The Washington Post has published a hard-hitting editorial that not only accuses the Obama Administration of fudging the figures on its unilateral immigration changes but calls the action “unprecedented” and “indefensible.” The stinging editorial from a generally favorable newspaper amplifies the criticism of others, including myself, that President Obama is doing considerable damage to the separation of powers and, more generally, our constitutional system in these actions.
The Post details what it views as highly suspicious figures coming out of the Administration — a continuing problem raised by critics in various controversies that has reduced the credibility of the Administration as a whole. The Administration is using a figure of affected persons that it says puts the scope of its action in line with changes made by President George Bush — a claim repeated on various commentators and bloggers. However, the Post says “there is every reason to believe that the estimate is wildly exaggerated and based mainly on what appears to have been a misunderstanding at the time.”
While the Post supports changes in immigration and criticizes the Republicans in the House of Representatives, it insists that that does not alter the fact that President Obama is taking “unprecedented” action:
Republicans’ failure to address immigration also does not justify Mr. Obama’s massive unilateral act. Unlike Mr. Bush in 1990, whose much more modest order was in step with legislation recently and subsequently enacted by Congress, Mr. Obama’s move flies in the face of congressional intent — no matter how indefensible that intent looks.
No executive order has ever limited congressional power because it’s not permanent. Honestly, Mr. Turley, you would serve the nation’s interest, and the protection of powers, by going after the filibuster. The filibuster does more harm to the majority’s ability to govern the nation, and that is relatively permanent. Unfortunately, I see you as only getting involved in partisan politics. I respect that that is not your intention, but when your client decides to end his lawsuit for political reason–just as he pursued his lawsuit for partisan political gamesmanship–you will look utterly foolish for having gotten involved.
Aridog,
I’ll concede your greater point but caution we have too many making an effort to inject a racial component when it has no relevance.
randyjet –
“The priority should be first caught first deported. ” Why? Why is that preferable to first deporting individuals convicted of crimes? You want the violent criminals to hang around longer?? In any event, Obama’s immigration action specified a “delayed deportation” status only for those who had been here for some time, seemingly in agreement with your comment.
A militarized southern border fence would invariably be compared to the Berlin Wall, and subject us to worldwide accusations of heavy-handed hypocrisy.
Should we set up concentration camps as well?
Jay S It is hard to take your comments seriously, so I hope you were kidding. First off, we DO deport those first who we catch crossing the border. They go back immediately. Second. to compare our border fencing to the Berlin Wall or detention centers to concentration camps is silly. To do that one has to have no knowledge of the Berlin wall or concentration camps. The Berlin Wall was constructed to keep East Germans INSIDE the GDR, not to keep out West Berliners. I have a friend of mine who was a Red Diaper baby and was in the CPUSA, and when the Wall went up, his excuse at the time was that it was built to keep West Berliners OUT because they were taking up all the seats at the East German Opera! So if you can buy that kind of thing, then I can understand why you would confuse the Berlin Wall with our southern border. Then the detention centers are the most unusual “prisons” on Earth since you can get OUT ANY TIME YOU WANT! All one has to do is to agree to go back HOME! I guess that such FACTS are hard to understand in your case. I hope that you will try thinking more before you post or look at the FACTS first.
Since I personally know some people who WERE in actual concentration camps, it offends me and them that people can so lightly throw around comparisons of the US internment camps to German concentration camps or detention centers. The concentration camp survivors would have LOVED to have been in the US ones, or detention centers. So in the name of simple decency, please lay off the stupid comparisons. By the way, the EU is constructing its own BERLIN Wall in Poland to keep out the Russians and Ukrainians. So I doubt that they will have much to say about us doing the same. IN fact, theirs will be MORE effective than ours, since they are serious about it.
Olly…I was commenting on the issues of today where there is an example, no doubt not intentionally omitted, that demonstrates the potential of all of us…including the grandfather gold miner. Those USACE black soldiers performed well, superbly in fact, under far more adverse conditions that we have today…which was my point and added only as a positive addition. I only fear we are creating new dysfunctionality with this false amnesty now published….in essence creating a new captive class in the name of progress when it is nothing of the kind. I can be wrong, of course, and time will tell.
“You failed to mention that half the USACE who built that highway were African American soldiers.”
Aridog,
Under what context did Randyjet “fail” to mention that fact? He also didn’t mention my wife’s great-grandfather was a gold miner in Dawson City; is that also a failure on his part?
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/bush-exit-texas-town-takes-tourism-article-1.1882573
randyjet said …
During WWII, the US Army corps of Engineers built the ALCAN HIGHWAY which is almost the same length as our southern border. They did that in the worst terrain and climate in the world in less than a YEAR!
You failed to mention that half the USACE who built that highway were African American soldiers. No big deal, but given today’s arguments, perhaps significant? YMMV….my opinion only….but a lot of very black buts were busted building that highway. I believe they deserve recognition.
BTW…it matters not where GW lives, it is simply that he is no longer President and no longer responsible for errors of the current administration. This retrospection truly tires me.
I am fully aware of the fact that black soldiers were about half the workforce on that project and were given the worst equipment are were ordered to stay out of the towns up there. In any case, it is easily done to make a good fence that will last a long time. They outperformed their white counterparts too.
KarenS…beyond the fact it seems like we might have been separated at birth 🙂 you make a valid point:
Do you know who has the most draconian immigration systems? The nanny European countries like the Netherlands. You have to prove you can support yourself and contribute to the country.
True enough. If you want to emigrate to Canada (as a few of my close friends have done) You must demonstrate,and prove the same thing…that you can independently support yourself.
It seems harsh, but it serves a valid purpose…e.g., citizen residents do not have to sponsor and support immigrants.
randy:
You are right that illegal immigration depresses wages.
It’s also been hard on small businesses in the service, construction, and remodeling industries. Homeowners comparison shop by price, and it is impossible to compete with businesses who hire illegal aliens at cash, under the table wages, not paying for work comp, or other taxes. Following the law, and paying for expensive work comp, licenses, etc renders you unable to compete.
If illegal immigration was harder, everyone would immigrate here legally, and we would not have this magnitude of problems with depressed wages.
And yet Obama, and many other politicians, keep making it easier and easier for illegal aliens to function.
Here in CA, police officers are not allowed to notify ICE when they arrest an illegal alien.
Karen, Since you live in CA, I suggest that you become an illegal, and get multiple drivers licenses so you can avoid paying traffic tickets, and not lose your license for a DUI conviction. CA is now issuing licenses to them, and all it takes is a matricula for ID which can be had either on the street or from the Mexican consulate if your Spanish is good. The FBI says it is useless as an ID because of the rampant fraud in issuing them. Mexico does not accept them as valid ID, but CA WILL!
Randyjet is correct about the license and matricula cards. The verification process with the issuance of matricula cards is nearly zero, and it is not unusual for illegals to have a new one with a different identity each time they travel to the US. The only way to verify who they were, or at least who they said they were the first time, is if they are fingerprinted at some stage and then fingerprinted again.
It is common for when fingerprint cards come up with a match to a previous booking, in the criminal justice system, the person will have an FBI number assigned to them. When a triple I is ran on this multiple aliases are commonplace.
The possession of forged immigration and permanent resident cards is nearly universal with illegals from south of the border. The quality of these has been improving over the years but if you know what to look for they are obvious forgeries. However most citizens when looking at one would not know the difference or in some cases care.
The truly damaging document is the forged social security card. The Social security account number is often random from the maker of the illegal document. What happens with this is when the number happens to belong to another person, any labor or other identity related activity then gets misdirected to the actual account holder. There have been benefits denied to those on social security or SSDI because the administration shows, incorrectly, that the person received income when in fact someone else used their identity. Identity theft is another issue if the illegal alien obtains credit or services under this false name, even if the names do not match it can cause difficulty.
The cards are readily available for those entering the US illegally. The cost for these varies but my experience was it was between $75 and $125.
With regard to the driver licenses, states that allow licenses on residency but not citizenship have the issue with the throw away Identity. As soon as the person is in trouble with the courts they toss the old identity and obtain a new one.
One factor that has been improving, at least in the areas I worked, is that they are holding on to the state issue driver licenses and such longer than before. The stability of their employment and the availability of services for them coupled with the fact that deportation is not as likely as it once was seems to have tapered off those who keep their identities. The ones that are more fly-by-night continue to be problematic.
There is greater incentive for illegal aliens to skip out on responsibility. The hit and run incidents with these folks is rampant. Those facing serious crimes, especially gang affiliated individuals, result in flight to Mexico and other countries to avoid prosecution. Once in Mexico, depending on the state they are in there, the local authorities are often not very motivated to extradite the person back. The do help in many cases but if it is not a class A offense, it does not likely happen. But, upon their return to the US, the opportunity to bring them to justice increases substantially.
There are advantages in issuing driver licenses to illegal aliens, but one has to ask how truly fair it is where a citizen or permanent resident must provide legitimate and verifiable documentation to obtain a driver license or else suffer penalties, and when illegal aliens go in to the same office with invalid forms of ID, often fake, they are simply accommodated.
Do we not arrest parents because it would deprive their children of them? If parents rob a bank or steal someone’s identity, is their crime waived because it would be inhumane to take them away from their children? If the parents stole someone’s identity to get benefits, or ran an under the table cash only business and never paid taxes, to live here illegally, why do we just ignore it? Why do I have to follow the law if they do not? One way for thee, another for me? Why won’t they just immigrate here legally like everyone else?
As I live in a border state, I am well aware of the rampant identity theft that accompanies our high rate of illegal aliens. The criminals that go back and forth across the border. The increasing reach of the drug cartels. The hit and runs.
This was a slap in the face to all those legal immigrants who spent years wading through the system, following the law. It has somehow become accepted as rude or unjust to expect those who share a border with us to immigrate legally. Poor people do it every day, and yet it seems an impossible hurdle to the media, politicians, and many other public figures.
Obama’s Dream Act is responsible for 65,000 unaccompanied children showing up at our border, leaving behind an unspeakably tragic trail of those who died on the way, or were abused on the way.
What is the logical outcome of this latest effective amnesty?
If we dissolved all immigration requirements, we would be flooded with millions of immigrants at a rate that would collapse our infrastructure. We cannot, for example, absorb the entire population of Mexico within a month. Logistically it’s impossible. That is why we have have limits on the quantity of immigrants. Then we apply limits on who we let in, such as barring convicted pedophiles or murderers or drug cartel members.
But there are those who believe we don’t have that right to have any say at all, as a country. No other country in the entire world has open borders. If it did, it would be a region, not a country. Mexico incarcerates immediately anyone who tries to immigrate there illegally.
I’ve never understood why the discussion didn’t logically center around improving our immigration system, speeding up and streamlining the process, improving asylum processes, and fixing our borders. If it was harder to get here illegally, people wouldn’t do it. They would choose the legal system, instead, and we wouldn’t have this problem. Instead, Obama just made it easier to function here as an illegal alien. And that will become a magnet for more people to break the law.
The argument that we are all immigrations could conceivably be used to say that there should be no border at all, and anyone who can get here can stay here. That sounds lovely, until you realize that billions of people would show up tomorrow, with us already trillions in hopeless debt as it is. Even the American Indians before us immigrated here, and replaced the Clovis Indians.
Do you know who has the most draconian immigration systems? The nanny European countries like the Netherlands. You have to prove you can support yourself and contribute to the country.
I support legal immigration but not illegal immigration.
I live in a border state, with the Mexican gangs, cartel incursions, huge rate of hit and runs by illegals, etc. We pay the price for the feds refusing to enforce the laws already on the books.
Sound familiar, not following laws on the books?
Cheryl said …
Why is it an unprecedented unilateral action when similar executive actions were done by Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush to list a few?
Although you are wholly wrong about Eisenhower, never-the-less, presuming your assertion is correct, for the sake of discussion, how does malfeasance by former Presidents excuse malfeasance by the current one? I really get tired of this constant references to past errors when justifying those by the current occupant of the White House? And his staff and Cabinet…the worst of the group.
With all due respect, as you’re entitled to as one of the commenters here who does not devolve in to personal ad homoniems (that I know of) I have to ask how long we will continue, as a national group, to look over our shoulders to the past instead of working to improve the future. Nothing in the executive administrative past is legal precedent for future actions. In short, there are many things I didn’t like about the Bush 43 administration (think the Patriot Act and DHS, among others), although I am a Republican since 2004, however I am fully aware GW Bush is retired to Crawford, Texas and no longer President…I am far more concerned with the current administration, and oddly, less with Obama than his staff and his cabinet.
My main point, since I am involuntarily wordy: Past bad acts by past Presidents are NOT Legal precedents for support of current bad acts by a sitting President.
Aridog, W Bush is not retired to Crawford. He lives in Dallas. The so called ranch was a Potemkin village for show. It is a “ranch” without horses, W is afraid of them, without cattle, no livestock, and no agriculture other than some trees he harvests to get a tax deduction. He is not much of a Texan who does not like horses and his ranch.
randyjet – would you like to cite a source for your claim about the Crawford ranch.
Zack Fiekds said …
This piece seems to be self serving since you are representing the House of Representatives. I suppose George Bushs actions are legal because he did them. My how people switch when it’s the other guy doing it. I am embarrassed for you Jon.
On the contrary, Zack…Professor Turley has stepped up to the plate when asked to do so, regardless of his personal political stances. His position is one of Constitutional correctness, not political. I don’t understand why so many misunderstand that. What happened in the past under Bush, et al is not the point, he was not asked to step up then, he is now…and I commend him for undertaking the challenge. When I’ve needed a lawyer Professor Turley is the kind I have always sought…ones that will tell me the truth and stand on a principle.
This congress has done more to divide racial barriers than any other president in recent times.
Please explain how actions by Congress and Presidents are comparable. Or did you inadvertently misspeak? Or do I misunderstand a confusing sentence? I’ll listen.
Under Obama, something like 400,000 are deported every year. As many as there is funding to deport. So, how should he prioritize the deportations? Random? Luck of the draw? Criminals first? “Dream Kids” first? He would need something like 20 X more resources to deport all the illegals in one year. If the Republicans want that to happen, why haven’t they appropriated the funds to do so?
And if the Republicans want a “Berlin Wall” along the Rio Grande, why haven’t they appropriated funding for that?
I still haven’t heard a coherent Republican scheme for what Obama should do vis a vis this problem. Just sit back and do nothing, like Congress?
JayS The Obama administration is playing games with the deportation numbers since they include the deportations of those who they bus back across the border when they catch them crossing. ALL other admins did not include those illegals in the total, and Obama has deported less than HALF than his predecessors from within the interior of the US.
As for funding, the Congress has made them available, but Obama has not used them to enforce the law in the interior of the US. The priority should be first caught first deported. Simple. The fact is that the problem would solve itself if we had an E-Verify requirement for all employers, which would dry up the jobs magnet to a large degree. We could get rid of the illegals the same way they got here. We did not pay for their bus fare or pay for them to come, so they can go back the way they came. Make it harder than ever to earn money, and they will leave on their own, along with strict enforcement.
I suggest that liberal Democrats like myself should read the Jordan Commission report and its recommendations and support the measures of that commission. That was a real bipartisan one, and it has the realistic proposals that will solve the problem.
The border fence has not been built, and it is not rocket science. During WWII, the US Army corps of Engineers built the ALCAN HIGHWAY which is almost the same length as our southern border. They did that in the worst terrain and climate in the world in less than a YEAR! Simply building a fence is far less daunting and in terrain which is a lot easier. By the way, a fence is not supposed to be impenetrable, it is simply a means to slow down those who would come here illegally. It makes it easier to catch illegals since they will no longer have the ability to escape back into Mexico so easily when confronted by the BP and give them time to round them up. Now, all they have to do is have a mass rush, and a good number escape because they cannot shoot at them. So it means, one agent, one illegal. The rest get away.
Why is it an unprecedented unilateral action when similar executive actions were done by Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush to list a few?
Cheryl, The problem is that as I pointed out, all of the other executive orders were done in conjunction with laws passed by Congress and to clean up conflicts with other US law. I have to laugh at using Eisenhower as an example since he deported nearly one million illegals under Operation Wetback. Unfortunately, they also deported some US citizens too. ALL of those people were NOT illegals since most of them had been recruited to work in the US during WWII. After the war, they simply stayed in the US, so THEY HAD been invited to be here and did not commit the crime of illegal entry as 60% of our current illegals have done. The result of that operation was that most of those former guest workers returned to Mexico. Also, a good part of their wages had been withheld and sent to the Mexican government to be held for them upon their return. Of course, the workers never got a peso of their savings even when they returned. So enforcement does work when it is applied, and all we have to do is to enforce the law, deport many of the illegals, and the rest will return on their own as they did back then.
This operation by Eisenhower was opposed by the ranchers in Texas who depended on their cheap wages. LBJ fought against this by every means because his paymasters were in the Valley. The result was that wages rose for American workers who then got those jobs in agriculture. Cesar Chavez was one of the first to patrol the border against illegals, and turned them into the BP. So it is not a white thing that opposes illegals. It is simple economics that it is the workers interest to have labor shortages, NOT to have more workers who will work at depressed wages. Chavez also lobbied and fought against the Bracero program which allowed Mexican workers to work in US fields. He was successful, and the program ended, which then enabled him to found the UFW. Wages rose to what would now be a wage of $50/hr at the height of the UFW. Thanks to the flood of illegals, those wages and the UFW are lower than ever.
Cheryl – the actions of previous Presidents were not similar and did not cover near as many people.
Issac, a response to your initial response. “For six years the Republicans have been using the my way or the highway approach by opposing anything and everything Obama has put forth.”
What? My way or the highway? Don’t you remember the statement of his first Chief of Staff – Twinkle-Toes Rahm E? His response to whether Republicans should have some input into congressional actions from the Dem controlled Congress was, “F**k ’em, we have the votes”. And that’s what happened. The GOP wasn’t in on Anything! Please open your eyes on this. I’m not saying there wasn’t a lot of bs on the GOP side. There was and is. However, the Dems hooked themselves up with the wrong trains – Obama, Reid, Pelosi. A non-qualified snake oil salesman and his enablers. Look at all the accomplishments they’ve made with the Saul A approach. It would be great if the GOP Congress gives the Dems all the bs in return but I hope they just get things done.
Geba, The fact is that Obama has been the best President in my lifetime. He ended the worst economic downturn since the Depression, saved the US auto industry, got me back to work, and got my wife health insurance which she was unable to get because of pre-existing conditions. So all in all, he has had the most impact on my life since LBJ, Vietnam being the less than good influence. The GOP on the other hand has screwed me every time they have been in power. Nixon found out vets were getting food stamps because the GI bill paid so little, and raised the payment just to eliminate that. He did not raise it one dollar more, or one dollar less. I could spend pages listing the GOP crimes against me and my class.
Obama was reelected by people hoping for a handout and not a hand up. They got it. What are the results? They are in as bad or worse condition then before. There is no magic answer to prosperity, freedom, and liberty. It has to be work for, fought for, and kept through careful diligence and perseverance.
Obama tells the American public what they want to hear to get them on his side and then when he gets his way, he says something like, “Go suck a lemon, idiot.” Obama’s speech was nothing more than his rhetoric of telling the people (in this case, Hispanics), what they wanted to hear and pointing the finger at his opposition and placing blame. Only uninformed people will buy his empty promises.
Republican’s have said over and over again, “No reform, until the borders are closed first.” There should be no thought of a Dream Act, benefits or other privileges until people prove they want to live, work, and be model citizens in this country.
I don’t think you’ll see any immigration reform until possibly next year or after the next presidential election.
We’ve got to stop giving away the candy store to others, while our citizens go without.
The descent into tyranny has grown uglier each day.
The lefties cheer on the fascist impulse, and tut tut and whine and laugh when you use that word, fascism, which most accurately describes Obama Tyrannicus Rex.
WaPo has fostered this man, prodded him, helped him, even as his practices violated the Constitution more and more.
Now WaPo calls foul?
Why now?
We crossed the Rubicon when SCOTUS declared ACA “constitutional” by respelling “penalty” as “tax.”
Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin.
WaPo has been weighed and found wanting.
“This congress has done more to divide racial barriers than any other president in recent times.”
Zack,
Huh? I don’t believe you intended to imply you would prefer a Congress that kept racial barriers in place, right? Assuming you meant that as a negative comment towards Congress, please provide the evidence to support this claim.
Barry: “First, Mr. Turley, anybody quoting the Washington Post’s editorial page is on thing ice, unless they’ve apologized for their frothing cheerleading for the Iraq War and have filed those columnists.”
The 2 issues aren’t equivalent, though.
My understanding is that Professor Turley is not against immigration reform, but is opposed to President Obama’s cross-issue corruption of the fundamental law and policy procedure in the legislative-executive process.
His stance on Operation Iraqi Freedom would be the reverse of that. Professor Turley has been against OIF. However, OIF was an exceptional model of proper procedure in the legislative-executive process where the law and policy basis for OIF was deliberately and collaboratively constructed by Congress and the White House for over a decade and 3 administrations.