Does President’s Immigration Reform Go Far Enough?

Obama-immigrationWhile some have complained that the President overreached by using the executive order route to address immigration reform, the President pushed back that Congress should pass legislation on the issue, and others have argued that the reform does not go far enough in drawing a five-year boundary on “amnesty” and only impacting five million of the current 11.4 million undocumented immigrants.

The plan would create a new program of “deferrals” that would impact the approximately four million undocumented parents of American citizens or legal permanent residents who have been in the country for at least five years. Deferrals would include authorization to work and would be granted for three years at a time.

The President has clearly grown impatient on the failure of Congress to act. “The problem is, is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States,” he said last year. “My job is to execute laws that are passed.”

However, now with Congress apparently hopelessly at an impasse, President Obama is emphasizing that he has the ability to change how immigration laws are enforced.

Republican responses have ranged from anger to threats whether through legislation or legal means. “I believe his unilateral action, which is unconstitutional and illegal, will deeply harm our prospects for immigration reform,” Senator John Cornyn, Republican from Texas, said.

“Since the founding of our nation, we’ve weaved a tradition of welcoming immigrants into the very fabric of who we are. It’s what keeps us dynamic, entrepreneurial, and uniquely American,” President Obama said.

Last night President Obama addressed the nation on the executive actions he is taking to help fix what he can.

First, he said, “We will build on our progress at the border with additional resources for our law enforcement personnel.”

President Obama stated, “Today, we have more agents and technology deployed to secure our southern border than at any time in our history. And over the past six years, illegal border crossings have been cut by more than half. Although this summer, there was a brief spike in unaccompanied children being apprehended at our border, the number of such children is now actually lower than it’s been in nearly two years. Overall, the number of people trying to cross our border illegally is at its lowest level since the 1970s. Those are the facts.”

Second, he said, “We will make it easier and faster for high-skilled immigrants, graduates, and entrepreneurs to stay and contribute to our economy, as so many business leaders have proposed.”

Third, “We will take steps to deal responsibly with the millions of undocumented immigrants who already live in our country.”

He said, “Families who enter our country the right way and play by the rules watch others flout the rules. Business owners who offer their workers good wages and benefits see the competition exploit undocumented immigrants by paying them far less. All of us take offense to anyone who reaps the rewards of living in America without taking on the responsibilities of living in America. And undocumented immigrants who desperately want to embrace those responsibilities see little option but to remain in the shadows, or risk their families being torn apart.

“We are a nation of immigrants, and we are a nation of laws. We must hold accountable those who broke the law, while understanding that the mass deportation of millions of Americans is neither possible nor in keeping with who we are as Americans.” That is why the President is focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security: “Felons, not families. Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a mom who’s working hard to provide for her kids.”

He stated, “I continue to believe that the best way to solve this problem is by working together to pass that kind of common-sense law.”

So here is the deal the President put forward on Thursday:

First, “If you’ve been in America for more than five years; if you have children who are American citizens or legal residents; if you register, pass a criminal background check, and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes — you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily, without fear of deportation. You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law.”

He argued that “this deal is not amnesty.” He continued, “Amnesty is the immigration system we have now, in which millions of people live here without paying their taxes or playing by the rules, and politicians use this issue to scare and divide Americans.”

He argued, “That’s the real amnesty — leaving this broken system the way it is. Mass amnesty would be unfair. Mass deportation would be both impossible and contrary to our character. What I’m describing is accountability — a common-sense, middle ground approach: If you meet the criteria, you can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. If you’re a criminal, you’ll be deported. If you plan to enter the U.S. illegally, your chances of getting caught and sent back just went up.”

He argued that, while 68 Democrats, Republicans and Independents passed reform last year in a bipartisan bill that would have “doubled the number of Border Patrol agents; given undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship if they pay a fine, start paying taxes, and go to the back of the line; and boosted our economy while shrinking the deficit,” the House Republicans have blocked the bipartisan bill.

“Had the House of Representatives allowed that kind of a bill a simple yes-or-no vote, it would have passed with support from both parties, and today it would be the law,” the President noted.

The White House stated, “So the President had to act, just as every president since President Eisenhower has over this last half century.”

Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) was the author of the Senate’s comprehensive immigration reform bill and the second-ranking member of the Senate Democratic leadership. He called Obama’s action a good first step, but argued it should do more.

“Here’s the problem we have. I’d like to see all of the families of Dreamers be protected,” he told reporters.

He told reporters that the order will not cover the parents of illegal immigrants who came to the country illegally at a young age and were protected from deportation by an expansion of immigration law by the Department of Homeland Security in 2012. Nor will the order cover farm workers, he said.

“It’s the opinion of the White House counsel that you cannot build executive action on top of executive action so they had to be careful in the way that this was written to comply all the precedents and law on the subject,” Senator Durbin said

“I think this is as far as the president believes he can go,” he said.

He said some pro-immigrant advocates will “want more [and] I don’t blame them, I want more.”

However, he said, “I think this is a positive step forward.”

California Governor Jerry Brown reacted to the news: “Tonight, in the face of Washington gridlock, the President stepped up for hard-working families across America. This is the right thing to do, and it’s time for Congress to finish the job.”

His office noted, since taking office Governor Brown has signed the Dream Act, which allows top students who are on the path to citizenship to apply for college financial aid; AB 60, which extends the legal right to drive on the state’s roadways to millions more Californians; and a number of other bills to enhance school, workplace and civil protections for California’s hardworking immigrants. Earlier this year, Governor Brown also signed legislation to provide legal services to the unaccompanied minors arriving in California from Central America.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris added, “I applaud President Obama for taking steps to fix our broken immigration system. These executive actions prioritize deporting felons not families, and will help restore trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve. This action will extend the American Dream to millions of individuals who want to come out of the shadows.”

“Both the president and the Republican Party confront risks here,” said Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster quoted in a New York Times article this morning. While the danger for Mr. Obama is “being perceived as overstepping his boundaries,” Mr. McInturff said, “the Republicans’ risk is opposing his action without an appropriate tenor, and thereby alienating the Latino community.”

Senator Ted Cruz was quick to state on Facebook, “His actions are not only unconstitutional and in defiance of the American people who said they did not want amnesty in the 2014 elections, but they are also unfair to every immigrant who has come to our nation legally.”

On the other hand, Senator Lindsey Graham warned, “If you overreact, it becomes about us, not President Obama.”

Ruben Navarrette, Jr., a CNN contributor, had this assessment, “It’s really startling how the immigration issue can make smart people say dumb things. Just a few days ago, David Brooks, the New York Times columnist, insisted that Obama wants to ‘rewrite’ immigration laws through his executive action.

“Brooks doesn’t get it. But he is not alone. Obama isn’t ‘rewriting’ anything, but simply applying discretion in enforcing the law.”

So does this go too far or not far enough? Depends on whom you ask.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

165 Comments

    1. Don Shor

      but you’ll never see mainstream media or MSNBC showing you these quotes.

      Sure you will. I’ve seen them, and not on Fox News.

      My job is to execute laws that are passed.

      The President has latitude in setting priorities as to how the executive branch will use its resources. Enforcement resources of personnel and money are finite. We don’t have enough INS agents and court facilities to seek out, arrest, and deport millions of people who are here illegally. So the President has directed the enforcement toward those who he deems higher priority. If Congress doesn’t like that, the answer is simple: pass a law.
      The alternative to what he has done is to continue the present system of random enforcement. That’s an inefficient use of resources, and it clearly isn’t effective.

      1. David Greenwald

        I think after looking at how he rolled it out, that he probably is on relatively safeground because he’s dealing with executive enforcement rather than policy. I’m not saying I think he went far enough, but I suspect the lawsuits are politically motivated and won’t have much bearing on things.

        1. hpierce

          And, after the elections, he has no choice but to force the majority Republicans to act.  Given the political animus, he’d never get any ideas introduced as legislation.  Although David says he didn’t go far enough, I think he went far enough to force Congress to at least act, and maybe, this year, progress may be made with possible further improvements in the future.

      2. Barack Palin

        The problem is Obama didn’t want just any law passed, he wanted his law passed.  It was basically my way or the highway.  Obama was never willing to work with the Republicans on this unless they just capitulated to what he wanted.

        1. Davis Progressive

          well he wanted a bill that would do the things he felt needed and he got it through the senate with 68 votes.  i’m no fan of obama, but you’re characterization here is not exactly accurate.  the republicans can respond as they have, but they are pretty much insuring that they won’t win the presidency in the near future.

        2. Barack Palin

          Yeah, we just saw what Obama’s policies did for the Democrats in the last election.  It was a GOP landslide.  A recent NBC/Wallstreet Journal Poll showed that 48% were against Obama taking executive action on immigration and only 38% were for it.  That doesn’t bode well for Democrats in the future.

        3. Barack Palin

          Why are Republicans always referred to the party that blocks when the Democrat dominated Senate lead by Harry Reid has refused to vote on 380 House passed laws?

          1. Don Shor

            The House leadership refused to allow the Senate’s bill to come to the floor. Do you acknowledge that?

        4. Frankly

          The House leadership refused to allow the Senate’s bill to come to the floor. Do you acknowledge that?

          Apparently neither you, Don, nor wdf1 have a clue about how the upper and lower house of congress are supposed to operate.  Your arguments are weak, very weak, and indicative of a great and dangerous lack of understanding of the Constitution and design of federal law making checks and balances.   The house is supposed to be near anarchy.  The Senate is suppose to be the adults that balance between the rambunctiousness of the House and the potential dictatorship of the President.

          Your continued support and protection of Harry Reid is not admire-able in the least.  It destroys any credibility you might demand for being non-partisan and objective.

          1. Don Shor

            First you impugn my patriotism, now you accuse me of ignorance about civics.
            The Senate bill passed. SB 744. The House could have brought their equivalent bill to the floor, and then it would have gone to conference. They chose never to allow the bill to come to the floor, effectively blocking immigration reform in 2013. That particular onus is entirely on Boehner and Cantor. The Democratic Party minority, together with a solid minority of Republicans, would have passed a House version equivalent to the Senate bill. Obama would have signed that.
            Please don’t patronize me, Frankly. I have no admiration for Harry Reid. I also have no illusions about why we don’t have immigration reform now.

        5. wdf1

          Frankly:  Apparently neither you, Don, nor wdf1 have a clue about how the upper and lower house of congress are supposed to operate.

          How do you figure that I have no clue as to how the upper and lower house of congress work?

           

        6. Tia Will

          BP

          It seems to me that President Obama did manage to get elected not once, but twice. The fact that the Republicans have chosen to not honor the wishes of the majority in two Presidential election cycles would seem to me to be at least part of the problem with any “failure to cooperate” that we are seeing in Washington.

  1. David Greenwald

    Note to Don Shor: People are welcome to comment on the immigration issue or Obama’s views on the immigration issue, however, I would prefer the topic here be restricted to immigration issues not a general dislike for Obama.  BP’s comment is fine, I just want to keep it narrower than general dislike for Obama.

  2. Barack Palin

    Obama’s dictate makes a mockery of the whole system.  The word is just sneak across the border and to heck with coming in legally and going through the process of legal immigration.  If anything, Obama has put out the word to just get across the border and you’re good to go.  What other country can you just sneak in and go to the front of the line?  Now that work permits and social security numbers are going to be available to these 5 million illegals how does that affect the employment opportunities of the black community which already suffers from high unemployment?

    1. Davis Progressive

      except for one problem: “The word is just sneak across the border and to heck with coming in legally and going through the process of legal immigration.  If anything, Obama has put out the word to just get across the border and you’re good to go.”  only people who have been here five years, only those with children who were born here, and only these people and only for three years.  it’s pretty limited.

      i get that you don’t like the idea of amnesty, but from a practical matter, if you have 11 million people living here, you can’t just deport them from both a practical perspective and the perspective of disruption to the entire economy.  so ignore for the second the issue of border security, how do you deal with just those 11 million?

  3. Barack Palin

    Don’t kid yourself either, it won’t be long before we see Charles Schuimer and Harry Reid standing in front of a mike and claiming that these new legal residents that are now working here legally and have social security numbers and driver licenses need to be treated fairly and deserve full citizenship and to stop being treated as if they’re second class.   This is all just a guise to get the Democrats a bigger voting base, they aren’t fooling anyone.

    1. Davis Progressive

      i happen to agree that if they’re going to live here, they should be citizens not just residents.  so i’m not sure you’re objection here is that good.  you want this to not help the democrats, stop being the anti-immigration party.

  4. Frankly

    What Obama is basically saying… if you came here illegally and cranked out a kid on US soil you get a pass and a ticket to the what is probably the greatest prize in human life today… legally living in the semi-free nanny state of America.

    First Reagan made the mistake of trusting a Democrat congress and ended up with amnesty and a flood of new illegal immigrants because the Democrats in congress failed to act or blocked the actions of Republican in congress.

    Now Obama, failing to trust a Republican congress, is bypassing them to push amnesty for all of those new illegals that flooded in.

    The only consistency here is that Democrats will continue to block needed immigration reforms.

    The major difference between Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan: Reagan truly loved his country from the deepest part of his soul.  Obama does not.  And Obama is supported by Americans that also do not.  You don’t make the case that you want to transform something unless you dislike it in its present state.

    When history is written about the Obama era it will say that the real unprecedented difference wasn’t that Americans elected its first African American president… it will be that American elected its first President that wasn’t a true patriot and that held his country in contempt.

    I would better respect the current President if while standing at the podium he would just give the finger to the American people.  At least then I could say he says what he means and means what he says.

    1. Davis Progressive

      “if you came here illegally and cranked out a kid on US soil and stayed here five years you get a three year pass and a ticket to the what is probably the greatest prize in human life today… legally living in the semi-free nanny state of America.”

      fify

    2. wdf1

      Frankly:  The major difference between Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan: Reagan truly loved his country from the deepest part of his soul.  Obama does not.

      Wow.  And I suppose you love America more than those who disagree with you?

    3. Don Shor

      The major difference between Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan: Reagan truly loved his country from the deepest part of his soul. Obama does not. And Obama is supported by Americans that also do not.

      Once again you disparage my patriotism. It’s disgusting every time you do this.

      1. Frankly

        For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country

        You are a master at applied nuance Don… but only to back your ideology.  But try thinking deeply about this comment from Michele Obama and also consider the Obama platform and the long, long list of lies told by him.

        You might be blinded by your own dogma.  But this move by Obama on immigration is unprecedented.  The majority of Americans do not support it.  Do not support him taking executive action on immigration.  Do not support Obamacare.  Want the three branches of government to work together.

        Obama is less a concern to me than are the people like you… extremely intelligent but with one half of your brain tied behind your back in ignorance of the destructive forces being wrought on this country to transform it into something it was never designed to be.

         

         

        1. Frankly

          I was replying to both you and wdf1 from your comments right above.

          It is my opinion that if you are a true patriot you would reject Barack Obama because of his words and deeds… or just his consistent poor performance.

          Is it really okay for you to have a sitting President that behaves as a dictator and thumbs his nose at Congress and the majority of the American people?  I know you desire some of the ends, but are you really okay with the means as it results in so much collective damage done to the country?

          Think about how infuriated and resentful you would be if Davis had a strong Mayor and made an executive order to turn Mace 391 into a business park.  That would have satisfied me in terms of the end, but not the means.   I would understand that you and others would become resentful and would settle yourself into being enemies of all those that ignored your voice of opposition.  I would never support a unilateral decision for something so potentially impactful to many.

          This is something a true leader understands.   You don’t eliminate stakeholders from a decision unless you want to destroy long-term cooperation.  You polarize a population doing that.

          The population of Davis liberals demands to have a voice in EVERY EFFING POLICY issue.  They put their nose into things that they have no business having their nose in and demand influence.  And if the city leader ignored them, they would explode and go off the rails.

          Yet these same people are fine with a sitting President making unilateral dictatorial policy that has a huge cost and impact on many Americans?

          Again, you and other lose a lot of credibility as an independent and objective-minded person with this lack of consistent outrage for politicians circumventing the political processes and bypassing cooperative decision making just to get their/your way.

          1. Don Shor

            Looking in the Constitution for the Hastert Rule. Nope, not there. And that’s the only reason we didn’t get immigration reform in 2013. So your focus on ‘process’ and indignation about lack of cooperation seems a little one-sided.

        2. hpierce

          Do you REALLY think that America today, or even 50 years ago, reflects its original “design”?  Kinda like believing in Creationism.  I tend to believe in evolution. I’m pretty sure the Founding Fathers would be abhorred by some of the business practices your firm employs [assuming they could even understand them].  Am also pretty sure that their concept of the ‘right to bear arms’ was nothing like that of the uber-conservatives, ‘gun nuts’, nor street criminals.

        3. Barack Palin

          Great points Frankly.

          They’re all for executive action as long as it’s something they support.  Other presidents have used executive action, but never for the huge issues that Obama is using it for today.  Obama has opened this Pandora’s Box and I hope it comes back to bite them in the ass when we someday have a GOP president.

        4. Davis Progressive

          there’s nothing really new in what obama has done.  i don’t have a problem with the use of executive orders.  he made it a very limited action to areas where he had jurisdiction which is the enforcement aspect of the executive branch.

      2. DavisBurns

        i find the tirades by Frankly and followers repugnant and not worth of rebuttal.  This blog is like listening to Rush Limbaugh rant or the talking heads on Fox News spewing their pre-scripted taking points.

        IMMIGRATION reform: the approximately five million illegal immigrants are not nearly the problem the 1.2 million legal immigrants that we accept every year.  I am not opposed to immigration but a policy of accepting 1.2 new residents every year is unsustainable and yet is not a topic the mainstream media will cover consequently it is a non-issue.  The media covers illegal immigration with excessive zeal and it remains a topic that is discussed.   It is my belief our media, including the allegedly liberal media of NPR, PBS AND MSNBC, are in no way independent and cover stories that are kept in the news by the conservative PR machine.  The fact that this blog repeats the talking points repeated countless times by mainstream media is an fine example of how difficult it is to have a meaningful conversation in which we might come to a more thoughtful understanding of the issues we face as a country as opposed to partisan rhetoric and name calling.

        As long as the US has policies like NAFTA that destroys local economies, we will have people migrating to where the work is.  As a radical, I want to go to the root of the problem.  Globalization has resulted in a loss of jobs, free trade makes the wealthy more wealthy at the expense of working people. In fact, it has made the working class the poverty class in this country as well as the countries migrants are leaving because they can’t feed their families.  As long as we gnash our teeth and bitch about the end results we are just putting a bandaid of the wound and not addressing the systemic infection.

        FRANKLY AND FRIENDS, kindly speak for yourself and refrain from telling me what I think.  I will do that for myself.

    4. Tia Will

      Frankly

      I find you post objectionable on two counts.

      and cranked out a kid”

      Is this what you feel that my husband and I did ? Is this what you believed that you and your wife did ?  Cranked out kids ?

      Really ? How is this framing of reproductive rights and family in any way in keeping with the family values that you claim to embrace. How is this negative characterization in any way consistent with the sanctity of human life that you claim to espouse?

      Reagan truly loved his country from the deepest part of his soul.  Obama does not.  And Obama is supported by Americans that also do not.  You don’t make the case that you want to transform something unless you dislike it in its present state.”

      Now you claim not only to know what others think better than they do, but not content with that, you know what is in the deepest parts of their soul ?  As to the second part of your statement, I guess this means that you were not being honest when you claim to like Davis since you are continuously railing about how we need to change it. I know that you have more ability to reason than your comment implies. You certainly have the ability to see that one can love one’s country and hope to see it improve in accord with one’s own vision. The issue is that our visions differ. My vision of our country is that we would as a society embrace those whose circumstances do not allow them to earn a living or who are forced to flee because of violence in their own countries. I have found President Obama’s presidency disappointing but for nearly the opposite reasons as you. I feel that he caved to the Republicans time after time and did not go nearly as far as those of us who supported him would have wanted. I support immigration reform and feel that if the Republicans do not like the Presidents proposal, the ball is now in their court. They control Congress. Let them formulate and pass something better if they are able. I fundamentally reject the idea that because my vision for the country is not the same as yours, this means that I love it less than you.

      1. Frankly

        The only change I demand to Davis is for it to be fiscally sustainable.  If it were fiscally sustainable, I would not advocate change.

        I think the GOP will come up with immigration reform.  It will pass the house and likely pass the Senate and Obama will veto it.

        1. Tia Will

          Frankly

          So correct me if I am paraphrasing you incorrectly. What I just heard is you only dislike and would change one thing. But what you said with regard to others is that if they liked it they would not be advocating for change ( any change, since you did not specify) if they loved the country.. I am sorry, but I do not believe that there is a distinction here.

        2. Frankly

          I don’t understand your point nor what you are asking.  I support immigration reform.  I want it done with the the legislature.  There is a compromise to be made but your “king” doesn’t want to compromise and his corrupt minions in the Senate did his bidding.

          You and I are not going to see eye to eye on this because you have professed that you believe in open borders, you don’t really honor national sovereignty and extend your bleeding egalitarian heart out to everyone and everywhere except for locally when it might impact your demands for city design.

          The Democrats under Obama are the party of “I demand it my way” tantrum throwers.

          Dislike and like does not even fit into a discussion about the binary consideration of fiscal sustainability.   Unless you want to make the point that you dislike fiscal sustainability?  That would be weird.

           

          1. Don Shor

            “…your “king” doesn’t want to compromise and his corrupt minions in the Senate did his bidding.”

            So again: the compromise bill, that the president would have signed, passed the Senate. And was blocked in the House. So how do you create this alternate reality of “didn’t want to compromise” and “corrupt minions?”
            You refuse to acknowledge what happened.
            Boehner blocked S744 because of the Hastert Rule. That’s why we didn’t get a reasonable immigration reform bill in 2013.
            You say you “support immigration reform.” Did you support S744? Did you object to the House blocking their version of it and refusing to move forward with immigration reform?
            The opportunity was there, and the Republican Party House leadership refused to act on it. It seems they were afraid of being primaried by their Tea Party base. Whatever the reason: the Republican leadership of the House is why we don’t have immigration reform.

  5. Anon

    “The President has clearly grown impatient on the failure of Congress to act. ”

    Then why did the President wait until AFTER the mid-term elections to take this unilateral action?  He had every opportunity to do this prior to the mid-term elections.  To me it appears to be a temper tantrum over the Democrats losing so many seats in the House and Senate and Governorships.  Why not at least give the newly constituted Congress at least one opportunity to work on immigration reform with him, before issuing a unilateral executive order?

    Personally, I am in strong favor of a guest worker program.  I am also in favor of beefing up security at the borders, but if we had a proper guest worker program, my guess is border security would be much, much less of a problem.

    1. Davis Progressive

      what about a more benign explanation that he preferred to pass legislation, but the election cemented his realization that legislation was would be impossible?

      1. Frankly

        This kind of comment is effing infuriating.  Come on DP, are you that dense about how the US political system works?

        This last election resulting in most of the states in the country going to GOP governors and GOP legislatures.  Both the Senate and the House are controlled by the GOP.   What this says in a democratic system is that the president has to acknowledge the will of the people and work with the other political party to compromise.  He is not a f_ _ _ _ _ g king.

        What would be impossible is for the king to get 100% of what HE wants.

        Do you get that people in congress are responsible to reflect the demands of their constituents?

        Do you get that a lame duck president that is not responsive to a political system that responds to the demands of constituents is essentially a dictator?

        What is really infuriating is how you would go off the rails if the president was a Republican and doing similar things.

        You are not an independent.  You are a left-winger true and true if you are defending the actions of this President.

        1. Barack Palin

          What is really infuriating is how you would go off the rails if the president was a Republican and doing similar things.

          Let’s hope the people aren’t as stupid as Jonathon Gruber believes and that in 2016 we get a Republican president that will wield the executive action baton like his predecessor.

        2. Frankly

          Agree.

          Again… what should be our biggest concern is that Barack Obama is still supported by the main media and 45% of the population that includes most well-educated people with liberal leanings.  It boggles my mind how he is defended and protected while he says one thing and does another, and breaks the country apart instead of bringing it together.

          Just consider Obama as the CEO of a large mufti-national corporation behaving the same way.  That company would crash and burn.

          From my perspective it appear that is exactly what he is after.  And too many smart people are so completely blind to it.   They need to be called out for their destructive ignorance.

        3. hpierce

          Now that he has forced the Republican hand, there is a chance to negotiate and work with the Republican congress.  Without it, he would have to come, “hat in hand” to folks, seemingly like you, who believe that the Republicans have been given carte blanche, and have a god-given right to fulfill their Manifest Destiny.  The republican gains cannot override a veto.  Since the American people had the opportunity to elect a 435 member Republican House, and didn’t, just don’t get the logic that the american people have said they want the “Republican” version of immigration reform.

      2. Anon

        To DP: How could the President “know” that the NEWLY FORMED Congress would not be willing to work with him on immigration reform unless he specifically asked?  Same thing with his statement about net neutrality.  He had every opportunity to weigh in on this issue prior to mid-term elections, but didn’t do anything until after the fact.  Make no mistake – this was a temper tantrum.

        1. Davis Progressive

          really how could he know?  are you new to american politics?  i mean, he couldn’t get the legislation through when he had 68 votes in a democratically controlled senate, now he would have to get it through a republican senate and the same house leadership that blocked the legislation from either being heard.

        2. Barack Palin

          Obama had the House and Senate in 2008 for two years and did nothing about immigration.  Why is it such a high priority now?  He’s acting like a spoiled brat.

        3. Tia Will

          Anon

          How could the President “know” that the NEWLY FORMED Congress would not be willing to work with him on immigration reform unless he specifically asked?”

          Perhaps because the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior ? The leadership of the House remains the same. The rank and file are if anything less likely to to collaborative. The Senate is now led by an individual who made his first priority to defeat President Obama and has really never stepped back from this position. I would think that these series of facts just might give the President a clue.

  6. Sam

    I don’t think it goes far enough, if that is in reference to fixing the problem. I doubt too many of the eligible people for this new program are going to sign up since it is only for a limit time and you don’t know what is going to happen after the three years. Even if they all did it is estimated that you will still have half of the people living/working here illegally evading deportation making them an easy target for abuse. (They can’t call the police to report crimes, can’t claim workman’s comp, unemployment or report unsafe working conditions because they are paid under the table and do not want to draw attention to themselves) You still don’t have a functioning system to allow legal entry.
    Solving the problem is not that difficult. Make it a real crime, and enforce it, to employ someone who does not have legal status to work in this country. That of course would never happen because of the pressure that business owners would put on Republicans because they don’t want to lose the low wage labor that isn’t going to complain about working conditions (because they can’t) and Democrats would not vote for it because they see the children born here as future votes.
     

  7. Frankly

    For some reason the block quotes are not working for the text below.  This is from a WSJ article that came from an Associated Press report.

    WASHINGTON—Top congressional Republicans increased pressure on President  Barack Obama  not to take steps on his own on immigration, telling him in their first face-to-face meeting since the GOP’s big wins on Election Day that such a move would impede their ability to work together.
     At a White House luncheon with 13 leaders from both parties, Republicans intensified Thursday’s warning from House Speaker  John Boehner  (R., Ohio) that such a move by Mr. Obama would derail Republicans’ efforts to pass their own immigration legislation and destroy bipartisan cooperation on other issues.
     “There was a lot of push-back from our guys. It would make not only passage of immigration reform more difficult but would also spill over to other areas of the agenda,” Senate Republican Conference Chairman John Thune (R., S.D.) said in an interview after the meeting.
     “You have a political dynamic to actually getting some things done. If we get in a protracted fight over the use of executive orders, it really poisons the well at a time when we should be spending time on some legislative accomplishments,” he said.
     Mr. Obama told the lawmakers that he had already been patient waiting for the GOP-controlled House to act since the Senate passed a sweeping bipartisan immigration bill in June 2013.
     At that point, Vice President  Joe Biden  asked how long Republicans might need to bring up an immigration bill, according to multiple people familiar with the meeting, asking if they might be ready by mid-February or another time this spring. Mr. Obama gave him a look that ended that line of discussion, the people said.

  8. Frankly

    From a recent WSJ/NBC poll:

    Forty-eight percent oppose Obama taking executive action on immigration — which could come as soon as later this week — while 38 percent support it; another 14 percent have no opinion or are unsure.

    Yup… this is all a GOP highway.

  9. Miwok

    Thank you for an spirited topic, and one that always makes me wonder what is broken in the current system that makes the complete overhaul of immigration so necessary? These guys operate on such a level it seems the IRS should send their newly hired 13,000 agents over to immigration to help them process paperwork?

    I applaud all the moderate comments of both sides, while still wondering why there are lines of people outside INS each day? If everyone who came here wanted to be Americans there might be protests to get the paperwork flowing, not just sending money back to their home country? Seems the people just want to be here, not really become a part of the USA?

    http://miwok6.wordpress.com/2013/06/28/citizenship/

    1. Davis Progressive

      people want to survive, they want to put food on their table and take care of their families.  the illegal immigrants that i know are some of the most honorable people i have met – they live meager lives and send most of their money home as they work long hard days, sometimes at two jobs that are manual labor and grueling.  they often have a bare minimum of the types of material things most americans – even poor americans take for granted.

      1. Barack Palin

        Sure there are those that you point out DP, there are also those that come here to suck off of the freebies of our system, get the free ride that all us taxpayers end up footing the bill for.

    2. Frankly

      Related the intended role of the Senate and what Harry Reid and Barack Obama have done to corrupt it and dismantle it…

      In the notes he made for a speech in the Constitutional Convention, James Madison wrote of the “real or supposed difference of interests” between “the rich and poor”—“ those  who will labor under all the hardships of life, and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings”— and of the fact that over the ages to come the latter would  come to outnumber the former. “According to the equal laws of suffrage, the power will slide into the hands of the latter,” he noted. “Symptoms, of a leveling spirit, as we have understood, have sufficiently appeared in certain quarters to give notice of the future danger.”

      How to protect from this danger?  Madison and other framers pointed to the upper house of congress.

      Madison said the Senate is “first to protect the people against their rulers; secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.” And “Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as by the abuses of power,”

      “The use of the Senate,” Madison said, “is to consist in its proceeding with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom, than the popular branch.

      When he returned, he asked George Washington over breakfast why the President had agreed to a two -house Congress. According to a story that may be apocryphal, Washington

      replied with his own question : “Why did you pour your tea into that saucer?” And when Jefferson answered, “To cool it,” Washington said, “Just so. We pour House legislation

      into the senatorial saucer to cool it.” The resolution providing for a two-house Congress was agreed to by the Constitutional Convention with almost no debate or dissent.

      The Harry Reid Senate has done everything opposite of being a cooling force.  It has thrown gasoline on the fire started by the top-down tyranny of the chief executive.

      It remains to be seen if the Republican-led Senate will get back to what it is intended to do.  To thwart executive overreach while representing all Americans so to avoid any bottom-up tyranny.

      1. Don Shor

        The Senate passed a very reasonable compromise immigration reform bill that was “written by a bipartisan group of eight Senators known as the “Gang of Eight.” Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY), John McCain (R-AZ), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Michael Bennet (D-CO), and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) drafted S. 744 in the spring of 2013.”
        http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/guide-s744-understanding-2013-senate-immigration-bill
        The House blocked it. Your history lesson is of little use in this situation. And I have little expectation that Mitch McConnell will be any better than Harry Reid at restoring harmonious decorum in the Senate.

        1. Frankly

          When George W. Bush couldn’t get an immigration overhaul though the Senate, he gave up. When Barack Obama couldn’t get a bill through the House, he changed the rules.

          Stop looking backwards while you try to make a point going forward or you might trip and hurt yourself being unable to see.

          Really Don, this isn’t a tit for tat contest. You need to get over the past and move on.  Obama met with the present GOP.  The present GOP would have worked on a bipartisan bill.  Obama didn’t want it and chose instead to go hyper partisan again.

          Your President is the divider in chief.  He is the general of the Democrat war on prosperity team.

          1. Don Shor

            “The present GOP would have worked on a bipartisan bill. ”
            There is zero evidence of that. The 2013 bill was as close as they were ever going to get.

        2. Frankly

          Since we are reminiscing about the past… related to Harry Reid’s Senate…

          “The president is fond of referring to the House as the ‘do-nothing Congress.’ But we have 352 reasons why it’s a ‘do-Nothing Senate.’

          “352 bills are sitting on Harry Reid’s desk, awaiting action.

          “98 percent of them passed with bipartisan support — Republicans and Democrats working together to pass legislation.

          “50 percent of the bills passed unanimously, with no opposition.

          “70 percent of the bills passed with two-thirds support in the House.

          “And over 55 bills were introduced by Democrats.

        1. Frankly

          What is economically tyranny?   You mean providing more economic opportunity in the private economy?  Yup, that sounds like a very bad thing.

          You should really do some research on the GOP congress.  It has turned over.  It isn’t the same.  It is filled with quite a few young progressives (not the fake progressives that are left-leaners that are really just liberals demanding social change that gives power to certain groups that then gets locked in) but true lovers of economic and social dynamism.  The GOP is younger… looking much younger than the Democrats… and much more diverse than it has been.  The same is true for state government.

           

           

          1. Don Shor

            Please name one or two of these “progressive” Republicans so I can see exactly what you mean by that term.

      2. Tia Will

        Frankly

        To thwart executive overreach while representing all Americans so to avoid any bottom-up tyranny.”

        I guess in your eyes I am no longer American since it is certainly not representative of me, and I am guessing it is not representative of all of those who voted for Obama in two presidential elections. If you want to make the claim that most Americans feel that we need immigration reform and prefer a secure border, you would get no argument from me. But when you pretend that the Republican point of view on this ( or any other issue ) is representative of “all Americans” you are just plain in error.

        As for your previous comment about my bleeding heart liberalism, I fully own most of the comment. What I disagree with is your assertion that this does not apply locally. If there were a proposal by a developer or the city to supply housing for those who otherwise cannot afford it at all, or for low rent apartments, or for housing the children who arrived at our border in an attempt to escape hunger or violence in their homeland, I am all for it. Show me where I can sign up to pay more for it. But that is not the case. You object to the fact that I do not feel that what we need are more $400,000-$600,000 dollar homes. I do not feel that people who can afford these homes are not in need of our assistance. There are many who are in need and I would welcome them with open arms.

         

        1. Frankly

          So you oppose developing the economy to add more jobs, but would support adding thousands of poor people in low-rent housing?  I think your definition of “needy” is quite targeted and narrow-focused.  Maybe it is your strong mothering instinct driving your city design demands.  But my strong fathering instinct compels me to see the lack of economic opportunity being the thing that needs the most attention.  And then there is the practical aspect of not being able to save the world.  How about we just focus on saving our city first?  Then maybe we can reach out to the global population that seems to grab more of your attention.

    3. Tia Will

      Miwok

       

      I think that motivations vary amongst immigrants. There are some who want to come and live here permanently. There are others who see this as a relatively short term proposition either hoping and praying that the situation ( either poverty or violence) will improve enough in their country of origin to allow them to return. Others are doing as DP said, working hard to improve the living situation for those left at home. Obviously those of us who have had experience working with the populations who are working very hard in the agricultural or service industries will see immigrants from a very different point of view from those who have read about how some are “taking advantage” of our system.

      I do not see this as a simple issue with a one size fits all answer which is why I believe that each case should be decided individually with adequate legal representation rather than buying into the preferred stereotype of either side.

    1. Don Shor

      An excellent quote from that link:
      “Mr. President, my request to you today can simply be stated: make immigration reform a priority. I do not care which reform you choose. Pathway to citizenship, guest work program, or any of the other innovative programs that currently exist.
      But deferred action or amnesty is deferring this crisis. It is not reform, it’s simply giving up. It does nothing to make America or the undocumented population any safer.”
      So all he needs to do is send this message to Congress: pass a bill.
      “Costing more cops their lives”? Always good to have a reasoned discussion, Frankly. You’ve really hit all the low points today.

      1. Frankly

        The good Sheriff is not a politico.  His basic plea is to get rid of illegal immigrants that pose a safety risk… and secure the border so they cannot keep coming back after being deported.  Obama’s order counts on voluntary background checks.  Sure Don, that will work well.

      2. Barack Palin

        “Costing more cops their lives”? Always good to have a reasoned discussion, Frankly. You’ve really hit all the low points today.

        Kind of like Obama’s low last night stating:

        ‘Are we a nation that accepts the cruelty of ripping children from their parents’ arms?’

        Like that’s going to happen.  Obama hit a low point last night in his BS rhetoric.

         

  10. Tia Will

    BP

    Are we a nation that accepts the cruelty of ripping children from their parents’ arms?’”

    So are you coming out in favor of parents being allowed to stay in the US if they have a child who by right of location of birth is a US citizen ? Of are you with Frankly that “cranking out a baby” as he so delicately phrased it, should not deter deportation even if they are contributing, law abiding members of our society who just did not happen to be fortunate enough to be born here themselves ?

      1. Tia Will

        BP

        People have been entering this country since they became aware of its existence, some in accordance with the currently prevailing laws and sometimes with no regard to the existence of those laws. Immigration to the US predates any “lie” that any president might or might not have told.  I believe that one measure of our society is the humanity with which we chose to treat those who arrive on our shores, or cross our borders regardless of who happens to sit in the White House or who controls the Congress.

    1. Frankly

      law abiding members of our society who just did not happen to be fortunate enough to be born here themselves ?

      if they are here illegally, they are not law-abiding.

      It has nothing to do with fortune… the actively broke the law coming here.  Their “fortune” wasn’t here… it was in their home country.

      Think about something for a moment.  Let’s say you like France but could not get a visa soon enough for your desires and so you sneaked in.  And then you cranked out a baby and another and another.  Wouldn’t you be thinking that at any time you might be caught and sent back home?  Would you personally be responsible for the risk to your children having their mother deported or having to leave the only country that they know just to stay with their mother?  What a terrible thing to do to children… use them as pawns and risking their well-being just to make a case that your illegal acts should be overlooked.

      You portray these immigrants as just incidental victims of circumstances.   They knew they broke the law coming here illegally.  They know that their status is still illegal.  They new that by cranking out kids here would put the kids at risk of not having a father or mother if one or both is caught and deported.

      There is nothing noble in the actions of illegal immigrants.  They are quite frankly thieves… stealing from the American people.

      And if you want to make the case about who will pick your fruit, go back to your politicians and ask them why haven’t they implemented a guest worker program… and why farm labor rates are so depressed and unemployment and welfare benefits so high that other unemployed Americans won’t do the work.

      1. Robb Davis

        Missing from the conversation about wages and farm labor–in fact missing from this entire discussion–are the effects of a generation of strong dollar policies and so-called free trade on domestic wages and prices.  I challenge anyone to talk–actually go out and talk–to a farmer in the Central Valley about why wages need to be held down and whether or not they can find US Citizens to do the work that immigrants are doing.  They will tell you that they are competing with farmers in Latin America and Asia and that those places have far lower wages. They have been at the forefront of calls for immigration reform because they WANT reliable labor–labor that works tirelessly for low wages so they can compete. These are the effects of globalization and the fruits of free trade (as it is referred to).  These are explicit policies pursued by administrations ever since I can remember.

        The effects of strong dollar polices are also to send jobs offshore where they can be done relatively cheaply with finished products being shipped back to the US where they are sold relatively cheaply due to the strong dollar.  This has had the effect of depressing wages in many sectors for many years, hollowing out the middle class.  Whether it is the garment industry or furniture manufacturing, auto parts (as opposed to finished cars) or electronics, strong dollar policies have made US workers uncompetitive (this is also why we have had a high foreign trade deficit).

        These are explicit policies and their main effect (besides the cheap goods that flood our stores) is to maintain very low inflation rates.  (Low inflation benefits lenders…)

        So, immigrants are not stealing jobs.  They are not depressing wages.  They may not be “noble” but they are acting like rational economic actors.  They are merely responding to market forces.  It is amazing to me that free market proponents will extol the virtues of the free flow of financial capital and goods but not allow for the free flow of human capital.  Denying this flow distorts markets does it not?  Free market orthodoxy only seems to be questioned when that flow involves people–a critical input into any production process.

        Any historical analysis of immigration to the US will demonstrate that the nativist arguments on display in this instance are identical to those made periodically over the past 100+ years (about Chinese, Irish, Southern European, Eastern European and other immigrant groups).

        1. Frankly

          Any historical analysis of immigration to the US will demonstrate that the nativist arguments on display in this instance are identical to those made periodically over the past 100+ years

          I disagree completely with this on several fronts.

          First, historically, except for the initial founding immigrants before the West was settled, the journey to immigrate to this country had to be done legally and it was challenging.  This provided a great filtering effect of significantly self-determined and ambitious people.  Not so now.  Although it has become more difficult to immigrate here, illegal immigration from south of the border has been relatively and measurably much less difficult.  It is primarily filtering desperate people.  Or people that want to exploit our relative riches and easy pickings for crime.

          Second, global Islamic terrorism threats did not really exist until the last decade or two.

          Third, we are talking about tens of millions of people.  You might compare previous immigration as a percentage of the population, but that is not equitable because as a young country with much unsettled territory we had the capacity and need to grow our population.  There is a saturation point.  Even Davis residents reject population increases because of the net impact to quality of life and the impact of having to share limited resources.  And the raw numbers are not assimilating.  They are creating Spanish speaking communities where second and third generation offspring still do not speak English well enough and face lower economic prospects as a result.  We have a much larger percentage of unassimilated immigrants than ever.   And the unassimilated do not connect with this country… they do not love the country enough.  They have their heart still in their home country and their home culture…  they are only here for the money.  They vote for the money not for the love of country.

          Forth, we have never had anything close to this level of nanny state government welfare and social benefits.   Again, this has contributed to a negative filtering verses a positive one.  Previous there was a significant amount of emigration of past immigrants that could not make it in the American system where men survived and thrived on their competitive spirit, hard work and enterprising nature.  Today we see every poor person as a victim needing to be taken care of.  And those that are attracted to that type of society are more likely to try and steal in.

          Fifth, cheap farm labor is not an issue with a robust guest worker program.   But this is a disingenuous argument because cheap immigrant labor is not just going to agriculture.  It has impacted many industries to lower wages… construction and trades being one of the most prominent ones.  This has destroyed job prospects for many existing Americans that have traditionally worked in these jobs.  And with the destruction of manufacturing jobs from globalism and automation, there are not many good-paying blue collar jobs.   Liberals wring their hands over wage inequity and then demand that we keep flooding in under-market cheap foreign labor.  Is it ignorance or something more nefarious driving this obvious contradiction?

          Sixth, we are not talking about legal immigration… we are talking about illegal immigration and laws and national sovereignty.  No other industrialized country puts up with this type of thing.  They almost immediately deport people that are found to be there illegal.  This is the broken window theory in full display… allow this type of lawlessness and more lawlessness occurs.

          Despite what non business types think, most business people operate at a high level of ethics.  They for example would know when they are doing something wrong.  And most know that employing illegal immigrants is wrong.  There should not be much of an opportunity to do so.  Labor prices would equalize.

          And my last point about farmers.  What makes them so special?  Take any industry and you can make the same claim that US business cannot compete with the high cost of domestic labor.   Prices and labor rates need to reset.   And with respect to nobody wanting to do the work… cut welfare and food stamps and there will be people doing the work.   It is in fact one of the most telling aspects of the dysfunction of the liberal mindset to hear defense of Hispanic immigrants doing the work that existing poor Americans will not do and acceptance of that fact.  So, it is okay that Hispanic immigrants do that work but not existing Americans?  Are we not the elite ones?

           

          1. Don Shor

            And with respect to nobody wanting to do the work… cut welfare and food stamps and there will be people doing the work.

            Who was doing ag labor before we expanded welfare benefits and food stamps? Who was doing ag labor when welfare was reformed in the 1990’s? When welfare benefits were cut, was there a flood of non-immigrant labor into agriculture?

            So, it is okay that Hispanic immigrants do that work but not existing Americans?

            It is traditional. Ask any grower how he acquires labor for harvest. And when we’ve experimented otherwise (Alabama, Georgia), crops rotted in the fields. “Existing poor Americans” won’t do farm labor in sufficient numbers. And while there is nothing wrong with guest worker programs, in the past they have been highly exploitive. So they would have to be carefully regulated — by the government. By the feds, more than likely. They certainly can’t be self-regulated by industry.

        2. Robb Davis

          Frankly:

          First, historically, except for the initial founding immigrants before the West was settled, the journey to immigrate to this country had to be done legally and it was challenging.  This provided a great filtering effect of significantly self-determined and ambitious people.  

          This is not correct.  There have always been labor brokers who brought people to this country illegally–sometimes massively–often with the support of large industries.  How were the railroads in this country built, for example? Immigration for everyone in “those days” was challenging because the modes of travel were challenging.  But to say that all immigration was done in an orderly and legal way is simply not accurate historically.  It has always been messy and a mix of legal and illegal entry.

          Second, global Islamic terrorism threats did not really exist until the last decade or two.

          While your statement is true it is a non-sequiter.  In previous immigration waves people spoke of “global communism’s” threat or the threat of international anarchist groups, or the more generalized problem of “organized crime.”  Islam is today’s “threat” but Americans have always had their enemy number one whose populations were going to overrun and destroy us.  You are kind of making my point about nativist arguments here.

          Third, we are talking about tens of millions of people.  You might compare previous immigration as a percentage of the population, but that is not equitable because as a young country with much unsettled territory we had the capacity and need to grow our population.

          I would compare previous immigration as a percent of the population because that is a reasonable way to do it.  And, again, don’t kid yourself. In the past Americans talked about “overcrowded cities” that could not take any more inhabitants.  Communities stretched too thin by the newcomers.  These are not new arguments.

          Today we see every poor person as a victim needing to be taken care of.  And those that are attracted to that type of society are more likely to try and steal in.

          This argument flies in the face of how migration works.  I have seen you make this type of argument before but it is spurious.  As I said in my original post: immigration reveals a rational economic calculus. Do you really believe that a family in Mexico is going to pay a coyote $5000 to send the weakest, least fit member of the family to the US so they can screw up, commit a crime and then get deported?  That is ridiculous.  The people coming to the US have ALWAYS been the most fit, the hardest working and the most likely to succeed–and the most honest. Why?  Because their families absolutely depend on them to provide remittances.  My research in West Africa showed how carefully families choose migrants to try to assure they will keep money coming from jobs they obtain.

          And by the way, while it may come as a surprise to you, many illegal immigrants pay both income and social security taxes because they are hired with social security numbers.  At the same time they are not eligible for benefits, rarely file tax returns and can never hope to obtain social security or medicare benefits.  Why?  They are using false SS numbers that somehow magically do not keep them from paying income and payroll taxes.  They are subsidizing you not stealing from you.

          Fifth, cheap farm labor is not an issue with a robust guest worker program. 

          Have you studied past farmworker programs?  They are ALL about cheap labor–simply finding a legal way to make it happen.  You seem to hold them up as a panacea (I am not opposed) but let’s be clear–they have always led to permanent migration streams from the countries where they are promoted.  They CREATE migration streams, they never stop or curtail them.

          They almost immediately deport people that are found to be there illegal.

          I am not sure where you are talking about but I would only accept this with a few HUGE caveats. One, certain countries have more generous asylum laws than the US.  Two, like in the US it depends on the industry in which they work.  Three, some countries provide breaks for those coming from former colonies or during certain periods of war or upheaval.

          Despite what non business types think, most business people operate at a high level of ethics.

          I am not sure what this is trying to get at but I assume it is meant to be some sort of dig at those of us who do not own businesses.  Frankly (because I am too), business people are pretty much like anyone else.  Some hire illegally and treat their workers abominably.  In fact, some hire illegals so they can force them to work overtime without overtime pay, work triple shifts without a break, report when injured or sick and fire them without consequences.  Others hire illegally and treat their workers like family.  Others do not hire illegally.  But there can be little doubt that MANY ethical business people hire illegal labor because the demand is certainly there.

          And my last point about farmers.  What makes them so special? 

          Nothing.  They are merely a large user of immigrant labor because, despite mechanization, they still remain one of the largest employers of manual labor for harvesting crops.  There are many industries that absolutely rely on immigrant labor and the effect of their choice is to keep your prices low.

          But because we live in a market economy and vote with our dollars, there is a clear path to reducing illegal immigration: refuse to consume the goods and services of those who employ illegal labor.  We can ask restaurants where we eat to provide evidence that they are using only legal labor.  We can ask the same of hotels.  We can demand that food wholesalers and grocery stores certify their products as “immigrant labor free.”  I am not joking about this.  We have the tools. I suspect we won’t do these things because we prefer lower prices for our food and services.  Such lower prices are brought to you by immigrant labor. (And I welcome comments about the long-standing policy of strong dollar and what it has done to our economy in regards to wages).

        3. Miwok

          Don,

          The falsifying SSN is a federal offense, and you treat it like it is common practice.. There are some places in the Meat industry who have been indicted for this, but I think the government looks the other way because they benefit? So we should too?

          As I said before and after this, when they enforce the bad law, it either gets changed, or replaced. Ignoring it by selective enforcement to me is wrong.

        4. Robb Davis

          Miwok – I made the point about SSNs not Don.  I am not justifying it.  I am merely saying, don’t blame the immigrants.  There is a huge demand for cheap labor from which we all benefit in the form of lower prices.  We are all complicit* and I just think it is not helpful to blame people who are merely responding to economic opportunities.  To treat their crossing of an international border in response to market forces as if it is a serious crime is ludicrous, but, that is exactly what has happened in this country for many years.

          *As French sociologist and jurist Jacques Ellul wrote many years ago:

          “Un fait majeur de cette civilisation c’est que, de plus en plus, le péché, devient collectif, et que l’individu se borne à y participer.”

        5. Miwok

          I had to try understand that difference years ago, as if it is a traffic ticket (human trafficking) rather than a crime (killing).

          The City and University respond to this by exploiting labor in the only way they can, they outsource.

          Then I discovered that the people they outsourced were being exploited. So the people doing yard work may not raise an eye, the ones doing skilled work are the same guys. Most are hired at less then the contractor receives while they pocket the rest, and tell the workers they will be deported if they complain. The University then tells themselves they are not hiring illegal immigrants and are not exploiting workers. I only know this because I talked to some coworkers who explained it to me, then got jobs with the University later and were not affected by telling the story.

          I like the quote and I guess my affinity for the Native Peoples of this country stem from that, and my Great Grandma was NA.

  11. Clem Kadiddlehopper

     
    This is a poem by a person known as Tarzana Joe. He sums up my feelings about the drama occurring within the current administration.
     
     
     
     
     
    A Tapestry of Contradictions
     
     
     
    I didn’t think it’d get this bad
    I’d laugh, except it’s all so sad
    In fact, I think it’s quite as bad as it could ever get
    A promise is no promise
    And a threat is not a threat
     
    Instead it’s gloom that’s spreading
     
    When he swore he’d spread the wealth
    And now it’s gone so far,
    He’s even lying to himself
     
    He told us we could keep the plan and doctor that we liked
     
    But soon it was the promise not a football that got spiked
     
    He told the world at large there was a line that couldn’t be crossed
     
    It must have slipped his mind or else the paperwork got lost

    He had a plan for peace
    That he assured us wouldn’t fail
    He put aside the hammer
    “Because not ever job’s a nail”
    He swore before cadets
    But he couldn’t even keep that vow
    For even he agrees
    We kind of need that hammer now
     
    He said he had no power to erase or change a law
     
    Something must have happened; he don’t think that way no more
     
    Those who give the notion there’s a God the shortest shrift
     
    Say, “Could God create a stone so big that even he couldn’t lift?”
     
    Now I’ll make a prediction and so here’s what I predict.
     
    The man can’t make a statement even he won’t contradict.
     

  12. Frankly

    Here is a piece of what the White House thinks it needs to do that the GOP would support and I support.  Don’t need an executive order for this, so why do it?

    The White House executive action seeks to ease the way for startup founders to work in the U.S. One option would allow foreign entrepreneurs to qualify for visas typically given to athletes, models and others deemed to have exceptional talent.

     

    The other option would allow inventors, researchers and founders to get a waiver to remain in the U.S. after they arrive. That waiver would be tied to obtaining funding from U.S. investors or showing their innovations will lead to job creation.

  13. TrueBlueDevil

    This whole debate is filled with lies, distortions, and double talk by our President. Take these two examples.

    1. He says he wants to bring people “out of the shadows” so that they can’t start paying taxes. Well, first off, they’ve already broken numerous laws. They already use the ER as their hospital, which is driving many hospitals out of business. And he also says “they can now start paying taxes”.

    Most of the illegal immigrants are low skilled, low wage workers. Many won’t pay taxes, and will be a huge drain on the system. In fact, I heard on the radio a husband and wife with 3 children, if they don’t make over $43,000 a year (declared), will be eligible for up to $7,000 a year tax refund from the Earned Income Tax Credit.

    2. We now won’t even deport sex offenders. We have previously not deported murderers, and look at the illegal immigrant who recently murdered two sheriffs in Sacramento County, he had been deported 3 or 4 times, proving our border is porous and unprotected.

    Amnesty

    If the border was shut down from a flood to a trickle, I believe that many Americans would be for some form of immigration reform.

    But Obama has a top advisor from La Raza (The Race: … “Por La Raza, Todo…” For The Race, everything; for the others, Nothing”) in the White House, and he even contradicts himself, and throws away the Constitution. Reagan and Bush didn’t write new laws, they provided tweaks and minor adjustments to fulfill previously passed laws and statutes.

    I find it interesting that if we allow 30-40 million immigrants to have Amnesty (even Obama’s own RFQ mentioned a top number of new green cards of 34 million); and then family reunification; there goes our “diversity” as we will become a Central American country, which is fine… just put the vote to Mexico to join the union, and do it above board. Throw away the smoke and mirrors.

     

     

        1. TrueBlueDevil

          Don, let’s not twist words. I wrote: “If the border was shut down from a flood to a trickle, I believe that many Americans would be for some form of immigration reform.”

          First, seal the border. Ronald Reagan was lied to in 1986, the border was supposed to be sealed then. We were building a longer wall on the southern border when Obama came into office,  and the funds have been tied up by Obama and the Democrats, so the wall wasn’t completed. (Walls work, see Israel.)

          We now have a flood, we need to reduce it to a trickle. If your house roof leaks, you don’t – simultaneously – fix the roof and put in new carpeting, new flooring, and new drywall, especially if the General Contractor failed last time. You first fix the roof to stop the water from pouring in. When that is achieved, you move onto stage 2.

          Even Mexican Americans are not overwhelmingly for this, they know they face the biggest economic threat from these new arrivals. If you work in residential management, landscaping, construction, and you’re making $15-25 per hour, and someone else will come in and do it for $10, $12, $15, that puts downward pressure on wages.

          The Democrats know if they add 5-10 million new voters, and we don’t have stricter voting laws, there will be more illegal votes cast in their direction. (I think I heard that North Carolina had 35,000 such votes cast by citizens who lived in another state, but voted in North Carolina!)

          1. Don Shor

            I didn’t twist words. I quoted you exactly. But your statement says that you believe, as do Congressional Republicans, that border security must now come first. That was not the GOP position in 2013, when the Senate bill passed. It ‘evolved’ in response to significant push-back from the Tea Party base of the GOP.
            Most Americans favor comprehensive immigration reform. I’ve already posted the link to a survey. Pew also has surveyed the subject over the years. I’ve posted it directly for you more than once.
            You have just, in your last paragraph, repeated an implied falsehood that is a constant from conservatives in these discussions. Nothing the President has done “add(s) 5 – 10 million new voters.” Granting legal residency, work permits, even Social Security cards, does not confer the rights of citizenship. Only citizens can vote. The President has not created a single new voter.
            If your vague thing that you heard (on the radio?) about North Carolina is true, then North Carolina perhaps needs to look at their voting enforcement. But it is also possible to live in another state than the one where you vote, and be doing so perfectly legally, so I really don’t know what you’re talking about.

  14. Barack Palin

    Gallup Poll

    In the aftermath of Republican victories in the midterm election, a majority of Americans – 53 percent – want GOP legislators in Congress to have more influence over the country’s direction than Obama during the next year.

    This is a turnaround from early 2012 when 46 percent wanted Obama to have more influence and 42 percent favored Congress, according to the latest Gallup poll.

  15. DavisBurns

    ABC, NBC AND CBS won’t broadcast President Obama’s speech tonight because it is too political.  Sounds like Fox News won’t either.  The reason they give is this isn’t a bill before congress but a “political” move by the president.  I call that manipulated media when the president speaks to the people and because he has enough opposition, the media won’t broadcast it.  You can watch it online.

    Regarding the Mexican exonomy and our problems with immigration, let’s not forget the war on drugs in which we have transferred  $3 billion dollars to the Mexican army from american taxpayers.  That money has mostly gone to drug lords to fight drugs and has resulted in unprecedented crime and violence.  Let’s stop this war on drugs now.  Like all other wars, it has left death and destruction in its wake.  If Americans faced the daily violence that is common in Mexico, we would do our best to migrate as well.  The U.S. and our policies contribute to our immigration problems.  You don’t fix a problem like this by building a wall.

  16. sisterhood

    “If Americans faced the daily violence that is common in Mexico, we would do our best to migrate as well.”  

    “You don’t fix a problem like this by building a wall.”

    Agree.

  17. Barack Palin

    Can any liberal on here honestly say that Obama would be using executive action for immigration if 75% of the new residents were eventually going to vote Republican?

      1. Barack Palin

        They will be voting, it’s just a matter of time.  As I stated earlier, how long will it be before Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Schuimer are crying that it’s not fair that they have social security numbers, drivers’ licenses and work permits but aren’t able to vote.  It’s all part of the plan, even Stevie Wonder can see that one coming.

        1. TrueBlueDevil

          Yes, that basic common sense. Just like Obama offering the straw man that the illegal immigrants won’t qualify for Obamacare, when in reality most use ER rooms for their doctor’s visits.

    1. Tia Will

      BP

      Can any liberal on here honestly say that Obama would be using executive action for immigration if 75% of the new residents were eventually going to vote Republican?”

      First, your speculation about how many of the new residents are going to vote is just that, speculation.

      I think it is irrelevant to speculate about a) the hypothetical actions of an individual under a hypothetical set of circumstances and b) an eventuality that one insists will happen in order to bolster one’s argument. This is a fear based approach choosing to see only negative impacts when the reality is much more nuanced. The two “Dreamers” who spoke at the City Council meeting were the positive human faces of this issue. I don’t think that anyone on the left does not understand that there are also people who may be involved in dangerous activities such as drug based gangs and murder but who firmly believe that attempting to build “The Wall” is not a reasonable option. When one group of people, usually the more affluent, decide that they need to wall themselves away from those having less, they then have to live with the unintended consequences of familial disruption, in the case of our southern border, the disruption of the free passage rights of Native Americans who lands have traditionally straddled the border, those whose business depends on easy passage across the border to say nothing of the basic inhumanity of sorting out who will live and who will die by the location of their birth.

      TBD

      It worked in Central San Diego, and Israel.”

      With regard to Israel, please define “worked”. To me living in a near perpetual state of ongoing armed conflict with those “walled out” is not my definition of working regardless of which side of the issue one’s sympathies happen to lie.

      1. TrueBlueDevil

        The walls largely stopped the random terrorist bombs going off on public buses, cafes, hospitals and nightclubs where Palestinians chose to target in their terror campaign.

         

         

    2. Barack Palin

      First, your speculation about how many of the new residents are going to vote is just that, speculation.

      Tia Will, I didn’t pull that percentage of 75% out of my you know what.  In the last presidential election that’s exactly how the vote went.  Don’t you think Obama and his cohorts know that also?

      http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2012/11/07/obama-wins-75-of-latino-vote-marks-historic-latino-influence-in-presidential-election/

       

       

      1. Tia Will

        BP

        I will grant you that past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior on the individual level. I will also grant you that the Democrats will try to get as many people likely to vote for them to register and vote just as will Republicans. What you missed about my post is the group behavior is not so closely wedded to the “past behavior predicts future behavior” paradigm. This can clearly be seen in an immediate and local sense by how fast a peaceful protest can turn violent, or on the political level and longer term level, how fast some politician or other can have a dramatic rise in approval and then an equally rapid decline largely based on how news coverage of an unpopular decision or even just a gaffe plays out in the  news.

        Another point that I am sure that you are knowingly failing to acknowledge other than by just blowing it off when Don and others have pointed it out is that these are not folks who have a guaranteed path to citizenship let alone how they might perceive politics and vote in five, to ten, to twenty years when they might or might not have secured the right to vote.

         

        1. TrueBlueDevil

          This is another big step down that path. Many are living here, using our schools, Emergency Rooms, working in various industries.

          Ironically, even though Ronald Reagan passed and signed Amnesty, the new Hispanic voters still voted 65% Democrat. I take this with a grain of salt, but a friend who moved here from Mexico (legally) said that the way to get ahead in Mexico is to know the power structure, and to tap into the government and thus government largess.

  18. Miwok

    I will believe more in this when the employers and fraud is enforced. The illegals are not coming here just for the cable TV. Meanwhile I feel everyone in the government is trying to bring in more people to be exploited..
    Good points about the farming and food! Food should cost more and may be getting there. Maybe the total cost is finally being paid for the production of food. The farm workers are being “contracted” to the farmers for harvest, but that just insulates them from liability. The Farm to Fork movement will start to reveal this, I think.

    1. TrueBlueDevil

      The cost of labor is a very small component in the cost of food. If workers were given a $2 or $3 raise per hour, the cost of a head of lettuce wouldn’t double.

  19. sisterhood

    “The farm workers are being “contracted” to the farmers for harvest, but that just insulates them from liability. The Farm to Fork movement will start to reveal this, I think.”

    Agreed. I wish every citizen would attempt to grow some of their own (organic) food on their patio or back yard,  community garden, or window sill.  (Basil does well there..) Then maybe they ‘d appreciate farmworkers a tiny bit more.

  20. sisterhood

    “April 23, 2012: The Pew Hispanic Center announced that net migration from Mexico to the United States had stopped and possibly even reversed. The center noted that from 2005 to 2010, about 1.4 million Mexicans immigrated to the United States, and about 1.4 million Mexican immigrants and their U.S.-born children moved from the United States to Mexico…”

    1. Frankly

      Just watched that.  Funny how they start punking Obama AFTER the elections!  But it was great.

      Word on the political street is that Obama is hurting Hillary’s chances to be elected.  Makes me wonder if that is part of his motivation.  Obamas and Clintons really hate each other.

      1. Barack Palin

        In a recent interview Obama stated he felt that Americans wanted a “new car smell” in 2016.  Now you know he would never bash Hillary at this point, but she’s hardly a new car smell as a candidate.  I felt it was his clever way of sticking it to her a little because first of all she’s old and getting another Clinton would hardly be anything new.

        1. Frankly

          Yeah – The Democrats are getting long in the tooth.  How quickly the tide has turned.  The GOP is stacked with young promising leaders.  Name one young Democrat that is prominent in the party.

        2. Barack Palin

          I heard on the radio a few days ago that in the House the Democrats are on average about 20 years older than the GOP reps though I can’t find anything online to substantiate that so far.

  21. Frankly

    Facts about current immigration.

    See the following to note the explosion in immigration beginning with the 1965 immigration act that eliminated country of origin quotas.

    http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time?width=1000&height=850&iframe=true

    It is likely that illegal immigrants are under-counted. For example, illegal immigrants are widely reported as numbering 20 million, yet the government reports only 11.6 million.  However, using the government statistics, the percentage of immigrants (first generation) in the US is nearing the peak of 14.8% of 1890.

    Around 1890 marked the end of the US frontier.  The population was about 62 million. Up to that point the US had been eager for more people to settle its lands.  Immigration plummeted beginning the early 1900s and continued to fall until the immigration act of 1965.  It the percentage of immigrants is nearing the peak of 1890.  But today the population is about 312 million and with no free inhabitable unsettled land.  Today Americans complain about sprawl and over-population in much of the country.  Today we are over-taxed, and in debt way over our heads.

    Today 20% of all international immigrants reside in the US even though the US only accounts for less than 5% of the total world population.  Every other industrialized country has much more strict immigration laws and regularly deport people in their country illegally.  Even Mexico has much stricter immigration laws than does the US.

    One of the big worries over the 1965 immigration act was a resulting impact and influence on American culture.  President Lyndon Johnson assured the American public that the demographic mix would not be altered.  He was completely wrong.

    More than 46% of government-estimated 41 million immigrants are of Hispanic origins.

    The US has become the 5th largest Spanish Speaking country.

    See this interactive map for the size and location of the population speaking Spanish while speaking English less than very well. Compare it to any other “speak English less than very well” demographic. It is shocking.

    http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/language/data/language_map.html?eml=gd

    And these new immigrants are not just the kind, humble hard-working people that Democrats like to portray.  In 2013 438,421 unauthorized immigrants were removed from the United States… with 45% having prior criminal convictions.   In a single year we deport over 200,000 criminals that come to the US illegally.

    Immigrants of 1890 did not have access to any government social service.  They were sometimes served by fraternal societies… but these were self-funded voluntary organizations.  The government did not tax native Americans to distribute benefits to immigrants anything like it does today.  So immigrants did not migrate to the US to get access to these benefits, and US residents did not suffer the material pain of greater taxation to support the immigrants.

    31% of current immigrants lack a high school diploma compared to 10.2% of the native population.  Most immigrants can only work in low and moderate skilled manual labor jobs. This, along with outsourcing and globalization has led to a shortage of blue-collar jobs for native Americans.  The over-supply of labor has led to wage depression that is reflected in trends for wage stagnation for lower socioeconomic groups.

    The bottom line here is that the US, through federal malfeasance and incompetence related to immigration, has injected the country with a very big and costly problem of too many poor and uneducated people that are resisting assimilation by the millions.

    We need to seal the border now.
    We need to immediately implement laws that cause business to be fined and eventually confiscated and liquidated for hiring illegal immigrants.
    We need to immediately deport all immigrants with any criminal record.
    We need to accept and process all illegal immigrants for potential asylum that have a genuine and provable story.
    We need to provide a path to citizenship for for illegal immigrant members of any immediate family with children that have been here longer than 5 years as long as they prove they can financially support themselves.  Sorry.. the US has enough poor people to take care of already.

    Those that deny these facts are hostile to existing Americans already stressed to the breaking point lacking sufficient economic opportunity.

    For REAL labor shortages like that might exist for agriculture, the US can and should have a guest worker program.  Other countries do it.  There is no reason that it would not work in the US.

    1. Don Shor

      Why not just pass Senate Bill 744? http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/guide-s744-understanding-2013-senate-immigration-bill

      The “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act,” or S. 744, is a broad-based proposal for reforming the U.S. immigration system written by a bipartisan group of eight Senators known as the “Gang of Eight.” Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY), John McCain (R-AZ), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Michael Bennet (D-CO), and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) drafted S. 744 in the spring of 2013. The bill addresses all aspects of the immigration process from border and enforcement issues to legal immigration reforms. It makes changes to the family and employment-based visa categories for immigrants, provides critical due-process protections, increases the availability of nonimmigrant workers to supplement all sectors of the workforce, and provides legal status to 11 million undocumented immigrants within the United States. The Senators intended this legislation to address these issues “…by finally committing the resources needed to secure the border, modernize and streamline our current legal immigration system, while creating a tough but fair legalization program for individuals who are currently here.”

      If enacted, S. 744 would require that a series of enforcement measures, or “triggers,” go into effect prior to completing the legalization process. For example, although undocumented immigrants will be allowed to register for the new Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) program almost immediately, before those in RPI status can apply to become lawful permanent residents the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must certify that the Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy is deployed and operational, 700 miles of fencing is complete, 38,405 border patrol agents are deployed, and the E-Verify employment verification system is in place, among other requirements. The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM Act) and Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act (AgJobs) are both incorporated into the RPI program, but applicants who qualify under those provisions will be eligible to obtain legal permanent resident status more rapidly.

      Other aspects of the bill, such as changes in family and employment-based immigration categories, would go into effect gradually, giving DHS the opportunity to reduce extensive backlogs that have built up due to a lack of available visa numbers. One of the key aspects of the bill, backed by both labor and business, is a new “W” worker program that could expand over time based on workforce needs. Although W visas are for a limited duration, workers in W status may eventually be eligible to apply for lawful permanent residence, marking the first time that such less-skilled nonimmigrant workers would be allowed to transition to permanent resident status without an employer’s sponsorship. S. 744 also expands permanent visas for many foreign graduates from U.S. universities in the sciences and related fields, increases over time the number of temporary high-skilled visas based on demand, and expands opportunities for entrepreneurs and investors to come to the U.S.

      1. Frankly

        I supported this bill.  I’m sure the GOP will move another bill through, but unfortunately it will not be as kind to Democrats with their leader poisoning the water.

        However, I also read that the GOP might ignore immigration and allow the President’s action to take place without doing anything except highlight the net affect and then use the outrage of the American people for the 2016 election.  Immigration and Obamacare are going to be fantastic anti-Democrat topics.

      2. Frankly

        I supported it.  To bad Obama poisoned the water everywhere he went.

        Reading that the GOP is probably doing to allow the President to have his way and then use the mess it causes along with the mess of Obamacare for the 2016 election.

        1. Barack Palin

          I heard where the GOP might come back with a bill somewhat like Obama’s but with a real tight border security inclusion that Obama would have to abide by.  Good luck to Obama if he tries to veto that.

        2. TrueBlueDevil

          Sounds better. I don’t trust Washington, I don’t trust Valerie Jarrett (Obama’s brain), and I don’t trust all the behind-the-scenes game playing.

          Shut down the flood of illegal immigrants first, all of these other paragraphs are just ink that will be ignored.

          The GOP or somebody also needs to speak intelligently on this topic – we don’t have 12-20-30-34 million people picking lettuce! We have handed huge portions of construction, landscaping, restaurant and service industries to these individuals while we allow home-grown freeloaders to live off the system, which is a double whammy. So the able-bodied won’t contribute enough money into their Social Security accounts, and the new arrivals will be a drain on the system.

          Further, a continually open border harms Mexican-Americans, newer immigrants, and African Americans disproportionately as the new millions lower wages, lower benefits, and cause various kinds of ancillary problems or issues. I know contractors, I’ve been on job sites the past few years, and I saw job sites 30 years ago. “The trades” used to provide decent middle class jobs, no more.

        3. TrueBlueDevil

          Sounds better. I don’t trust Washington, I don’t trust Valerie Jarrett (Obama’s brain), and I don’t trust all the behind-the-scenes game playing. Shut down the flood of illegal immigrants first, all of these other paragraphs are just ink that will be ignored.

          The GOP or somebody also needs to speak intelligently on this topic – we don’t have 12-20-30-34 million people picking lettuce! We have handed huge portions of construction, landscaping, restaurant and service industries to these individuals while we allow home-grown freeloaders to live off the system, which is a double whammy. So the able-bodied won’t contribute enough money into their Social Security accounts, and the new arrivals will be a drain on the system.

          Further, a continually open border harms Mexican-Americans, newer immigrants, and African Americans disproportionately as the new millions lower wages, lower benefits, and cause various kinds of ancillary problems or issues. I know contractors, I’ve been on job sites the past few years, and I saw job sites 30 years ago. “The trades” used to provide decent middle class jobs, no more.

        4. Miwok

          TBD, in the case of carpenters and other trade unions, there is not much of an apprentice program now like there used to be. No house would get built by some of these megabuilders if they enforced Codes, but that area has been dumbed down too.

          The immigrants getting these jobs are not keeping housing prices down, but the quality.

        5. TrueBlueDevil

          Miwok, you’re right, quality often sucks. Two retired carpenters in my family, one a true craftsman in the days before everyone having granite counters. I told him about how virtually every fence I see built gets thrown up in a day, they look great for 2 months, but in 4 months there are gaps everywhere, and in 2 years they look like crap. His reply, “They weren’t built right.” I know I have seen many of these tradesmen / carpenters / handymen pour dry cement in the hole where they position their post, and then add water … which to my undestanding is a lower quality method – no promisis what percentage of that concrete will actually get water.

      3. tribeUSA

        I too would support a bill like this, which notably calls for strengthening the border prior to processing applications for residency or citizenship.

        In my view this is a moderate position; hope this bill or something like it gains traction; I’ll bet if you took a poll the vast majority of americans would support a bill like this (in contrast to the low support for Obama’s executive action, which I hope the legislature rolls back).

        Frankly–good balanced summary presentation on USA immigration history!

        1. Don Shor

          Well, that’s the bill that passed the Senate and got blocked by the House leadership.

          As to the public opinion, the first polls out show support for the President’s action: http://aufc.3cdn.net/1b1ad804b726a59000_u7m6bxtti.pdf

          Caveat: Hart Research is a Democratic-leaning pollster, though well-regarded.

          “…. (67% favorable, 28% unfavorable). Support is broad, incorporating a majority of voters in every region of the country, among both men and women, and in states won by both Barack Obama (67% favorable) and Mitt Romney (65% favorable). Younger voters under age 35 express particularly strong support (72%), but more than 60% feel favorable in every age cohort.
          Executive action receives support from 91% of Democrats and 67% of political independents. While a narrow 51% majority of Republicans oppose executive action (41% favor), this is driven mainly by a 34-point margin of opposition among Tea Party Republicans (30% favor, 64% oppose). Among non-Tea Party Republicans opinion is more divided, with 47% in favor and 45% opposed.”

          1. Don Shor

            The margin of support for the President’s action in that poll is substantial enough to minimize the impact of any ‘house effect’. The only people who oppose immigration reform are self-identified Tea Party members.

  22. Frankly

    I supported it.  To bad Obama poisoned the water everywhere he went.

    Reading that the GOP is probably doing to allow the President to have his way and then use the mess it causes along with the mess of Obamacare for the 2016 election.

      1. Rich RifkinWDE 73

        This is false, Palin. And not only is it false but it is a significant part of the problem.

        Take, for example, agricultural labor. Almost all of it is done by illegal aliens. They are itinerants, who travel from region to region as the seasons demand, working most of the year and resting when they can. They used to all come here legally as guest workers. The farmers who employ them would absolutely prefer to hire them legally and give them documentation to allow them to travel and work without fear of deportations. But THEY CANNOT MIGRATE LEGALLY, and your belief that they can shows your own ignorance. The story is much the same with a lot of people who clean buildings, do domestic work, work as roofers, clean hotel rooms, wash dishes in restaurants, etc., etc. Our idiotic anti-immgration policies–most put in place by the unions as an effort to boost wages and reduce the supply of labor–have created this crisis of illegal aliens.

        On another front, we have a similar, but in some ways different, problem with our idiotic policies which keep out highly educated immigrants who want to work in professions which require high intelligence and advanced degrees. A portion of them can get short-term work visas. But most cannot. So many of them are exploited, and the entire situation harms the U.S. economy. They cannot, for example, start businesses here. So very often they work for a short time here, get kicked out by the pro-unionists who hate immigration, and then (if they are lucky) they go home and work for less money for tech companies in their home countries or in other advanced countries. And then, when they are ready to start a new company and hire new people, that does not take place in the U.S., because THEY CANNOT MIGRATE LEGALLY, but rather happens in India or Asia or Europe.

        The smartest thing we could do would be to allow all law-abiding highly educated foreigners to work in the U.S.  They add to our economy. And we should develop a guest worker system for the lower-tier workers, where their employers pay a bond, and would lose that bond if the worker did not comply with the terms of his status in the U.S. (for example, by not obeying other U.S. laws).

        1. South of Davis

          Rich wrote:

          >The smartest thing we could do would be to allow all law-abiding

          > highly educated foreigners to work in the U.S.  They add to our economy. 

          Do you mean doing more of this(that was in the news last month):

          “Electronics for Imaging paid several employees from India as little as $1.21 an hour to help install computer systems at the company’s Fremont headquarters, federal labor officials said Wednesday.”

          http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_26778017/tech-company-paid-employees-from-india-little-1

          Letting educated foreigners in to the US adds to my bottom line, but they also add to unemployment (at least they would if the number was not manipulated to consider most out of work 26 year old UCD grads living in their parents East Sac basement as “not in the workforce”).

          At a previous job we fired half a dozen (American) $60-$80K analysts when we learned that we could get the same work from (Indian) $20-$30K analysts (+ a $15/hr temp that would scan and e-mail everything to India)

          I’m not a closed borders guy, but a BIG reason we have a huge increase in non skilled people on food stamps and highly skilled 30 something college grads living with their parents is that we are letting so many skilled AND unskilled immigrants (plus there is nothing stopping me from e-mailing stuff to a super smart IIT grad who makes $40K USD doing complex modeling and is happy with his pay (so much so that he calls me “sir”) since $40K in India is enough to buy a nice home and have multiple full time servants wait on him and his wife in India)…

      1. hpierce

        OK… not on the issue of immigration, per se, but addressing your ‘logic’… one of this Country’s seminal documents says that “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, are fundamental, nay, inalienable rights.  Should we suspend that notion until every other country, not currently in agreement, change their approach?

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for