43 thoughts on “Obama’s Immigration Miscalculation”

  1. This just in from WaPo: Jim’s a liar

    I’m glad they are finally catching up, and bonus from Wapo: NYT is a liar too! Pull quote:

    With the passage of time, McNary believes he was misquoted, though he actually affirmed the figure in congressional testimony. In any case, it certainly was not a widely reported estimate in 1990. The number was buried in a single news article — and just because it was in the New York Times does not mean it was true.

    Heh.

    1. This also just in: Leland does not know the definition of “liar” (one who makes intentionally false statements). Or else he does, and he is one.

      That fact check deserves a fact check of its own. Four Pinocchios for repeating the Congressional testimony of the Federal Immigration Commissioner?

      1. “Leland does not know the definition of “liar” (one who makes intentionally false statements).”

        The idea that you’re not a liar, but that you actually believe the bullshit that you spout, is pretty scary.

        You’re like The Operative in Serenity, except I bet you think you’ll be in the Glorious Future State.

        1. The Operative wasn’t a liar. He was quite honest. He knew what he did was evil, and said so. He merely thought the necessity overrode the morality.

        2. The idea that you’re not a liar, but that you actually believe the bullshit that you spout, is pretty scary.

          Scary, but true.

      2. Four Pinocchios for repeating the Congressional testimony of the Federal Immigration Commissioner?

        LOL, someone forgot their lies exposed last week.

      3. Someone who habitually makes false statements without regard for the truth, and who then defends himself by claiming he believed in good faith that they were true, is also a liar.

        Hence, Jim is a liar.

        1. Someone who habitually makes false statements without regard for the truth, and who then defends himself by claiming he believed in good faith that they were true, is also a liar.

          So if the word doesn’t fit, change the definition of the word.

          I cited a figure that was widely reported in the press, reports based on a contemporaneous interview and Congressional testimony from the person in the best position to know. You call that “without regard for the truth”? I wish half the statements made in comments here were as well sourced.

          1. I wish half the statements made in comments here were as well sourced.

            Half almost are, then there are your posts which few have sources. And then there are the times you do source and obviously misread the data, such as when you claimed Obama shrunk the size of government by pointing to US labor statistics and purposely credited 2009 numbers to Bush.

  2. Obama’s lawlessness

    What lawlessness? Even Federalist Society types are admitting that Obama has the authority to act as he did.

    If Republicans are smart they won’t let themselves be goaded into a frenzy of opposition and reaction by the President’s actions; they will advance a smarter agenda on their own.

    Sadly, that seems very unlikely. Meanwhile, 76% of Latino Republicans polled support Obama’s executive action.

    1. Oh boy, here’s an institution we can trust!

      That’s according to a new poll by Latino Decisions, for Presente.org and Mi Familia Vota, the first of Latino voters since Obama announced sweeping executive actions, given to BuzzFeed News ahead of its announcement on Monday.

          2. I call your bs. The burden of proof is on you. You already admitted you don’t know anything about them, yet you blithely post their poll.

            Why is that?

          3. Because in the absence of other information I assume that this pollster is as trustworthy as any other. Its name suggests that it specializes in polling Latinos, which argues for their suitability to conduct this particular poll. I’m still curious to hear why you consider them obviously untrustworthy.

      1. Since posting the Latino Decisions results I’ve read the questions that Latino Decisions used, and they prime the respondent with a favorable framing of Obama’s decision. On that basis I wouldn’t put much stock in their results.

        The NBC/WSJ numbers for Latinos aren’t terribly solid either:

        But the sample size here is small (just 110 Latino respondents), so the numbers have a high margin of error.

        Latino Decisions polled over 400 Latinos, but I’m guessing that a minority of them were Republicans, so their GOP results probably suffer from a small sample as well.

          1. None that mentioned substantive legal differences between the executive actions in question (they just talked about differences in scale or the political context, which are real but which don’t distinguish a legal act from a lawless one).

    2. Reagan acted without Congress on Immigration? I’m sure Dave will provide a citation to support his claim.

        1. Wow Jim, that’s funny, two links that go to the same source. 1 and 1 is 1. Hilarious. And considering how stupid that was of you. I don’t suspect you bothered yourself to actually click their links to read the documents yourself. Did you read the INS memo? There are exactly 3 “shall” statements in the memo. The one dealing with under 18 minors has some provisions. In order for the child to stay, the child has to be illegal, but they must be residing with their parents who have lawfully obtained US residency status.

          So back to my question, I asked for a citation that Reagan acted without Congress on immigration, and you provided a link that shows Reagan acted with Congress on immigration, but may have used executive order to close a loophole. Jim, are you going to show how Obama’s executive action begins with his signing a bill from Congress, and his actions only close a loophole for 18 year old minors whose parents (or in case of single family, parent) lives lawfully in the United States? Was that perhaps your other imaginary link not provided?

          1. My bad, the link I meant to post.

            As the link I did post states, “Reagan and Bush used their executive authority to defer deportation for individuals that Congress had intentionally omitted from the 1986 immigration law.” That isn’t acting “with Congress”, or “closing a loophole.” It’s using the president’s authority under immigration law to unilaterally protect a certain class of undocumented immigrants from deportation. Which is exactly what Obama just did.

          2. The Reagan era INS memo in the link you posted mentioned the new law passed by Congress. You will provide your citation of the new law passed by Congress that Obama is now changing?

  4. One thing about the immigration controversy that I don’t get, and maybe someone here could clarify for me: As far as I know (and correct me if I’m wrong) we’ve had the same basic immigration rules and procedures for a while now. I’m guessing there have been a few tweaks and revisions along the way; but pretty much didn’t every immigrant from every country have to go through the same process of coming into the US (legally, that is), getting a green card, and ultimately (unless they chose to return to the Motherland) becoming a citizen? Why all of a sudden isn’t that system working–and working so badly that King Barry has to say, “Okay, forget the rules”?

    Of course I realize these days the motive is to bring in more warm bodies to vote Democratic and keep the plunderbund going–but is there any justification to it other than that? Jim, you’re a tireless regurgitator of the Hive party-line: what’s the Hive party-line on this?

    1. It isn’t working because the left have spent decades breaking it.

      This is Lefitsm 101. First you break something, then you come out with your brilliant plan to fix it, which was the law you wanted to push through all along. Even if breaking it takes numerous incremental changes over decades, you eventually get to where you wanted to be.

    2. For a long time the U.S. had no immigration laws — almost anyone who showed up here could live and work here. Then we had a variety of racial exclusion laws, aimed at keeping out various unwanted groups (Chinese, other Asians, South Europeans), but immigrants from the rest of the world could still just show up. Our modern system of national quotas dates to the 1960s, and from the start it didn’t accommodate all the immigrants who wanted to come here from some countries, including Mexico. So by the 1980s we had millions of undocumented immigrants. Reagan signed the 1986 amnesty law to give many of them legal status as a one-time effort, but since the imbalance between the quotas and demand (both on the part of potential immigrants, and employers looking for labor) persisted, the ranks of undocumented immigrants grew again. In recent years there have been greatly increased enforcement efforts, both in border control spending and in requirements for employment eligibility, and many more deportations than ever before.

      So now we have 11 million undocumented immigrants. Nobody thinks that’s a good situation for the immigrants or for the country. There’s no political support for trying to deport all of them. There’s a fair amount of political support for a bipartisan immigration reform bill that would give most of them a path to citizenship, while spending even more money on enforcement, in an effort to keep the problem from returning the way it did after 1986. But the GOP House leadership hasn’t figured out how to even allow a vote on such a bill (like the one that passed the Senate last year) without facing the wrath of its base, so legislation is stalled. Since nothing is happening in Congress, Obama has issued executive orders that sort undocumented immigrants into categories so that many of them can get work permits and live without fear of deportation until we figure out a longer-term solution.

      1. “So now we have 11 million undocumented immigrants. Nobody thinks that’s a good situation for the immigrants or for the country.”

        No.

        We have 11 million ILLEGAL aliens in the nation and a lot of us thought it shouldn’t have been allowed in teh first place. Please don’t try your stupid wordplay games with us.

        “There’s no political support for trying to deport all of them.”

        There’s also no calls for deporting them. A fine burning strawman.

        ” But the GOP House leadership hasn’t figured out how to even allow a vote on such a bill”

        Liar. The House passed several..they are waiting on Harry Reid’s desk.

        ” Since nothing is happening in Congress, ”

        Thanks to Harry Reid….

        “Obama has issued executive orders …”

        Which the Vaunted Constituttional Scholar has just admitted in public that his EO changed the law……

        Oops.

        1. Liar. The House passed several..they are waiting on Harry Reid’s desk.

          No, the House has not passed any bills to address the fact that we have 11 million undocumented immigrants. If you think they have, by all means post the bill numbers.

          1. “No, the House has not passed any bills to address the fact that we have 11 million undocumented immigrants. ”

            Wrong again. Do your research!

            3 seconds of searching found the most recent one that addresses immigration. And none of them were allowed to come to a vote by Harry Reid. And NO I don’t want a comprehensive bill. Besides if these common sense bills can’t even make it to the Senate floor for a VOTE, why would the House put the hours into a comprehensive bill? Not that I want such a comprehensive bill – comprehensive reform bills are evil.

            Here’s the latest:

            H.R. 5272: To prohibit certain actions with respect to deferred action for aliens not lawfully present in the United States, and for other purposes.
            Sponsor: Rep. Marsha Blackburn [R-TN7]
            Introduced: Jul 30, 2014
            Passed House: Aug 1, 2014

            Dead in the Senate. Here are the last actions the Senate took on this bill. Note the dates:

            8/5/2014:
            Received in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
            9/8/2014:
            Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 551.

            The bill was read in the Senate..then buried.

            And there are others:

            Here’s one that’s was to insist the President faithfully execute the laws such as immigration. In fact it mentions immigration in the body. Had the President faithfully executed the laws on the books we wouldn’t have 11 million. We’d have many many fewer. We wouldn’t have had that massive burst over the summer. And we shoulsn’t even HAVE to create a new bill for this:

            H.R. 4138
            Executive Needs to Faithfully Observe and Respect Congressional Enactments of the Law (ENFORCE the Law) Act of 2014

            excerpt:

            “Another example is the President’s decision to suspend certain immigration laws for entire categories of individuals, effectively rewriting the law to make entire groups of undocumented individuals immune to deportation.[5]”

            Last congressional action:

            3/13/2014:
            Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

            i.e. Dead in the Senate

            H.R. 3973
            Faithful Execution of the Law Act of 2014
            Sponsor: Rep. Ron DeSantis . (Judiciary)
            March 12, 2014

            excerpt:
            Instead of working with Congress to amend the law, the President simply has refused to enforce the law on a range of issues including immigration, education policy, and ObamaCare, waiving requirements plainly contained in the law and instructing officials to refrain from enforcing provisions.[3]
            Current law requires the Attorney General to report to Congress any time a Department of Justice official establishes or implements a policy to refrain from enforcing the law on the grounds that such provision is unconstitutional.[5] H.R. 3973 expands the law in two ways, making it applicable to all federal officials and all non-enforcement policies.

            Last Congressional action:

            3/24/2014:
            Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

            Dead. Not allowed to come to a vote.

            Those are just a few…and just from this year. I could find more but these are enough to explode your insipid little challenge. You might not like the purpose of those bills but tough luck for you – they address immigration.

            And there are a few that were actually voted upon and signed by the president such as:

            H.R. 15

            A Guide to H.R. 15: The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act

            On October 2, 2013, Rep. Joe Garcia (D-FL) and other Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives introduced a broad immigration reform bill, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 (H.R. 15). Based on the Senate Judiciary Committee–passed version of the bipartisan Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 (S. 744), this bill has the same name and contains identical language for many provisions. Most importantly, the bill envisions a path to U.S. citizenship for the approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S.

            The most significant differences are in the border enforcement titles that include language from H.R. 1417, the Border Security Results Act, passed unanimously by the House Homeland Security Committee on May 20, 2013, and from the Senate Judiciary Committee version of S. 744.

            Did you read that Jim? See the words “11 million” there?

            Then there is:

            H. R. 2377

            To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize the enlistment in
            the Armed Forces of certain aliens who are unlawfully present in the
            United States and were younger than 15 years of age when they initially
            entered the United States, but who are otherwise qualified for
            enlistment, and to provide a mechanism by which such aliens, by reason
            of their honorable service in the Armed Forces, may be lawfully
            admitted to the United States for permanent residence.

            Or there’s:

            H.R.1772 Legal Workforce Act – Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish an employment eligibility verification system (EEVS), patterned after the E-Verify system. (Eliminates the current paper-based I-9 system.)

            Signed into law

            So don’t lie to us and tell us the House has done nothing on immigration and nothing to address the 11 million…they tried to prevent it; they reacted to this Summer’s Flood; They worked to get citizenship for people who enlist.

            I noticed you didn’t respond to the other comments…as well you should not because you know your positions on those are ridiculous as well.

  5. Not that we need more proof that big complicated laws produce terrible unintended consequences, but now Obama has given employers a $3000 incentive to hire illegals over US citizens:

    Under the president’s new amnesty, businesses will have a $3,000-per-employee incentive to hire illegal immigrants over native-born workers because of a quirk of Obamacare.

    President Obama’s temporary amnesty, which lasts three years, declares up to 5 million illegal immigrants to be lawfully in the country and eligible for work permits, but it still deems them ineligible for public benefits such as buying insurance on Obamacare’s health exchanges.

    Under the Affordable Care Act, that means businesses who hire them won’t have to pay a penalty for not providing them health coverage — making them $3,000 more attractive than a similar native-born worker, whom the business by law would have to cover.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/

    1. There are at least a couple easy fixes for that: 1) abolish the employer mandate, or 2) require that employers offer health insurance to immigrants with work permits. It sounds like there’s some GOP support for 1):

      Brian Rogers, a spokesman for Mr. McCain, said Tuesday the solution to the loophole is to get rid of Obamacare’s employer mandate, “which would eliminate the incentive to hire people who are ineligible for Obamacare subsidies.” Mr. Rogers said the Republican majority that takes control of Congress next year should vote on that proposal.

      But I predict that no such vote will take place, because the GOP would rather make political hay from Obamacare problems than fix them. Plus, it’d be awkward for the GOP to get rid of the employer mandate at the same time that they’re suing the president for delaying it a year.

      1. Or we could get rid of that Charlie Foxtrot known as Obamacare. But you prefer Byzantine layers upon layers. It’s easier to hide the fraud.

      2. Plus, it’d be awkward for the GOP to get rid of the employer mandate at the same time that they’re suing the president for delaying it a year.

        Nothing awkward about it. If they get rid of it, the suit is gone.

  6. Oops:

    Obama Puzzled by Pro-Amnesty Hecklers: ‘I Just Took an Action to Change the Law!’

    This from the vaunted Constitutional Scholar…….

    1. He forgets to gruber when he is speaking off the cuff rather than from prepared remarks. He ought to speak off the cuff more often so we can see what the real Obama actually thinks.

  7. None that mentioned substantive legal differences between the executive actions in question (they just talked about differences in scale or the political context, which are real but which don’t distinguish a legal act from a lawless one).

    The Federalist piece was quite detailed.

Comments are closed.