The Washington Post is raising another instance where the Obama Administration appears to be withholding information on immigration for political purposes — further contradicting President Obama’s pledge to be the most transparent Administration is history. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection releases its annual statistics on October 10th before the elections. Someone in the Administration then ordered the statistics taken down in what the Post is calling a move that seemed to confirm the view of “the Obama administration playing politics with public information.” Notably, the Post however only wrote about the story today so any such intention worked to keep the information out of the public debate. There is a reason why these statistics would be particularly bothersome before an election.
The Administration previously admitted that it would not discuss its plans for unilateral immigration action until after voters had gone home from the polls.
The data that was taken down within hours contained one potentially negative piece of information for the Administration: Most of the people the Border Patrol stopped from sneaking into the country last year were from countries other than Mexico. That would support the view that the border has become a magnet due to the porous protection and the draw of stories promising plans for amnesty. Regardless of the reason, such information should be released to the public — particularly before an election where immigration was a prominent issue.
The Administration says that it merely wants to release all data as part of a comprehensive disclosure and that internal administrative issues have delayed the released until after the election.
Once again, I am less concerned with the merits of the immigration debate than I am about the active effort to prevent voters from learning about the data or the plans for immigration policies. There seems a growing cynicism over the goals transparency in government — an open dismissal of any obligation to allow voters to make their own decisions based on data of this kind. I felt the same way about such efforts during the Bush Administration. While we cannot always expect honest government, we can at least demand open government as citizens. That was one of the most redeeming issues upon which President Obama ran as a new candidate. It seems a long time ago.
Source: Washington Post
Karen, SWM said honestly many times that the Republicans could take the Senate in 2014. I don’t know what you are thinking of, but that you misrepresent what people here said is not surprising at all.
What’s hysterical is all the amnesia and hypocrisy.
Chuckling. Just review this blog over the past few months with Obama supporters arguing with the prediction that the public would revolt against his policies during the midterms.
It should’ve been embarrasing voting for Bush twice.
You know what I love? When Professor Turley writes about the latest indefensible outrage by the Obama Administration, and his supporters rush to defend him without addressing the actual situation or facts. Or they will say it’s somehow unfair to criticize him without also referencing each and every wrongdoing by all presidents before him.
Hey, let’s discuss how Andrew Jackson’s mistakes excuse Obama’s!
A fool can be President. Bush did it for 8 years.
Karen I don’t know where you were getting your news, but most news sources right leaning or left said that the WOULD be problems with the Midterms.
Why impeach Obama? Then we’d just have Biden, who is a fool. Remember the quote expressing his surprise that they had a clean, well spoken black candidate?
And yet Democrats supported him as VP.
Double standard at its most embarrassing.
Past behavior predicts future.
I fully expected Obama to double down on his lawlessness. He has been struck down repeatedly by the Supreme Court, and yet what did he do when his policies got spanked at the polls? He threatened further rule by his pen.
Of course he did. Why would he change?
Hahahaha. Just like the Dems claimed there wouldn’t be any problems in 2014. Remember that on this very blog not too long ago.
Stay the course. Definitely.
Executive orders are meant to assist in administering or managing within government, not to create new laws. Obviously. So it’s not the number but the effect that matters.
I do not know if Bush ever made an inappropriate executive oder, vs one that is simply administrative.
Any president who rules by executive fiat is wrong. And it’s unbelievably lame to say, well, it’s OK because FDR did it, too.
If anyone doubts whether Obama has abused executive orders, or who wants additional information, there is this award-winning legal blog that has written about it extensively:
jonathanturley.org
Check it out.
A theme I see in this thread is outrage by conservatives that Democrats are not conciliatory and cowed. 2016 is coming, it’s going to be an interesting two years, a very revelatory two years.
A casual review of this thread will uncover a trend: Namely, Obama supporters cannot or will not address the facts and sincere concerns presented. They inevitably get reduced to emotional or absurd arguments, along the lines of “you know you’re a racist if you oppose Obama.”
When faced with the indefensible, they judge through political glasses.
Sandi how are Bush’s Executive actions different than Obama’s? Was it OK when Bush did it?
SWM:
“Well, hopefully Mitch McConnell can save you from the African and you can get your white christian nation back.”
Please explain why the majority of people in the US oppose Obama because he’s black, rather than because of his policies, the scandals, and his lawlessness in office.
Also, you claimed my post was pure spin, and that the majority of losses were due to death and retirement.
Let me quote form the article. The word “some” does not mean “the majority.” In fact, “many” is more than “some.” So in some cases, Obamacare had nothing to do with it, but in many cases, it did.
Let me know if you need me to explain anything else. 🙂
“Many senators voted for Obamacare and lost re-election battles in which they were hit hard for their support for the law, and other Democrats were forced to retire because they had no hope of getting re-elected given their support for the law. But in some cases — such as John Kerry leaving his seat to become secretary of state, or Robert Byrd passing away — Obamacare clearly had nothing to do with it.”
Annie, I didn’t read them all, but were these unusual? So much minutiae. I would have wondered about a Republican Pres in 2016, until this election. I think the Clintons lost big. People are angry and frustrated. Incomes are down, unemployment is stagnant, lots of people going for disability. A one-time, tax-free bill to get corporations to bring money into the US would create jobs. Corporations don’t truly pay taxes, the consumer does. Half the country pay no taxes, but get a return, 47 million on food stamps (that people sell on Craig’s list). If you took all the income of the top 10%, you couldn’t keep the government running. The size of Federal Government is unmanageable. Leave money in the States and let them do what the States need. Federal mandates are choking everything. As bills come out of Congress, look into them. They aren’t all going to be bad. At least 300+ won’t be sitting on Reid’s desk any longer. I truly believe most members of Congress, no matter what party, want to make the country better. Nobody wants anyone to go without food and shelter. More efficiency in DC would allow more funds to help. Americans are remarkable people, let them make their own decisions about what’s best for their families. Harry Reid had little money when he was first elected, now he’s a multi-millionaire. There are lots of stories like that. It’s wrong and until the people demand changes there will be none. We disagree on a lot of things, but everyone must work together to get this country back on a positive track. If something hasn’t worked in the last six years, try something else, or just stop. I sincerely believe that partisanship needs to be tempered for the good of everyone. See you tomorrow.
Obama will never be impeached.
There wouldn’t be a liquor store or Quickie Mart left standing in America if that happened.
Who needs that?
It’s not about a JUSTIFICATION Slohrs. It’s about crass hypocrisy. It was as wrong for Bush to do it as it is for Obama. I wish he had a Congress that he could’ve worked with from day one, but that was not to be.
CNN breaking news… mo’ troops to ‘raq. That ain’t going to let up anytime soon.
I hope that’s more the case Mike. There is always the chance I may have to do that.