The Obama Administration again waited for a Friday afternoon to announce a major new policy change — repeating its practice of timing important announcements to reduce media and public attention. The latest change is obviously controversial. The Administration will no longer deport illegal aliens under 30 who came to this country as children — effectively negating part of the federal law. It raises some troubling questions, again, about President Obama assertion of executive power. While liberals again celebrate the unilateral action, they ignore that danger that the next president may also simply chose to ignore whole areas of the federal law and criminal code in areas ranging from the environment to employment discrimination. It is one more brick in the wall of the Imperial Presidency constructed under Barack Obama — a wall that may prove difficult to dismantle for citizens in the future.
Presidents are given extreme deference in decisions on the enforcement of federal laws. It would be difficult for anyone to challenge this policy for that reason. However, that does not mean that this is a good practice — regardless of the merits of specific policy. It is also hard to ignore the obvious political play for Hispanic votes in key swing states. Obama waited for years to take this action and did so with polls showing that Hispanics will likely select the next president. Even some of the more liberal columnists and reporters are acknowledging that this change appears driven by politics.
Obama officials do not deny that they are circumventing Congress. In a recent interview, senior Obama adviser David Plouff told CNN “if congress would act, we would be happy to sign the DREAM Act tomorrow.” Since it has not done so, the White House is going to accomplish the same objection unilaterally.
This is different from past presidents who have not made deportation a priority in their policies. Despite the criticism of Obama, he is certainly no less aggressive on deportation than his predecessors. Indeed, he may be more aggressive in terms of numbers. Presidents like George W. Bush clearly did not push for deportation based solely on illegal status. The Administration, however, was forced to admit this long-suspected policy in court in fighting the Arizona law — stating that it did conflict with federal policy because the Administration did not want mass deportations.
This is different. Here the Administration is implementing a categorical policy not to enforce federal law, which dictates deportation for illegal immigrations regardless of their age. Congress has refused to pass such laws and this is an obvious effort to circumvent Congress — something of a signature for this Administration. Liberals were outraged by Bush’s use of signing statements as a circumvention of Congress. Yet, when Obama broke his promise and started using signing statements, liberals were again silent. Now, he has gone further and (rather than advancing a restrictive interpretation) he has announced that he will simply not enforce the law.
The change could also create a new conflict with states passing tough immigration laws. We are awaiting the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Arizona case where the Administration may lose some ground. The announcement on Friday could be an effort to preempt the decision. If the Administration had already decided to stop deportations, it would look bad to come after the decision and appear to be circumventing both the judicial and legislative branches.
This is part of a pattern for the Administration. For example, the Administration has announced that it will ignore two federal statutes that bar betting across state lines. That effectively legalized Internet gambling. While his Administration claims that it has no choice but to enforce other laws like marijuana enforcement and for years, both DOMA and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell laws, it has not hesitated to declare other laws as unenforceable as a matter of policy. Ultimately, it took the same approach to DOMA — after years of defending it. DOMA is striking in that the Administration still refuses to accept that sexual orientation should be treated like race or gender as a category of discrimination. If it did, the refusal to defend DOMA would have been more clearly based on a view that it is unconstitutional. Instead, the Administration made general claims of states rights (that do not apply to areas like medical marijuana it seems) and even more vague references to privacy and equal protection.
What is left is a conflicted approach to enforcement based on the president’s changing views — in the latest case a change that seems motivated in large part by political advantage.
Liberals and civil libertarians were united on such questions in denouncing the circumvention of Congress by Bush. However, once again, there appears to be a blindness to the dangers of this practice when it comes to Obama. What will happen if a President Romney simply declares that he is not going to enforce environmental law or conflict laws or other parts of the federal code? Is the difference going to be simply that he is not Obama? Liberals are losing not just their credibility but principles in these controversies. Our system is based on a careful balancing of power that forces disparate factional groups to reach agreements in the legislative process. That is what brings the stability to our system.
This latest controversy is not about young illegal immigrants. There are strong policy arguments in favor of this change. However, those arguments need to be made in Congress. This should also not be an “after-the-fact” debate following a change late on a Friday where the president simply grants the equivalent of amnesty for hundreds of thousands of people. Polls show a sharply divided population with a majority favoring tougher immigration laws. We have a political system designed to address such divisive issues. It does not always work the way presidents demand. Indeed, the Democrats previously used filibusters and other techniques to block the Bush Administration and how the Republicans are doing the same thing. However, that is the point. Presidents should not be able to simply make federal laws discretionary to their whim or will. This may be a worthy end but it is the wrong means in a system based on shared powers of government.
Source: Politico
The puppet master will soon make an appearance and you will all start dancing to the tune played. You better not forget it either. Soon, I tell you, soon.
Dredd,
In re “Bound States”: Well played. Triple played even.
Wootsy,
Cheney definitely shredded the Constitution and the right wing (as well as many on the left following 9/11) went along with that. I have never shirked from stating that fact, although you would not know that because you were not on this blog during the Bush administration (at least in this name format).
After 8 years of Bush I could see how desperate people on the left were for a savior. I also wrote warning about that on this blog. People talked of Obama as our “Bodhisattva president” as a religious leader, an image Brand Obama cultivated and continues to press successfully with his followers.
Having a messed up congress is not remedied by having a messed up dictator, yet that is the remedy being presented here. Why didn’t Obama just implement the whole “Dream” legislation? Why only parts of it? Why does even this one part end in January? Why does it only apply to some age groups and not others? Why does it help if young people will go into the military? Don’t any of these things give you pause?
Look at history. Cults are on the left and dictatorships have been established by leftists. When people start to write that we have a broken Congress so we need an executive to “fix” things, look out! All three branches of this govt. are not functioning as intended. More and more power is being lodged into the executive, even more than under Cheney.
You have another logical fallacy in your post. You assume I am not happy that an immigrant would receive amnesty. I am happy that even one person gets that but the way it has been arranged by the executive means that amnesty can be taken away by his whim. The lord giveth and the lord taketh away. That is the rule of fiat. I want the rule of law. That will protect the rights of immigrants far better than an election year period of grace which can easily be removed after the votes are counted.
There is a severe and, frankly, scary dismissal of what democracy is SUPPOSED to be about when you say “As I’ve said and which you’ve ignored so many times in the past, show me a mass movement with a chance to change things and I’ll volunteer.” When everyone feels that way, there is no mass movement.~CLH
——————————————-
There is a movement called ‘Occupy’ that we ALL KNOW is still very out there and viable and other than the mainstream blackout and calm refusal to acknowledge by the ‘State’ has not gone away…the 99%….the CONSTITUENCY…
anyway, yes, agree w/this part of your murmmering “There is a severe and, frankly, scary dismissal of what democracy is SUPPOSED to be”…. as a nurse I learned when a body comes in bleeding and the danger is a bleed out….you put the pressure even if the field is nt sterile……. WAKE UP! The players of State are (supposed to be) representatives of the people….and the people don’t want to share their bed with ‘corporations dressed up to look like people’……. and we don’t like representatives that pimp our resources to the highest bidder and we are not blind and we know what is going on more than you know….or will acknowledge.
Jill
1, June 18, 2012 at 11:06 am
One of the most disturbing things going on in this nation is the left’s desire for a dictator. Congress isn’t functional so we need a dictator? WOW!
———————————————
wow is correct!
you got that so wrong….wow!
the Constitution has been shredded by the previous administration….our bottle-fed congress and airpop Senate can do no better than to squabble us to death while the banks and corrupted prdators get busy on us. I won’t do another 4 years of that and I won’t pay for another Republican wet-dream. I can’t tell you how thrilled I am that Obama found a way….and those immigrants, who have always been here with boots on thier necks deserve better too…….
The U.S.eh? is becoming the B.S.eh?
The bound states, not the united states.
Mike S.- I would disagree with you on whether or not to blame the victims. People just don’t want to think. I went through the same public education system most other people went through. Heck, I went through the public education system in Texas, not exactly known for it’s stellar performance.
There is a severe and, frankly, scary dismissal of what democracy is SUPPOSED to be about when you say “As I’ve said and which you’ve ignored so many times in the past, show me a mass movement with a chance to change things and I’ll volunteer.” When everyone feels that way, there is no mass movement. You seem to be politically active and active in the community, so you could easily form the basis for a grass roots movement. Not saying that it’s easy, but simply throwing in the towel before any effort is formed is silly. When people base their decisions on likelihood of political success, even when their candidate does not win, it ‘s not WASTED. That would be like saying that every vote for a D. candidate is wasted when a R. wins the office.
I would also like to know (from anyone) why the left and right both use only diametrically opposed arguments in regards to immigration reform? There is only rhetoric being used in most cases, instead of logic and facts. Or propaganda, even.
The common sense solution, IMO, is a three part approach.
First, secure the borders. There is a valid national defense reason for that. I’m not talking about anything insane like land mines, but real, active border security. We have the tech and the knowledge to achieve economically feasible and real border security. It won’t be cheap, but it is I think a far more justified use of government money than fighting in the middle east.
Second, scrap the immigration code in it’s entirety, and start from scratch, with the aim of making legal immigration much, much easier. In countries that provide large migration populations to the US, install diplomatic points that can be used by would be migrants to easily, efficiently, and cost effectively submit their background data (for violent criminal offenses only, as based on US standards, not host country standards) to expedite the certification process. Create minimum baseline standards- They must possess an ability to find work, or already have a job lined up. They must possess a willingness to comply with US Law, and to act in good faith in maintaining gainful employment. They must be willing to read and agree to support the US Constitution, and the process of peaceful transition of power. They must be willing to waive access to “safety net” policies until they achieve citizenship. (I don’t know if that’s a good idea, really, but otherwise that could entice people who would willingly migrate solely to get on welfare- I don’t know what the numbers would be on that, realistically, but I can easily see that happening). In other words, provide an incentive to go about migrating legally, by making it a better choice than migrating illegally in a risk v. reward analysis.
Third- Grant a pardon. To all illegal immigrants. With the exception of those who are guilty of violent criminal offenses, migrants add far too much to the US to simply get rid of. It would be an economic catastrophe, the immigration population in the US is by far its hardest working population segment. Work, as defined as any task that decreases entropy in exchange for monetary considerations, ADDS TO THE OVERALL WEALTH OF THE COUNTRY. Which means more money to go around. Which means more products bought. Which means more jobs….
Anyway, that’s an idea, feel free to pick it apart. 😀
leejcarroll,
“The best scenario, of a crappy one no matter what, is that it is rogue negotiators.”
I agree.
I’m glad the document was leaked. I hope the present administration doesn’t go after the whistle-blower(s). We should know what our government and its negotiators are up to in cases like this.
Clearly within his Presidential Authority……. It’s called prosecutor discretion……. Since Holder works for the President…… It’s clear…… He is not telling them to go out and torture people and saying it’s okay….
While liberals again celebrate the unilateral action, they ignore that danger that the next president may also simply chose to ignore whole areas of the federal law and criminal code in areas ranging from the environment to employment discrimination.
—————————————————–
baloney
sandwich
while the Bushites behaved this way there was a huge(ly ignored) hue and cry…..Obama has begun to do this because the bought P’sTB can do no better than to say “NO” to every attempt to protect the public from unbelievably self-serving oppressions. It’s not my favorite response, nor my biggest fear but good on him for finding away around the stinky end zone…..
Elaine I read about this a little while back.
The best scenario, of a crappy one no matter what, is that it is rogue negotiators.
Isn’t this decision basically one to deport the dangerous ones first, and get around to the innocuous ones much later? The right wingers (I guess) would have us mount an instantaneous ethnic cleansing, herding every illegal and suspected illegal into a concentration camp. Who would fund this roundup? Who would carry it out? The Obama administration is already deporting more than his predecessors.
SM, it is so good to have a place where I could put that info. It is conveniently ignored by all the Obama haters, nay sayers, and those on the right. You know facts getting in the way and all that. (:
Turley is beyond the Pale. Now Obama is an Imperial President for giving some breathing space to kids who lived here for many years and fear getting sent back to Rubio’s Cuba. Turley probably has grandparents who got off the boat from Sicily without papers who would be ashamed of him now. Ivy League with no memory. With Out Papers — I hope you dont have a dog and a dog cage and a station wagon and if you do its probably got a Willard sticker on the bumper.
Here’s a story about the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact that we Americans should be concerned about:
Breaking ’08 Pledge, Leaked Trade Doc Shows Obama Wants to Help Corporations Avoid Regulations
Democracy Now
June 14, 2012
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/6/14/breaking_08_pledge_leaked_trade_doc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4eZcm4ZO6o
Summary:
A draft agreement leaked Wednesday shows the Obama administration is pushing a secretive trade agreement that could vastly expand corporate power and directly contradict a 2008 campaign promise by President Obama. A U.S. proposal for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade pact between the United States and eight Pacific nations would allow foreign corporations operating in the U.S. to appeal key regulations to an international tribunal. The body would have the power to override U.S. law and issue penalties for failure to comply with its ruling. We speak to Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, a fair trade group that posted the leaked documents on its website. “This isn’t just a bad trade agreement,” Wallach says. “This is a ‘one-percenter’ power tool that could rip up our basic needs and rights.”
*****
Excerpts from transcript:
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We turn now to a controversial trade pact between the United States and eight Pacific nations that until now has remained largely secret. It’s called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP. A chapter from the draft agreement leaked Wednesday outlines how it would allow foreign corporations operating in the United States to appeal key regulations to an international tribunal. The body would have the power to override U.S. law and issue penalties for failure to comply with its rulings.
The agreement is being negotiated by the U.S. trade representative, Ron Kirk, appointed by President Obama. But the newly revealed terms contradict promises Obama made while running for president in 2008. One campaign document read in part, quote, “We will not negotiate bilateral trade agreements that stop the government from protecting the environment, food safety, or the health of its citizens; [or] give greater rights to foreign investors than to U.S. investors.”
AMY GOODMAN: Earlier leaks from the draft Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement exposed how it included rules that could increase the cost of medication and make participating countries adopt restrictive copyright measures.
No one from the U.S. trade representative’s office was able to join us, but in a statement to Democracy Now!, they said, quote, “Nothing in our TPP investment proposal could impair our government’s ability to pursue legitimate, non-discriminatory public interest regulation.”
For more, we’re joined by Lori Wallach, director of the fair trade group Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. The leaked documents were posted on her organization’s website early Wednesday morning.
Lori, welcome to Democracy Now! Explain what the documents show and what this agreement is about.
LORI WALLACH: Well, it’s been branded as a trade agreement, but really it is enforceable corporate global governance. The agreement requires that every signatory country conform all of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures to what are 26 chapters of very comprehensive rules, only two of which have anything to do with trade. The other 24 chapters set a whole array of corporate new privileges and rights and handcuff governments, limit regulation. So the chapter that leaked—and it’s actually on the website of Citizens Trade Campaign, it’s a national coalition for fair trade—that chapter is the chapter that sets up new rights and privileges for foreign investors, including their right to privately enforce this public treaty by suing our government, raiding our Treasury, over costs of complying with the same policies that all U.S. companies have to comply with. It’s really outrageous.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Lori, there’s been a quite a bit of complaint, even in Congress, about the secretive nature of these continuing negotiations. About 600 or so corporate advisers have access to information that even members of Congress don’t? Could you talk about how that has come about?
LORI WALLACH: Well, this is how you get a text and in a potential agreement that is this outrageous. I mean, this isn’t just a bad trade agreement, this is a one-percenter power tool that could rip up our basic needs and rights. How that happens is the negotiations have been done in total secrecy. So, for two-and-a-half years, until this leak emerged, people have suspected what’s going on, because, as you said, under U.S. law there are 600 official advisers, they have security clearance to see the text, they advise the U.S. position. Meanwhile, the senator, Ron Wyden, who is the chairman of the trade committee in the Senate, the committee with jurisdiction over the TPP, has been denied access to the text, as has his staff, who has security clearance, to a point where this man who has supported agreements like this in the past has filed legislation demanding he have the right to see the agreement that he’s supposed to be having oversight with. He’s on the Intelligence Committee, and he has security clearance, so he can see our nuclear secrets. He just can’t see this corporate bill of rights that is trying to be slipped into effect in the name of being a trade agreement. It’s a very elegant Trojan horse strategy. You brand it one thing, and then you put an agenda that could not survive sunshine into this agreement.
We have been able also to get some of the texts on patents, expanding patents for Big Pharma, jacking up medicine prices. And we have analysis on our website, tradewatch.org, as well as information about how to get involved, because these agreements are a little bit like Dracula. You drag them in the sunshine, and they do not fare well. But all of us, and also across all of the countries involved, there are citizen movements that are basically saying, “This is not in our name. We don’t need global enforceable corporate rights. We need more democracy. We need more accountability.”
*****
AMY GOODMAN: The next round of negotiations on TPP are scheduled over the July 4th holiday weekend. Lori Wallach, can you comment on this? And also, what I assume would be President Obama’s response, if talking behind the scenes, like perhaps tonight when he’s going to be at Sarah Jessica Parker house with—with raising a lot of money—the financial sector is donating $37 million to Mitt Romney so far, the Obama administration’s haul, $4.8 million—that even his own Wall Street supporters are going over to Romney right now, so he would say he is doing better than Romney would in trying to take on these guys.
LORI WALLACH: I think that, for President Obama, there are two scenarios. One is, he has not been on top of what these negotiators are doing. This really has been under the radar. It’s so important that the text finally came out, because it sends a warning to Congress, to the public, etc., and that basically he’s got negotiators on the loose. They are many of the same people who during the Clinton administration got us into NAFTA, that recycled back into the trade negotiating team. The other alternative explanation is just the money one, which is, it is the case that this is an agreement the 1 percent loves. This is sort of one-percenter fantasy. It’s not just that on the margins and in national governments you have to keep fighting with all your money and lobbying to try and get what you want; this would lock it in for the future, indefinitely.
“Uhm, how is that giving aid or comfort to the enemies of the United States?”
CLH,
The treason is to the Constitution and to the people of the US, who have suffered from a bad economy brought about by fraud.
“After all, they merely reflect the choices of voters in this country. Baa baa dumb sheeple, you get the government you deserve”
This is where you and I strongly disagree. I don’t blame the American people who have been the targets of an almost 50 year campaign by the wealthy elite in this country to not only negatively propagandize them through the Mass Media, to ill educate them by destroying a viable public education system and to destroy the Union Movement to destroy middle/working class power. “Sheeple” sadly reflects an elitist perspective, which I disagree with. I try not to blame victims for their problems.
lee, The Equal Pay Act was passed in 2009. also. Thanks for providing some useful facts.
“Leftists have a long, ignoble history of ushering in brutal dictators. Leftists complain loudly about this tendency on the right, as well they should. The right has brought in an amazing number of truly horrific “dear leaders”. But currently, it is the left who wants a savior, a father figure and a dictator to make things “right””.
Leftists are bad! Rightists are bad! Citizens ARISE! It’s time to join the “Party of Jill”. While you won’t make things better, you’ll know you are right and isn’t self satisfaction better than accomplishing anything. Jill thinks so and after all she knows better than you do. She’s so special.
Jill, too many times people go to the first 2 years with majority in both houses and he didnt get his agenda passed.
It is not that simple, pass by a majority, if it were the repubs would have their agenda codified.
“It takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster in the US Senate, which is now the default to get pretty much anything done. …the Democrats didn’t reach that 60-seat threshold in the Senate until Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) was sworn in on July 7, 2009. They lost that majority upon the swearing-in of Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) on Feb. 4, 2010, just under seven months later.
As Mother Jones‘ Kevin Drum points out, though, the actual amount of time the Democrats held a filibuster-proof majority, when you factor in the late Sen. Ted Kennedy‘s illness and the winter recess, amounts to 14 weeks.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/morning-doh-chris-christie-falsely-claims-president-obama-had-filibuster-proof-majority-for-2-years/
Also he did get the stimulus through, auto industry bail out and health care to name a few things so he did not fritter those 14 weeks away by any stretch of the imagination
“You need to face reality some time. When are you going to do it? Obama isn’t even in charge, the military is. You accept illegal and cruel behavior because you believe in Obama. You need to stop believing and start looking at reality. You were a social worker and you know what happens when people simply will not face the truth.”
Jill,
This statement is just so typical of you. You accuse me of things that are not true and you try to “educate me” on things that I’m way ahead of you on and that frankly I know more about than you do. See below for instance and then tell me that I don’t understand who’s in charge?:
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/17/a-real-history-of-the-last-sixty-two-years/
And as to your other charges perhaps actually reading what I’ve written on the subject might finally inform you of where I stand:
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/06/02/the-pursuit-of-political-purity/#more-49610
You have continued to conveniently ignore much of what I’ve written in blogs and in our long exchange of comments. You also continue to mis-characterize my position regarding Obama. Since your reading skills are not defective let me guess why. You are the kind of person that gains feelings of superiority through criticism, though I won’t speculate why that is so, merely I will point out that this is your “modus operandi”. The problem is Jill you and I see the same issues, but as dystopian as I see this country and this world to be, I look for pragmatic solutions towards keeping things from getting any worse.
You on the other hand, have no solutions for improving any damn thing except to prove how politically pure you are by supporting the likes of Nader and Roehmer with meaningless protest votes that make you fell warm inside because you think you a “doing something”. As I’ve said and which you’ve ignored so many times in the past, show me a mass movement with a chance to change things and I’ll volunteer. Until then I choose to support/protect the rights of women, the rights of LBGT people, working people, poor people, the middle-class and all people of color in this country. You don’t give a damn about any of those categories as long as you can feel superior in your knowledge. You are an elitist Jill and I am not. Your elitism is bred in the feeling that you understand more than the average person and you obviously need that to feel good about yourself. I don’t feel superior to people and I’ve got the background to back up that statement. I spent 37 years on the front-lines of helping people in need and at some cost to my family and my own personal fortunes.
Compared to what I’ve seen and what I’ve experienced in life, most people including you have no clue. Your empathy is only extended to those far away from you and ignores those living next door. My empathy is for all human beings who are oppressed in one way or another and I’ve lived a life that proves it. So work hard to assure that Obama is defeated and then we will watch you attacking Romney as it all gets far worse than the bad that already is. You’ll at least get off on feeling politically pure, up until the time when they take us all away.