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
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 15th, 2012
2:36 pm
President Romney
president? of what? the Hair Club for Men?
So, Romney can’t fight for the title himself? Ya’ll just want to bend over and give it to him? Let the man do at least one honest day’s work in his life and try to win this campaign to claim that title.
MarkV
June 15th, 2012
2:40 pm
Kyle’s article is laughable. He spends almost all of it expressing his outrage about Obama’s unilateral changes in the immigration law, to give his sycophants here the food for accusing Obama of ignoring Constitution and worse. And at the very end he admits that “other presidents single-handedly set policies their political opponents didn’t like.” So all that outrage boils down to the argument that unlike those other presidents, Obama had claimed that he wanted to work with the other side. Which, incidentally, is probably not even true (about those other presidents).
Lynn
June 15th, 2012
2:43 pm
Theres a difference TD!! Abortion is a right in this country
Ruled on by the Supreme Court. In addition, The President
Has Executive powers and can and should use
More often with a Congress and party
That met during his first day in office to block and
Disagree on anything Obama put forth.
So to the Author of the article how can you even
Use the word comprimise in the same breath as
Republicans. Tried that many times they don’t want to gear
Anyone unless it’s themselves so stop it. Better
Yet where are their concrete plans???
Jefferson
June 15th, 2012
2:48 pm
Think of it like when a young and immature Romney bullies and assalts a young man, they just didn’t “press charges”. Kind of selective enforcement of law.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 15th, 2012
2:49 pm
Under the age of 30? And what year did Reagan release the floodgates?
Hmmm, 30years ago was 1982..
Thanks Ronnie Reagan!
Liz
June 15th, 2012
2:54 pm
So do we spank the parents for reckless endangerment, or declare them heros?
When I look at Americans who turn their back on their own children, and rarely or never see them, let alone provide child support, I respect the illegal aliens even more, who risk it all to provide a better life for their kids.
My views have evolved, 180. However, I do not think it requires providing illegal aliens an avenue to citizenship to be more humane in America. Probably never will.
td
June 15th, 2012
2:57 pm
Lynn
June 15th, 2012
2:43 pm
“can and should use
More often with a Congress and party
That met during his first day in office to block and
Disagree on anything Obama put forth.”
This is a bogus argument and not true at all. The Democrats totally controlled the House and had a filibuster proof Senate for the first 18 months Obama was in office. If Obama wanted the immigration laws changed he had plenty of time to do it and it would not matter what the Republicans said and the Republicans could not have stopped him.
BTW: go back and look at some of the comments from Democratic leaders when Bush came to office and see if they did not try to stop everything he did and not compromise. This is what the opposition party does not matter which party is in the White House and it is a Presidents job to find common ground and to give in enough to get their agenda passed. You saying Obama can not get anything done because of the Republican is just a prime example as to why he should not be re elected. He is not a leader and we do not need someone like that in office.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
June 15th, 2012
2:59 pm
Kyle is getting close to appreciating my recent use of the phrase “Sc—-g Obama”
Kyle Wingfield
June 15th, 2012
3:00 pm
For the record, the Daily Caller reporter who repeatedly interrupted Obama’s remarks today about this decision was being classless and disrespectful.
td
June 15th, 2012
3:03 pm
Finn McCool (The System isn’t Broken; It’s Fixed)
June 15th, 2012
2:49 pm
Under the age of 30? And what year did Reagan release the floodgates?
That is a total made up bogus point. Reagan granted amnesty only with the promise that the Dems would pass a law and FUND the securing the boarder. Tip broke that promise so the “flood gates” are caused by the Dems.
Darth Hater
June 15th, 2012
3:04 pm
Curious 0bama’s MAGICAL TELEPROMPTER tell him to do this?
Or was it his Kentucky-Derby-contending bride?
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 15th, 2012
3:04 pm
And I’m sure that there was no collusion between the White House and Time Magazine on this policy being delivered on the same day Time’s cover shows a bunch of illegal immigrants declaring “We are Americans”.
But it’s a good thing the media isn’t in the tank for Obama. . . .
Darth Hater
June 15th, 2012
3:06 pm
SEAL THE BORDER,….
and
Go, Braves!
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
June 15th, 2012
3:08 pm
Most of the illegals ARE more American than our own citizens. They tend to work for a living, as one example…
Mr. Holmes
June 15th, 2012
3:11 pm
For the record, the Daily Caller reporter who repeatedly interrupted Obama’s remarks today about this decision was being classless and disrespectful.
…and was following the example set three years ago by Joe “You Lie!” Wilson and most recently by GOP Presidential Nominee Mittens Romney, who instructed campaign staffers to heckle David Axelrod in Boston and just this week had his campaign bus driven in circles repeatedly around an Obama campaign event in Ohio … wait for it … honking its horn.
Seriously Mitt? What’s next, a panty raid of the DNC headquarters?
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 15th, 2012
3:11 pm
when Bush came to office and see if they did not try to stop everything he did and not compromise.
i believe Bush had a majority in both houses when he came into office, didn’t he? Isn’t that why we got the prescription drug giveaway and all those excellent job-creatin’ tax breaks?
The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers
June 15th, 2012
3:14 pm
This is a slap in the face to legal immigrants who went through the path to becoming legal. This is a slap in the face to Americans and especially their college age children looking for jobs to pay their way through school. The idiot emporer is too lazy and rigid to attempt to work with the other side to solve tough problems. It’s the cowards way out.
SBinF
June 15th, 2012
3:15 pm
::plays the world’s smallest violin:::
Just for you, Kyle!
Obama is polling ahead of Romney by 35 points with Latinos. You think this is politically motivated so he can increase that to 40 points?
All I can muster to that is an, ‘lol’.
Kyle Wingfield
June 15th, 2012
3:15 pm
Mr. Holmes: And the Iraqi who threw the shoe at Bush…
Classlessness didn’t begin three years ago. Or eight years before that. Or eight years before that…
carlosgvv
June 15th, 2012
3:17 pm
Kyle, needless to say, you didn’t mention how we got in this mess to start with. Big Business wanted cheap labor and politicians, especially Republican ones, catered to their masters and looked the other way while millions of illegals flooded into America.
Perhaps you should call them to task here first before bad mouthing Obama.
Mr. Holmes
June 15th, 2012
3:17 pm
Weak, Kyle. We’re talking about how our own people respect our own traditions for how we interact with the national chief executive. I suppose you’ll tell me the Iraqi was a Democratic plant?
Georgia, The " New Mississippi "
June 15th, 2012
3:23 pm
Looks like Obama made some more room under the Democratic tent.
Firewoman
June 15th, 2012
3:27 pm
Since Republicans are so hateful and racist in regards to Illegals Aliens, the Dems need to prove above and beyond just jow much they care. Adopt an Illegal Alien and pay for their every need while they are visiting in the United States. Democrats are simply not doing enough to keep them here. You’ve opened your hearts, now you must open your doors and wallets as well – or your’e simply a hypocrit!
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
June 15th, 2012
3:28 pm
all those excellent job-creatin’ tax breaks?
——–
Kinda hard to argue with 4-6% unemployment, but there’s always some genius willing to give it a try…
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 15th, 2012
3:28 pm
Obama preempted the inevitable Romney move to the center to get the Hispanic vote. Now, the vitriol and anger from the right will push more and more Hispanics into the Democrat camp.
good move.
The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers
June 15th, 2012
3:29 pm
Firewoman, your voter registration card has expired. Don’t bother to go to the polls.
Fun Size
June 15th, 2012
3:31 pm
Just because Congress is full of partisan idiots on both sides does not mean that Obama gets to make the rules on his own….they are both wrong. This is just a vote getting stunt for Obama to get elected in 2012.
Mr. Holmes
June 15th, 2012
3:33 pm
I haven’t seen the video yet, but if the guy (Neil Munro, I see is his name) truly did start heckling the President of the United States during prepared remarks in the freakin’ Rose Garden, he should have his White House credential permanently revoked and the Daily Caller should have its organizational credential suspended for six months.
Agree, Kyle? Come on. At some point there have to be real consequences for cr@p like this. I would be saying the same thing about a Salon or Mother Jones reporter when Dubya was in office. Good lord, if one of my J-school professors caught me doing this, they would try to have my diploma rescinded.
Fun Size
June 15th, 2012
3:34 pm
And by the way…..GO RON PAUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mr. Holmes
June 15th, 2012
3:38 pm
And just in case there was any doubt about this, Tucker Carlson has already defended his reporter: “As far as I’m concerned, not having seen it, as a general matter, reporters are there to ask questions. No politician wants to answer questions, but that’s not our concern.”
Jon Stewart definitely had it right about ole Tucker. He’s a nickname for Richard if I’ve ever seen one.
Dusty
June 15th, 2012
3:38 pm
PHew!
May I ask the management here to stop Finn the Bigot from writing “hateful old white people”.?. That’ s disgusting with prejudice pouring from every pore. No version of this should be allowed for any people..
—————-
And excuse me but WE HAVE LEGAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO FOLLOW. And it is quite true that unless we have a dictator who rules at his discretion, President Obama cannot change the laws already made in this country. I am appalled at his lack of respect for established American law.
This undercover shilly shallying is a disgrace to every law abiding citizen in the USA. The president is supposed to have taught “law” at Harvard They should revoke his credentials immediately.
———–
NO, I do not hate Hispanics. My son-in-law , who was born in South America, is a fine American He came to this country as an adult, followed all the rules for legal citizenship which took several years and money, and is now a proud citizen. So we make easy rules for others.
Those who are legal were foolish? NO, they wanted to be legal, not illegal stepchildren of this country. THEY are the Hispanics who are contributing and loving this country. We disgrace our legal citizens by short changing them..
chuck
June 15th, 2012
3:39 pm
How about we deport Obama.
Cutty
June 15th, 2012
3:41 pm
Enter your comments hereW. held signing statements every other week and these Cons have the ‘chutzpah’ to complain now. Lol. GTFOH.
Kyle Wingfield
June 15th, 2012
3:44 pm
Mr. Holmes: If I were talking to Carlson, I would advise him to watch the video. What Munro did is not what “reporters are there to [do].”
From what I’ve read, he didn’t have a regular (or “permanent”) WH credential. I’d have no problem with his losing the credential he did have. For the paper, I’d hold off unless another reporter did something similar. I’ve never worked for an organization that expressly told me and my colleagues not to interrupt public speeches, because none of my bosses would have anticipated that we might have done that. So I don’t fault the DC for not anticipating Munro would act that way.
JDW
June 15th, 2012
3:46 pm
@Tiberius..”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?”
Seven months into his presidency, fewer than half of President Obama’s top appointees are in place advancing his agenda, the New York Times reports.
“Of more than 500 senior policymaking positions requiring Senate confirmation, just 43 percent have been filled
The Washington Post reported that at the end of 2010 –almost two years after President Barack Obama’s inauguration –22 percent of administration positions requiring Senate confirmation were either vacant or filled temporarily by acting officials.
I am sure it was the Dems gumming up the works…
Just saying..
June 15th, 2012
3:46 pm
Oh no, he’s implementing W’s policy initiatives!! Sky’s falling…
Zedd
June 15th, 2012
3:49 pm
I can easily solve the illegal immigrant problem, help create jobs, and help the ailing economy all in one fail swoop. $500 a head for rounding up all the illegals to be deported, must be delivered alive and in reasonable shape. It puts money back into American tax payer hands, and helps relieve the drain on our entitlements and public services by the illegals. I have no sympathy for anyone that has been here illegally and has not tried to correct their status whether brought here as a child or not. The longer it has gone on, the bigger offense it becomes. We’re either a nation under the rule of law or we’re not! You don’t get to pick and choose which laws you going to enforce or ignore. Thought we were supposed to be governed by a system of checks and balances so one person couldn’t run ruff-shot all over the law of the land. What a disgrace!
Mr. Holmes
June 15th, 2012
3:50 pm
I suppose that’s fair, but both bow-tie Tucker and his publisher have already issued statements defending Munro’s actions. The DC spokesperson said he was “just doing what reporters do.”
In which case, the White House should just do what heads of state do, which is selectively issue press credentials. “We apologize, Mr. Carlson, but due to overwhelming demand for White House credentials during this election year, we will be unable to meet the Daily Caller’s request for the remainder of calendar 2012. We’re happy to provide access to White House pool reports, should you desire.
“Have a nice day!”
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 15th, 2012
3:54 pm
Really, JDW, you’re now quoting a report from back in 2009 to justify Obama’s failure to get anything meaningful done?
Really?
And you’re saying that acting officials don’t have the authority or capacity to implement his orders, JDW?
Really?
Are you ever going to take responsibility for your ineptitude when voting this clueless of unqualified candidates into the highest office in the land?
MANGLER
June 15th, 2012
3:54 pm
(I didn’t live here and didn’t read this paper at that time, so)
Were the local GOP base in Atlanta all up in arms every time Bush and Cheney overreached their executive powers and simply passed laws or changed laws without bothering to stop at Congress before passing go? Or is it OK when it happens by someone on your side?
Dusty
June 15th, 2012
3:59 pm
Just saying, 3:46
President Obama is implementing no one’s policy initiative but his own.
Don’t try to make President Bush a crook just because Obama doesn’t know what he is going.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 15th, 2012
4:01 pm
I did not see the video, so I’ll take your word that Munro was classless, but with Oblamer at what point is the speech over. He has been speaking for 3.5 years, non stop. This time his speech had some effect, unlike most of this speeches. This time he put himself above the congress.
Anything to keep the conversation off his record and his sagging polling numbers. For every vote he gains through this and there will be many, he will lose one to people tired of supporting illegal aliens and losing jobs to illegals. It is a calculated risk on his part, but even a 50/50 split diverts the talk from the lousy job performance for one more day.
I guess the press were worn out with the attacks on Bain Capital, Romney’s record in MA, classified info leaks at the WH, Fast/Furious, will Holder resign, same sex marriage, and Sarah Jessica Parker, so time to throw another bone to keep them occupied.
As soon as the Supremes come in with the Oblamacare verdict this will be moved to the back page as well.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
June 15th, 2012
4:04 pm
VIDEO: Obama Heckled By Daily Caller Reporter During Immigration Speech In Rose Garden
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/06/15/obama-heckled-by-daily-caller-reporter-during-immigration-speech-in-rose-garden–
I guess obozo didn’t pay attention to what happen to the last ten politicians that brought up amnesty.
Good, let him learn the hard way…
Dusty
June 15th, 2012
4:08 pm
MANGLER,
GOP around the country did not have to get up in arms over Bush and the “law” because he did not break them. He never wanted to be a dictator and played fair. “And that makes all the difference!”
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 15th, 2012
4:10 pm
The Washington Post reported that at the end of 2010 –almost two years after President Barack Obama’s inauguration –22 percent of administration positions requiring Senate confirmation were either vacant or filled temporarily by acting officials.
Big question, Oblamer spends so little time actually governing, how many of those positions has he nominated someone for? It is probably hard to find a lot of yes men, that can pass the background investigation. I mean in the beginning, he had a hellava time finding someone who was current with their taxes, but due to having a Dem Senate he was able to push Geitner and others through the process.
md
June 15th, 2012
4:13 pm
It appears even Mr Obama can no longer believe Mr Obama:
““This notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is not true,” Obama told Hispanic journalists at an “Open for Questions” White House roundtable. “The fact of the matter is there are laws on the books I have to enforce. And there is a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and comprehensive immigration reform passed by perpetuating the notion that somehow by myself I can just go and do these things.”” – Obama 2011
Dusty
June 15th, 2012
4:14 pm
My goodness,
A reporter broke into a speech by the president. Cry me a river. Bad manners but obviously free speech. I am much more concerned about “the speech” than some trivial incident by a reporter
No one will remember the reporter. But many will remember when the president tried to make lawbreakers into legal citizens shortly before an election. Oh yes, many people will remember THAT..
MarkV
June 15th, 2012
4:23 pm
Dusty @4:14 pm: “But many will remember when the president tried to make lawbreakers into legal citizens shortly before an election.”
Lying again, Dusty? Or just not paying attention?
luckjoe
June 15th, 2012
4:24 pm
Obama stated that this is the best thing for America. He does not know or care what is best for America. Obama is trolling for votes.
Mr. Holmes
June 15th, 2012
4:24 pm
A reporter broke into a speech by the president. Cry me a river. Bad manners but obviously free speech.
And no one is advocating the heckler (he doesn’t deserve to be called a reporter) be thrown in jail, which is the only protection “free speech” entitles you to. Conservatives seem to think that the First Amendment allows you to say anything you want anywhere, with no consequences from any person or organization. That is most assuredly NOT what it means.
It’s perfectly legal for me to walk into my boss’ office and call him a Nazi mouthbreathing malodorous buggerer of children. No one can throw me in jail for that. However the Constitution does not prevent said “buggerer” from ordering me to clean out my desk immediately, do not pass go, do not collect $200.