Obama’s unilateral change of immigration law
If you want an example of why conservatives don’t believe President Obama’s overtures about working with them, and why he actually is making partisanship worse in this country while he claims to want the opposite, look no further than his administration’s new policy toward “low priority” illegal immigrants.
The policy, first reported by the Washington Times and subsequently confirmed in a publicly released memo from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, lays out the criteria for prosecutors to exercise discretion about whether to deport an illegal immigrant. The person in question must:
- have entered the country before turning 16;
- have been in the country for at least five years and still be here;
- be in school (the memo doesn’t specify k-12 or college), or be a high school graduate, or have a GED, or have been honorably discharged from the armed services;
- have not been convicted of “a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses” or pose “a threat to national security or public safety”;
- be 30 years old or younger.
Individuals who meet these criteria almost certainly will not be deported. They will not immediately be granted any “substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship” because, in a rare moment of modesty, Napolitano acknowledges the administration can’t go that far in changing the law. But nor can we rule out such a development in the future.
What the administration has done here is short-circuit the legislative process and make a mockery of the idea that he wants to reach compromises with those who think differently about immigration policy.
You may recall that Congress had a heated debate about the DREAM Act, which would have granted a path to citizenship to almost the exact same pool of illegal immigrants. Now, there’s no question the path to citizenship element is a big difference between the two. But nor can anyone deny that Congress, as is its prerogative, has been debating how to change the legal approach to people who were brought to the United States as children — immigrants who arguably did not make the decision to come here illegally and might well be foreigners in their own birth countries if they’ve spent most of their lives here.
There is some sympathy among many conservatives for these child immigrants. But there is also debate about how to make such a policy change without creating an incentive for more illegal immigration. In fact, that is the biggest problem many conservatives — including yours truly — have with making such a policy change. That’s why you hear us talking about making the border more secure first, so that any kind of leniency for illegal immigrants already here does not lead to large number of new illegal immigrants.
With this decision, the Obama administration is dismissing those legitimate concerns. It is antagonizing its critics, who might have helped foster a compromise. And it is undercutting the very notion of a compromise, by taking what it wants without addressing what the other side wants.
Imagine if the president could unilaterally decree higher taxes, and then told conservatives, “OK, now I’ll be happy to talk about spending.” He would have no credibility, because he would already have gotten what he wanted without having to give in on anything.
That’s what’s happened here.
Then there are the details about the policy. Someone who came from Mexico to the U.S. a month before his 16th birthday and is now 21 cannot in any sense be described as someone who knows “only this country as home,” as Napolitano’s memo puts it. These kinds of thresholds for deciding when the law of the land should be ignored are more properly debated in Congress than decreed by an administration. Yes, the memo only grants discretion and doesn’t require it, but it also makes clear a strong preference for ignoring these “low priority cases.”
And let’s not pretend this policy is totally unrelated to this fall’s election. It’s not only brazen pandering to a group whose votes Obama needs desperately, but it is made at the same time his administration is fighting voter ID laws that would prevent, or at least sharply curb, any voting by illegal immigrants. (Apparently, the White House thinks you need to show an ID to listen to your president speak, but not to vote for him.)
Have other presidents single-handedly set policies their political opponents didn’t like? Of course. But most of them didn’t have the chutzpah to continue claiming, three and a half years into a very partisan presidency, that they really, really, really wanted to work with the other side of the aisle.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
288 comments Add your comment
Kyle Wingfield
June 15th, 2012
12:52 pm
getalife @ 12:22: And here’s Rubio’s statement on the administration’s move, which is more or less what I wrote.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 15th, 2012
12:52 pm
Boehner’s not willing to talk with Obama. He gets his rear end handed to him by his own party just by looking in the general direction of the white house.
Short leash they got on that one. The Weeper of the House.
Kyle Wingfield
June 15th, 2012
12:52 pm
Old Timer @ 12:51: Isn’t that what I wrote?
JDW
June 15th, 2012
12:53 pm
@Kyle…”then I guess we have two PARTIES OF NO”
Nope we have one PARTY OF NO and one party that’s tired of waiting for them.
Kyle Wingfield
June 15th, 2012
12:53 pm
JDW: See the latter part of my 12:42 to ByteMe.
Thomas Heyward Jr.
June 15th, 2012
12:55 pm
True lovers of freedom would insist that ALL Americans be treated…………………..exactly the same as “illegal aliens”.
.
eff your silly “papers”.
.
Alas………the Ron Paul army is surrounded by effiminate Metro/Federo Sexuals who crave attention from the likes of Romney, Obama, and Barney Frank.
.
But we grow.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
June 15th, 2012
12:55 pm
Mr. Holmes: Sometimes governments have to actually govern, but the Right tends to forget this when the other side has the White House.
———
I think what you’re referring to is akin to martial law. Or did you miss the whole thing about the three branches of government and checks and balances?
You Democrats are turning into good little fascists.
ralston
June 15th, 2012
12:55 pm
In the 80s, My dad and I used to be pro-Reagan , tried and true conservatives. Now, some 30 years later, both of us have got smarter, i.e. became Democrats.
Mr. Holmes
June 15th, 2012
12:56 pm
I understand your point, Kyle, and I fully admit that the decision to extend the age bar to 16-year-olds (who would now be much older and who likely have lots of friends who vote) is completely political. What I reject is your notion that the Right would have treated this any differently had the age been 10. Whatever Obama does, the kneejerk response from the Fox News crowd is “Tyranny!” and you know it.
Kyle Wingfield
June 15th, 2012
12:56 pm
JDW @ 12:53: What doesn’t get through your partisan lens is that some of us feel exactly the same about the Dems. The Dems are the PARTY OF NO when it comes to real spending cuts. They’re the PARTY OF NO when it comes to realistically addressing runaway entitlement spending. They’re the PARTY OF NO when it comes to strengthening border enforcement. They’re the PARTY OF NO when it comes to reassessing whether some regulations are overly burdensome to business. They’re the PARTY OF NO when it comes to passing a budget.
And so on.
JDW
June 15th, 2012
12:56 pm
@Kyle…”As you well know, I wasn’t writing about that topic back then and have no articles on the subject to show you.”
See thats kind of the point…you weren’t writing about it. Why?
Carol
June 15th, 2012
12:56 pm
You people complaining about this law don’t understand how much joy and hope it gives to a person, such as myself, who was brought here at the age of 3. You don’t get to come and stay here by choice in a situation like mine. But you grow to love the country you’re in and see it as home. I don’t look at my birth country as home. I have no desire to go back. But I’ve been living here with limited freedom and still working as hard as an American Citizen should. I teared up hearing this news. I’ve waited 13 years for a chance like this. I hope it works out for me and everyone else who deserves this opportunity.
ByteMe
June 15th, 2012
12:57 pm
This was a doubly clever move by the Obama administration. Over and above the obvious appeal to a key constituency, the policy here mimics, I assume intentionally, what Republicans claim they want to adopt in a scaled-down version of the DREAM Act. But for Republicans, embracing Obama’s move carries the same risk with their base as rejecting it does with immigrants – the voting bloc they’re most concerned about alienating. A hunch: prepare yourself for a deluge of condemnations of executive-branch overreach, paired with real reluctance to say anything meaningful about what the directive actually accomplishes.
This ^^^ as well. (from Talkingpointsmemo.com)
And, Kyle, the rubbish is the same nonsense Republicans love to throw at Democrats and “Libruls”. You just don’t like it when you’re the target and neither do I. Get your blog citizens to stop and I will as well.
As for what you complained about privately, actually, if you said you had, I would believe you. Most likely, though, you were as blissfully unaware of the policy change as the rest of the country was.
But that’s the interesting thing about it: we can be upset about it, but it’s still up to the Executive Branch to uphold the laws they want to uphold. Elections have consequences. Would the government have imposed illegal (and top secret) wiretaps under a Gore administration? Hard to be sure, but it’s hard to see how Gore would have been manipulated by a couple of insiders into attacking the wrong country or doing “extra-legal” things, given that he spent 8 years as VP. Would we have bombed Iran or put boots on the ground in Somalia under a McCain administration? Probably, given his disposition.
Complain… or win the election and give cover to your team when they do something like this.
Illegal Alien
June 15th, 2012
12:57 pm
Other than the political aspect, what’s bad about this?
Congress wouldn’t have addressed this anymore than in the past.
I constantly see articles about employers not being able to find qualified workers. If an unemployed person really wanted to work, they could find a job even if they had to swallow some of their pride.
td
June 15th, 2012
12:58 pm
Mr. Holmes
June 15th, 2012
12:41 pm
Your compassion argument blows up when you look at the criteria. If the kid is under 30 and a HS dropout and did not get his/her GED then they can be deported. Why is it that only the educated can stay and not everyone?
Kyle Wingfield
June 15th, 2012
12:59 pm
Thomas Heyward Jr.: Perhaps the Ron Paul army should brush up on what Ron Paul actually advocates.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
June 15th, 2012
1:00 pm
Kyle Wingfield
June 15th, 2012
12:56 pm
————–
Smackdown complete.
ByteMe
June 15th, 2012
1:01 pm
The Dems are the PARTY OF NO when it comes to real spending cuts. They’re the PARTY OF NO when it comes to realistically addressing runaway entitlement spending. They’re the PARTY OF NO when it comes to strengthening border enforcement.
Wow. So much wrong in one short burst.
So who signed off on the automatic sequestration cuts the House Republicans are trying to get out of?
So who wanted to pay for doctors to spend time with patients getting their end-of-life directives, a cost-effective way to lower Medicare costs… and who called them “death panels”?
So who has deported more illegals and built more fence… Obama or Bush?
Kyle Wingfield
June 15th, 2012
1:01 pm
Mr. Holmes: No, I don’t know that. Rubio has proposed something similar to what Obama did, but he explains very well why the way it is done is important.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 15th, 2012
1:02 pm
The Dems are the PARTY OF NO when it comes to real spending cuts.
Yeah, just look at that long list of cuts listed in Ryan’s budget……oh wait, there aren’t any specific ones in there, right?
I guess the Democrats are THE PARTY OF NO phantom fiscal cuts!
JDW
June 15th, 2012
1:03 pm
@Kyle…HORSE HOOEY
“The Dems are the PARTY OF NO when it comes to real spending cuts.”
And yet Obama and Boehner worked out a $4 Trillion dollar deal that the Tea Party peed all over
“They’re the PARTY OF NO when it comes to realistically addressing runaway entitlement spending.”
And yet it has been said consistently that when revenue is on the table so are entitlements…hello Grover you home…
“They’re the PARTY OF NO when it comes to strengthening border enforcement.”
And yet untold billions have been poured into that very thing.
“They’re the PARTY OF NO when it comes to reassessing whether some regulations are overly burdensome to business.”
And yet there is a major project underway today at the direction of the President in EVERY agency to do just that.
“They’re the PARTY OF NO when it comes to passing a budget.”
It takes two to tango…I believe the President submitted one and Congress has taken no substantive action to reach any agreement.
Kyle Wingfield
June 15th, 2012
1:04 pm
JDW @ 12:56: Because my job during his first term was covering education and courts in Alabama, and during the second term it was covering European affairs in Brussels (I got there about two weeks after Election Day 2004).
I might as well ask why you weren’t preventing steroid use in baseball during the late 1990s.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 15th, 2012
1:04 pm
Carol, above, just put another nail in the Romnay campaign coffin.
ByteMe
June 15th, 2012
1:06 pm
Because my job during his first term was covering education and courts in Alabama, and during the second term it was covering European affairs in Brussels (I got there about two weeks after Election Day 2004).
On a slow day, you should talk about that transition some. I know I’d find it really interesting.
Mr. Holmes
June 15th, 2012
1:07 pm
Kyle: That statement doesn’t do anything to support your point, which was that the problem is the age limit. You said yourself that if the age limit had been 10 then “it’s a completely different discussion.”
Just like I predicted we’ll get from Romney, Rubio’s reaction says nothing about the practical effects of the decision–indeed, it implicitly supports those effects–and focuses on the DREADED TYRANNY.
Oh the horror! And me without my smelling salts…
JDW
June 15th, 2012
1:07 pm
@Kyle..what you mean the Europeans didn’t care
I’ll give you that one…as for the steroids I was in London in the late 1990’s. My job was the Cricketers. Did well too!
Aquagirl
June 15th, 2012
1:07 pm
Actually, I expressly said the last post was not about prosecutorial discretion
Point taken Kyle….but I don’t recall a single post that advocated actually changing the law. So while I acknowledge you may not approve of prosecutorial discretion, a large number of posters explicitly said they do. Unless the prosecution is something they like, then they’re all for lowering the boom and screeching about the sanctity of law.
Quite a nest of hypocrites you have here. Someone had to point it out.
Kyle Wingfield
June 15th, 2012
1:12 pm
The sequestration bill was a perfect example of the meaningless bipartisanship I was talking about the other day. Both sides agreed to it, and then both sides began to try to dismantle it.
What Sec. Def. Leon Panetta said about it earlier this month:
“Sequester is not a real crisis, it’s an artificial crisis,” Panetta said. Both parties in Congress recognize that doubling cuts to the nation’s defense budget would be a disaster, he added. “I know of no Republican, no Democrat, who believes that should happen,” the secretary said.
The GOP went along with it because it had backed itself into a corner on the issue of the debt ceiling and — unlike what some people want to believe — wasn’t actually willing to withhold the new borrowing authority. Agreeing to what both sides knew to be fake cuts was a face-saving exercise.
Kyle Wingfield
June 15th, 2012
1:14 pm
ByteMe @ 1:06: Maybe I’ll give that a shot sometime.
GT
June 15th, 2012
1:14 pm
I think you will see a lot more of this unilateral decision making. I and many have wondered why it hasn’t been used before, but now see his brilliance. I imagine a lot on the right still don’t see it which will even make it more effective, but his timing is absolutely perfect. It is a little like the gay marriage endorsement. It all discribes Romney more than it does O. Some in the middle forget who this guy Romney is with his pointing at his opponent and giving them so little about himself.
dbetzel
June 15th, 2012
1:16 pm
Mr. Holmes,
So, if I bring my child to your house, I can just leave them there for you to feed indefinitely? This selective adherence to the application of law is not only unconstitutional (someone should actually read the 14th amendment), but it sends a CLEAR message to anyone that wants to skip the border. (BTW, what burdern of proof do they have to make to show that they came here UNDER 16? If we can’t seem to track those that are here, how the hell can we tell when they got here?).
iggy
June 15th, 2012
1:18 pm
“Y’all just chill. We can modify the law after the election……”
Agreed. Im sure President Romney will have something palatable to both sides of the aisle.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 15th, 2012
1:21 pm
Glenn Greenwald explains the importance of political pressure – first the LGBT’s and now the immigrants.
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/15/the_imperative_of_political_pressure/
excellent article
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 15th, 2012
1:22 pm
“I would say Obama is representing his natural constituency.”
Lawbreakers?
iggy
June 15th, 2012
1:23 pm
Carol
June 15th, 2012
12:56 pm
Cry me a river.
This sword cuts both ways. My girlfriend and her parents, sisters, who are from the Dominican Republic took the proper path to citizenship and who became citizens, are outraged with this idea. Rest assured, this latest placating move by The Kenyan will split the democratic hispanic vote. The hispanics which are currently GOP will stay.
The Kenyan does it to himself again!!
Mr. Holmes
June 15th, 2012
1:23 pm
The GOP went along with it because it had backed itself into a corner on the issue of the debt ceiling and — unlike what some people want to believe — wasn’t actually willing to withhold the new borrowing authority.
A fair post on sham “bipartisanship” as evidenced by the sequestration charade. It’s just kick the can, except it’s still a net win for the GOP because, while neither side wants to cut defense, the Right really, reeeeeeally wants those social spending cuts. Both sides may laugh and say they were just kidding about taking away DoD’s candy, but the Repubs are dead serious on the other stuff. So the end debate will be about how much of the Dems’ priorities to cut.
And I wish I could believe you on the statement above, except we had actually sitting U.S. congressmen advocating for a national debt default. What, they were just pandering? We’ll get to see here pretty soon, won’t we?
BW
June 15th, 2012
1:25 pm
Kyle
The only way things apparently are going to be definitively decided in the legislative branch is through one party control which the American people will or will not approve in the elections in November. If the voting populace feels the President oversteps his bounds then he will be judged accordingly. The balance of powers argument is maddening considering the legislative branch has been slowly abdicating its legislative responsibility since the Vietnam War in regards to the executive branch’s powers. You could argue that one group of one side is there simply to dismantle legislation that has already passed seeing as government is always the problem. The lower house of Congress could pass a bill addressing all your concerns tomorrow and it could probably even pass in the upper house but my argument is that both sides only wish to engage in zero sum games. They are truly not committed to working on the problems they were sent to address. Continuing to deflect in an attempt to prove one side is the worst ever is simply ridiculous. Maybe one day there can be a nuanced conversation about the hard stuff, such as the one you suggest on immigration, but sadly that day is nowhere near.
JDW
June 15th, 2012
1:27 pm
@Kyle…”The sequestration bill was a perfect example of the meaningless bipartisanship I was talking about the other day. Both sides agreed to it, and then both sides began to try to dismantle it.”
Yes it is, but fact is it was done when there was no other choice after the Tea Partiers rebelled against the agreement Obama and Boehner worked out. While both agreed the Tea Partiers made it necessary.
Further to the point now it is the Republicans that refuse to engage and continue to create this mass of uncertainty that is crippling us all.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/15/news/economy/sequester/index.htm?source=cnn_bin
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 15th, 2012
1:27 pm
““They’re the PARTY OF NO when it comes to reassessing whether some regulations are overly burdensome to business.”
And yet there is a major project underway today at the direction of the President in EVERY agency to do just that.”
It takes more than 3 years to figure out which regulations hurt job creation? What about Valerie “We’re ready to rule day one” Jarrett?
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 15th, 2012
1:30 pm
I suspect this will become another instance where the Supremes will have to be called in to curb this President’s lawlessness and disregard for the constitutional balance of power.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 15th, 2012
1:32 pm
I sure hope that after President Romney is sworn in, all these libs who complain about how the other party has obstructed the grand mission of our dear leader, will jump up and caution the Dems in Congress to go along with President Romney. After all he will have won, and therefore gets to decide how we do things in America. Whatever Romney wants the Dems should support.
I’m afraid they will oppose Romney more viciously than they did GWB and use the excuse, that is what the GOP did to Barry. Hypocrites all!
tiredofIT
June 15th, 2012
1:32 pm
“Feeling used yet, amigos?”
Sorta of like Bush and the Evangelicals
Stephen Gyamfi
June 15th, 2012
1:34 pm
In the absence of cooperation from congress to work on needed immigration issues, President Obama does not have any choice but to move the nation forward, i.e. unilaterally make changes to immigration laws as his position allows him to. You’ve got a Republican congress that is hell-bent in denying Obama of any legislative success regardless of the merit of the case.
Bobby
June 15th, 2012
1:37 pm
Once again President Obama has done what is correct and right. Congratulations to President Obama to stand up against the right wingers in this Country.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 15th, 2012
1:38 pm
“In the absence of cooperation from congress to work on needed immigration issues, President Obama does not have any choice but to move the nation forward, i.e. unilaterally make changes to immigration laws as his position allows him to.”
The U.S. Constitution suggests otherwise, Stephen.
His job, if he wishes to have policies enacted, is to propose some that actually have a chance to be approved by both sides. If not, he gets gridlock. That is HIS fault, not the Republicans in Congress.
iggy
June 15th, 2012
1:38 pm
Finn, I regret to inform you, that for the cause of the Common Good Im forced to place, yet another, frowny face beside your name on the Employee of The Day Calendar.
tkeen
June 15th, 2012
1:38 pm
JDW
June 15th, 2012
1:03 pm
@Kyle…HORSE HOOEY
“The Dems are the PARTY OF NO when it comes to real spending cuts.”
And yet Obama and Boehner worked out a $4 Trillion dollar deal that the Tea Party peed all over
“They’re the PARTY OF NO when it comes to realistically addressing runaway entitlement spending.”
And yet it has been said consistently that when revenue is on the table so are entitlements…hello Grover you home…
“They’re the PARTY OF NO when it comes to strengthening border enforcement.”
And yet untold billions have been poured into that very thing.
“They’re the PARTY OF NO when it comes to reassessing whether some regulations are overly burdensome to business.”
And yet there is a major project underway today at the direction of the President in EVERY agency to do just that.
“They’re the PARTY OF NO when it comes to passing a budget.”
It takes two to tango…I believe the President submitted one and Congress has taken no substantive action to reach any agreement.
***************************
Gee, I guess somebody didn’t read the news when the President’s budget was soundly voted down, he even had ZERO votes from his own party; 97-0 in the Senate. And, pray tell, what entitlements are the Dems willing to cut or reduce??? Nothing. Anytime the Republicans mention it, the Dems whip out their “throwing grandma off a cliff” talking points and refuse to discuss it. I guess you are right, the Dems aren’t the party of “No”, they are the party of plug our ears and say “la la la la la” and hope it goes away. As for border control (or lack thereof)….let’s discuss the whole Fast and Furious program, shall we? In which Holder & Co gave guns to Mexican citizens, who then used said guns to kill border patrol agents. Or do you want to plug your ears and run away.
A Realist
June 15th, 2012
1:38 pm
Where have all ‘Compassionate Conservatives’ gone?
NO, kids don’t need healthcare, if they are sick, it’s their fault.
NO, if you parents brought you into this country as a child – it’s your fault, so just suffer.
NO, if the economy tanks, and you lose your job and house, it’s your fault. Deal with it.
Gimme a break! We used to NOT be a nation of hate… what have we become?
BW
June 15th, 2012
1:38 pm
Tiberius
Did I miss something? Did the President unilaterally change immigration law or did he simply issue a signing statement? Hyperbole from you and Kyle sometimes is a hoot.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 15th, 2012
1:39 pm
I wonder if any on the left have ever read the Constitution in their lifetimes.