Thank Goodness that Barry will lose this one. Now, on to a new president and back to America for Americans and American Values (not third-world nonsense).
9
This is so duplicitous that two-faced Janus is laughing his backside off... ;))
First, Obama doesn't enforce the law by allowing the illegals in and not protecting the border... Then second, he's commanding law enforcement who was supposed to keep law within our borders from being applied...
And it's the same people who want more gun control "laws"...
How 'bout starting with enforcing law that is on the books... And how 'bout that NYT who's so righteous and law abiding turn into enablers of a law breakers...
You wont consider granting access to your paid publication to a hacker just because he already hacked in... It's illegal... or isn't it?
First, Obama doesn't enforce the law by allowing the illegals in and not protecting the border... Then second, he's commanding law enforcement who was supposed to keep law within our borders from being applied...
And it's the same people who want more gun control "laws"...
How 'bout starting with enforcing law that is on the books... And how 'bout that NYT who's so righteous and law abiding turn into enablers of a law breakers...
You wont consider granting access to your paid publication to a hacker just because he already hacked in... It's illegal... or isn't it?
14
The amnesty shills have many forms. Some dem, some repub, all favoring illegal aliens over their fellow Americans. With the dems they are seeking millions of "new voters" to place on the welfare rolls. For the repubs it's selling out for cheap labor. One thing is certain. None of them seem to care one whit for their nation or their fellow Americans.
15
So the "progressives" here believe that it is within the president's power to legalize roughly the equivalent population of a European country?
10
The Republicans want to be the Big dog barking loud and in low tones of vehemence about their distain for illegal immigrants. And the times is correct if we are to watch the round up and removal of these persons to centers of deportation and their hearing, in such mass numbers, Americans and the world would be reminded of WWII fascist activities of the concentration camps.
And they're to cheap and don't want to have any job creation programs, even for the countless how many no one knows agents to carry this out. This is bigger government.
These people love to belly ache and be mean!
And they're to cheap and don't want to have any job creation programs, even for the countless how many no one knows agents to carry this out. This is bigger government.
These people love to belly ache and be mean!
10
I've no idea where Senator Lugar gets his "facts," but the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), the only think tank that focuses solely on immigration, reports deportation has DROPPED 42% since Obama became president. As those familiar with immigration policy under Obama know, corroborating data are the leaked memos of 2010-2012 between the offices of President Obama, then ICE Director John Morton, and DHS Director Napolitano, there was a concerted plan to destroy the enforcement capacities of ICE, the Border Patrol and USCIS. Obama could not simply come out and announce the nullification of immigration law; but he could see they couldn't be enforced -- achieving the same result. As for all the faux pre-deportation trauma expressed by Lugar, the bottom line is no one will send tens of thousands of ICE agents and police to round up millions of illegal aliens, load them on buses or trains and head to the border. That imagery, conjured so many times by Democratic candidates in 2008 and once again -- one out of Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia -- would never play in America. Thank God. What we will see is what CIS calls "attrition through enforcement." If a Republican wins in 2016 and immigration law is once again enforced -- there will be mandatory E-Verify, an end to welfare to illegal aliens, no more drivers' licenses, a resumption of ICE raids on workplaces, etc. leading to the self-deportation of the illegal population, the right and more human solution.
14
Senator Lugar, as a former member of the Senate you of all people should know the difference between enforcing the law, and rewriting the law! He is trying to grant defacto citizenship to people that have broken our laws.
Also, Mr. Koskinen has said it is not the IRS' job to go after illegals that have filed returns with stolen SSNs. He said the IRS' role is the collect taxes, not determine if an SSN has been stolen A return filed in this manner is, by definition, a fraudulent return. Also, it is estimated the IRS has incorrectly issued $14 BILLION in illegal refunds, and amount almost equal to NASA's budget.
If I knowingly file a fraudulent return, the IRS is coming after me with the full force of the federal government.
Why are there two standards, and why are lillegals given priority of American citizens? We've had enough!
Also, Mr. Koskinen has said it is not the IRS' job to go after illegals that have filed returns with stolen SSNs. He said the IRS' role is the collect taxes, not determine if an SSN has been stolen A return filed in this manner is, by definition, a fraudulent return. Also, it is estimated the IRS has incorrectly issued $14 BILLION in illegal refunds, and amount almost equal to NASA's budget.
If I knowingly file a fraudulent return, the IRS is coming after me with the full force of the federal government.
Why are there two standards, and why are lillegals given priority of American citizens? We've had enough!
22
What a bunch of gobbilty gook. The President's responsibility is to uphold the constitution and laws of this country. At least that's what they swear to on inauguration day. Yes, the executive office has the ability to make decisions about the safety of this country - their other responsibility - but no one can tell me that it's in the best interests of this country to ignore our immigration laws and let illegal immigrants through our border.
The NY Times supports illegal immigration in every article they write, but the real rise of the moron called Trump can be directly tied to the white house and the Dems stand on illegal immigration. I am also of the opinion that Obama's constant admittance of 'refugees' is utter nonsense. Most come for economic gains that are sent to another country, and few if any are ever actually vetted. It's illegal to ask someone when they come to the hospital or apply for work at McDonalds, if they are legal or not. Doesn't that tell you anything?!
The NY Times supports illegal immigration in every article they write, but the real rise of the moron called Trump can be directly tied to the white house and the Dems stand on illegal immigration. I am also of the opinion that Obama's constant admittance of 'refugees' is utter nonsense. Most come for economic gains that are sent to another country, and few if any are ever actually vetted. It's illegal to ask someone when they come to the hospital or apply for work at McDonalds, if they are legal or not. Doesn't that tell you anything?!
9
I think I agree with Lugar's analysis, but he does avoid what I always the one legit question that could be raised, and that is making an advance announcement that we will not pursue certain offenders. I thoroughly understand prosecutorial and enforcement discretion, but at some point an executive cannot simply ignore the law ... advance announcement that we will not enforce THAT law gets closer to ignoring it than I am comfortable with.
6
This explains why Dick Lugar lost his Senate seat.
12
It's unfortunate that there's no longer a place in the Republican Party for people like Lugar. A man who can present a rational, fact-based argument for a policy that his party disagrees with, instead of simply demonizing the President for any and every policy he tries to implement.
22
I don’t think meticulous legalisms about enforcing/not enforcing will cut it with most people, and if precedent means persisting and perpetuating a course that wasn’t according to Hoyle in the first place, then this one will set a precedent for something or other later by another President that I’m sure you’re not going to like.
6
"...he has operated under longstanding provisions of law that give the executive branch discretion in enforcement. This presidential prerogative has been recognized explicitly by the Supreme Court."
What past SCOTUS "recognized" and what the current SCOTUS recognizes seem to differ considerably. See also Voting Rights Act.
See also Humpty Dumpty:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
Lewis Carol, “Through the Looking Glass”
What past SCOTUS "recognized" and what the current SCOTUS recognizes seem to differ considerably. See also Voting Rights Act.
See also Humpty Dumpty:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
Lewis Carol, “Through the Looking Glass”
8
I am a legal Hispanic immigrant that followed the law. Not a refugee, not political asylum, no fiancee or marriage migrant, not an anchor baby. Hispanics that are undocumented looking for jobs that no-one else applies to come because they are escaping as much as the refugees/political asylum countries. They are a workforce that has no other way to legally immigrate and "escape" poverty, crime, etc. I wish someone would also see them as seeking asylum from impossible conditions. Sadly, if the country they come from is not politically "hot", asylum is not a choice. Immigration Law is complex. Perhaps President Obama is trying something that will work.
12
Stunning illustration! Bravo!
4
Stop this insane tolerance of mass immigration. In the very near future, with advances in artificial intelligence, millions more jobs are going to be automated. Driverless cars are just around the corner so what's going to happen to the millions of people who currently drive for a living? They're going to become unemployed! Immigration will only greatly increase the numbers of jobless. Japan is aging rapidly also but they are NOT allowing immigration and are looking for other ways to solve the problems of an aging society.
14
When the President decides not to enforce the law for entire classes of people that *he* defines and to give them benefits that would seem to go beyond anything similar to executive discretion. The Congress makes the law, not the President.
Unfortunately people who support the President on this issue simply won't understand the deeper separation of powers issues involved. That is they won't understand it unless we have the unlikely event of a Republican President, who having failed to get his capital gains tax cuts through Congress, declares that the IRS and DoJ will not investigate or prosecute anyone who doesn't pay their capital gains taxes. Because after all, as this hypothetical Republican might say, "We can't wait for Congress any more. If they won't act. I will. If Congress disapproves then let them pass my capital gains tax cut bill."
Unfortunately people who support the President on this issue simply won't understand the deeper separation of powers issues involved. That is they won't understand it unless we have the unlikely event of a Republican President, who having failed to get his capital gains tax cuts through Congress, declares that the IRS and DoJ will not investigate or prosecute anyone who doesn't pay their capital gains taxes. Because after all, as this hypothetical Republican might say, "We can't wait for Congress any more. If they won't act. I will. If Congress disapproves then let them pass my capital gains tax cut bill."
9
Americans want strong immigration control.
Congress has full power to enact strong immigration control laws,
including laws that limit the President's power to grant official reprieves,
even temporary reprieves, and also full power to grant states, and even private companies, the right to deny or withhold benefits, services or employment from unauthorized persons, including persons whose presence in the USA is not authorized. They are illegally here not merely because they "undocumented" but because they are not authorized to be here, and they are not authorized to be here because they do not have the qualifications to be here, just like a quack is a duck that tries to be a doc but is not authorized to be a doc not merely because he does not have the pretty paper or document -- the medical license --to hang on the wall but because he does not have the qualifications which the pretty document signifies, and therefore his practice of medicine without the pretty paper is illegal.
Congress has full power to enact strong immigration control laws,
including laws that limit the President's power to grant official reprieves,
even temporary reprieves, and also full power to grant states, and even private companies, the right to deny or withhold benefits, services or employment from unauthorized persons, including persons whose presence in the USA is not authorized. They are illegally here not merely because they "undocumented" but because they are not authorized to be here, and they are not authorized to be here because they do not have the qualifications to be here, just like a quack is a duck that tries to be a doc but is not authorized to be a doc not merely because he does not have the pretty paper or document -- the medical license --to hang on the wall but because he does not have the qualifications which the pretty document signifies, and therefore his practice of medicine without the pretty paper is illegal.
13
Many are referring to Obama as a dictator, yet the GOP front runners are both declaring the executive (dictatorial) actions they plan on Day one. Get a grip folks. It's not a dictatorship just because you don't like it.
27
No Mary it's an attempt at dictatorship. Which should scare the living daylights out of any freedom loving American.
4
"Discretion" to enforce on this scale makes an American president a dictator by default. As much abuse and denial of basic human rights can be accomplished by oppressor elites via sabotaging and not enforcing laws when this benefits them, or chosen identity groups they use as pawns and mercenaries (in this case the invented for political purposes identity group "Hispanics") to subdue the majority of a population. The allowance of this kind of elite manipulation is precisely why Latin America is such a poverty stricken, hyper violent hell. Guzman lived like a king in jail and escaped 2 times for Pete's sake. Other articles in today's news openly declare that both parties, particularly the democratic party, are seeking "Hispanic demographic" support by the blatant criminality of buying their votes with a patronage gift of a special privilege to violation our immigration, employment, tax and eligibility for government services laws and regulations.
16
Dictator?? please don't make me laugh...although you already did. All the executive order did was prioritize deportations which are already much higher than previous presidents in the last several decades have done, and enabled them to work within the limited budgets allowed. It's also a temporary stay of deportations on those groups until Congress get off it's political butt and passes some sort of immigration reform policy, something they have failed to do time and time again. We do have millions of legal native born and several generations in hispanics within our population, who have been treated like illegals in many cases by border states and Republican rhetoric, and you wonder why they might vote Democratic?
21
Dictator?? please don't make me laugh...although you already did. All the executive order did was prioritize deportations which are already much higher than previous presidents in the last several decades have done,
==========================
1. No it also issues green cards and many citizen benefits to people who have illegal status that Obama has decided not to prosecute or deport - in violation of the law
2. This administration started counting people stopped at the border as "deportations" a change from the way it was done before. Actual deportations are about half what they were under Bush
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html
==========================
1. No it also issues green cards and many citizen benefits to people who have illegal status that Obama has decided not to prosecute or deport - in violation of the law
2. This administration started counting people stopped at the border as "deportations" a change from the way it was done before. Actual deportations are about half what they were under Bush
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html
6
Your assertion that the President simply prioritized deportation is untrue. At any rate, the injunction does not prevent the administration from deporting only illegal immigrants who commit serious crimes. In his ruling, Judge Andrew Hanen pointed out that the case does not involve “prosecutorial discretion.” The issue is whether the administration can legalize the status of millions of illegal immigrants, force states to issue them drivers’ license, grant them permission to work in the United States and make the them eligible for some social services, included unearned tax credits. Judge Andrew Hanen--the federal judge who issued the injunction--wrote that the issue before the court is: “Do the laws of the United States, including the Constitution, give the Secretary of Homeland Security the power to take the action at issue in this case? In other words, can the head of a federal department override Congress?” If the administration loses the case, it can continue to prioritize deportations, but illegal immigrants will still be illegal immigrants.
3
Amazing how the opponents of this executive order rely solely on non-logic, lack of evidence and dumb one liners (aside from naked know-nothing political bias) to declare it "unconstitutional" and another example of that slippery slope to a long awaited "liberal"/Obama presidential dictatorship.
The fact is that the executive has ALWAYS had very broad discretion to both allow AND exclude "foreigners" of all sorts of (legal or undocumented) status, for all sorts of sensible and nonsensical reasons, no matter what Congress might think in a particular case.
Indeed, it is Congress that has continuously given (and had to give) the executive just that broad level of authority in order to have a functioning immigration system, unjust or irrational as it sometimes is (not that it is here).
Of course, for many right wingers, functional government is not at all the objective and the "sacred" Constitution only says just what they want it to say in any particular partisan matter (e.g. that first clause of the 2nd Amendment about gun regulation? never mind).
The "policy" behind the executive order can be questioned politically (in our less than democratically elected Congress, which remains conservative despite the popular vote), but it is, as far as can be told and as the op-ed and related articles make clear, NOT contrary to majority opinion, not illegal and not even a net financial cost to any governmental entity (e.g. more taxes paid than benefits claimed).
The fact is that the executive has ALWAYS had very broad discretion to both allow AND exclude "foreigners" of all sorts of (legal or undocumented) status, for all sorts of sensible and nonsensical reasons, no matter what Congress might think in a particular case.
Indeed, it is Congress that has continuously given (and had to give) the executive just that broad level of authority in order to have a functioning immigration system, unjust or irrational as it sometimes is (not that it is here).
Of course, for many right wingers, functional government is not at all the objective and the "sacred" Constitution only says just what they want it to say in any particular partisan matter (e.g. that first clause of the 2nd Amendment about gun regulation? never mind).
The "policy" behind the executive order can be questioned politically (in our less than democratically elected Congress, which remains conservative despite the popular vote), but it is, as far as can be told and as the op-ed and related articles make clear, NOT contrary to majority opinion, not illegal and not even a net financial cost to any governmental entity (e.g. more taxes paid than benefits claimed).
29
Congress has never given the president broad authority over immigration. The llegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 describes the presidents responsibility regarding immigration in great detail.
4
Legal or not, Barack Obama abuses his power to the extreme to accomplish his goal of radically changing this country to benefit parasites, plunderers, those with irrational and unjustified racial and ethnic obsessions, and fools. These are the constituents of the modern Democrat party.
16
Gee, where did that kind of hateful talk come from? Too much talk radio.
23
Is it possible that you could convince us of your theory with facts?
6
Agreed. Who cares if something is "legal" or not, or if someone can present a logical, fact-based argument for it. I think it's much more important and constructive to simply have an angry, talk-radio fueled, knee-jerk reaction to any topic where there are people who disagree with you. It's much easier to demonize a whole group of people because they don't share your view, rather than engage in rational, civil discourse to come up with a helpful solution.
4
America is the country of proximity in the western hemisphere for immigrants, legal and illegal seeking a better life.
Illegals are illegals because the laws do not sanction their entry and have to be decided on a case by case assessment if they meet the requirements by law to remain here.
The illegals are in a hurry to escape from poverty, extreme violence of drug cartels, government policies that are extremely oppressive and dangerous to their life, and wars.
Now the European Union is faced with millions of undocumented refugees that are legal entry's because they flee a nation torn by war and targets civilians. However, these will need a legal way to become citizens.
Building walls across our entire southern border is fascist in nature.
And this gives a way for the politicians in Washington to wash their hands of being responsible for forming laws that foster an even handed safety value for those that seek what is best in ourselves and the values of freedom of representative governing.
You know the cartels in Mexica are killing politicians, journalists and anyone else they want to.
Illegals are illegals because the laws do not sanction their entry and have to be decided on a case by case assessment if they meet the requirements by law to remain here.
The illegals are in a hurry to escape from poverty, extreme violence of drug cartels, government policies that are extremely oppressive and dangerous to their life, and wars.
Now the European Union is faced with millions of undocumented refugees that are legal entry's because they flee a nation torn by war and targets civilians. However, these will need a legal way to become citizens.
Building walls across our entire southern border is fascist in nature.
And this gives a way for the politicians in Washington to wash their hands of being responsible for forming laws that foster an even handed safety value for those that seek what is best in ourselves and the values of freedom of representative governing.
You know the cartels in Mexica are killing politicians, journalists and anyone else they want to.
7
americas refusal to legalize drugs has created a criminal govt in mexico
its not more powerful than th actual govt
it is th actual govt
but keeping drugs illegal benefits lots of folks in th usa, but thats another story
its not more powerful than th actual govt
it is th actual govt
but keeping drugs illegal benefits lots of folks in th usa, but thats another story
5
America is the country of proximity in the western hemisphere for immigrants, legal and illegal seeking a better life.
whats Canada, chopped liver ?
whats Canada, chopped liver ?
Fascist government have never built laws. Communists have built walls, but they were to keep people form fleeing, not to prevent them from entering.
3
I wish the the PEW Trust and the media would tell us how it comes to its count of the illegal population. There is a paper on the U.S. Census Bureau web site (working paper #13) by Eric B. Jensen, Renuka Bhaskar, and Melissa Scopilliti of the Population Division. In June 2015, they wrote the following:
"June 2015The foreign born, especially recent immigrants, are believed to be a hard-to-count group which increases the likelihood of coverage error for this population. In fact, research has shown that English language ability, literacy skills, understanding of the census, residential attachment, and legal status are all factors that contribute to coverage error in censuses and surveys (Fein and West 1988; Iversen, Furstenberg and Belzer 1999; Martin 2007; Massey and Capoferro 2004). Because of data limitations, there have been no studies that empirically measure the coverage of the foreign-born population in the ACS.
From the above, I conclude that the 11 to 12 million figure bandied about by the PEW Trust and the media is an undercount. We really need to know how many people are here illegally, how many Americans and legal immigrants they have displaced from the workforce, how much they are draining from our social and medical services, and so on. We need to have all of the facts.
"June 2015The foreign born, especially recent immigrants, are believed to be a hard-to-count group which increases the likelihood of coverage error for this population. In fact, research has shown that English language ability, literacy skills, understanding of the census, residential attachment, and legal status are all factors that contribute to coverage error in censuses and surveys (Fein and West 1988; Iversen, Furstenberg and Belzer 1999; Martin 2007; Massey and Capoferro 2004). Because of data limitations, there have been no studies that empirically measure the coverage of the foreign-born population in the ACS.
From the above, I conclude that the 11 to 12 million figure bandied about by the PEW Trust and the media is an undercount. We really need to know how many people are here illegally, how many Americans and legal immigrants they have displaced from the workforce, how much they are draining from our social and medical services, and so on. We need to have all of the facts.
10
The biggest issue is that for all the Republicans cry about the lack of deportations, they have yet to authorize any funds for such an activity. If Congress wanted to make stricter laws about deportation, they could, but the'd also have to allocate funds or we'd be in the same place we are now.
5
The biggest issue is that for all the Republicans cry about the lack of deportations, they have yet to authorize any funds for such an activity
========================
You seriously believe Congress hasn't funded the Border Patrol or ICE? Come on
========================
You seriously believe Congress hasn't funded the Border Patrol or ICE? Come on
2
Sen. Lugar is leaving out another huge difference in President Obama's executive action and those of previous presidents. Congress recently had a specific bill before it to authorize exactly what he is doing, the Dream Act. And Congress refused to pass that act. On more than 4 dozen occasions, during the delays in consideration of the Dream Act, President Obama very forthrightly stated he did not have the authority to act on the Dream Act without Congress. I assume he had concluded that based on his experience as a Constitutional Law professor. But I guess in the end he concluded that he only needed Congressional authority if they agreed with him and passed the Act. Once it was obvious that the recently elected Republican House and Senate would not pass it... then voila... he no longer needed their authority. Sen. Lugar, it will be a sad day for our Constitutional balance of power if SCOTUS concludes that Congressional Constitutional Authority only exists... if the Chief Executive can choose whether or not to grant them said authority at his or her whim.
12
False. The DREAM act specified a path to citizenship. President Obama can provide no such path via executive order. All he can do is deprioritize deportation of individuals who might eventually be eligible for a path to citizenship via the DREAM act, while at the same time prioritizing the deportation of truly harmful and dangerous people.
This his prerogative, given the fact that the appropriations provided by Congress to immigration enforcement are limited. This setting of priorities does not even come close to accomplishing what the DREAM act is designed to accomplish.
This his prerogative, given the fact that the appropriations provided by Congress to immigration enforcement are limited. This setting of priorities does not even come close to accomplishing what the DREAM act is designed to accomplish.
1
The headline is misleading. By now, we all should know that the law is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. That is one of the main reasons to support a Democrat for president and why I am sickened by the foolishness of the Bernie or Bust people who say they'd rather vote for Trump than Clinton in the general election if (more likely "when") she gets the Democratic nomination. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. The next president is guaranteed to nominate at least two...possibly three or even four...justices for the Supreme Court.
6
Why then did the President claim , on several prior occasions that the actions ,which he later took, were not constitutionally allowable for him as president , but would have to be done through congressional acts. Did he just forget, change his mind, or merely decide to try to get away with it?. If it was only within the purview of Congress to make such decisions, the failure of Congress to act does not confer any authority on the President.
13
Barack Obama to Univision in 2014: “I am President. I am not king, I can’t do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the executive branch to make it happen.”
The NYT editorial staff neglects to mention this, which is unfortunate, since it gets to the absolute heart of the matter. Namely, does the rule of law still matter in the US?
The NYT editorial staff neglects to mention this, which is unfortunate, since it gets to the absolute heart of the matter. Namely, does the rule of law still matter in the US?
19
As an admirer of Lincoln, Obama should have approached his executive order like Lincoln did his emancipation order. In fact, he should have issued his order on September 22, 2014, the anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation: If the House has not voted on the Senate immigration bill by January 1, the executive order will take effect. Of course, then the poor Democratic showing in the off-year elections would have been blamed on the immigration issue.
2
As an admirer of Lincoln, Obama should have approached his executive order like Lincoln did his emancipation order. In fact, he should have issued his order on September 22, 2014, the anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation
================
For someone called "Historian" you have little knowledge of the Emancipation Proclamation.
Lincoln's Proclamation only freed slaves in land under control of the Confederacy. His war powers given by Congress said that he could seize property from people who were in rebellion against the country. The EP merely confiscated Confederate property - slaves.
Lincoln and the Republicans had enough respect for the Constitution and the separation of powers that they waited until after the War to amend the Constitution to end slavery.
================
For someone called "Historian" you have little knowledge of the Emancipation Proclamation.
Lincoln's Proclamation only freed slaves in land under control of the Confederacy. His war powers given by Congress said that he could seize property from people who were in rebellion against the country. The EP merely confiscated Confederate property - slaves.
Lincoln and the Republicans had enough respect for the Constitution and the separation of powers that they waited until after the War to amend the Constitution to end slavery.
3
To do so then or now would invite immediate rebellion. That would be absolute tyranny and unconstitutional. But as the old saying goes under the skin of every liberal lies the fascist waiting to get out.
4
The problem with granting the President a de facto "line item veto" over immigration or any federal policy is that legislation is typically passed as part of a comprehensive package reflecting various political compromises.
If the President can get a package bill passed reflecting these sorts of political compromises and then can just decide to exercise his or her discretion to not enforce the parts he doesn't like, that subverts the compromise inherent in the legislative process.
If the President can get a package bill passed reflecting these sorts of political compromises and then can just decide to exercise his or her discretion to not enforce the parts he doesn't like, that subverts the compromise inherent in the legislative process.
3
Mmm I know you are well intentioned. GOP congress will not do anything to move legislation on immigrant status.
1
To argue that longstanding legal precedent allows the President to only support the laws that he's into, is ridiculous. The idea that the President somehow owns the country and is allowed to just obliterate immigration controls according to his will and pleasure is asinine.
Just because he's been a total failure at leading congress to immigration reform doesn't mean he can then scrap the process and do what he wants. Be a leader President Obama, not a Dictator.
Just because he's been a total failure at leading congress to immigration reform doesn't mean he can then scrap the process and do what he wants. Be a leader President Obama, not a Dictator.
6
There are two explicit ways to amend the constitution and neither of them is legal precedent.
Be careful what you wish for. Do you really want a President or Supreme Court that has the power to make fundamental policy decisions? Always keep in mind that once a power is vested in an institution by those who like the results, the power will reside there and eventually be used to produce results you do not like. Or worse.
7
As Paul Krugman just this day noted in this same Opinion section, Reagan put the antitrust enforcers to sleep. The right cheered. Obama does the same thing with immigration enforcement, and the right howls.
Obama is as much in the right or wrong as was Reagan.
Obama is as much in the right or wrong as was Reagan.
1
“…the resources (or lack thereof) appropriated by Congress necessitate exactly the type of choices the president has made.”
President Obama could use the resources to enhance our e-verify system. And he could require every employer to use e-verify to check the legal status of every employee. Employers who employ illegal immigrants will have to dismiss them or be fined. Illegal immigrants would, thus, not be able find work, and would self deport.
The illegals who do not leave could be deported, paying a fine for this service. If they cannot pay the fine, then we should decrease the amount of the fine from the aid we give to their home countries.
President Obama could use the resources to enhance our e-verify system. And he could require every employer to use e-verify to check the legal status of every employee. Employers who employ illegal immigrants will have to dismiss them or be fined. Illegal immigrants would, thus, not be able find work, and would self deport.
The illegals who do not leave could be deported, paying a fine for this service. If they cannot pay the fine, then we should decrease the amount of the fine from the aid we give to their home countries.
5
There is a question of semantics when Republicans use the word “president” which as the Senate Republicans have made clear does not include Mr. Obama who is seen as illegitimate; however many times elected. The only legitimate president is a conservative Republican elected or selected by the GOP House majority in case of a deadlock. The question is whether the majority of the rump Supreme Court agrees with Sen Lugar as I do on the law. The first question the Court should answer is this: “Is Barak Obama the President of the United States invested with the powers under the law that previous presidents had regarding immigration.” If the answer is yes, then the suit must be dismissed as being contrary to long settled and established law which is still in effect.
6
I am a liberal, and I have serious reservations about this order.
1. We have a serious unemployment/underemployment problem that falls most heavily on those with least education and skills. Adding 5 million uneducated, low skilled workers who can now legally compete with them seems a disaster for working class Americans.
2. Constitutionally, I understand how the president can prioritize enforcement of deportations, but I do not understand what the authority is for handing out work permits. Supposedly we live under a government of "laws, not men." I am troubled at the rush toward an imperial presidency--who knows what the next decree from a different president might bring.
3. If 11 million (or more) illegal immigrants are granted amnesty, what happens to those who are trying to immigrate legally, many of whom have waited years and even decades. The Supreme Court decreed that the children of legal immigrants who turn 21 while waiting to legally join their parents age out of the child preference and must go to the end of the line. Meanwhile, the children of illegal immigrants were granted amnesty under DACA, and now parents are also eligible. Fairness would seem to dictate that the lawbreakers go to the end of the line, not the law-abiding.
4. Big business and big agriculture favor this so they can keep wages low and not risk legal problems. Politicians favor it to pander to a large hispanic constituency. Those who will lose are Americans who cannot afford to buy influence.
1. We have a serious unemployment/underemployment problem that falls most heavily on those with least education and skills. Adding 5 million uneducated, low skilled workers who can now legally compete with them seems a disaster for working class Americans.
2. Constitutionally, I understand how the president can prioritize enforcement of deportations, but I do not understand what the authority is for handing out work permits. Supposedly we live under a government of "laws, not men." I am troubled at the rush toward an imperial presidency--who knows what the next decree from a different president might bring.
3. If 11 million (or more) illegal immigrants are granted amnesty, what happens to those who are trying to immigrate legally, many of whom have waited years and even decades. The Supreme Court decreed that the children of legal immigrants who turn 21 while waiting to legally join their parents age out of the child preference and must go to the end of the line. Meanwhile, the children of illegal immigrants were granted amnesty under DACA, and now parents are also eligible. Fairness would seem to dictate that the lawbreakers go to the end of the line, not the law-abiding.
4. Big business and big agriculture favor this so they can keep wages low and not risk legal problems. Politicians favor it to pander to a large hispanic constituency. Those who will lose are Americans who cannot afford to buy influence.
15
1. The effect of the executive orders is not to "add" anyone. It is to decline to deport people who are already here, while at the same time stepping up the deportation of dangerous individuals.
2. What work permits has the Obama administration "handed out" as part of this executive order?
3. "Amnesty" for 11 million illegal immigrants is not part of this discussion either.
4. Agreed. Which is why workplace enforcement is actually one of the more effective weapons against illegal immigration, along with heavy sanctions against employers who knowingly employ undocumented workers. And workplace enforcement has also increased during the Obama administration.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/us/politics/30raid.html
I am a liberal too.
2. What work permits has the Obama administration "handed out" as part of this executive order?
3. "Amnesty" for 11 million illegal immigrants is not part of this discussion either.
4. Agreed. Which is why workplace enforcement is actually one of the more effective weapons against illegal immigration, along with heavy sanctions against employers who knowingly employ undocumented workers. And workplace enforcement has also increased during the Obama administration.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/us/politics/30raid.html
I am a liberal too.
"There is no "I get to act if Congress won't" clause in the Constitution "
True, but from day 1 of the Obama administration the President has tried to suppress the will of Congress and the American people through presidential edict.
we used to call those actions that of an imperial presidency. in case the NYT has an imperial presidency is not the chosen form of government of the American people.
True, but from day 1 of the Obama administration the President has tried to suppress the will of Congress and the American people through presidential edict.
we used to call those actions that of an imperial presidency. in case the NYT has an imperial presidency is not the chosen form of government of the American people.
10
United States vs Texas does not involve prosecutorial description. The administration can continue to prioritized deportation by deporting only illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes. However, the injunction prohibits the administration from formally granting illegal immigrants immunity to immigration law and permitting them to legally reside and work in the United States. The illegal immigrants can continue to reside and work in the United States with impunity, but they will still be breaking the law.
2
An excellent Op-Ed by Sen. Lugar. Wouldn't be nice if all members of Congress were honest and unbiased like him? Unfortunately those days are gone!
1
It is the courts that are unconstitutionally seeking to make policy according to judges' personal ideologies The Constitution clearly requires that policy making should be left to the political branches. The courts have no business dictating to the Obama Administration (or any administration) how to faithfully execute the laws.
1
I find it terrifying that the Supreme Court might be willing to act as arbiter in a case brought by States against the President. There no greater oligarchy than 9 people deciding political questions.
If Congress doesn't like what the President is doing, they can pass a law forbidding it.
If I were on the court I would say that this is a political question to be decided by the United States and that the States have no standing to bring such a case; in fact, I might say that the courts have no jurisdiction to hear such cases.
If Congress doesn't like what the President is doing, they can pass a law forbidding it.
If I were on the court I would say that this is a political question to be decided by the United States and that the States have no standing to bring such a case; in fact, I might say that the courts have no jurisdiction to hear such cases.
2
Are you aware that Congress cannot "pass a law forbidding the President from doing something" unless the President signs it into law? Did you sleep thru Schoolhouse Rock? "I'm just a Bill" doesn't ring a bell?
Too bad that true statesmen like Richard Lugar were ousted from the Senate in the second Tea Party wave of 2012. Reasonable people who worked to pass bipartisan legislation were replaced by right wing extremists (actually Sen. Lugar lost the primary to Richard Mourdock who famously described pregnancy resulting from rape as something "God intended" and then lost to Democrat Joe Donelly) and the Senate lost one of its strongest foreign policy experts and opponents of weapons of mass destruction. What a contrast to the two GOP presidential frontrunners.
4
Discretion is one thing; disregard is quite another.
8
Two thoughts on this'
First, would Senator Lugar and the NY Times be in favor of a conservative president declaring that he will no longer prosecute any discrimination cases unless there is physical harm done by the defendants to the complainant, as there is insufficient funding to prosecute all cases.
Second, as to the argument that we cannot deport 11 million residents who are illegally resident in this country. Does the fact that we cannot punish all those guilty of statutory rape mean that we should establish a clearly defined class of rapists who will be prosecuted only after all others are prosecuted? What a justifiable howl of protest that decision would cause.
First, would Senator Lugar and the NY Times be in favor of a conservative president declaring that he will no longer prosecute any discrimination cases unless there is physical harm done by the defendants to the complainant, as there is insufficient funding to prosecute all cases.
Second, as to the argument that we cannot deport 11 million residents who are illegally resident in this country. Does the fact that we cannot punish all those guilty of statutory rape mean that we should establish a clearly defined class of rapists who will be prosecuted only after all others are prosecuted? What a justifiable howl of protest that decision would cause.
5
The problem with illegal immigration is that the focus is always on the foreigners. Illegal immigration is not a foreign problem, it is an American problem. Illegals come to the USA because Americans and American companies continue to give them jobs. If you want to stop illegal immigration, don't build a wall. Stop giving them jobs!
The other problem with illegal immigration is amnesty. No, not amnesty for illegal immigrants but amnesty for Americans and American companies. Americans and American companies have had way too much amnesty for the breaking the law in hiring illegal immigrants. Ask any illegal immigrant why they come here and the common answer is jobs. There are no jobs in their home countries - just poverty and the crime that ensues from it.
In just about every construction site, you will see illegal immigrants working these jobs. They also do just about any labor, lawn maintenance, and housekeeping work. Federal law already makes it illegal to hire or employ an illegal immigrant but Americans and American companies continue to hire them because they are CHEAPER than American citizens and legal residents.
Till WE ENFORCE immigration laws against Americans and American companies, illegal immigration will continue to be a problem. Don't expect foreigners to respect our immigration laws if we as Americans don't respect and follow those laws either because we continue to hire illegals as cheap labor.
The other problem with illegal immigration is amnesty. No, not amnesty for illegal immigrants but amnesty for Americans and American companies. Americans and American companies have had way too much amnesty for the breaking the law in hiring illegal immigrants. Ask any illegal immigrant why they come here and the common answer is jobs. There are no jobs in their home countries - just poverty and the crime that ensues from it.
In just about every construction site, you will see illegal immigrants working these jobs. They also do just about any labor, lawn maintenance, and housekeeping work. Federal law already makes it illegal to hire or employ an illegal immigrant but Americans and American companies continue to hire them because they are CHEAPER than American citizens and legal residents.
Till WE ENFORCE immigration laws against Americans and American companies, illegal immigration will continue to be a problem. Don't expect foreigners to respect our immigration laws if we as Americans don't respect and follow those laws either because we continue to hire illegals as cheap labor.
9
Not pursuing removal and sanctioning remaining are NOT the same thing.
4
Let's be clear, the President has the right to prioritize which illegal immigrants he wants to deport because it is impossible under current funding to deport them all. He is not granting amnesty to illegal immigrants like Reagan did, he is simply directing federal law enforcement to put their emphasis on other groups.
This of course is all completely fixable if Congress would simply pass the bi-partisan immigration reform that they came up with in the Senate a few years back. That would assume they were interested in governance however.
This of course is all completely fixable if Congress would simply pass the bi-partisan immigration reform that they came up with in the Senate a few years back. That would assume they were interested in governance however.
5
They don't pass it because it is amnesty and we don't it passed.
3
Is he empowered to pass out work permits?
Richard Lugar was, and is, a perfect example of the imbecilic thinking that pervades the Federal Government today. He is not missed by those who believe government is there to SERVE the People. President Obama, like Lugar, believes HE can run roughshod over the People with no consequences. Democrats have lost control of a record number of State Legislatures, Governorships as well as the Congress. All because of Obama. The Presidency is next.
5
Obama told us that he did not have the constitutional authority to halt deportations. Then, when his law failed in Congress, he decided to do it anyway. Why? To create the permanent Democrat majority and fundamentally change America. He could care less about these folks, or the folks in Chicago personally. He just wants democrat voters created and to keep the voters in poverty and dependent on handouts to live.
2
so th vast left wing conspiracy is to create a huge permanent underclass over which to rule
ruling over a nation of near-beggars ?
gee, you know, that doesnt even sound like much fun
ruling over a nation of near-beggars ?
gee, you know, that doesnt even sound like much fun
absolutely, if these folks all got ahead in life and paid too much tax, they would be Republicans. Power is the most addictive opiate and people will do anything to keep it.
The GOP is traditionally the party that supports the interests of corporations, and at the same time, corporations are the prime beneficiaries of cheap immigrant labor, many of them without benefits. Isn't there a huge disconnect here between economic expediency and moral outrage?
It seems to me that most white Americans benefit from cheap immigrant labor resulting in lower prices they have to pay for basic life necessities, and yet many of them hate immigrants.
The disconnect here is that the moneyed interests gain from immigrant labor, and the white working classes see immigrants as threats. The question is how to resolve these disparate interests, but the GOP reflexively always chooses the option of anger and resentment while protecting businesses.
It seems to me that most white Americans benefit from cheap immigrant labor resulting in lower prices they have to pay for basic life necessities, and yet many of them hate immigrants.
The disconnect here is that the moneyed interests gain from immigrant labor, and the white working classes see immigrants as threats. The question is how to resolve these disparate interests, but the GOP reflexively always chooses the option of anger and resentment while protecting businesses.
3
The working class are those of us who actually pay the bills of such so called cheap labor.
Why it’s so difficult for the American people to caption that the first inhabitants of this country were the American Indians?
Unfortunately, there are so many Americans who believe they hold the key to this country when in fact, we’re all immigrants and what separates us is just the time of arrival.
President Obama has introduced DAPA, making 4.3 million undocumented immigrants that are parents of U.S. citizens or lawful residents as well as DACA, teenagers and young adults that were raised in this country to permanently stay.
Do you really believe that getting rid of these undocumented workers is going to make us a greater nation? No – we would be branded as the “executioners” of defenestration.
Unfortunately, there are so many Americans who believe they hold the key to this country when in fact, we’re all immigrants and what separates us is just the time of arrival.
President Obama has introduced DAPA, making 4.3 million undocumented immigrants that are parents of U.S. citizens or lawful residents as well as DACA, teenagers and young adults that were raised in this country to permanently stay.
Do you really believe that getting rid of these undocumented workers is going to make us a greater nation? No – we would be branded as the “executioners” of defenestration.
2
Every modern nation has immigration laws. DAPA says to everyone in the world that all they need to do to circumvent ours is give birth here. That's a lousy idea.
1
Can we really expect a fair decision from the "new" court?
President Obama vastly undermines his own position by not enforcing federal immigration laws regarding sanctuary cities. When states protested that they don't want Syrian refugees, the Obama administration said that states have no rights regarding the mater because immigration is a federal law. So why is he allowing cities/counties to have sanctuary laws -- isn't it a direct violation of federal law?
4
In a perfect world, we would wave a magic wand and everyone would be in their legal places. However, this is not possible given the size/complexity of the issue and we need to find a practical solution. As the former Republican Senator says, the GOP is the problem with their ideological approaches and lack of pragmatism.
Precedents make it clear the President has broad authority to act in this realm and their is no basis for the suit. Not much more to say really.
My question would be: Why do the hypocrites in Congress feel compelled to provide an Amicus brief when this situation is occurring because they have failed to act for over a decade? The GOP's inability to legislate is probably the most important issue facing our country today, but nobody is even talking about it.
Precedents make it clear the President has broad authority to act in this realm and their is no basis for the suit. Not much more to say really.
My question would be: Why do the hypocrites in Congress feel compelled to provide an Amicus brief when this situation is occurring because they have failed to act for over a decade? The GOP's inability to legislate is probably the most important issue facing our country today, but nobody is even talking about it.
5
It's hard to remember that there were once Republicans like Richard G. Lugar in the Senate. Guess what, after six terms in office, he was challenged by a Tea Party nut in the 2012 Indiana primary and lost 61% to 39%.
3
Part of the GOP controlled congress' bag of obstructionist tricks is to deprive Obama the resources necessary to allow him to "faithfully execute laws" enacted by them, and then whatever he does fault him for acting unlawfully. Here we have it folks ... the classic "catch22" of congress depriving the president of the resources necessary to deport everyone, and then faulting him for deciding to execute the laws he can afford to execute. Talk about being put between a rock and a hard place ... because Congress has not given immigration authorities enough money to catch and deport all undocumented immigrants, Obama has sensibly chosen to direct or allow agencies to focus resources on criminals and other dangerous people — not on children, the elderly and others who stay out of trouble. These GOP jerks are something else. Let's hope they get their walking papers in November.
6
Staying out of trouble means not breaking our laws.
Before Congress will ever grant Obama the money to deport all illegals, he would need to come up with a plan, a budget, and actually present it to them.
And that ain't happened yet.
And that ain't happened yet.
1
Discretion in enforcement of the immigration laws with limited resources is part of the President's powers.
Giving illegal aliens social security numbers, Obamacare and access to other social programs is not part of the President's powers.
It seems so simple and straightforward, even Obama said it 20+ times.
Giving illegal aliens social security numbers, Obamacare and access to other social programs is not part of the President's powers.
It seems so simple and straightforward, even Obama said it 20+ times.
4
Lugar is no longer a Republican and is bitter and resentful old man because he was primaried by a tea partier. Even accepting Obama's broad discretion in immigration policy, the voting public is angry he has NOT done something about deportation orders relating to convicted felons which may have saved American citizen Kate Steinle, and they are mad he is not responsive to the VIOLATION of federal law he can control - by withholding funding for sanctuary cities. Of course the far right conservatives are nativist, and the far left are open-border nutbags.....an American President would have foudn the middle, and publicly took action on felons and sanctuary cities. he has not done that, hence the outrage.
2
Thank you, Senator Lugar. It’s encouraging to see that there are still some in the GOP who put patriotism above partisanship. But it’s discouraging that most of them are retired.
1
The Constitution requires equal protection under the law throughout our country. Obama is ensuring that deportation actions are pursued on an equitable basis by making sure that parents of American citizens are treated the same even if their entry was illegal. That the decision was to allow the group to stay on a provisional basis is also within the responsibility for policy making deleted to the President by the Law. It's pretty sensible and fully constitutional.
3
Nonsense. Check today's Wall Street Journal for a balanced view. The key point in the WSJ is that an open ended blanket law enforcement discretion can be applied to any law the president wants. In effect it nullifies any law passed by Congress. AS the WSJ said, Kings in the 1600's tried that and were hanged for it. Maybe on this tax filing day Obama can provide a blanket discretion in enforcing the tax law. Now that is where we need 'relaxed enforcement policy'. Once you have relaxed enforcement of law, you have chaos, think pot.
3
The Wall Street Journal certainly isn't "balanced."
It is, after all, the paper that featured a screaming editorial about the horrors of bike sharing, and which has spent nearly then entire Obama presidency warning of imminent hyperinflation and job losses from regulation and taxes (no apologies for their failed predictions, BTW). What's the point of a finance oriented paper that can't make a correct financial prediction?
It is, after all, the paper that featured a screaming editorial about the horrors of bike sharing, and which has spent nearly then entire Obama presidency warning of imminent hyperinflation and job losses from regulation and taxes (no apologies for their failed predictions, BTW). What's the point of a finance oriented paper that can't make a correct financial prediction?
Richard Lugar, a long-time bipartisan Republican Senator driven out of office by a Tea Party primary challenger who, in turn, lost in the general.
1
All illegal aliens are criminals.
Employers who hire illegal aliens are criminals.
Criminals need to be punished.
Employers who hire illegal aliens are criminals.
Criminals need to be punished.
5
Let us remember that the history of mankind is replete with the migration of populations.
1
For years the white house has aided Mexican immigrants, but why? Because a tremendous economy exists between U.S. and Mexican businessmen.
The U.S. needs Mexico for cheap labor. There are over one million Mexicans working in over 3,000 maquinadora manufacturing or export assembly plants in northern Mexico, producing parts and products for the United States. Mexican labor is inexpensive and courtesy of NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement), taxes and custom fees are almost nonexistent, which benefit the profits of corporations. Most of these maquinadora lie within a short drive of the U.S.-Mexico border. Maquinadoras are owned by U.S., Japanese, and European countries and some could be considered "sweatshops" composed of young women working for as little as 50 cents an hour, for up to ten hours a day, six days a week.
The answer is for the U.S. government to hold the Mexican government responsible, with heavy penalties until they rectify their problems.
Carlos Slim Helú is a Mexican business magnate, investor, and philanthropist. From 2010 to 2013, Slim was ranked as the richest person in the world. Known as the "Warren Buffett of Mexico", he derived his fortune from his extensive holdings in a considerable number of Mexican companies through his conglomerate, Grupo Carso. As of 3 November 2015 he was #2 on Forbes list of billionaires, with net worth estimated at US$77.1 billion.
Let Donald Trump fix all the economic errors bozo has done in 8 years.
The U.S. needs Mexico for cheap labor. There are over one million Mexicans working in over 3,000 maquinadora manufacturing or export assembly plants in northern Mexico, producing parts and products for the United States. Mexican labor is inexpensive and courtesy of NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement), taxes and custom fees are almost nonexistent, which benefit the profits of corporations. Most of these maquinadora lie within a short drive of the U.S.-Mexico border. Maquinadoras are owned by U.S., Japanese, and European countries and some could be considered "sweatshops" composed of young women working for as little as 50 cents an hour, for up to ten hours a day, six days a week.
The answer is for the U.S. government to hold the Mexican government responsible, with heavy penalties until they rectify their problems.
Carlos Slim Helú is a Mexican business magnate, investor, and philanthropist. From 2010 to 2013, Slim was ranked as the richest person in the world. Known as the "Warren Buffett of Mexico", he derived his fortune from his extensive holdings in a considerable number of Mexican companies through his conglomerate, Grupo Carso. As of 3 November 2015 he was #2 on Forbes list of billionaires, with net worth estimated at US$77.1 billion.
Let Donald Trump fix all the economic errors bozo has done in 8 years.
2
"Let Donald Trump fix all the economic errors bozo has done in 8 years."
Donald Trump cannot even fix his own primary campaign, letting Sen. Cruz outwit and outmaneuver him in garnering delegates "off the books" as it were. How can Trump even begin to think he can deal with a problem as huge as illegal immigrants, if he can't even gather delegates in Colorado without hard and savvy work? Whatever his faults, Cruz is showing Trump to be an amateur who does not belong in the ring.
Once in office he cannot yell his way to success.
Donald Trump cannot even fix his own primary campaign, letting Sen. Cruz outwit and outmaneuver him in garnering delegates "off the books" as it were. How can Trump even begin to think he can deal with a problem as huge as illegal immigrants, if he can't even gather delegates in Colorado without hard and savvy work? Whatever his faults, Cruz is showing Trump to be an amateur who does not belong in the ring.
Once in office he cannot yell his way to success.
See "The Invasion of America" by Francis Jennings and " Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" by Dee Brown for a history of America from the perspective of the first humans in America.
See "From Slavery to Freedom " by John Hope Franklin and "The Half Has Never Been Told" by Edward Baptist for a history of America from the perspective of the African victims of American enslavement and Jim Crow.
There was no Ellis Island nor Statue of Liberty nor Mexican nor Canadian border that mattered in their American journey.
See "From Slavery to Freedom " by John Hope Franklin and "The Half Has Never Been Told" by Edward Baptist for a history of America from the perspective of the African victims of American enslavement and Jim Crow.
There was no Ellis Island nor Statue of Liberty nor Mexican nor Canadian border that mattered in their American journey.
1
Thank you Richard Lugar for once again breaking rank with the rest of the Republican party. Profiles in courage are rare these days, and should be pointed out and lauded when possible...
3
Prosecutorial discretion is a well known concept for virtually all laws. In the case of immigration, violation of such laws are not crimes, it would seem to be more relevant.
1
FDR used the law to intern Japanese Americans because he was rightfully afraid of a 5th column. Of course there was an active 5th column of German Americans who were not treated the same.
I agree with the authors premise that deportation is a bad approach. The last two Presidents supported broad immigration reform. Both had Democratic Majorities that ran for 4 straight years. Nothing was done under the leadership of Pelosi and Reid.
I agree with the authors premise that deportation is a bad approach. The last two Presidents supported broad immigration reform. Both had Democratic Majorities that ran for 4 straight years. Nothing was done under the leadership of Pelosi and Reid.
1
This case is a prime example of the fact that in the USA today we no longer have the Rule of Law but the Rule of Men.
The shear volume of law in and of itself has created this shift. The Immigration law in DC down to local building codes in places like California.
We have created a system of so much law that someone in a gatekeeper position, the president literally in this instance, gets to cherry pick what laws to enforce and which to not.
This is happening at all levels of government. Submit a set of plans for remodeling your house in a 100 jurisdictions in California and you will a 100 different demands on enforcement. Again, so much law that men decide what the law is and is not.
The only way to clean this mess up is to do something nobody is talking about. That is, we need to remove 75% of the laws from the books. Until we do and keep it that way, we will never again live in a land under The Rule of Law.
The shear volume of law in and of itself has created this shift. The Immigration law in DC down to local building codes in places like California.
We have created a system of so much law that someone in a gatekeeper position, the president literally in this instance, gets to cherry pick what laws to enforce and which to not.
This is happening at all levels of government. Submit a set of plans for remodeling your house in a 100 jurisdictions in California and you will a 100 different demands on enforcement. Again, so much law that men decide what the law is and is not.
The only way to clean this mess up is to do something nobody is talking about. That is, we need to remove 75% of the laws from the books. Until we do and keep it that way, we will never again live in a land under The Rule of Law.
5
Let's start by getting rid of the laws that make immigration illegal.
We finally have an administration that has actually decreased the number of undocumented people in the United States, and, most importantly, has deported those committing crimes. The administration has done this while respecting the rights of all and while retaining the support of most Latin Americans in the country legally. President Obama has achieved this with no help from Congress. Indeed Congress has done nothing except sue. What a strange world it is that illegal immigration is the Republican candidates' primary complaint.
6
Not to put too fine a point on it, but no one actually knows the number of people in the country illegally. It is impossible to get anything remotely resembling an accurate figure. Anyone who tells you the numbers are down is accepting numbers from a government that has a vested interest in promoting its policies of de facto amnesty rather than an interest in determining the real number of illegal aliens here.
3
A shame Lugar retired.
1
I thought he lost in a primary to one of the Tea Party reactionaries? Just another case in the Republicans move to the extreme right and political insanity.
But why has Obama acted to grant de facto amnesty to violators of US immigration laws. For so long we have heard the nonsense that we cannot deport 11,000,000. I suggest you start by drying up employment opportunities by throwing in jail Americans who hire illegal aliens. Once the money stream is dried up the 11,000,000 economic locusts will swarm to another country hopefully as far away fro the US as possible.
Then the US can utilize resources currently spent on illegal aliens to speed up LEGAL immigration.
Then the US can utilize resources currently spent on illegal aliens to speed up LEGAL immigration.
9
Most Americans are sick and tired of the pandering by Democrat politicians to illegal aliens and their anchor children. We wonder why we must obey the law and pay our taxes when illegal immigrants are allowed to cross the border without recourse, and then feed off of the social service and food stamp programs that we taxpayers pay for. Democrats love illegal immigrants; their kids born here are automatically American citizens, and they overwhelmingly vote Democrat to keep the taxpayer gravy train for them and their parents flowing. It's time to take strong measures and deport them all to their home countries.
11
Most Native Americans are sick and tired of the government pandering to white settlers.
1
You don't know what you're talking about. Undocumented immigrants pay over $11 billion a year in taxes. Granted 76% with children receive some kind of federal aid, but this includes documented as well. 57% of native born Americans also receive some sort of federal aid. 87% of undocumented, on aid, have at least one job, whereas around 70% of native born, on aid, have at least one job. Know your facts before spouting more Fox News talking points.
Once again, I would suggest you direct your anger towards those that are doing the hiring and their lobbyists whom influence politicians to indulge in rhetoric about this issue and not much else. By the way, with the Republicans increasingly suppressing voter rights, how possibly can illegal aliens vote anyway?
Texas' claim that it has standing to sue by virtue of the impact of the costs of issuing drivers' licenses to this population is just about as rational as the Little Sisters of the Poor claiming that they will be complicit in a mortal sin if they request an exemption from the contraception requirement.
I'm surprised that the Governor of Texas didn't sue on the grounds that his religious freedom had been substantially burdened. Maybe he'll do that next term.
I'm surprised that the Governor of Texas didn't sue on the grounds that his religious freedom had been substantially burdened. Maybe he'll do that next term.
4
I suggest that if you lived in a border state and saw the impact of large numbers of illegal aliens (that is the legal term for people in the county illegally) you would not be so smug about the cost of providing services to those people. The largest cost is providing a public education to all illegal alien children. That is required by the Reagan era SCOTUS decision, Plyler v. Doe, which says specifically that illegal alien children are entitled to a free, appropriate public education. In Tucson alone, the number of illegal aliens in public schools is very large. We'd know that number precisely, but the Supreme Court declared as unconstitutional an Alabama law asking only for schools to identify the number of illegal aliens in attendance in Alabama schools. Then there are the health care costs, the costs of extra police needed to protect vulnerable illegal aliens and go after the murderers, drug dealers, kidnappers, and human smugglers among them. Even if they were only represented in these areas in proportion to their numbers in Arizona, Southern California and Texas that would still comprise a huge cost burden.
5
Living in S California so I dont need to read an article on the impact of illegal immigration on the job market. Go to ANY blue-collar skilled construction work site. Carpentry, flooring, roofing, general home building... these are jobs that traditionally pays well above minimum wage... and see how 9/10 of the workers only speak Spanish.
11
You're like a dog snarling at another dog while the master throws scraps from his table. The problem blue collar workers face isn't competition from others trying to provide just enough for shelter and bread, the problem is the lack of other options for blue collar workers. Now, construction is all there is when manufacturing used to be a large field.
I'm more upset that oligarchs aren't investing capital that creates jobs (see Krugman's article) than I am willing to begrudge someone who worries about keeping the lights on.
I'm more upset that oligarchs aren't investing capital that creates jobs (see Krugman's article) than I am willing to begrudge someone who worries about keeping the lights on.
I can just imagine how the NY Times editorial page would erupt if say, a future Republican president instructed the IRS to only enforce the capital gains tax at a 10% rate because he couldn't get a tax cut through Congress. Or told the EPA and USACE to stop enforcing provisions of the Clean Water Act due to its economic impact on farming.
Sorry, but a SCOTUS ruling in favor of an action Obama spent years telling us he couldn't take will destroy the rule of law. Be careful what you wish for. There is no "I get to act if Congress won't" clause in the Constitution
Sorry, but a SCOTUS ruling in favor of an action Obama spent years telling us he couldn't take will destroy the rule of law. Be careful what you wish for. There is no "I get to act if Congress won't" clause in the Constitution
20
What precedent does this set outside of immigration? Can a president choose not to enforce environmental laws? Can he drop all prosecutions of Wall Street abuses? Can he tell the IRS not to go after evaders of a particular tax? If there are clear lines delimiting this authority, they need to be explicitly drawn.
10
Prioritization of immigration enforcement is NOT the same as abdication of the duty to enforce immigration law. Catch and release is just that - an abdication of the law. Even Obama admitted multiple times that he DOES NOT have the authority under the Constitution to grant amnesty to groups of people. Then he turned around and did just that, in direct violation of existing law - including a law he, himself, signed.
9
Oh please. Mr. Lugar LOST his seat in the Senate in 2012 -- a crushing defeat -- to a Tea party candidate. Because Mr. Lugar was "soft on illegal immigration". Duh. Now he's in bed with the enemy -- the NYT.
Dude is 84, time he retired anyways.
Dude is 84, time he retired anyways.
10
How craven is the GOP to squawk and mislead the American people! This article is a brilliant, even-handed and thoughtful a slapdown of the loyal opposition's distortionary readings of the laws as one could hope for.
Now we just have to wait for the expected GOP response:
Posturing, whining, even outright lying. These are now the staples of the Mitch McConnells of the GOP universe, all of it dished out in great dribbling heaps of postured high dudgeon and greasy displays of black suit and blue tied reasonableness.
That we have come to this.
That so many have swooned to it.
I can but shake my head in anger, sorrow and contempt.
Now we just have to wait for the expected GOP response:
Posturing, whining, even outright lying. These are now the staples of the Mitch McConnells of the GOP universe, all of it dished out in great dribbling heaps of postured high dudgeon and greasy displays of black suit and blue tied reasonableness.
That we have come to this.
That so many have swooned to it.
I can but shake my head in anger, sorrow and contempt.
1
As usual Democrats and Rinos are given a venue on NY Times to side step the actual case and pound the table on all sorts of non-issues so as to fool their supporters.
The decision by Judge Hanen is based on a couple of things that for some weird reason the Democrats and Rinos just do not mention:
1) Two months before the Judge's Decision Obama heralded a court case he won forcing Arizona to supply drivers' licenses at high cost to the state for the Dreamers. The Judge noted how happy Obama was about winning that case to show that it costs the states money so they have standing. Nothing I ever heard said there is some monetary threshold for standing, just that it will force the states to spend money and that is unconstitutional.
2) Obama's action was deemed to at least be a rule change and Obama needs to follow the federal law on making rule changes, and this applies whether or not the states have standing, this is a federal law that binds Obama's steps towards completing his amnesty plan. The American Administrative Procedures Act of 1947 sets out an arduous process to change the rules unilaterally by the executive branch and it would take years and years to complete.
Of course we never hear any mention that the Solicitor-General was told by the Supreme Court to come ready to not only defend Obama's actions but also to debate the meaning of the "take care" clause. That is a backhanded slap at the President for NOT following our constitution.
The decision by Judge Hanen is based on a couple of things that for some weird reason the Democrats and Rinos just do not mention:
1) Two months before the Judge's Decision Obama heralded a court case he won forcing Arizona to supply drivers' licenses at high cost to the state for the Dreamers. The Judge noted how happy Obama was about winning that case to show that it costs the states money so they have standing. Nothing I ever heard said there is some monetary threshold for standing, just that it will force the states to spend money and that is unconstitutional.
2) Obama's action was deemed to at least be a rule change and Obama needs to follow the federal law on making rule changes, and this applies whether or not the states have standing, this is a federal law that binds Obama's steps towards completing his amnesty plan. The American Administrative Procedures Act of 1947 sets out an arduous process to change the rules unilaterally by the executive branch and it would take years and years to complete.
Of course we never hear any mention that the Solicitor-General was told by the Supreme Court to come ready to not only defend Obama's actions but also to debate the meaning of the "take care" clause. That is a backhanded slap at the President for NOT following our constitution.
4
Just a note: Yesterdays editorial "Immigration Politics at the Court" w/o comments notes that Obama has deported 2.5 illegals. Yes in the same story it notes that there are 11 million illegals here. So 11 less 2.5 equals 8.5 million in the US. I do wish the DNC shills would get their story straight. Or does that mean that without a fence, they are coming in as fast as they are going?
4
Law enforcement? Try law creation, Richard, in total violation of the Constitution's separation of powers doctrine.
8
I believe that even when Justice Scalia was alive this case would have been decided in favor of the very practical prioritization of limited ICE resources by the Obama administration. Prioritizing deportation of felons over deportation of minor children is both compassionate and sensible, and an excellent use of very limited resources.
Now the Republicans' case will be heard by the very 8-justice court that they would afflict the nation with for their own cynical purposes. I for one am looking forward to the decision.
Now the Republicans' case will be heard by the very 8-justice court that they would afflict the nation with for their own cynical purposes. I for one am looking forward to the decision.
3
Whether or not Obama's deportations have exceeded that of Geo. W. Bush, or Clinton, is not the point. The point is that a country without borders is no longer a country and Obama has the legal duty to enforce the nation's laws. As usual, the NYT portrays Obama as the frustrated executive battling the intransigent Republican's but the Republicans were only frustrating because they chose not to play along with an open door scheme that threatens our nations security.
12
Being a life-long Democrat who has lived in Texas for the past decade, I can honestly state the President's "priority" to not enforce the existing immigration laws and allow illegal immigrant parents whose children were born in the US is flawed beyond any reasonable hope of implementation. It is the role of Congress to make laws, and the Executive branch to enforce those laws. If the Supreme court allow this breach of constitutionally-defined roles in favor of the Executive branch, we are taking a large step in the direction of a "benevolent" dictatorship, who knows what is best for the country's interest.
Here in Texas, we have many Millions of illegal immigrants, and the oft-touted desire of Republican politicians to deport these people, the vast majority of whom are hard-working, and law-abiding, is fantasy. What is needed is a process to allow these people to gain a legal status, up to and possibly including citizenship, under certain conditions. And that is the role for Congress to define.
Here in Texas, we have many Millions of illegal immigrants, and the oft-touted desire of Republican politicians to deport these people, the vast majority of whom are hard-working, and law-abiding, is fantasy. What is needed is a process to allow these people to gain a legal status, up to and possibly including citizenship, under certain conditions. And that is the role for Congress to define.
4
Illegals aren't immigrants. They freely broke our laws and now they can freely return home. We don't even have to deport them. All we have to do is make it clear they will not get citizenship. The vast majority lack job skills and an education. They are not needed here. Obama's failure to put the needs of his own constituents over the demands of illegals is nothing more than simple pandering to the Latino lobby and a betrayal of his base.
13
Illegal is illegal. I do not condone rewarding illegal behavior. I for one would welcome temporary, greatly expanded funds and manpower to deport all 11 million illegal aliens. Every single one must go. Now.
11
You should tell that to Congress. They appropriate the funds, not the Obama administration, or any presidential administration. The president only sets the priorities, and in the case of immigration enforcement he has targeted people with the potential to do real harm.
Do you believe your federal taxes are too high, or too low? If the former, does this seem to be a good use of your tax dollars?
Do you believe your federal taxes are too high, or too low? If the former, does this seem to be a good use of your tax dollars?
The States have the burden to prove they are victims and their cost to maintain the folks who are Illegal is prohibitive.
Here is a simple example, in Chicago, the CPD is almost broke, the reason, too many schools with undocumented kids, who get free education, meals, books.
They can cut 20% of the schools and be cost neutral.
For college education, Foreign students need F1 visa, why not for schools.
Also, healthcare for undocumented is crippling States.
These guys work on cash and do not contribute to the SS fund.
The court decision on this is easy, No means No.
Here is a simple example, in Chicago, the CPD is almost broke, the reason, too many schools with undocumented kids, who get free education, meals, books.
They can cut 20% of the schools and be cost neutral.
For college education, Foreign students need F1 visa, why not for schools.
Also, healthcare for undocumented is crippling States.
These guys work on cash and do not contribute to the SS fund.
The court decision on this is easy, No means No.
6
A simple example based on no data.
And by the way, many undocumented aliens work using fake social security numbers and they do contribute payroll taxes to the SS and Medicare trust funds, with no hope of ever benefiting.
The decision is not "yes or no." President Obama has made rational choices on where to spend the extremely limited funding Congress has allocated, to deport felons and recent arrivals rather than children and families. Deportations under the Obama administration have set records. That should make even the information-challenged happy.
And by the way, many undocumented aliens work using fake social security numbers and they do contribute payroll taxes to the SS and Medicare trust funds, with no hope of ever benefiting.
The decision is not "yes or no." President Obama has made rational choices on where to spend the extremely limited funding Congress has allocated, to deport felons and recent arrivals rather than children and families. Deportations under the Obama administration have set records. That should make even the information-challenged happy.
The author has deliberately misstated the issue in United States vs Texas. President Obama did not issue an executive order implementing the Deferred Action for Parent of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program. Instead, the Department of Homeland Security director issued a DAPA memorandum. In his ruling, Judge Andrew Hanen--the federal judge who issued the injunction--wrote that the issue before the court is: “Do the laws of the United States, including the Constitution, give the Secretary of Homeland Security the power to take the action at issue in this case? In other words, can the head of a federal department override Congress?” In his ruling, Judge Andrew Hanen also pointed out that the case does not involve “prosecutorial discretion.” The administration can continue to refrain from deporting illegal immigrants who have committed no other crime than entering the country illegally or overstaying their visas, but a department head cannot legalize their status, force states to issue them drivers’ license, or grant them permission work in the United States.
5
Thank you.
People commenting here keep saying the Administration has prosecutorial discretion but this situation has gone beyond that to the issuing of green cards and citizen benefits to people wit h illegal status
People commenting here keep saying the Administration has prosecutorial discretion but this situation has gone beyond that to the issuing of green cards and citizen benefits to people wit h illegal status
3
The New York Times apparently has adopted a new editorial policy of misleading the public on immigration issue. It sad to see a great newspaper abandoned its editorial standards. If the ruling in U.S. vs Texas goes against the administration, it could still continue to deport only illegal immigrants who commit serious crimes just as it has since the injunction was imposed. However, illegal immigrants would still be illegal immigrants. The New York Times know the case doesn't involve prosecutorial discretion.
1
For all of those who think that Obama has exceeded his executive authority consider this. Suppose Congress has not sufficiently funded the IRS to catch everyone who owes taxes. Who should they pursue first? Those who owe $10 dollars or those who owe $10,000,000 dollars? It is a no brainer. Obama's executive action is exactly the same thing - you start by deporting criminals and those who have recently arrived. Just like those who owe the IRS $10 dollars, they will never have time or money to get to you; same with the illegal immigrants. Try Thinking. It is good exercise for the brain.
16
Your theory is correct, but practice depends on not only the funds, but the emphasis on enforcement which Obama definitely doesn't have.
WA, By definition and by law all illegal immigrants are criminals, thus starting with a criminal as you suggest makes things relatively easy. As we have recently witnessed, many criminals merely come back. The problem is twofold, non enforcement of the law and no control of the border.
1
If the IRS were to announce that, due to lack of funding, they will no longer prosecute anyone who cheated the government out of less than $5,000, you would get a rash of people who would cheat by $4, 900 (the extra $100 to be a cushion in case of error). If you announce a policy that states a class of criminals will nbot be prosecuted, you will just enlarge that class of criminals.
4
Let's do the math - to export 11 million undocumented people, let's say it's $3,000 each, that's $33 billion dollars. All you who want every undocumented person out of this country just demand that Congress authorize that spending, of course without raising your taxes. good luck!
11
The costs imposed by these people staying and being awarded benefits and privileges in the U.S. is also an unfunded mandate. There are school districts on Long Island on the verge of collapse due to the mandate to educate undocumented aliens who come with high costs like need for ESL and remedial education.
12
Self deportation costs nothing.
3
If the president required every employer to use e-verify to determine if an employee was legally allowed to work in our country, then illegal immigrants would not be employed. Without employment, most would leave the country on their own. We could deport the rest, fining them or their country of origin, for this service.
2
Finally a 'wise man' who knows what he is speaking about, the president's prerogative in deciding nuanced immigration issues, as granted by congress. That the current obstructionist republican congress has become hyper-ridiculous in negating legal attributes of the executive branch is uncalled for. Just wondering why we keep hearing the word "alien" when referring to undocumented immigrants, assuming, I suppose, that they are from outer space (at least this would resolve our search whether there is, or not, human life beyond mother earth!).
12
Maybe you hear the word "alien" so much is because there are so many illegal aliens here now, never mind the fact that the word has been used for a few centuries before this country was founded.
1
Aaaaah, Manfred, man, what is nuanced about an illegal immigrant? There is more nuance in a murder case.
3
What part of the term "Illegal" don't you understand?
2
In case after immigration case before it, the US Supreme Court has repeatedly protected Congress' constitutionally-sanctioned preeminent role in setting immigration policy and procedure. If the Chief Executive flat out refuses to enforce laws passed by Congress, how can Congress retains its constitutional prerogatives?
Polls show that people hate their government and the part they hate the most is Congress. But Congress barely gets to do anything anymore. Laws it passes are either refused endorsement by a Supreme Court that now acts as the Superior Chamber of the Legislature, or are refused enforcement by the Chief Executive. Little wonder people hate Congress. Even when Congress does the people's will, it's actions are shunted aside as irrelevant.
The Supreme Court should rule against the Obama Administration here. It can't be allowed to openly flaunt its law enforcement discretion to effectively rewrite duly-passed immigration laws.
Polls show that people hate their government and the part they hate the most is Congress. But Congress barely gets to do anything anymore. Laws it passes are either refused endorsement by a Supreme Court that now acts as the Superior Chamber of the Legislature, or are refused enforcement by the Chief Executive. Little wonder people hate Congress. Even when Congress does the people's will, it's actions are shunted aside as irrelevant.
The Supreme Court should rule against the Obama Administration here. It can't be allowed to openly flaunt its law enforcement discretion to effectively rewrite duly-passed immigration laws.
22
In regards to your statement on how congress actions are shunted aside as irrelevant, I believe it is due to the fact that congress has ignored many situations for which legislation is needed. Jobs, energy, climate change, *immigration* among other things, congress has opted to pass laws which the public has repeated it doesn't want (ability to spy on its people through technology) and massive tax cuts for corporations and ignored the experts on that (Silicon Valley or more specifically, Apple's opinion on that for example). It has also opted to rather do nothing because the other side won't agree with what it wants. That is why I believe congress is so hated.
Also regards to your "duly-passed immigration laws" - these laws are outdated in many cases and need to be rewritten for the massive numbers of immigrants (legal or illegal) entering the country. Many a times congress has utterly refused to pass or consider any meaningful legislation regarding immigration and during a time when immigration reform is desperately needed, somebody had to do it - President Obama.
Also regards to your "duly-passed immigration laws" - these laws are outdated in many cases and need to be rewritten for the massive numbers of immigrants (legal or illegal) entering the country. Many a times congress has utterly refused to pass or consider any meaningful legislation regarding immigration and during a time when immigration reform is desperately needed, somebody had to do it - President Obama.
Re " But Congress barely gets to do anything anymore."
Really? In fact since 2010 the GOP-dominated House has deliberately done absolutely nothing except pass lots of anti-abortion measures. The 112th and 113th congress’s, that endured unceasing obstruction led by Boehner in the House and McConnell in the Senate, are the most shameful, lowest rated and least effective in US history.
Really? In fact since 2010 the GOP-dominated House has deliberately done absolutely nothing except pass lots of anti-abortion measures. The 112th and 113th congress’s, that endured unceasing obstruction led by Boehner in the House and McConnell in the Senate, are the most shameful, lowest rated and least effective in US history.
Did you actually read the article?
1
It would be nice if the Court could paint us a picture of exactly what abuse of Presidential discretion might mean in this context. After all, if Hillary wins in November she promises to expand on Obama's "relaxed enforcement" policy. At a certain point, we are either a sovereign nation or not. And if the latter... what happens to the rule of law?
26
The Obama decree unconstitutionally suspended law enforcement against entire categories and millions of illegal immigrants and illegally provided them with welfare state benefits.
This is in no way comparable Bush 41's temporarily declining to deport the families of LEGAL immigrants while he sought authority from Congress.
This is in no way comparable Bush 41's temporarily declining to deport the families of LEGAL immigrants while he sought authority from Congress.
25
"The Obama decree unconstitutionally suspended law enforcement"....Wrong. What you are saying is completely false. He has simply directed law enforcement to pursue criminals and those who have recently arrived first. To say that he has in any way suspended law enforcement is totally (and probably intentionally) dishonest.
18
It is illegal for for undocumented immigrants to collect welfare benefits. One of the first things asked for is proof that you are a citizen. I have no idea how this repeatedly proven falsehood still has legs.
When asked by Unavision before his executive order. President Obama clear stated that he did not have the authority to create this law. He said he is "Not a King." However, suddenly he was able to find a "loophole" and created this executive action which not only put deportations on hold but gave illegals welfare, Obamacare, work visas, etc.
I guess Obama thinks he is king after ll.
I guess Obama thinks he is king after ll.
19
Pretty much just King For A Day at this point.
1
Thank you for a thoughtful piece. Hopefully your own won't eat you for this heresy.
11
Let's make peace with the fact that we'd rather employ cheap illegal labor than more expensive citizen labor.
59
You've made an excellent point. The millions of undocumented workers who reached our shores and are now part of our society are NOT unemployed. They came here to work, and someone is paying them. Otherwise, they would leave, because they have no access to normal welfare programs. Instead, they remain exploited to work for low wages. The loss of these workers would be an economic catastrophe for the United States.
By the way, every undocumented worker in the US contributes to the local and state economies. They earn wages, and spend them on rent, food, transportation, medical care, goods and services, etc. etc. Not to mention that people at the bottom end of the economic spectrum spend proportionately more on these necessities than the wealthy, so most of their pay goes into the local economy.
The best reason for resolving the situation resolving undocumented workers is so they will have the opportunity to pay federal income taxes like the rest of us! Let's add them to the tax base! Heaven knows we need it.
By the way, every undocumented worker in the US contributes to the local and state economies. They earn wages, and spend them on rent, food, transportation, medical care, goods and services, etc. etc. Not to mention that people at the bottom end of the economic spectrum spend proportionately more on these necessities than the wealthy, so most of their pay goes into the local economy.
The best reason for resolving the situation resolving undocumented workers is so they will have the opportunity to pay federal income taxes like the rest of us! Let's add them to the tax base! Heaven knows we need it.
1
No let's make sure that our President and our employers follow the law, just like the rest of us have to.
2
The sad truth is that U.S. employers would prefer to hire undocumented immigrants rather than most unemployed African American youths looking for entry level jobs, even if they have to pay the illegal immigrants higher wages. They would also rather hire undocumented immigrants than most unemployed white American youths looking for entry-level job, even if they had to pay the undocumented workers higher wages.
2
The great majority of NYT comments over the last year reflect condemnation of illegal immigration. A NYT article that ran in the last week discussed how an illegal immigrant earns a living not by taking jobs that Americans won't do, but by competing with them at carpentry and other skilled trades. The interviewee works under the table, refuses to get a TIN and pay income taxes, and drives down wages because he doesn't have to pay for costs such as licenses, unemployment, and workers compensation. Yet the NYT and the Dem and Repub elites who are insulated from competition from illegal immigrants continue to insist that we should care more about the 10,000 people per month slipping openly across our borders than citizens and legal residents who still can't find work.
43
Yes, yes, yes and yes.
2
I agree with your comment in principal. But I think your 10,000 per month number is very flawed or false. What is the proof of that number?
"he has operated under longstanding provisions of law that give the executive branch discretion in enforcement.".....There can be little question that given limited resources available to enforce deportation that the President has the authority in addressing the order in which illegal immigrants should be deported. More to the point is the question of whether he can authorize those at the back of the line the permission to work legally. In any case there was a report in NPR a few days ago that illegal immigration into the U.S. is presently at a 40 year low, which makes things like spending to build a wall pretty silly.
15
"Yes Doctor, my illness is almost over. Can I stop taking my medicine now?"
Thanks to President Obama for doing everything in his power to overcome the gridlock in Congress, and pushing America ahead, with actions like this one on immigration. We MUST vote to put Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the White House, and elect other socially conscious democrats and independents to Congress and state governorships/legislatures, to continue the trail he has blazed and put socially conscious justices on OUR United States Supreme Court.
25
You are either an Illegal immigrant or a traitor to the Country.
2
Clearly, many of the committers here didn't bother to read the article. Obama is presumed guilty. It matters not what the issue is or what the ramifications might be. He's just guilty of something, anything and evidently everything. That's predetermined.
15
Republican three laws of government:
For every action there is a stronger and opposite action for inaction.
Force = mass * obstruction
A body that rests at rest should remain at rest unless acted upon by a republican president
For every action there is a stronger and opposite action for inaction.
Force = mass * obstruction
A body that rests at rest should remain at rest unless acted upon by a republican president
9
Democracy = Mass x Obstruction
Thank you Senator for this cogent summary of the legal issues. Why did the SC even accept to hear the case, I wonder? My guess is that the court felt it could not avoid our political polarization--because of political pressure.
When we contemplate the possible corruption of money in our political system, few mention the enormous sums conservative groups and Republican-governed states spend (26 in this case) to take frivolous suits to the Supreme Court. As with Obamacare and abortion, there is always a chance the court might override legislation. Just to say, however, those consultants and lawyers cost millions and it is a huge waste of the SC's precious log. That money comes from shadow groups like the Rove and Koch PACs, authorized by the SC with Citizens United.
When we contemplate the possible corruption of money in our political system, few mention the enormous sums conservative groups and Republican-governed states spend (26 in this case) to take frivolous suits to the Supreme Court. As with Obamacare and abortion, there is always a chance the court might override legislation. Just to say, however, those consultants and lawyers cost millions and it is a huge waste of the SC's precious log. That money comes from shadow groups like the Rove and Koch PACs, authorized by the SC with Citizens United.
16
Asking that the fundamental division of power and the duty of the President to faithfully execute the laws is not in the least frivolous.
3
That's the whole point. Executive agencies have been given discretion to exercise reason and practicality in applying legislation. This does not mean, as you rabid extremists would have it, making new laws--if it's Obama's administration. You want to throw millions of "bums" out because they are "illegal". Our immigration services and our companies can't easily do that to people who have been here working and paying taxes all their lives. Vote for Trump, sir, but Luger is speaking a truth no Republican wants to hear.
2
If the law is on Obama's side, then why did he declare in public 23 times that the President does not have the constitutional authority to do it? And then why did 2 sets of federal judges stay his executive immigration order?
If the President has the authority to unilaterally rewrite any law that he or she does not like or believes is not enforceable, then we no longer live in a republic but a dictatorship. Imagine a future Republican President looking at the unenforceable provisions of corporate tax law keeping $2 trillion dollars of corporate profits overseas and declaring them null and void. There would be almost nothing a President could not do by diktat.
The fact is that the bipartisan Washington Cartel likes illegal immigration. Republican business owners like the supply of cheap labor and the secondary effect of suppressing wages of unskilled workers. Democrats like pleasing a traditional constituency of Hispanic voters and potential gaining new voters.
The losers are the tens of millions of angry Americans who support Donald Trump.
If the President has the authority to unilaterally rewrite any law that he or she does not like or believes is not enforceable, then we no longer live in a republic but a dictatorship. Imagine a future Republican President looking at the unenforceable provisions of corporate tax law keeping $2 trillion dollars of corporate profits overseas and declaring them null and void. There would be almost nothing a President could not do by diktat.
The fact is that the bipartisan Washington Cartel likes illegal immigration. Republican business owners like the supply of cheap labor and the secondary effect of suppressing wages of unskilled workers. Democrats like pleasing a traditional constituency of Hispanic voters and potential gaining new voters.
The losers are the tens of millions of angry Americans who support Donald Trump.
38
Please give the link to the "...23 times in public" video...... Oh there isn't one? Just something you remember from some right wing hack show? Thanks for your important comment.
1
You don't understand much about how our government works, do you? How many times does it need to be said: Enforcing a law (with congressionally-built in discretion) IS NOT the same as writing the law itself! And anyway, an executive action is only temporary to the term of the executive, unlike a law. Geez, for the all the talk of 'dictatorship', you'd think most Republicans want either no government, or an actual 'dictator' that will dictate to the nation exactly what his/her voters dictate (Trump?). Again, without Americans actually having had the experience of living under a bona fide dictator, they have no clue what they're talking about, either complaining about an imagined one, or wishing for a real one.
You finish your statement with the only reasonable thing you have to say: the tens of millions of people who support Trump are losers. What precedes that is either a willful misunderstanding of what Obama's said and done or, more likely, your dislike of the man and his politics makes you incapable of judging either rationally. If you think Obama's a dictator and that Trump does not aspire to be one - I suspect you fit the classic Trump demographic: angry, white, male, little or no higher education. None of those make you a bad person...just prone to blame others for your disappointments in life. I doubt it's Obama's or an illegal immigrant' fault.
This op-ed just further illustrates the fact that GOP voters in Indiana did the right thing by voting this RINO out of office in a primary.
13
Lived in Indiana for many years. Proudly voted for Lugar every time I had a chance. He was a very effective Senator, and before that an effective Mayor of Indianapolis. The difference and improvement in city before and after has been enormous as anyone who knows the facts can attest.
12
The GOP has dirty hands in illegal immigration. It is business owners (mostly GOP) who have employed these illegals, undermining and marginalizing our own citizens.
On the other hand, Sen. Lugar, the president doesn't have authority to pass or change legislation. There are limits on executive action, of course. Two courts have already determined that Obama overreached his authority here, and their analysis was quite a bit more detailed than yours.
18
Over reached his authority in what way? If Congress doesn't provide sufficient funding to execute the law in its totality, of course the executive has the authority, in fact the obligation, to make decisions regarding how to proceed most effectively with the limited resources available.
16
Not having funding to deport all lawbreakers is one thing, and giving them amnesty is quite another.
13
SW....You obviously don't know what the President has done. He has not given anyone amnesty. That claim is totally and deliberately bogus. He has only put some people at the back of the deportation line. The reality is that the back of the deportation line will never be reached because Congress has not provided the funding that would make that possible. If Congress wants the law fully implemented they have to provide sufficient funding.
4
Op Ed articles by current and former politicians should always include in the short bio at the bottom of the piece the party affiliation of the writer. Why the Times fails to do so here is odd, especially since in this case we have a republican supporting a democratic president's decisions on immigration.
7
I see one. Senator for 25 years. Retired for two. What more do you need to know? And anyway, since you have his name...google is your friend :)
1
Because any bio -- even a couple of lines -- would have to state that the VOTERS OF INDIANA kicked former Senator Lugar out on his hienie, for cravenly giving in on illegal immigration.
There are millions of unemployed or under-employed citizens of Indiana who have to watch their former jobs go to illegal aliens (when they are not going OVERSEAS) and bigshots like former Senator Lugar just sit by and mumble namby-pamby stuff about "illegals rights to YOUR job" (because they work harder and are "poor brown skinned people" and hence, they deserve YOUR job and YOU DO NOT).
There are millions of unemployed or under-employed citizens of Indiana who have to watch their former jobs go to illegal aliens (when they are not going OVERSEAS) and bigshots like former Senator Lugar just sit by and mumble namby-pamby stuff about "illegals rights to YOUR job" (because they work harder and are "poor brown skinned people" and hence, they deserve YOUR job and YOU DO NOT).
3
Just the usual GOP throwing-the-baby-with-the-bathwater. Lugar lost because Republicans voters preferred to be lied to than understand they needed more Lugars in Congress. That's hardly Lugar's fault. None of the trade agreements would've been a problem had the GOP been honest brokers between workers dealing with the consequences of NAFTA and TPP and the donors-owners wanting a deal signed. But the GOP doesn't work that way, does it? Now you've been saddled with Trump.
It would no necessary to mount a huge effort to deport people here illegally.
If the Federal government would just raid businesses hring these peole and drag the business owners to jail or submit the tax records for audit to see how many are paying people off the books and not collecting income and Social Security and Medicare taxes the rest of the employers would soon get the message and release the illegals working for them. Disperse the people hanging around the Home Depot and Lowes parking lots looking for day work too.
Take away their ability to work and millions will self deport. They can turn themselves in to INS which will disburse funds for transportation to get themselves home or use charter flights.
This is not an insurmountable problem.
If the Federal government would just raid businesses hring these peole and drag the business owners to jail or submit the tax records for audit to see how many are paying people off the books and not collecting income and Social Security and Medicare taxes the rest of the employers would soon get the message and release the illegals working for them. Disperse the people hanging around the Home Depot and Lowes parking lots looking for day work too.
Take away their ability to work and millions will self deport. They can turn themselves in to INS which will disburse funds for transportation to get themselves home or use charter flights.
This is not an insurmountable problem.
27
That would probably snare some workers, yes. But the in long view. Who is going to willing pick our fruit and vegetables, resod our lawns and public spaces? Make the beds, bus the tables in our hotels, and care for many of our vulnerable dependents so we can do our " important "?
1
ABSOLUTELY YES. This was one issue on which Mitt Romney was 100% correct and history will vindicate him.
And a few wealthy white folks IN JAIL for violating immigration law -- including the CEOs of Tyson and Hormel -- will have a wonderfully bracing "freeze effect" on the hiring of ALL illegals.
No jobs, they leave on their own. Simple, cheap, effective. NO WALL REQUIRED.
And a few wealthy white folks IN JAIL for violating immigration law -- including the CEOs of Tyson and Hormel -- will have a wonderfully bracing "freeze effect" on the hiring of ALL illegals.
No jobs, they leave on their own. Simple, cheap, effective. NO WALL REQUIRED.
3
As he explained in March 2011: With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case. . . .
"There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President."
President Barack Obama (March, 2011)
"There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President."
President Barack Obama (March, 2011)
10
Precisely. Obama is simply using his executive authority to make necessary adjustments NOT wholesale nullification as some either advocate or accuse him of doing.
2
A voice of reason from the opposing party? Astounding in this day and age. Thank you, Senator Lugar.
11
I've come to the conclusion that the Times doesn't actually care whether Obama's executive amnesty is legal or not. As far as they are concerned, any argument that advances the interests of illegal immigrants is a good argument.
33
When you make a claim you should at least try to present some facts and logic to support your position. Otherwise you are not credible.
7
"I've come to the conclusion that the Times doesn't actually care whether Obama's executive amnesty is legal or not."y do not,
Lets hope, the courts, the states, the president, and congress all do. To the degree that they do not, we are loosing our Constitution and our Republic.
Lets hope, the courts, the states, the president, and congress all do. To the degree that they do not, we are loosing our Constitution and our Republic.
3
@JohnB
Just the flip side of the GOP then, where every/any argument made by Obama on anything is to be opposed...no matter what or for what reason or purpose.
Just the flip side of the GOP then, where every/any argument made by Obama on anything is to be opposed...no matter what or for what reason or purpose.
1
The existence of this op-ed confirms what we all should have learned by now - the forces in control of the Republican party do not care about your stupid Supreme Court precedent, they will make their own.
No battle is ever won in America, there are only new battle lines in the perpetual internal struggle. This Supreme Court decision will settle nothing, for either side.
No battle is ever won in America, there are only new battle lines in the perpetual internal struggle. This Supreme Court decision will settle nothing, for either side.
3
With Lugar, Republicans would actually have a shot at the Presidency. But not to worry, Republicans as a group won't be leaving crazy town soon.
7
If Republicans leave crazy town you can rest assured they will do it legally.
"This presidential prerogative has been recognized explicitly by the Supreme Court."
Where is the recognized prerogative in the constitution?
My hope is the court will limit itself to ruling within the intended meaning of the constitution as understood by those who made it law by ratifying it, and not put their ideology first, or apply any legal precedent that conflicts with the constitution. I understand the constitution to explicitly provide two methods of amending. Neither is legal precedent.
Regarding the question of who has the authority to make law, the very first line in the constitution after the preamble resolves this as follows.
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 1:
"ALL legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
Does ALL not leave none for the court and president?
Regarding the president's constitutional executive authority:
From Article II, Section 3:
"he [the president] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,"
Does this not mean that the President's executive authority is limited to the details of how the laws are executed and would not allow giving a work permit to someone who under the law congress made is not eligible to work?
If congress wishes to change the laws it has created, it can quickly present a new bill to the president expanding who is legal.
My hope is that any ruling will not exceed the constitutional limits on the president or courts.
Where is the recognized prerogative in the constitution?
My hope is the court will limit itself to ruling within the intended meaning of the constitution as understood by those who made it law by ratifying it, and not put their ideology first, or apply any legal precedent that conflicts with the constitution. I understand the constitution to explicitly provide two methods of amending. Neither is legal precedent.
Regarding the question of who has the authority to make law, the very first line in the constitution after the preamble resolves this as follows.
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 1:
"ALL legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
Does ALL not leave none for the court and president?
Regarding the president's constitutional executive authority:
From Article II, Section 3:
"he [the president] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,"
Does this not mean that the President's executive authority is limited to the details of how the laws are executed and would not allow giving a work permit to someone who under the law congress made is not eligible to work?
If congress wishes to change the laws it has created, it can quickly present a new bill to the president expanding who is legal.
My hope is that any ruling will not exceed the constitutional limits on the president or courts.
5
What is absurd here is that if the next President is Trump or Cruz -- or some future conservative -- and THAT President wanted to make up his own laws and get around Congress (and the CITIZENS OF THE USA) -- the NYT and lefties would be outraged.
Imagine a President Cruz using his executive powers to ban all transsexuals from public bathrooms. But if you take this logically to its conclusion, he would be within his "rights" to do so.
This only "sounds good" to lefties because they worship Obama as a kind of "black savior/messiah" -- and many are unwilling to accept he will be gone forever from public office in 9 months!
Imagine a President Cruz using his executive powers to ban all transsexuals from public bathrooms. But if you take this logically to its conclusion, he would be within his "rights" to do so.
This only "sounds good" to lefties because they worship Obama as a kind of "black savior/messiah" -- and many are unwilling to accept he will be gone forever from public office in 9 months!
2
If middle-class Americans want to pick lettuce, why don't they try to get those jobs? They're available; there are reported work shortages in Arizona and New Mexico. Would that not stem the tide? Or how about some of those house painting jobs?
1
Because the flood of cheap illegal labor drives wages so low. Do you really think Americans won't do construction jobs for a decent wage?
4
What did we do BEFORE illegal immigration? Middle class skilled workers NEVER picked lettuce. (Indeed, middle class hispanics don't do so either.)
What is hilariously wrong is that you think illegal aliens are all fruit pickers. Only 1% of all illegals do any sort of agricultural work. 99% work in cities, doing the EXACT SAME JOBS Americans used to do -- mostly construction, but also trucking, food service, landscaping, child care and elder care.
They are directly taking jobs from American workers.
Or do you believe that "no middle class American citizen would ever do construction -- or drive a truck"?????
What is hilariously wrong is that you think illegal aliens are all fruit pickers. Only 1% of all illegals do any sort of agricultural work. 99% work in cities, doing the EXACT SAME JOBS Americans used to do -- mostly construction, but also trucking, food service, landscaping, child care and elder care.
They are directly taking jobs from American workers.
Or do you believe that "no middle class American citizen would ever do construction -- or drive a truck"?????
5
A lot of farm workers and house painters are Americans. There would be more Americans doing this work if they had not been pre-empted by illegal immigrants who were willing to work for less, and in less hospitable conditions.
If farmers absolutely cannot pay higher wages or improve working conditions, then they should be able to temporarily bring in foreign adult laborers (without their children) who would be pleased with the current pay, as it will go further back in their home countries. Currently, the administration requires farmers to work with 5 or 6 different agencies to bring in temporary labor. Why hasn't this process been streamlined?
If farmers absolutely cannot pay higher wages or improve working conditions, then they should be able to temporarily bring in foreign adult laborers (without their children) who would be pleased with the current pay, as it will go further back in their home countries. Currently, the administration requires farmers to work with 5 or 6 different agencies to bring in temporary labor. Why hasn't this process been streamlined?
2
Writing in the year 2020, a respected historian chronicled the following account of how Americans lost their freedom: "So finally we just gave Obama a golden crown and were done with this long running deception that America was anything but a beneficent dictatorship. The Constitution said (at its original outset) in Article I, section 1 that 'All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.'
"Under the reign of Lord Obama, that was changed to the following: 'The President will determine the policies and needs of all Americans according to his own discretion, and there shall be no appeal therefrom.' All Hail the Dictator, Caesar and King, our sacred and blessed protector, Obama!"
"Under the reign of Lord Obama, that was changed to the following: 'The President will determine the policies and needs of all Americans according to his own discretion, and there shall be no appeal therefrom.' All Hail the Dictator, Caesar and King, our sacred and blessed protector, Obama!"
11
'"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,"....They are also responsible for funding the legislation. In the absence of sufficient funding to implement the law in its totality, the executive clearly has the discretion as to how best to proceed with the limited funds that have been made available. It follows therefore that the opinion you have expressed is in error.
1
This kind of massive power grab only appeals to lefty liberals, because they consider Obama to be a kind of "black messiah/savior" and beyond reproach -- they are halfway to deifying him.
If this was a President Trump or Cruz, demanding these vast new powers -- the same lefties would be screaming bloody murder about "an imperial Presidency!" and "this means dictatorship!" and so forth. Look at how they call Trump a Nazi and fascist -- without the slightest justification -- and he's not even in office. (YET)
If this was a President Trump or Cruz, demanding these vast new powers -- the same lefties would be screaming bloody murder about "an imperial Presidency!" and "this means dictatorship!" and so forth. Look at how they call Trump a Nazi and fascist -- without the slightest justification -- and he's not even in office. (YET)
2
On the other hand, the President himself previously said on the record that he did not have the authority to expand non-enforcement to millions of cases. I believe his phrase at that prior time was "I am not a king."
15
I do not believe President Obama's actions are legal. This is coming from a person who supports immigration reform. The President has a responsibility to enforce the laws as an reflection of enacted policy. He has the right of discretion within the law and within the policy. However, I believe his sweeping actions crossed the, admittedly, blurred line between enforcing policy and making policy. Congress' shameful inaction on Immigration reform does not give the President the right to create policy. Congress needs to do their job, or lose their individual jobs.
12
"He has the right of discretion within the law and within the policy."....The mistake you make is that the law is drastically under funded. There is no possible way to enforce the full measure of the law with the resources Congress has provided to implement it. In the obvious absence of sufficient funding it is the obligation of the Executive to proceed to execute the law as is best reasonably possible....which means the executive has the authority to determine the order of deportation; who should be processed first and who should be at the back of the line.
6
He is not the only one giving benefits to those who are here illegally and his offer to give out work permits crosses the line by negating the intention of enforcement, beyond just a focus of enforcement. Why not give a bank robbers a fast car if authorities don't have resources to catch them.
3
The illegals with additional criminal activity are probably the most expensive to put at the front of the line.
Given that the Supreme Court will decide whether the law is in fact on Obama's side, this op-ed is presumptuous on its face and disingenuous in its argument. One can only wonder if this is a semi-veiled attempt to influence the conservative side of the court.
9
Duh. Of course we know the 4 liberal justices vote as a block almost every time -- and several of the justice's votes are available for sale, for cash.
See: Citizens United....Windsor....Obergefell....the Individual Mandate.
See: Citizens United....Windsor....Obergefell....the Individual Mandate.
1
Executive discretion when enforcing the law may be legal but as we have repeatedly seen in the past is merely a means to punish political foes and reward political friends. It is no different this time around.
10
The American people miss one of the very, very few statesman-like republicans from the Senate. Richard Lugar, thank you for your service. Truly wish there were even one of you left in the the Senate.
2
Preventing law enforcement should not be a Presidential power. Perhaps he can choose which illegal aliens should go but he does not get to determine which ones get to stay.
14
So, which is it? "...he can choose which should go? Or, "...he does not get to determine which ones get to stay"? Logically, those NOT chosen to go, get to stay.
GOP In Congress is long on howls and histrionics, but short on responding to the facts of past precedent, mandate and funding. During administrations of both parties since 9/11, the courts have consistently upheld wide discretion in the enforcement of the immigration laws. Past administrations, both GOP and Democratic, have explicitly supported flexibility in enforcement of immigration laws, going back to the 1950s, according to the article. To top off the lunacy, the GOP has cut funding for immigration enforcement so deeply that, even if the Supreme Court overturns Obama's Executive Orders on immigration, there is no funding to pay for the changes the GOP is wailing and shrieking about. So the GOP Congress is in the ludicrous position, having painted itself into a corner (with increasing frequency), even if the Supreme Court overturns the current Executive Orders on immigration, since nobody's budging with underfunded programs. The GOP's interminable droning on about government spending do not only applies to changes they do not support, but rather include changes that they themselves propose. The GOP has effectively paralyzed the functioning of Congress, hamstrung the courts due to refusal to act on judicial appointments and now wishes to confound the Executive branch. They want to prove that government does not work by shutting it down, then pointing a finger of blame elsewhere when it fails to act in a timely way. Can't have it both ways. The GOP must get real!
3
Thank you Senator Lugar. Apparently, you are alone. The only Republican with integrity left in America. Every once in a while, a Republican breaks rank with the neo-fascist Norquist-Tea Party cabal only to be slapped down. Imagine what the landscape would look like if more Republicans acted for the common good.
Missing in the overall discussion of immigrants is the fact that employers who hire and exploit them harm workers and contribute to inequality by suppressing wages. We hear about immigrants getting "benefits" but no one ever mentions the billions of dollars that most immigrants pay into Social Security and in taxes and that they are deprived of the benefits that they are paying for because they are "illegal".
Missing in the overall discussion of immigrants is the fact that employers who hire and exploit them harm workers and contribute to inequality by suppressing wages. We hear about immigrants getting "benefits" but no one ever mentions the billions of dollars that most immigrants pay into Social Security and in taxes and that they are deprived of the benefits that they are paying for because they are "illegal".
5
President Obama is using the discretion granted him and fulfilling his constitutional responsibility in regards immigration unlike our senators who are flouting their own responsibility.
9
Please site the part of the constitution that gives him that discretion remembering the following quotes from the constitution:
1. "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,"
2. "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
Given the above, it is hard for me to understand where such discretion would come from without deviating from what those who ratified the constitution and made it law understood it to mean.
1. "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,"
2. "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
Given the above, it is hard for me to understand where such discretion would come from without deviating from what those who ratified the constitution and made it law understood it to mean.
Re-read the Senator's op-ed and you will understand.
Wow. I remember when Lugar appeared to have a moral conscience. Now, he is just a willing tool of the ruling oligarchs. I guess the Lugar Center is not going to fund itself.
10
Replace "President Obama" with "President Cruz" and "Immigration" with "The Environment", and see how the shoe feels on the other foot when the GOP uses prosecutorial discretion to effectively eliminate the EPA, the Dept. of Education, or other parts of government they loath.
We the voters need to fix congress to fix the immigration system. The executive alternative leads us down a terrifying road of lawlessness.
We the voters need to fix congress to fix the immigration system. The executive alternative leads us down a terrifying road of lawlessness.
16
Tom, that is because as lefty liberals and the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party, the NYT and its faithful cannot even imagine a day when there will not be a Democrat in the White House. Indeed, they have stated this belief often -- that they cannot lose -- that the dictatorship of HIllary is assured -- that she is "the Anointed One" -- that nobody dare oppose her, even from the left -- and that basically as voters, WE HAVE NO CHOICE and must do the bidding of our lefty liberal masters (*who know what is in our self interest, better than we ourselves do).
2
Apparently you didn't read the column: Lugar makes it clear that the increased executive discretion is particular to immigration laws because of the changing nature of needs immigration presents.
1
Yet another editorial begging for the NYT's most fervent prayer, open borders madness followed by full on amnesty. Obama ceased beating the amnesty drum before the 2012 elections because he knew good and well the issue was a loser for democrats. He then tried to force de facto open borders down our collective throats thru executive action even though he knows good and well a majority of Americans don't want it. Thwarting the will of the American people who want an up or down vote on a Supreme Court nominee? Mr. Pot meet Mr. kettle.
20
Excellent!
Signed a jaded former Obama enthusiast, circa 2007-2008
Signed a jaded former Obama enthusiast, circa 2007-2008
2
This editorial is a breath of fresh air in an atmosphere heavily polluted by the shrill cries of amnesty and abuse of power. If Senator Lugar's analysis is correct, then there is only one way the Supreme Court can possibly rule, and I expect the Court to rule in favor of the president.
Unfortunately that will probably not clear the air a tiny bit, as we've seen from the ACA rulings. The screamers on the right will completely ignore the reasoning of the Court and others, attack Senator Lugar and others with terms like RINO, and continue with their unjustified hatred and disrespect for our president.
The tragic fact is that those who proudly declare themselves patriots are patriotic to a fictitious America. They have nothing but contempt for the president who was elected twice by a majority of voters in this nation they claim to love. They only love the America that agrees with their point of view; the rest of us are expected to either alter our thinking to align with theirs, or simply stop talking.
Unfortunately that will probably not clear the air a tiny bit, as we've seen from the ACA rulings. The screamers on the right will completely ignore the reasoning of the Court and others, attack Senator Lugar and others with terms like RINO, and continue with their unjustified hatred and disrespect for our president.
The tragic fact is that those who proudly declare themselves patriots are patriotic to a fictitious America. They have nothing but contempt for the president who was elected twice by a majority of voters in this nation they claim to love. They only love the America that agrees with their point of view; the rest of us are expected to either alter our thinking to align with theirs, or simply stop talking.
2
Some would consider it patriotic to defend our borders and enforce existing laws duly passed by both houses of Congress. Not Democrats, curiously.
1
Such interpretation by Sen. Lugar that Obama has followed the law and that it is a president's "prerogative" in "the nature of immigration enforcement and resources (or lack thereof)" is ridiculous.
The president is sworn to follow the Constitution and uphold the laws of the US. Ignoring some isn't a "prerogative." And his actions surrounding such policy as immigration, with major implications for society and budgets, are also not "prerogative."
Sen. Lugar should know better as a previously elected official.
The president is sworn to follow the Constitution and uphold the laws of the US. Ignoring some isn't a "prerogative." And his actions surrounding such policy as immigration, with major implications for society and budgets, are also not "prerogative."
Sen. Lugar should know better as a previously elected official.
12
"Ignoring some isn't a "prerogative." ....Unless of course Congress fails to provide sufficient funding to implement them. Of course the executive has the prerogative, in fact the obligation, to determine how to partially implement a law that Congress has only partially funded. Try some logic, dump the dogma.
If funding is the only concern, Spitzer, Obama is still not doing the most cost effective strategy: preventing border crossing and preventing illegal work.
2
What happened to work visas? Ya know, legal?
9
None of that matters, as these are the "poor brown skinned peoples of the world" -- and they deserve YOUR job more than you do -- lefties are quick to say that Americans are too lazy to do hard jobs, and won't take any unpleasant jobs at any pay -- ergo, illegal aliens are morally and ethically superior, and deserve those jobs more and Americans can just go pound sand.
2
"From these howls of outrage, you wouldn’t know that the Obama administration has vastly exceeded the deportations under President George W. Bush."
This is not really accurate. Under Bush, many Mexicans were turned around at the border and these were not counted as deportations, but as aliens attempting to enter the U.S. without proper documentation. Not the same thing.
Under Obama, these same offenders were now being counted as deportations, under a different section of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This is merely a difference in accounting.
This is not really accurate. Under Bush, many Mexicans were turned around at the border and these were not counted as deportations, but as aliens attempting to enter the U.S. without proper documentation. Not the same thing.
Under Obama, these same offenders were now being counted as deportations, under a different section of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This is merely a difference in accounting.
21
The LA Times reported on this a couple of years ago. Deportations are really about half of what they were under Bush
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html
2
Actually, you drank the koolaid spawned by Obama and the NYTimes. Obama doesn't deport more illegals - he invited them to come and then stops some at the border and deports them. If you have 100,000 illegals and all are deported, and then have 1,000,000 illegals and deport 100,001 you have 'deported more.' Crazy math, but the white house likes to invent it's own spin.
2
It's really simple. If we had ethical jurists on SCOTUS you'd have an 8-0 reversal of the immigration case before it today.
There was simply no jurisprudential basis for either the rogue Texas district court enjoining application of the administration's order or the right wing activist US Fifth Circuit affirming the injunction in 2-1 split panel decision.
Plaintiffs forum shopped to get the unprincipled Tea Party district court judge in Texas to hear the case knowing they would likely get an unprincipled 5th Circuit panel to affirm the specious district court decision.
To add to the smarmy jurisprudence, the 5th Circuit panel deliberately unreasonably delayed announcing the decision hoping that SCOTUS would have to put it over until next term, drawing a rare rebuke from the panel's dissenting jurist to her panel's unethical delay.
All the previous SCOTUS jurisprudence on the subject holds that an administration has ample authority to do just what Obama did. In addition all SCOTUS jurisprudence regarding a state's standing to bring suit against a federal law indicates none of the plaintiffs in this case even have standing to sue.
Problem is the Roberts/Kennedy conservative mandarins on the Court have shown little regard for precedent or the legitimacy of the Court in meting out their activist agenda, see, e.g., Citizens United, Shelby County.
Expect more of the same.
There was simply no jurisprudential basis for either the rogue Texas district court enjoining application of the administration's order or the right wing activist US Fifth Circuit affirming the injunction in 2-1 split panel decision.
Plaintiffs forum shopped to get the unprincipled Tea Party district court judge in Texas to hear the case knowing they would likely get an unprincipled 5th Circuit panel to affirm the specious district court decision.
To add to the smarmy jurisprudence, the 5th Circuit panel deliberately unreasonably delayed announcing the decision hoping that SCOTUS would have to put it over until next term, drawing a rare rebuke from the panel's dissenting jurist to her panel's unethical delay.
All the previous SCOTUS jurisprudence on the subject holds that an administration has ample authority to do just what Obama did. In addition all SCOTUS jurisprudence regarding a state's standing to bring suit against a federal law indicates none of the plaintiffs in this case even have standing to sue.
Problem is the Roberts/Kennedy conservative mandarins on the Court have shown little regard for precedent or the legitimacy of the Court in meting out their activist agenda, see, e.g., Citizens United, Shelby County.
Expect more of the same.
3
What Congress gives, Congress can take away.
Congresses are not bound by the decisions of past Congresses.
Wait for it.
Nobody is seriously talking about deporting all illegal immigrants in now in the US. That's a red herring and basically a lie that liberals, especially this newspaper, keep injecting into the conversation. Total nonsense.
But where is it written that we should treat illegal immigrants nicely? They wandered into this country uninvited. If caught, they should be deported.
The US is not a barn where everybody just walks in because they think they were born in the wrong place.
And it's the only country in the world where "securing the borders" is even a discussion.
Naive, stupid Americans is what they call us behind our backs.
Congresses are not bound by the decisions of past Congresses.
Wait for it.
Nobody is seriously talking about deporting all illegal immigrants in now in the US. That's a red herring and basically a lie that liberals, especially this newspaper, keep injecting into the conversation. Total nonsense.
But where is it written that we should treat illegal immigrants nicely? They wandered into this country uninvited. If caught, they should be deported.
The US is not a barn where everybody just walks in because they think they were born in the wrong place.
And it's the only country in the world where "securing the borders" is even a discussion.
Naive, stupid Americans is what they call us behind our backs.
24
"But where is it written that we should treat illegal immigrants nicely?"....Where is it written that we should treat illegal immigrants inhumanely? How you treat other people says more about you than it does about them.
1
NOPE -- we are going to deport all illegal aliens -- and we will elect President Trump to do so.
He won't fail us, because he's not beholden to lefty liberalism.
He won't fail us, because he's not beholden to lefty liberalism.
2
"Nobody is seriously talking about deporting all illegal immigrants in now in the US." That is an amazing statement, but then I realized that you're right: despite the fact that the Republican presidential primary talks about almost nothing else, they are not serious.
1
Using Lugar's logic, a future Republican President could choose not to enforce tax laws on individuals accused of not paying capital gains taxes. Wouldn't it be ironic if the premise for that were to lie in the SCOTUS' supporting Obama's supposed discretion to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"?
16
"future Republican President could choose not to enforce tax laws on individuals accused of not paying capital gains taxes."....Think. Your proposed President could only do that if Congress did not provide sufficient funding to run the IRS.
2
What does tax law have to do with immigration policy? Lugar makes it clear that the flexibility on priorities and enforcement are tied to the unique circumstances of immigration law.
2
In 1984 legal standing was given to 3 million illegal aliens with the promise and understanding this was the solution to our illegal immigration woes. That worker so well we now have over 11 million illegals, some wish to go down the same path again. If you reward bad behavior you will receive more bad behavior.
24
If ONLY it were merely 11 million, hannstv.
That estimate comes from the US Census of 2010 -- meaning self-reported -- those illegals who cheerfully told US Census takers that "yes, we are here illegally".
How many do YOU THINK did not respond or ran away from Census takers? Or lied?
The best and most reasonable estimates are 20 million -- and that does not count the anchor babies.
That estimate comes from the US Census of 2010 -- meaning self-reported -- those illegals who cheerfully told US Census takers that "yes, we are here illegally".
How many do YOU THINK did not respond or ran away from Census takers? Or lied?
The best and most reasonable estimates are 20 million -- and that does not count the anchor babies.
2
The 1984 amnesty act was NEVER about enforcement. It was a direct hit to the American workers, whose livings were lost forever to an endless stream of illegal aliens, all with the goal of increased profits for wealthy GOP business owners and executives of corporations. Any fool who believed that empty promise is the same sort who voted for Prop 13 in CA-- believing it was to keep granny in her home, or those who have voted for Indian gambling because it would help the Native Americans. What naivete, how subject to propaganda the majority of Americans are.
2
There are over 20 million illegal immigrants in the US today, not 11 million. And that number is expanding but won't be counted as illegal immigrants that give birth, give birth to a US citizen.
1
The planet is threatened with extinctions of many species. You've just heard the lonely voice of one of the last remaining, still-living Reasonable Republicans. How Senator Lugar, a man of integrity, stood the company he kept was always a mystery to me.
3
A " man of integrity"? The push to give legal status and citizenship to millions who came here in violation of our law is an unholy alliance between big business- both Democrat and Republican- pining for ever cheaper labor, and Democrats who want to replace their ever declining share of the white vote. The American people are the losers.
3
I have read Lugar's piece twice. I have read the comments twice.
Seems to me that many of the commenters (a) did not read the column; and (b) have their minds made up about immigration issues...and will never budge.
EVER.
Seems to me that many of the commenters (a) did not read the column; and (b) have their minds made up about immigration issues...and will never budge.
EVER.
3
Where have they gone, Mrs. Robinson, our Joe Dimaggios, of conservative reason? Our nation turns its weary eyes to you Senator Lugar.
2
Dick, you must be a RINO - or, in other words, rational Republican.
Rumor has it that they used to exist.
For instance, the leading candidate for the Republican nomination for President talks incessantly about building a wall, but not about the wall that already exists, the wall that has apparently been erected around the part of the brain that governs conservative Americans' capacity for common sense.
Before President Obama arrived at his current policy, he apparently consulted a wide range of legal experts - and likely did a fair bit of his own research. Obama is nothing if not careful and judicious - which is about the last thing one can say about the knave seeking to build that wall.
What conservatives objecting to the President's policy need to be made to understand is ideology is simple but reality, like the reality of governing, is complicated. Whatever one thinks about the policy, rest assured that Obama would not have gone forward - especially given a hostile Republican Congress - unless he was standing on firm, indisputable executive branch precedent.
Again, ideology is simple, governing is complicated.
Rumor has it that they used to exist.
For instance, the leading candidate for the Republican nomination for President talks incessantly about building a wall, but not about the wall that already exists, the wall that has apparently been erected around the part of the brain that governs conservative Americans' capacity for common sense.
Before President Obama arrived at his current policy, he apparently consulted a wide range of legal experts - and likely did a fair bit of his own research. Obama is nothing if not careful and judicious - which is about the last thing one can say about the knave seeking to build that wall.
What conservatives objecting to the President's policy need to be made to understand is ideology is simple but reality, like the reality of governing, is complicated. Whatever one thinks about the policy, rest assured that Obama would not have gone forward - especially given a hostile Republican Congress - unless he was standing on firm, indisputable executive branch precedent.
Again, ideology is simple, governing is complicated.
71
Why not read the "take care" clause of the constitution and then get back to us. the pronouncements of presidential candidates make for good entertainment but have absolutely no bearing on the illegality of Obama's actions.
1
LOL, if Obama is "careful and judicious" when abusing executive powers to get around Congress -- then I'd rather have the honesty of Trump and his patriotism, and willingness to stand up for US workers against the hordes of illegal aliens coming to take our jobs and our welfare.
1
An op ed piece on illegal immigration that does not include the phrase "racist xenophobes"?
This is probably the clearest, least accusatory piece on the topic I have ever read in the Times.
The Times should consider hiring Lugar as a regular columnist.
This is probably the clearest, least accusatory piece on the topic I have ever read in the Times.
The Times should consider hiring Lugar as a regular columnist.
54
Except that Lugar's legal reasoning is wrong. The president doesn't not have this authority to negate a law passed by Congress who has the sole constitutional authority to set immigration policy.
11
How could ANYONE be a "racist xenophobe" for debating your nation's immigration policy. I do not know why uneducated people think they should post such inane things. Unless the USA is of one race, and the rest of the world is of another race, no way, no how, can any immigration policy be called racist that seeks to enforce the laws on all criminals here in our midst regardless of the country of national origin. So you have nothing to contribute to the discussion so you just hurl epithets.
3
He would be a major improvement over Douthat.
I miss William Safire. There has not been a sane or effective conservative voice on the Times editorial page since his passing.
I miss William Safire. There has not been a sane or effective conservative voice on the Times editorial page since his passing.
Eight years of telling Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in places like Chicago that they can't do their job and deport illegal aliens is far too long. Instead, an ICE agent in a sanctuario such as Chicago or Houston must demonstrate criminal nexus other than the prima facie felony violation of a person remaining within the United States and flouting Title 8, United States Code (immigration law). How many time do I see cases with narcotics nexus crossing my desk, initiated by ICE, and almost always a Latino name appears on them--heroin trafficking, money laundering, weapons and homicide. Looks like the Mexican cartels love this current president, who has given them a free hand to create the worst heroin epidemic we've seen yet.
77
ICE agents work for the President. He is their boss. Drug dealers and other criminals are not protected under the President's order. The heroin epidemic has nothing to do with immigration but a lot to do with the loss of revenue when states legalize marijuana and Mexican dealers increase the sale of heroin and from the lawlessness in Afghanistan where 90% of the world's opium supply comes from.
Sadly, many Americans who dislike President Obama translate their feelings into unfounded accusations and attacks devoid of evidence or meaning.
Sadly, many Americans who dislike President Obama translate their feelings into unfounded accusations and attacks devoid of evidence or meaning.
4
We had more than 8 years of Republican Administrations telling the antitrust enforcers that they could not do their jobs. Yet the right cheered. And now we have a faltering economy with millions of Americans out of work and millions of American families destroyed.
2
thandeliminate the cartels.e heroin epidemic is caused by the users. If no one bought it there would be no supply. Legalize drugs
Why do we have immigration laws if the president of the country can just tell eveyrone to ignore them? There's absolutely no logic in that thinking. The middle class can NOT carry the illegals and health care for everyone. This thinking is destroying the middle class.
95
Try reading the article again. Congress in its infinite wisdom has seriously underfunded immigration enforcement, along with most other responsibilities within its purview.
Should we go after the random Dreamer and let criminals go because we haven't got the money to go after both? Duh. I thought the Republicans were the hard on crime party. Sounds more like they are just the anti-anything-Obama-tries-to-do party.
Should we go after the random Dreamer and let criminals go because we haven't got the money to go after both? Duh. I thought the Republicans were the hard on crime party. Sounds more like they are just the anti-anything-Obama-tries-to-do party.
4
Did you read the editorial? President Obama is by no means ignoring immigration laws. He has deported more than President Bush. Instead, he is prioritizing which people get deported. There is simply not enough funding or manpower to deport all who are here illegally. So who should we spend our limited resources on deporting? President Obama says we should start with the criminals rather than the people who have been here awhile and are earning a living and keeping their noses clean. Sounds like a reasonable plan to me.
2
You seem to have missed the distinction between making laws and enforcing them. It is not immigrants who are destroying the middle class, but the greedsters and looters trying to remove any kind of protections for the rest of us.
3
While it may be reasonable for Obama to prioritize certain types of illegal aliens for deportation, Obama has instead tried to prevent the enforcement of virtually all immigration laws.
Prioritization is one thing, refusing to enforce the laws we have on the books is completely another.
Prioritization is one thing, refusing to enforce the laws we have on the books is completely another.
74
The current administration has deported more illegal immigrants than any previous administration and we have vastly increased border security. Hardly ignoring the problem as the Congress has done.
2
Ken,
Did you even READ the article? A few excerpts:
"The administration’s initiatives allow Homeland Security officials to forgo deportation, on a case-by-case basis, of undocumented residents who came here as children before June 15, 2007, and of certain undocumented parents of children who are American citizens or legal residents. Both are in keeping with similar programs put in place by both Republican and Democratic presidents dating from the Eisenhower administration."
"...the Obama administration has vastly exceeded the deportations under President George W. Bush. And Mr. Bush vastly exceeded those of President Clinton. President Obama’s directives to focus enforcement efforts on those who have committed crimes in the United States and recent border crossers are a rational executive prioritization, given the resources and the realities."
But, please don't let facts get in the way of ignorance.
Did you even READ the article? A few excerpts:
"The administration’s initiatives allow Homeland Security officials to forgo deportation, on a case-by-case basis, of undocumented residents who came here as children before June 15, 2007, and of certain undocumented parents of children who are American citizens or legal residents. Both are in keeping with similar programs put in place by both Republican and Democratic presidents dating from the Eisenhower administration."
"...the Obama administration has vastly exceeded the deportations under President George W. Bush. And Mr. Bush vastly exceeded those of President Clinton. President Obama’s directives to focus enforcement efforts on those who have committed crimes in the United States and recent border crossers are a rational executive prioritization, given the resources and the realities."
But, please don't let facts get in the way of ignorance.
5
Did you read the article? Obama has deported more people than Bush.
1
Richard Lugar personifies an extinct "pol": a reasonable Republican.
145
Reasonable Republicans, in cahoots with unreasonable Democrats, got us to where we are: a bitterly divided country on almost every subject, low growth, anemic per capita wages, poor quality jobs, ... the list is too long to produce, but it ends with a presidential election where the likely choice is Trump or Cruz, and an unindicted H. Clinton.
Way to go.
Way to go.
4
Totally and unequivocally agree.
1
The Republicans are suffering today for the sins of Richard Nixon and his sunbelt strategy decades ago. The Trump devotees are the descendants of George Wallace Democrats.
1
I think the President is trying to do something about this situation. Congress could get onboard and pass a law to address the illegal people here however they just say no and how outraged they are at the President for trying to better the country. How would the people of Texas feel if a person like Trump sent a massive federal army door to door and business to business checking everyone's papers and sending those with none to camps to be deported. After it is over who in Texas will cut the grass, wash the dishes and who will take care of all those children whose parents have been deported?
61
"Congress could get onboard and pass a law to address the illegal people here however they just say no and how outraged they are at the President for trying to better the country. "
Congress has decided to keep the existing laws, They could quickly present an updated law to the president if they desired to do so. By the Constitution congress has sole legislative authority and the president has the duty to enforce the laws he is given by congress.
Article I Section 1 (First line after preamble)
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
From Article II:
Article II SEction 3:
"he [the President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,"
Do you disagree that all legislative authority is with congress and the President has a duty to faithfully execute them whether he agrees with them or not?
Congress has decided to keep the existing laws, They could quickly present an updated law to the president if they desired to do so. By the Constitution congress has sole legislative authority and the president has the duty to enforce the laws he is given by congress.
Article I Section 1 (First line after preamble)
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
From Article II:
Article II SEction 3:
"he [the President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,"
Do you disagree that all legislative authority is with congress and the President has a duty to faithfully execute them whether he agrees with them or not?
7
Everyone that is a proponent of illegal immigration (frightening on its own) cries out about children left behind when their parents leave. That is pure subterfuge. Why would a parent leave their child? If the parents are deported, the kids go with them.
And eliminate the anchor baby law and the problem is completely solved.
And eliminate the anchor baby law and the problem is completely solved.
3
I am hopeful the Court will dismiss this suit for lack of standing. The state has no significant costs to bear and would actually benefit from the taxes that these folks would pay once they come out of the shadows. Texas Republicans shopped for the judge that would initially stop this executive order. They do anything in their power to stop whatever President Obama tries to do for the families of immigrants.
Family values? Only as defined by Republicans.
Family values? Only as defined by Republicans.
177
Another piece in this paper today documents that Texas is now the most health uninsured state. Do their leaders have the best interests of its citizens
Another piece in this paper today documents that Texas is now the most health uninsured state. Do their leaders have the best interests of its citizens in mind?
Another piece in this paper today documents that Texas is now the most health uninsured state. Do their leaders have the best interests of its citizens in mind?
The states are paying millions of dollars every year to educate these children. In our county we have had to hire interpreters and ESL teachers as well feed them and in some cases clothe them. There is no avoiding the costs because the Supreme Court has ruled that we must do this. We are giving the in state college tuition rates despite the fact that they are foreign nationals.
Every state is incurring the cost of this lack of enforcement of immigration laws not just Texas. That why 25 states have joined them in this suit.
The administration disobeying the immigration laws and calling it prosecutorial discretion is engaging in fraud.
Every state is incurring the cost of this lack of enforcement of immigration laws not just Texas. That why 25 states have joined them in this suit.
The administration disobeying the immigration laws and calling it prosecutorial discretion is engaging in fraud.
10
And the law of the land be damned eh? Whatever gets you more democrat voters I guess, right? Right?
10
You are correct, this is not a new precedent being set when it comes to discretion in deportations. What you appear to have "accidentally" forgotten to include in your opinion piece is that in the executive order there is also a requirement for states to provide legal identification to the illegal immigrants.
24
The NYT and their fellow travelers never accidentally forget.
5
So?
1
I'd rather they had legal I.D. from a state than not. I've discovered in my 76 years there is no such thing as perfection. We have to figure out what will be the best of two evils.
Discretion on prioritizing whom to deport seems well within the president's discretion, but handing out work permits does not.
60
Thank you, Senator Lugar, for this careful analysis of immigration policy and for the reminder of the kind of quality which once was represented in the Republican party.
It is often pointed out that twenty-seven states have filed amicus briefs against the President's exercise of executive discretion in enforcing immigration law. It is good to note, as former Republican Senator Lugar does, that these are all not only Republican states, but states with deeply conservative legislatures and governors, examples of what Lugar calls "hyperpartisanship" since the Tea Party take-over of the GOP.
We might note, while we're about it, that sixteen states plus the District of Columbia and thirty mayors have filed briefs supporting Obama's exercise of executive discretion in enforcing the law. If one adds population of states filing for and against the President, jurisdictions supporting Obama's position outweigh those opposed.
But the real issue is, as Lugar says, the way in which past presidents have handled immigration authority as well as the realities of immigration law enforcement which require a wide measure of discretion.
In this respect President Obama is well within past precedent in exercising the authority of his office.
It is often pointed out that twenty-seven states have filed amicus briefs against the President's exercise of executive discretion in enforcing immigration law. It is good to note, as former Republican Senator Lugar does, that these are all not only Republican states, but states with deeply conservative legislatures and governors, examples of what Lugar calls "hyperpartisanship" since the Tea Party take-over of the GOP.
We might note, while we're about it, that sixteen states plus the District of Columbia and thirty mayors have filed briefs supporting Obama's exercise of executive discretion in enforcing the law. If one adds population of states filing for and against the President, jurisdictions supporting Obama's position outweigh those opposed.
But the real issue is, as Lugar says, the way in which past presidents have handled immigration authority as well as the realities of immigration law enforcement which require a wide measure of discretion.
In this respect President Obama is well within past precedent in exercising the authority of his office.
137
''sixteen states plus the District of Columbia and thirty mayors have filed briefs supporting Obama's exercise of executive discretion in enforcing the law. If one adds population of states filing for and against the President, jurisdictions supporting Obama's position outweigh those opposed.'
That means nothing since cities with Republican leadership are nonexistent. Count states only and the overwhelming preponderance supports Texas.
That means nothing since cities with Republican leadership are nonexistent. Count states only and the overwhelming preponderance supports Texas.
3
"If one adds population of states filing for and against the President, jurisdictions supporting Obama's position outweigh those opposed."
to
We do not have a mob-ocracy. For example, if a strong majority of Americas wanted to establish a state religion or restrict certain types of speech, the first Amendment would not allow that.
The constitution give legislative authority to congress, and makes faithfully executing those laws a duty of the president. Our elected congress can decide to keep the laws like their are (the default) or change them at any time. That is our intended constitutional process. Judicial and executive activism are not.
to
We do not have a mob-ocracy. For example, if a strong majority of Americas wanted to establish a state religion or restrict certain types of speech, the first Amendment would not allow that.
The constitution give legislative authority to congress, and makes faithfully executing those laws a duty of the president. Our elected congress can decide to keep the laws like their are (the default) or change them at any time. That is our intended constitutional process. Judicial and executive activism are not.
3
@NYHUGENOT: and note that those 16 states and 30 mayors apparently CARE NOTHING about decent American citizens (many of them black!) who can't find jobs, because illegal aliens have taken them all by working for cash under the table and sub-minimum wages.
The utter hypocrisy of crying for a $15 minimum wage -- then insistently on massive illegal immigration and NO enforcement of existing laws or borders -- is simply beyond belief. Lefty liberals are the most astonishing and contemptible hypocrites.
The utter hypocrisy of crying for a $15 minimum wage -- then insistently on massive illegal immigration and NO enforcement of existing laws or borders -- is simply beyond belief. Lefty liberals are the most astonishing and contemptible hypocrites.
2
I ask again, How do you have a country that protects, supports and functions for the good of its people when you have no control of immigration, you exempt millions of migrants from laws and legal consequences and even reward them for their lawless opportunism?
If Obama's executive action goes through and prevents the enforcement of immigration laws, we no longer have a country.
If Obama's executive action goes through and prevents the enforcement of immigration laws, we no longer have a country.
75
You are confused. The very laws which you claim Obama isn't enforcing grants the President the discretion which he is using.
1
When historians look back in 100 years, they will time the end of our wonderful nation to the unholy reign of the Liar Barack Obama and his utter disregard for Congress or the will of the people.
2
Mr. Lugar writes that Obama "was not flouting the will of Congress; rather, he was using the discretion Congress gave him to fulfill his constitutional duty to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed'."
But the fact that the immigrants in question in this debate are here illegally and have deliberately circumvented the laws in place...that somehow doesn't matter?
I guess a little Monday morning irony is never a bad thing :)
But the fact that the immigrants in question in this debate are here illegally and have deliberately circumvented the laws in place...that somehow doesn't matter?
I guess a little Monday morning irony is never a bad thing :)
45
The Supreme Court should not implement Mr. Trump’s immigration policy. It is what will happen if Texas prevails.
On the other hand, it is a positive sign that the House is willing to work on immigration. Almost refreshing.
It would be more positive if the House remembers that its job is to legislate. Representatives were not elected to perform judicial tasks.
I humbly suggest that instead of working on an amicus curiae, the GOP led House use the energy and enthusiasm to write a comprehensive immigration Bill. Please show your commitment to our country.
On the other hand, it is a positive sign that the House is willing to work on immigration. Almost refreshing.
It would be more positive if the House remembers that its job is to legislate. Representatives were not elected to perform judicial tasks.
I humbly suggest that instead of working on an amicus curiae, the GOP led House use the energy and enthusiasm to write a comprehensive immigration Bill. Please show your commitment to our country.
22
"I humbly suggest that instead of working on an amicus curiae, the GOP led House use the energy and enthusiasm to write a comprehensive immigration Bill. Please show your commitment to our country."
There is no way the Congress could write an immigration law to please this administration. We have laws, they need to be enforced.
There is no way the Congress could write an immigration law to please this administration. We have laws, they need to be enforced.
9
I hope you aren't holding your breath for anything meaningful from a republican led congress, forgeddaboutit.
1
The only "immigration bill" that I and tens of millions of decent American citizens will support is the bill that secures our borders -- enforces E-verify -- makes English the official language of the USA -- ends bilingual education -- deports all illegal aliens ASAP and closes the door behind them. Oh, and ends birthright citizenship.
Nothing else will get our support -- certainly not some liberal "path to citizenship".
Nothing else will get our support -- certainly not some liberal "path to citizenship".
4
Mr. Lugar needs to be careful. If the court allows so much discretion to Mr. Obama then little remains of the rule of law except the president's will.
It would open the door to a future president like Mr.Trump, or worse, to do, or not do, whatever he wished and our system which depends on the division of powers would come to an end.
It would open the door to a future president like Mr.Trump, or worse, to do, or not do, whatever he wished and our system which depends on the division of powers would come to an end.
35
What nonsense, Aruna. If Congress actually did their job President Obama wouldn't need to take steps like this. You must be living in an alternate universe where down is up.
5
Mr. Obama has based his Executive Orders on the EO's of past Presidents'; almost all Republican.
2
Good point. Lefties want OBAMA to have unlimited Presidential powers, like executive orders to "get around" Congress -- but if there is a Republican POTUS they will live to regret their decision here!
Obama -- no matter if you like him or trust him -- is a lame duck with only months left in office. He can never, ever run or serve again as POTUS. He's finished.
So all that executive power will accrue to someone ELSE -- do you want it to go to Hillary, to start a new Middle East war? To Bernie, to impose lefty liberal policies? To Trump? To Cruz? To Paul Ryan? because that is what will happen if SCOTUS doesn't reign in Obama's unholy abuse of executive privilege.
Obama -- no matter if you like him or trust him -- is a lame duck with only months left in office. He can never, ever run or serve again as POTUS. He's finished.
So all that executive power will accrue to someone ELSE -- do you want it to go to Hillary, to start a new Middle East war? To Bernie, to impose lefty liberal policies? To Trump? To Cruz? To Paul Ryan? because that is what will happen if SCOTUS doesn't reign in Obama's unholy abuse of executive privilege.
2
Now you know why Lugar is no longer in the senate.
If you fail to enforce existing law, and you side with the illegals, you need to lose your job.
If you fail to enforce existing law, and you side with the illegals, you need to lose your job.
48
Lugar was dumped by the voters of his state because he no longer represented the interests of the voters. He hadn't had an address in Indiana in 30 years.
Too many of these lifetime politicians become residents of Washington DC.
It's long past time for term limits.
Too many of these lifetime politicians become residents of Washington DC.
It's long past time for term limits.
7
Mr. Lugar was one of the only decent republicans in the senate, that's why he's gone. He is a good man, thoughtful and brilliant.
1
The voters did an important job in drop-kicking former Senator Lugar to the curb. He cravenly gave in on illegal immigration.
The more we do this (get rid of craven politicians), the sooner we will win -- and deport all illegal aliens, and their illegal families (*anchor babies can return if they wish, at age 18 as legal adults).
Trump will do this. Nobody else even cares.
The more we do this (get rid of craven politicians), the sooner we will win -- and deport all illegal aliens, and their illegal families (*anchor babies can return if they wish, at age 18 as legal adults).
Trump will do this. Nobody else even cares.
7
evidently Democrat hypocrisy knows no bounds. The pretense that Obama's initiative on illegal immigrants is and "enforcement priority" when he made clear and Lugar and other liberals vocally support the intent to keep the beneficiaries in the U.S. permanently is farcical.
28
Richard Lugar is a Republican and no liberal. Except, perhaps, by he wacky standards of today's Republican party.
4
@Slim: Lugar is a liberal Republican (yeah, they exist).
And he was drummed out of office for being too liberal in 2012, in part due to his position on illegal immigration. He was replaced by a more conservative Republican.
And he was drummed out of office for being too liberal in 2012, in part due to his position on illegal immigration. He was replaced by a more conservative Republican.
3
Lugar's wrong on this. Yes, the Executive Branch has and can exercise prosecutorial discretion but that is a very different concept from what Obama is trying to do. In the instant case, Obama wants to issue a blanket rule and use executive orders to contravene the existing laws. That is wrong and unconstitutional, full stop, end of line, period.
49
"Yes, the Executive Branch has and can exercise prosecutorial discretion..."
That, Jack is why you are wrong in your assessment that a contravention of laws is happening.
That, Jack is why you are wrong in your assessment that a contravention of laws is happening.
3
So what you also mean is that Trump, if President, CAN build the wall and also deport the undocumented. If that Scenario ends up happening I look forward to your clear editorial saying you may not like it, but he can
38
Yes Trump can, or rather he can try. He will just have to convince congress to increase the budget of the ICE roughly 100 fold, and come up with 40 billion to build the wall, plus another 10 billion annually to maintain it.
1
It's not going to happen because trumpolini will be soundly defeated, if nominated.
1
The Supreme Court will decide whether the current Law is on Obama's side.
Meanwhile, Americans can vote for candidates for President and Congress who will enact laws, and pursue policies, that Americans want, including laws and policies that change or reverse current laws and policies on immigration.
Yes, it might not practical to force the President to enforce the immigration law,
or any other law.
But the law can be changed to remove the power of the President to grant legal status or official reprieve, even supposedly temporary reprieve.
The supposed choice between deportation and legal status is a false choice.
Nothing whatsoever wrong with simply leaving illegal immigrants in illegal status, with neither deportation nor legal status nor even temporary legal reprieve.
Further, even if a President is reluctant, or actively opposes, deportation, the law could be changed explicitly to allow states and private individuals and companies to treat illegal immigrants as illegally here,without legal status, and to deny them benefits under state law and to deny them employment.
And of course, whatever the current President does under the rubric of his executive authority can be reversed by a new President, and, when voting, the people can consider what the candidates say they will do or not do.
Of course, illegal immigrants lack legal status not merely because they are "undocumented". They lack legal status because they are not authorized to be here.
Meanwhile, Americans can vote for candidates for President and Congress who will enact laws, and pursue policies, that Americans want, including laws and policies that change or reverse current laws and policies on immigration.
Yes, it might not practical to force the President to enforce the immigration law,
or any other law.
But the law can be changed to remove the power of the President to grant legal status or official reprieve, even supposedly temporary reprieve.
The supposed choice between deportation and legal status is a false choice.
Nothing whatsoever wrong with simply leaving illegal immigrants in illegal status, with neither deportation nor legal status nor even temporary legal reprieve.
Further, even if a President is reluctant, or actively opposes, deportation, the law could be changed explicitly to allow states and private individuals and companies to treat illegal immigrants as illegally here,without legal status, and to deny them benefits under state law and to deny them employment.
And of course, whatever the current President does under the rubric of his executive authority can be reversed by a new President, and, when voting, the people can consider what the candidates say they will do or not do.
Of course, illegal immigrants lack legal status not merely because they are "undocumented". They lack legal status because they are not authorized to be here.
23
The executive has the power with immigrants.
1
In its lawsuit Texas neatly sidesteps the real source of its complaint against the Obama administration. The legislature of my state dislikes spending money on education and social services for its own citizens, because this responsibility requires raising taxes on businesses, an action state officials regard as un-American (or at least, un-Texan). Governors routinely boast about the business-friendly environment of the state, by which they mean the low tax rates.
Illegal aliens, although they pay the sales and property taxes on which the state depends for revenue, force the legislature and local governments to appropriate more money for education, as well as for police and fire protection. Since the undocumented cannot vote, no officeholder gains politically by spending money on them. From the perspective of the governor and legislature, these appropriations have no upside.
Illegal aliens, although they pay the sales and property taxes on which the state depends for revenue, force the legislature and local governments to appropriate more money for education, as well as for police and fire protection. Since the undocumented cannot vote, no officeholder gains politically by spending money on them. From the perspective of the governor and legislature, these appropriations have no upside.
76
james - GOP'ers are apparently the same down here as in D.C.; they cut taxes but won't admit that means a reduction in services, so they drive up debt instead:
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20160407-mike-collier-a...
http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20160407-mike-collier-a...
16
Texas and other states that have large numbers of illegal aliens have enjoyed many years of these immigrants working for slave wages performing jobs that Americans would not do for the terrible wages that they are paid. What will happen if Texans suddenly have to pay real wages to other Texans to get those jobs done? Texas is a joke, has had joke Governors for years, and supports ignorance against science at every turn. Let's see them pay for the work they have exploited from illegals. Vigorously prosecute employers who hire illegals if the Roberts' court rules against immigrants.
2
Cheap labor isn't that cheap. What you save in services and labor, you pay more out in axes to educatr their kids and providing them with medical services.
We can't have ti both ways.
We can't have ti both ways.
2
Discretion in enforcement does not equate to providing legal status with work permits and the like.
De facto amnesty is what you are advocating.
Well, that's just not the way it works, no matter how bad you want it to.
De facto amnesty is what you are advocating.
Well, that's just not the way it works, no matter how bad you want it to.
51
I wish the Republican majority Congress would immediately appropriate $5 billion dollars for immigration enforcement thereby taking away the "priority use of limited resources" argument. Interested to see if Obama would sign such a bill if passed.
21
That would require leadership.
1
That would amount to less than $500 per undocumented immigrant believed to be in the country. With that $500 you would have to hire a police force to find the immigrant, build massive holding centerdown to house them, pay for transportation, pay for court costs to process them and other costs too numerous to fit here.
If they are planning to call his bluff, they will need to appropriate at least 20 times what you suggested.
If they are planning to call his bluff, they will need to appropriate at least 20 times what you suggested.
That would amount to roughly $450/undocumented immigrant. With that money, a massive new police force would be required to locate and capture them all, huge holding centers would have to be built and staffed, transportation would have to be paid for to move them, plus the costs of lawyers and judges needed to legally process them.
If the purpose is to call Obama's bluff they will need to appropriate at least 40 times what you suggested.
If the purpose is to call Obama's bluff they will need to appropriate at least 40 times what you suggested.
Boobooyaga-nonsense.
“Discretion” in enforcement means the manner by which the law is enforced, it doesn’t mean the legitimate authority to ignore laws passed by Congress, signed by a president and found to be constitutional by our federal courts.
While in order to support his re-election he still needed to appear even-handed on this manner, President Obama enforced the law. Now that his biggest challenge seems to be how much of his library should be given over to a paean on golf, it’s another matter.
Sen. Lugar doesn’t get to restrict the definition of “enforcement” to acts he finds ideologically convenient, even if he IS a Republican (for which I’m willing to grant him great leeway)
‘Twixt a commitment to forcefully deport 11-12 million people and ignoring our laws entirely lies a great gulf. One extreme or the other, on the strength of executive diktat, is NOT taking “Care that the laws be faithfully executed”.
“Discretion” in enforcement means the manner by which the law is enforced, it doesn’t mean the legitimate authority to ignore laws passed by Congress, signed by a president and found to be constitutional by our federal courts.
While in order to support his re-election he still needed to appear even-handed on this manner, President Obama enforced the law. Now that his biggest challenge seems to be how much of his library should be given over to a paean on golf, it’s another matter.
Sen. Lugar doesn’t get to restrict the definition of “enforcement” to acts he finds ideologically convenient, even if he IS a Republican (for which I’m willing to grant him great leeway)
‘Twixt a commitment to forcefully deport 11-12 million people and ignoring our laws entirely lies a great gulf. One extreme or the other, on the strength of executive diktat, is NOT taking “Care that the laws be faithfully executed”.
27
Richard, if a President Romney did what Obama has, I wonder whether you'd be boobooyaga-ing quite so loudly. No, actually I don't wonder.
1
Except for the fact , Dick , that your do nothing , seditious ,maybe traitorous , republican Congress , has failed to lift a finger over the past six years. Why these people are receiving a pay check is a complete mystery.
The minute that Obama was sworn in ,the GOP leaders agreed among themselves to tie his hands behind his back and deny everything he proposed regardless of the harm that such an approach would entail. This inane resolution clearly reflected the racist antipathy to Obama by an entire political party that had never even seen his work.
This dereliction of oath and responsibility came to a head in the summer of 2014. Despite severe problems at the Mexican border and the nascent stirrings of ISIS , McConnell and Boehner orchestrated a three month Congressional vacation. Much more important to troll for mid-term votes than to do your job and serve the country's need to deal with extraordinary problems.
Accordingly , Obama did both his job and that of Congress to boot. Any decisions he made , in the face of this unprecedented lack of cooperation , was roundly booed. Obama begged the House to pass comprehensive immigration reform as had the Senate , and to address the crisis in Syria and Iraq.
To this day , the GOP Congress has failed to even address either of these issues. This is a shocking dereliction of duty and has culminated in the GOP's refusal to obey the Constitutional requirement to consider a Court appointment.
Shameless,childish , seditious.
The minute that Obama was sworn in ,the GOP leaders agreed among themselves to tie his hands behind his back and deny everything he proposed regardless of the harm that such an approach would entail. This inane resolution clearly reflected the racist antipathy to Obama by an entire political party that had never even seen his work.
This dereliction of oath and responsibility came to a head in the summer of 2014. Despite severe problems at the Mexican border and the nascent stirrings of ISIS , McConnell and Boehner orchestrated a three month Congressional vacation. Much more important to troll for mid-term votes than to do your job and serve the country's need to deal with extraordinary problems.
Accordingly , Obama did both his job and that of Congress to boot. Any decisions he made , in the face of this unprecedented lack of cooperation , was roundly booed. Obama begged the House to pass comprehensive immigration reform as had the Senate , and to address the crisis in Syria and Iraq.
To this day , the GOP Congress has failed to even address either of these issues. This is a shocking dereliction of duty and has culminated in the GOP's refusal to obey the Constitutional requirement to consider a Court appointment.
Shameless,childish , seditious.
3
Except it is not 11-12 million, Richard.
That was the ESTIMATE in 2010, based on the 2010 Census -- which is self-reported data. How many illegal aliens do you think cheerfully admitted to US Census takers that "hey, yeah! I'm here illegally!"
I am amazed that any of them did so. So a reasonable estimate is over 20 million and the numbers are growing by leaps & bounds daily, since illegals have an average of 5 children per family.
That was the ESTIMATE in 2010, based on the 2010 Census -- which is self-reported data. How many illegal aliens do you think cheerfully admitted to US Census takers that "hey, yeah! I'm here illegally!"
I am amazed that any of them did so. So a reasonable estimate is over 20 million and the numbers are growing by leaps & bounds daily, since illegals have an average of 5 children per family.
4
The hyperbole and lies of omission in this piece by Richard Lugar are remarkable, but typical of the NY Times and their mysterious penchant for open border propaganda. As usual, the words "illegal aliens" are carefully avoided. Second, under the Obama administration's new illegal alien accounting, anyone turned away at the border is counted as a "deportation." This gives the false impression that Obama has significantly stepped up efforts to deport illegals who are already entrenched here. Third, Lugar disingenuously whips up hysteria in suggesting that anyone against Obama's pro-amnesty maneuvering is an advocate for stormtroopers busting down doors and sending illegals back from whence they came at gunpoint. Nope. I think most people would be perfectly content to have absolutely no amnesty legislation of any kind, and more stringent regulation of employers who hire illegals, who will self-deport rather than fight an endless war of attrition for undeserved residency or citizenship that we make clear will never come. I'll gladly pay a dollar more for a pound of strawberries.
66
Well, Joe, the Republicans have the votes for the kind of legislation you desire and yet in seven years they've done nothing. Don't kid yourself. This is an emotional issue that brings in votes for them and they will keep it going however they can, hence the case they are taking to the SCOTUS.
1
"I think most people would be perfectly content to have absolutely no amnesty legislation of any kind, and more stringent regulation of employers who hire illegals, who will self-deport rather than fight an endless war of attrition for undeserved residency or citizenship that we make clear will never come. I'll gladly pay a dollar more for a pound of strawberries."
If that is your heartfelt opinion, you have less company than you think. Almost nobody wants to pay a lot more for the services now cheaply provided by undocumented workers. That's why e-verify is never happening, even though it would be a lot cheaper and more effective than a trumpesque border wall.
If that is your heartfelt opinion, you have less company than you think. Almost nobody wants to pay a lot more for the services now cheaply provided by undocumented workers. That's why e-verify is never happening, even though it would be a lot cheaper and more effective than a trumpesque border wall.
1
I signed a contract for the replacement of my roof. The contract went to the company that said no illegals would be on my property working. That is in the contract. If the government won't stop the employers from hiring illegals then we must do the job for them.
6
for the record, senator lugar is a republican.
26
And, on a traditional political spectrum, he is quite conservative.
1
No, Lugar is a Republican In Name Only, a RINO. He may have been a Republican once upon a time be he lost his way.
2
The last of the intelligent, thoughtful, statesman like republicans in the senate.
1
Be a bit more persuasive if the good Senator NAMED the cases he cites to, so we could see for ourselves
As for - "piffle, it is mere Republicans who oppose" - politics is often um political, people seeking enforcement of laws, or non-enforcement
and yeah water is wet, still
As for - "piffle, it is mere Republicans who oppose" - politics is often um political, people seeking enforcement of laws, or non-enforcement
and yeah water is wet, still
4
As if it would have made an iota of difference if you knew them.
1
Thank you, Senator Lugar, for your service to the nation from Indiana for a quarter of a century, and for elucidating the rationale for President Obama's efforts to tackle the immigration octopus that the Republicans have spread to more than half of America's 50 states.
It is more than clear to anyone who has been paying attention, particularly since January 20, 2009, that the Republicans in Congress were determined to deal as many fatal blows to the nascent administration as to render it completely ineffectual. Immigration is merely one issue among the scores of others on which the GOP has intentionally thwarted the "will of the people" by ginning up an unnecessary hysteria mainly directed towards the people of Mexico and those of Mexican descent. It's a thinly-disguised ruse base on racism and the panic of disappearing jobs brought on by NAFTA is merely the lubricant in the GOP's apoplectic public stance.
President Obama has staked out no new ground here. He has not stepped outside the broad powers granted to him by the Constitution. He has prior Supreme Court rulings on his side. Former presidents Reagan, the two Bushes, and others, have followed law and legal precedent. Former House Speaker John Boehner, as well as his successor, Paul Ryan, have declined to move on immigration, goaded by the Tea Party headwinds now whipping an intentionally-stalled Congressional bureaucracy--at no service to the nation.
Senator, your patriotism and common sense are sorely missed.
It is more than clear to anyone who has been paying attention, particularly since January 20, 2009, that the Republicans in Congress were determined to deal as many fatal blows to the nascent administration as to render it completely ineffectual. Immigration is merely one issue among the scores of others on which the GOP has intentionally thwarted the "will of the people" by ginning up an unnecessary hysteria mainly directed towards the people of Mexico and those of Mexican descent. It's a thinly-disguised ruse base on racism and the panic of disappearing jobs brought on by NAFTA is merely the lubricant in the GOP's apoplectic public stance.
President Obama has staked out no new ground here. He has not stepped outside the broad powers granted to him by the Constitution. He has prior Supreme Court rulings on his side. Former presidents Reagan, the two Bushes, and others, have followed law and legal precedent. Former House Speaker John Boehner, as well as his successor, Paul Ryan, have declined to move on immigration, goaded by the Tea Party headwinds now whipping an intentionally-stalled Congressional bureaucracy--at no service to the nation.
Senator, your patriotism and common sense are sorely missed.
167
And yet Americans continue to vote Republicans back into office because they apparently believe the tripe that less government is "better." This is how bizarro world comes into being and people can't see it happening.
2
The only reason Mexico entered into this discussion is that fully 70% of all illegals are FROM Mexico. Most of the rest are from Central America and travel to the US through Mexico. It is our southern border that is a porous disaster.
There are a tiny number of Canadians here illegally, but we are talking about a few thousand people vs. illegals from Mexico & Central America -- 20 MILLION. Mostly uneducated, unskilled workers taking jobs away from US citizens.
It is obviously NOT racism, as being hispanic IS NOT A RACE. Being Mexican is NOT A RACE. Mexico is as much a melting pot as the US, having citizens of Spanish origin, native Mestizo, native Indian and other races. Frida Kahlo, probably the most famous female Mexican artist, was a European Jew whose family immigrated from Vienna, Austria.
There are a tiny number of Canadians here illegally, but we are talking about a few thousand people vs. illegals from Mexico & Central America -- 20 MILLION. Mostly uneducated, unskilled workers taking jobs away from US citizens.
It is obviously NOT racism, as being hispanic IS NOT A RACE. Being Mexican is NOT A RACE. Mexico is as much a melting pot as the US, having citizens of Spanish origin, native Mestizo, native Indian and other races. Frida Kahlo, probably the most famous female Mexican artist, was a European Jew whose family immigrated from Vienna, Austria.
8
Thank you, Senator Lugar (why is it that every rational member of the GOP has already LEFT the political scene?).
178
stu - We likewise lamented the retirement of Lugar's voice, though separation from jabberwocky GOP'ers may be what's preserved his sanity :)
31
They haven't "left". They were removed. The only "left" here is the direction of their political stances.
2
Texas's argument will be dependent on a cadre of activist SCOTUS Justices ignoring precedent that was famously exposed in Richard Nixon's attempts to deport John Lennon:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130401193
Looks to us like another tied SCOTUS verdict will be forthcoming; too bad the taxpayers of Texas (and other states party to such suits) can't see a running tab on how much is being spent at law firms arguing these appeals.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130401193
Looks to us like another tied SCOTUS verdict will be forthcoming; too bad the taxpayers of Texas (and other states party to such suits) can't see a running tab on how much is being spent at law firms arguing these appeals.
45