Obama orders amnesty for illegals.

[Ansgar Seraph]

It wouldn't be superfluous, since Obama's direction to UCSIS can be revoked any time. What DREAM or DREAM-lite would do is give the order the weight of law, providing a permanent solution either with citizenship or work permits. That is, for the time being, Romney's line of attack on this issue: he is criticizing Obama for doing something temporary, rather than something permanent. So if Rubio were to introduce DREAM-lite in the Senate and House Republicans were to pass a similar bill, that would allow the GOP to claim that it's moving forward on actual legislation to provide a permanent solution to these kids caught in the middle. It would also force Democrats to either compromise for something less than citizenship or reject DREAM-lite, with both options looking bad for them.

But the likelihood of the House passing DREAM-lite or any significant number of Republican senators supporting it has always been virtually nil, anyhow.

—Sam

[JimL]

It wouldn't be superfluous, since Obama's direction to UCSIS can be revoked any time. What DREAM or DREAM-lite would do is give the order the weight of law, providing a permanent solution either with citizenship or work permits. That is, for the time being, Romney's line of attack on this issue: he is criticizing Obama for doing something temporary, rather than something permanent. So if Rubio were to introduce DREAM-lite in the Senate and House Republicans were to pass a similar bill, that would allow the GOP to claim that it's moving forward on actual legislation to provide a permanent solution to these kids caught in the middle. It would also force Democrats to either compromise for something less than citizenship or reject DREAM-lite, with both options looking bad for them.

But the likelihood of the House passing DREAM-lite or any significant number of Republican senators supporting it has always been virtually nil, anyhow.

—Sam

Yeah, but personally I think that knowing of their past positions on this issue, they wouldn't be fooling anybody by passing something now. It may have worked to some degree had they beat the president to the punch, but history is their enemy now. I think because of their history, people will see it for what it is, a purely political tactic, thats all. That's my opinion anyway.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Well, good policy is good policy. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have done what they ought to do for DREAMers because the political cost was too great. Democrats are acting now, which is good, but they're mostly acting now because Latinos are becoming a key voting bloc. As far as Democrat/Republican party comparisons go, I'm cynical as to the motives of both groups. Individuals within the parties, like Obama and Rubio, likely have sincere motives but no caucus has really gone to the mat for these kids.

I think that there's plenty of diversity among Latino voters, same as in every voting bloc. Whoever produces tangible results will win over a lot people sitting in the middle of the group. Right now, that's Democrats. Republicans are in danger of losing the mass of Latino votes for at least another generation with their "illegal" hysteria. Something real and tangible like DREAM-lite could pull their appeal up a few notches.

—Sam

[JimL]

Well, good policy is good policy. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have done what they ought to do for DREAMers because the political cost was too great. Democrats are acting now, which is good, but they're mostly acting now because Latinos are becoming a key voting bloc. As far as Democrat/Republican party comparisons go, I'm cynical as to the motives of both groups. Individuals within the parties, like Obama and Rubio, likely have sincere motives but no caucus has really gone to the mat for these kids.

I think that there's plenty of diversity among Latino voters, same as in every voting bloc. Whoever produces tangible results will win over a lot people sitting in the middle of the group. Right now, that's Democrats. Republicans are in danger of losing the mass of Latino votes for at least another generation with their "illegal" hysteria. Something real and tangible like DREAM-lite could pull their appeal up a few notches.

—Sam

Possibly, it may help them a little, I just think the dye has been cast. I don't think that it is lost on those in favor of immigration reform, particularly to those to whom the issue most effects, that the Democratic majority in the House did write and pass an immigration bill, which, btw, also had a majority vote in the Senate, that the President would have signed into law had not the Republicans blocked it by filibuster. I think they are well aware of who it is that really has concern for their plight as opposed to those who are just playing politics.

[Thersites]

Well, good policy is good policy. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have done what they ought to do for DREAMers because the political cost was too great. Democrats are acting now, which is good, but they're mostly acting now because Latinos are becoming a key voting bloc. As far as Democrat/Republican party comparisons go, I'm cynical as to the motives of both groups. Individuals within the parties, like Obama and Rubio, likely have sincere motives but no caucus has really gone to the mat for these kids.

I think that there's plenty of diversity among Latino voters, same as in every voting bloc. Whoever produces tangible results will win over a lot people sitting in the middle of the group. Right now, that's Democrats. Republicans are in danger of losing the mass of Latino votes for at least another generation with their "illegal" hysteria. Something real and tangible like DREAM-lite could pull their appeal up a few notches.

—Sam

It's not just about the political cost. It's about position-taking: both parties want an electoral hostage, some policy that they can hold as a carrot in front of the electorate, and aside from that minority within each party that really deeply cares about the issue, they're not going to push the issue very hard. We've seen this with Republicans dragging their feet on abortion for the half-decade they had control of the legislative and executive branches, and now we're seeing it with the Democrats and immigration.

Sure, in the short term, the results of executive orders like the Mexico City policy or this recent change in immigration seem indistinguishable from an actual change in the law, but in the long run, it's just a way to threaten the constituencies and keep them in line.

In other words, both parties stink.

[Darth Executor]

And as I have pointed out they did try do do it a long time ago, on principle, but were stopped by the unprincipled right. Checkmate, you lose, run along now.

Obama can do this now when Republicans control the house but couldn't do it then when he controlled both houses? On ignore you go, putting up with this crass stupidity is too much even for me.

[JimL]

Obama can do this now when Republicans control the house but couldn't do it then when he controlled both houses? On ignore you go, putting up with this crass stupidity is too much even for me.

First off, the bill sponsered by democrats was killed by republicans in dec. of 2010, just previous to republicans taking majority hold of the House. The president gave the republican congress a year and a half to put forth a bill of their own without his having to use an executive order. They never did. You can fault him for giving them the time, but don't whine about it because he doesn't allow them to ignore it until election time for political purposes. I know you like to think of him as stupid, but unfortunately for you he has more smarts than has all of the opposing party in congress combined. Now they're all whining too, just like you!

[roadwalker]

There's a big difference between 'deferment' (which has it's own problems outside our scope) and giving an order not to deport a particular group of people who are in the country illegally. A is not B no matter how hard you try to make them the same. the president may have implementation discretion to a degree but not to the point where he stops enforcing valid laws. Once he stopped any enforcement it crossed the line.

I don't know about that. Some laws are obsolete-- they are still on the books but are not enforced. For example, in Tombstone there is a law that says if you are over eighteen you can't smile in public unless you are missing at least one tooth (really, it is a law.) But they don't enforce it. More recent examples include that even during the worst days of segregation there were some local sheriffs in some counties who (to their credit) made a decision not to enforce those laws. If a law is a bad or unjust law (and who is less culpable than a child?) then to some extent I'd even go so far as to say that just as people have an obligation to engage in civil disobedience to protest the law so to, law enforcement (going all the way up to the President) have an obligation to not enforce an unjust law.

After all, Jesus, as an infant, was carried away to another country without permission from the authorities (Matthew 2:13-14) and as we know that he was sinless his entire life, it follows that people who were brought here as infants should not be considered guilty of a crime either (even if you want to prosecute their parents.)

[Teallaura]

Teal,

Maybe it would help if we phrased it in opposite terms that end up amounting to the same practical effect.

Obama has given an order that the 400,000 deportations we are able to do each year, of the ~15 million illegal immigrants, go to the people who have done the most to break American law, who have commited greater crimes against us.

When looked at like this, does it not make sense to put more focus on the people who chose to come here as adults than the people who were dragged here as children?

If they had been a priority to begin with, you'd have a point. But this simply removes enforcement from the equation when these cases do come to light. There's a big difference between not making X group a priority - a point I'd grant with reservations - and not enforcing the law where X group is concerned. Obama is doing the latter, not the former.

[Teallaura]

I don't know about that. Some laws are obsolete-- they are still on the books but are not enforced. For example, in Tombstone there is a law that says if you are over eighteen you can't smile in public unless you are missing at least one tooth (really, it is a law.) But they don't enforce it. More recent examples include that even during the worst days of segregation there were some local sheriffs in some counties who (to their credit) made a decision not to enforce those laws. If a law is a bad or unjust law (and who is less culpable than a child?) then to some extent I'd even go so far as to say that just as people have an obligation to engage in civil disobedience to protest the law so to, law enforcement (going all the way up to the President) have an obligation to not enforce an unjust law.

Obsolecence in law isn't at issue - and racial martial laws are still on the books in Alabama but the real reason they aren't enforced is because the Supreme Court long ago overturned them. A law can still appear simply because the legislature hasn't acted to remove it although it has no force of law because of either other legislative action or because of court ruling.

Not the same thing at all as the exec not doing his job.

After all, Jesus, as an infant, was carried away to another country without permission from the authorities (Matthew 2:13-14) and as we know that he was sinless his entire life, it follows that people who were brought here as infants should not be considered guilty of a crime either (even if you want to prosecute their parents.)

A) There were no such immigration laws in effect - non-sequitor. B) Actually, there's no evidence that Jesus entered Egypt illegally. Even if Egypt had some sort of 'check in and say hi' law in effect (no evidence thereof) there's nothing in Scripture to indicate that it was not obeyed by the Holy Family. C) No one argued criminality on the part of the child - just that in no other instance would the child be allowed to continue to benefit from parental criminal behavior once discovered. D) No one argued that cases cannot be considered under their own merit - but Obama is throwing out merit along with enforcement.

[Teallaura]

The same number of people are being deported, either way.

Try that one on an exam if you suddenly feel the need to flunk. Otherwise, you know better.

[Thersites]

Try that one on an exam if you suddenly feel the need to flunk. Otherwise, you know better.

Oh, right, my bad. More people are being deported now than during the Bush Administration, so to say that "the same number are being deported either way" is to disregard the huge escalation in deportations that has occurred in the last few years. Thanks for catching that, Teal.

[roadwalker]

@Teallaura:

The exec is doing his duty in choosing not to deport these people. He does have the right to do so, just as for example right now the executive branch has also made a decision not to deport anyone to Syria (for a different reason, of course-- but they do have the right to make what is in fact a judgment call.)

As for laws on the books but not enforced, not all of them is it because of a court decision. I'm pretty sure no court has ruled that you have a Constitutional right to smile if you have all your teeth.

Regarding Jesus, Joseph certainly did not have the permission of Herod. Though the point is not who is or who is not supposed to give permission, it's that a child is innocent and should not be punished even if an adult does something illegal.

Another aspect of the law that is not considered is that many kids who were brought here as kids, have younger siblings who are U.S. citizens because they were born here later. Even Mitt Romney in his speech last Thursday to a Latino organization said he would place a priority on keeping families together. So isn't he then saying that he would do what you just now criticized Obama for doing? Saying that some people should be less subject to deportation than others?

[joel]

"Illegal" does not specify either a particular act or even a perpetrator: it is an adjective[...]

It is grammatically acceptable to use an adjective substantively--i.e., as a noun.
E.g., "The land of the free and the home of the brave." or "Blessed are the poor in spirit."

Nope - creating a buyer's market pushes wages down so it in fact makes it harder to get growth.

I think you are mistaken. Lower prices for factors of production, such as labor, increases profits which encourages expansion of production. Which then in turn pushes the factor prices (such as wages) back up.

Consider the case of an increase in the supply of any other factor of production, say oil. It would temporarily push down the price of oil, yes, but reduced costs would result in an expansion of production across the board (growth).

[The Moonshield]

The Daily Caller

Chris Crane, president of the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council, explained at a press conference on Capitol Hill Thursday afternoon how the new selective immigration law enforcement policy Obama announced during a White House Rose Garden speech in June is affecting the officers he represents.

“As we still wait on detailed guidance from the administration, it’s impossible to understand the full scope of the administration’s changes, but what we’ve seen so far concerns us greatly,” Crane, said. “As one example, prosecutorial discretion for DREAMers is solely based on the individual’s claims. Our orders are: If an alien says they went to high school, then let them go. If they say they have a GED, then let them go.”

“Officers have been told that there is no burden for the alien to prove anything,” he continued. “Even with the greatly relaxed policies, the alien is not required to prove that they meet any of the new criteria.”

Link

© source where applicable