to take advantage of it. There used to be no welfare and that was better as you either succeeded by the sweat of your brow or you failed. Today we pay failures to sit at home and watch TV.
6
Mexico acknowledge Texas independence during negotiations between the Republic of Texas, the United States and Mexico prior to the U.S. annexation of Texas. The issue was not Texas independence but whether the Rio Grande, as Texas claimed, or the Nueces, as Mexico claimed was the southern border of Texas. The Nueces River runs south of San Antonio. Texas and Mexico has frequently clashed over control of the narrow strip of between the Nueces River and the Rio Grand, which was called "Nueces Strip." Mexico did not object to the U.S. annexation of Texas, but still claimed sovereignty over the Nueces Strip after Texas joined the United States. The Mexican War started when U.S. moved a military force into the Nueces Strip. The United States did not get Texas as a "spoils of war." of war. Texas isn't even mention in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican War.
4
Just FYI-Texas turned Republican when the retirees and refugees from the Rust Belt states flooded Texas in the 1980s.
1
A loud mouth betrays an empty mind. The Republicans and Fox remind me of this daily. Here is one more example.
15
That is particularly funny since the photo accompanying this editorial shows what appears to be an Hispanic woman yelling in a bullhorn. Jeez....
1
Gosh, there is a lot of righteousness in these comments.
I'm sure all of those so upset about the illegal entry (or over-staying) of the immigrants would never do anything illegal themselves. And I'm sure that when their ancestors came here, they were all engineers or other "high-value" immigrants that we want to skim off the top of the world's population. Must be nice to be so sure of things.
My husband's and my families came here around the turn of the 20th century. They were not particularly talented or well-to-do. In fact, I think that every one of them on both sides would qualify as poor. But they worked hard, and we now enjoy the wonderful benefits of being Americans. It makes me decidedly uneasy hearing how awful these immigrants are for wanting just what I want--and being no less "deserving" than my family was.
I'm sure all of those so upset about the illegal entry (or over-staying) of the immigrants would never do anything illegal themselves. And I'm sure that when their ancestors came here, they were all engineers or other "high-value" immigrants that we want to skim off the top of the world's population. Must be nice to be so sure of things.
My husband's and my families came here around the turn of the 20th century. They were not particularly talented or well-to-do. In fact, I think that every one of them on both sides would qualify as poor. But they worked hard, and we now enjoy the wonderful benefits of being Americans. It makes me decidedly uneasy hearing how awful these immigrants are for wanting just what I want--and being no less "deserving" than my family was.
24
Immigration at the turn of the 20th century was not like it is now. The country was different also. We had more open spaces, farming involved many people, so new, illiterate immigrants could get land and farm. They learned English the hard ward, no money-wasting ESL in the schools. YOu can't compare immigration at the turn of the 20th century when country was still mainly rural, with today's economy which is mechanized and digitized and requires a high degree of skill and education.
3
I'll bet your families came here legally, learned to speak English, got educated and assimiliated.....
Also, factories were going up in even very small towns, and workers were desperately needed. It was indeed a very different world from the one we have now. Over time, our industrial economy made it possible for people who knew misery and want to move up into the middle class.
Now there is virtually no middle class, just the people scrambling for jobs and the ones who don't have to. And this is why we don't need more illegals.
Now there is virtually no middle class, just the people scrambling for jobs and the ones who don't have to. And this is why we don't need more illegals.
1
Welcome to the GOP/TP dream world anno 2015.
Anti-abortion legislation in Congress, xenophobia in states like Texas whose school board has cut the critical thinking course in the public school curriculum, more votes to kill the ACA, more votes to cut benefits for the least fortunate among us, more votes to lower taxes on the ueber rich - the so called job-creators -, and the list goes on and on, far longer than the space the NYT allows its commenters.
It is going to be a very bumpy ride, indeed, with fear and hate and religion dominating the political landscape.
Anti-abortion legislation in Congress, xenophobia in states like Texas whose school board has cut the critical thinking course in the public school curriculum, more votes to kill the ACA, more votes to cut benefits for the least fortunate among us, more votes to lower taxes on the ueber rich - the so called job-creators -, and the list goes on and on, far longer than the space the NYT allows its commenters.
It is going to be a very bumpy ride, indeed, with fear and hate and religion dominating the political landscape.
18
If these states were really interested in removing immigrants they would aggressively go after the companies that hire the immigrants. They are the drug sellers but their drug is a job and an income. They prefer to hire the powerless, pay them "off the books" at below minimum wage, and withhold no taxes. However, they would rather prosecute the users of the drug rather than the pusher. After all, the pusher funds their campaigns.
33
Huge fines for those employing illegals
2
The President had stated on video tape over 20 times that as head of the Executive Branch he simply does not have the power to do, what he then, after his last election was over, proceeded to do. This is a John Stewart moment where he uses video tape to make complete fools of people, or perhaps a "where you lying then or are you lying now" moment.
Even if you make the case that he has prosecutorial discretion to not go after a whole class of lawbreakers and deport them as the law calls for, how can you make a case that he can issue them papers that essentially make what the Legislative Branch said was illegal now, by Executive Fiat , a legal presence in this country? This is not discretion, this is changing the law, and any third grader could tell you this.
I am completely for a comprehensive immigration reform that allows those who have been here for years a path to citizenship. I don't believe that you can be a great country, or even a good one, if you don't make compassion and respect for others a major national trait. However I read a lot of history.
How would the editorial board or many of the commentators supporting the President's actions feel about a President Cruz using such sweeping prosecutorial discretion to negate laws on equal rights, women's reproductive rights or environmental laws? What goes around comes around folks.
Even if you make the case that he has prosecutorial discretion to not go after a whole class of lawbreakers and deport them as the law calls for, how can you make a case that he can issue them papers that essentially make what the Legislative Branch said was illegal now, by Executive Fiat , a legal presence in this country? This is not discretion, this is changing the law, and any third grader could tell you this.
I am completely for a comprehensive immigration reform that allows those who have been here for years a path to citizenship. I don't believe that you can be a great country, or even a good one, if you don't make compassion and respect for others a major national trait. However I read a lot of history.
How would the editorial board or many of the commentators supporting the President's actions feel about a President Cruz using such sweeping prosecutorial discretion to negate laws on equal rights, women's reproductive rights or environmental laws? What goes around comes around folks.
27
That's why there will never be a President Cruz: because that's exactly what he would do. The day we elect a Cruz to be President is the day America dies.
30
Here's the justification:
- the Executive has prosecutorial discretion. Of course he does, and the fact that Congress has not sufficiently funded 100% enforcement underscores that.
- Given prosecutorial discretion, the Executive can provide firm, specific guidelines for the circumstances and conditions under when the law will/will not be enforced. This is need to make sure prosecutorial discretion is fair and not capricious.
- Given that there are guidelines, the Executive may make these public.
- Given that these guidelines are public, the Executive may provide to individuals judgments and certification as to where they fall under the guidelines.
- the Executive has prosecutorial discretion. Of course he does, and the fact that Congress has not sufficiently funded 100% enforcement underscores that.
- Given prosecutorial discretion, the Executive can provide firm, specific guidelines for the circumstances and conditions under when the law will/will not be enforced. This is need to make sure prosecutorial discretion is fair and not capricious.
- Given that there are guidelines, the Executive may make these public.
- Given that these guidelines are public, the Executive may provide to individuals judgments and certification as to where they fall under the guidelines.
10
We can hope this fails as the NYT expects. Then executive power will be further enhanced for the next time a Republican is president.
Be careful what you wish for.
Be careful what you wish for.
13
Here's how the Republicans can solve the immigration problem. They worship the power of markets. They believe that markets provide the ultimate, best solution to everything.
The way to solve the immigration problem is for native born (preferably white of course) citizens to approach employers and bid for the jobs the illegals hold at lower pay. No employer would turn down harder working employees for less money. Certainly no employer would balk at paying payroll taxes instead of using cash for wages. Problem solved and the people will self-deport because they can't earn any money. I'll bet the lines of new job seekers at the meat packing houses and farms will stretch for miles.
The way to solve the immigration problem is for native born (preferably white of course) citizens to approach employers and bid for the jobs the illegals hold at lower pay. No employer would turn down harder working employees for less money. Certainly no employer would balk at paying payroll taxes instead of using cash for wages. Problem solved and the people will self-deport because they can't earn any money. I'll bet the lines of new job seekers at the meat packing houses and farms will stretch for miles.
74
Of course, the fact that undocumented immigrants already are willing to work for very low wages would mean that citizens would be signing up for minimum wage jobs that are dirty and dangerous. The fact that people are not currently flocking to climb on this bandwagon says that the wages offered are not enough to attract workers. If the market were not distorted by having a captive group afraid to agitate for higher wages, there would be pressure to raise wages for these jobs. Only then would job seekers line up to apply for them. Then, who knows, we might even get some unions to protect workers' rights. OMG!
6
Who worships the power of the markets? Take a look at legislation over the last 6 years and tell me again who worships?
4
Back when "white people" held those jobs, such as at meat packing houses, they were dangerous and poorly paid until unions were formed. Then, unlike the Ayn Rand utopia you envision, people were paid decently, safety was improved, they had health insurance, etc.
But then the meat packers started undercutting the unions by bringing in and employing those here illegally, and suddenly the jobs were dangerous and poorly paid again. What a surprise!
Unlike the miserable vision you have of native workers offering to work for even less, in even worse conditions, we need to bring back unions.
But then the meat packers started undercutting the unions by bringing in and employing those here illegally, and suddenly the jobs were dangerous and poorly paid again. What a surprise!
Unlike the miserable vision you have of native workers offering to work for even less, in even worse conditions, we need to bring back unions.
5
Obama's actions are meant to pacify some voters, but like all politicians, he's really serving the 1% and if you believe differently I feel sorry for you.
This is all being done to invite a new wave of slave labor to migrate north. The current group will get their pseudo-legal status and then they'll quickly see their wages and working conditions tank as they are displaced by the new wave.
To truly help people, close the border down so no more slave laborers can get through to further depress wages/conditions. I realize this will slow the fantastic profits of the 1%. Then gradually increase the number of people to whom the legal protections are afforded while deporting any and every person who is not here legally and has committed any additional crimes.
Anything less is a support of human slavery.
This is all being done to invite a new wave of slave labor to migrate north. The current group will get their pseudo-legal status and then they'll quickly see their wages and working conditions tank as they are displaced by the new wave.
To truly help people, close the border down so no more slave laborers can get through to further depress wages/conditions. I realize this will slow the fantastic profits of the 1%. Then gradually increase the number of people to whom the legal protections are afforded while deporting any and every person who is not here legally and has committed any additional crimes.
Anything less is a support of human slavery.
19
Did you actually read the policy? Perhaps you are among the folks Jimmy Fallon interviewed asking if they preferred Obamacare or the Affordable Healthcare Act. Steadfastly they proclaimed the virtues of the later while stubbornly denouncing the former as socialist, unworkable and unfair. Do you know who the executive action applies to? I would suggest no based on your comments. And duh, many of the 1% are donors to guess which party?
2
The Pilgrims were illegal immigrants seeking freedom to practice their own religion and a better life. How ironic that their descendants are now looking to deny better lives and freedom of religion to so many others--"illegal" or not.
13
Actually, this is a nonsense statement. There were no laws about immigration or much of anything else, so how can they be illegal? They were not.
1
What documented immigration laws did the Pilgrims violate that would have made them illegal? Did they, in the dead of night, berth their ship and sneak past the Plymouth Rock customs officials station?
1
And honestly, my Native American relatives around 'Georgia' have for years wondered just what the devil kind of immigration policy the Wampanoag thought they were pursuing. Letting in -those- people!
4
I just love that the right now relies on activist judges to further their cause. Of course, the left relies on big money donors, so it all kind of evens out.
7
How is it activist to support the written law?
4
"Tear down this wall!" was the challenge issued by United States President Ronald Reagan.
10
the USA has "no wall'"
1
An opinion piece published in the NY Times should be a discourse that is mostly free of pejorative language and should seek to persuade the reader of the writer's point of view via fact. This column is as blatant an example of bias as I have seen.
Regardless of the merits of the Board's opinion, this bias renders todays column an nonstarter.
Regardless of the merits of the Board's opinion, this bias renders todays column an nonstarter.
15
Bill, it seems that certain "facts" were not addressed in the piece, such as metrics, supporting articles, or results reported by non-partisan groups.
1
"The states’ standing to sue is dubious; their claims of damage are speculative at best. There is no evidence that executive action will do anything to increase illegal immigration, and there is clear data showing that giving work permits to immigrants who are already here helps, not hurts, state economies."
Ha! It's all in day's work for the Five Amigos on SCOTUS to make the weaker argument appear the stronger.
Witness how they made the Voting Rights Act legal road kill.
Scalia, Thomas, and Alito will go along with it because they incarnate the Rodney Dangerfield principle of jurisprudence: "You don't give me no respect, so I'll show you!"
Quirky Kennedy may go along with it depending upon what side of the bed he got up on that day.
And Umpire John Roberts will go along with it if he feels that his legacy is still tied to showing how the Founding Fathers really did want the entire country to be run by having 50 different gubernatorial and legislative fiefdoms beholden to no one but redistricting programing geniuses, the politics of rage and resentment -- brought to you by the FoxBaugh-O'Hannity media combine -- and goofy presidential ambitions of the likes of any of the Pick-Six Republican Governors running on a platform of turning the U.S. back into a tribal "commonwealth."
Witness Bobby Jindal, for example, he of the Republican party has to avoid being the party of stupid, off playing at being stupid with his remarks about no go Islamic zones in Europe.
Ha! It's all in day's work for the Five Amigos on SCOTUS to make the weaker argument appear the stronger.
Witness how they made the Voting Rights Act legal road kill.
Scalia, Thomas, and Alito will go along with it because they incarnate the Rodney Dangerfield principle of jurisprudence: "You don't give me no respect, so I'll show you!"
Quirky Kennedy may go along with it depending upon what side of the bed he got up on that day.
And Umpire John Roberts will go along with it if he feels that his legacy is still tied to showing how the Founding Fathers really did want the entire country to be run by having 50 different gubernatorial and legislative fiefdoms beholden to no one but redistricting programing geniuses, the politics of rage and resentment -- brought to you by the FoxBaugh-O'Hannity media combine -- and goofy presidential ambitions of the likes of any of the Pick-Six Republican Governors running on a platform of turning the U.S. back into a tribal "commonwealth."
Witness Bobby Jindal, for example, he of the Republican party has to avoid being the party of stupid, off playing at being stupid with his remarks about no go Islamic zones in Europe.
10
>"...even many Republicans admit that, but they continue to refuse to do anything to fix the system."
They did fix the system: They let stand an immigration law already on the books that Obama is breaking. If Obama would enforce the legislation already there, fewer scofflaws would telegraph back home that illegal immigration actions are rewarded.
They are not suffering now. They arrived--and stayed--_because they wanted to_. Now this president is making it even easier for them to skirt proper channels.
They did fix the system: They let stand an immigration law already on the books that Obama is breaking. If Obama would enforce the legislation already there, fewer scofflaws would telegraph back home that illegal immigration actions are rewarded.
They are not suffering now. They arrived--and stayed--_because they wanted to_. Now this president is making it even easier for them to skirt proper channels.
16
"The party has reverted back to its original strategy: intimidation, exclusion and fear."
Reverted? Really? When have they ever stopped? I fail to see how any element of the right's agenda, which is to stop the clock and revert back to a docile time (for them) when the entire economic and social pie belonged to the white man.
Reverted? Really? When have they ever stopped? I fail to see how any element of the right's agenda, which is to stop the clock and revert back to a docile time (for them) when the entire economic and social pie belonged to the white man.
19
The final sentence says it all: intimidation, exclusion, and fear. This has been the fuel of the GOP since Richard Nixon. Whether it's God, gays, race, or guns the Republican party will find SOME issue to divide us against each other so that the nation's wealth can continue to drift upward into the hands of the petro billionaires who have bought and paid for the former "party of Lincoln" while the "peasants" are distracted by fake crises.
I used to be involved in politics but after years of observing the GOP descend into Medieval thinking and the continued spinelessness of the Democrats (who are only marginally better) I will simply sit back and watch this house of cards crumble. Too bad--it used to be a beautiful country till the fear merchants took over. (I'm talking to YOU Ted Cruz)
I used to be involved in politics but after years of observing the GOP descend into Medieval thinking and the continued spinelessness of the Democrats (who are only marginally better) I will simply sit back and watch this house of cards crumble. Too bad--it used to be a beautiful country till the fear merchants took over. (I'm talking to YOU Ted Cruz)
22
Amen and a great commentary.
3
I accept the humanitarian grounds on which deportation of law abiding 'immigrants' should not happen. In ideal situation I would support it. But our situation is not ideal. We have had chronic unemployment for many years now, more so chronic low wages, especially among the lower skill and lower wage workers with whom the immigrants will compete. So how is increasing this pool of workers not adversely affect the Americans?
It is hypocritical the Republicans should cite this as reasons to be against Obama's executive action. They mostly don't care about the workers otherwise. But the progressives care, right? Just as we argued that the tran pacific trade treaty will short change American workers while benefiting only the corporations.
Also, if crossing a sovereign border without proper paper is not illegal but merely 'undocumented' then what is our sovereignty?
This kind of immigration 'reform' is ultimately a Band aid for all of us. They come looking for better future. The better thing to do is help them do it at home. To do that our democracy needs to work better in order to build an economy equitable to and benefits all workers, not just the top 1%, and let the rest of the world model it, instead of the crony capitalism and corporate feudalism we now have.
We should be a super- power of equitable and humanitarian economy where production and profit are not an end to themselves but the means for all of us to make decent livelihood and to seek happiness, where people matter.
It is hypocritical the Republicans should cite this as reasons to be against Obama's executive action. They mostly don't care about the workers otherwise. But the progressives care, right? Just as we argued that the tran pacific trade treaty will short change American workers while benefiting only the corporations.
Also, if crossing a sovereign border without proper paper is not illegal but merely 'undocumented' then what is our sovereignty?
This kind of immigration 'reform' is ultimately a Band aid for all of us. They come looking for better future. The better thing to do is help them do it at home. To do that our democracy needs to work better in order to build an economy equitable to and benefits all workers, not just the top 1%, and let the rest of the world model it, instead of the crony capitalism and corporate feudalism we now have.
We should be a super- power of equitable and humanitarian economy where production and profit are not an end to themselves but the means for all of us to make decent livelihood and to seek happiness, where people matter.
41
You whole argument about underpaid illegal immigrants taking jobs away from the least educated American workers is a canard that doesn't fly.
Which party is constantly lobbying against raising the minimum wage in this country?
Which party is constantly lobbying against raising the minimum wage in this country?
2
The people who would be protected are ALREADY here. What is it about that that people cannot understand? They are not taking jobs from Americans, they already have jobs that Americans do not want!
2
Why does it not fly? They do compete in the similar kind of jobs, don't they? Demand and supply. When there is more supply of labor, wages go down, and also make it more difficult argument to raise minimum wage. Why would business be compelled to pay more when there are people willing to work for less? If there is a shortage of low skill labor intensive workers instead of a surplus, maybe they would even raise it on their on!
God help us we don't need a ignorant judge ruling on what is not under his Jurisdictions t to do so. Ruling because you have Ideological difference is not ruling on the laws of the land.
10
How can you talk about the laws of the land and then talk about ruling on 'ideology' in the same sentence when this judge appears to be closer to ruling on the laws of the land than our own President?
1
Does your logic also apply to gay marriage?
4
The New York Times Editorial Board has made it very clear over the years that, when it comes to immigration, their top priority is helping illegal immigrants get away with breaking the law. Just something to keep in mind when evaluating the credibility of editorials like this one.
40
Because....first off, their upper class jobs and lifestyle in pricey NYC or Brooklyn are pretty well immune to any problems with illegal aliens taking their jobs away! Unskilled, uneducated illegals are not going to get jobs as columnists or Editors at the NYT.
They also benefit from a big supply of cheap nannies, housekeepers, cleaning services, cab drivers, restaurant workers and the like -- the cheaper the better. They turn their eyes from those making $5 under the table, while whinging about "a $15 minimum wage!"
Mostly though, they are so entrenched in their gated, costly real estate -- co op apartments in the sky, charming Park Slope restored brownstones -- where there is no crime and nobody except affluent whites and asians -- that they have literally no inkling what life is like the rest of us on Planet Earth.
They also benefit from a big supply of cheap nannies, housekeepers, cleaning services, cab drivers, restaurant workers and the like -- the cheaper the better. They turn their eyes from those making $5 under the table, while whinging about "a $15 minimum wage!"
Mostly though, they are so entrenched in their gated, costly real estate -- co op apartments in the sky, charming Park Slope restored brownstones -- where there is no crime and nobody except affluent whites and asians -- that they have literally no inkling what life is like the rest of us on Planet Earth.
12
Contrary to those who think with their guts, the NYT Editorial Board uses their combined little gray cells before publishing an editorial.
Big, big difference, my dear!
Big, big difference, my dear!
2
Wow, for someone who clearly sides with the Republican party, you seem to loathe the "upper class." I thought that hating success was anti-American to Republicans.
As to your substantive arguments, you undercut your own assertions. First you claim that the hated libruls of Brooklyn "benefit from a big supply of cheap nannies, housekeepers, cleaning services, cab drivers, restaurant workers and the like" yet you acknowledge that these well-healed folks by and large belong to the party championing a living wage. Is it the fairness of the wage that you have a problem with, or (as the dog whistles throughout your screed indicate) just extending it to everyone that grates?
Patently you are not a New Yorker, and I assume you're the kind who would never visit here, so it's no surprise that you don't know the extent to which Brooklyn is not just diverse, but majority-minority, with a variety of perspectives and experiences. Given this diversity, which I credit as one of the boroughs best assets, I wonder who really has "no inkling what life is like . . . on Planet Earth."
As to your substantive arguments, you undercut your own assertions. First you claim that the hated libruls of Brooklyn "benefit from a big supply of cheap nannies, housekeepers, cleaning services, cab drivers, restaurant workers and the like" yet you acknowledge that these well-healed folks by and large belong to the party championing a living wage. Is it the fairness of the wage that you have a problem with, or (as the dog whistles throughout your screed indicate) just extending it to everyone that grates?
Patently you are not a New Yorker, and I assume you're the kind who would never visit here, so it's no surprise that you don't know the extent to which Brooklyn is not just diverse, but majority-minority, with a variety of perspectives and experiences. Given this diversity, which I credit as one of the boroughs best assets, I wonder who really has "no inkling what life is like . . . on Planet Earth."
1
These people just never give up, do they?
It's a shame that the large increase of conservative governors were swept in at the last election
It's a shame that people who didn't bother to vote also did not realize the consequences of their non action.
It's a shame that the large increase of conservative governors were swept in at the last election
It's a shame that people who didn't bother to vote also did not realize the consequences of their non action.
20
Enforce the laws on the books, end the shame.
4
Judge Andrew Hanen took an oath to uphold the laws and constitution as did President Obama. Which one of these men is doing his job? The answer is crystal clear.
10
This is another example of the right-wing's approach to opposing all reforms: if you can't win the argument on the merits (i.e., the facts), try to win it on procedural questions (i.e., it's unconstitutional). This tactic is seen in the Republicans' opposition to health care reform, climate change actions, and, now, immigration reform. Defense attorneys usually resort to this ploy when they realize they can't win the case any other way. Let's hope the courts are wise to this trick.
60
Mike, what are the "merits" of rewarding several million law breakers with what they broke the law to get, especially since this administration has absolutely no intention of deporting anyone other than the most violent of felons--and maybe not even those, judging by its recent release of 36,000.
4
Once again the party of fiscal responsibility pursues another expensive trek through the courts to undermine the Obama administration. How many of these fiscal follies will the Republicans attempt before they admit the futility of them all?
24
Are you not aware, Jim, that our immigration mess is entirely Obama's fault?
The administration is supposed to ENFORCE existing laws. Obama cannot just pick and choose what he wants to enforce based on his whims. To allow and actually encourage people to enter the country illegally is an act of TREASON. The states bringing the lawsuit certainly do have standing to bring the suit on behalf of their CITIZENS.
30
I guess you just cannot comprehend 'prosecutorial discretion' friend. What it means is that the state has discretion on how it enforces laws in view of the scarcity of resources. By focusing on the deportation of criminals, the Obama Administration is allocating the nation's immigration resources in a rational manner. The same cannot be said of the opposition in Congress. Finally, standing is determined according to federal statutes and case precedent, and it is likely that the states have no standing to sue regarding immigration enforcement.
Our time would be better served by passing legislation which would finally fix the problem of the undocumented in our nation, but it seems that the Republican Party's cowardice in facing the issue will not go away until it is thoroughly drubbed again in a Presidential Election.
Our time would be better served by passing legislation which would finally fix the problem of the undocumented in our nation, but it seems that the Republican Party's cowardice in facing the issue will not go away until it is thoroughly drubbed again in a Presidential Election.
15
a reasonable choice is not a whim. if the pres were targeting only mexicans from Guerrero you would have a point. and since his initiative is aimed at people who have been here for years, how does it encourage new immigrants who are being deported at record numbers?
your passion overcomes your reason
your passion overcomes your reason
15
You do know the Obama did not bring people here. And if you see the average lawn crew (anywhere from Long Island to Texas) you can be sure that there are illegals working - none of them hired by Obama. Nor is disobediance to any law treason; treason is fairly specific. By the way, Obama does not push enforcement of the marijauna laws either.
8
>"...and there is clear data showing that giving work permits to immigrants who are already here helps, not hurts, state economies."
Yeah? Not their citizens--or their ever diminishing chances at gainful employment in 'creative class' jobs like editorial, fashion, advertising, media, which are now opened up to DREAMers because of the executive branch dictat. It's why your own progressive leftist readership is freaked out.
Yeah? Not their citizens--or their ever diminishing chances at gainful employment in 'creative class' jobs like editorial, fashion, advertising, media, which are now opened up to DREAMers because of the executive branch dictat. It's why your own progressive leftist readership is freaked out.
13
I've cut all relations with Republicans of any sort and I'm feeling better all the time. There's too many people to interact with as it is--cutting out half frees up a little room. Possibly if we deported them all--the Republicans, I mean--we'd be even better off as a country. But for now, just cutting them off socially seems to work.
9
Your 1% overlords are pleased that instead of blaming them, you fall for the myth of Republican/Democrat.
11
I have no doubt the lawsuit is a meritless screed, but so is this editorial. It continues the Time's tradition of relentlessly justifying illegal immigration with the flimsiest of excuses despite the overwhelming evidence that it is hurting Americans in the bottom income ranks at a time when the Time's own reporting documents how income inequality is unsustainable. The Times position is radical and it gives progressives a black eye. Your editorials on this subject are as radical as Texas politicians are reactionary. American's are welcoming people, but they resent being coerced. You write there is "no evidence that executive action will do anything to increase illegal immigration." Give me a break, will ya? If you think repeatedly accommodating illegal immigration with social services, education, drivers licenses, work permits just because they aliens don't commit felonies is a good public policy, and does not incent behavior you need a refresher course in basic psychology or economics.
44
It all comes down to money and other resources, which is why the GOP lawsuit, like the rest of their magical thinking, doesn't make any sense. There is only so much money appropriated for the agencies that deport illegal immigrants. I understand there is money to process about 400,000. Also, I read that the Obama administration has been deporting about twice as many as during the Bush administration. It seems obvious that Obama's strategy is, as the article says, to focus on the real criminals and to leave aside the productive possible citizens. If anybody thinks that we are going to deport 12,000,000 people they are going to have to appropriate a LOT more money for the job and, it's pretty obvious it isn't going to happen. And a lot of those folks own property, employ others, etc. So what are they thinking? It seems the GOP idea is to spread fear and uncertainty through the entire illegal community rather than to weed out the real criminals, (and, no I don't consider merely being in the US criminal any more than I do driving 80 mph in a 60 zone criminal.) To continue that analogy, why spend all the resources pulling over everybody driving safely on a flat, empty road at 80 when you could go after the drunks, car thieves and malefactors with outstanding warrants? The real GOP failure is to see this as a political matter rather than a sociological and economic one, as well as one of basic human decency. God forbid that these illegals should ever qualify for citizenship!
3
Obama's "prosecutorial discretion" argument is as bogus as the plaintiff's assertions that the immigration 'reforms' would damage their states economy. Obama wants the Latino votes for the Democrats, and the States want the illegals to go home.
7
Who's paying for this lawsuit?
Sounds like another example of Republicans being penny-wise but pound-foolish with taxpayer money.
Sounds like another example of Republicans being penny-wise but pound-foolish with taxpayer money.
6
Is it time for the President and Congress to stop posturing and start governing. Logically and legally immigration is a process and not an act. But we have suffered and permitted immigration by arrival to such an extent that people from other countries have assumed the law exists on paper and not in fact. There are at least eleven reasons to believe that is so.
The President is charged, constitutionally, with executing the laws passed by Congress. Among those are laws which regulate immigration and set limits on green cards, which are issued by the authority of Congress and not the President. No matter whether Congress acts or does not act, President Obama was correct in his prior assertions he does not have power to change the system of immigration as he now asserts. To now assert the opposite does him no credit and ultimately makes passage of reform more difficult.
What is needed is a bill centered around the rights of citizens to protect jobs, wages, and public safety against undocumented immigration. Such a bill must make the path to citizenship for existing undocumented residents contingent upon measurable success in stopping the continued flow of undocumented workers. But it must be fair to those already here and acknowledge the simple fact that we do not have the resources to deport them nor are we so ungenerous as to want to. This is the position the Times Editorial Board should be supporting.
The President is charged, constitutionally, with executing the laws passed by Congress. Among those are laws which regulate immigration and set limits on green cards, which are issued by the authority of Congress and not the President. No matter whether Congress acts or does not act, President Obama was correct in his prior assertions he does not have power to change the system of immigration as he now asserts. To now assert the opposite does him no credit and ultimately makes passage of reform more difficult.
What is needed is a bill centered around the rights of citizens to protect jobs, wages, and public safety against undocumented immigration. Such a bill must make the path to citizenship for existing undocumented residents contingent upon measurable success in stopping the continued flow of undocumented workers. But it must be fair to those already here and acknowledge the simple fact that we do not have the resources to deport them nor are we so ungenerous as to want to. This is the position the Times Editorial Board should be supporting.
2
Since was does granting work permits to illegal aliens constitute "prosecutional discretion?" This is a new "right" created out of thin air by Mr. Obama who conveniently throws poor blacks and other citizens under the bus in his quest for relevance.
14
Since when does the executive branch exercise, or otherwise dictate, prosecutorial discretion?
Readers, fellow commenters, my fellow (legal) citizens. Those od us who choose to call the people here who are undocumented as "illegal" or "illegals" are a disgrace to our country, our constitution and more speifically, our Bill of Rights. If there is a player in this process who is "illegal" and should have their actions penalized by a huge fine and the threat of losing there own "God Given"(man, I hate that phrase) US citizenry it is those employing these people at a hideous wage, not paying payroll taxes, no workers compensation, the list goes on. The same people crying (illegal) wolf, are those who want to maintain this hideous program of people risking their lives to work a crappy job for almost no money and then turn a blind eye to them when they need a basic service that our country provides it's (legal) citizens. There are actual "God Given" US citizens who want to deport the parents of children who were born here. The President's executive action is not merely "granting relief" just to these "illegal" people, it is also forgiving American businesses from the embarrassment and financial setback for their disgraceful practices spanning decades.
5
None of the comments so far have mentioned the one thing which struck me as an outsider. No matter what the merits of the case it should be considered as a matter of justice. How can one expect a case to be justly considered by a person with the prejudices attributed to this judge.
8
Actually, read the link presented in the article. You will see that the NYTimes made up the 'prejudices' out of thin air.
3
Most Americans aren't going to react favorably to yet-another-amnesty program that isn't accompanied by a real closure of the border. Until we truly close the border the lure of the jobs and the next amnesty will be continue to draw illegals across this country's southern border. Both parties have shown an amazing level of reluctance to deal with this problem.
16
Hey, NYT Editorial Board, did you even read the article you linked to? Nowhere in it does the judge "accuse the Obama administration of criminally conspiring with Mexican drug cartels to smuggle children over the border". The judge notes that a woman illegally in the United States paid a Mexican criminal organization to smuggle her child illegally into the U.S. The Border Patrol rescued the child from the smuggler, but then rather than delivering the child to a Mexican consulate for repatriation or otherwise enforcing U.S. law against illegal entry, delivered the child to the mother (at U.S. taxpayer expense). The judge stated that in so doing the BP "actually assisted the conspiracy in achieving its illegal goals"; nowhere does he say the USG conspired with anyone, but rather the USG's actions de facto allowed the conspiracy between the mother and the smugglers to successfuly introduce the child into the United States in violation of our laws. You may disagree with this characterization, but it is not some bizarre, unhinged reading of the facts as you insinuate. Now, I get how you want to preemptively defame a federal judge you fear might deliver a ruling that could undermine your extremist agenda, but lying - or being so reckless with the facts as to elimnate any meaningful distinction between recklessness and mendacity -- really does a disservice to your readers and undermines your credibility on this and on all other issues.
17
The only "illegals" who should be considered for any reprieve or regularization are (a) persons brought in as a children, and (b) those born here. That takes care of fairness and justice tempered with mercy. There is no need for any other concession.
3
You do, of course, realize that those "born here" are NOT illegals ?
US Constitution, Amendment 14: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
US Constitution, Amendment 14: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
10
Those born here are already citizens.
5
If conservatives keep trying to throw roadblocks at progress and purposely hurt America’s economy to win political battles, maybe one day they will succeed and while living homeless under highway overpasses, they can brag they were right all along.
2
Give us all a break. This is about padding future democrat voter rolls, nothing more. If "undocumented migrants" were projected to vote overwhelmingly for teh GOP in teh future democrats would be pounding their "nativist" drum, lead by the NYT.
11
The NYT has reached the point of printing a screed to defend an blantently undemocracic act by an over reaching President of the United States. Unblievable.
12
The saddest part is that so many argue about jobs and wages FIRST.
I am sure, no matter your religion or political persuasion, that almost no one believes that these are paramount issues of life.
Leading a good life, being compassionate and loving will count for more than jobs and buying yet more junk.
There are plenty of jobs, just not ones that are wanted or conveniently located.
I am sure, no matter your religion or political persuasion, that almost no one believes that these are paramount issues of life.
Leading a good life, being compassionate and loving will count for more than jobs and buying yet more junk.
There are plenty of jobs, just not ones that are wanted or conveniently located.
1
Jobs and wages are of paramount importance to millions of persons whom I'm sure you pretend to care about when it's socially and professionally advantageous.
1
The only effective policy to fight unwanted immigration is to make staying home attractive. Job one should be to end the war on drugs and try to help undo the terrible damage done by this massively failed policy.
4
There is something about the politics of all this that has long puzzled me: why do politicians believe that taking stiff action on illegal immigrants will kill their chances with Hispanic voters? That bloc is no less law abiding than the rest of us, and is inordinately affected by downward pressure on wages caused by illegals.
If the Republican party can get past their lunatic Angry White Man phase they could neutralize the issue among Hispanic voters by appealing to them on economic grounds and going after employers with as much vigor as illegal workers. But until they jettison their racism, this isn't going any where. Which is a shame, because even liberals can agree with conservatives that letting 11 million undocumented workers stay here is not going to help our poor working class any.
If the Republican party can get past their lunatic Angry White Man phase they could neutralize the issue among Hispanic voters by appealing to them on economic grounds and going after employers with as much vigor as illegal workers. But until they jettison their racism, this isn't going any where. Which is a shame, because even liberals can agree with conservatives that letting 11 million undocumented workers stay here is not going to help our poor working class any.
6
Congress is in session. Congress can act as outlined in the Constitution. Pass legislation or impeach the President for not enforcing the law.
If the Congress fails to act, even by appropriating sufficient money for enforcement, how shall the President enforce the law?
The border with Mexico is 1954 miles of rivers, mountains, agricultural land and deserts. It is thinly populated for most of that distance. How high should a barricade be? How densely shall guards be placed?
How should we identify people who are not in the US legally? Shall we use accents, clothing possibly skin tone? According to some commenters, illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans. Should the Congress make it a crime to knowingly employ a person who is in the country illegally?
The new Republican majority in Congress has the power to act.
If the Congress fails to act, even by appropriating sufficient money for enforcement, how shall the President enforce the law?
The border with Mexico is 1954 miles of rivers, mountains, agricultural land and deserts. It is thinly populated for most of that distance. How high should a barricade be? How densely shall guards be placed?
How should we identify people who are not in the US legally? Shall we use accents, clothing possibly skin tone? According to some commenters, illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans. Should the Congress make it a crime to knowingly employ a person who is in the country illegally?
The new Republican majority in Congress has the power to act.
6
Three consecutive Republican presidents created the immigration mess by refusing to enforce existing penalties against employers hiring so-called illegals. Then Republicans, in their never-ending hypocrisy, try to exploit the mess for political gain by blaming Obama. Typical.
23
",,, The party has reverted back to its original strategy: intimidation, exclusion and fear." AND outright lies! e.g.: Hannity's recent criminally absurd claim about off-limits European Muslim areas. As for Romney, it's time for him to self-deport (teleport?) to Planet Kolob.
8
Before you call the undocumented workers criminals, ask yourself one simple question. How is it that millions of undocumented workers are able to work? Who is hiring them and paying them? And why are those that hire illegal immigrants not considered criminals themselves?
Republicans live with the double standard, with the idea that the illegal immigrants are criminals,but that those that hire them are victims. It is a corollary to their argument that poor people are simply lazy takers, while the rich are the job creating makers, and that taxation victimizes the rich, and rewards the poor.
If we want to end illegal immigration, put the bosses who hire them in jail. If we want to end poverty, pay the poor a living wage and tax the rich back into the middle class. But the Republicans will never go there. After all, it is the rich bosses who are the Republican Party. So they will continue the lie that the poor, the illegals, the worker ants, are takers, and they, the rich, the nobility, are the victimized makers.
Republicans live with the double standard, with the idea that the illegal immigrants are criminals,but that those that hire them are victims. It is a corollary to their argument that poor people are simply lazy takers, while the rich are the job creating makers, and that taxation victimizes the rich, and rewards the poor.
If we want to end illegal immigration, put the bosses who hire them in jail. If we want to end poverty, pay the poor a living wage and tax the rich back into the middle class. But the Republicans will never go there. After all, it is the rich bosses who are the Republican Party. So they will continue the lie that the poor, the illegals, the worker ants, are takers, and they, the rich, the nobility, are the victimized makers.
46
Something obvious about the lawsuit; it is not being filed on the Canadian border. Only on the border where the brown people cross.
If you see three Mexican men in a pickup truck you can be sure they are on their way to earn some money somehow. Maybe by mowing your lawn or shoveling your snow. But they are easy to spot and for many, easy to blame.
The real lawbreakers are the businesses that hire these people and pay them less than they could get away with paying someone legal.
If you see three Mexican men in a pickup truck you can be sure they are on their way to earn some money somehow. Maybe by mowing your lawn or shoveling your snow. But they are easy to spot and for many, easy to blame.
The real lawbreakers are the businesses that hire these people and pay them less than they could get away with paying someone legal.
Everyone talks about immigration reform, but nothing happens. Obama did EVERYTHING in terms of heightened deportations and multiplying the security at the border that the GOP demanded in order to pass a bill, yet time and time again they failed to act and quite frankly the amount of money being thrown at this was far too much considering all the other issues the country needs to fix. I believe Obama was avoiding taking executive action waiting for Congress to get it's act together, and after studying what was possible, issue the prosecutorial discretion order that merely prioritizes deportations to the more dangerous, or less rooted with family individuals and brings the rest into government oversight until Congress gets around to passing a viable bill. With legal status, employers cannot exploit immigrants for lower under the table wages, and any citizen who actually wants that job can compete on a level playing field. I'm afraid I do not understand the outcry beyond the prejudice of the people crying foul.
10
Obama did nothing to increase border security. Since announcing in 2012 that he will be legalizing those here illegally, the border attempts for crossing have increased 500%. With that kind of increase, it would be hard to not stop more people. Taken as a percentage, he has done an abysmal job, as he knows.
There is no prejudice here; those against illegal immigration really don't care what color or country you come from. It just happens that China and France are not located on the border.
If you really believe that bringing all these illegal immigrants to the US will increase every citizens' ability to compete on a level playing field, you have been MIA in recent decades. The laws of this country vastly favor minorities, from everything to college entry to getting a government job. If you are a minority, you will get the job. I do wonder what will happen once the story flips and non-Hispanic whites become the minority - will they then get the advantage? I doubt it. Sad, the hypocrisy and ignorance in some of these comments.
There is no prejudice here; those against illegal immigration really don't care what color or country you come from. It just happens that China and France are not located on the border.
If you really believe that bringing all these illegal immigrants to the US will increase every citizens' ability to compete on a level playing field, you have been MIA in recent decades. The laws of this country vastly favor minorities, from everything to college entry to getting a government job. If you are a minority, you will get the job. I do wonder what will happen once the story flips and non-Hispanic whites become the minority - will they then get the advantage? I doubt it. Sad, the hypocrisy and ignorance in some of these comments.
Relax everyone, the lawyers are figuring it out in the Court system, just like anything that is done in the United States these days. I see many respondents complaining of the NYT's lack of the words "illegal immigrants" and many excoriating Mr.Obama's "dictatorial" stance on the issue versus the plans put forth by the Democrats or the GOP/TP (Could someone remind me of just what those "plans" entailed?).
Is the problem with "illegals" the high crime rate they bring with them? Are they taking jobs away from Americans who would love to mow your lawn for five bucks an hour? Are they just plain old "messy, smelly and scary"(The crowds screaming at the borders certainly scare ME not to mention the home grown militias sport shooting illegals as a pastime)?
Or is it just plain old racism coupled with xenophobia?
"Legal scholars", whatever THEY are, can babble, paperwork will be shuffled (Lot's of "billable" hours here!) and judges "appointed" as political favors will temporarily sort the "legal" mess out but who on earth will sort out the "moral" mess of the country that promises, at least at one border, to embrace "the huddled masses yearning to be free".
It seems that on the Southern border those masses are yearning to be "litigated" with the core issue of prejudice shunted aside.
Sometimes I think the country is "deporting" the wrong people but that's material for a different comment; not enough space left here.
Is the problem with "illegals" the high crime rate they bring with them? Are they taking jobs away from Americans who would love to mow your lawn for five bucks an hour? Are they just plain old "messy, smelly and scary"(The crowds screaming at the borders certainly scare ME not to mention the home grown militias sport shooting illegals as a pastime)?
Or is it just plain old racism coupled with xenophobia?
"Legal scholars", whatever THEY are, can babble, paperwork will be shuffled (Lot's of "billable" hours here!) and judges "appointed" as political favors will temporarily sort the "legal" mess out but who on earth will sort out the "moral" mess of the country that promises, at least at one border, to embrace "the huddled masses yearning to be free".
It seems that on the Southern border those masses are yearning to be "litigated" with the core issue of prejudice shunted aside.
Sometimes I think the country is "deporting" the wrong people but that's material for a different comment; not enough space left here.
5
'Meritless screed wrapped in flimsy legal cloth'?
I think the administration is exercising prosecutorial discretion.
But your shrill description of this lawsuit makes me think it has you running scared.
I think the administration is exercising prosecutorial discretion.
But your shrill description of this lawsuit makes me think it has you running scared.
10
Sweet reason Texas style.
Living on land stolen from Mexico and whining about Mexicans.
Living on land stolen from Mexico and whining about Mexicans.
12
Same old NYT liberal screed. Let them come illegally, let them stay, let them take jobs from American citizens, let them have welfare benefits! Obama and the NYT just want more future democratic party voters so they can destroy what is left of a great country.
16
The foundation of this country (America) is based on EQUAL treatment for ALL. Amnesty for illegal aliens is based on SPECIAL treatment for SOME. It is patently unfair to LEGAL immigrants, immigrants waiting their turns in their home countries, and Americans who have long generational roots in this country. Special treatment for some is the antithesis of what it means to be an American.
19
The President is not offering amnesty, but a move to the back of the deportation line – a delay of 5 years – for those who meet certain requirements.
Special treatment for parents of children born here, i.e. US citizens, is more reasonable than splitting families.
Please think about this in terms of individual human beings instead of a blanket one-size-fits-all, deport-'em-all policy (which cannot possibly be accomplished anyway).
Special treatment for parents of children born here, i.e. US citizens, is more reasonable than splitting families.
Please think about this in terms of individual human beings instead of a blanket one-size-fits-all, deport-'em-all policy (which cannot possibly be accomplished anyway).
34
Sorry..we can add North Chicago bus destinations for Illegals who cross the Arizona boarder also...didn't mean to leave y'all out.
Sally B., no such thing. Recipients of DACA, for example, HAVE NO LINE at all to get into. As for "splitting up families", mom and dad can always take the kids back home. Fact is, their kids can't sponsor them for residency here until they're grown, so that's 21 years. Meanwhile, there is NO LEGAL BASIS for mom and dad to remain here--even with the EO, they're still illegal aliens. And why reward people who have kids here literally at our expense? Think that won't encourage even more to do just that?
3
Human beings as a species are not native to either North or South America. Every person (even Republicans) residing in the United States today is either a recent immigrant or a descendant of immigrants. The first immigration laws excluded criminals, prostitutes, anarchists, the feeble-minded, and certain "races" (Chinese and Japanese for the most part). It was not until 1952 that federal immigration law ceased to discriminate on the basis of race. Since then the idea has been to allow useful people in and to exclude those who are not. Based on that criteria almost all "illegals" in this country should be granted visas and most of our politicians, lobbyists, and Wall Streeters should be deported. Alternatively, all those who vote in favor of deporting Latinos should be denied the services that the Latino community provides and which the Anglo community declines to provide. Thus, for example, such Anglos would be required to pay $15.00 a pound for tomatoes picked by non-Latinos and paid minimum wage (assuming any Anglos will volunteer for such work). The rest of us will continue to pay the normal $4.00 per pound picked by Latinos.
9
So basically: you want to EXPLOIT illegal aliens, to get cheap tomatoes?
Dude, I can live without tomatoes. Or grow my own.
I am not going to give my country away and destroy the integrity of our borders, in order to get cheap tomatoes. Shame on you!
Dude, I can live without tomatoes. Or grow my own.
I am not going to give my country away and destroy the integrity of our borders, in order to get cheap tomatoes. Shame on you!
8
Actually, that is not true. But using your logic, no country has the right to stop anyone from entering their country. We are all descendants from somewhere else. Every single one.
5
Did you just defend exploitation wages?
3
To call the states' claim of damages as speculative at best is just plain wrong. What is speculative is saying that immigrants want to pay taxes. The IRS itself says 25% of earned income claims (which allow for refundable credits are fraudulent). Many immigrants are well versed in how to report a low amount of income and get back a refund.
As the states' suit makes clear, there is a vast difference between not deporting every illegal alien and giving them a free pass. The Federal Government's position would be like someone saying that because NYC police cannot arrest every speeder, they should give speeders a card saying they are entitled to speed.
Most Americans are not anti-immigrant, but many are anti-illegal immigrant.
As the states' suit makes clear, there is a vast difference between not deporting every illegal alien and giving them a free pass. The Federal Government's position would be like someone saying that because NYC police cannot arrest every speeder, they should give speeders a card saying they are entitled to speed.
Most Americans are not anti-immigrant, but many are anti-illegal immigrant.
14
And most are anti-fraud.
2
With so many openly-hostile-to-Obama federal judges and Supreme Court judges in the U.S., I'm afraid you're editorial probably underestimates their ability to block any kind of progress on anything anywhere. It's an ideological battle at the root of it. Rock solid to the NYT, perhaps. But not to these kinds of judges, who are from the anti-science, anti-social progress branch of the GOP. Facts and figures mean little to them. Not to mention moral consistency.
3
U.S. citizenship is a privilege, not an entitlement. My own understanding of Title 8, United States Code, which I administer as part of my official duties for the Federal government, is based on privilege and not entitlement. What all these people seeking U.S. citizenship are asking for is to be grandfathered in, despite having broken a very important law or several laws, and having thus committed a felony crime. We should not lower our legal standards just because some Democrat cynically wishes to garner Latino votes for his party. The social costs for having connived with illegal immigration are massive: depressed wages, lowered standards of living, the introduction of diseases like dengue fever which hitherto did not trouble our nation in a major outbreak, and especially the cartels with their drug dealing and related drug gang proliferation. Let's all do a Nancy Reagan and just say no to this misbegotten and self-serving legalization initiative.
16
As a Texas resident, I would perhaps accept the Times' view on illegal immigration if the Federal Government picked up the costs associated with them that currently fall disproportionately on the individual cities and states. Specifically education (at $125,000/child for grades pre-k through 12th), health care and welfare/housing. When that burden is equally shared then the Federal Government can say it is a federal issue, not a local one.
12
In the furor over how to treat so-called illegal aliens, where is a consideration of the "push" factors that drove them here? To what extent have they been displaced from their own country's economy by our country's free trade policies (i.e., NAFTA)?
Immigration is complex issue--so let's treat it that way and do a bit of self-examination in the process.
Immigration is complex issue--so let's treat it that way and do a bit of self-examination in the process.
6
NAFTA was the worst idea ever. Destroyed stable rural communities across Mexico. Needs to go away completely, but it's too late for many.
3
For decades, open border advocate assured us that only a tiny percent of illegal immigrants were criminals. Now they tell us that so many are criminals that we can only devote resources to deporting illegal immigrants who commit violent felonies.
12
You forget that the NYTimes and the 'progressives' do not believe that non-violent crimes are an issue. Do not believe that one should be arrested even if the crime is non-violent. Of course non-violent is yet to be seriously defined, but today that means shop lifting, robbery on the street when no weapon is involved, home break-ins, traffic issues such as jay walking or peeing on the street, or animal torture and abuse. People that do these things had bad parents, grew up in lousy areas, or are mentally incapable of being held responsible. Pretty soon, we'll be surrounded by the mentally incapable!
3
The entire Southwest was invaded, colonized and stolen from the Mexican peoples.
All people with ancient indigenous American ancestors have every right to be here.
The laws of humanity should be the rule.
All people with ancient indigenous American ancestors have every right to be here.
The laws of humanity should be the rule.
7
The nation of Mexico, a country whose residents speak a European language, was of course itself a colonizer of the Southwest before the U.S. was. To make your points air-tight, I'd stick with describing the original human residents of the Americas as "indigenous peoples" and not "Mexican peoples." (Their ancestors came from someplace else too originally, but an awfully long time ago.)
6
And I'm sure the Mexican people stole the land from some earlier group. And that group stole it from another. For an "Einstein" I think you need to go back to school and learn about reality. And as far as the laws of humanity. Look at ISIS. They are part of humanity. Want to live under their laws?
11
Einstein: "The entire Southwest was invaded, colonized and stolen from the Mexican peoples."
The Southwest was invaded and colonized by Spanish armies, not American. The great problem that Mexican dictator Santa Anna had was that there were so few inhabitants living in Tejas (Texas) and the southwest to oppose the American settlers who flooded into the barren vacuum.
The Southwest was invaded and colonized by Spanish armies, not American. The great problem that Mexican dictator Santa Anna had was that there were so few inhabitants living in Tejas (Texas) and the southwest to oppose the American settlers who flooded into the barren vacuum.
11
The real problem is not how the judge will rule, but the fact that 28 states brought the lawsuit. Anyone who thinks a judge's ruling will end the opposition to Obama's policies has little feel for politics.
14
Chaos, confusion, anxiety - the editorial board has identified the central theme of GOP'ers (Guardians of Plutocracy; hat tip to commenter Jeff - Chicago).
59
It's unfortunate that the President didn't go farther in his effort to address America's undocumented worker issue, by making the case for how our past and current policies have helped set in motion this tidal waves of emigres seeking relief.
Consider the impact of America's now 40+ year old war on drugs - a war that has not made it difficult for anyone attempting to obtain narcotics in America, nor brought in the revenues necessary to pay for the preventive and rehabilitative efforts our citizens desperately need, but has absolutely empowered drug gangs and cartels across Latin America, in the process utterly destabilizing many of these nations, and forcing their citizens to increasingly run for their lives.
Consider also the impact of NAFTA, and how this free trade agreement helped undermine Mexican farmers, through importation of cheap industrially-farmed agricultural products, and thus made these farmers apt candidates for a journey to America.
The only credible way to stem the waves of immigrants seeking to illegally enter or stay in this country is to address the numerous ways that America contributes to the economic and social problems that plague these nations. We cannot fix all of them - but we can and must do a better job of cleaning up our side of the street.
For instance, ending our failed war on drugs will not magically solve all of Latin America's crime problems - but it will absolutely make it easier to its leaders to solve them.
Consider the impact of America's now 40+ year old war on drugs - a war that has not made it difficult for anyone attempting to obtain narcotics in America, nor brought in the revenues necessary to pay for the preventive and rehabilitative efforts our citizens desperately need, but has absolutely empowered drug gangs and cartels across Latin America, in the process utterly destabilizing many of these nations, and forcing their citizens to increasingly run for their lives.
Consider also the impact of NAFTA, and how this free trade agreement helped undermine Mexican farmers, through importation of cheap industrially-farmed agricultural products, and thus made these farmers apt candidates for a journey to America.
The only credible way to stem the waves of immigrants seeking to illegally enter or stay in this country is to address the numerous ways that America contributes to the economic and social problems that plague these nations. We cannot fix all of them - but we can and must do a better job of cleaning up our side of the street.
For instance, ending our failed war on drugs will not magically solve all of Latin America's crime problems - but it will absolutely make it easier to its leaders to solve them.
73
The NAFTA trade imbalance favors Mexico. According to the White House, "The U.S. goods trade deficit with NAFTA was $86.0 billion in 2013, a 7.5% decrease ($7 billion) over 2012. The U.S. goods trade deficit with NAFTA accounted for 12.5% of the overall U.S. goods trade deficit in 2013." NAFTA is one reason that unemployment is lower in Mexico than in the United States.
4
Actually, it was Mexico that sought the NAFTA agreement as well as the Dems and some Reps. The idea was a joke, but the outcome is as you say - millions of rural farmers could not make a living. Mexico delights in illegal immigration as it brings in billions of US dollars, which their politicians and gov't employees take a chunk before it gets to the rural families left behind.
No excuse not to stop illegal immigrants, but a great reason to eliminate NAFTA and allow Mexico to become a part of the global market. Won't help overnight as they are so mired in corruption, but in the long term, I hope it helps the citizens living there.
Of course, NAFTA is not solely responsible for illegal immigration as that was happening LONG before NAFTA. But it did exacerbate the problem.
No excuse not to stop illegal immigrants, but a great reason to eliminate NAFTA and allow Mexico to become a part of the global market. Won't help overnight as they are so mired in corruption, but in the long term, I hope it helps the citizens living there.
Of course, NAFTA is not solely responsible for illegal immigration as that was happening LONG before NAFTA. But it did exacerbate the problem.
4
For what we spend on our military to keep oil flowing unimpeded to industry, and profits flowing to oil business, we could put every young man and woman in the world to work on improving someone's infrastructure somewhere.
Imagine modern sanitation in African and Indian countrysides. Imagine millions of young Pakistanis and Egyptians building roads and schools. Imagine, then, no IS, no Queda, no terrorism. Put them to work building their countries and they will be too tired to strap on a suicide bomb. And they will be too proud of their accomplishments to want to blow them up.
Imagine modern sanitation in African and Indian countrysides. Imagine millions of young Pakistanis and Egyptians building roads and schools. Imagine, then, no IS, no Queda, no terrorism. Put them to work building their countries and they will be too tired to strap on a suicide bomb. And they will be too proud of their accomplishments to want to blow them up.
It sounds like the NYT Editorial Board is really worried about this one. Mr. Obama himself said he couldn't take these actions then changed his mind. Tour hypocrisy is so obvious. WhenGWB issued signing statements you went crazy. They are nothing compared to this.
Lost in this screed is the fact that the individuals being discussed entered this country illegally. Prosecutorial discretion should be applied individually not to an entire class of law breakers. Yes law breakers. That is what the illegals are. Should we treat them with compassion? Yes but they do not have the same rights of a person here legally.
Lost in this screed is the fact that the individuals being discussed entered this country illegally. Prosecutorial discretion should be applied individually not to an entire class of law breakers. Yes law breakers. That is what the illegals are. Should we treat them with compassion? Yes but they do not have the same rights of a person here legally.
57
So you, and many others miss the point. The government does not have the financial or manpower resources to deport everyone, nor is it a good idea. The executive order just prioritizes deportations to dangerous or recent immigrants, until some form of immigration bill is passed-Congress has dithered on this forever, which will more likely give some kind of legal status to those that the executive order is attempting to cover.
26
Yes, all people who entered this country are law-breakers, but you don't seem to understand one main fact: the government does not have the capability to find and deport all of them, and Republicans will block any attempt to provide enough funding for that (or anything else but war). What provokes, or rather gives them an excuse for, their "outrage" is the idea that deportation should focus on people who commit serious crimes here rather than ones who work diligently at underpaid jobs like farm work or stocking shelves.
65
You need a better yardstick than W. by which to measure presidents.
If you want compassion then be compassionate and don't just talk about it.
If you want compassion then be compassionate and don't just talk about it.
5
This is about the right wing's xenophobia on one level. On another level, it's the same old knee jerk need to destroy absolutely anything Mr. Obama tries to do. The GOP leadership talks a big game about "doing it right," but year after year they have no answer other than some form of 'deport them all' or make them so miserable that they "self deport." The legal Hispanic/Latino population, who can vote, are paying attention.
147
The Hispanic/Latino vote is a currently weak weapon. Unlike senior citizens, they don't register and vote in overwhelming numbers. When they do vote, conservative social and fiscal issues often trump immigration. Many Hispanic citizens only feel solidarity with their extended family, period. And undocumented parents don't make their 18 year old citizen children vote as soon as they're 18.
These behaviors are common to the American working class in general, but unless Hispanics turn it around, they won't have a strong effect on immigration policy. Above all, they need national leaders who inspire and motivate, like the leaders who were crucial the the African-American civil rights movement. Right now, the most prominent Hispanic leaders on the national stage are conservatives.
These behaviors are common to the American working class in general, but unless Hispanics turn it around, they won't have a strong effect on immigration policy. Above all, they need national leaders who inspire and motivate, like the leaders who were crucial the the African-American civil rights movement. Right now, the most prominent Hispanic leaders on the national stage are conservatives.
5
Republicans didn't vote for amnesty when Dubya was peddling it. Were they trying to "destroy" him? And for the record, many Democrats and Independents ALSO oppose amnesty, which is why it hasn't passed when Democrats controlled Congress.
13
I do wish that someone would explain to me under what circumstances and for whom it is acceptable to bring ethnicity or race into a discussion about immigration to the United States. When a U.S. citizen, who is against giving legal status to those foreign nationals who are residing in the U.S. and who did not follow federal immigration law to do so, refers only to Hispanics or Latinos, he or she is often called racist. When a person who is for giving legal status to undocumented immigrants refers only to Hispanics or Latinos during a discussion on immigration, he or she is never called a racist. Why?
9
Dear NY Times - is this the same "rock solid" legal foundation that President Obama said didn't exist? Repeatedly? Is this the same "Prosecutorial Discretion" you questioned when George W. Bush used it via "presidential signing statements?" And by the way, to an unemployed person willing to work as, oh, say Zoe Baird's well-above-minimum-wage nanny, the illegal immigrant who got that job instead isn't a "low priority."
52
Every letter from a conservative makes the same two points: Must have been Rush Limbaugh's theme yesterday.
8
Bush's "signing statements" were not instances of prosecutorial discretion; they were simply declarations that he would ignore provisions of the laws that he didn't like, in violation of his oath. Prosecutorial discretion is the practical result of the fact that DAs and other prosecutors, and courts, do not have the ability to prosecute every violation of the law. Unless people are willing to pay more taxes for more prosecutors, judges, court officers, court reporters and courthouses, and to spend a lot more time on jury duty, those signs that say "Violators will be prosecuted " really mean "if the DA thinks the violation significant enough to warrant the resources."
3
It sounds inconceivable that one federal judge in Texas, all by himself, can block a rational plan to help undocumented immigrants a temporary relief from G.O.P. harassment; it is as if one Congressman could cause the shutdown of government, right? It sounds as though no empathy is allowed, especially in a State whose nativists, until 1848, were mexicans. But accusing Obama's administration using false pretenses is ludicrous, as if it were so easy to peel off our humanity.
98
Of course, if it were a leftist blocking a Republican, this would be "speaking truth to power". Such hypocracy.
7
I'm sorry I need to jump in here for a slight correction: the so called nativists in this and every case are the First Nation people who existed on said ancestral land(s) for thousands of years--not "white" people or Mexicans. I don't know why exactly everyone forgets this...Oh, yeah, because the white man and Mexicans killed them. This is a sad fact no one remembers. How silly of me to forget that Geronimo killed close to 10,000 Mexicans who, at the time were trying to steal his tribal lands.
2
Actually the state was settled with both MeXican and Anglos. It was largely empty, with some Native American populations, and the MeXican government was worried about it. They set up having people come in to settle it.
1
"Granting relief to 4 million people" is a euphemism. It means that 4 million people here illegally will be granted legal status, social security cards, etc.
Those 4 million people will be legally entitled to compete with citizens for jobs.
It means they will be entitled to federal benefits, and state benefits they have not previously had access to.
It is not simply a matter of them not being at risk for deportation, which is what this editorial implies.
And the impact of their changed status will be profound, at both the state and local level. Surely states have a right to object, and to pursue legal means to stop this action--as the President pursued legal means to carry it out.
Anything else means the courts only work in one direction--which is not a democracy.
Those 4 million people will be legally entitled to compete with citizens for jobs.
It means they will be entitled to federal benefits, and state benefits they have not previously had access to.
It is not simply a matter of them not being at risk for deportation, which is what this editorial implies.
And the impact of their changed status will be profound, at both the state and local level. Surely states have a right to object, and to pursue legal means to stop this action--as the President pursued legal means to carry it out.
Anything else means the courts only work in one direction--which is not a democracy.
89
It also means that that their employment will be subject to minimum wage and occupational safety laws, thus making it less likely that employers will be able to use them in an effort to undermine naturalized American workers.
145
Matthew: You're right. But the entire "financial defense" of illegal immigration is that they take jobs "Americans don't want." This is deplorable on many levels, but nonetheless used everywhere including in the NYT.
When people are freed from having to do the jobs "Americans don't want," they'll be competing with those who already have the toughest time finding jobs.
When people are freed from having to do the jobs "Americans don't want," they'll be competing with those who already have the toughest time finding jobs.
28
I believe part of the executive action excluded them from any kind of benefits such as Medicaid, welfare, etc.
2
Your disrespectful report (all men ARE created equal) fails to specify that the President's actions are all directed at ILLEGAL immigrants, even though some of the players are citizens. You assign too much truthfulness and nobility to "potential applicants for deportation relief"! They entered our country illegally, and such behavior is not tolerated in any other country.
98
And they cooked your dinner and cut your grass today. Presumably this is amongst the behaviors you've had it up to HERE with tolerating?
175
Opposed only by you and your kind . We, the sons of immigrants, want dignity and fairness granted to those who work here in the shadows. Please keep up your venomous screed, 2016 elections draw near, and you are better than a million dollar Democratic ad budget.
9
Entering the United States without documentation is about on the level of a traffic ticket. Plenty of countries tolerate illegal immigrants for the same reason the US does: practicality.
11
The editorial left out the most important word of the article - "illegal" (immigrants).
106
Yes Sam they came here without papers. Without papers or WOP, the derogatory term used against my ancestors, the Italians from Southern Europe who were looked upon as nothing more that cogs in the wheels of capitalism. Many of these "illegals," were brought to this country as children --and their parents came to the US, for the same reason your people and my people did...to escape terror, to flee grinding poverty and to find a haven in a heartless world. I wish they had come through with papers and legally but what I wish even more is that the causes that bring folks to our shores would subside so that they could live in peace and prosperity in the land of their birth. I bet that if we asked folks in the 19th Century and the early to mid-2oth Century if they wanted to leave their homes and families back in Italy, or Russia, or Germany or Eastern European countries, they would have said "No." So would you cut them the same break that was cut to our folks?
11
And how would you propose to remove 11 million illegal immigrants? Where would the money come from, how would you round them up and deport them? My guess is that you didn't think about that. Most conservatives, from Bush on down, don't think about process, planning, or cost beyond their emotional reaction to something you don't like.
1
"Illegal" immigrants should not bother anyone. Israel was formed by them. The U.S. was formed by them -- no First Nations Peoples ever asked for us or gave us visas, as I recall.
And "legal" immigration is pretty recent. That said, the Obama plans have not used "amnesty" as such. Penalties and enforcement are included. So what we have is "legalizing" illegal immigrants over time, with costs to them.
What we get is a calmer life for these people, opportunities for their innocent kids, and a fairer America. I'll buy that.
And "legal" immigration is pretty recent. That said, the Obama plans have not used "amnesty" as such. Penalties and enforcement are included. So what we have is "legalizing" illegal immigrants over time, with costs to them.
What we get is a calmer life for these people, opportunities for their innocent kids, and a fairer America. I'll buy that.
1
The Texas lawsuit is little more than a factually inaccurate press release masquerading as a legal complaint. What the lawsuit conveniently fails to mention is that Obama's immigration executive actions do not stop deportations or even slow them down. The Department of Homeland Security will continue to deport nearly a half million undocumented immigrants every year whether or not Obama offers a temporary reprieve to DREAMers and parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. So the real question is, does it make sense to use limited immigration enforcement resources to focus on deporting dangerous felons, national security risks and recent border crossers? Or should the president concentrate on removing DREAMers and mothers and fathers of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. The answer seems obvious to anyone concerned with the safety of American communities. Unfortunately it appears to be less obvious to Governors and state Attorneys General who've brought this frivolous lawsuit.
402
So I'm really confused on this. Does his executive action simply allow the immigration forces to ignore low-priority illegal aliens in favor of pursuing high-priority? Or does it actually grant a legal status to those of a lower-priority?
Now I'm an American that's reasonably informed on this issue, and I could easily be convinced of the latter. You'd have to be pretty naive to think this act won't translate to potential illegal-immigrants that they can become legal if they make it in with their kids and stay here some amount of time. E.G. the crisis of children arriving at our southern border.
Now I'm an American that's reasonably informed on this issue, and I could easily be convinced of the latter. You'd have to be pretty naive to think this act won't translate to potential illegal-immigrants that they can become legal if they make it in with their kids and stay here some amount of time. E.G. the crisis of children arriving at our southern border.
3
As Dr Krugman pointed out yesterday, for some facts and sound reasoning have no place in any discussion concerning immigration. Those people want an immigration policy that is impossible to implement even if they were willing to pay for the implementation which they are not.
12
The question arises, "If the Department of Homeland Security deports half a million illegal immigrants who commit seriously felonies each year, how long will it take to run short of felons to deport?" What percent of illegal immigrants are criminals? At the rate of half a million a year, we could depot all 12 million illegal immigrants in 24 years.
1
As a 5th gen Texan this xenophobic action is infuriating to me on so many levels. On the whole, Texas has been the most enlightened state in America when it comes to welcoming the influence and contributions of those on our southern border.
Unlike other border states, Texas has always celebrated the influences and contributions of Mexican people; Our cultural edges have been blended and blurred throughout our state's history. Even Rick Perry and W had enough sense and enough personal experience to know that. Shame on W for appointing this (Illinois-born) jerk to the Federal bench.
Unlike other border states, Texas has always celebrated the influences and contributions of Mexican people; Our cultural edges have been blended and blurred throughout our state's history. Even Rick Perry and W had enough sense and enough personal experience to know that. Shame on W for appointing this (Illinois-born) jerk to the Federal bench.
209
Maybe we should just build a fence around Texas, we in the north like our culture the way it is. If I go into Walmart, I feel like I'm going to be asked if I have anything to declare, and this state borders Canada.
1
Dean, Dean, Dean - you haven't been keeping up with the changing times; apparently, if you venture much further north, you'd better have ' your papers ' with you and expect to be stopped by the Border Patrol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol_interior_checkp...
From another 5th gen. Texan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Border_Patrol_interior_checkp...
From another 5th gen. Texan
1
meritless screed? Yes, same as O's abuse of executive power. Lawlessness, carries the day.
39
What abuse of power? Bush did exactly the same as Obama on a smaller scale and yet no problem. Like most right wingers, have a limited education on history and politics but heavy on emotional insecurity.
196
You must have missed the part in the editorial - "Above all, the programs rest on a rock-solid legal footing: the principle of prosecutorial discretion, under which Mr. Obama’s Homeland Security Department intends to use its limited resources to go after dangerous, high-priority immigration violators instead of low-priority ones. Upending that principle — and the Supreme Court said as recently as 2012 that “a principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials”"
19
After all, reading comments from left-wingers shows that they have an exceptional education on history and politics and extreme emotional restraint. Like restraint from stereotyping entire groups of their countrymen as uneducated and emotionally unstable.
8
Under Obama's policies anyone who crosses the border is a defacto American, and establishment Republicans praise illegal immigration as 'an act of love.'
Multiculturalism is supposed to be an unmixed blessing, but they're having second thoughts about that in Paris.
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 10-1.
Multiculturalism is supposed to be an unmixed blessing, but they're having second thoughts about that in Paris.
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 10-1.
73
"Under Obama's policies anyone who crosses the border is a defacto American..." This is just not true. Deportations don't stop. Many, if not most retain illegal status.
I have mixed emotions about illegal immigration, with compassion for individuals fighting a pragmatic recognition that we cannot help everyone. I don't feel I know of a good solution, or even that a good solution exists. And if a good solution exists, I fully expect Congress to ignore it.
But, I stick to facts. Even under the President's controversial policy, most remain unwelcome, especially those who are new to the country.
I have mixed emotions about illegal immigration, with compassion for individuals fighting a pragmatic recognition that we cannot help everyone. I don't feel I know of a good solution, or even that a good solution exists. And if a good solution exists, I fully expect Congress to ignore it.
But, I stick to facts. Even under the President's controversial policy, most remain unwelcome, especially those who are new to the country.
4
If, as you posit, "anyone who crosses the border is a de facto American", why do I see hundreds of border patrol agents in SUVs,on ATVs, on horseback, on foot or in helicopters, manning checkpoints, and patrolling some of the most inhospitable and dangerous terrain in the country? Why do I see them constantly practicing and qualifying at the shooting range? Why aren't they just sitting around the office having coffee and donuts? When they apprehend offenders, do you think they're given care packages and then they call in the welcome wagon? Perhaps you haven't seen the white, unmarked prison buses parked ever ten miles or so around the major smuggling corridors coming up through Nogales or the Buenos Aires National Wildlife refuge. Or maybe you thought those were Ice Cream trucks? I'm guessing you've never been out hunting and had to go dark to evade a column of heavily armed guys carrying bales of contraband with AKs slung over their shoulders? And I'm pretty darned sure you've never benefited from goods and services provided by the immigrant community, of a quality at least equal to and at prices much better than you could find elsewhere.
I find plenty wrong with Mr. Obama, his policies, his administration, etc., but this is a no brainer. There's a certain logic to this policy that is, as the commercial used to say, "so easy a caveman could do it". It's a pity so many are immune to the common sense it reflects.
I find plenty wrong with Mr. Obama, his policies, his administration, etc., but this is a no brainer. There's a certain logic to this policy that is, as the commercial used to say, "so easy a caveman could do it". It's a pity so many are immune to the common sense it reflects.
8
The Border Patrol estimates that it captures about 60 percent who cross the border illegally, but the estimated is widely considered inflated. However, only those from Mexico are turned back. The others are released with notifications to appear at future immigration hearings. Only a small percent reappear for the hearings. Moreover, nearly 50 percent of illegal immigrant enter the country legally but overstayed their visas. They never have to worry about the Border Patrol.
4
Wow, "meritless screed wrapped in flimsy legal cloth". Are we talking about the NYT's weekly screed for open borders or this lawsuit?
90
I have never read anything in the Times suggesting open borders.
15
We're back to the same scrappy screed
The insatiable Repub need,
To harass Barac
To give him no slack,
Do it with all possible speed..
To stir up a mess is the goal
And they may succeed on the whole,
This discordant tune
The lives that they ruin,
Disunity they daily dole.
The insatiable Repub need,
To harass Barac
To give him no slack,
Do it with all possible speed..
To stir up a mess is the goal
And they may succeed on the whole,
This discordant tune
The lives that they ruin,
Disunity they daily dole.
150
One man's "mess" is another man's noble cause.
5
The lives ruined are American citizens . My friends who are in the building trades have to compete with illegal immigrants . You are easing your conscience at other peoples ( citizens ) expense . And let's not even talk about the billions it is costing tax payers to educate , house , provide health care and drivers licenses .
13
Larry, I love your poems. And so many of them! I hope you don't stop, I frequently scroll down for them.
Question: do 'tune' and 'ruin' rhyme for New Yorkers?
Question: do 'tune' and 'ruin' rhyme for New Yorkers?
1