This past week was just a prelude to the administration’s coming action on immigration. Speaker Boehner knows that some kind of action is coming, so he preemptively threatened to sue the president without specifying over what. Meanwhile, the administration has been signaling for months that it would take unilateral executive action if the House of Representatives didn’t act on the Senate’s immigration reform bill. Now, the Democrats are ratcheting up the pressure:
The Obama administration is “not bluffing” in its intent to take executive action on immigration policy if House Republicans don’t act soon, top Democratic leaders warned Thursday.
President Obama has delayed any potential changes to his deportation policy to allow House GOP leaders time to bring legislation to the floor this summer. But if the Republicans don’t act in July, the Democrats say, unilateral changes by Obama are inevitable.
“We’re at the end of the line,” Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said Thursday during a press briefing in the Capitol. “We’re not bluffing by setting a legislative deadline for them to act.
“Their first job is to govern,” Menendez added, “and in the absence of governing, then you see executive actions.”
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) piled on. Noting that a year has passed since the Senate passed a sweeping immigration reform bill with broad bipartisan support, he urged House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to bring a similar bill to the floor.
“I don’t know how much more time he thinks he needs, but I hope that Speaker Boehner will speak up today,” Durbin said. “And if he does not, the president will borrow the power that is needed to solve the problems of immigration.”
I think “borrow the power” is an interesting phrase that has the potential to become a right-wing media meme. In any case, the GOP plans to compensate for their weakness among Latinos by driving up the passion and commitment of their white, protestant base.
So, “IMPEACH!!!”
What about the invasion of Germans onto our national soccer team.
We took German scientists after WWII, we take German footballers now. We’re Americans, it’s what we do – we take the best of everywhere else and integrate it into ourselves, usually forgetting where it originated. (Frankfurter? No – hot dog!)
Fasting during the World Cup.
Hakeem Olajuwon observed Ramadan throughout his career, and seemed to do OK.
That’s a false statement, Boo, and I am kind of surprised at the level of falseness you are doing. Those are dual-nationals. They are fully accredited to play for either the German or the US team. It’s simply a lie to call them Germans.
But keep the players!
“Despite being roundly picked to crash out in the tournament’s first round, Klinsmann steered the Americans to a win, a tie and a narrow loss against stout competition: Ghana, Portugal and Germany.”
Even the transport by plane of a $3 million bonus for team Ghana, they ended their World Cup in misery and got their sports minister and deputy sacked. It’s wise for them to seek political asylum in Brazil.
PS to dataguy, I perceived a valid dose of snark in BooMan’s statement.
Perhaps. My snark detector saw none, however, but snark is in the eye of the beholder quite often.
That Ghana situation seems to repeat itself primarily with African teams in every cup. I seem to remember player revolts in 2010 and 2006. But a revolt which leads to the leading player being suspended for a key 3rd match is pretty amazing.
Brazil – Chili will be decided on penalties!
Ever since the Lewinski fiasco I’ve taken it as an article of faith that the Republicans are going to impeach any Democrat elected President no matter what. It’s just a matter of what pretext they will use. immigration is as good as any, maybe better than any for them, because it hits all their hot button issues. It should be a bigtime loser for them, but unfortunately, we know that the Washington press corps love that drama like kids love an amusement park. In the meantime, real governance goes out the window. It’s an awful goddamn shame.
The Republican Party of 1998 could afford that kind of silliness because A.) they didn’t realize that cycle was one of the last gasps of their demographic ascendancy and B.) they still had a mighty big lock on Congress.
The Republican Party of 2015-18 does not have that cushion for carelessness. Losing 2 seats in the Senate and 8 in the House during an off-year election would be completely disastrous for them. It’d make the conservative base’s current long term strategy (hold down the veto levers by infiltrating at least one house of Congress and disenchant the Democratic Party’s voter enthusiasm) almost unworkable.
That’s where the conservative project to prevent the poors from voting is meant to help the GOP maintain control of their veto levers. The gun rights plank of their movement is supposed to create the image of a fail-safe in case their ability to control the outcomes of enough elections fall away.
I use the word “image” intentionally, because they will not maintain political power in today’s United States by brandishing weapons. Maybe they could become successful in a future U.S. by doing so, however. I’m not as sanguine about the future.
I just don’t see how the conservative movement expects to implement their agenda in our culture. Paying people sub-minimum wage while grotesquely increasing executive pay, poisoning the air, ground, water and food while flooding the coastal areas and plunging whole regions into drought conditions, denying minorities self-determination in multiple spheres (including voting!), denying women contraception and forcing them to give birth- what’s the end game here?
The rich and powerful that impose these horrors better dig wide moats around their mansions. Oh, and don’t forget the alligators.
I don’t know, what was the endgame for Imperial Japan after they realized that their empire was resource-limited and they’d have to go up against the Soviet Union or United States? What was the endgame for the antebellum South when they realized that they were going to be permanently outvoted on the expansion of slavery? What was the endgame of Austria-Hungary after they realized that Russia, Poland, and Ukraine were going to render them Europe’s next Spain?
They’re like King Kong. The smart and in fact only way forward for him after escaping from the chains was to bust past the tank lines and try to escape to the wilderness. But there was still a chance of failure there and would’ve immediately required some pain. But while climbing up the Empire State building sealed his fate, in the immediate term it saved him a lot of pain. That’s how almost every conservative organization in decline has acted.
Double standard, anyone? Consistency demands that every president should be impeached.
Drones, anyone? Targeted assassinations? Mass electronic surveillance? Invading Libya, and Mali, and Jordan, and Chad, and now re-invading Iraq?
You should be reaching out across the aisle — the GOP are your allies on this one.
I have been wondering these past few weeks about just how much the president can do about immigration. A previous president granted amnesty once already, rights?
Could President Obama come out with something more wide ranging than just something that will affect Dreamers? Could he grant amnesty to every person who is here illegally, who has not been involved in a violent crime?
Frankly, if he has that power, I don’t see why he wouldn’t just do that. I am hoping this will turn out like the Elizabeth Warren saga. They fought her nomination to head up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and they ended up with a powerful senator.
No. Done by legislation — the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill.
It’s probably not worth mentioning that I am not in agreement with many in this site on the immigration issue. I will say, however, that there is some evidence that the current disastrous flood of young illegals is affecting public opinion and pushing it in the “opposed to amnesty” direction. That’s worth watching. There is this fallacy that public opinion favors amnesty. That’s no longer obvious.
Where is this evidence that you speak of? The most recent polls I’ve seen show less than a third are in favor of mass deportations. (Just to be clear, what you call “opposed to amnesty,” I call “mass deportations.”) Which is consistent with other polls going back at least a year. Where is this huge swing in favor of mass deportations?
Right:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/171962/decrease-immigration-increase.aspx
Where does that say anything about deporting people, which is what you advocate?
Little hostile, aren’t we?
I mean I do get hostile in general at situations where people advocate the deportations of kids. Though I wouldn’t say that post in particular was hostile; it was more “that poll doesn’t say what you said it says.”
I believe dataguy projecteth a bit too much there.
What is your suggestion then about the 50,000 now, and the coming 50,000? Most are NOT kids. Most are young men, technically considered children, but who were able to come 1000 miles across Mexico on their own.
Every one we house causes 3 more to get ready to come. And to the skeptical response about that, these “children”, who are actually young men, all say that since Obama is going to give them amnesty, they decided to come. That is what they believe, and that is why they are coming.
From a Byron York column:
OTM means Other than Mexico, which indicates that a majority of these mostly-teen migrants are not Mexican, but from other Central American countries.
And? These are not the people that immigration reform is about. As seabe attempted to point out, you’re comparing apples to oranges.
So, once more from the top. If you are against “amnesty,” you are in favor of deporting 11 million people. If people are coming here because they mistakenly believe the borders are wide open, I will agree that this is a problem. But to say that we need to deport 11 million people because misinformation is spreading in El Salvador is a bit of a non sequitur.
Not to mention that the best solution to this crisis that you and Byron York are lamenting would be for the House Republicans to do their fucking job and pass some kind of immigration bill. The Senate has acted, and is waiting on Boehner. If he doesn’t like the Senate bill, he should could up with something on his own. Surely you and Byron York realize that’s the way it’s supposed to work in this country.
I believe in open borders; in many ways, Davis’ snark about not getting agreement on borders in the commentary here is also correct. So of course they should be allowed, especially if they’re refugees.
To which I’ll pose the questions Greg Sargent poses to Republicans:
OK, from a recent census, there are 42,000,000 people in Central America. How many should we take? As far as I can tell somewhere between 50-75% want to come here.
Be honest. How many should we take? How will we pay for it? And how many will you take in your basement? It’s $2,000,000,000 for 75,000 for this first round. At that rate, it will cost $2,000,000,000,000 (1000 times $2,000,000,000).
You open-borders types just feel so happy to be so open and lad-di-dah. How are we paying? And what do the people of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California, and Louisiana have to say? Most are not interested in your plans for their states.
You didn’t answer my questions so I won’t answer yours.
Well, if you can’t, I can accept that. You are happy to just say “Oh, it’s so nice and dandy to be an open-borders person – peace and love”. Unicorns, ponies, etc.
You have no answers. Because you haven’t considered the question in any serious way.
Blab blah blah fart “hordes” and other dehumanizing language.
Once again, do we deport children brought here by their parents against their own will, of which are among 11 million? And do we deprive them of due process?
For the moment, I am not fully certain about those brought as children. I could live with that compromise.
However, what do you say about the young persons coming in illegally NOW? 50,000 or so now, 100,000 possibly by the end of the year. What is your answer to that?
Just to clarify: I am willing to accept the Dreamer compromise. It’s a modest and humanitarian concession.
$2,000,000,000 for 75,000? What number is that? What are you talking about?
Obama just asked for $2,000,000,000 to handle the 75,000 or so recent illegals. You need to keep up. All in the headlines the last couple days.
And my figures were wrong. 42,000,000 Central Americans. Need to add in the population of Mexico, which is 120,000,000. So, if we have 160,000,000 in the region, and we figure that even 25% want to come here, that is 40,000,000 people. Again, I come up with $2,000,000,000,000 (2 trillion). That’s the cost of new schools, hospitals, yada yada yada. Where are they going?
How much water will they use in the arid quarters? Where are the houses going to go? Where are the jobs – unemployment is still in the 9-12% range.
Be honest. How many should we accept? Because there is no way WHATSOEVER that an unlimited number will be accepted.
Well, as soon as there’s a mass movement in favor of importing the entire population of Latin America, we can talk about it. Since that isn’t what’s happening here, it isn’t terribly relevant.
As far as the $2,000,000,000, let’s try thinking just a little bit here. Obama is requesting this amount for border enforcement, yes? You seem to be fond of apples to oranges comparisons, so let me try to explain the problem with this one. You can not properly take a number that is being spent to keep immigrants out and say this is the cost of letting them in. It’s the opposite, actually. That $2,000,000,000 would drop to $0.00 if we had open borders.
Granted, you do talk about schools, hospitals, etc., but guess what? If new immigrants are paying taxes, they will be helping to cover the costs! I’m not sure what to say about the water situation, but again, no one is actually arguing that we should admit all of Latin America. Honestly.
I’m looking for a serious discussion. There is never a limit of the number of illegals you folks want in. I have proposed a number who, from our experience, would want to get in.
With the current arrival of hordes of “children” who are mostly young men, we have 50,000-100,000 NOW, and in a month, who knows? How many of them should we house? How many schools should we build?
The simple-minded, la-di-dah bleating of platitudes by the pro-illegal side is amazing. I would like a realistic notion of how many we can accept, but no one will discuss that. And if we give amnesty to 11,000,000, the next wave will be bigger.
Well, dataguy, you’re throwing around a lot of numbers here based on claims that don’t work together at all:
Based on your own claims, the current immigration number from our American neighbors is somewhere in the low single digit % of the total populations of Mexico and Central America. Your alarming claims appear unjustified by the evidence you cite.
As far as the 11 million you want to self-deport, WE’VE ALREADY ABSORBED THEM INTO THE ECONOMY. WILLINGLY. It would be beneficial to our economy if we allowed them to have more bargaining leverage with their employers, more economic and personal freedom, and better access to education, health care and decent housing. That would benefit our society, and our job market, in many ways.
I believe you are right that a maximally exploitable workforce of many millions of people is weakening our Nation’s job market slightly. That is why we need immigration reform. I agree the devil is in the details, and allowing too many work visas would create problems. BIG problems are being created now, though, and we’re going to have to compromise to get a deal done.
No kidding. He wants to deport 11 million people, and he’s talking about who’s hostile?
Yes, I am for deportation. I am actually for e-Verify for 100% of all jobs. Because 4,000,000 of the illegals are greeks, Germans, Irish, Chinese, Indians, Russians, and English who have over-stayed their visas and who are taking high-paying good jobs. Why did the Democrats eliminate that from S744?
If there’s an issue that has a chance of driving up midterm voter participation in the Democrats’ favor, it’s this one.
I’m curious to see what that “legislative deadline” actually is.
It would seem that the entire Republican game of obstruction and inaction is simply about forcing the President to take unilateral action on a wide range of issues, so that they can continue to portray him as an out-of-control dictator who feels that he is outside the purview of Congress or the American people. And when they feel they have accumulated enough outrage among their base and they also sense enough skepticism and doubt among the wide swath of ignorant voters, most of whom have been stoked by a completely useless and shallow media, they will roll out the impeachment train and start the show.
I have come to the conclusion that everything they do now is about creating enough noise around the actions of the President to make it seem as if impeachment is the only logical alternative they have left to rein in this “radical extremist”, Barack Obama. I have little to no faith that we will get to 2016 without something like this occurring.
Not sure, but I think that numbers of Republican Reps have run on the explicit or implicit promise that they’d impeach Obama. My guess is that they’ll bring the Articles of Impeachment before November.
It would be a powerful poison for the future of the conservative movement if they mounted impeachment proceedings against the first non-white President, particularly if the issue which they file their case on is the President’s executive actions regarding immigration. I wouldn’t put it past them, though.
Look, the GOP impeached President Clinton DURING A LAME DUCK SESSION OF THE HOUSE. They’ve been out of control for quite a while now, and they have become even more outrageous with the reality of First Black President. Their self-entitled world of white hegemony is under threat, they believe, and Something Must Be Done.
that would/ will certainly backfire in terms of dem voter turnout. “please proceed” indeed
And when they feel they have accumulated enough outrage among their base and they also sense enough skepticism and doubt among the wide swath of ignorant voters, most of whom have been stoked by a completely useless and shallow media, they will roll out the impeachment train and start the show.
This strategy is doomed from the outset. The other sides’ partisans and more importantly the disengaged and low-information voters don’t, I’m sad to say, really care about stuff like that. To these people, they see the President as a distant and ineffable Daddy Figure and it’s only natural that Daddy does things that They Don’t Quite Understand. Unless it affects them personally, they don’t really give a care.
An therein lies the rub. Millions have been convinced that they have been personally affected. Just look at all the unfounded ideas that exist surrounding the ACA. It doesn’t matter if the facts fly in the face of those assertions. It is the perception that they have been negatively impacted. Do you know how much outrage I have heard from people who think they have been hurt by virtually everything this administration has done when, in fact, there have been many POSITIVE things which have occurred for them? But you will never convince them. How many people who have screamed about the evil over-reach of Obamacare actually have kids and grandkids who have insurance today only because of what was accomplished through the passing of the Affordable Care Act and the enactment of its coverage requirements? We are well practiced at cognitive dissonance when the facts on the ground conflict with what everyone in the tribe is screaming about.
Obama should go all out on this one and do everything he has the power to do. The Conservatives can’t hate him more, and the minority vote would be Democratic for a generation. The white moderate voters might consider that a step too far, but they’d be impressed by his guts. That should balance out, and if it doesn’t, well, they seem to have the memories of gnats. Where’s the downside?
I think so, too. When you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t, you have the freedom to do what you think is right.
You’re both right. Hope he goes full BEAST MODE on them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0URyxkeSZM