immigration Reform via Executive Order

raburrell · Nov 19, 2014

From a purely practical standpoint, I don't care how this gets done, I just want it done, period. People are here and wagging fingers at the undocumented and telling them they did it wrong (especially when there's no right way on a human timescale) isn't going to solve anything. No good comes from forcing people to live in the shadows just to be with their families.

So the charges of flip-flopping (he has), that someday it'll be a Republican (as if Obama doing or not doing something stops them from doing what they want anyway), etc... they really hold no sway for me. Until the recommendations come out, we're only guessing at what he actually plans to do, so IMO any charge of overreach is, at best, premature.

I don't care who fixes this issue, but Obama is the only one I see standing up to do it. All I wish is that he'd done it sooner.

rugcat · Nov 19, 2014

robeiae said:
But it's okay with everyone who opposed such expansions under Bush, Reagan, et al. Why? Because it's Obama doing it this time.

Well, I don't remember anyone in the opposite party casting Reagan as a lawless tyrant who needed to be impeached. Although there were a few who felt that way about Bush -- but Obama opposition is really on different level.

I'm leery of the increase of executive power -- one of the reasons I was so opposed to Bush's expansion of the concept is because we all know full well no president (or any politician) ever willingly gives up power. So it raised the bar, possibly forever, and that's not a good thing in general.

But it's also occasionally justified. And in this case, with the failure of Congress to govern, or apparently even want to govern, I think it's appropriate for the president use executive orders to take whatever action he can.

YMMV, of course.

Amadan · Nov 19, 2014

raburrell said:
From a purely practical standpoint, I don't care how this gets done, I just want it done, period.

Well, I'm sure everything will be fine as long as the President is doing the right thing and never the wrong thing.

nighttimer · Nov 19, 2014

robeiae said:
Obama--despite all his previous blustering about wanting to check the growth of executive power--once gain seems poised to expand it.

But it's okay with everyone who opposed such expansions under Bush, Reagan, et al. Why? Because it's Obama doing it this time.

What you oh-so-conveniently overlook is Obama is using the power of the Executive to take action in light of Congressional Republicans flatly refuse to using their power of the Legislative to do anything.

Wait, that's not fair. Republicans did rush to vote on the Keystone pipeline this week and it only took the House an hour.

Overreach by the Executive branch is a bad thing, but a refusal by the Legislative to do their jobs is worse. Apparently Executive overreach is only worse when Obama does it.

Amadan · Nov 19, 2014

nighttimer said:
Overreach by the Executive branch is a bad thing, but a refusal by the Legislative to do their jobs is worse. Apparently Executive overreach is only worse when Obama does it.

I didn't like it when Bush did it either, because I predicted future presidents of both parties would continue the tradition.

robeiae · Nov 19, 2014

Amadan said:
I didn't like it when Bush did it either, because I predicted future presidents of both parties would continue the tradition.

Sorry, that's not allowed. If you disagree with Obama doing it now, that means you supported Bush (or Reagan) when he did it. That's a rule.

raburrell · Nov 19, 2014

Amadan said:
Well, I'm sure everything will be fine as long as the President is doing the right thing and never the wrong thing.

Like I said, given my impression of who's likely to use it to do the wrong thing, I really don't think Obama's taking the high road here is going to factor all that heavily into their decision.

raburrell · Nov 19, 2014

robeiae said:
Sorry, that's not allowed. If you disagree with Obama doing it now, that means you supported Bush (or Reagan) when he did it. That's a rule.

Or hey, maybe you disagree with executive orders that authorize torture. Or put Japanese Americans in internment camps. But maybe you're okay with ones that desegregated Alabama schools. Or emancipated slaves.

The idea that it's okay when my guy does it but not yours makes for an easy partisan remark, but there's really not much substance to it.

robeiae · Nov 19, 2014

raburrell said:
The idea that it's okay when my guy does it but not yours makes for an easy partisan remark, but there's really not much substance to it.

Exactly.

cornflake · Nov 19, 2014

Amadan said:
The issue isn't whether or not Congress is dysfunctional (it is). Either we have independent Executive and Legislative branches or we don't. The solution for a do-nothing Legislative branch is not for the Executive branch to take all its power unto itself.

Yup, it puts the President in a tough position when he can't get anything done because he has an obstructionist Congress that opposes everything he does on principal. That sucks. Maybe he has no good political solutions. That sucks too. Maybe there will be no immigration reform. That really sucks.

Ignoring Constitutional separation of powers (which is what I think the broad use of Executive Orders is approaching, if not wildly overstepping) sucks even more, though.

It doesn't ignore separation of powers, in any way. It's a power that can be checked by both other branches.

cmhbob said:
People who want to "play by the rules" should play by all the rules, including the ones that cover how you enter the country. This sounds like a huge amnesty program, and I can't support that. That's tantamount to letting you keep the car you stole because you've been driving it for so long.

Amnesty is my biggest gripe about any immigration discussion. You can't reward wrong behavior, and that's what amnesty does. I'm sorry you've been here for ten years and have family here, and you've followed the rules since you got here. You broke the rules when you came here. Suffer the consequences, and don't break them the next time.

Yes, the immigration system in this country needs work. Not going to argue that in the least. But amnesty is a horrid idea.

Why? I get what you're saying, but I don't get it. Yes, people came here without permission. I just kind of can't bring myself to get even a little bit angry that people living in either abject poverty or very dire straits or in a situation they thought would not improve took a very big chance, likely risked their lives, to come here to be able to work to make a better living for themselves and their families. These are the people we're talking about, yes?

I don't get the 'but they must be punished for this transgression no matter what,' when the transgression is so minor, non-harmful and, to me at least, understandable.

It's also the basis of the country, at its heart.

raburrell · Nov 19, 2014

robeiae said:
Exactly.

Yeah, sorry - it just chaps my behind when people try to claim all executive orders are bad. In the past, they've done both an awful lot of harm and an awful lot of good in this country.

Amadan · Nov 19, 2014

raburrell said:
Yeah, sorry - it just chaps my behind when people try to claim all executive orders are bad. In the past, they've done both an awful lot of harm and an awful loot of good in this country.

Who claimed all executive orders are bad?

I find them extremely problematic when they are issued to preempt legislative powers. I guess you can argue that it's a net good if you think on the balance, the Emancipation Proclamation and desegregation outweighs Japanese-American internment and torture. (Probably.) But it's still an ends-justify-the-means argument, and that's why I think "shoe on the other foot" tests are worth considering.

nighttimer · Nov 19, 2014

Amadan said:
I didn't like it when Bush did it either, because I predicted future presidents of both parties would continue the tradition.

Then you should be delighted to read this.

President Roosevelt issued the most executive orders, according to records at the National Archives. He issued 3,728 orders between 1933 and 1945, as the country dealt with the Great Depression and World War II.

President Truman issued a robust 896 executive orders over almost eight years in office.

President Obama has issued 184 orders so far in his presidency. His predecessor, President George W. Bush, issued 291 orders over eight years, while President Bill Clinton had 364 executive orders during his two terms in office.

The American Presidency Project keeps tabs on executive orders and their historical counterparts dating back to the George Washington administration. The presidents who used orders and proclamations the most, per year, were Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover and Woodrow Wilson.

Moreover, President Obama has issued the fewest executive orders per year, at 33.27 annually, since President Grover Cleveland’s first term in the White House.

How best to spin this if I were a right-winger? "Even more proof Obama is lazy, unengaged and doesn't measure up to the standards of past presidents."

Yeah, that should do it.

robeiae said:
Sorry, that's not allowed. If you disagree with Obama doing it now, that means you supported Bush (or Reagan) when he did it. That's a rule.

Another rule is robovowels builds strawmen then sets them on fire.

c.e.lawson · Nov 19, 2014

cornflake said:
It doesn't ignore separation of powers, in any way. It's a power that can be checked by both other branches.

Why? I get what you're saying, but I don't get it. Yes, people came here without permission. I just kind of can't bring myself to get even a little bit angry that people living in either abject poverty or very dire straits or in a situation they thought would not improve took a very big chance, likely risked their lives, to come here to be able to work to make a better living for themselves and their families. These are the people we're talking about, yes?

I don't get the 'but they must be punished for this transgression no matter what,' when the transgression is so minor, non-harmful and, to me at least, understandable.

It's also the basis of the country, at its heart.

There needs to be a way to do this that is fair and metes out our resources in an intelligent and sustainable way.

We have finite resources to support the needs of immigrants, and these are beyond the limits already. To suddenly add millions on top of that? How many people here live in a border area or near border area of the U.S.? I do. How many have worked in the overcrowded, underfunded, county hospitals in these areas? I have. How many have seen 12-24 hour waits in ER waiting rooms? I have. How many have tried to get a badly burned patient into a Medicaid funded outpatient physical therapy program in order to stave off loss of range of motion of the scarred mouth, fingers, shoulders and neck and been told the wait is at least six weeks? I have. Six weeks? He loses range in one day. And these issues are only a small fraction of the medical aspect. There are so many other non-medical areas where our resources are tapped out as well. How will the system absorb millions more? I have no idea.

CrastersBabies · Nov 19, 2014

And I think this political atmosphere makes an executive decision even more volatile. If Obama has really "heard America" as he claimed, I'm not sure why he is insisting on adding gasoline to the fire here.

As much as I'd love to say, "Get it done, no matter what" (because I'm a huge supporter of immigration reform), I'm uncomfortable with this. Even if Obama pushes through a line-by-line perfect plan, there is an extremely high chance that Republicans will:

1. take America hostage again to protest the action (government shutdown)
2. make it holy grail #2 (after the ACA) to get it repealed.

I'm not okay with that. Sometimes, retreating and finding a more diplomatic solution is what's best for the country. As utterly craptastic as that is to say.

Amadan · Nov 19, 2014

That's fine, except like I said, I am not opposed to Executive Orders per se - they have an obvious and legitimate purpose. That's why I did not criticize either Obama or Bush based on the number of orders they signed.

ETA: Replying to nighttimer.

raburrell · Nov 19, 2014

Amadan said:
Who claimed all executive orders are bad?

I find them extremely problematic when they are issued to preempt legislative powers. I guess you can argue that it's a net good if you think on the balance, the Emancipation Proclamation and desegregation outweighs Japanese-American internment and torture. (Probably.) But it's still an ends-justify-the-means argument, and that's why I think "shoe on the other foot" tests are worth considering.

If the 'foot' is going to make a decision, it's already shown it'll go ahead and stretch the shoe to whatever size it thinks it needs. Given that the legislative branch is capable of some pretty boneheaded actions as well, that can be either a good thing or a bad thing. Hence why I prefer to look at things case by case.

robeiae · Nov 19, 2014

nighttimer said:
...strawmen...

nighttimer said:
Apparently Executive overreach is only worse when Obama does it.

.

cornflake · Nov 19, 2014

c.e.lawson said:
There needs to be a way to do this that is fair and metes out our resources in an intelligent and sustainable way.

We have finite resources to support the needs of immigrants, and these are beyond the limits already. To suddenly add millions on top of that? How many people here live in a border area or near border area of the U.S.? I do. How many have worked in the overcrowded, underfunded, county hospitals in these areas? I have. How many have seen 12-24 hour waits in ER waiting rooms? I have. How many have tried to get a badly burned patient into a Medicaid funded outpatient physical therapy program in order to stave off loss of range of motion of the scarred mouth, fingers, shoulders and neck and been told the wait is at least six weeks? I have. Six weeks? He loses range in one day. And these issues are only a small fraction of the medical aspect. There are so many other non-medical areas where our resources are tapped out as well. How will the system absorb millions more? I have no idea.

How would we be adding? They're already here and using services - often contributing taxes without taking benefits directly.

Also, why are you attributing medicaid and ER waits to immigrants?

Monkey · Nov 19, 2014

We desperately need immigration reform, the majority of the country wants it, the majority of congress wants it, and this president has dealt with an incredible amount of partisan, penny-ante bullshit while issuing far less executive orders than his immediate predecessors.

Go for it, Obama. Somebody has to, and you're not up for re-election anyway.

c.e.lawson · Nov 19, 2014

cornflake said:
How would we be adding? They're already here and using services - often contributing taxes without taking benefits directly.

Also, why are you attributing medicaid and ER waits to immigrants?

From California Department of Health Care Services:

http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/medi-cal/eligibility/Pages/Medi-CalFAQs2014b.aspx

4. Will undocumented immigrants be eligible for full-scope Medi-Cal?

An immigrant who meets all eligibility requirements, but is not in a satisfactory immigration status for full scope Medi-Cal is entitled to emergency and pregnancy-related services and, when needed, state-funded long-term care.

note: Medi-Cal is California's version of Medicaid.

cmhbob · Nov 19, 2014

cornflake said:
Why? I get what you're saying, but I don't get it. Yes, people came here without permission. I just kind of can't bring myself to get even a little bit angry that people living in either abject poverty or very dire straits or in a situation they thought would not improve took a very big chance, likely risked their lives, to come here to be able to work to make a better living for themselves and their families. These are the people we're talking about, yes?

Yes. The people who have come here without following the rules. I don't care what country they came from.

I don't get the 'but they must be punished for this transgression no matter what,' when the transgression is so minor, non-harmful and, to me at least, understandable.

But that minor transgression is the basis for their entry into the country. Don't tell me how wonderful they've been and how law-abiding they are when from the very beginning, their presence here is illegal.

Further, illegal entry puts them at huge risk here. They can't go to the police when they're crime victims. They can't go to teh government when they're abused at work, or the subject of labor law violations.

It's also the basis of the country, at its heart.

Eh? Are you talking about how white Europeans settled here, or immigration in general? I support immigration through legal channels, and I said earlier that the current system is indeed broken and needs some changes. I'm just not in favor of rewarding bad behavior and setting up a flood of bad behavior in the process, which is the other problem with amnesty.

ULTRAGOTHA · Nov 19, 2014

c.e.lawson said:
From California Department of Health Care Services:

note: Medi-Cal is California's version of Medicaid.

4. Will undocumented immigrants be eligible for full-scope Medi-Cal?

An immigrant who meets all eligibility requirements, but is not in a satisfactory immigration status for full scope Medi-Cal is entitled to emergency and pregnancy-related services and, when needed, state-funded long-term care.

Providing pregnancy-related services to undocumented mothers saves millions of dollars in providing neonatal services to citizen babies; and the alternative to emergency medicine is human beings dying on the street.

Personally, I want the legal road to residency and citizenship to be rationalized and then illegal immigrants kept out. But until we *have* rational immigration policy we're unfortunately going to continue to have illegal immigrants.

cornflake · Nov 19, 2014

c.e.lawson said:
From California Department of Health Care Services:

http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/medi-cal/eligibility/Pages/Medi-CalFAQs2014b.aspx

note: Medi-Cal is California's version of Medicaid.

This doesn't explain why you're attributing ER or Medicaid waits to immigrants.

cmhbob said:
Yes. The people who have come here without following the rules. I don't care what country they came from.

But that minor transgression is the basis for their entry into the country. Don't tell me how wonderful they've been and how law-abiding they are when from the very beginning, their presence here is illegal.

I'm back to - so?

Further, illegal entry puts them at huge risk here. They can't go to the police when they're crime victims. They can't go to teh government when they're abused at work, or the subject of labor law violations.

Eh? Are you talking about how white Europeans settled here, or immigration in general? I support immigration through legal channels, and I said earlier that the current system is indeed broken and needs some changes. I'm just not in favor of rewarding bad behavior and setting up a flood of bad behavior in the process, which is the other problem with amnesty.

They can go to the police if they're crime victims. Cops don't ask for your citizenship papers. They will often be afraid to do things like that, yes, but it's often unfounded fears.

I'm talking about both. There can be restrictions put in place that cap amnesty.

What's the option? Rounding up people by some undefined means and chucking them out? Letting the current untenable situation continue?

Fingers · Nov 19, 2014

I don't get it. If I try to get into any other country in the world without the proper documentation, I will be detained, arrested, or deported without so much as a second thought from those countries. Hell, I cant even get into Canada anymore without a passport. So why should we let others who break our laws by entering our country illegally just walk free? Our immigration laws are not that much different from other countries, what makes our laws unfair or wrong?

immigration Reform via Executive Order

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Lost in the Fog

No Gods No Masters

Touch and go

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Touch and go

practical experience, FTW

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

No Gods No Masters

Burninator!

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee

Touch and go

practical experience, FTW

Is me.

Did...did I do that?

Merovingian Superhero

practical experience, FTW

My cat Toby