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?
Although I agree with what he said, I don't think E.J. Dionne made any good points as to if it is constitutional. David Brooks points out that Obama didn't make any points in the speech as to how it is constitutional aside from the fact that President's in the passed did the same. Brooks also got me thinking about in the future if another President used the same sort of executive power to do something I disagreed with how different a lot of people, myself included, would feel about it.
I agree with your comments about E.J. Dionne, he provided a persuasive moral argument but does not provide any evidence for the constitutionality of his actions. I feel that potentially Dionne, Brooks and Obama refrained from bringing up specific Constitutional evidence with ambiguous and nuanced interpretations to not lose the interest of the viewers, and in Obama's case, to provide a more emotionally persuasive argument. I also found Brooks point interesting that while Obama desperately wants to resolve this issue, he is putting the legitimacy of the president and balance of powers in the federal government at risk for future generations.
I did consider the fact that a future President could very well use "executive authority," for what it's worth, to pursue a policy with which I disagree, and I would like to share my reconciliation with this unsettling proposition. While it is fearsome that we should routinely vest such vast powers in a single person, discouraging illegal immigration is a national emergency. It would make sense that, in case of emergency, the President should have authority to react, provided Congress has not yet passed relevant legislation (see Youngstown v. Sawyer). Essentially, in absence of a pressing emergency, the President must still submit to the supreme legislative authority of Congress. However, times have changed since the ratification of the Constitution, and the President has taken on the role of emergency leader (I hope this doesn't sound too much like Hitler's technically legitimate rise to power...).
I agree with Adam and Kennedy. Although Dionne pointed out that Obama is "doing exactly what Reagan and Bush did to provide relief to illegal immigrants," he never gave concrete evidence that supports his claim that Obama's actions are constitutional. I think Kennedy's point that Obama, Brooks, and Dionne might tend to discuss the moral arguments more than constitutional evidence in order to keep listeners' attention is interesting and accurate. Talking about the moral issues also provides grounds for both sides to emphasize that they agree on something (that something being the "substance" as Brooks called it), which is appealing to viewers. I agreed with Brooks when he said that "we have compromise, we have alternate voices, we have legislative process." While this is true, Congress is currently gridlocked and has not been able to come to any major compromises on the immigration issue, so I think some action is better than just doing nothing, as Dionne pointed out.
I agree with both Adam and Kennedy that E.J. Dionne did not back up his claim that what President Obama is doing is constitutional with concrete evidence. I got the feeling that both he and Obama are making a moral argument that America is so restricted by this gridlock of political polarization, that they are resorting back to the ideological foundations of this country in order to jump-start progression again. I feel that Obama and Dionne's main points were not rooted in how he is able to do this based on the confines of the Constitution, but on the ideals that drove the Founding Fathers to create this Constitution. Maybe this is oversimplifying the matter, after all this immigration plan will have ramifications that reach far beyond actual immigrants, but I can understand why his point of "we were strangers once too" was repeated because American politics is so caught up in power and money that maybe it is time to remind ourselves of the bigger, moral picture.
I agree with Emma on the idea that because they are trying to move beyond the gridlock, Obama is playing on the ideals that drove the founding fathers to create the constitution. The idea that we are made of immigrants and that we are all strangers is the driving point of Obama's plan. However EJ Dionne was never able to confirm that Obama's actions are constitutional. The President seems to also want to tackle this problem because the republicans are bound to lash out.
The framers of the Constitution intended the President merely to enforce and to oversee the actions of Congress in order to ensure a certain dispersion of power within the American government. Essentially, peacetime presidential domestic policy is irrelevant, since the president cannot assume any decision-making power. The Constitution is also extremely difficult to amend, lest the government begin to exploit one of the seemingly infinite loopholes within. Thus we have a dilemma: how does the government handle an emergency if a divided government becomes so obsessed with spiting the opposition that it fails to fulfill it's intended duty? President Obama decided to take matters into his own hands, further expanding the imperial power of the executive and undercutting a moot Congress.
Technically, any Presidential action regarding domestic policy not passed by Congress is unconstitutional. That being said, it is tempting to call into question the validity of "technical constitutionality" almost two-and-a-half centuries after the ratification of the Constitution. Illegal is mutually destructive. An immigrant family lives a second-class life and constantly fears deportation or separation. The United States cannot properly function with a significant population of undocumented illegal aliens. Proliferated illegal immigration reduces the accuracy of important figures such as the US Census and tax collection at all levels of government. Hence the dire situation presented by mass-illegal immigration.
Lately the Republican Party has found it amusing to deliberately halt Mr. Obama's agenda merely because they can (even if this requires striking down practices they routinely support, such as executive action regarding illegal immigration under Reagan and Bush...), which brings up the aforementioned constitutional stigma. Therefore, President Obama's bold decision to push through the onslaught of political opposition is quite beneficial for the nation. The President has committed to getting something done! Although his actions are arguably unconstitutional, I assert that constitutionality must take a back seat to social progress in the age of divided politics. To repeat the ubiquitous Machiavelli quote, "the ends (political, social, and economic forward progress) justify the means (which may be of dubious constitutionality at times)."
I agree that it's extremely important to get the government to do something, since the current political climate is one of stagnation. I also agree that Obama's actions are beneficial to the country at this point. That said, it is very important to note that what Obama is doing IS NOT the same as what Reagan and Bush did. As the New York Times article about Obama's precedent points out, Reagan signed the amnesty bill (passed by congress) and only afterwards did he extend the coverage to about 100,000 more people. Bush, however, was similar to Obama in that his actions covered about 40% of the undocumented immigrants while Obama's would affect 45%. What this means is that Obama's actions are the largest thus far and set a precedent of an increased executive reach. The "technical constitutionality" you mentioned does apply in this case because we need reform but David Brooks makes a good point. The fact that the president waited until after the senate election and attacked the biggest and most controversial issue first, instead of helping congress pass many smaller bills is a strong indicator of partisan behavior. Furthermore, his speech did nothing to address the Republican fears of executive overreach and unconstitutionality, although I personally find no problem with it. The president's focus on humanist tendencies and emotionally wrenching examples is comparable to the Republican's fear mongering on the immigration issue. Neither does anything to actually fix the problem and both are near equally annoying to see our national leaders use. Basically, if a president is going to use unilateral action he must address the facts of the problem and say what allows him to use such a power. Obama's speech accomplished the first but was sorely lacking in the second.
Mr. Ridge, I agree with you that his speech was extremely lacking in a basis of constitutional backed evidence to support his executive order. The President's speech seemed to be merely made to conjure up an emotional response from the American public to the topic of immigration. However, where is speech is lacking in an explanation of legality, I do believe his order is, as Paul says, a greatly needed push for progress. His order is not meant to be a permanent fix, not in the slightest, it is meant to be a catalyst for Congress to actually get something done with regards to Immigration. Mr. Obama has just put the ball in Congress's court, and issued a challenge, "You mad? Well do something!"
Obama used the majority of his speech to provide moral backing for his executive order, and Dionne followed up his arguments with another round of morally driven evidence. Yet, their lack of constitutional evidence to justify the order does seem condemning, however, I do believe that there is a legal standing to perform such an executive order. Obama's plan is not undermining other political branches (I admit it is on the verge of illegal action), Therefore his order follows in the line of his constitutional duty to interpret and execute the law. He determined that without his executive order there would be no other possible way to solve the problem of immigration because of the "gridlock" as stated by Obama and Dionne. He is using the order to act as a catalyst to make Congress take action on the topic of immigration and not just avoid the issue further. Of course, in Obama's speech he wanted to pull on the heart strings of Americans and stir up an emotional response that would provide support for his order, but he left many in the dark as to how this order will impact the process of legalization of immigrants. It is very clear that this is nowhere near a permanent fix, and Obama didn't want to be, his only goal was to halt the stagnation of Congress on the issue and restart the flow to inevitable new legislation regarding immigration.
I agree that it may not be perfectly constitutional for Obama to do what be is doing. Ideally, everything would be done with full congressional and popular approval. But, as he cannot gain backing from congress, I think he is just trying to make any changes in any way he can. It's a really tough situation, as we need legislation, but it's important to respect the constitution.
Obama's speech made a bold attempt to combat the issue of immigration in America. He is facing a lot of struggles when trying to introduce reform, as republicans try to block most legislation that he puts forward. So, I think it is pretty bold but also definitely needed for him to go above congress and try and create reform. He attacks the issue pretty fairly. I think it is very reasonable to not want to completely deport any undocumented people in America, as this will ruin thousands of lives and diminish a lot of our workforce. It is reasonable to try and deport criminals and bad people however. I also think he could have provided a more comprehensive and in depth answer to the fact that it is incredibly hard to get citizenship for undocumented people.
I agree with the morality and constitutionality of President Obama's policy. The policy lies within the parties ideology and I believe that it is justified and fair. Little has been done with regards to the much needed immigration reform through Congress, and this policy is another reflection of this blatant inefficiency. It also reflects the Presidents determination to bypass Congress to bring about reform. Although clearly stretching the constitutional bounds of executive power, it is difficult to declare this action unconstitutional. I hope for a bipartisan Congressional agreement on this subject and the eventual passing of a bill, I do not believe this will be achieved with the republicans dominating both the House and the Senate. The unpopularity of this action may leave the democrats isolated and potential affect their chances at the presidency in 2016.
Although I agree with what he said, I don't think E.J. Dionne made any good points as to if it is constitutional. David Brooks points out that Obama didn't make any points in the speech as to how it is constitutional aside from the fact that President's in the passed did the same. Brooks also got me thinking about in the future if another President used the same sort of executive power to do something I disagreed with how different a lot of people, myself included, would feel about it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your comments about E.J. Dionne, he provided a persuasive moral argument but does not provide any evidence for the constitutionality of his actions. I feel that potentially Dionne, Brooks and Obama refrained from bringing up specific Constitutional evidence with ambiguous and nuanced interpretations to not lose the interest of the viewers, and in Obama's case, to provide a more emotionally persuasive argument. I also found Brooks point interesting that while Obama desperately wants to resolve this issue, he is putting the legitimacy of the president and balance of powers in the federal government at risk for future generations.
DeleteI did consider the fact that a future President could very well use "executive authority," for what it's worth, to pursue a policy with which I disagree, and I would like to share my reconciliation with this unsettling proposition. While it is fearsome that we should routinely vest such vast powers in a single person, discouraging illegal immigration is a national emergency. It would make sense that, in case of emergency, the President should have authority to react, provided Congress has not yet passed relevant legislation (see Youngstown v. Sawyer). Essentially, in absence of a pressing emergency, the President must still submit to the supreme legislative authority of Congress. However, times have changed since the ratification of the Constitution, and the President has taken on the role of emergency leader (I hope this doesn't sound too much like Hitler's technically legitimate rise to power...).
DeleteI agree with Adam and Kennedy. Although Dionne pointed out that Obama is "doing exactly what Reagan and Bush did to provide relief to illegal immigrants," he never gave concrete evidence that supports his claim that Obama's actions are constitutional. I think Kennedy's point that Obama, Brooks, and Dionne might tend to discuss the moral arguments more than constitutional evidence in order to keep listeners' attention is interesting and accurate. Talking about the moral issues also provides grounds for both sides to emphasize that they agree on something (that something being the "substance" as Brooks called it), which is appealing to viewers. I agreed with Brooks when he said that "we have compromise, we have alternate voices, we have legislative process." While this is true, Congress is currently gridlocked and has not been able to come to any major compromises on the immigration issue, so I think some action is better than just doing nothing, as Dionne pointed out.
DeleteI agree with both Adam and Kennedy that E.J. Dionne did not back up his claim that what President Obama is doing is constitutional with concrete evidence. I got the feeling that both he and Obama are making a moral argument that America is so restricted by this gridlock of political polarization, that they are resorting back to the ideological foundations of this country in order to jump-start progression again. I feel that Obama and Dionne's main points were not rooted in how he is able to do this based on the confines of the Constitution, but on the ideals that drove the Founding Fathers to create this Constitution. Maybe this is oversimplifying the matter, after all this immigration plan will have ramifications that reach far beyond actual immigrants, but I can understand why his point of "we were strangers once too" was repeated because American politics is so caught up in power and money that maybe it is time to remind ourselves of the bigger, moral picture.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emma on the idea that because they are trying to move beyond the gridlock, Obama is playing on the ideals that drove the founding fathers to create the constitution. The idea that we are made of immigrants and that we are all strangers is the driving point of Obama's plan. However EJ Dionne was never able to confirm that Obama's actions are constitutional. The President seems to also want to tackle this problem because the republicans are bound to lash out.
ReplyDeleteThe framers of the Constitution intended the President merely to enforce
ReplyDeleteand to oversee the actions of Congress in order to ensure a certain
dispersion of power within the American government. Essentially,
peacetime presidential domestic policy is irrelevant, since the
president cannot assume any decision-making power. The Constitution is
also extremely difficult to amend, lest the government begin to exploit
one of the seemingly infinite loopholes within. Thus we have a dilemma:
how does the government handle an emergency if a divided government
becomes so obsessed with spiting the opposition that it fails to fulfill
it's intended duty? President Obama decided to take matters into his own
hands, further expanding the imperial power of the executive and
undercutting a moot Congress.
Technically, any Presidential action regarding domestic policy not
passed by Congress is unconstitutional. That being said, it is tempting
to call into question the validity of "technical constitutionality"
almost two-and-a-half centuries after the ratification of the
Constitution. Illegal is mutually destructive. An immigrant family lives
a second-class life and constantly fears deportation or separation. The
United States cannot properly function with a significant population of
undocumented illegal aliens. Proliferated illegal immigration reduces
the accuracy of important figures such as the US Census and tax
collection at all levels of government. Hence the dire situation
presented by mass-illegal immigration.
Lately the Republican Party has found it amusing to deliberately halt
Mr. Obama's agenda merely because they can (even if this requires
striking down practices they routinely support, such as executive action
regarding illegal immigration under Reagan and Bush...), which brings up
the aforementioned constitutional stigma. Therefore, President Obama's
bold decision to push through the onslaught of political opposition is
quite beneficial for the nation. The President has committed to getting
something done! Although his actions are arguably unconstitutional, I
assert that constitutionality must take a back seat to social progress
in the age of divided politics. To repeat the ubiquitous Machiavelli
quote, "the ends (political, social, and economic forward progress)
justify the means (which may be of dubious constitutionality at times)."
I agree that it's extremely important to get the government to do something, since the current political climate is one of stagnation. I also agree that Obama's actions are beneficial to the country at this point. That said, it is very important to note that what Obama is doing IS NOT the same as what Reagan and Bush did. As the New York Times article about Obama's precedent points out, Reagan signed the amnesty bill (passed by congress) and only afterwards did he extend the coverage to about 100,000 more people. Bush, however, was similar to Obama in that his actions covered about 40% of the undocumented immigrants while Obama's would affect 45%. What this means is that Obama's actions are the largest thus far and set a precedent of an increased executive reach.
DeleteThe "technical constitutionality" you mentioned does apply in this case because we need reform but David Brooks makes a good point. The fact that the president waited until after the senate election and attacked the biggest and most controversial issue first, instead of helping congress pass many smaller bills is a strong indicator of partisan behavior. Furthermore, his speech did nothing to address the Republican fears of executive overreach and unconstitutionality, although I personally find no problem with it. The president's focus on humanist tendencies and emotionally wrenching examples is comparable to the Republican's fear mongering on the immigration issue. Neither does anything to actually fix the problem and both are near equally annoying to see our national leaders use. Basically, if a president is going to use unilateral action he must address the facts of the problem and say what allows him to use such a power. Obama's speech accomplished the first but was sorely lacking in the second.
Mr. Ridge, I agree with you that his speech was extremely lacking in a basis of constitutional backed evidence to support his executive order. The President's speech seemed to be merely made to conjure up an emotional response from the American public to the topic of immigration. However, where is speech is lacking in an explanation of legality, I do believe his order is, as Paul says, a greatly needed push for progress. His order is not meant to be a permanent fix, not in the slightest, it is meant to be a catalyst for Congress to actually get something done with regards to Immigration. Mr. Obama has just put the ball in Congress's court, and issued a challenge, "You mad? Well do something!"
DeleteObama used the majority of his speech to provide moral backing for his executive order, and Dionne followed up his arguments with another round of morally driven evidence. Yet, their lack of constitutional evidence to justify the order does seem condemning, however, I do believe that there is a legal standing to perform such an executive order. Obama's plan is not undermining other political branches (I admit it is on the verge of illegal action), Therefore his order follows in the line of his constitutional duty to interpret and execute the law. He determined that without his executive order there would be no other possible way to solve the problem of immigration because of the "gridlock" as stated by Obama and Dionne. He is using the order to act as a catalyst to make Congress take action on the topic of immigration and not just avoid the issue further. Of course, in Obama's speech he wanted to pull on the heart strings of Americans and stir up an emotional response that would provide support for his order, but he left many in the dark as to how this order will impact the process of legalization of immigrants. It is very clear that this is nowhere near a permanent fix, and Obama didn't want to be, his only goal was to halt the stagnation of Congress on the issue and restart the flow to inevitable new legislation regarding immigration.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it may not be perfectly constitutional for Obama to do what be is doing. Ideally, everything would be done with full congressional and popular approval. But, as he cannot gain backing from congress, I think he is just trying to make any changes in any way he can. It's a really tough situation, as we need legislation, but it's important to respect the constitution.
DeleteObama's speech made a bold attempt to combat the issue of immigration in America. He is facing a lot of struggles when trying to introduce reform, as republicans try to block most legislation that he puts forward. So, I think it is pretty bold but also definitely needed for him to go above congress and try and create reform. He attacks the issue pretty fairly. I think it is very reasonable to not want to completely deport any undocumented people in America, as this will ruin thousands of lives and diminish a lot of our workforce. It is reasonable to try and deport criminals and bad people however. I also think he could have provided a more comprehensive and in depth answer to the fact that it is incredibly hard to get citizenship for undocumented people.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the morality and constitutionality of President Obama's policy. The policy lies within the parties ideology and I believe that it is justified and fair. Little has been done with regards to the much needed immigration reform through Congress, and this policy is another reflection of this blatant inefficiency. It also reflects the Presidents determination to bypass Congress to bring about reform. Although clearly stretching the constitutional bounds of executive power, it is difficult to declare this action unconstitutional. I hope for a bipartisan Congressional agreement on this subject and the eventual passing of a bill, I do not believe this will be achieved with the republicans dominating both the House and the Senate. The unpopularity of this action may leave the democrats isolated and potential affect their chances at the presidency in 2016.
ReplyDelete