President Barack Obama’s recently announced Homeland Security Directive, aimed at young immigrants, has reframed the entire Presidential campaign as June draws to a close. The essence of the order means that, if they meet the directive’s criteria, DREAMers (as they’re called in reference to the DREAM act) would not be deported, and instead would have the opportunity to apply for a two-year work permit potentially allowing them to work, drive, and go to college here in the U.S.
As a longtime supporter of realistic, rational, and comprehensive immigration reform, I’m both glad at the announcement and encouraged that the President has finally come to terms with the fact that the same Republicans who insist he work with them on this issue have neither the will, the way, or, in the case of House Republicans, even the desire to do so. My stance on immigration has always been clear.
As the Senator of the most diverse district in Georgia, the 5th, I’ve seen firsthand the damage our nation’s incoherent immigration policy has done to this millennium’s huddled, yearning masses. Something needs to be done on the federal level that treats these people with both justice and kindness. Of course, that doesn’t mean the policy that President Obama announced is comprehensive enough to achieve such a tall order. It truly is a stopgap measure, one that will only provide short-term relief to the few who are caught up in a long-term problem.
With that in mind, it’s interesting to see the pushback that the President has gotten for announcing this. While the actual directive itself is a small stand on the principle those immigrants brought here as young children or infants shouldn’t be punished for their parents mistakes, the politics are being inflated to something bigger.
Speaker Boehner actually stated that changing this rule is “mak(ing) it much more difficult for us to work in a bipartisan way to get a permanent solution.” U.S. Senator Cornyn, a Republican from Texas, says its “poison(ed) the well for immigration”, while Senator Rubio, who was working on his own version of the DREAM Act to propose this session, has been quoted saying that the executive order will make immigration reform “harder to achieve in the long run."
I’m sorry, but y’all need to understand something: these Republicans are lying. It’s naive at best and disingenuous at worst, to say that all bipartisan efforts have been ruined when you are the ones holding back any significant progress on immigration. U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch, a Republican, was the first one who proposed the DREAM Act and got it on the table in Washington back in 2001 when President Bush was ascendant. Senator McCain was one half of the group that tried for bipartisan immigration support in 2007.
Only in 2010, when President Obama was in the White House and the DREAM Act was proposed yet again, did immigration reform become another party-line issue for Republican legislators. Of course, that was the year of the Tea Party and the power of the far-right base. Now that we’ve arrived in 2012 and have a presidential election, which, as a reminder, are usually won on the backs of independents, are these GOP leaders sorrowfully shaking their heads over President Obama “poisoning the well”, despite the fact that he’s currently the only one who’s actually done anything about our immigration problems?
The politics of this directive is different than the policy. Overall, this is a change that will positively benefit a small amount of immigrants that most Americans agree shouldn’t be penalized for growing up in our country. That’s probably why after this was announced, about two-thirds of American independents supported it. However, that same number is also the reason why the politics are different than the policy.
Politically, President Obama pulled the rug out from under the GOP by announcing this, forcing Governor Romney to articulate his own, distinct position on immigration (which is a weak point for Romney) while baiting the most ardent anti-immigrant anything supporters to come out of the woodwork and remind Hispanics why they might be wary of voting Republican this fall.
More moderate GOP leaders in Washington can’t attack the actual policy implications of this Homeland Security Directive for those same anti-immigrant reasons; after all, Senator Rubio’s prominence in the party is only one example of how they’re pivoting and trying to create a conservative-Hispanic coalition in order to adapt to America’s changing demographics. So all they can do now is complain about how the timing of the order is bad, or that it’s too political.
And that’s fine, but just be honest: You believe that the children of immigrants should be given a reasonable track to U.S. citizenship too, but you’re pissed that President Obama beat you to saying it.
Reprinted from State Senator Curt Thompson's (D-5th) blog. Also, check the Senator out on Facebook and Twitter.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/93265-mccain-senate-gop-will-oppose-immigration-reform-until-borders-secured
Bottom line is we are supposed to be a constitutional republic, hence the phrase 'a nation of laws'...its the Presidents job to enforce the laws that Congress passes. It is not his job to write executive orders to selectively not enforce laws he doesnt like. He could have done immigration reform any way he wanted to when he had conressional and senate majorities for two years, but he spent all his time on healthcare. Now that he's facing an uphill battle for re-election he needs to stir up various parts of his base like a good community organizer...
(Sarcasm ON) YES a conspiracy is afoot, why enforcing borders is the devils work if it ever existed, we'll just give out all the passes first and when no more come to claim them the border will be secure. (SARCASM OFF)
These paths have been around for years and NOT one of those existing paths state that “living here 24 months without getting caught is grounds to stay as a CITIZEN”. What’s a REAL shame is that apparently some believe there are classes of nationalities that are incapable of following the law and underhanded employers willing to exploit them and the communities they operate in.
Those who think we should - need to see what damage is done in the process. Driver in Grayson Fatality Charged with DUI; Held for Immigration Heck of a way to see who wins don't you think? http://loganville.patch.com/articles/driver-in-grayson-fatality-charged-with-dui-held-for-immigration
King James Version (KJV) 33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. 34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
This passage presented is/was instructive in context to treat the stranger EQUALLY under the law, not to single them out for DIFFERENT treatment. Those who look for ENFORCEMENT are simply asking for this simple concept to be applied.
We should not judge others so harshly just because, by the Grace of God, we were born here!
The survey found broad agreement across racial, political and religious divides that immigration policy is best decided at the national level, as opposed to the state level. It also found broad agreement among religious groups that illegal immigrants brought to the United States as children should be able to gain legal resident status if they join the military or go to college. White evangelical Protestants are the ONLY religious group among whom a majority disagree with these policies.
Is it as EASY as shopping at Wal-Mart? NO. Maybe PAYING to be smuggled in is the WRONG way to use those funds. Maybe they should be put those funds toward the cost of LEGAL entrance. But MANY seem to think if they can get here, IT IS THEIRS for the taking and THAT is NOT OK, nor is it what Jesus would do or support. I actually went to the capitol dome twice during recent protests and walked in among all the crowd, all the way around the capitol. I SHUTTER to think what would have happened to me if I had treated the MEXICAN FLAG at that gathering as the American flag had been treated there. EVEN with the police presence to PROTECT the PROTESTORS. The only REAL gripes seem to be it takes TOO long and COSTS too much; well we AREN’T one of the KMART Blue Light Specials or a KOLHS Saturday Door buster. And even when you go to WAL-MART, you use the FRONT door - not the dock or a maintenance door, UNLESS you are up to NO GOOD. Everything else is just rationalization that results in MAJOR collateral damage out here in the REAL world. It may be the AMERICAN way to try to get something as CHEAP as possible, but it’s balanced in tension by the adage you GET what YOU pay for.
How about the 2 terms of Mr. Bill Clinton? He thought that chasing an intern was more important than REAL immigration reform...
Please. The Federal government has responsibilities and NATIONAL border security is one of those. HOWEVER should it FAIL to act, the states ARE expected to PROTECT the welfare of its CITIZENS by all means at their disposal. Do you REALLY think that if any country attacked us that we would NOT use STATE or even local resources to supplement our defense? Would you in reality actually SUPPORT such a position? How does immigration differ?
Fixing doesn't mean handing out "passes" until we run out of "takers" either, it means ENFORCEMENT.
"White evangelical Protestants are the ONLY religious group among whom a majority disagree" seems like a racist based statement to me.
Others tried to take lead, but didn't have the political capital that a President always has, if he thinks the issue is important enough to use his influence: "Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) is working on his own immigration bill, and members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, led in part by Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), ramp up pressure on the administration to move for immigration reform . . . ." He used this in the 2008 elections and did nothing to move it forward. Now he is using it again during the election season. But he uses an Executive Order rather than demonstrating his lack of leadership ability to bring the parties together in Congress (as he promised to do in 2008). He's an ineffective disappointment.