On Thursday November 20, 2014 President Obama announced sweeping changes to the immigration policy of the United States. He did this through an Executive Order. What do you think of President Obama's new policy and his means of carrying it out?
Do you think President Obama took bold action? Did not go far enough? Or went too far and exercised authority outside of his Constitutional mandate? What should the Republican response be? Pass a bi-partisan immigration bill of their own? Ram a bill that deports all 12 million illegal immigrants? Impeach the President?
The boldness of Obama's actions depends on how you look at it. On the one hand, he frankly called out his opposition on their polar politics and took an action that was expressly stated to be in lieu of a congressionally passed law. On the other hand, the president's actions represent something of a reasonable compromise between the two commonly expressed extremes. I see his policy as being like other T.R.'s policy on trusts. He identifies "good illegal immigrants" and "bad illegal immigrants" to meet the criticisms both of the xenophobic viewpoint and of the accepting viewpoint. It seems fair to offer beneficial or inconsequential immigrants a chance to clear the air and try to do things legally, whilst focusing our valuable resources on harmful immigrants, such as gang members. As to his constitutional mandate, he is acting, arguably, in defense of the country- he is cracking down on the threat of harmful illegal immigrants and attempting to provide opportunity for all illegal immigrants to be legitimized. Additionally, he is enforcing the law; he just happens to be doing it based on priorities. He takes a clear stand against the unethical nature of illegal immigrants, but then prioritizes based on moral and practical constraints. This is a strong attempt at compromise, and the Republicans should let it slide, however they would be well within their authority to simply deny the executive funding for his reform- though most of that funding would go to strengthening borders and deporting "bad immigrants" so, in a way, increasing funding may prove more in line with Republican goals. As much as I would like to think they would pass a bill making Obama's plan a law, the idea is idealistic at best. The best that could reasonably be hoped for is that Congress takes no action to stop the president's actions. A bill ordering the deportation of all illegal immigrants would be folly for a multitude of reasons: 1) it would be unenforceable. What are they going to do, make it MORE illegal? I mean, that's just silly. 2) the president is in charge of that enforcement and could therefore enforce it according to his priorities. That sounds a bit akin to, I don't know, EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO DO. 3) It would be grossly impractical, especially since many illegal immigrants are actually beneficial to our economy, society, and culture. Impeachment of the president would also be ridiculous. He is walking a grey area between what he can and cannot do, but not sufficiently to convict with certainty. Additionally, it would be harmful politically- the Republicans would be remembered for spitefully playing party politics when we most need compromise. All told, Obama's plan rests on just enough legal and pragmatic ground that it cannot be condemned outright, and attacking the order would be a serious handicap in the bully pulpit, especially when it is in line with much of the Republican stance on immigration.
Obama's action was certainly bold, what with the immigration issue being as polarized as it is today, but it is certainly in his authority. There are too many immigrants to deport all of them, it would be a waste, and today's immigration system is inefficient and unfair. With the House and Senate in gridlock, I believe it is fair that executing immigration law via compromise should fall to executive authority. Every year, families are torn apart by deportation, and so immigration reform is an immediate issue. Also, Obama's order isn't everlasting, as he has agreed to rollback his order once a bipartisan immigration reform bill was passed. Although many argue that this executive order is stepping out of constitutional bounds and maybe even illegal, I feel it truly is a compromise ruled by common sense and compassion, making application for and obtaining temporary citizenship for established undocumented residents more streamlined, and deporting recent and/or dangerous criminals while keeping future illegal immigrants out of the US. Besides, this action isn't unprecedented, as republican presidents such as Reagan and Bush have made immigration reforms, albeit in conjunction with Congress. But the times demand immigration reform now, and with the House and Senate in gridlock, currently the only possible way to commence reform is through the executive branch. Furthermore, it must be done in this, as New York Times' David Brooks put it, "confrontational" way because the Republicans will take control of both Houses in January, making immigration reform, a problem Obama promised to tackle in the 2008 campaign and one that must be fixed ASAP, far more difficult to be passed. I know that the Republicans don't want to pass a reform bill, especially at Obama's behest, but for the sake of our inept and broken immigration system, and to best comply with the constitutional law which they regularly invoke and put an end to Obama's executive actions ASAP, a bipartisan immigration reform bill must be passed.
Jared, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I would especially like to point out to everyone reading this how you emphasized that Obama's plan is born out of "common sense and compassion." Even someone as opposed to the plan as David Brooks agreed that its substance is genuine, whereas he only has a problem with the "why he's doing it and how he's doing it." It will be very difficult for anyone to counter the argument that the concept of an executive order sets a dangerous precedent for future presidents to abuse power, but it is really a shame that in this scenario with immigration, this idea will hinder a solution that most people agree is a good thing. In general with the governmental system, with scenarios such as the Citizen's United Case it is truly unfortunate that the rules of lawmaking can oftentimes interfere with logic and common sense.
I agree with almost all of that. I would say that while Presidents before him have used Executive power to deal with immigration, it has never been done to this scale before. Also I think Republicans could try and make the case that by refusing to deport immigrants, the President could be failing to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" as the NY Times article points out. I think the way Republicans should respond should be that they create and pass an immigration bill of their own. They certainly should not try to deport all 12 million illegal immigrants because first of all that is logistically impossible, and also I do not believe it is right. I think Obama definitely sent a strong message by choosing to do this now, right after the Republicans won seats to take over the senate in addition to the House. Hopefully they will respond by working to end the gridlock and not getting hung up on whether the President should have done this.
The President makes a strong legal argument over his prosecutorial discretion, given his lack of funds to deport twelve million immigrants. I don't think Republicans can or will try to make the case that the President is failing to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The only way they could challenge the executive order without facing political backlash from latinos is by passing their own reform, which requires the tea party and establishment conservatives to form a united front.
I agree with your idea that Obama is sending a strong political message to the Republican party with his executive order. The timing for issuing his order - right after the Republicans gained control of Congress - is not ideal by any stretch of the means. In his speech, Obama claims that he wants to work with both parties in Congress, however this executive order in the face of Republican victory screams just the opposite. It appears that Obama is intimidated by a Republican dominated Congress - something he has never dealt with before. President Obama seems almost panicky, desperately trying to make a statement to the American people that he is the one in command, despite an opposing Congress. Maybe this is just a cynical interpretation, but the circumstances surrounding Obama's executive order lend generously to this analysis.
President Obama is without a doubt an exceptional public speaker, so the way he presented the immigration reform was very effective and moving. However, I believe the actions the president is taking are an abuse of his Executive Power. I won't disagree that Congress has been slow to act and needs to be more willing to compromise, but I think this plan with have much larger implications down the road than the president means. Allowing the president to act without the support or aid of Congress on this issue will make it easier for other presidents to do the same on other issues in the future, regardless of what the issues are. Obama's actions could influence Congress to be more willing to negotiate however, and hopefully a bi-partisan bill will be presented that will reflect both practicality and compassion and will not stretch the power of any branches of our government. The divide between the two parties seems to be more definite now than ever, but I think if the Republicans are willing to concede a little, an effective compromise could still be reached in time. I do agree with what the president is trying to do, but I am hesitant to support the way he is going about it.
Although I too hope that a bi-partisan bill is passed in the future, the one that was presented was already a compromise and it still wasn't passed. It is Obama's job to fix the situation so he needs to do something in the mean time, and he will be criticized no matter what route he takes. In terms of the "larger implications" that this order has, Obama did say that this is just temporary until he can get a new bill passed. The one point I do agree on is that Obama said if you disagree with me "pass a bill." This attitude could lead to future presidents making even further reaching actions and simply saying pass a bill if you don't like what I have done. This could give power to the president that was not at all intended when the positions was created.
I thought Obama gave a very good speech as well, and I am neither a supporter nor detractor of his administration. Obama's Executive decision may be a good motivation for Congress to get on with passing their own bill over the issue. Hopefully this will be the case, because unlike those of past presidents, Obama's reform extends farther much farther. In comparison to the Immigration Reform Act of 1986 which granted "amnesty" to around 2 million immigrants of specific criteria, Obama's reform act works for about 5 million, and goes further by altering enforcement and citizenship applications.
I'd like to agree with Lauren with the fact that this executive order has two sides to it. One side to this is that we would be benefiting many undocumented immigraints that are already in this country, while providing criminal back round checks enforcing a stronger border control. The other side to this decision is that it would represent a concentration of executive power in the government without the consent of the legislature. This brings up the topic of a bipartisan decision which would implement a balance of power and provide the same benefits provided by Obama's exectutive order. Unfortunatly this 'win-win' situation would be very difficult if not impossible to pass through congress due to the current republican majority in both houses.
I agree with you Lauren that Obama is a very powerful orator, and I think those abilities are definitely on full force in this address. I'd like to talk more about what you said regarding Obama's ability to take such action, because for me it begs the question, "since when was legislative failure the fault of the executive?" I wonder when the time came that people decided that the inaction of their legislators was the president's fault? Shouldn't that be... the legislator's fault? The deflection of blame that the legislators put on any president might shift the public eye on to him, but I really think that the definitive roles of each branch of government has changed in the eyes of the people. I don't agree or disagree with your stance on the president's action being lawful or not, but I do think that the executive is experiencing a lot more legislative expectations from the people when that expectation should really be put on the executive.
In response to Katrina, I completely agree that the legislature's failure to pass a bill was a problem solely within the legislature and I sympathize with the frustration of the administration. My problem with this Executive action is that, despite it being temporary like Joanna pointed out, it still sets the precedent that if Congress and the President are in disagreement, he/she can act without Congress' support on an issue as large as this. And this could be applied to issues the public has much less support for than immigration reform. I agree with David who pointed out that this reform affects many more people than immigration reform in the past. I do not think this reform is by any means a small one, and I agree with Nima- on such a large reform, a bi-partisan decision is ideal. I do feel compelled to criticize the legislation as well, but I think that still doesn't completely justify the actions Obama is taking.
Lauren, I agree with you that Obama's actions are an abuse of his executive power. His actions will change the current immigration policy drastically and undermines the current policy on immigration. These changes are too drastic to be instituted without congress' approval. Just because other presidents in the past have used executive order to get things done, does not make it constitutionally sound. Obama's use of executive order to increase boarder patrol is a perfect use of executive order. However, the President's new policy on the deportation and citizenship of illegal immigrants is a gross overstep of his power. I hope that Obama's actions will force congress' hand and get them to pass a bill on immigration, but this is very unlikely.
I agree with Adam that the case could be made that Obama is obstructing the law by selectively refusing to enforce laws he negates with executive action. This is a violation of his constitutional power. That being said, Obama has been very consistent in recent years with his goals. His interpretation of upholding the constitution is that he must protect the well-being of the country and its inhabitants (not necessarily citizens), not the enforcement of legislative actions... or inaction. This executive action should not surprise anybody. Obama's threatened to take unilateral action on the issue since the 2012 election. He's also tried to be very cooperative with Congress. When Speaker Boehner demanded that an immigration reform bill be passed in several portions, Obama agreed providing that the bill's key ideas be represented. The legislature never got around to writing the bill. After continuing to threaten executive order, Obama actually took action and announced his immigration reform, which has a deeper meaning than to just improve the lives of immigrants and their children. The bill is clearly intended to make a statement to Republicans that Obama's threats are more than just words. They're now actions with tangible impacts on the country, and it's Boehner's turn to respond. I fully support the way Obama is going about immigration reform. It's very Zakarian in nature, as he's sacrificing democratic ideals to improve the nation when the system can't. Unfortunately, it's not quite as subtle as most of the points Zakaria makes to defend modifications to democracy, which exposes the President to lots of criticism. He's also made it very clear that he'll end these temporary acts when Congress comes to an agreement on the issue of immigration and passes a bill. He knew he would face criticism, but he's faced criticism from all sides when it comes to his lack of ability to get anything done. With this action, he's reinforcing his determination for improvement and making it clear that it's Congress's turn to act.
I find the idea that Obama's interpretation to uphold the Constitution is to protect the well being of the country pretty accurate. I also agree with your point that Obama has been treading on thin ice constitutionally, but it all has been consistent with his goals. And while his goals are very beneficial to the country, I fear the platform of taking executive action to force decisions on issues on the national political plate is a recipe for disaster in a democracy that is already facing serious problems. While Obama is making a strong call for the Republican congressional leaders to act, I feel this executive order has potential to simply further polarize the Republicans against the Democrats and give them reason to create a stronger gridlock and desperately attack any Democratic agendas.
As mentioned above Obama's strict hand in immigration policy was an attempt at immigration reform out of "common sense and compassion" but also I also believe out of frustration and the desperation for congress to stop the gridlock and start producing some bi-partisan legislation. I agree with Chris that this is what the country needs, a firm hand in democracy to produce results. As far as overreaching executive authority I believe the public is reacting with shock because of this image of President Obama as a passive leader, and this sudden use of his bully pulpit, appealing to the hearts of the millions of immigrant families, is frightening to some. This is especially prominent when Mr. President stated, "To those members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: pass a bill". His assertiveness shook many to their core but clearly delivered his message. Hopefully, as Kennedy noted above, Zakarian reform will not provoke a stronger gridlock, but promote change and fluid legislation.
I agree that the nature of his selective enforcement is a bit obstructive of the law, but at the same time I feel that this use of executive power is not necessarily unconstitutional.
The Constitution only says that he must "faithfully execute" the laws. One could argue that this would mean execute the laws to their full extent, and that Obama should target any illegal alien. After all this is clearly the most logical way to think about it.
But at the same time, by selectively enforcing the law, and targeting only the dangerous aliens, Obama is faithfully executing it by allocating resources where they are most needed. I doubt anyone would disagree that a carjacker from El Juarez is more important to deport than a mother of three from Oaxaca.
Overall, I have mixed feelings about selective enforcement, but I applaud Obama for taking action rather than sitting by and letting congress do nothing.
While I disagree with a few of your arguments, I believe in the importance in relating this issue to the ideals of Zakaria. His idea of solving our governmental problems is rooted in the paradox of making the democracy stronger by making it more “undemocratic”. The difficulty in executing his practices is that Americans have fought in the name of the democracy since the nation was born, and the idea of losing the balance of power or certain liberties is frightening. In addition, especially in an age where social media drives virtually all of our communication, popular discontent is magnified by what the media tells us. I would argue that a majority of the citizens who are concerned with this issue in particular would have absolutely no idea that the President could have abused his power in anyway, had reporters not told them to worry about the downfall of our government as we know it. President Obama’s immigration bill may be one of the first steps towards Zakaria’s ideal undemocratic democracy, but the Republican response will determine if it could be successful.
I agree with your claims. Obama's continued use of executive power to bypass Congressional inefficiency has instituted important policy that otherwise would not have been passed by a polarized and divided Congress. Immigration Reform has been amongst the major pressing issues of this country, yet little to nothing significant has been proposed or passed. This Executive Order is the boldest and most significant of the Obama administration, but it remains difficult to rule it unconstitutional. It will be interesting to see the Republican response, and the potential repercussions for the democrats
I have very mixed feelings on this issue as my morality collides with constitutionality. Morally I believe that President Obama's actions are just and necessary, especially at a time when Congress is more clogged with partisan stupidity than ever. However, even under these circumstances I do not believe that a President has the right to exercise unilateral action in such a sweeping way. Just because Congress can't come to a decision doesn't give the President to ride in on his white horse and make a decree. His statement "If you don't like this, pass a bill" is a glaring abuse of executive power and would make the Framers cringe. While I agree that we need swift immigration reform and I agree with the spirit of President Obama's actions, I believe that this manner of unilateral force violates the Constitution and is dangerous in setting the precedent for removal of separation of powers. However, President Obama has taken action and so now the ball rests in the Republican's court. Republicans now control both houses of Congress so no further excuses can be made. Further inaction will only be met with more disillusionment and frustration from the American people and will only result in political capital for the Democrats and President Obama. Action is necessary, but it needs to be bipartisan action because President Obama still wields the power of the veto. Hopefully this action will result in the bipartisan immigration reform bill that President Obama has requested because Republicans need to commit to something as President Obama has shown he is willing to do. While I support President Obama's ideals in his action, I believe that his way of fighting for reform is flawed, and I hope that Congress will take this as a wake up call and secure immigration reform.
I thought you made an interesting point when you said "His statement "If you don't like this, pass a bill" is a glaring abuse of executive power and would make the Framers cringe." While I agree that the Framers would undoubtedly cringe, I believe that executive actions and increased presidential power is just a reality of our contemporary government. The Framers may never have intended for this particular distribution of power among the three branches but this is the type of presidential action that is needed for this kind of issue. In a situation like this where Congress refuses to vote on a bill that has passed the Senate, the President has to take such action or our country will still be plagued with major issues like failed immigration reform. I do agree with your point that the ball is now in the Republican's court as he openly challenged them to do something legislativly. With control of both houses, it is time for them to take action legislatively or their criticism of the immigration situation lacks all validity. The Republicans will face the political pressure if they continue their inaction.
While President Obama's action lends itself to a broad interpretation of the constitution, it is far from unprecedented and a dangerous removal of separation of powers. In addition your comment about the framers cringing if they heard the president demand for congress to pass a bill is irrelevant and misguided. First of all, the framers when creating the constitution did not plan for the circumstances of today where decisions need to be made quickly and efficiently. And secondly, I doubt the framers would cringe at Obama for asking congress to do their job that is outlined in the constitution that the framers wrote. Instead they would be more likely to cringe at the inability of congress to pass a bill on an issue that is very important to the nation.
I like most other commentors agree with the notion that Obama is right morally in his actions. However i don't see the same way as you as it pertains to the constitutionality of his actions. Firstly, the idea that the founders would not support his actions is largely irrelevant as the country and our government has changed vastly since the seventeen hundreds. Even so, I believe that the founders would be far more taken aback by the state of congress and its ineffectiveness(as you noted). I also believe that there is precedent for Obama's actions as many presidents including Bush have used executive orders in regards to immigration. I very much agree that the ball is now in the republicans court as the are mostly(the presidency) out of excuses. The republicans actions will have huge ramifications for the illegal immigrants as well as the 2016 election.
I don't believe Obama is acting unconstitutionally; however, I do believe he is greatly stretching, but not over-stretching his presidential power. He is not refusing to enforce legislation as he still plans to continue deportations of illegal immigrants and improve border security, he is just approaching the daunting task with a logical and organized approach. As he said, it is impossible for every single illegal immigrant to be deported, so why not extend the values of our country to the majority of immigrants that are going to stay for the foreseeable future. Not only is he improving the morals of the deportation system, he is improving the functionality of it by providing deferrals to productive workers who can contribute to a national economy that is not producing widespread satisfaction right now. By granting the type of people we want as legal immigrants working permits, they can contribute to American society and not be a burden to it while all the while not cutting down on the number of deportations taking place. I think it is important to note that Obama is not welcoming illegal immigrants into our country, he is increasing border security and is only granting potential deferrals to people who have assimilated to American culture and who are practically American albeit not legally. Personally, I would have liked to see Obama provide a path to citizenship that. But that would have been completely overstepping his Constitutional authority and I think had he released an executive order any more extreme he would clearly be acting outside of the Constitution as well as creating an even more polarized reaction from Republicans. I think Obama's legitimacy can be questioned through this action but I find any suggestions of impeachment or a very extreme deportation law ridiculous when he was acting with such a great moral conscious. I am in full support of Obama's actions, but I recognize the danger by setting a precedent for presidential executive orders that could very well backfire on this very issue in the future as well as grant a possible future Republican president ammunition to issue a spiteful executive order towards the democrats. I believe the Republican response should be to take action on the immigration issue through a bi-partisan legislature so their outrage of Obama's policies can be dismissed.
I completely agree Kennedy, well said. I especially like your point about them being able to contribute to the economy and not be a burden on it. I think this is important because some of people's main complaints about immigrants are that they take our jobs and don't pay taxes. And with Obama's plan both those issues would be addressed, though maybe not completely solved. If they had work permits and didn't have to "hide in the shadows" they couldn't be exploited by employers for cheap labor, which would mean they'd be on a more equal playing field with american citizens when competing for jobs. And with his plan, immigrants who qualify to not be deported would have to pay taxes. I also liked your point about impeachment and extreme deportation laws being ridiculous. I think impeachment would be incredibly harsh, because other presidents have done similar things so in a way they set the precedent. And an extreme immigration law would reflect pretty poorly on the republicans I would think, as it could be seen as purely to get back at Obama. So I think to maintain their image they really have no choice but to pass bi-partisan legislation as you said.
I definitely agree with you about the moral righteousness of this executive order. Especially because America was built by immigrants and they played such a vital role in our nation's history. There is no reason for us to deport an illegal immigrant who has been working hard and contributing to our nation's economy, and who has embraced our nation's culture. It is not fair for them, they should all be given a chance to "come out of the shadows" and not be afraid of deportation, being separated from family, and losing all their hard earned money. In regards to your comment about setting a dangerous precedent for future presidents, I believe that he is not setting it, it has already been set by previous presidents like Reagan and Bush. People may say that this is different because it affects many more people but according the the New York Times Article, "Obama’s Immigration Action Has Precedents, but May Set a New One," Obama's actions are not that different from Reagan's and Bush's executive orders that dealt with immigration reform.
Although the actions Obama is taking are extremely controversial and have a large amount of opposition from both parties, he is acting within his constitutional rights. I think we can all agree that what Obama wants to accomplish is morally right as President. Obama did start by saying that the “immigration system is broken” and he is working to fix it. This issue of whether what he is doing is constitutional or not would not need to be debated if the already compromised bi-partisan bill would have passed in the first place. What Obama has done in response to the bill not being passed is make a temporary executive order which has been done by Clinton, Bush, and Reagan. The order is not permanent and he has stayed within his constitutional power because he rightfully left Congress the decision and power of giving illegal immigrants the same rights as citizens or not. Also the order will not apply to people planning to cross the border in the future, so it is only going to apply to those who have lived here for the past 5 years. Because the House is being unresponsive, it is Obama’s job to go forward and take action. If these means that he needs to stretch his power as the President even further than so be it, presidents have been taking actions much like Obama’s for the last 50 years. He isn’t giving anyone a “free pass”, he is simply doing what he was elected to do, his job of fixing what is broken.
To add I would like to say that it is obvious that deporting all 3.7 million immigrants is completely out of the question. To do this would be to go against the attitude of the United States and would be deporting hardworking people and families that are an important part of today's society. The immigrants that this order applies to would have to pay a fine and pay taxes so they will end up being a part of the responsibilities as well as the rewards. Obama is stretching his power in doing this, but not to the point where he should be considered to be impeached. Again this is temporary and hopefully something will soon be passed with more agreement form both parties.
I agree with you Joanna, but I also believe that he is overstepping his constitutional boundary. That being said, I think his actions were justified and he had no other choice if he wanted changes in the immigration system to be made. With respect to the Constitution, this executive order pushes his limitations, but as you said, he is not the only president to do so. Overstepping the executive power was not only done by Clinton, Reagan, and Bush, but by presidents much earlier on such as Lincoln, Jefferson, and Jackson. Obama, as you stated, is doing his job and is trying to fulfill his promise of improving the immigrations system. With the uncooperative Congress, I believe he is doing the best he can in achieving his goal.
As Mr. Obama points out in his speech, the history of the United States is the story of immigrants from all corners of the globe. These people have always brought our nation new cultural influences and strengthened the economy; and today is no different. It is pointless to argue that the predominantly Latin American immigrants who arrive in our nation today have not been beneficial to the economy. In California especially, we know first hand that hardworking immigrants generally fill up the most menial but necessary jobs, such as picking fruits and vegetables in the state's vast farming regions, jobs that many Americans simply don't want to do or refuse to do for as little money as employers are willing to pay. Without immigrants its likely that a number of menial but necessary jobs would simply not get done. The more compelling argument against the current strings of illegal immigration is that many of the immigrants come simply to reap the benefits of living in America without bearing the responsibilities such as paying taxes. This is where Obama's plan comes in. Obama's plan does not intend to protect these people in the slightest. An illegal immigrant can only qualify for the application under the new plan "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." Not only is does this set of criteria distinguish hard-working, determined illegals from those who seek to live off welfare, donations, or crime, it does not guarantee access to citizenship, it merely removes the fear of deportation until Congress passes a more comprehensive, bi-partisan bill. In contrast to what various republicans may have argued, the plan will not cause further immigration into the country because the plan only applies to residents of more than five years, while those more recent immigrants and future immigrants are subject to existing immigration laws. The issue of the Constitutionality of such an executive order is another hotly contested one, as opponents of the strategy cite that no legislation by Congress gives the president the authority to do what he plans to do. While this may or may not be true, the president has another duty, outlined by the Preamble of the Constitution: as the nation's executive, it his his job to ensure the general welfare of the "We the People of the United States," not the "citizens of the United States." As Obama points out in his speech, many of these illegal immigrants who would be protected by his executive order are as American as the rest of the country, with a drive to succeed and benefit the rest of the country, and have a right to live without the fear of deportation. Congress's failure to take action whether in support of or against immigrants has left only the President to step in where they have not. If anyone disagrees with the President's decision, by all means they should take the issue to court (provided there is case in controversy). Ideally, this trial never happens because the President's plan is only meant to be a temporary solution to a problem that should later be solved when the Congress decides to finally vote on a comprehensive immigration bill. Ever since the President issued his statement, further delay on such a bill (which has already gone on for too long) should only be seen as happening in spite of this plan.
You mention the anti-immigration argument "many of the immigrants come simply to reap the benefits of living in America without bearing the responsibilities such as paying taxes." I agree with your counter-argument and would like to build on it. Most illegal immigrants who come here only receive the benefit of work, and no other part of the American system. Anti-immigration supporters claim that then immigrants are stealing American jobs, but in fact they are fueling growth because immigrants are likely to spend all of the money they make and put it back into the economy. For fear of being deported illegal immigrants won't go to hospitals, call the police, or - as many conservatives fear - take part in the welfare system. When President Obama says that illegal immigrants who aren't criminals and are willing to pay taxes "can come out of the shadows," he is actually allowing them to enjoy the full benefits of living in America, but on the sole condition that they pay taxes. The President is allowing the immigrants to improve both their lives and American society through integration.
Though I see why many people oppose the way Obama went about with this reform, I believe that it was completely necessary, and he therefore did the right thing by issuing this order. Opponents cite his actions as being unconstitutional, extreme and even dangerous, but I disagree. They are not unconstitutional, as he did not refuse to enforce their law, he is merely scaling it down to a reasonable size, since it is clearly not possible to deport all illegal immigrants. Obama even took special care not to overstep his power, by not granting citizenship and by not applying his order to recent or future immigrants. His actions are also definitely not extreme, since immigration is a very large issue currently, and reform should not be postponed any longer. With Congress in gridlock it was unlikely that any concrete reform would have been possible without Obama’s bold actions. The third opinion, that this order could set a precedent for future Republican Presidents to “defy” Congress in similar ways thereby starting a dangerous cycle, would mean a complete disintegration of our country’s government. While I see how this could come about, I don’t belive our country’s citizens would allow such a polarized, uncompromising and unreasonable government to continue such a cycle for very long. In addition, I would hope that the Supreme Court would get a chance to step in if the cycle got out of hand. I believe that Obama is not doing anything rash and permanent, he is merely taking action until Congress is able to take action themselves by passing bipartisan legislation.
I agree with you, Dana, that Obama made the right choice with his use of the executive order to pass his immigration reform. With Congress in gridlock, his hands were tied and this policy was the best option. By making this action temporary, as you pointed out, Obama has shown that he is willing to further compromise and work with Congress on this issue. However, I think this setting of precedent may be more dangerous than you think.
I also agree with you Dana. President Obama’s actions are necessary under the current government stalemate between the Republicans and the Democrats. President Obama is inviting Congress to get into the debate on this issue and “pass a bill.” Instead, Congress, under Republican control, seems to be content to wait things out and then try to use that against the President and the Democrats during the election campaigns.
The method in which Obama brought about immigration reform, by executive order, is certainly bold, but for political, not policy, reasons. The actual policy and legal basis of the executive action is both reserved and reasonable. No illegal immigrants are going to be given citizenship, and there are measures in place - such as heightened border security and no protection for new immigrants - to discourage and prevent new illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants that damage the American system will face tougher law enforcement. Families, on the other hand, will not be torn apart and will be able to engage in and contribute to, rather than abuse, the American system. President Obama's executive action is also temporary and clearly intended to push Congress to passing reform. President Obama's justification for his executive action, prosecutorial discretion, is valid, as Congress is not and will not provide him the funds to deport twelve million immigrants. Politically, the executive action has infuriated the incoming conservative Congress and set a confrontational tone. However, if conservatives pass a mass-deportation bill, or even fail to pass a comprehensive, long-term immigration reform bill, it would be political suicide with latinos, potentially handing the 2016 presidential election to the Democrats. They are now confronted with a challenge: to reconcile the pro-immigration reform center-right with the radical anti-immigrant tea party. President Obama has challenged them to "pass a bill." Currently, Congress (conservative) and the President (liberals) will have a high-stakes battle over public opinion, the political aspect of the executive action. If conservatives win, the executive action will be a launching point for a tea party resurgence in 2016. On the other hand, liberals could strengthen their standing among latinos and dispel much of the fear and paranoia that revolves around illegal immigration, giving them an opportunity to make the issue a centerpiece of their 2016 ambitions. Outside of politics, the president makes a strong moral argument in favor of his executive action. Immigrants defined the American experience, and immigrants who are willing to become American and engage and contribute to American society should have the ability. The president's executive action is legal and moral, but politically inflammatory.
I forgot to talk about the future. President Obama's executive action does have potential ramifications in the future, when a different president could use their expanded executive authority to hinder, rather than further, immigration reform.
I agree that Obama's move is both politically bold and also savvy. While he is under fire right now, he has effectively put the ball in Congress's court, and public scrutiny will eventually move to them. They can either do nothing and be called a "do-nothing Congress," they can try to impeach the President or stop his action and be called partisan or obstructionist, or produce a compromise bill. Either of the first two options will hurt them come 2016 with Latino voters and the majority of Americans who, as the President said, support reform. If they compromise, it will probably fuel the tea party in 2016 but also help Republicans win moderate votes.
President Obama definitely took bold action yet it was constitutional, despite how controversial it will be. Legally, the President is in the right to issue the executive action, as he was faced with a pressing issue while congress has been stagnant and refusing to cooperate. As long as the senate bill sits in the House, the President is within his authority to issue executive actions to handle the immigration issue. I do not believe the President went too far, as I believe he got it just right. He outlined a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and made it clear that any criminals would be deported. The President also made it clear that violators would have to pay a fine, pay previous taxes, and get in the back of the line to become a citizen, which I found very progressive and reasonable. He also ruled out deportation for all illegal immigrants, as that is unreasonable and nearly impossible. He also made a convincing case that this move is beneficial for our economy and for our national identity. Mr. Obama described his decision as a "middle way" and it is just that. In a tough political position, the President addressed major problems at the border and with illegal immigrants yet did not do anything too radical to incite serious and legitimate calls for impeachment. Anyone calling for impeachment lacks any real basis as the President is taking action only in the absence of congress to confront pressing issues. The President also importantly ceded that any legislation passed by congress on the topic would override his current executive action, which I see as a vital concession and clarification and why I believe that this move was bold yet did not go too far. While this is a challenge towards congress, he offers the legislators a chance to pass a law if they are unhappy with his decision. I believe that the Republican response should be to pass legislation and to compromise, as the issue will be decided without them if they do not. While I believe that this was the right move politically, legally, and morally, I do believe that this executive action does set a dangerous precedent for the future. President Obama's executive action is a sweeping move that creates legislation and enforces it. While the power of the executive has been expanding for two centuries and executive actions have become more and more common, this is a large jump in presidential power and sets a standard that could radically affect the relationship between the legislature and the executive.
I agree that the President's action was moral and exactly what our country needs as it is faced with a dangerous period of inaction, but I disagree that the plan's implementation is constitutional and/or politically correct. The President did a masterful job of navigating the political waters in creating a plan that is the "middle way" and deals with the issue without overstepping his bounds too much, yet I still hold that executive action to cover up Congress's inaction is strictly unconstitutional. It may be what we need in today's society and political environment, but then we need to talk about amending the rules because if we are going to follow the Constitution then President Obama's action is unlawful.
Matt I agree with you that Obama simply did what was within his power to break the legislative stalemate Congress has caused. He hasn't overpowered Congress in any way; he is, in fact, asking them to pass some sort of legislation on this issue. He is simply providing the catalyst for their inaction, and until Congress establishes that they can cooperate, actions need to be taken to fix a broken system.
So, here I stand at the end of another fantastic display of charismatic excellence, and yet I know not how to feel. On one hand I applaud Obama's use of executive power to take action when others will not (after all that is what some of us agreed defines a leader during our fishbowl). But on the other hand, I'm not sure if this will be yet another rallying speech full of passionate rhetoric about an issue, only for the goals that he established not to be met, either due to shortcomings from congress or himself.
His "deal" with the current illegals is very interesting to me. Why five years? What kind of taxes will the immigrants have to pay up on? If they don't pass the background check, what will happen to them?
These are just a few questions that popped into my mind as I was watching. I would need the answers to these before I could give full support to this initiative, but so far I like the direction he's taking us in.
Additionally, on the constitutionality of this action, I am not sure if it is necessarily unconstitutional for him to take these steps. As I commented on Chris's post, it could be debated as to whether or not he is actually ececuting these laws faithfully. Personally I don't have a problem with it, but I know some people would.
I think Miles brings to light a few interesting questions about the vagueness of exactly what Obama's executive order will carry out. Although Obama clearly stated and broadly explained each of the three steps that will betaken, I think it will be necessary for a more detailed understanding of the order to be made clear. Until illegal immigrants are sure that they meet all the necessary qualifications and fully understand what the order entails they will not "step out of the shadows".
Miles, you pose some great questions that I admit I did not think about before and after watching the video, and I'm glad that you have raised them. It will be very interesting to see how these will be answered and how the Republicans, and the nation as a whole, responds to the answers. And I feel the same way as you where you don't "personally" have a problem with the actions Obama has taken. That being said, I would imagine that if Obama had taken some sort of action that I did not agree with, then I probably would have more of a problem with it and maybe you would too.
I think its good to keep in mind, like you have, that he must actually follow through with what he says before he can really be tried as breaking the law. It is also entirely possible that some aspects of his plan will change between now and implementation.
I believe President Obama's decision to pass an immigration bill by exercising his executive order power threatened the balance of powers, however it did not breach the constitution. It also raises a larger question about whether it will either hurt or help the nation. Obama cites the use of this power being implicated prior to his term, but that does not necessarily justify it. His actions endanger the establishment of the balance of powers instituted in our political system. By imposing his own bill, he sets a precedent for presidents to come, offering them an opportunity to bypass Congress and evaluate critical issues on their own terms. Especially in a time with strong tension between political parties, his actions could possibly provoke the Republicans, with a majority in both houses now, to only increase their opposition to the President. This gridlock in itself may also validate the President’s actions, as the usurp of the Republican majority in both Houses is likely to make an immigration bill proposed by the President even more difficult to pass. In his speech, President Obama challenges Congress to respond to his decision by passing its own bill. I do not believe that the President should be impeached for his actions, and another bill proposal could rebuild the relationship between the executive and legislative branch, allowing our government to run in a cohesive manner. On the other hand, the President’s bold actions have the chance to enhance the immigration issue that confronts the nation. President Obama is careful not to step on the toes of Congress when he identifies their power to confirm the citizenship of immigrants, but I agree with various of his temporary solutions. He is correct to argue the inefficiency of trying to deport every immigrant that currently resides in our nation, and I support his decision to prioritize the deportation of criminals. It offers a fair solution and I believe it would be morally wrong to uproot families and send them back to their native country, jobless and homeless.
Caroline makes a good point that the reasoning behind Obama's actions is because of the gridlock between the legislative and executive branches. With opposing parties, it is challenging to pass efficient bills. I can see why Obama chose to exercise his power and create a bill himself. This way he can achieve his goal with immigration without the distraction of Congress
Caroline, I agree with your point that this bold action taken by President Obama could result in adverse actions by the now Republican controlled Congress, causing further gridlock. However, I do believe that his actions were justified for this very reason. Because, with he Midterm Elections that just recently occurred, the Republicans gained a majority, there is little chance the gridlock situation that previously existed would be resolved. Therefore, he had to take action to ensure that this pressing issue would be solved, or at least steps were taken to find a solution. A further strained relationship between the executive and legislative branch is a gamble he needs to be willing to take because that relationship is not getting better and sitting around, waiting for the political environment to improve is just wasted time. Actions must be taken, whether or not Congress is willing to take this actions or not. Is President Obama's solution perfect? No. But is it a step in the right direction? Of course.
President Obama's executive order to reform immigration challenges the lawmaking ability of Congress. Instead of going through the process of trying to create a bill that will never approved by the Republican houses, President Obama constitutionally, practices his president power to confront the issue.
However, President Obama's solution to the current immigration is unique. Offering them to be a part of the United States if they are willing to hold their share of taxes and wait to be "admitted" into the United States. As mentioned, President Obama has ordered to increase border technology to regulate the flow of immigrants in and out of the United States and compromise with the millions of undocumented immigrants within the country. This "deal" requires the immigrants to hold residence within the United States for more than 5 years, be able to pass the criminal background check and paying taxes. The goal is to stray away from the idea of deportation. President Obama finds it to be unreasonable as well as nearly impossible, and I would agree.
This conduction of his executive order blurs the line of the power of the president. President Obama challenges the strong Republican houses to pass a bill to reform the immigration issue. Some may say that the president's actions are unconstitutional, however Obama maintains the power to give an executive order. I am curious to find out the outcome of this controversy between the legislative and executive branch. I look forward to Congress' response to President Obama's action.
Just adding on to your point about deportation Ian, Mr Obama's strategy is a good compromise measure. In his speech he points out how the plan is fair, in that mass amnesty to immigrants is not being granted, and the plan sustains our American culture of embracing immigrants, by only deporting illegal criminals within the country.
I truly believe that the president does indeed have the power to create this bill because illegal immigrants and the deportation of them has been an issue for many years in America. Obama took just the right amount of action In my opinion for the time being, obviously there are some things that could be changed or added but he came up with a pretty effective way to help the issue. This bill will help keep many families together and by doing this it shows the president is still a human being with compassion and a sense of what is morally right. The president did not outstep his constitutional power because he is trying to keep Americans safe which really Is the main power of the president. He must execute the laws faithfully and while its a fine line between who should be deported, it is important to recognize that he is trying to help not only Americans but other humans in general.
After watching the speech, I would say it’s safe to assume that Obama’s decision to act unilaterally, like he did, was bold choice. A choice that could potentially turn out very well for him and the democratic party as a whole, it all depends on the actions that republicans take from here on out in response to his executive order. However, the Republican party would be taking a risk if they respond to this action to critically As was talked about in the post speech discussion. Essentially, with the action Obama took he is “(punching) the Republicans in the face, hoping they do something stupid like shut down the government…” in response. On the matter of the constitutionality of Obama’s actions I think I stand in the same position that many of you, my classmates, stand. Morally I agree with Obama’s actions and think the plan he has laid out is a good one, however, it seems a little sketchy on the constitutionality side. During his speech Obama didn’t really make many points to why the actions he is taking are constitutional other than saying that presidents in the past have taken similar actions. His main argument was playing on the morality of the issue and this is clear from all the questions he posed to us as Americans such as when he said “are we a nation that accepts the cruelty of ripping children from their parent’s arms?” It was like he was giving us an ultimatum on what type of nation we wanted to be when it came to immigration and in my opinion, the actions, or lack of actions, that we take or do not take, don't have to be quite as black and white as Obama tried to make it seem.
I think this is a very interesting speech because he seems to try to cover possible rebuttals by increasing border protection and emphasizing that he will deport criminals and those who don't follow the law. The first portion of his plan is to increase protection at the border, which is really more of a Republican strategy. The Democrats have been saying this is needed, but less so than Republicans. The second thing he talks about is letting skilled or educated workers stay in the country. This is a popular idea and makes a lot of sense, considering one of the main points of encouraging immigration is to gain new talent, who will build companies and industries in the US. The third portion talks about "dealing responsibly with the millions of undocumented immigrants who already live in this country." He deals with this point very carefully, saying those who broke immigration must be "held accountable", but he says that those who are criminals will be pursued and deported instead of law abiding immigrants. He continues saying that deporting millions is unrealistic, and we cannot do so, so shouldn't try to. He talks about how they are members of our communities. So he gives a deal, with guidelines, to allow some of those people to stay in the country. I think this is a good idea, because Congress obviously isn't getting anything done, so it is up to him as President to do the best he can to help those who are contributing to our society and our economy.
Sean, I agree with Obama's decision regarding content, however, what do you think it could mean regarding our governmental system? Just because Congress is gridlock does the president have the right to take control? The relationships and actions within Congress definitely need to be changed, but does that mean Obama can violate our system of checks and balances, putting the decision of an issue that is very controversial across the country in the hands of one man? Personally, I agree with Obama's words, but do not agree with his excessive use of executive order. What is your opinion on the matter?
Overall I thought that Obama's speech was good and I thought that it implemented all of the factors necessary to enforce such an order on immigration. I like the fact that it has a balance to it because it allows immigraints with a clean back round to remain in the country while enforcing a stronger border control in a cohesive manner. Obama mentioned how deportation is "not realistic", I would argue on that because it has been done previously and if it were to be carried out, it would require more taxation on US citizens and much more government spending. I like how Obama compares "amnesty" and "accountability". He describe our current hold on immigration as "amnesty" because we are doing a poor job on maintaining our borders, providing support for families and focusing on deportation. "Accountability" suggests that we would deport anyone with a criminal back round or anyone that has been in the country for less than 5 years, thus benefiting both the immigraints and the US. I would classify President Obama's action as a 'bold move' because he is doing this without the consent of the legislature and that it can be viewed as unconstitutional to certain groups. But on the other hand, this sort of thing as been executed previously with Reagan and Lincoln with the suspension of Habeous Corpus. This shows how an executive order may be necessary given the conditions, in this case the public opinion and the republican majority of congress. I would support a bi-partisan decision by congress, to strengthen this executive order due to the reasons mentioned previously. But I think that the republican response to this would be a bill supporting the deportation of immigraints. Overall, I think that this executive order was necessary because it removes the US focus away from the issue of immigration and spending on deportation, but drives the focus towards more significant issues such as foreign policiy.
In response to your comment on deportation being possible through more taxation and government spending, I believe that it is completely unrealistic to deport 12 million individuals and when did has the United States ever deported 12 million people within a reasonable time frame? However, your points towards how these types of Executive Orders are nothing new are pretty spot on. Good mention of Reagan specifically. His decision to expand the bill Congress signed granting 3 million undocumented immigrants legal status by around a 100,000 people is very similar to Obama's decision now, other than the massive number difference. However, the constitutionality/legality should not be seen as different just based on the amount of people the legal status is given to.
It is made clear in the speech that by applying his executive abilities in order to create the bill in an almost unilateral fashion, Obama’s actions surrounding the immigration issue were certainly forward enough to be considered bold.
In creating this bill, Obama is reinforcing his already strong executive powers. However, he is also making it clear to people everywhere that his first priority is to keep fellow human beings, not just specific Americans or citizens, both legally and physically safe. By offering citizenship to immigrants on the terms that they become involved in American programs, such as paying taxes, but protecting them with the rest of the bill, the president is following his constitutional duty outlined by the Take Care clause in Article 2 Section 3, or is “faithfully executing his powers.” Obama outlines his moral duties, which he states that he shares with his fellow American citizens, when he asked the series of questions in his speech, “Are we a nation that tolerates the hypocrisy of a system where workers who pick our fruit and make our beds never have a chance to get right with the law? Or are we a nation that gives them a chance to make amends, take responsibility, and give their kids a better future? Are we a nation that accepts the cruelty of ripping children from their parents' arms? Or are we a nation that values families, and works to keep them together?”
Obama made it clear that the arguments surrounding the constitutionality of his bill are in reality part of a much larger moral debate; however, he still very clearly and sternly defined the terms of the bill meant to keep undocumented immigration permanently illegal. In this he said that the bill “does not apply to anyone who might come to America illegally in the future. It does not grant citizenship, or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive — only Congress can do that,” which could easily be interpreted as his asking Congress, and the Republican party itself, not to close down in such a crucial time. He attributed his surge of executive powers to overall congressional inactivity by saying that he has “the legal authority to take as president — the same kinds of actions taken by Democratic and Republican presidents before me — that will help make our immigration system more fair and more just.” Obama’s words reflect that he is taking instant action to prevent the daily immoralities practiced by the system from ripping alien families apart by playing into the moral debate surrounding immigration.
Anna, I agree with your statements that Obama is taking positive action with hopes to reform our current immigration policy without granting immunity to all undocumented immigrants. The opposition that Obama faces with Congress puts him in a very difficult position to work with them effectively so choosing to act independently of them was a very bold, yet, in my eyes, necessary action if he wants to make a reform. Great note regarding the Take Care clause from Article 2! I too believe that the president is acting within his jurisdiction and that although he may be stretching his powers in some ways, I do not think he is overextending his powers into the realm of unconstitutionality. His actions may be questioned by many, but he is acting with hopes to implement a productive policy.
I don't think that I could comfortably agree with the actions that President Obama has announced in this speech. For me the issue isn't whether or not there should be a road of citizenship and an olive branch to illegal immigrants. My mom was an immigrant and the path that led to her citizenship was lengthy and often meant that she couldn't spend time with my brother and I. The way I see immigration as a problem in America is that the process of becoming a citizen the "right way" (as Obama described it) is unrealistically hard and full of obstacles. That's the immigration problem I'd like to see my country fix, even though given the way partisan politics rules Washington I doubt it'd ever get done in a comprehensive way without changing something fundamental with how our government is currently functioning. Obama is saying that we shouldn't punish families and good people that had to come into America illegally. I can understand the motivation that might lead someone to thinking that coming in to this country illegally is worth it, especially with how messed up our immigration system currently is. However, Obama is making America something of a safe haven for people so at least they don't have to worry about getting deported, but the fact still remains that the immigration into the United States is really, really hard. It's my belief that we need a more comprehensive reform that will bring about change rather than this action. To me, this seems like the metaphorical equivalent to putting a small bandage over an amputated limb: not sufficient to deal with the crisis at hand. I don't think debating the constitutionality and lawfulness of this thing is really productive because that too doesn't really contribute to anything more meaningful in my opinion. Overall, I'm pretty dissatisfied with this whole deal and this announcement by President Obama is just another instance of party politics over-running the need of the government to actually address the problems within America.
I agree with what you're saying Katrina, about how this bill does not completely solve the issues immigrants face. We do have to realize this is a small step, one that needs to be continuously looked over and changed , but it is a good start in my opinion. Clearly there is more work to be done, but just this bill alone will stop the deportation and separation of thousands of families, which is a great accomplishment. I would like to think that more and more bills will be passed to finish the real issue of immigration in America but until then this bill can still help.
Katrina, I think you are entirely correct in this opinion. I have heard friends describe the efforts their parents took to become citizens and it sounds grueling. Your mother was lucky too, because she had the resources needed to become a citizen. Many people aren't lucky enough to have access to such resources weather it be money, or time or anything else needed. I agree that the current way to citizenship needs to be reworked and simplified.
I agree with Katrina's statement that currently immigration is too difficult and that legislation should be passed to improve on this situation, However, I think that the actions taken by President Obama were directed at illegal immigrants, which can be seen as a different issue that immigration reform. Even if their was immigration reform, it will have little effect on current illegal immigrants, and without specific actions to address the issue of illegal immigrants, as President Obama has done, their will be little change to their circumstances. I feel that the actions undertaken are going to be effective and that fact that it was an executive action and not legislative only diminishes its power in that they president will eventually leave office, although Congress can change laws and policies, but not as easily.
In response to Fiona, to be perfectly frank you're right. The fact that my mother was married to an American-born citizen (although their marriage status was a little more complicated than that) and that she had financial and other resources readily available to her certainly helped her through the process. And this is where, Christian I also address you, I think that the change should happen: modernize the process of becoming an American system. I think a reform like that would also address any concerns about current illegal immigrants already in our borders. I totally agree that it is a problem that needs to be addressed and should promptly be addressed, but I just feel like the executive action taken here is kind of a half-baked small solution for a much larger problem. And if this solution is going to cause so much controversy and conflict (no doubt that there will be another move for impeachment) it begs the question of is it really worth it? Time being spent arguing for the right to certain powers may very well be wasted now instead of being more usefully spent on coming up with a lasting and more far reaching solution.
After watching the speech and reading the articles, President Obama has taken a huge positive step in forwarding immigration reform in the United States. Under the executive order, only illegal immigrants who have lived in America at least 5 years, have children who are citizens, or that register after passing a criminal background check and are willing to pay taxes, will qualify to live in America without the risk of deportation. With this, it will ensure that America is not tearing apart families, nor deporting hard working immigrants who have contributed to the nation’s economy and who are not criminals. Many people think that this will only increase the flow of immigrants in the future. But that is incorrect because not only do these qualification not apply to recent and/or future illegal immigrants, but Obama has also declared to further increase border patrol to ensure that less and less immigrants cross the border illegally. In response to the questions about the constitutionality of the executive order and if it was “too much”, the executive order managed to stretch his executive power as far as possible while not overstepping into unconstitutionality. Obama was able to stay within his powers by not giving citizenship to any illegal immigrants, only protecting them from deportation. Additionally as commander in chief he has “prosecutorial discretion” to decide when to deport illegal immigrants, which leads to his ability to prioritize deportations to criminals first. In regards to the Republican congress’ response, President Obama has made it extremely difficult for them to continue to ignore the issue of immigration. Republicans can not simply pass a bill to tear apart this executive order without committing political suicide and ruining their chances in the 2016 elections by losing the support of many. Because of this, congress only has one option, to listen to President Obama’s one message to congress; to “pass a bill.” If congress is not happy with this executive order, which they are not, they will have to pass a bi-partisan bill that will take the place of the executive order; which is all Obama wanted in the first place. And the bill cannot simply deport all 12 million immigrants because of two main issues that Obama addresses. First, our government does not have the money or the power to track, capture, and deport 12 million undocumented people living in America. Second, these illegal immigrants play a vital role in our economy, whether it is taking up low paying jobs that need to be done, or by attending college and bringing new ideas to American business. As to the issue of setting a dangerous precedent, Obama has not done anything that a previous President has not. Both Reagan and Bush have made similar presidential actions in the realm of immigration reform in the past.
Hi Michael. I agree that Obama made it difficult for Congress to ignore the immigration issue. He states that Congress has failed to make changes in the immigration policy and urges congress to "pass a bill". Michael points out that destroying Obama's executive order would ruin Congress's chances in the 2016 elections. In this respect, Obama was in a way blackmailing Congress. His executive order forces Congress to take action fast or accept his policy. Of course this is a huge risk for Obama because Congress is Republican majority. The bipartisan bill they eventually pass will most likely override aspects of Obamas order and also this bold action may be grounds for impeachment. Obama puts the need of the American citizens before his own by getting the ball rolling for immigration reform.
I think that this speech, and the immigration issue, can be broken down into three sections: the policy itself, the constitutional legality of the action, and the politics of it.
On the policy side, I wholeheartedly support the President's actions. This will merely scratch the surface of the immense problems we have with our immigration system, but the scope of actions he can take are obviously limited. It is great that hardworking people who have lived in America for years and have contributed to our economy will be able to legally stay, pay into the system and be able to fully participate in our society. It is also great that families will not be torn apart, which, in addition to being an unnecessary cruelty, puts a burden on our child-welfare system.
Second comes the issue of constitutionality. In all honesty, true constitutionality went out the window over a hundred years ago. An argument that by changing how he executes our standing immigration laws, the President is failing to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" as Article 2 Section 3 states is legitimate but won't hold water. I don't know the nuances of the President's action or of our standing immigration laws, but Eric Holder and the Justice Department have spent a vast amount of time studying these laws to ensure that the President's action only did what it could legally do. It made sense that the President continually referred to the actions of Bush and Reagan, but there is a key distinction. In those cases, the presidents were responding to Congressional action and in some way following through on a bill. In this case President Obama is responding to Congressional inaction. That said, I don't think that this action will really allow further presidents to overstep their power, as some have asserted, but we'll see.
Lastly comes the issue of politics. I agree with Jeremy that this move was not so much bold in policy or legality, but it was bold politically. I think that both this and his net-neutrality proposal are efforts to energize the liberal support base for the next two years and for 2016. He was holding back prior to the midterms, but does not have to any more. I think that he has recognized what the Democrats failed to do in this election and is now trying to do it retroactively. Because Obama has now been through the last election that will affect his presidency, he is now more uninhibited than he ever has been, at least in terms of his executive powers (for legislation, he's at his weakest now). The biggest political implication of this is that it will color the environment of Washington for the next two years. Unfortunately it will make compromise even less likely, because policy-makers aren't able to separate issues as the President suggested. Thus, he has probably burned any remaining bridges with the Republicans. Again, it's not like there was much hope there anyway. This move will probably prove politically beneficial to the Democrats come 2016, but unlike many Republicans seem to assert, that doesn't make the President's action cynical, selfish, or bad in any way.
I think that when Obama crafted this executive order, he did so predicting that the Republican Congress would at no point in the next two years provide him with an agreeable immigration bill. If Congress has any self-respect or desire to govern well, than they should prove him wrong, and take his advice: pass a bill.
Just as an aside, I think the President's speech was great (characteristically) but that this time he did an especially good job with framing his argument. I was impressed by the way that he employed conservative terminology and obsessions like family values and border security to support his own argument, but I don't think that it will change anyone's mind.
Seeing as Congress is in gridlock, the President didn’t have many options when it came to immigration reform. Although Obama mentioned many times that this is a bipartisan effort, the bill only passed in the Democratic Senate and not the Republican House. Executive Action was one of his only choices. I commend him for being a leader and taking action when our legislative branch stalled. I believe his final decision to use his executive authority was a good compromise, seeing as he is willing to revise his order as soon as both houses of Congress are willing to pass a bipartisan bill. However, I do think that this setting of precedent that many analysts have mentioned could prove to be a problem with future presidents.
For the content itself, I support Obama’s ideas. In addition to boosting the economy, I think that undocumented immigrants who are not felons should have the opportunity to obtain citizenship if they are clearly thriving in America and working hard for a better life. It’s not practical to deport all illegal immigrants, and it makes sense to prioritize which of the immigrants should be deported first. Although many argue that this seems unjust, the fragmenting of families is simply too painful and this executive order provides a good, temporary solution.
I agree with you that Obama didn't have any other choice if he wanted to get something done. It's a very frustrating situation because, had the government been working as it was supposed to, a bill regarding immigration could have been passed, amended, or even rejected and at least some progress would be made toward figuring out what the leaders that we have elected want for the country. Yet when any legislation is constantly being blocked from going through the democratic process, and nothing is being done, someone must step in, and take action. Regrettably, the order that Obama gave does stretch his power a bit (though I still believe that it is constitutional), and will give future executives another power that I'm not sure I want them to have. Our only hope is that Congress can somehow find some type of balance so that these desperate actions don't have to be taken, and we can make some actual progress.
(this post was written by Megan Conner, not Lauren)
I also think that Obama's choice was a necessary way to promote action, but like you, I'm a bit worried that using the executive order this way might set a bad precedent. The congress-executive relationship is and has been a power struggle for quite some time. Republicans may choose to view this as simply an attempt to bypass congress and make a power grab, which might lead the country even further away from bipartisan politics in the future.
The executive actions undertaken by Obama were bold but they were with in the realm of previous executive actions undertaken by other presidents. The actions that were taken effected a larger number of people than those actions undertaken previously but the president is still with in his power, since the president has always had more control over immigration policy than other areas. The first two points can largely be agreed on since more guards will help to catch criminals and making the immigration process easier on people who have already received temporary citizenship will serve to help the country. Since the president is justified in what he is going, I believe that he should also have extended the deal to more recent illegal immigrants as well. While crimes tend to have statue to limitations on them, it would not make sense to not extend the deal to recent immigrants, since they are undoubtedly like the older immigrants, they just happened to get here at a later point. Assuming that this deal became policy after the speech, had the president given the speech before the midterm when talk about this first surfaced, then some number of people would not have been eligible, who are currently eligible. I was also not sure if this was a one time deal or that the part about the 5 year eligibility would be from the current date. The more conservative reaction to this is as expected, although their isn't a case for impeachment. I doubt that their will be a response, since any actions that the republicans restrict will also be a restriction on their future presidents. I would also like to now what will happen to the illegal immigrants currently in the criminal system. If their crime is only being an illegal immigrant, I would expect them to be released. I would like to point out that most likely, not all eligible people will apply for this deal. Since the deal is based off an executive order, a new president could quickly change this. And because the immigrants only have temporary passes, they could easily have their passes taken away, not to mention the fact that the government would obviously know who and where they are. While I see it as a good thing, ultimately the deal is a quick fix and legislation will need to be passed to fix our immigration system and give everyone an equal chance to come to the US and live legally.
In regards to this video, I think Presidents Obama did an excellent job addressing the problems at hand [save for a call to reform the current process of becoming a citizen(see reply in Katrina's comment)]. He discussed the negative feelings toward those reaping the benefits of undocumented people, and the discontent of those workers who want to move ahead in life but can't. Despite seeming wishy washy on who's side he stood on regarding immigration, Obama did a good job I believe in appeasing both parties. Hopefully that will open the gates for a more bipartisan agreement on immigration reform. I also do like his plan for criminals because I think those who come here illegally and don't attempt to better American society. A far as his 5 year plan for immigrants, I think it's a good start. It protects those who have had time to create a new life without rewarding them too much which in the eyes of some is rightful. However, i believe that there needs to be a simpler way to become an American citizen. The people who fall into the plan may be okay but there are others that can't afford or don't have the time to become citizens. This is the reason there are so many undocumented people in America. The resources are not made availible to those livinf in the shadows. Because we are a country founded by immigrants, it is unfair to prevent future immigrants the same access to citizenship. We have laws set in place but they greatly exclude so many in need of help that it forces them to cheat which gets us where we are today. We need to reform out citizenship procedure.
I agree, I think he does want to try and appeal for both parties as he approaches the final days of his presidency, however he does have personal convictions on what he thinks should be done regarding immigration. As president, I like his efforts to implement his ideas with his power to help our country. Seems like all the great presidents used their executive powers heavily to produce the changes they wish to see.
Though many people declare that the President is acting unconstitutionally, it seems to me that he went to great lengths to make sure that the actions that he did take were within the realm of his power. He maintained that granting citizenship is a constitutional power of the Congress and argues that he is simply trying to help assure good people that they will not have to be afraid of immediate deportation. Obama points out the irony that we, a country that came to be because of European immigration and slaughtering of the native peoples, are trying to stop hardworking, innocent people from having a better life here. After Republicans in the House of Representatives blocked a vote on the Senate’s immigration bill, and didn’t seem to be about to make its own bill anytime soon, the President had no choice, but to take action in the only way that he could. In his order, he even makes sure to increase resources to border patrol to attempt to appease those that are against immigration.
Even though this order was well intentioned, it has predictably caused further Republican hatred, and many conservative Congressmen seem willing to do whatever it takes to impede the implementation of this policy. Some say that doing so will dramatically lower any popularity they have within the Latino population and hurt their chances in the next presidential election, but Republicans seem more worried with how the radicals in their party will respond if they are lenient. If Obama had any chance of passing any bills through Congress before, those chances are gone by now. The remainder of his presidency will be a difficult time, and will probably lead to even more polarization within the government.
His actions also bring up worrying possibilities for the future. As David Brooks of the New York Times stated, what will stop a future presidents from using this power recklessly, and deciding not to enforce any policy of Congress that they disagree with? That brings into question the duty of the president to enforce the law and how it can be manipulated. Obama states that there is no way that he could actually deport all of the millions of undocumented immigrants in the US, and because of that, he is forced to pick who he will or will not deport. This argument makes sense to me, and he is using it to support what I believe is a worthy cause, but there is the possibility that others will use it for less admirable goals. This order has opened up a whole new way for the executive and legislative branches to clash. Obama now has little chance of ever creating a more bipartisan atmosphere within the government. Hopefully, our next president will be able to do so, or else our country might not see much positive change for a long while.
Obama's spoke of how other presidents have done similar actions as this, however, how many were actually of this scale. The president does have the power of executive orders, but a line must be drawn somewhere. Obama has used the expression "We Cant Wait" to justify some of his actions in the past because of the gridlock in congress. This, often times, has been true--action must be taken soon-- but that does not give him the power to take the issues into his own hands. Our government was set up as a system of checks and balances and if the president can take control over an issue so controversial as immigration with the nation completely split, where can we draw the line of executive power? Yes, our system is flawed, and I wholeheartedly agree that we need to change it, but the executive taking control is not the way. If the precedent of the president being able to use his authority to force outcomes on such controversial issues stays in play then there could be serious consequences in the future.
In terms of this situation in particular, I agree with Obama's action; whether he had the authority or not. Deporting every immigrant in the United States would be completely impossible and could lead to the rise of fear and the pointing of fingers across the country. Never the less, something must be done. Focusing on the problem immigrants, such as criminals as Obama said, should be our top priority. The threat of American jobs is hardly present as many of the jobs held by immigrants are not ones that american's want to take anyway. Like it or not, immigrants from all nations have become functional, helpful members of our society and deserve the chance to be a legal part of it. Obama's executive order is not the solution to the problem, but it should force Congress to act and bring us closer to solving this issue once and for all
Excellent points Nick. I do, however, believe that the constitutionality of Executive Decrees, especially Obama's, will not be as big of a problem as you have forseen. The Constitution is a very old document and is not perfect. I feel that, since the people are sovereign, the will of the people allows for a significant amount of leeway in the Constitution; leeway that Obama can use. For instance, Article VI, Section II of the Constitution is the Supremacy Clause which states that Federal law is the "highest law of the land". But, in the past few years, several states have legalized marijuana despite the drug being federally outlawed. Clearly, this is a constitutional issue. However, the government has decided that enforcing this ban would not be feasible, and thus a Constitutional exception is allowed to live. Pragmatism, "realpolitik", and the will of the people allow for the stretching of the Constitution.
Obama has hit several nails on the head with his order. Both of us agree with Obama's actions and motives. I believe though, that Executive Orders, if working towards the greater good, should not be a huge cause for concern .
Obama points out that his predecessors, both democratic and republican, have taken similar actions. However, this is his only justification for taking this bold executive action and as the New York Times article, Obama’s Immigration Action Has Precedents, but May Set a New One, states “The magnitude and the formality of it is arguably unprecedented”. Obama’s immigration reform will grant up to 5 million immigrants protection from deportation. This is huge number of people and it is arguable that this action affects more people than any past actions of presidents.
It bothers me that Obama states that his actions are “lawful” but he does not specifically mention the constitutional powers that he is exercising. Ignoring historical expansion of executive power, his actions would undoubtedly be considered unconstitutional. The president cannot institute a policy as vast as this one without it being passed by the congress. He has the power to execute laws passed by Congress, not policies that he creates. However, with the expanded executive commander in chief power of the president today, Obama’s actions should be considered constitutional.
Although the constitutionality is controversial, I completely support all aspects of Obama’s immigration reform. He is strengthening our borders, instituting a temporary protection to immigrants who have been in the US for more than 5 years and are willing to pay taxes, and attempting to prioritize the deportation of criminals rather than families. These are all in keeping with American values and will hopefully start to solve the problem of immigration.
I think Obama's proposal is better than doing nothing. Whether it is constitutional or not, if no progress is being made and no bills are being passed regarding immigration, nothing should be expected to change. If people are upset with current immigration issues and congress is not moving quickly to pass laws that address these issues, then President Obama should have the ability to implement minor policies where he deems necessary. Besides, if Obama's solution ends up not working, then congress can actually pass some more structured policies in places that need improvement. Obama did a good job delivering his proposal except for the fact he called it the "common sense plan". Hopefully this "common sense plan" succeed in tackling some of the many immigration issues.
I agree with you in the sense that Obama's motives are in the right place and what he is doing is better than nothing. His step is indeed positive. I think most, if not all of us could agree that the immigrants he is specifically aiming towards are ones who deserve the benefits America has to offer. This would only help those who have lived in America for at least 5 years, have children who are citizens, pass a criminal background check and are willing to pay taxes. All others risk deportation. Thus, the negativity that criminal immigrants bring is being accounted for. I find it hard to think that anyone wouldn't want this for our country. If the immigrants are contributing to the economy and are truly here to learn and work, then they deserve the option to "come out of the shadows".
However, as stated in the debate, his motives and ideas are not the issue. The issue is the legitimacy behind his actions. While Obama does a great job using personal anecdotes and touching the emotions of his citizens, he does not proceed to justify his actions. He says that he is doing what presidents, republican and democratic alike, have done before him but refuses to consider how this will affect future presidents. If he has comfort in taking such a large step towards this issue because of those before him, how extreme can we expect those who follow him? He proceeds to say that they should just "pass a law", but that is not the way our system works and that is not what our country stands for. He finds it crucial to point out what we stand for as a country but continues to go against our system. Issues should not be solved just by "passing a law". They should instead be debated and worked through. As much as I support his purpose, I would like an explanation or justification in regards to the legitimacy of his actions.
In response to your claim that the President "does not proceed to justify his actions," Sierra, I want to point out that in a white house memo outside of the speech officials mention President Obama's prosecutorial discretion. Congress isn't appropriating enough money for the President to deport all twelve million illegal immigrants, so he has a very strong legal argument in favor of him choosing who he does and does not deport. His executive action still leaves an estimated 7-8 million illegal immigrants to deport. The issue has been debated and worked through for decades, a bipartisan bill was passed in the Senate, and then for political reasons Boehner refused to let that bill be voted on in the House. The President was very reserved and included many measures to appease conservatives, reflecting the Senate bill. Congress, which should have "passed a law" decades ago, will now be forced to actually do their job or lose legitimacy.
I believe that Obama's actions are not enough. While his idea of immigration reform consisting of strengthening our borders, providing temporary coverage for immigrants that has lived in the United States for more than 5 year AND are willing to pay taxes, I do not believe that it's enough.
It is understandable that not much can be done aside from that until we have Congress on the same page as Obama, however, as he had stated in the video, nothing can be done until everyone agrees with one another.
As a child from a family of immigrants, (legal ones) I can't even imagine what it would be like to have my parents taken away right in front of me just because they crossed the border illegally. I think that it's wonderful that Obama is promising to not separate families but I am also very wary about this. Though it may seem unrealistic to deport every single illegal immigrant in our country, there will no doubt still be situations where families will be torn apart from each other in my opinion. It will take a while for these actions to take place so for now, we can only watch Obama’s promises take action.
I definitely see what you're saying when you say that Obama's policy isn't enough. However, as you mentioned, it's hard to make significant progress without the support of Congress. I think Obama's action was within his executive power, but I think that if he took the policy much further it could potentially be close to infringing on the Constitution and would set an even more dangerous precedent. I see Obama's action as movement in the right direction, but not the full solution. Hopefully Congress will respond with action and begin to make more progress on immigration reform.
I agree that more should be done in regards to the issue of immigration and your moral arguments as I believe no family should be torn apart. However I do not think the President could have done much more without abusing his power. He was already walking on thin ice with the broad interpretation needed to make this decree, so anything further probably would have easily been construed as unconstitutional. For more progress to be made in immigration, Congress needs to pass a bill completely reforming the system.
Obama's executive decision has very good moral standing in my mind, and I felt his speech justified his action very well (although it was just a speech). If his plan were to work out ideally, it would bring people, who have been part of society for quite a while, "out of the dark". I think this plan has something for both sides of the immigration debate. It would help people who have already established roots in the US instead of treating them as fugitives. It would not totally grant them 'amnesty' that Reagan's decision did (if I comprehended that law properly) back in 1986, but temporary safety and an easier path to full citizenship. Furthermore, as legal residents former undocumented people will take upon themselves all of the requirements of every other citizen. Obama provided ideal points to his actions which were all well and good, but that still does not justify his decision. Many point to previous presidents that had made similar decisions, and it could be argued that these were all akin to the president's pardoning power, but Obama's act goes further than granting amnesty to small groups of immigrants. This is immigration reform on a larger scale. I too believe it is ineffective and useless to spend time and money 'hunting down' undocumented individuals, and would rather that undocumented people become effective citizens, but Obama's huge reform is not the proper way. I don't know what Congress will make of his decision, hopefully it will provide some motivation, but overall it seems to me the Obama's decision sets a bad example, and perhaps stretches his Constitutional powers quite a bit. It is almost inevitable that his decision will become ammunition against him, but he is on the tail end of his presidency, so he does not have much to lose due to bold acts such as his immigration reform.
The policy explained by Obama is relatively moderate and most agree with the morals behind his action, however acting unilaterally and utilizing the executive order sparks greater controversy. I think that Obama's decision to use his executive power in order to make progress on immigration was a very bold yet necessary action. Although I certainly believe that his action stretches his powers as president, I don't think he is infringing on the constitution. The executive was given the power to make executive orders in order to take decisive action when little progress could be made in Congress, and this is what he did. However, Obama is setting a precedent for the use of executive orders that could potentially backfire in the future, possibly on this exact issue. For something as important and emotional as immigration, a decisive action had to be taken, whether or not it would fully fix the problem. Obama's action was more of a temporary and moderate fix that is bringing us in the right direction, and through this speech, Obama is telling Congress that it is their turn to act and begin to make progress to pass immigration reform. This is certainly a confrontational move by Obama, and sets a tone for the new republican majority congress that many could see as a threat.
Juliana, I agree that this was definitely a bold move especially after the republicans gained majority in Congress. I cannot say I am surprised by Obama's decision because immigration was such a controversial topic as he entered presidency and his views on it were known. It is interesting how you pointed out how this could backfire on him in the future because he is setting the stage for how he deals with gridlock situations. I think that Obama is dealing with this not only in a diplomatic sense but also sees the very emotional side to this topic. I also agree how this was a very decisive move on Obama's part because he is laying all his cards on the table and it shows exactly where he stands.
I think President Obama has moved in a very positive direction in trying to figure out what to do with immigration reform in the United States. Although it was a very bold move on his part, it was necessary to get us out of this gridlock situation. Obama plans to take steps to responsibly deal with the millions of undocumented immigrants who already live in the country. Under his executive order, undocumented immigrants who have lived in America for more than 5 years, have children who are American citizens, register and pass a criminal background check and pay taxes may apply to stay in the country temporarily without fear of deportation. This will hopefully help many people to “come out of the shadows” and be part the country once and for all. Obama also plans to build on the progress at the border with additional resources for our law and enforcement personnel making it more difficult for illegal crossings and speed up the process of controlling those who do cross over. Obama wants to make it easier and faster for high skilled people to contribute to our economy by helping them stay in a country they want to be part of and contribute to. If many immigrant want to stay and help out our country and are not in any shape or form trying to harm the US, they should be allowed to stay and be part of a place that could not only benefit themselves but our country.
I don’t think Obama went to far and exercised outside of his mandate. He did want he though would help the issue at hand. If Obama did not step up, him and Congress would still be in a gridlock and nothing would have changed. I think Republicans should view Obama’s message as an eye opener for them. They need to realize that issues will not be resolved just be simply sitting on them. Both Congress and Obama need to be able to work as a team and implement some changes together in order to solve this issue.
President Obama’s actions are necessary under the current government stalemate between the Republicans and the Democrats. President Obama is inviting Congress to get into the debate on this issue and “pass a bill.” Instead, Congress, under Republican control, seems to be content to wait things out and then try to use that against the President and the Democrats during the election campaigns. It was interesting to note that the President sided with his predecessor, President Bush, who was also heavily interested in passing immigration reform. The difference is that Bush was not willing to stick his neck out like President Obama is doing. Will this ultimately hurt the democrats during the next election, which is a presidential election? That may depend on how the Republicans respond to this action and how the people respond as well.
I think what the majority of the American people want is some sort immigration reform along the lines of what Obama has been trying to pass with Congress. Unfortunately, I don't think there is much hope in Obama passing a bill with everything entirely the way he wants it to due to past disagreements he has had with Congress. If a bill were to pass it would not be entirely beneficial to Immigrants as it would have been if Congress was entirely on board with what Obama thinks is the best for the country. We will see how this will play out in the remaining years of his presidency.
I agree Jake. Although this act is a bit "gutsy" it shows the President's willingness to challenge the status quo - a characteristic of a great leader. This gridlock has left American politics at a stand still. I suspect that many more of these "sweeping declarations" are to come - simply to combat the counterproductive Republican agenda.
Frustrated by years of congressional gridlock, President Obama understandably came to believe that executive order was the only way to achieve reform in immigration policy. However, just because his motives are understandable doesn’t mean his actions are legally or morally righteous. Executive orders are constitutionally wrong and are disrespectful to the democratic system. President Obama’s recent unilateral action is in fact so blatantly unjust that the federal justice department felt the need to publicly release a 33-page memo in an attempt to justify the president’s overreach of executive power. The memo ventures at flimsy manipulations of the constitutional provision for the president’s authority to enforce the law, but skirts around the main issue that the president’s legal prerogative is limited to just that – enforcement – not enactment. In his speech, President Obama did some issue skirting as well. He spoke mainly about what he is doing – the substance of and reasoning for his immigration overhaul. He failed to adequately address the main problem, which is how he is doing it – the unilateral manner in which he executed this order. The few times he referred to procedure were when he championed precedent and congressional gridlock. In regard to the idea of precedent, the breadth of Obama’s new immigration order far surpasses that of any unilateral action by any president before him. Peter J. Spiro of Temple University said, “The magnitude and the formality of it is arguably unprecedented.” To dispute President Obama’s gridlock excuse, by no means is it fair or legal for the President to act outside the limits of his authority delineated in the Constitution simply because he is impatient. Executive orders, especially of this kind of breadth, undermine democracy. Although the substance of the President’s immigration reform may be inherently righteous, the means by which Obama achieved these ends are unjust. The best bet for the Republicans to counteract Obama's executive order is to pass a bi-partisan immigration bill of their own. Any action that is more aggressive by the Republicans will only lead to loss of support or even public uproar from the Latino citizenry.
I believe that President Obama has certainly made a bold step (in this case, in the right direction), in a way quite unlike most presidents before him. Though President Obama claims that these are the “same actions taken by democratic and republican presidents before” him, the power of congress has never really been undermined to such an extent as it was by the issuing of this executive order. From a moral and personal standpoint, I wholly support Obama’s actions on this issue. As he pointed out, the people he aims to grant temporary are productive members of American society, and those being deported are “felons, not families”. These people are willing to work hard and do many jobs that many Americans are not willing to do. From an economic standpoint, having these people who now live off the grid as citizens only benefits the American economy by growing the economy and shrinking our deficits. The argument that these people come to our country to get welfare and benefits is often thrown around which is essentially null since welfare benefits are not given to non-citizens and those who live in “the shadows”, as the president put it. The legality of the order is, perhaps, the less clear side of the argument. An executive order that “undermines” the power of Congress generates a lot of controversy. However, I don’t believe that there is anything controversial about it. The President made no permanent action, he simply granted temporary protection from deportation to less than half of of the undocumented immigrants in the country. His order does not grant citizenship or offer the same benefits that citizens have. Most importantly, his order can easily be overturned were Congress to pass a bill fixing a problem which “for decades, we haven’t done much about”. President Obama is simply breaking the legislative gridlock, and forcing Congress to actually get something done. As Republican leaders have refused to allow a simple vote for the bill, the President is doing what’s in his power to make a flawed government less unproductive, something, despite its questionable constitutionality, that should be appreciated.
I agree with you Conor, I don't believe that this is something that is unconstitutional because none of what he discussed was to be considered as "permanent action" or undermining Congressional power. I think it is going to be hard to actually have this happen in the coming days, months, and/or years especially when Congress is not on the same page as Obama in this topic but we will have to wait and see.
Obama's plan of action to tackle the immigration historic problem is both bold and strenuous. The current stand still between the Democrats and Republicans is what was holding back the solution and in order to push the solution, Obama did what he needed to do, he is getting involved and doing it himself. I believe that he is going to far and exercising power beyond his ability and authority. He does state that his actions are lawful, however he does not support that statement with any constitutional text. Yes there is a stand still between the democrat and republican leaders in office, but I do not think that Obama has the power to step in and do what he wants no matter what the vote happens to be. I predict that the Republicans will come back swinging a bat and will attempt to pass a bill to contradict Obama's goals with the immigration actions that he plans to go through with.
I doubt that the republicans will go as far as impeaching president Obama because in his address he does share a compelling story about the girl who is extremely successful but is afraid of coming out of the shadows.
I completely agree with you! I believe that no one else was taking action or really doing anything to address the issue of immigration and that President Obama was doing what no one else would. I think whether or not his actions are constitutional lies on a fine line. Yes I believe that by creating a way for illegal immigrants to become legal temporarily is out of his power. I agree with your point on how the republicans will react; I think that he does not have the power to do whatever he wants and has to go through Congress and put it to a vote before he can actually take action.
I think that President Obama's immigration plan is very bold, especially considering that Congress is now dominated by a Republican majority. I think that this is a step in the right direction, albeit a large step, to helping reform immigration policy.
While many could argue that this is not actually solving the problem, it is hard to imagine the current immigration policy we have getting much worse. I agree that we need to take action now, and as President Obama said, not wait, because even those who don't support this immigration plan probably would agree that our current policy is in bad condition.
I don't think that Obama correctly justified his actions by saying that it was constitutional because both Republican and Democrat presidents before him had exercised similar power. But that isn't to say that this action is wrong just because it is unconstitutional. Perhaps this goes to show that modern times are calling for a more flexible Constitution.
However, I think that before any Congressmen critique Obama's immigration plan or pass an immigration bill of their own they should first look at it from a moral standpoint, because Obama makes some solid moral arguments. While Republicans may say that this would be detrimental to some hard-working American businessmen and entrepreneurs temporarily, in the long run, this could potentially expand our economy. Also, deporting all 12 million illegal immigrants, which could be seen as a counter argument to Obama's plan, would be incredibly expensive and could lead to more job losses than enacting the immigration plan.
Regardless of the outcome, hopefully Obama's immigration plan will lead to more reform in America's immigration policy. And if not, hopefully it will cause citizens and politicians alike to reevaluate our ideals and country's values.
Although I believe that Mr. Obama is overstepping his constitutional powers in his executive order, I believe the circumstances in which our congress is currently in forces the president to such extremes. Especially now with a Republican congress that is hard-set on tarnishing Mr. Obama's and the Democrat's image rather than getting progressive legislation passed, an executive order overriding the gridlock is necessary and proper. We have discussed in class over the past few weeks just how inefficient our government is as compared to nations like Great Britain due to the structure of our system. The United States system makes it near impossible to quickly pass legislation. I believe that in addition to increasing the government's efficiency, Mr. Obama's executive order also dodges manipulations by compromise and corruption, as compared to if it were legislation requiring bipartisan support. I like how E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post put it in the post-speech video, how Mr. Obama ignoring congress may also push Republicans to being too far right, like threatening government shutdowns, etc.
Observations I have made from Mr. Obama's speech are signs of him using a bully-pulpit like what we have studied in class. His speech appeals to the American people by using multitudes of anecdotes that causes them to empathize with these helpless, humble immigrant families. Also at the same time, Mr. Obama sheds a dark light on congress for being so dysfunctional, thus portraying himself as the individual getting things done: "politicians use the issues to scare people and whip up votes in election time". Just like other presidents before him, Mr. Obama is rallying Americans' support behind his actions while creating a negative perception on a gridlocked legislative branch.
All in all I believe that the current state of our government system has allowed for Mr. Obama to execute such actions. Call me Communist, but right now the United States requires an empowered President that moves the nation forward.
I agree with you Melvin that the U.S. needs an empowered president. That is exactly what President Obama is doing. This order was executed because of a dysfunctional, Republican majority congress. I disagree with you, however on your opinion that he overstepped his power. Immigration could fall in many of the offices of the president such as National Economic Council, National Security, and Management and Budget. Even though we have different views on the constitutionality, i am glad we can agree that is what is what the U.S. needs.
I agree with the President's steps he took in the bill. I think he did a good job trying to frame the bill from a nonpartisan perspective. He appealed to Republicans by reassuring them that border control is higher than ever (with rates down to the level they were in the 70's) and will continue to be strengthened. He also mentioned how police forces are prioritizing dangerous undocumented immigrants over others. All of that was just in the intro, to soften the blow some people may feel. In his actual order, I think he could have gone farther, but took appropriate steps in terms on bipartisanship. The order only applies to those who have been in the U.S. for a long amount of time and has nothing to do with recent or future immigrants. Additionally, it has many requirements immigrants must meet and agree to and it never actually gives them citizenship. I think this just makes sense.
I believe that President Obama has the power to release such an executive order and I believe he'll have the power to enforce it. The act doesn't any more outrageous than any other executive order.
If republicans are enraged by the executive order, then they should work with democrats to create a successful bipartisan bill. The president was only forced to do this when that fell through. I think Obama was clever in this move because now Republicans cannot sit on this because it goes into effect and can't be changed unless they do something.
Immigration reform is certainly long overdue in America. Obama took a very big risk by issuing an executive degree, but it was a risk that had to be taken in order to get something done. Although there really doesn't seem to be a "right" answer in this debate, Obama comes close. The President is not constitutionally given the power to make laws and yet at the same time, any attempts at reform will be shot down in Congress. Republicans say that Obama has "poisoned the well" of bipartisanship and the chance to work things out. However, I feel that Republicans have already been given their shot at working together and have utterly wasted it. I remember when Obama first took office how he earnestly tried to reach across the aisle. Now, clearly he is disillusioned with partisan squabbling and sees that he has no other option but to bypass the muck of Congress entirely. If Obama had issued his executive order on the first day of office, it definitely would have been universally condemned. It has been 6 years though since he took office and by now he must truly have realized how Washington works and how both sides are unwilling to compromise. He did not make this recent decision without thinking.
Additionally, I believe that while Obama's actions may be constitutionally dubious, they can be justified by other reasons. In our US chapter reading, we learned that the president speaks for not just sectional interests, but is elected by the entire country to carry out the will of the nation. I believe that Obama is genuinely speaking for the nation, and Republicans are not. Representatives from states like Arizona and Texas probably do not see the big picture - that immigrants (illegal or not) are vital to America. Obama has personally said that he is "the guy who's elected by everybody, not just from a particular state or a particular state or a particular district". In addition, do Republicans really speak for everyone when, we learned last unit, that Gerrymandering, packing, and cracking can stifle minority voices? Many immigrants and their families are probably more worried about surviving than being politically active, too. The Economist writes following the mid-term elections that Obama "said he heard a message from voters but also from 'the two-thirds of voters who chose not to participate in the process yesterday'". Everyone has a voice in America and just because they don't use it doesn't mean that they don't care. Obama's actions are justified in my opinion.
I believe that President Obama's approach to the immigration issue shows how concerned he is for those who are trying to lead better lives. He addresses the issue of how illegal immigrants are essentially taking a "free ride" by not being an American citizen, but living in America, he states that they "reap(s) the rewards of living in America without taking on the responsibilities of living in America". But immigrants are not looking to come to America to be one of the free riders, they come here because they want to work and make better lives for their children. Although President Obama does address the issue of criminals versus families, he does not explain how he determines who is a criminal and who is not, so if there is no definition, anyone could be a criminal and everyone could not be. President Obama speaks about how he has increased the amount of security at the southern border and will continue this, but I believe that immigrants from the south are not the only problem. There are people coming from all over who fall under the category as illegal immigrants and they set reputations for immigrants as well. Also is that really where we want to be spending our money? I believe that President Obama's second point about how he will make it easier and quicker for higher skilled workers, graduates, and entrepreneurs, works towards creating a balance between deporting illegal immigrants and allowing some to stay because of their contributions to America. What I don't understand is when he talks about how he is going to create a way for illegal immigrants to temporarily be legal if they take on the responsibilities of being an American. I don't believe this idea is realistic at all because if the illegal immigrants can only have temporary citizenship, they will eventually be deported because they will have come out of the shadows and will be known as illegal. Why would an illegal immigrant risk their future in America for a temporary legalized stay when they know it will eventually get them deported?
(This is actually Megan Conner's post, not Lauren's)
While Obama’s executive order may have large implications on the future of immigration reform, I didn’t see the actual immigration policy that Obama presented as the controversial issue. As the Economist article pointed out, past republican presidents have carried out similar actions regarding immigration. Ronald Reagan, for example, passed a bill that gave legal rights to 3 million illegal immigrants. This amount, while less than the 4-5 million that Obama’s order is expected to protect, affected around a similar ratio of the U.S. population (given that the U.S. population has grown significantly since 1986) as Obama’s order. Obama himself stressed the idea that his order was a way to step back, realize that trying to deport all the illegal immigrants would be unrealistic, and then decide how to prioritize who is deported to inhibit rises in illegal immigration in the future. It’s not a terribly radical policy, nor does it seem to be a permanent solution. The actual controversy arose from his decision to utilize his executive order power. Since this action was taken so soon after the November elections, I viewed the president’s executive order as a warning to the new senate and house majorities who will soon take office. Obama stated in his speech that, “I want to work with both parties to pass a more permanent legislative solution” and that in the future, if he can successfully work with congress to pass legislature, “The actions I take will no longer be necessary.” I thought that Obama strategically placed this executive order to demonstrate how he is going to challenge congress in the future if they aren’t willing to work in a more bipartisan manner. Some people may judge his action as unconstitutional, because often executive orders appear to be somewhat unconstitutional. If Obama decides to use his executive order power to bypass any liberal legislation that congress doesn’t pass, then I would view that as dangerously unconstitutional. However, Obama isn’t simply overriding congress’s decision to implement this immigration reform. He’s taking this action because the House of Representatives refused to vote on his original bipartisan immigration bill and he doesn’t want this sort of inaction to continue when the new congress settles in. Obama’s making a clear message that refusing to vote on important bills and instead fueling a gridlock atmosphere is not something he is willing to work with during his last two years in office.
I agree that Obama's actions in the name of Congress' lack of action due to the gridlock does seem to be a demonstration of his decision to show Congress that he will challenge them in the future if they are not more bipartisan. However, one of the potential dangers I still see in him placing this executive order is that this sets a model for presidential executive orders that could go wrong so that if a Republican president is to take office, it would give them leeway to place their own executive orders against the Democrats.
Obama’s action is a gross overstep of his executive power. His new policy on immigration is bold and drastically changes the way America handles illegal immigration. Although his new policy is only temporary, I believe that this policy will have lasting effects. I believe that Obama has the power the increase security at the border and the power to speed the deportation of criminals. However, executive power does not give the president the power to completely ignore and change the current immigration law. Obama giving illegal immigrant who have been in the country for 5 years and will pay taxes, pass a background check, and have US born children blatantly goes against the current policy that was passed by a previous congress. However, I understand why Obama has taken this drastic action. Our current congress cannot get anything done, and the immigration problem is a problem that cannot be ignored for much longer. Obama has put congress on the spot showing the country their inability to pass bills, and hopefully the President’s action will force congress to address the immigration problem and pass a bill. Obama is an eloquent speaker and in this speech he was able to appeal to the conscience of American citizens. Obama pointed out the urgency of the immigration policy, and I believe that he was able to influence the way people approach the immigration issue.
I would have to say that Obama is probably my second favorite president now, though not nearly as good as the greatest president of alltime John QUincy Adams!!
As President Obama stated, the United States is the country it is today because of the influence of immigrants that have allowed the country to flourish and become the innovative and powerful country it is. However, in the current system, those who follow the convoluted immigration rules are punished by it and undocumented immigrants must stay in secret. First, the President worked to fortify the boarders, which has been successful, illegal boarder crossings at the lowest level since 1970s. Next, a bipartisan bill was passed to ensure that the system would be fixed, growing the economy and lowering the deficit. However, the Republican leaders in the House refused to pass the “common sense” law. Therefore, the President believes he is justified in making an executive order to fix the immigration issue, making it more fair and just. His third issue, undocumented immigrants, is his main focus, as they must be held accountable. Those to be deported will be criminals, not families. Deporting millions of people is not a realistic course of action. Those in America for over 5 years, those with children American born, and those who pass a criminal background check will be allowed to apply for citizenship without fear of deportation. It does not apply to future or current illegal immigrants. He counters nay-sayers saying that the current system we have today is amnesty, where illegal immigrants are forced to hide and the issue is left as is. The answer is not amnesty nor deportation, but accountability. His actions are lawful and have been taken by all presidents in the past. He references the actions of past presidents, notably President Bush who spoke of the importance of immigrants. Stressing over and over, President Obama wants to work with congress to find a solution; he simply needs a bill to be passed. The executive and legislative branch must work to find a common purpose, not focus on gridlock. Yes, by skeptics this plan may seem to be a free pass to immigration, but immigrants are beneficial to the economy and the society of American and mass deportation is not possible or right. It is a way to ensure that the immigration system of America today is fixed. As President Obama states, the debate is about the identity of this country, built on immigrants. We should not tolerate the hypocrisy of the current system, focusing on hopes and not fears. I believe President Obama is perfectly justified by his actions, understandably aggravated by the gridlock in Congress and recognizing that actions needs to be taken on this pressing issue. The Republican response should be to pass bi-partisan bill of their own, as Obama explicitly says that is what he wants. Immigration is a very clear and evident issue, and President Obama took the rightful first steps to solving it.
I think that Obama was indeed very bold in his speech, addressing an issue that is surrounded by such a large amount of controversy. I respect President’s Obama initiative to take action on the topic of immigration, despite the lack of support from Congress. I don’t believe that he is completely overstepping his executive boundaries but that he is trying his best to accomplish what he can while working with such a resistant Congress. The President acknowledges his limitations in his speech that only congress has the power to “offer the same benefits that citizens receive” to immigrants but he is still attempting to provide temporary solutions until a permanent solution can be reached. However I think it still remains unclear how Obama plans to go about his new plan regarding granting immigrants that qualify for temporary security without fear of deportation. Like Obama said, it is unrealistic to grant immunity to all illegal immigrants or to deport them all and although he did his best to find a middle ground and reach somewhat of a compromise, I question its effectiveness. It cannot be assumed that those immigrants that are eligible for his plan of a temporary protected stay in the U.S. will suddenly come out of the shadows. Since they must have been in the states for at least 5 years to qualify, they have likely already adapted to a life of living in the shadows. These immigrants have no certainty that the law won’t change and they could become even more vulnerable to deportation. They likely still have a great amount of fear about coming forward and would prefer to stay hidden than risk the lives they have built for themselves. Meanwhile, those who are ineligible are simply going to remain in the shadows and continue to live and work as undocumented immigrants. I think Obama is taking steps in the right direction and redirecting attention to a topic that definitely needs to be addressed but I do think that there are some flaws within his plan.
President Obama is overstepping his boundaries in regards to his constitutional power of executive order, however, I do believe it is justified. With the Republicans now having the majority in Congress, he is not able to pass legislations that may be beneficial for the nation and US citizens. I believe he is stuck between a 'rock and a hard place' because he will encounter criticism for implementing this reform and he would have received criticism if he did not use his executive order to do so. It was a bold move, but I think that Obama was thinking about the long term effects of his actions. Through this reform, he is securing much needed Hispanic votes for democratic party in the 2016 election. Obama shows that he cares about what is happening with these illegal immigrants and in turn, is ensuring many votes form the hispanic community. The Republicans cannot really argue against Obama's speech and reforms because it will seem unethical and will negatively impact their view in the eyes of the hispanic community. This was definitely an act of defiance towards the Congress because Obama knew the results of his actions and the limitations it would put on the Republicans. It will take a lot more for Obama to secure these reforms and successfully achieve his goals on immigration, but I believe it was a good place to start.
I agree that the President would have received criticism for acting or not acting. An interesting point you mentioned was that Obama was defying Congress with this speech. Do you think this action will inflame the tension between Congress and the President or instead encourage/threaten the Congress to work with the President? Personally, I think this act of defiance is a bit counteractive. I think it will more likely than not aggravate the members of Congress instead of easing the tension.
Mariam- I think you make some really interesting and substantial points. I agree that Obama is overstepping his boundaries, but due to the gridlock of the Republican Congress, he is forced to act unconstitutionally. I also agree that Obama declared this executive order with future elections in mind, as his fair reforms and policies will help the Democratic party gain the hispanic communities votes, especially if Republicans criticize his policies. I think this act of defiance, as you say, will anger Congress, as Obama has given them the option of potentially losing a portion of the hispanic vote, or endorse his policies, something Republican Congressional candidates said they would not do in their elections.
President Obama took extremely bold action by addressing a topic every American has an opinion on. Immigration is a hard topic to deal with because as the President said, “we are all immigrants”. Personally, I am torn about this topic. My own parents were immigrants who came here for graduate school. They had to wait in line and go through the painstaking paperwork and trouble to enter this country legally. The geographic convenience allows many people to consciously break the law and enter this country by essentially skipping the line. So, on one hand, I see this policy, as a reward to millions of undocumented immigrants for their “bad behavior”. At the same time, I remember that America’s foundation is built on welcoming new people. I recognize that if this country had very tight rules for immigration my parents may not have come here at all. I understand that people enter illegally because they have truly reached a point of desperation. This is reflected in the dangerous means people go through to send themselves and loved ones across the border “to live in the shadows”. I feel for the hardship Astrid Silva and many illegal children have faced. Obama’s actions, although bold, attempt to ease the pain that many illegal immigrants in this country are facing. Republicans may see this step as a tyrannical declaration but this in action is in fact, very American. Yes, it is a broad interpretation of the explicit powers given to the executive power– but it is a result of the stubborn mindset of parties. Instead of discussing the constitutionality of Obama’s attempt to help Americans (by name, not paper), America should be reflecting on our deteriorating ability to compromise and the far-reaching effects of bi-partisan gridlock.
I think the president's actions were certainly bold but at the same time within the realm of constitutionality. As Mr. Obama said, his actions are not a grant of citizenship or the right to stay in the US permanently, it is simply a way for law abiding illegal immigrants to, "step out of the shadows" and join law abiding society and exist in this country without a fear of deportation. This is an acceptable use of executive authority given that Obama has taken steps to create a more secure border and has worked with Congress to pass a bipartisan bill (in the senate at least). Over the past six years the number of illegal border crossings has been cut in half so you can't accuse Obama of failing to "faithfully execute" the nation's laws. The Republican response is very simple in my opinion. Since they control both houses of Congress, albeit without a super majority, they should pass their own immigration bill with just enough in there for democrats to get it to pass. Once that's done, if Obama keeps his word, this current unilateral action will be annulled and the problem will go away. This accomplishes three things. One, it prevents the Republican party from shutting down the government or doing something equally stupid which runs the risk of hurting their presidential chances in 2016. Second, as Obama mention, "mass deportation would be both impossible and contrary to our character". Since that option is out it only makes sense for the Republicans in Congress to create a bill which caters to their base and gets our national agenda to reflect what they want in a way that couldn't possibly hurt them, which is point number three.
Although any progress in todays political realm seems great, I am not sure how much this executive action accomplishes. It is a great first step to make the process easier for those who have lived here for five years, however the President clearly states that this makes it no easier for undocumented citizens in the present or those trying to come across our boarders in the future. I believe for real progress to me made the entire immigration system must be redone. That being said President Obama has done pretty much all he could on this issue without being unconstitutional and I applaud him for taking some type of action. Those who say this action is unconstitutional and abuses the Presidents powers are misguided. The executive order has been a legitimate course of governing for quite some time now, with Presidents from both parties using them. This particular action cannot be unconstitutional because it is stated in the constitution that the President carries out the laws or in this case refuse to carry out the laws, such as refusing to deport a certain few who meet requirements. This action could have a significant impact in the 2016 elections if the republicans do not address immigration. The latino population is constantly growing and immigration reform continues to be a large issue in that demographic. This action means we could see a major shift in the political balance in 2016.
I also have mixed feelings about Obama's actions. While I do not think what he has done is unconstitutional, I do think he is stretching his executive powers to their limit and has come dangerously close to crossing the line. Under the circumstances, I think taking some action was necessary at this point because Congress is gridlocked and has not been able to come to any major compromises at this point. Doing something is better than doing nothing at all. Deporting all the illegal immigrants is a disastrous idea because they play a part in boosting our economy, whether we like to admit it or not, and deporting all of them would be a massive, expensive effort. However, Obama did say that they were going to increase border patrol, so is not like he's saying it's ok for people to enter illegally. It'll be more difficult for immigrants to slip across the border. I agree with Obama's move to distinguish criminals from children or families just trying to build a better life, and I think it is extremely important to make this distinction. Congress needs to come up with a bipartisan solution that addresses the issue head on.
I agree with you, Megan, that Obama taking this bold action is better than taking none at all and watching the gridlock halt progress to immigration reform. On the other hand, considering the constitutionality of the president's move, do you think Obama will face severe political consequences and decreased support from the public?
I believe that Obama's actions were both just and constitutional. While his executive order was more wide reaching than ones in the past i don't believe that he overextended. Presidents such as Bush and Eisenhower have set president for the use of executive order when it comes to immigration. I think that the most interesting part of this is what the GOP will do in response. They may stick to their guns and risk the alienation of the growing Latino population or they may try to compromise and risk an inter part struggle as the Tea Party and libertarians would likely oppose any compromise. Immigration will be a big topic for the 2016 election and may very well decide who has the upper hand. The Latino population will is largely swayed by the topic of immigration and the GOP could use it as a tool to further gain control of the country. Another thing to consider is that any good that Obama does for immigrants could be undone in 2016 by a more conservative executive as Obama's actions will certainly not have been in effect long enough to give all illegal aliens a chance to take advantage. Also i believe that a main issue that needs to be tackled is how difficult it is to become a citizen the legal way as it would make the number of illegal immigrants much lower.
I believe that Obama is taking bold action but that he is acting constitutionally within his Executive powers. His order does stretch his executive power a bit seeing as it applies to up to 5 million of the United States' 11.4 million illegal immigrants, but he makes a valid point about the need to take action due to Congress' gridlock resulting in no effective measures being taken. I believe that what he is pushing for is not unjust seeing as how it focuses on deferring deportation for those that have been in the country for five years, have passed a background check, have children who are American citizens, and pay taxes. His new immigration policy is aimed towards allowing the hardworking who have come to the United States in the hopes of working to create a better life to temporarily stay, not the criminals. It simply isn't possible to deport every single illegal immigrant, and it certainly isn't who we are as Americans to turn away those who have no criminal background and have come to the United States in order to work hard and create a better life for themselves. He recognizes that it is Congress' power to grant citizenship, and he is merely trying to assure those qualifying illegal immigrants that they will not be immediately deported. I believe that the Republicans should try to pass a bi-partisan bill of their own so as to lessen the strain of the gridlock and allow the possibility of more support from the American public.
Even though President Obama is acting beyond his constitutional powers as the executive, his is justified due to the current Republican majority in Congress. Due to both houses under Republican control, there is little likelihood of any of Obama's policies being passed, and the government will be in a standstill. Although Obama is overstepping his powers with the executive order to assign more law enforcement personal to the southern border and new regulations that decide citienship, he doesn't really have any other choice. His bold move is trying to solve an issue our country has dealt with for decades, and an executive order is the only way around the gridlock that is Congress today. While I commend him for making a clear policy objective, I do not think it is possible to achieve it. Not only with republican politicians blocking every action, it will take a tremendous amount of time, man power, and energy to track down and deport the illegal immigrants whom do not meet the regulations to stay in America. Although his declaration to put additional manpower on the border sounds practical in theory, he cannot account for how much the people who attempt to immigrate want to live in America in order to have the opportunity to make a better life for themselves and their families. The same number of people will be risking everything to come to our country, and adding more guards can only make such an impact. Obama's new policy has put the Republicans in a tough position, as they would appear unethical and difficult if they criticized his reform efforts. Obama stressed his wish for compromise, and that is what the Republicans need to work towards to make a lasting change in our country's immigration policy.
Hello Kathryn. I agree with all of your points. I especially like that you brought up the practicality of the matter. I too believe that Obama's policy objective is righteous and will benefit our nation, but I am not so sure that it is realistic. I agree with the fact that it would be extremely difficult track down all of the illegal immigrants that do not meet the necessary criteria to stay, as well as stop future illegal immigrants from crossing the border. Increasing the security and number of people guarding the borders will help, but not all that much. It will be difficult to stop the extreme amount of people wishing to come to our country, and for that reason adding more manpower could be a waste of time, energy, and money. But I think that the basic stance of Obama's action is necessary and appropriate for the state of our nation, and it is needed to enact some sort of change.
President Obama's executive order that allows up to 5 million immigrants to avoid deportation is a bold action. This is a broad use of his executive power under the Constitution. Under Article II Section 3, one of the responsibilities of the President of the United States is to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Obama is overstepping his boundaries with respect to Congress by opposing the Republican majority legislative will which represents the law. Therefore, the president is not faithfully executing the law. Although his actions were bordering on unconstitutionality, I do agree that this change of immigration policy is necessary. The gridlock in Congress, as President Obama refers to in his speech, has made it difficult for any resolutions to be passed but with this order Obama allows progress towards immigration reform. Since the chances of blocking all illegal immigration is very slim, Obama's move to permit a great number of immigrants yet a sharp limit in comparison to the estimated number of undocumented immigrants to stay in the country temporarily is crucial to the American economy. To continue Obama's progress towards immigration reform (and decrease the gridlock), Republicans should respond with a bi-partisan bill.
Although the constitutionality of Obama's executive order is questionable, he is justified in enacting his new policy on immigration through the arguments presented in his speech and the current state of our nation. The gridlock in Congress has prevented any improvement for the issue of immigration, so executive action was necessary. Obama made some very good points about our nation's values. To separate families by deportation, and deprive immigrants of the opportunities to better their lives that America has to offer would be wrong, and it would not be reflecting the values that America has possessed since our nation was founded. Any change in the immigration system was necessary, and Obama's action provided it. Although I believe the bill is right, Obama may have overstepped his bounds by taking such bold executive steps. New York Times columnist David Brooks argues that the use of unilateral action by Obama was not the right way to go about changing immigration laws, because "that is not how the system works", which I agree with. Legislative action should have been used to pass such a controversial bill, and Obama took a risk by using his executive powers. Brooks also brings up the point of substance vs. how Obama is going about passing the bill, and although Obama's action may not be completely constitutional, I think the substance of the bill is much more important in this matter, and it was necessary for the well-being of our nation. Obama's action was not solely intended to pass a bill without the consent of anyone in Congress, he wants compromise, which is fair and a reasonable request. If Congress will not permit any sort of compromise, then executive action will have to be enforced, which is what Obama is doing. Overall, I think that the substance of the bill and the looming issue of immigration is more important than the constitutionality of executive order, and Obama was justified in his actions.
Do you think President Obama took bold action? Did not go far enough? Or went too far and exercised authority outside of his Constitutional mandate? What should the Republican response be? Pass a bi-partisan immigration bill of their own? Ram a bill that deports all 12 million illegal immigrants? Impeach the President?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe boldness of Obama's actions depends on how you look at it. On the one hand, he frankly called out his opposition on their polar politics and took an action that was expressly stated to be in lieu of a congressionally passed law. On the other hand, the president's actions represent something of a reasonable compromise between the two commonly expressed extremes. I see his policy as being like other T.R.'s policy on trusts. He identifies "good illegal immigrants" and "bad illegal immigrants" to meet the criticisms both of the xenophobic viewpoint and of the accepting viewpoint. It seems fair to offer beneficial or inconsequential immigrants a chance to clear the air and try to do things legally, whilst focusing our valuable resources on harmful immigrants, such as gang members. As to his constitutional mandate, he is acting, arguably, in defense of the country- he is cracking down on the threat of harmful illegal immigrants and attempting to provide opportunity for all illegal immigrants to be legitimized. Additionally, he is enforcing the law; he just happens to be doing it based on priorities. He takes a clear stand against the unethical nature of illegal immigrants, but then prioritizes based on moral and practical constraints. This is a strong attempt at compromise, and the Republicans should let it slide, however they would be well within their authority to simply deny the executive funding for his reform- though most of that funding would go to strengthening borders and deporting "bad immigrants" so, in a way, increasing funding may prove more in line with Republican goals. As much as I would like to think they would pass a bill making Obama's plan a law, the idea is idealistic at best. The best that could reasonably be hoped for is that Congress takes no action to stop the president's actions. A bill ordering the deportation of all illegal immigrants would be folly for a multitude of reasons: 1) it would be unenforceable. What are they going to do, make it MORE illegal? I mean, that's just silly. 2) the president is in charge of that enforcement and could therefore enforce it according to his priorities. That sounds a bit akin to, I don't know, EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO DO. 3) It would be grossly impractical, especially since many illegal immigrants are actually beneficial to our economy, society, and culture. Impeachment of the president would also be ridiculous. He is walking a grey area between what he can and cannot do, but not sufficiently to convict with certainty. Additionally, it would be harmful politically- the Republicans would be remembered for spitefully playing party politics when we most need compromise. All told, Obama's plan rests on just enough legal and pragmatic ground that it cannot be condemned outright, and attacking the order would be a serious handicap in the bully pulpit, especially when it is in line with much of the Republican stance on immigration.
DeleteObama's action was certainly bold, what with the immigration issue being as polarized as it is today, but it is certainly in his authority. There are too many immigrants to deport all of them, it would be a waste, and today's immigration system is inefficient and unfair. With the House and Senate in gridlock, I believe it is fair that executing immigration law via compromise should fall to executive authority. Every year, families are torn apart by deportation, and so immigration reform is an immediate issue. Also, Obama's order isn't everlasting, as he has agreed to rollback his order once a bipartisan immigration reform bill was passed. Although many argue that this executive order is stepping out of constitutional bounds and maybe even illegal, I feel it truly is a compromise ruled by common sense and compassion, making application for and obtaining temporary citizenship for established undocumented residents more streamlined, and deporting recent and/or dangerous criminals while keeping future illegal immigrants out of the US. Besides, this action isn't unprecedented, as republican presidents such as Reagan and Bush have made immigration reforms, albeit in conjunction with Congress. But the times demand immigration reform now, and with the House and Senate in gridlock, currently the only possible way to commence reform is through the executive branch. Furthermore, it must be done in this, as New York Times' David Brooks put it, "confrontational" way because the Republicans will take control of both Houses in January, making immigration reform, a problem Obama promised to tackle in the 2008 campaign and one that must be fixed ASAP, far more difficult to be passed. I know that the Republicans don't want to pass a reform bill, especially at Obama's behest, but for the sake of our inept and broken immigration system, and to best comply with the constitutional law which they regularly invoke and put an end to Obama's executive actions ASAP, a bipartisan immigration reform bill must be passed.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteJared, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I would especially like to point out to everyone reading this how you emphasized that Obama's plan is born out of "common sense and compassion." Even someone as opposed to the plan as David Brooks agreed that its substance is genuine, whereas he only has a problem with the "why he's doing it and how he's doing it." It will be very difficult for anyone to counter the argument that the concept of an executive order sets a dangerous precedent for future presidents to abuse power, but it is really a shame that in this scenario with immigration, this idea will hinder a solution that most people agree is a good thing. In general with the governmental system, with scenarios such as the Citizen's United Case it is truly unfortunate that the rules of lawmaking can oftentimes interfere with logic and common sense.
DeleteI agree with almost all of that. I would say that while Presidents before him have used Executive power to deal with immigration, it has never been done to this scale before. Also I think Republicans could try and make the case that by refusing to deport immigrants, the President could be failing to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" as the NY Times article points out. I think the way Republicans should respond should be that they create and pass an immigration bill of their own. They certainly should not try to deport all 12 million illegal immigrants because first of all that is logistically impossible, and also I do not believe it is right. I think Obama definitely sent a strong message by choosing to do this now, right after the Republicans won seats to take over the senate in addition to the House. Hopefully they will respond by working to end the gridlock and not getting hung up on whether the President should have done this.
ReplyDeleteThe President makes a strong legal argument over his prosecutorial discretion, given his lack of funds to deport twelve million immigrants. I don't think Republicans can or will try to make the case that the President is failing to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The only way they could challenge the executive order without facing political backlash from latinos is by passing their own reform, which requires the tea party and establishment conservatives to form a united front.
DeleteI agree with your idea that Obama is sending a strong political message to the Republican party with his executive order. The timing for issuing his order - right after the Republicans gained control of Congress - is not ideal by any stretch of the means. In his speech, Obama claims that he wants to work with both parties in Congress, however this executive order in the face of Republican victory screams just the opposite. It appears that Obama is intimidated by a Republican dominated Congress - something he has never dealt with before. President Obama seems almost panicky, desperately trying to make a statement to the American people that he is the one in command, despite an opposing Congress. Maybe this is just a cynical interpretation, but the circumstances surrounding Obama's executive order lend generously to this analysis.
DeletePresident Obama is without a doubt an exceptional public speaker, so the way he presented the immigration reform was very effective and moving. However, I believe the actions the president is taking are an abuse of his Executive Power. I won't disagree that Congress has been slow to act and needs to be more willing to compromise, but I think this plan with have much larger implications down the road than the president means. Allowing the president to act without the support or aid of Congress on this issue will make it easier for other presidents to do the same on other issues in the future, regardless of what the issues are.
ReplyDeleteObama's actions could influence Congress to be more willing to negotiate however, and hopefully a bi-partisan bill will be presented that will reflect both practicality and compassion and will not stretch the power of any branches of our government. The divide between the two parties seems to be more definite now than ever, but I think if the Republicans are willing to concede a little, an effective compromise could still be reached in time. I do agree with what the president is trying to do, but I am hesitant to support the way he is going about it.
Although I too hope that a bi-partisan bill is passed in the future, the one that was presented was already a compromise and it still wasn't passed. It is Obama's job to fix the situation so he needs to do something in the mean time, and he will be criticized no matter what route he takes. In terms of the "larger implications" that this order has, Obama did say that this is just temporary until he can get a new bill passed. The one point I do agree on is that Obama said if you disagree with me "pass a bill." This attitude could lead to future presidents making even further reaching actions and simply saying pass a bill if you don't like what I have done. This could give power to the president that was not at all intended when the positions was created.
DeleteI thought Obama gave a very good speech as well, and I am neither a supporter nor detractor of his administration. Obama's Executive decision may be a good motivation for Congress to get on with passing their own bill over the issue. Hopefully this will be the case, because unlike those of past presidents, Obama's reform extends farther much farther. In comparison to the Immigration Reform Act of 1986 which granted "amnesty" to around 2 million immigrants of specific criteria, Obama's reform act works for about 5 million, and goes further by altering enforcement and citizenship applications.
DeleteI'd like to agree with Lauren with the fact that this executive order has two sides to it. One side to this is that we would be benefiting many undocumented immigraints that are already in this country, while providing criminal back round checks enforcing a stronger border control. The other side to this decision is that it would represent a concentration of executive power in the government without the consent of the legislature. This brings up the topic of a bipartisan decision which would implement a balance of power and provide the same benefits provided by Obama's exectutive order. Unfortunatly this 'win-win' situation would be very difficult if not impossible to pass through congress due to the current republican majority in both houses.
DeleteI agree with you Lauren that Obama is a very powerful orator, and I think those abilities are definitely on full force in this address. I'd like to talk more about what you said regarding Obama's ability to take such action, because for me it begs the question, "since when was legislative failure the fault of the executive?" I wonder when the time came that people decided that the inaction of their legislators was the president's fault? Shouldn't that be... the legislator's fault? The deflection of blame that the legislators put on any president might shift the public eye on to him, but I really think that the definitive roles of each branch of government has changed in the eyes of the people. I don't agree or disagree with your stance on the president's action being lawful or not, but I do think that the executive is experiencing a lot more legislative expectations from the people when that expectation should really be put on the executive.
DeleteIn response to Katrina, I completely agree that the legislature's failure to pass a bill was a problem solely within the legislature and I sympathize with the frustration of the administration. My problem with this Executive action is that, despite it being temporary like Joanna pointed out, it still sets the precedent that if Congress and the President are in disagreement, he/she can act without Congress' support on an issue as large as this. And this could be applied to issues the public has much less support for than immigration reform. I agree with David who pointed out that this reform affects many more people than immigration reform in the past. I do not think this reform is by any means a small one, and I agree with Nima- on such a large reform, a bi-partisan decision is ideal. I do feel compelled to criticize the legislation as well, but I think that still doesn't completely justify the actions Obama is taking.
DeleteLauren, I agree with you that Obama's actions are an abuse of his executive power. His actions will change the current immigration policy drastically and undermines the current policy on immigration. These changes are too drastic to be instituted without congress' approval. Just because other presidents in the past have used executive order to get things done, does not make it constitutionally sound. Obama's use of executive order to increase boarder patrol is a perfect use of executive order. However, the President's new policy on the deportation and citizenship of illegal immigrants is a gross overstep of his power. I hope that Obama's actions will force congress' hand and get them to pass a bill on immigration, but this is very unlikely.
DeleteI agree with Adam that the case could be made that Obama is obstructing the law by selectively refusing to enforce laws he negates with executive action. This is a violation of his constitutional power. That being said, Obama has been very consistent in recent years with his goals. His interpretation of upholding the constitution is that he must protect the well-being of the country and its inhabitants (not necessarily citizens), not the enforcement of legislative actions... or inaction.
ReplyDeleteThis executive action should not surprise anybody. Obama's threatened to take unilateral action on the issue since the 2012 election. He's also tried to be very cooperative with Congress. When Speaker Boehner demanded that an immigration reform bill be passed in several portions, Obama agreed providing that the bill's key ideas be represented. The legislature never got around to writing the bill. After continuing to threaten executive order, Obama actually took action and announced his immigration reform, which has a deeper meaning than to just improve the lives of immigrants and their children. The bill is clearly intended to make a statement to Republicans that Obama's threats are more than just words. They're now actions with tangible impacts on the country, and it's Boehner's turn to respond.
I fully support the way Obama is going about immigration reform. It's very Zakarian in nature, as he's sacrificing democratic ideals to improve the nation when the system can't. Unfortunately, it's not quite as subtle as most of the points Zakaria makes to defend modifications to democracy, which exposes the President to lots of criticism. He's also made it very clear that he'll end these temporary acts when Congress comes to an agreement on the issue of immigration and passes a bill. He knew he would face criticism, but he's faced criticism from all sides when it comes to his lack of ability to get anything done. With this action, he's reinforcing his determination for improvement and making it clear that it's Congress's turn to act.
I find the idea that Obama's interpretation to uphold the Constitution is to protect the well being of the country pretty accurate. I also agree with your point that Obama has been treading on thin ice constitutionally, but it all has been consistent with his goals. And while his goals are very beneficial to the country, I fear the platform of taking executive action to force decisions on issues on the national political plate is a recipe for disaster in a democracy that is already facing serious problems. While Obama is making a strong call for the Republican congressional leaders to act, I feel this executive order has potential to simply further polarize the Republicans against the Democrats and give them reason to create a stronger gridlock and desperately attack any Democratic agendas.
DeleteAs mentioned above Obama's strict hand in immigration policy was an attempt at immigration reform out of "common sense and compassion" but also I also believe out of frustration and the desperation for congress to stop the gridlock and start producing some bi-partisan legislation. I agree with Chris that this is what the country needs, a firm hand in democracy to produce results. As far as overreaching executive authority I believe the public is reacting with shock because of this image of President Obama as a passive leader, and this sudden use of his bully pulpit, appealing to the hearts of the millions of immigrant families, is frightening to some. This is especially prominent when Mr. President stated, "To those members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: pass a bill". His assertiveness shook many to their core but clearly delivered his message. Hopefully, as Kennedy noted above, Zakarian reform will not provoke a stronger gridlock, but promote change and fluid legislation.
DeleteI agree that the nature of his selective enforcement is a bit obstructive of the law, but at the same time I feel that this use of executive power is not necessarily unconstitutional.
DeleteThe Constitution only says that he must "faithfully execute" the laws. One could argue that this would mean execute the laws to their full extent, and that Obama should target any illegal alien. After all this is clearly the most logical way to think about it.
But at the same time, by selectively enforcing the law, and targeting only the dangerous aliens, Obama is faithfully executing it by allocating resources where they are most needed. I doubt anyone would disagree that a carjacker from El Juarez is more important to deport than a mother of three from Oaxaca.
Overall, I have mixed feelings about selective enforcement, but I applaud Obama for taking action rather than sitting by and letting congress do nothing.
Good analysis by the way!
While I disagree with a few of your arguments, I believe in the importance in relating this issue to the ideals of Zakaria. His idea of solving our governmental problems is rooted in the paradox of making the democracy stronger by making it more “undemocratic”. The difficulty in executing his practices is that Americans have fought in the name of the democracy since the nation was born, and the idea of losing the balance of power or certain liberties is frightening. In addition, especially in an age where social media drives virtually all of our communication, popular discontent is magnified by what the media tells us. I would argue that a majority of the citizens who are concerned with this issue in particular would have absolutely no idea that the President could have abused his power in anyway, had reporters not told them to worry about the downfall of our government as we know it. President Obama’s immigration bill may be one of the first steps towards Zakaria’s ideal undemocratic democracy, but the Republican response will determine if it could be successful.
DeleteI agree with your claims. Obama's continued use of executive power to bypass Congressional inefficiency has instituted important policy that otherwise would not have been passed by a polarized and divided Congress. Immigration Reform has been amongst the major pressing issues of this country, yet little to nothing significant has been proposed or passed. This Executive Order is the boldest and most significant of the Obama administration, but it remains difficult to rule it unconstitutional. It will be interesting to see the Republican response, and the potential repercussions for the democrats
DeleteI have very mixed feelings on this issue as my morality collides with constitutionality. Morally I believe that President Obama's actions are just and necessary, especially at a time when Congress is more clogged with partisan stupidity than ever. However, even under these circumstances I do not believe that a President has the right to exercise unilateral action in such a sweeping way. Just because Congress can't come to a decision doesn't give the President to ride in on his white horse and make a decree. His statement "If you don't like this, pass a bill" is a glaring abuse of executive power and would make the Framers cringe. While I agree that we need swift immigration reform and I agree with the spirit of President Obama's actions, I believe that this manner of unilateral force violates the Constitution and is dangerous in setting the precedent for removal of separation of powers.
ReplyDeleteHowever, President Obama has taken action and so now the ball rests in the Republican's court. Republicans now control both houses of Congress so no further excuses can be made. Further inaction will only be met with more disillusionment and frustration from the American people and will only result in political capital for the Democrats and President Obama. Action is necessary, but it needs to be bipartisan action because President Obama still wields the power of the veto. Hopefully this action will result in the bipartisan immigration reform bill that President Obama has requested because Republicans need to commit to something as President Obama has shown he is willing to do. While I support President Obama's ideals in his action, I believe that his way of fighting for reform is flawed, and I hope that Congress will take this as a wake up call and secure immigration reform.
I thought you made an interesting point when you said "His statement "If you don't like this, pass a bill" is a glaring abuse of executive power and would make the Framers cringe." While I agree that the Framers would undoubtedly cringe, I believe that executive actions and increased presidential power is just a reality of our contemporary government. The Framers may never have intended for this particular distribution of power among the three branches but this is the type of presidential action that is needed for this kind of issue. In a situation like this where Congress refuses to vote on a bill that has passed the Senate, the President has to take such action or our country will still be plagued with major issues like failed immigration reform. I do agree with your point that the ball is now in the Republican's court as he openly challenged them to do something legislativly. With control of both houses, it is time for them to take action legislatively or their criticism of the immigration situation lacks all validity. The Republicans will face the political pressure if they continue their inaction.
DeleteWhile President Obama's action lends itself to a broad interpretation of the constitution, it is far from unprecedented and a dangerous removal of separation of powers. In addition your comment about the framers cringing if they heard the president demand for congress to pass a bill is irrelevant and misguided. First of all, the framers when creating the constitution did not plan for the circumstances of today where decisions need to be made quickly and efficiently. And secondly, I doubt the framers would cringe at Obama for asking congress to do their job that is outlined in the constitution that the framers wrote. Instead they would be more likely to cringe at the inability of congress to pass a bill on an issue that is very important to the nation.
DeleteI like most other commentors agree with the notion that Obama is right morally in his actions. However i don't see the same way as you as it pertains to the constitutionality of his actions. Firstly, the idea that the founders would not support his actions is largely irrelevant as the country and our government has changed vastly since the seventeen hundreds. Even so, I believe that the founders would be far more taken aback by the state of congress and its ineffectiveness(as you noted). I also believe that there is precedent for Obama's actions as many presidents including Bush have used executive orders in regards to immigration. I very much agree that the ball is now in the republicans court as the are mostly(the presidency) out of excuses. The republicans actions will have huge ramifications for the illegal immigrants as well as the 2016 election.
DeleteI don't believe Obama is acting unconstitutionally; however, I do believe he is greatly stretching, but not over-stretching his presidential power. He is not refusing to enforce legislation as he still plans to continue deportations of illegal immigrants and improve border security, he is just approaching the daunting task with a logical and organized approach. As he said, it is impossible for every single illegal immigrant to be deported, so why not extend the values of our country to the majority of immigrants that are going to stay for the foreseeable future. Not only is he improving the morals of the deportation system, he is improving the functionality of it by providing deferrals to productive workers who can contribute to a national economy that is not producing widespread satisfaction right now. By granting the type of people we want as legal immigrants working permits, they can contribute to American society and not be a burden to it while all the while not cutting down on the number of deportations taking place. I think it is important to note that Obama is not welcoming illegal immigrants into our country, he is increasing border security and is only granting potential deferrals to people who have assimilated to American culture and who are practically American albeit not legally.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I would have liked to see Obama provide a path to citizenship that. But that would have been completely overstepping his Constitutional authority and I think had he released an executive order any more extreme he would clearly be acting outside of the Constitution as well as creating an even more polarized reaction from Republicans. I think Obama's legitimacy can be questioned through this action but I find any suggestions of impeachment or a very extreme deportation law ridiculous when he was acting with such a great moral conscious. I am in full support of Obama's actions, but I recognize the danger by setting a precedent for presidential executive orders that could very well backfire on this very issue in the future as well as grant a possible future Republican president ammunition to issue a spiteful executive order towards the democrats.
I believe the Republican response should be to take action on the immigration issue through a bi-partisan legislature so their outrage of Obama's policies can be dismissed.
I completely agree Kennedy, well said. I especially like your point about them being able to contribute to the economy and not be a burden on it. I think this is important because some of people's main complaints about immigrants are that they take our jobs and don't pay taxes. And with Obama's plan both those issues would be addressed, though maybe not completely solved. If they had work permits and didn't have to "hide in the shadows" they couldn't be exploited by employers for cheap labor, which would mean they'd be on a more equal playing field with american citizens when competing for jobs. And with his plan, immigrants who qualify to not be deported would have to pay taxes.
DeleteI also liked your point about impeachment and extreme deportation laws being ridiculous. I think impeachment would be incredibly harsh, because other presidents have done similar things so in a way they set the precedent. And an extreme immigration law would reflect pretty poorly on the republicans I would think, as it could be seen as purely to get back at Obama. So I think to maintain their image they really have no choice but to pass bi-partisan legislation as you said.
I definitely agree with you about the moral righteousness of this executive order. Especially because America was built by immigrants and they played such a vital role in our nation's history. There is no reason for us to deport an illegal immigrant who has been working hard and contributing to our nation's economy, and who has embraced our nation's culture. It is not fair for them, they should all be given a chance to "come out of the shadows" and not be afraid of deportation, being separated from family, and losing all their hard earned money. In regards to your comment about setting a dangerous precedent for future presidents, I believe that he is not setting it, it has already been set by previous presidents like Reagan and Bush. People may say that this is different because it affects many more people but according the the New York Times Article, "Obama’s Immigration Action Has Precedents, but May Set a New One," Obama's actions are not that different from Reagan's and Bush's executive orders that dealt with immigration reform.
DeleteAlthough the actions Obama is taking are extremely controversial and have a large amount of opposition from both parties, he is acting within his constitutional rights. I think we can all agree that what Obama wants to accomplish is morally right as President. Obama did start by saying that the “immigration system is broken” and he is working to fix it. This issue of whether what he is doing is constitutional or not would not need to be debated if the already compromised bi-partisan bill would have passed in the first place. What Obama has done in response to the bill not being passed is make a temporary executive order which has been done by Clinton, Bush, and Reagan. The order is not permanent and he has stayed within his constitutional power because he rightfully left Congress the decision and power of giving illegal immigrants the same rights as citizens or not. Also the order will not apply to people planning to cross the border in the future, so it is only going to apply to those who have lived here for the past 5 years. Because the House is being unresponsive, it is Obama’s job to go forward and take action. If these means that he needs to stretch his power as the President even further than so be it, presidents have been taking actions much like Obama’s for the last 50 years. He isn’t giving anyone a “free pass”, he is simply doing what he was elected to do, his job of fixing what is broken.
ReplyDeleteTo add I would like to say that it is obvious that deporting all 3.7 million immigrants is completely out of the question. To do this would be to go against the attitude of the United States and would be deporting hardworking people and families that are an important part of today's society. The immigrants that this order applies to would have to pay a fine and pay taxes so they will end up being a part of the responsibilities as well as the rewards. Obama is stretching his power in doing this, but not to the point where he should be considered to be impeached. Again this is temporary and hopefully something will soon be passed with more agreement form both parties.
DeleteI agree with you Joanna, but I also believe that he is overstepping his constitutional boundary. That being said, I think his actions were justified and he had no other choice if he wanted changes in the immigration system to be made. With respect to the Constitution, this executive order pushes his limitations, but as you said, he is not the only president to do so. Overstepping the executive power was not only done by Clinton, Reagan, and Bush, but by presidents much earlier on such as Lincoln, Jefferson, and Jackson. Obama, as you stated, is doing his job and is trying to fulfill his promise of improving the immigrations system. With the uncooperative Congress, I believe he is doing the best he can in achieving his goal.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Deletewhat kind of a coward deletes his own comment?? weak
DeleteAs Mr. Obama points out in his speech, the history of the United States is the story of immigrants from all corners of the globe. These people have always brought our nation new cultural influences and strengthened the economy; and today is no different. It is pointless to argue that the predominantly Latin American immigrants who arrive in our nation today have not been beneficial to the economy. In California especially, we know first hand that hardworking immigrants generally fill up the most menial but necessary jobs, such as picking fruits and vegetables in the state's vast farming regions, jobs that many Americans simply don't want to do or refuse to do for as little money as employers are willing to pay. Without immigrants its likely that a number of menial but necessary jobs would simply not get done. The more compelling argument against the current strings of illegal immigration is that many of the immigrants come simply to reap the benefits of living in America without bearing the responsibilities such as paying taxes. This is where Obama's plan comes in. Obama's plan does not intend to protect these people in the slightest. An illegal immigrant can only qualify for the application under the new plan "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." Not only is does this set of criteria distinguish hard-working, determined illegals from those who seek to live off welfare, donations, or crime, it does not guarantee access to citizenship, it merely removes the fear of deportation until Congress passes a more comprehensive, bi-partisan bill. In contrast to what various republicans may have argued, the plan will not cause further immigration into the country because the plan only applies to residents of more than five years, while those more recent immigrants and future immigrants are subject to existing immigration laws. The issue of the Constitutionality of such an executive order is another hotly contested one, as opponents of the strategy cite that no legislation by Congress gives the president the authority to do what he plans to do. While this may or may not be true, the president has another duty, outlined by the Preamble of the Constitution: as the nation's executive, it his his job to ensure the general welfare of the "We the People of the United States," not the "citizens of the United States." As Obama points out in his speech, many of these illegal immigrants who would be protected by his executive order are as American as the rest of the country, with a drive to succeed and benefit the rest of the country, and have a right to live without the fear of deportation. Congress's failure to take action whether in support of or against immigrants has left only the President to step in where they have not. If anyone disagrees with the President's decision, by all means they should take the issue to court (provided there is case in controversy). Ideally, this trial never happens because the President's plan is only meant to be a temporary solution to a problem that should later be solved when the Congress decides to finally vote on a comprehensive immigration bill. Ever since the President issued his statement, further delay on such a bill (which has already gone on for too long) should only be seen as happening in spite of this plan.
ReplyDeleteYou mention the anti-immigration argument "many of the immigrants come simply to reap the benefits of living in America without bearing the responsibilities such as paying taxes." I agree with your counter-argument and would like to build on it. Most illegal immigrants who come here only receive the benefit of work, and no other part of the American system. Anti-immigration supporters claim that then immigrants are stealing American jobs, but in fact they are fueling growth because immigrants are likely to spend all of the money they make and put it back into the economy. For fear of being deported illegal immigrants won't go to hospitals, call the police, or - as many conservatives fear - take part in the welfare system. When President Obama says that illegal immigrants who aren't criminals and are willing to pay taxes "can come out of the shadows," he is actually allowing them to enjoy the full benefits of living in America, but on the sole condition that they pay taxes. The President is allowing the immigrants to improve both their lives and American society through integration.
DeleteThough I see why many people oppose the way Obama went about with this reform, I believe that it was completely necessary, and he therefore did the right thing by issuing this order. Opponents cite his actions as being unconstitutional, extreme and even dangerous, but I disagree.
ReplyDeleteThey are not unconstitutional, as he did not refuse to enforce their law, he is merely scaling it down to a reasonable size, since it is clearly not possible to deport all illegal immigrants. Obama even took special care not to overstep his power, by not granting citizenship and by not applying his order to recent or future immigrants.
His actions are also definitely not extreme, since immigration is a very large issue currently, and reform should not be postponed any longer. With Congress in gridlock it was unlikely that any concrete reform would have been possible without Obama’s bold actions.
The third opinion, that this order could set a precedent for future Republican Presidents to “defy” Congress in similar ways thereby starting a dangerous cycle, would mean a complete disintegration of our country’s government. While I see how this could come about, I don’t belive our country’s citizens would allow such a polarized, uncompromising and unreasonable government to continue such a cycle for very long. In addition, I would hope that the Supreme Court would get a chance to step in if the cycle got out of hand.
I believe that Obama is not doing anything rash and permanent, he is merely taking action until Congress is able to take action themselves by passing bipartisan legislation.
I agree with you, Dana, that Obama made the right choice with his use of the executive order to pass his immigration reform. With Congress in gridlock, his hands were tied and this policy was the best option. By making this action temporary, as you pointed out, Obama has shown that he is willing to further compromise and work with Congress on this issue.
DeleteHowever, I think this setting of precedent may be more dangerous than you think.
I also agree with you Dana. President Obama’s actions are necessary under the current government stalemate between the Republicans and the Democrats. President Obama is inviting Congress to get into the debate on this issue and “pass a bill.” Instead, Congress, under Republican control, seems to be content to wait things out and then try to use that against the President and the Democrats during the election campaigns.
DeleteThe method in which Obama brought about immigration reform, by executive order, is certainly bold, but for political, not policy, reasons.
ReplyDeleteThe actual policy and legal basis of the executive action is both reserved and reasonable. No illegal immigrants are going to be given citizenship, and there are measures in place - such as heightened border security and no protection for new immigrants - to discourage and prevent new illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants that damage the American system will face tougher law enforcement. Families, on the other hand, will not be torn apart and will be able to engage in and contribute to, rather than abuse, the American system. President Obama's executive action is also temporary and clearly intended to push Congress to passing reform. President Obama's justification for his executive action, prosecutorial discretion, is valid, as Congress is not and will not provide him the funds to deport twelve million immigrants.
Politically, the executive action has infuriated the incoming conservative Congress and set a confrontational tone. However, if conservatives pass a mass-deportation bill, or even fail to pass a comprehensive, long-term immigration reform bill, it would be political suicide with latinos, potentially handing the 2016 presidential election to the Democrats. They are now confronted with a challenge: to reconcile the pro-immigration reform center-right with the radical anti-immigrant tea party. President Obama has challenged them to "pass a bill."
Currently, Congress (conservative) and the President (liberals) will have a high-stakes battle over public opinion, the political aspect of the executive action. If conservatives win, the executive action will be a launching point for a tea party resurgence in 2016. On the other hand, liberals could strengthen their standing among latinos and dispel much of the fear and paranoia that revolves around illegal immigration, giving them an opportunity to make the issue a centerpiece of their 2016 ambitions.
Outside of politics, the president makes a strong moral argument in favor of his executive action. Immigrants defined the American experience, and immigrants who are willing to become American and engage and contribute to American society should have the ability.
The president's executive action is legal and moral, but politically inflammatory.
I forgot to talk about the future. President Obama's executive action does have potential ramifications in the future, when a different president could use their expanded executive authority to hinder, rather than further, immigration reform.
DeleteI agree that Obama's move is both politically bold and also savvy. While he is under fire right now, he has effectively put the ball in Congress's court, and public scrutiny will eventually move to them. They can either do nothing and be called a "do-nothing Congress," they can try to impeach the President or stop his action and be called partisan or obstructionist, or produce a compromise bill. Either of the first two options will hurt them come 2016 with Latino voters and the majority of Americans who, as the President said, support reform. If they compromise, it will probably fuel the tea party in 2016 but also help Republicans win moderate votes.
DeletePresident Obama definitely took bold action yet it was constitutional, despite how controversial it will be. Legally, the President is in the right to issue the executive action, as he was faced with a pressing issue while congress has been stagnant and refusing to cooperate. As long as the senate bill sits in the House, the President is within his authority to issue executive actions to handle the immigration issue. I do not believe the President went too far, as I believe he got it just right. He outlined a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and made it clear that any criminals would be deported. The President also made it clear that violators would have to pay a fine, pay previous taxes, and get in the back of the line to become a citizen, which I found very progressive and reasonable. He also ruled out deportation for all illegal immigrants, as that is unreasonable and nearly impossible. He also made a convincing case that this move is beneficial for our economy and for our national identity. Mr. Obama described his decision as a "middle way" and it is just that. In a tough political position, the President addressed major problems at the border and with illegal immigrants yet did not do anything too radical to incite serious and legitimate calls for impeachment. Anyone calling for impeachment lacks any real basis as the President is taking action only in the absence of congress to confront pressing issues. The President also importantly ceded that any legislation passed by congress on the topic would override his current executive action, which I see as a vital concession and clarification and why I believe that this move was bold yet did not go too far. While this is a challenge towards congress, he offers the legislators a chance to pass a law if they are unhappy with his decision. I believe that the Republican response should be to pass legislation and to compromise, as the issue will be decided without them if they do not. While I believe that this was the right move politically, legally, and morally, I do believe that this executive action does set a dangerous precedent for the future. President Obama's executive action is a sweeping move that creates legislation and enforces it. While the power of the executive has been expanding for two centuries and executive actions have become more and more common, this is a large jump in presidential power and sets a standard that could radically affect the relationship between the legislature and the executive.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the President's action was moral and exactly what our country needs as it is faced with a dangerous period of inaction, but I disagree that the plan's implementation is constitutional and/or politically correct. The President did a masterful job of navigating the political waters in creating a plan that is the "middle way" and deals with the issue without overstepping his bounds too much, yet I still hold that executive action to cover up Congress's inaction is strictly unconstitutional. It may be what we need in today's society and political environment, but then we need to talk about amending the rules because if we are going to follow the Constitution then President Obama's action is unlawful.
DeleteMatt I agree with you that Obama simply did what was within his power to break the legislative stalemate Congress has caused. He hasn't overpowered Congress in any way; he is, in fact, asking them to pass some sort of legislation on this issue. He is simply providing the catalyst for their inaction, and until Congress establishes that they can cooperate, actions need to be taken to fix a broken system.
DeleteSo, here I stand at the end of another fantastic display of charismatic excellence, and yet I know not how to feel. On one hand I applaud Obama's use of executive power to take action when others will not (after all that is what some of us agreed defines a leader during our fishbowl). But on the other hand, I'm not sure if this will be yet another rallying speech full of passionate rhetoric about an issue, only for the goals that he established not to be met, either due to shortcomings from congress or himself.
ReplyDeleteHis "deal" with the current illegals is very interesting to me. Why five years? What kind of taxes will the immigrants have to pay up on? If they don't pass the background check, what will happen to them?
These are just a few questions that popped into my mind as I was watching. I would need the answers to these before I could give full support to this initiative, but so far I like the direction he's taking us in.
Additionally, on the constitutionality of this action, I am not sure if it is necessarily unconstitutional for him to take these steps. As I commented on Chris's post, it could be debated as to whether or not he is actually ececuting these laws faithfully. Personally I don't have a problem with it, but I know some people would.
TLDR: Obama is a cool guy. #broadconstructionism
I think Miles brings to light a few interesting questions about the vagueness of exactly what Obama's executive order will carry out. Although Obama clearly stated and broadly explained each of the three steps that will betaken, I think it will be necessary for a more detailed understanding of the order to be made clear. Until illegal immigrants are sure that they meet all the necessary qualifications and fully understand what the order entails they will not "step out of the shadows".
DeleteMiles, you pose some great questions that I admit I did not think about before and after watching the video, and I'm glad that you have raised them. It will be very interesting to see how these will be answered and how the Republicans, and the nation as a whole, responds to the answers. And I feel the same way as you where you don't "personally" have a problem with the actions Obama has taken. That being said, I would imagine that if Obama had taken some sort of action that I did not agree with, then I probably would have more of a problem with it and maybe you would too.
DeleteI think its good to keep in mind, like you have, that he must actually follow through with what he says before he can really be tried as breaking the law. It is also entirely possible that some aspects of his plan will change between now and implementation.
DeleteI believe President Obama's decision to pass an immigration bill by exercising his executive order power threatened the balance of powers, however it did not breach the constitution. It also raises a larger question about whether it will either hurt or help the nation. Obama cites the use of this power being implicated prior to his term, but that does not necessarily justify it. His actions endanger the establishment of the balance of powers instituted in our political system. By imposing his own bill, he sets a precedent for presidents to come, offering them an opportunity to bypass Congress and evaluate critical issues on their own terms. Especially in a time with strong tension between political parties, his actions could possibly provoke the Republicans, with a majority in both houses now, to only increase their opposition to the President. This gridlock in itself may also validate the President’s actions, as the usurp of the Republican majority in both Houses is likely to make an immigration bill proposed by the President even more difficult to pass. In his speech, President Obama challenges Congress to respond to his decision by passing its own bill. I do not believe that the President should be impeached for his actions, and another bill proposal could rebuild the relationship between the executive and legislative branch, allowing our government to run in a cohesive manner. On the other hand, the President’s bold actions have the chance to enhance the immigration issue that confronts the nation. President Obama is careful not to step on the toes of Congress when he identifies their power to confirm the citizenship of immigrants, but I agree with various of his temporary solutions. He is correct to argue the inefficiency of trying to deport every immigrant that currently resides in our nation, and I support his decision to prioritize the deportation of criminals. It offers a fair solution and I believe it would be morally wrong to uproot families and send them back to their native country, jobless and homeless.
ReplyDeleteCaroline makes a good point that the reasoning behind Obama's actions is because of the gridlock between the legislative and executive branches. With opposing parties, it is challenging to pass efficient bills. I can see why Obama chose to exercise his power and create a bill himself. This way he can achieve his goal with immigration without the distraction of Congress
DeleteCaroline, I agree with your point that this bold action taken by President Obama could result in adverse actions by the now Republican controlled Congress, causing further gridlock. However, I do believe that his actions were justified for this very reason. Because, with he Midterm Elections that just recently occurred, the Republicans gained a majority, there is little chance the gridlock situation that previously existed would be resolved. Therefore, he had to take action to ensure that this pressing issue would be solved, or at least steps were taken to find a solution. A further strained relationship between the executive and legislative branch is a gamble he needs to be willing to take because that relationship is not getting better and sitting around, waiting for the political environment to improve is just wasted time. Actions must be taken, whether or not Congress is willing to take this actions or not. Is President Obama's solution perfect? No. But is it a step in the right direction? Of course.
DeletePresident Obama's executive order to reform immigration challenges the lawmaking ability of Congress. Instead of going through the process of trying to create a bill that will never approved by the Republican houses, President Obama constitutionally, practices his president power to confront the issue.
ReplyDeleteHowever, President Obama's solution to the current immigration is unique. Offering them to be a part of the United States if they are willing to hold their share of taxes and wait to be "admitted" into the United States. As mentioned, President Obama has ordered to increase border technology to regulate the flow of immigrants in and out of the United States and compromise with the millions of undocumented immigrants within the country. This "deal" requires the immigrants to hold residence within the United States for more than 5 years, be able to pass the criminal background check and paying taxes. The goal is to stray away from the idea of deportation. President Obama finds it to be unreasonable as well as nearly impossible, and I would agree.
This conduction of his executive order blurs the line of the power of the president. President Obama challenges the strong Republican houses to pass a bill to reform the immigration issue. Some may say that the president's actions are unconstitutional, however Obama maintains the power to give an executive order. I am curious to find out the outcome of this controversy between the legislative and executive branch. I look forward to Congress' response to President Obama's action.
Just adding on to your point about deportation Ian, Mr Obama's strategy is a good compromise measure. In his speech he points out how the plan is fair, in that mass amnesty to immigrants is not being granted, and the plan sustains our American culture of embracing immigrants, by only deporting illegal criminals within the country.
DeleteI truly believe that the president does indeed have the power to create this bill because illegal immigrants and the deportation of them has been an issue for many years in America. Obama took just the right amount of action In my opinion for the time being, obviously there are some things that could be changed or added but he came up with a pretty effective way to help the issue. This bill will help keep many families together and by doing this it shows the president is still a human being with compassion and a sense of what is morally right. The president did not outstep his constitutional power because he is trying to keep Americans safe which really Is the main power of the president. He must execute the laws faithfully and while its a fine line between who should be deported, it is important to recognize that he is trying to help not only Americans but other humans in general.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the speech, I would say it’s safe to assume that Obama’s decision to act unilaterally, like he did, was bold choice. A choice that could potentially turn out very well for him and the democratic party as a whole, it all depends on the actions that republicans take from here on out in response to his executive order. However, the Republican party would be taking a risk if they respond to this action to critically As was talked about in the post speech discussion. Essentially, with the action Obama took he is “(punching) the Republicans in the face, hoping they do something stupid like shut down the government…” in response. On the matter of the constitutionality of Obama’s actions I think I stand in the same position that many of you, my classmates, stand. Morally I agree with Obama’s actions and think the plan he has laid out is a good one, however, it seems a little sketchy on the constitutionality side. During his speech Obama didn’t really make many points to why the actions he is taking are constitutional other than saying that presidents in the past have taken similar actions. His main argument was playing on the morality of the issue and this is clear from all the questions he posed to us as Americans such as when he said “are we a nation that accepts the cruelty of ripping children from their parent’s arms?” It was like he was giving us an ultimatum on what type of nation we wanted to be when it came to immigration and in my opinion, the actions, or lack of actions, that we take or do not take, don't have to be quite as black and white as Obama tried to make it seem.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a very interesting speech because he seems to try to cover possible rebuttals by increasing border protection and emphasizing that he will deport criminals and those who don't follow the law. The first portion of his plan is to increase protection at the border, which is really more of a Republican strategy. The Democrats have been saying this is needed, but less so than Republicans. The second thing he talks about is letting skilled or educated workers stay in the country. This is a popular idea and makes a lot of sense, considering one of the main points of encouraging immigration is to gain new talent, who will build companies and industries in the US. The third portion talks about "dealing responsibly with the millions of undocumented immigrants who already live in this country." He deals with this point very carefully, saying those who broke immigration must be "held accountable", but he says that those who are criminals will be pursued and deported instead of law abiding immigrants. He continues saying that deporting millions is unrealistic, and we cannot do so, so shouldn't try to. He talks about how they are members of our communities. So he gives a deal, with guidelines, to allow some of those people to stay in the country. I think this is a good idea, because Congress obviously isn't getting anything done, so it is up to him as President to do the best he can to help those who are contributing to our society and our economy.
ReplyDeleteSean, I agree with Obama's decision regarding content, however, what do you think it could mean regarding our governmental system? Just because Congress is gridlock does the president have the right to take control? The relationships and actions within Congress definitely need to be changed, but does that mean Obama can violate our system of checks and balances, putting the decision of an issue that is very controversial across the country in the hands of one man? Personally, I agree with Obama's words, but do not agree with his excessive use of executive order. What is your opinion on the matter?
DeleteOverall I thought that Obama's speech was good and I thought that it implemented all of the factors necessary to enforce such an order on immigration. I like the fact that it has a balance to it because it allows immigraints with a clean back round to remain in the country while enforcing a stronger border control in a cohesive manner. Obama mentioned how deportation is "not realistic", I would argue on that because it has been done previously and if it were to be carried out, it would require more taxation on US citizens and much more government spending. I like how Obama compares "amnesty" and "accountability". He describe our current hold on immigration as "amnesty" because we are doing a poor job on maintaining our borders, providing support for families and focusing on deportation. "Accountability" suggests that we would deport anyone with a criminal back round or anyone that has been in the country for less than 5 years, thus benefiting both the immigraints and the US. I would classify President Obama's action as a 'bold move' because he is doing this without the consent of the legislature and that it can be viewed as unconstitutional to certain groups. But on the other hand, this sort of thing as been executed previously with Reagan and Lincoln with the suspension of Habeous Corpus. This shows how an executive order may be necessary given the conditions, in this case the public opinion and the republican majority of congress. I would support a bi-partisan decision by congress, to strengthen this executive order due to the reasons mentioned previously. But I think that the republican response to this would be a bill supporting the deportation of immigraints. Overall, I think that this executive order was necessary because it removes the US focus away from the issue of immigration and spending on deportation, but drives the focus towards more significant issues such as foreign policiy.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your comment on deportation being possible through more taxation and government spending, I believe that it is completely unrealistic to deport 12 million individuals and when did has the United States ever deported 12 million people within a reasonable time frame? However, your points towards how these types of Executive Orders are nothing new are pretty spot on. Good mention of Reagan specifically. His decision to expand the bill Congress signed granting 3 million undocumented immigrants legal status by around a 100,000 people is very similar to Obama's decision now, other than the massive number difference. However, the constitutionality/legality should not be seen as different just based on the amount of people the legal status is given to.
DeleteIt is made clear in the speech that by applying his executive abilities in order to create the bill in an almost unilateral fashion, Obama’s actions surrounding the immigration issue were certainly forward enough to be considered bold.
ReplyDeleteIn creating this bill, Obama is reinforcing his already strong executive powers. However, he is also making it clear to people everywhere that his first priority is to keep fellow human beings, not just specific Americans or citizens, both legally and physically safe. By offering citizenship to immigrants on the terms that they become involved in American programs, such as paying taxes, but protecting them with the rest of the bill, the president is following his constitutional duty outlined by the Take Care clause in Article 2 Section 3, or is “faithfully executing his powers.” Obama outlines his moral duties, which he states that he shares with his fellow American citizens, when he asked the series of questions in his speech, “Are we a nation that tolerates the hypocrisy of a system where workers who pick our fruit and make our beds never have a chance to get right with the law? Or are we a nation that gives them a chance to make amends, take responsibility, and give their kids a better future? Are we a nation that accepts the cruelty of ripping children from their parents' arms? Or are we a nation that values families, and works to keep them together?”
Obama made it clear that the arguments surrounding the constitutionality of his bill are in reality part of a much larger moral debate; however, he still very clearly and sternly defined the terms of the bill meant to keep undocumented immigration permanently illegal. In this he said that the bill “does not apply to anyone who might come to America illegally in the future. It does not grant citizenship, or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive — only Congress can do that,” which could easily be interpreted as his asking Congress, and the Republican party itself, not to close down in such a crucial time. He attributed his surge of executive powers to overall congressional inactivity by saying that he has “the legal authority to take as president — the same kinds of actions taken by Democratic and Republican presidents before me — that will help make our immigration system more fair and more just.” Obama’s words reflect that he is taking instant action to prevent the daily immoralities practiced by the system from ripping alien families apart by playing into the moral debate surrounding immigration.
Anna, I agree with your statements that Obama is taking positive action with hopes to reform our current immigration policy without granting immunity to all undocumented immigrants. The opposition that Obama faces with Congress puts him in a very difficult position to work with them effectively so choosing to act independently of them was a very bold, yet, in my eyes, necessary action if he wants to make a reform. Great note regarding the Take Care clause from Article 2! I too believe that the president is acting within his jurisdiction and that although he may be stretching his powers in some ways, I do not think he is overextending his powers into the realm of unconstitutionality. His actions may be questioned by many, but he is acting with hopes to implement a productive policy.
DeleteI don't think that I could comfortably agree with the actions that President Obama has announced in this speech. For me the issue isn't whether or not there should be a road of citizenship and an olive branch to illegal immigrants. My mom was an immigrant and the path that led to her citizenship was lengthy and often meant that she couldn't spend time with my brother and I. The way I see immigration as a problem in America is that the process of becoming a citizen the "right way" (as Obama described it) is unrealistically hard and full of obstacles. That's the immigration problem I'd like to see my country fix, even though given the way partisan politics rules Washington I doubt it'd ever get done in a comprehensive way without changing something fundamental with how our government is currently functioning. Obama is saying that we shouldn't punish families and good people that had to come into America illegally. I can understand the motivation that might lead someone to thinking that coming in to this country illegally is worth it, especially with how messed up our immigration system currently is. However, Obama is making America something of a safe haven for people so at least they don't have to worry about getting deported, but the fact still remains that the immigration into the United States is really, really hard. It's my belief that we need a more comprehensive reform that will bring about change rather than this action. To me, this seems like the metaphorical equivalent to putting a small bandage over an amputated limb: not sufficient to deal with the crisis at hand. I don't think debating the constitutionality and lawfulness of this thing is really productive because that too doesn't really contribute to anything more meaningful in my opinion. Overall, I'm pretty dissatisfied with this whole deal and this announcement by President Obama is just another instance of party politics over-running the need of the government to actually address the problems within America.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you're saying Katrina, about how this bill does not completely solve the issues immigrants face. We do have to realize this is a small step, one that needs to be continuously looked over and changed , but it is a good start in my opinion. Clearly there is more work to be done, but just this bill alone will stop the deportation and separation of thousands of families, which is a great accomplishment. I would like to think that more and more bills will be passed to finish the real issue of immigration in America but until then this bill can still help.
DeleteKatrina, I think you are entirely correct in this opinion. I have heard friends describe the efforts their parents took to become citizens and it sounds grueling. Your mother was lucky too, because she had the resources needed to become a citizen. Many people aren't lucky enough to have access to such resources weather it be money, or time or anything else needed. I agree that the current way to citizenship needs to be reworked and simplified.
DeleteI agree with Katrina's statement that currently immigration is too difficult and that legislation should be passed to improve on this situation, However, I think that the actions taken by President Obama were directed at illegal immigrants, which can be seen as a different issue that immigration reform. Even if their was immigration reform, it will have little effect on current illegal immigrants, and without specific actions to address the issue of illegal immigrants, as President Obama has done, their will be little change to their circumstances. I feel that the actions undertaken are going to be effective and that fact that it was an executive action and not legislative only diminishes its power in that they president will eventually leave office, although Congress can change laws and policies, but not as easily.
DeleteIn response to Fiona, to be perfectly frank you're right. The fact that my mother was married to an American-born citizen (although their marriage status was a little more complicated than that) and that she had financial and other resources readily available to her certainly helped her through the process. And this is where, Christian I also address you, I think that the change should happen: modernize the process of becoming an American system. I think a reform like that would also address any concerns about current illegal immigrants already in our borders. I totally agree that it is a problem that needs to be addressed and should promptly be addressed, but I just feel like the executive action taken here is kind of a half-baked small solution for a much larger problem. And if this solution is going to cause so much controversy and conflict (no doubt that there will be another move for impeachment) it begs the question of is it really worth it? Time being spent arguing for the right to certain powers may very well be wasted now instead of being more usefully spent on coming up with a lasting and more far reaching solution.
DeleteAfter watching the speech and reading the articles, President Obama has taken a huge positive step in forwarding immigration reform in the United States. Under the executive order, only illegal immigrants who have lived in America at least 5 years, have children who are citizens, or that register after passing a criminal background check and are willing to pay taxes, will qualify to live in America without the risk of deportation. With this, it will ensure that America is not tearing apart families, nor deporting hard working immigrants who have contributed to the nation’s economy and who are not criminals. Many people think that this will only increase the flow of immigrants in the future. But that is incorrect because not only do these qualification not apply to recent and/or future illegal immigrants, but Obama has also declared to further increase border patrol to ensure that less and less immigrants cross the border illegally.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the questions about the constitutionality of the executive order and if it was “too much”, the executive order managed to stretch his executive power as far as possible while not overstepping into unconstitutionality. Obama was able to stay within his powers by not giving citizenship to any illegal immigrants, only protecting them from deportation. Additionally as commander in chief he has “prosecutorial discretion” to decide when to deport illegal immigrants, which leads to his ability to prioritize deportations to criminals first.
In regards to the Republican congress’ response, President Obama has made it extremely difficult for them to continue to ignore the issue of immigration. Republicans can not simply pass a bill to tear apart this executive order without committing political suicide and ruining their chances in the 2016 elections by losing the support of many. Because of this, congress only has one option, to listen to President Obama’s one message to congress; to “pass a bill.” If congress is not happy with this executive order, which they are not, they will have to pass a bi-partisan bill that will take the place of the executive order; which is all Obama wanted in the first place. And the bill cannot simply deport all 12 million immigrants because of two main issues that Obama addresses. First, our government does not have the money or the power to track, capture, and deport 12 million undocumented people living in America. Second, these illegal immigrants play a vital role in our economy, whether it is taking up low paying jobs that need to be done, or by attending college and bringing new ideas to American business.
As to the issue of setting a dangerous precedent, Obama has not done anything that a previous President has not. Both Reagan and Bush have made similar presidential actions in the realm of immigration reform in the past.
Totally agree dude. Great post!
DeleteHi Michael. I agree that Obama made it difficult for Congress to ignore the immigration issue. He states that Congress has failed to make changes in the immigration policy and urges congress to "pass a bill". Michael points out that destroying Obama's executive order would ruin Congress's chances in the 2016 elections. In this respect, Obama was in a way blackmailing Congress. His executive order forces Congress to take action fast or accept his policy. Of course this is a huge risk for Obama because Congress is Republican majority. The bipartisan bill they eventually pass will most likely override aspects of Obamas order and also this bold action may be grounds for impeachment. Obama puts the need of the American citizens before his own by getting the ball rolling for immigration reform.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI think that this speech, and the immigration issue, can be broken down into three sections: the policy itself, the constitutional legality of the action, and the politics of it.
ReplyDeleteOn the policy side, I wholeheartedly support the President's actions. This will merely scratch the surface of the immense problems we have with our immigration system, but the scope of actions he can take are obviously limited. It is great that hardworking people who have lived in America for years and have contributed to our economy will be able to legally stay, pay into the system and be able to fully participate in our society. It is also great that families will not be torn apart, which, in addition to being an unnecessary cruelty, puts a burden on our child-welfare system.
Second comes the issue of constitutionality. In all honesty, true constitutionality went out the window over a hundred years ago. An argument that by changing how he executes our standing immigration laws, the President is failing to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" as Article 2 Section 3 states is legitimate but won't hold water. I don't know the nuances of the President's action or of our standing immigration laws, but Eric Holder and the Justice Department have spent a vast amount of time studying these laws to ensure that the President's action only did what it could legally do. It made sense that the President continually referred to the actions of Bush and Reagan, but there is a key distinction. In those cases, the presidents were responding to Congressional action and in some way following through on a bill. In this case President Obama is responding to Congressional inaction. That said, I don't think that this action will really allow further presidents to overstep their power, as some have asserted, but we'll see.
Lastly comes the issue of politics. I agree with Jeremy that this move was not so much bold in policy or legality, but it was bold politically. I think that both this and his net-neutrality proposal are efforts to energize the liberal support base for the next two years and for 2016. He was holding back prior to the midterms, but does not have to any more. I think that he has recognized what the Democrats failed to do in this election and is now trying to do it retroactively. Because Obama has now been through the last election that will affect his presidency, he is now more uninhibited than he ever has been, at least in terms of his executive powers (for legislation, he's at his weakest now). The biggest political implication of this is that it will color the environment of Washington for the next two years. Unfortunately it will make compromise even less likely, because policy-makers aren't able to separate issues as the President suggested. Thus, he has probably burned any remaining bridges with the Republicans. Again, it's not like there was much hope there anyway. This move will probably prove politically beneficial to the Democrats come 2016, but unlike many Republicans seem to assert, that doesn't make the President's action cynical, selfish, or bad in any way.
I think that when Obama crafted this executive order, he did so predicting that the Republican Congress would at no point in the next two years provide him with an agreeable immigration bill. If Congress has any self-respect or desire to govern well, than they should prove him wrong, and take his advice: pass a bill.
Just as an aside, I think the President's speech was great (characteristically) but that this time he did an especially good job with framing his argument. I was impressed by the way that he employed conservative terminology and obsessions like family values and border security to support his own argument, but I don't think that it will change anyone's mind.
Seeing as Congress is in gridlock, the President didn’t have many options when it came to immigration reform. Although Obama mentioned many times that this is a bipartisan effort, the bill only passed in the Democratic Senate and not the Republican House. Executive Action was one of his only choices. I commend him for being a leader and taking action when our legislative branch stalled. I believe his final decision to use his executive authority was a good compromise, seeing as he is willing to revise his order as soon as both houses of Congress are willing to pass a bipartisan bill. However, I do think that this setting of precedent that many analysts have mentioned could prove to be a problem with future presidents.
ReplyDeleteFor the content itself, I support Obama’s ideas. In addition to boosting the economy, I think that undocumented immigrants who are not felons should have the opportunity to obtain citizenship if they are clearly thriving in America and working hard for a better life. It’s not practical to deport all illegal immigrants, and it makes sense to prioritize which of the immigrants should be deported first. Although many argue that this seems unjust, the fragmenting of families is simply too painful and this executive order provides a good, temporary solution.
I agree with you that Obama didn't have any other choice if he wanted to get something done. It's a very frustrating situation because, had the government been working as it was supposed to, a bill regarding immigration could have been passed, amended, or even rejected and at least some progress would be made toward figuring out what the leaders that we have elected want for the country. Yet when any legislation is constantly being blocked from going through the democratic process, and nothing is being done, someone must step in, and take action. Regrettably, the order that Obama gave does stretch his power a bit (though I still believe that it is constitutional), and will give future executives another power that I'm not sure I want them to have. Our only hope is that Congress can somehow find some type of balance so that these desperate actions don't have to be taken, and we can make some actual progress.
Delete(this post was written by Megan Conner, not Lauren)
DeleteI also think that Obama's choice was a necessary way to promote action, but like you, I'm a bit worried that using the executive order this way might set a bad precedent. The congress-executive relationship is and has been a power struggle for quite some time. Republicans may choose to view this as simply an attempt to bypass congress and make a power grab, which might lead the country even further away from bipartisan politics in the future.
The executive actions undertaken by Obama were bold but they were with in the realm of previous executive actions undertaken by other presidents. The actions that were taken effected a larger number of people than those actions undertaken previously but the president is still with in his power, since the president has always had more control over immigration policy than other areas. The first two points can largely be agreed on since more guards will help to catch criminals and making the immigration process easier on people who have already received temporary citizenship will serve to help the country. Since the president is justified in what he is going, I believe that he should also have extended the deal to more recent illegal immigrants as well. While crimes tend to have statue to limitations on them, it would not make sense to not extend the deal to recent immigrants, since they are undoubtedly like the older immigrants, they just happened to get here at a later point. Assuming that this deal became policy after the speech, had the president given the speech before the midterm when talk about this first surfaced, then some number of people would not have been eligible, who are currently eligible. I was also not sure if this was a one time deal or that the part about the 5 year eligibility would be from the current date. The more conservative reaction to this is as expected, although their isn't a case for impeachment. I doubt that their will be a response, since any actions that the republicans restrict will also be a restriction on their future presidents. I would also like to now what will happen to the illegal immigrants currently in the criminal system. If their crime is only being an illegal immigrant, I would expect them to be released. I would like to point out that most likely, not all eligible people will apply for this deal. Since the deal is based off an executive order, a new president could quickly change this. And because the immigrants only have temporary passes, they could easily have their passes taken away, not to mention the fact that the government would obviously know who and where they are. While I see it as a good thing, ultimately the deal is a quick fix and legislation will need to be passed to fix our immigration system and give everyone an equal chance to come to the US and live legally.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to this video, I think Presidents Obama did an excellent job addressing the problems at hand [save for a call to reform the current process of becoming a citizen(see reply in Katrina's comment)]. He discussed the negative feelings toward those reaping the benefits of undocumented people, and the discontent of those workers who want to move ahead in life but can't. Despite seeming wishy washy on who's side he stood on regarding immigration, Obama did a good job I believe in appeasing both parties. Hopefully that will open the gates for a more bipartisan agreement on immigration reform. I also do like his plan for criminals because I think those who come here illegally and don't attempt to better American society. A far as his 5 year plan for immigrants, I think it's a good start. It protects those who have had time to create a new life without rewarding them too much which in the eyes of some is rightful. However, i believe that there needs to be a simpler way to become an American citizen. The people who fall into the plan may be okay but there are others that can't afford or don't have the time to become citizens. This is the reason there are so many undocumented people in America. The resources are not made availible to those livinf in the shadows. Because we are a country founded by immigrants, it is unfair to prevent future immigrants the same access to citizenship. We have laws set in place but they greatly exclude so many in need of help that it forces them to cheat which gets us where we are today. We need to reform out citizenship procedure.
ReplyDeleteThis is not very eloquent but oh well.
DeleteI agree, I think he does want to try and appeal for both parties as he approaches the final days of his presidency, however he does have personal convictions on what he thinks should be done regarding immigration. As president, I like his efforts to implement his ideas with his power to help our country. Seems like all the great presidents used their executive powers heavily to produce the changes they wish to see.
DeleteThough many people declare that the President is acting unconstitutionally, it seems to me that he went to great lengths to make sure that the actions that he did take were within the realm of his power. He maintained that granting citizenship is a constitutional power of the Congress and argues that he is simply trying to help assure good people that they will not have to be afraid of immediate deportation. Obama points out the irony that we, a country that came to be because of European immigration and slaughtering of the native peoples, are trying to stop hardworking, innocent people from having a better life here. After Republicans in the House of Representatives blocked a vote on the Senate’s immigration bill, and didn’t seem to be about to make its own bill anytime soon, the President had no choice, but to take action in the only way that he could. In his order, he even makes sure to increase resources to border patrol to attempt to appease those that are against immigration.
ReplyDeleteEven though this order was well intentioned, it has predictably caused further Republican hatred, and many conservative Congressmen seem willing to do whatever it takes to impede the implementation of this policy. Some say that doing so will dramatically lower any popularity they have within the Latino population and hurt their chances in the next presidential election, but Republicans seem more worried with how the radicals in their party will respond if they are lenient. If Obama had any chance of passing any bills through Congress before, those chances are gone by now. The remainder of his presidency will be a difficult time, and will probably lead to even more polarization within the government.
His actions also bring up worrying possibilities for the future. As David Brooks of the New York Times stated, what will stop a future presidents from using this power recklessly, and deciding not to enforce any policy of Congress that they disagree with? That brings into question the duty of the president to enforce the law and how it can be manipulated. Obama states that there is no way that he could actually deport all of the millions of undocumented immigrants in the US, and because of that, he is forced to pick who he will or will not deport. This argument makes sense to me, and he is using it to support what I believe is a worthy cause, but there is the possibility that others will use it for less admirable goals. This order has opened up a whole new way for the executive and legislative branches to clash. Obama now has little chance of ever creating a more bipartisan atmosphere within the government. Hopefully, our next president will be able to do so, or else our country might not see much positive change for a long while.
Obama's spoke of how other presidents have done similar actions as this, however, how many were actually of this scale. The president does have the power of executive orders, but a line must be drawn somewhere. Obama has used the expression "We Cant Wait" to justify some of his actions in the past because of the gridlock in congress. This, often times, has been true--action must be taken soon-- but that does not give him the power to take the issues into his own hands. Our government was set up as a system of checks and balances and if the president can take control over an issue so controversial as immigration with the nation completely split, where can we draw the line of executive power? Yes, our system is flawed, and I wholeheartedly agree that we need to change it, but the executive taking control is not the way. If the precedent of the president being able to use his authority to force outcomes on such controversial issues stays in play then there could be serious consequences in the future.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of this situation in particular, I agree with Obama's action; whether he had the authority or not. Deporting every immigrant in the United States would be completely impossible and could lead to the rise of fear and the pointing of fingers across the country. Never the less, something must be done. Focusing on the problem immigrants, such as criminals as Obama said, should be our top priority. The threat of American jobs is hardly present as many of the jobs held by immigrants are not ones that american's want to take anyway. Like it or not, immigrants from all nations have become functional, helpful members of our society and deserve the chance to be a legal part of it. Obama's executive order is not the solution to the problem, but it should force Congress to act and bring us closer to solving this issue once and for all
Excellent points Nick. I do, however, believe that the constitutionality of Executive Decrees, especially Obama's, will not be as big of a problem as you have forseen. The Constitution is a very old document and is not perfect. I feel that, since the people are sovereign, the will of the people allows for a significant amount of leeway in the Constitution; leeway that Obama can use. For instance, Article VI, Section II of the Constitution is the Supremacy Clause which states that Federal law is the "highest law of the land". But, in the past few years, several states have legalized marijuana despite the drug being federally outlawed. Clearly, this is a constitutional issue. However, the government has decided that enforcing this ban would not be feasible, and thus a Constitutional exception is allowed to live. Pragmatism, "realpolitik", and the will of the people allow for the stretching of the Constitution.
DeleteObama has hit several nails on the head with his order. Both of us agree with Obama's actions and motives. I believe though, that Executive Orders, if working towards the greater good, should not be a huge cause for concern .
Obama points out that his predecessors, both democratic and republican, have taken similar actions. However, this is his only justification for taking this bold executive action and as the New York Times article, Obama’s Immigration Action Has Precedents, but May Set a New One, states “The magnitude and the formality of it is arguably unprecedented”. Obama’s immigration reform will grant up to 5 million immigrants protection from deportation. This is huge number of people and it is arguable that this action affects more people than any past actions of presidents.
ReplyDeleteIt bothers me that Obama states that his actions are “lawful” but he does not specifically mention the constitutional powers that he is exercising. Ignoring historical expansion of executive power, his actions would undoubtedly be considered unconstitutional. The president cannot institute a policy as vast as this one without it being passed by the congress. He has the power to execute laws passed by Congress, not policies that he creates. However, with the expanded executive commander in chief power of the president today, Obama’s actions should be considered constitutional.
Although the constitutionality is controversial, I completely support all aspects of Obama’s immigration reform. He is strengthening our borders, instituting a temporary protection to immigrants who have been in the US for more than 5 years and are willing to pay taxes, and attempting to prioritize the deportation of criminals rather than families. These are all in keeping with American values and will hopefully start to solve the problem of immigration.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think Obama's proposal is better than doing nothing. Whether it is constitutional or not, if no progress is being made and no bills are being passed regarding immigration, nothing should be expected to change. If people are upset with current immigration issues and congress is not moving quickly to pass laws that address these issues, then President Obama should have the ability to implement minor policies where he deems necessary. Besides, if Obama's solution ends up not working, then congress can actually pass some more structured policies in places that need improvement. Obama did a good job delivering his proposal except for the fact he called it the "common sense plan". Hopefully this "common sense plan" succeed in tackling some of the many immigration issues.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in the sense that Obama's motives are in the right place and what he is doing is better than nothing. His step is indeed positive. I think most, if not all of us could agree that the immigrants he is specifically aiming towards are ones who deserve the benefits America has to offer. This would only help those who have lived in America for at least 5 years, have children who are citizens, pass a criminal background check and are willing to pay taxes. All others risk deportation. Thus, the negativity that criminal immigrants bring is being accounted for. I find it hard to think that anyone wouldn't want this for our country. If the immigrants are contributing to the economy and are truly here to learn and work, then they deserve the option to "come out of the shadows".
DeleteHowever, as stated in the debate, his motives and ideas are not the issue. The issue is the legitimacy behind his actions. While Obama does a great job using personal anecdotes and touching the emotions of his citizens, he does not proceed to justify his actions. He says that he is doing what presidents, republican and democratic alike, have done before him but refuses to consider how this will affect future presidents. If he has comfort in taking such a large step towards this issue because of those before him, how extreme can we expect those who follow him? He proceeds to say that they should just "pass a law", but that is not the way our system works and that is not what our country stands for. He finds it crucial to point out what we stand for as a country but continues to go against our system. Issues should not be solved just by "passing a law". They should instead be debated and worked through. As much as I support his purpose, I would like an explanation or justification in regards to the legitimacy of his actions.
In response to your claim that the President "does not proceed to justify his actions," Sierra, I want to point out that in a white house memo outside of the speech officials mention President Obama's prosecutorial discretion. Congress isn't appropriating enough money for the President to deport all twelve million illegal immigrants, so he has a very strong legal argument in favor of him choosing who he does and does not deport. His executive action still leaves an estimated 7-8 million illegal immigrants to deport. The issue has been debated and worked through for decades, a bipartisan bill was passed in the Senate, and then for political reasons Boehner refused to let that bill be voted on in the House. The President was very reserved and included many measures to appease conservatives, reflecting the Senate bill. Congress, which should have "passed a law" decades ago, will now be forced to actually do their job or lose legitimacy.
DeleteI believe that Obama's actions are not enough. While his idea of immigration reform consisting of strengthening our borders, providing temporary coverage for immigrants that has lived in the United States for more than 5 year AND are willing to pay taxes, I do not believe that it's enough.
ReplyDeleteIt is understandable that not much can be done aside from that until we have Congress on the same page as Obama, however, as he had stated in the video, nothing can be done until everyone agrees with one another.
As a child from a family of immigrants, (legal ones) I can't even imagine what it would be like to have my parents taken away right in front of me just because they crossed the border illegally. I think that it's wonderful that Obama is promising to not separate families but I am also very wary about this. Though it may seem unrealistic to deport every single illegal immigrant in our country, there will no doubt still be situations where families will be torn apart from each other in my opinion. It will take a while for these actions to take place so for now, we can only watch Obama’s promises take action.
I definitely see what you're saying when you say that Obama's policy isn't enough. However, as you mentioned, it's hard to make significant progress without the support of Congress. I think Obama's action was within his executive power, but I think that if he took the policy much further it could potentially be close to infringing on the Constitution and would set an even more dangerous precedent. I see Obama's action as movement in the right direction, but not the full solution. Hopefully Congress will respond with action and begin to make more progress on immigration reform.
DeleteI agree that more should be done in regards to the issue of immigration and your moral arguments as I believe no family should be torn apart. However I do not think the President could have done much more without abusing his power. He was already walking on thin ice with the broad interpretation needed to make this decree, so anything further probably would have easily been construed as unconstitutional. For more progress to be made in immigration, Congress needs to pass a bill completely reforming the system.
DeleteObama's executive decision has very good moral standing in my mind, and I felt his speech justified his action very well (although it was just a speech). If his plan were to work out ideally, it would bring people, who have been part of society for quite a while, "out of the dark". I think this plan has something for both sides of the immigration debate. It would help people who have already established roots in the US instead of treating them as fugitives. It would not totally grant them 'amnesty' that Reagan's decision did (if I comprehended that law properly) back in 1986, but temporary safety and an easier path to full citizenship. Furthermore, as legal residents former undocumented people will take upon themselves all of the requirements of every other citizen. Obama provided ideal points to his actions which were all well and good, but that still does not justify his decision. Many point to previous presidents that had made similar decisions, and it could be argued that these were all akin to the president's pardoning power, but Obama's act goes further than granting amnesty to small groups of immigrants. This is immigration reform on a larger scale. I too believe it is ineffective and useless to spend time and money 'hunting down' undocumented individuals, and would rather that undocumented people become effective citizens, but Obama's huge reform is not the proper way. I don't know what Congress will make of his decision, hopefully it will provide some motivation, but overall it seems to me the Obama's decision sets a bad example, and perhaps stretches his Constitutional powers quite a bit. It is almost inevitable that his decision will become ammunition against him, but he is on the tail end of his presidency, so he does not have much to lose due to bold acts such as his immigration reform.
ReplyDeleteThe policy explained by Obama is relatively moderate and most agree with the morals behind his action, however acting unilaterally and utilizing the executive order sparks greater controversy. I think that Obama's decision to use his executive power in order to make progress on immigration was a very bold yet necessary action. Although I certainly believe that his action stretches his powers as president, I don't think he is infringing on the constitution. The executive was given the power to make executive orders in order to take decisive action when little progress could be made in Congress, and this is what he did. However, Obama is setting a precedent for the use of executive orders that could potentially backfire in the future, possibly on this exact issue. For something as important and emotional as immigration, a decisive action had to be taken, whether or not it would fully fix the problem. Obama's action was more of a temporary and moderate fix that is bringing us in the right direction, and through this speech, Obama is telling Congress that it is their turn to act and begin to make progress to pass immigration reform. This is certainly a confrontational move by Obama, and sets a tone for the new republican majority congress that many could see as a threat.
ReplyDeleteJuliana, I agree that this was definitely a bold move especially after the republicans gained majority in Congress. I cannot say I am surprised by Obama's decision because immigration was such a controversial topic as he entered presidency and his views on it were known. It is interesting how you pointed out how this could backfire on him in the future because he is setting the stage for how he deals with gridlock situations. I think that Obama is dealing with this not only in a diplomatic sense but also sees the very emotional side to this topic. I also agree how this was a very decisive move on Obama's part because he is laying all his cards on the table and it shows exactly where he stands.
DeleteI think President Obama has moved in a very positive direction in trying to figure out what to do with immigration reform in the United States. Although it was a very bold move on his part, it was necessary to get us out of this gridlock situation. Obama plans to take steps to responsibly deal with the millions of undocumented immigrants who already live in the country. Under his executive order, undocumented immigrants who have lived in America for more than 5 years, have children who are American citizens, register and pass a criminal background check and pay taxes may apply to stay in the country temporarily without fear of deportation. This will hopefully help many people to “come out of the shadows” and be part the country once and for all. Obama also plans to build on the progress at the border with additional resources for our law and enforcement personnel making it more difficult for illegal crossings and speed up the process of controlling those who do cross over. Obama wants to make it easier and faster for high skilled people to contribute to our economy by helping them stay in a country they want to be part of and contribute to. If many immigrant want to stay and help out our country and are not in any shape or form trying to harm the US, they should be allowed to stay and be part of a place that could not only benefit themselves but our country.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think Obama went to far and exercised outside of his mandate. He did want he though would help the issue at hand. If Obama did not step up, him and Congress would still be in a gridlock and nothing would have changed. I think Republicans should view Obama’s message as an eye opener for them. They need to realize that issues will not be resolved just be simply sitting on them. Both Congress and Obama need to be able to work as a team and implement some changes together in order to solve this issue.
President Obama’s actions are necessary under the current government stalemate between the Republicans and the Democrats. President Obama is inviting Congress to get into the debate on this issue and “pass a bill.” Instead, Congress, under Republican control, seems to be content to wait things out and then try to use that against the President and the Democrats during the election campaigns. It was interesting to note that the President sided with his predecessor, President Bush, who was also heavily interested in passing immigration reform. The difference is that Bush was not willing to stick his neck out like President Obama is doing. Will this ultimately hurt the democrats during the next election, which is a presidential election? That may depend on how the Republicans respond to this action and how the people respond as well.
ReplyDeleteI think what the majority of the American people want is some sort immigration reform along the lines of what Obama has been trying to pass with Congress. Unfortunately, I don't think there is much hope in Obama passing a bill with everything entirely the way he wants it to due to past disagreements he has had with Congress. If a bill were to pass it would not be entirely beneficial to Immigrants as it would have been if Congress was entirely on board with what Obama thinks is the best for the country. We will see how this will play out in the remaining years of his presidency.
DeleteI agree Jake. Although this act is a bit "gutsy" it shows the President's willingness to challenge the status quo - a characteristic of a great leader. This gridlock has left American politics at a stand still. I suspect that many more of these "sweeping declarations" are to come - simply to combat the counterproductive Republican agenda.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFrustrated by years of congressional gridlock, President Obama understandably came to believe that executive order was the only way to achieve reform in immigration policy. However, just because his motives are understandable doesn’t mean his actions are legally or morally righteous. Executive orders are constitutionally wrong and are disrespectful to the democratic system. President Obama’s recent unilateral action is in fact so blatantly unjust that the federal justice department felt the need to publicly release a 33-page memo in an attempt to justify the president’s overreach of executive power. The memo ventures at flimsy manipulations of the constitutional provision for the president’s authority to enforce the law, but skirts around the main issue that the president’s legal prerogative is limited to just that – enforcement – not enactment. In his speech, President Obama did some issue skirting as well. He spoke mainly about what he is doing – the substance of and reasoning for his immigration overhaul. He failed to adequately address the main problem, which is how he is doing it – the unilateral manner in which he executed this order. The few times he referred to procedure were when he championed precedent and congressional gridlock. In regard to the idea of precedent, the breadth of Obama’s new immigration order far surpasses that of any unilateral action by any president before him. Peter J. Spiro of Temple University said, “The magnitude and the formality of it is arguably unprecedented.” To dispute President Obama’s gridlock excuse, by no means is it fair or legal for the President to act outside the limits of his authority delineated in the Constitution simply because he is impatient. Executive orders, especially of this kind of breadth, undermine democracy. Although the substance of the President’s immigration reform may be inherently righteous, the means by which Obama achieved these ends are unjust.
ReplyDeleteThe best bet for the Republicans to counteract Obama's executive order is to pass a bi-partisan immigration bill of their own. Any action that is more aggressive by the Republicans will only lead to loss of support or even public uproar from the Latino citizenry.
I believe that President Obama has certainly made a bold step (in this case, in the right direction), in a way quite unlike most presidents before him. Though President Obama claims that these are the “same actions taken by democratic and republican presidents before” him, the power of congress has never really been undermined to such an extent as it was by the issuing of this executive order. From a moral and personal standpoint, I wholly support Obama’s actions on this issue. As he pointed out, the people he aims to grant temporary are productive members of American society, and those being deported are “felons, not families”. These people are willing to work hard and do many jobs that many Americans are not willing to do. From an economic standpoint, having these people who now live off the grid as citizens only benefits the American economy by growing the economy and shrinking our deficits. The argument that these people come to our country to get welfare and benefits is often thrown around which is essentially null since welfare benefits are not given to non-citizens and those who live in “the shadows”, as the president put it.
ReplyDeleteThe legality of the order is, perhaps, the less clear side of the argument. An executive order that “undermines” the power of Congress generates a lot of controversy. However, I don’t believe that there is anything controversial about it. The President made no permanent action, he simply granted temporary protection from deportation to less than half of of the undocumented immigrants in the country. His order does not grant citizenship or offer the same benefits that citizens have. Most importantly, his order can easily be overturned were Congress to pass a bill fixing a problem which “for decades, we haven’t done much about”. President Obama is simply breaking the legislative gridlock, and forcing Congress to actually get something done. As Republican leaders have refused to allow a simple vote for the bill, the President is doing what’s in his power to make a flawed government less unproductive, something, despite its questionable constitutionality, that should be appreciated.
I agree with you Conor, I don't believe that this is something that is unconstitutional because none of what he discussed was to be considered as "permanent action" or undermining Congressional power. I think it is going to be hard to actually have this happen in the coming days, months, and/or years especially when Congress is not on the same page as Obama in this topic but we will have to wait and see.
DeleteObama's plan of action to tackle the immigration historic problem is both bold and strenuous. The current stand still between the Democrats and Republicans is what was holding back the solution and in order to push the solution, Obama did what he needed to do, he is getting involved and doing it himself. I believe that he is going to far and exercising power beyond his ability and authority. He does state that his actions are lawful, however he does not support that statement with any constitutional text. Yes there is a stand still between the democrat and republican leaders in office, but I do not think that Obama has the power to step in and do what he wants no matter what the vote happens to be. I predict that the Republicans will come back swinging a bat and will attempt to pass a bill to contradict Obama's goals with the immigration actions that he plans to go through with.
ReplyDeleteI doubt that the republicans will go as far as impeaching president Obama because in his address he does share a compelling story about the girl who is extremely successful but is afraid of coming out of the shadows.
I completely agree with you! I believe that no one else was taking action or really doing anything to address the issue of immigration and that President Obama was doing what no one else would. I think whether or not his actions are constitutional lies on a fine line. Yes I believe that by creating a way for illegal immigrants to become legal temporarily is out of his power. I agree with your point on how the republicans will react; I think that he does not have the power to do whatever he wants and has to go through Congress and put it to a vote before he can actually take action.
DeleteI think that President Obama's immigration plan is very bold, especially considering that Congress is now dominated by a Republican majority. I think that this is a step in the right direction, albeit a large step, to helping reform immigration policy.
ReplyDeleteWhile many could argue that this is not actually solving the problem, it is hard to imagine the current immigration policy we have getting much worse. I agree that we need to take action now, and as President Obama said, not wait, because even those who don't support this immigration plan probably would agree that our current policy is in bad condition.
I don't think that Obama correctly justified his actions by saying that it was constitutional because both Republican and Democrat presidents before him had exercised similar power. But that isn't to say that this action is wrong just because it is unconstitutional. Perhaps this goes to show that modern times are calling for a more flexible Constitution.
However, I think that before any Congressmen critique Obama's immigration plan or pass an immigration bill of their own they should first look at it from a moral standpoint, because Obama makes some solid moral arguments. While Republicans may say that this would be detrimental to some hard-working American businessmen and entrepreneurs temporarily, in the long run, this could potentially expand our economy. Also, deporting all 12 million illegal immigrants, which could be seen as a counter argument to Obama's plan, would be incredibly expensive and could lead to more job losses than enacting the immigration plan.
Regardless of the outcome, hopefully Obama's immigration plan will lead to more reform in America's immigration policy. And if not, hopefully it will cause citizens and politicians alike to reevaluate our ideals and country's values.
Although I believe that Mr. Obama is overstepping his constitutional powers in his executive order, I believe the circumstances in which our congress is currently in forces the president to such extremes. Especially now with a Republican congress that is hard-set on tarnishing Mr. Obama's and the Democrat's image rather than getting progressive legislation passed, an executive order overriding the gridlock is necessary and proper. We have discussed in class over the past few weeks just how inefficient our government is as compared to nations like Great Britain due to the structure of our system. The United States system makes it near impossible to quickly pass legislation. I believe that in addition to increasing the government's efficiency, Mr. Obama's executive order also dodges manipulations by compromise and corruption, as compared to if it were legislation requiring bipartisan support. I like how E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post put it in the post-speech video, how Mr. Obama ignoring congress may also push Republicans to being too far right, like threatening government shutdowns, etc.
ReplyDeleteObservations I have made from Mr. Obama's speech are signs of him using a bully-pulpit like what we have studied in class. His speech appeals to the American people by using multitudes of anecdotes that causes them to empathize with these helpless, humble immigrant families. Also at the same time, Mr. Obama sheds a dark light on congress for being so dysfunctional, thus portraying himself as the individual getting things done: "politicians use the issues to scare people and whip up votes in election time". Just like other presidents before him, Mr. Obama is rallying Americans' support behind his actions while creating a negative perception on a gridlocked legislative branch.
All in all I believe that the current state of our government system has allowed for Mr. Obama to execute such actions. Call me Communist, but right now the United States requires an empowered President that moves the nation forward.
I agree with you Melvin that the U.S. needs an empowered president. That is exactly what President Obama is doing. This order was executed because of a dysfunctional, Republican majority congress. I disagree with you, however on your opinion that he overstepped his power. Immigration could fall in many of the offices of the president such as National Economic Council, National Security, and Management and Budget. Even though we have different views on the constitutionality, i am glad we can agree that is what is what the U.S. needs.
DeleteI agree with the President's steps he took in the bill. I think he did a good job trying to frame the bill from a nonpartisan perspective. He appealed to Republicans by reassuring them that border control is higher than ever (with rates down to the level they were in the 70's) and will continue to be strengthened. He also mentioned how police forces are prioritizing dangerous undocumented immigrants over others. All of that was just in the intro, to soften the blow some people may feel. In his actual order, I think he could have gone farther, but took appropriate steps in terms on bipartisanship. The order only applies to those who have been in the U.S. for a long amount of time and has nothing to do with recent or future immigrants. Additionally, it has many requirements immigrants must meet and agree to and it never actually gives them citizenship. I think this just makes sense.
ReplyDeleteI believe that President Obama has the power to release such an executive order and I believe he'll have the power to enforce it. The act doesn't any more outrageous than any other executive order.
If republicans are enraged by the executive order, then they should work with democrats to create a successful bipartisan bill. The president was only forced to do this when that fell through. I think Obama was clever in this move because now Republicans cannot sit on this because it goes into effect and can't be changed unless they do something.
Immigration reform is certainly long overdue in America. Obama took a very big risk by issuing an executive degree, but it was a risk that had to be taken in order to get something done. Although there really doesn't seem to be a "right" answer in this debate, Obama comes close. The President is not constitutionally given the power to make laws and yet at the same time, any attempts at reform will be shot down in Congress. Republicans say that Obama has "poisoned the well" of bipartisanship and the chance to work things out. However, I feel that Republicans have already been given their shot at working together and have utterly wasted it. I remember when Obama first took office how he earnestly tried to reach across the aisle. Now, clearly he is disillusioned with partisan squabbling and sees that he has no other option but to bypass the muck of Congress entirely. If Obama had issued his executive order on the first day of office, it definitely would have been universally condemned. It has been 6 years though since he took office and by now he must truly have realized how Washington works and how both sides are unwilling to compromise. He did not make this recent decision without thinking.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I believe that while Obama's actions may be constitutionally dubious, they can be justified by other reasons. In our US chapter reading, we learned that the president speaks for not just sectional interests, but is elected by the entire country to carry out the will of the nation. I believe that Obama is genuinely speaking for the nation, and Republicans are not. Representatives from states like Arizona and Texas probably do not see the big picture - that immigrants (illegal or not) are vital to America. Obama has personally said that he is "the guy who's elected by everybody, not just from a particular state or a particular state or a particular district". In addition, do Republicans really speak for everyone when, we learned last unit, that Gerrymandering, packing, and cracking can stifle minority voices? Many immigrants and their families are probably more worried about surviving than being politically active, too. The Economist writes following the mid-term elections that Obama "said he heard a message from voters but also from 'the two-thirds of voters who chose not to participate in the process yesterday'". Everyone has a voice in America and just because they don't use it doesn't mean that they don't care. Obama's actions are justified in my opinion.
I believe that President Obama's approach to the immigration issue shows how concerned he is for those who are trying to lead better lives. He addresses the issue of how illegal immigrants are essentially taking a "free ride" by not being an American citizen, but living in America, he states that they "reap(s) the rewards of living in America without taking on the responsibilities of living in America". But immigrants are not looking to come to America to be one of the free riders, they come here because they want to work and make better lives for their children. Although President Obama does address the issue of criminals versus families, he does not explain how he determines who is a criminal and who is not, so if there is no definition, anyone could be a criminal and everyone could not be. President Obama speaks about how he has increased the amount of security at the southern border and will continue this, but I believe that immigrants from the south are not the only problem. There are people coming from all over who fall under the category as illegal immigrants and they set reputations for immigrants as well. Also is that really where we want to be spending our money? I believe that President Obama's second point about how he will make it easier and quicker for higher skilled workers, graduates, and entrepreneurs, works towards creating a balance between deporting illegal immigrants and allowing some to stay because of their contributions to America. What I don't understand is when he talks about how he is going to create a way for illegal immigrants to temporarily be legal if they take on the responsibilities of being an American. I don't believe this idea is realistic at all because if the illegal immigrants can only have temporary citizenship, they will eventually be deported because they will have come out of the shadows and will be known as illegal. Why would an illegal immigrant risk their future in America for a temporary legalized stay when they know it will eventually get them deported?
ReplyDelete(This is actually Megan Conner's post, not Lauren's)
ReplyDeleteWhile Obama’s executive order may have large implications on the future of immigration reform, I didn’t see the actual immigration policy that Obama presented as the controversial issue. As the Economist article pointed out, past republican presidents have carried out similar actions regarding immigration. Ronald Reagan, for example, passed a bill that gave legal rights to 3 million illegal immigrants. This amount, while less than the 4-5 million that Obama’s order is expected to protect, affected around a similar ratio of the U.S. population (given that the U.S. population has grown significantly since 1986) as Obama’s order. Obama himself stressed the idea that his order was a way to step back, realize that trying to deport all the illegal immigrants would be unrealistic, and then decide how to prioritize who is deported to inhibit rises in illegal immigration in the future. It’s not a terribly radical policy, nor does it seem to be a permanent solution.
The actual controversy arose from his decision to utilize his executive order power. Since this action was taken so soon after the November elections, I viewed the president’s executive order as a warning to the new senate and house majorities who will soon take office. Obama stated in his speech that, “I want to work with both parties to pass a more permanent legislative solution” and that in the future, if he can successfully work with congress to pass legislature, “The actions I take will no longer be necessary.” I thought that Obama strategically placed this executive order to demonstrate how he is going to challenge congress in the future if they aren’t willing to work in a more bipartisan manner. Some people may judge his action as unconstitutional, because often executive orders appear to be somewhat unconstitutional. If Obama decides to use his executive order power to bypass any liberal legislation that congress doesn’t pass, then I would view that as dangerously unconstitutional. However, Obama isn’t simply overriding congress’s decision to implement this immigration reform. He’s taking this action because the House of Representatives refused to vote on his original bipartisan immigration bill and he doesn’t want this sort of inaction to continue when the new congress settles in. Obama’s making a clear message that refusing to vote on important bills and instead fueling a gridlock atmosphere is not something he is willing to work with during his last two years in office.
I agree that Obama's actions in the name of Congress' lack of action due to the gridlock does seem to be a demonstration of his decision to show Congress that he will challenge them in the future if they are not more bipartisan. However, one of the potential dangers I still see in him placing this executive order is that this sets a model for presidential executive orders that could go wrong so that if a Republican president is to take office, it would give them leeway to place their own executive orders against the Democrats.
DeleteObama’s action is a gross overstep of his executive power. His new policy on immigration is bold and drastically changes the way America handles illegal immigration. Although his new policy is only temporary, I believe that this policy will have lasting effects. I believe that Obama has the power the increase security at the border and the power to speed the deportation of criminals. However, executive power does not give the president the power to completely ignore and change the current immigration law. Obama giving illegal immigrant who have been in the country for 5 years and will pay taxes, pass a background check, and have US born children blatantly goes against the current policy that was passed by a previous congress.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I understand why Obama has taken this drastic action. Our current congress cannot get anything done, and the immigration problem is a problem that cannot be ignored for much longer. Obama has put congress on the spot showing the country their inability to pass bills, and hopefully the President’s action will force congress to address the immigration problem and pass a bill.
Obama is an eloquent speaker and in this speech he was able to appeal to the conscience of American citizens. Obama pointed out the urgency of the immigration policy, and I believe that he was able to influence the way people approach the immigration issue.
I would have to say that Obama is probably my second favorite president now, though not nearly as good as the greatest president of alltime John QUincy Adams!!
ReplyDeleteAs President Obama stated, the United States is the country it is today because of the influence of immigrants that have allowed the country to flourish and become the innovative and powerful country it is. However, in the current system, those who follow the convoluted immigration rules are punished by it and undocumented immigrants must stay in secret. First, the President worked to fortify the boarders, which has been successful, illegal boarder crossings at the lowest level since 1970s. Next, a bipartisan bill was passed to ensure that the system would be fixed, growing the economy and lowering the deficit. However, the Republican leaders in the House refused to pass the “common sense” law. Therefore, the President believes he is justified in making an executive order to fix the immigration issue, making it more fair and just. His third issue, undocumented immigrants, is his main focus, as they must be held accountable. Those to be deported will be criminals, not families. Deporting millions of people is not a realistic course of action. Those in America for over 5 years, those with children American born, and those who pass a criminal background check will be allowed to apply for citizenship without fear of deportation. It does not apply to future or current illegal immigrants. He counters nay-sayers saying that the current system we have today is amnesty, where illegal immigrants are forced to hide and the issue is left as is. The answer is not amnesty nor deportation, but accountability. His actions are lawful and have been taken by all presidents in the past. He references the actions of past presidents, notably President Bush who spoke of the importance of immigrants. Stressing over and over, President Obama wants to work with congress to find a solution; he simply needs a bill to be passed. The executive and legislative branch must work to find a common purpose, not focus on gridlock. Yes, by skeptics this plan may seem to be a free pass to immigration, but immigrants are beneficial to the economy and the society of American and mass deportation is not possible or right. It is a way to ensure that the immigration system of America today is fixed. As President Obama states, the debate is about the identity of this country, built on immigrants. We should not tolerate the hypocrisy of the current system, focusing on hopes and not fears. I believe President Obama is perfectly justified by his actions, understandably aggravated by the gridlock in Congress and recognizing that actions needs to be taken on this pressing issue. The Republican response should be to pass bi-partisan bill of their own, as Obama explicitly says that is what he wants. Immigration is a very clear and evident issue, and President Obama took the rightful first steps to solving it.
ReplyDeleteI think that Obama was indeed very bold in his speech, addressing an issue that is surrounded by such a large amount of controversy. I respect President’s Obama initiative to take action on the topic of immigration, despite the lack of support from Congress. I don’t believe that he is completely overstepping his executive boundaries but that he is trying his best to accomplish what he can while working with such a resistant Congress. The President acknowledges his limitations in his speech that only congress has the power to “offer the same benefits that citizens receive” to immigrants but he is still attempting to provide temporary solutions until a permanent solution can be reached. However I think it still remains unclear how Obama plans to go about his new plan regarding granting immigrants that qualify for temporary security without fear of deportation. Like Obama said, it is unrealistic to grant immunity to all illegal immigrants or to deport them all and although he did his best to find a middle ground and reach somewhat of a compromise, I question its effectiveness. It cannot be assumed that those immigrants that are eligible for his plan of a temporary protected stay in the U.S. will suddenly come out of the shadows. Since they must have been in the states for at least 5 years to qualify, they have likely already adapted to a life of living in the shadows. These immigrants have no certainty that the law won’t change and they could become even more vulnerable to deportation. They likely still have a great amount of fear about coming forward and would prefer to stay hidden than risk the lives they have built for themselves. Meanwhile, those who are ineligible are simply going to remain in the shadows and continue to live and work as undocumented immigrants. I think Obama is taking steps in the right direction and redirecting attention to a topic that definitely needs to be addressed but I do think that there are some flaws within his plan.
ReplyDeletePresident Obama is overstepping his boundaries in regards to his constitutional power of executive order, however, I do believe it is justified. With the Republicans now having the majority in Congress, he is not able to pass legislations that may be beneficial for the nation and US citizens. I believe he is stuck between a 'rock and a hard place' because he will encounter criticism for implementing this reform and he would have received criticism if he did not use his executive order to do so. It was a bold move, but I think that Obama was thinking about the long term effects of his actions. Through this reform, he is securing much needed Hispanic votes for democratic party in the 2016 election. Obama shows that he cares about what is happening with these illegal immigrants and in turn, is ensuring many votes form the hispanic community. The Republicans cannot really argue against Obama's speech and reforms because it will seem unethical and will negatively impact their view in the eyes of the hispanic community. This was definitely an act of defiance towards the Congress because Obama knew the results of his actions and the limitations it would put on the Republicans. It will take a lot more for Obama to secure these reforms and successfully achieve his goals on immigration, but I believe it was a good place to start.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the President would have received criticism for acting or not acting. An interesting point you mentioned was that Obama was defying Congress with this speech. Do you think this action will inflame the tension between Congress and the President or instead encourage/threaten the Congress to work with the President? Personally, I think this act of defiance is a bit counteractive. I think it will more likely than not aggravate the members of Congress instead of easing the tension.
DeleteMariam- I think you make some really interesting and substantial points. I agree that Obama is overstepping his boundaries, but due to the gridlock of the Republican Congress, he is forced to act unconstitutionally. I also agree that Obama declared this executive order with future elections in mind, as his fair reforms and policies will help the Democratic party gain the hispanic communities votes, especially if Republicans criticize his policies. I think this act of defiance, as you say, will anger Congress, as Obama has given them the option of potentially losing a portion of the hispanic vote, or endorse his policies, something Republican Congressional candidates said they would not do in their elections.
DeletePresident Obama took extremely bold action by addressing a topic every American has an opinion on. Immigration is a hard topic to deal with because as the President said, “we are all immigrants”. Personally, I am torn about this topic. My own parents were immigrants who came here for graduate school. They had to wait in line and go through the painstaking paperwork and trouble to enter this country legally. The geographic convenience allows many people to consciously break the law and enter this country by essentially skipping the line. So, on one hand, I see this policy, as a reward to millions of undocumented immigrants for their “bad behavior”. At the same time, I remember that America’s foundation is built on welcoming new people. I recognize that if this country had very tight rules for immigration my parents may not have come here at all. I understand that people enter illegally because they have truly reached a point of desperation. This is reflected in the dangerous means people go through to send themselves and loved ones across the border “to live in the shadows”. I feel for the hardship Astrid Silva and many illegal children have faced. Obama’s actions, although bold, attempt to ease the pain that many illegal immigrants in this country are facing. Republicans may see this step as a tyrannical declaration but this in action is in fact, very American. Yes, it is a broad interpretation of the explicit powers given to the executive power– but it is a result of the stubborn mindset of parties. Instead of discussing the constitutionality of Obama’s attempt to help Americans (by name, not paper), America should be reflecting on our deteriorating ability to compromise and the far-reaching effects of bi-partisan gridlock.
ReplyDeleteI think the president's actions were certainly bold but at the same time within the realm of constitutionality. As Mr. Obama said, his actions are not a grant of citizenship or the right to stay in the US permanently, it is simply a way for law abiding illegal immigrants to, "step out of the shadows" and join law abiding society and exist in this country without a fear of deportation. This is an acceptable use of executive authority given that Obama has taken steps to create a more secure border and has worked with Congress to pass a bipartisan bill (in the senate at least). Over the past six years the number of illegal border crossings has been cut in half so you can't accuse Obama of failing to "faithfully execute" the nation's laws.
ReplyDeleteThe Republican response is very simple in my opinion. Since they control both houses of Congress, albeit without a super majority, they should pass their own immigration bill with just enough in there for democrats to get it to pass. Once that's done, if Obama keeps his word, this current unilateral action will be annulled and the problem will go away. This accomplishes three things. One, it prevents the Republican party from shutting down the government or doing something equally stupid which runs the risk of hurting their presidential chances in 2016. Second, as Obama mention, "mass deportation would be both impossible and contrary to our character". Since that option is out it only makes sense for the Republicans in Congress to create a bill which caters to their base and gets our national agenda to reflect what they want in a way that couldn't possibly hurt them, which is point number three.
Although any progress in todays political realm seems great, I am not sure how much this executive action accomplishes. It is a great first step to make the process easier for those who have lived here for five years, however the President clearly states that this makes it no easier for undocumented citizens in the present or those trying to come across our boarders in the future. I believe for real progress to me made the entire immigration system must be redone. That being said President Obama has done pretty much all he could on this issue without being unconstitutional and I applaud him for taking some type of action. Those who say this action is unconstitutional and abuses the Presidents powers are misguided. The executive order has been a legitimate course of governing for quite some time now, with Presidents from both parties using them. This particular action cannot be unconstitutional because it is stated in the constitution that the President carries out the laws or in this case refuse to carry out the laws, such as refusing to deport a certain few who meet requirements. This action could have a significant impact in the 2016 elections if the republicans do not address immigration. The latino population is constantly growing and immigration reform continues to be a large issue in that demographic. This action means we could see a major shift in the political balance in 2016.
ReplyDeleteI also have mixed feelings about Obama's actions. While I do not think what he has done is unconstitutional, I do think he is stretching his executive powers to their limit and has come dangerously close to crossing the line. Under the circumstances, I think taking some action was necessary at this point because Congress is gridlocked and has not been able to come to any major compromises at this point. Doing something is better than doing nothing at all. Deporting all the illegal immigrants is a disastrous idea because they play a part in boosting our economy, whether we like to admit it or not, and deporting all of them would be a massive, expensive effort. However, Obama did say that they were going to increase border patrol, so is not like he's saying it's ok for people to enter illegally. It'll be more difficult for immigrants to slip across the border. I agree with Obama's move to distinguish criminals from children or families just trying to build a better life, and I think it is extremely important to make this distinction. Congress needs to come up with a bipartisan solution that addresses the issue head on.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Megan, that Obama taking this bold action is better than taking none at all and watching the gridlock halt progress to immigration reform. On the other hand, considering the constitutionality of the president's move, do you think Obama will face severe political consequences and decreased support from the public?
DeleteI believe that Obama's actions were both just and constitutional. While his executive order was more wide reaching than ones in the past i don't believe that he overextended. Presidents such as Bush and Eisenhower have set president for the use of executive order when it comes to immigration. I think that the most interesting part of this is what the GOP will do in response. They may stick to their guns and risk the alienation of the growing Latino population or they may try to compromise and risk an inter part struggle as the Tea Party and libertarians would likely oppose any compromise. Immigration will be a big topic for the 2016 election and may very well decide who has the upper hand. The Latino population will is largely swayed by the topic of immigration and the GOP could use it as a tool to further gain control of the country. Another thing to consider is that any good that Obama does for immigrants could be undone in 2016 by a more conservative executive as Obama's actions will certainly not have been in effect long enough to give all illegal aliens a chance to take advantage. Also i believe that a main issue that needs to be tackled is how difficult it is to become a citizen the legal way as it would make the number of illegal immigrants much lower.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Obama is taking bold action but that he is acting constitutionally within his Executive powers. His order does stretch his executive power a bit seeing as it applies to up to 5 million of the United States' 11.4 million illegal immigrants, but he makes a valid point about the need to take action due to Congress' gridlock resulting in no effective measures being taken. I believe that what he is pushing for is not unjust seeing as how it focuses on deferring deportation for those that have been in the country for five years, have passed a background check, have children who are American citizens, and pay taxes. His new immigration policy is aimed towards allowing the hardworking who have come to the United States in the hopes of working to create a better life to temporarily stay, not the criminals. It simply isn't possible to deport every single illegal immigrant, and it certainly isn't who we are as Americans to turn away those who have no criminal background and have come to the United States in order to work hard and create a better life for themselves. He recognizes that it is Congress' power to grant citizenship, and he is merely trying to assure those qualifying illegal immigrants that they will not be immediately deported. I believe that the Republicans should try to pass a bi-partisan bill of their own so as to lessen the strain of the gridlock and allow the possibility of more support from the American public.
ReplyDeleteEven though President Obama is acting beyond his constitutional powers as the executive, his is justified due to the current Republican majority in Congress. Due to both houses under Republican control, there is little likelihood of any of Obama's policies being passed, and the government will be in a standstill. Although Obama is overstepping his powers with the executive order to assign more law enforcement personal to the southern border and new regulations that decide citienship, he doesn't really have any other choice. His bold move is trying to solve an issue our country has dealt with for decades, and an executive order is the only way around the gridlock that is Congress today. While I commend him for making a clear policy objective, I do not think it is possible to achieve it. Not only with republican politicians blocking every action, it will take a tremendous amount of time, man power, and energy to track down and deport the illegal immigrants whom do not meet the regulations to stay in America. Although his declaration to put additional manpower on the border sounds practical in theory, he cannot account for how much the people who attempt to immigrate want to live in America in order to have the opportunity to make a better life for themselves and their families. The same number of people will be risking everything to come to our country, and adding more guards can only make such an impact. Obama's new policy has put the Republicans in a tough position, as they would appear unethical and difficult if they criticized his reform efforts. Obama stressed his wish for compromise, and that is what the Republicans need to work towards to make a lasting change in our country's immigration policy.
ReplyDeleteHello Kathryn. I agree with all of your points. I especially like that you brought up the practicality of the matter. I too believe that Obama's policy objective is righteous and will benefit our nation, but I am not so sure that it is realistic. I agree with the fact that it would be extremely difficult track down all of the illegal immigrants that do not meet the necessary criteria to stay, as well as stop future illegal immigrants from crossing the border. Increasing the security and number of people guarding the borders will help, but not all that much. It will be difficult to stop the extreme amount of people wishing to come to our country, and for that reason adding more manpower could be a waste of time, energy, and money. But I think that the basic stance of Obama's action is necessary and appropriate for the state of our nation, and it is needed to enact some sort of change.
DeletePresident Obama's executive order that allows up to 5 million immigrants to avoid deportation is a bold action. This is a broad use of his executive power under the Constitution. Under Article II Section 3, one of the responsibilities of the President of the United States is to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Obama is overstepping his boundaries with respect to Congress by opposing the Republican majority legislative will which represents the law. Therefore, the president is not faithfully executing the law.
ReplyDeleteAlthough his actions were bordering on unconstitutionality, I do agree that this change of immigration policy is necessary. The gridlock in Congress, as President Obama refers to in his speech, has made it difficult for any resolutions to be passed but with this order Obama allows progress towards immigration reform. Since the chances of blocking all illegal immigration is very slim, Obama's move to permit a great number of immigrants yet a sharp limit in comparison to the estimated number of undocumented immigrants to stay in the country temporarily is crucial to the American economy. To continue Obama's progress towards immigration reform (and decrease the gridlock), Republicans should respond with a bi-partisan bill.
Although the constitutionality of Obama's executive order is questionable, he is justified in enacting his new policy on immigration through the arguments presented in his speech and the current state of our nation. The gridlock in Congress has prevented any improvement for the issue of immigration, so executive action was necessary. Obama made some very good points about our nation's values. To separate families by deportation, and deprive immigrants of the opportunities to better their lives that America has to offer would be wrong, and it would not be reflecting the values that America has possessed since our nation was founded. Any change in the immigration system was necessary, and Obama's action provided it. Although I believe the bill is right, Obama may have overstepped his bounds by taking such bold executive steps. New York Times columnist David Brooks argues that the use of unilateral action by Obama was not the right way to go about changing immigration laws, because "that is not how the system works", which I agree with. Legislative action should have been used to pass such a controversial bill, and Obama took a risk by using his executive powers. Brooks also brings up the point of substance vs. how Obama is going about passing the bill, and although Obama's action may not be completely constitutional, I think the substance of the bill is much more important in this matter, and it was necessary for the well-being of our nation. Obama's action was not solely intended to pass a bill without the consent of anyone in Congress, he wants compromise, which is fair and a reasonable request. If Congress will not permit any sort of compromise, then executive action will have to be enforced, which is what Obama is doing. Overall, I think that the substance of the bill and the looming issue of immigration is more important than the constitutionality of executive order, and Obama was justified in his actions.
ReplyDelete