King Obama’s executive fiat on illegal immigration — Open Thread

I assume that you all know by know that President Obama has issued an executive order granting amnesty to young illegal immigrants.  It’s a clever move.  Marco Rubio had already proposed something similar, so Obama can say that at least some smart Republicans are already on board with the idea.  The move will presumably cement Hispanic voters to his side, which could be a very big deal in Florida, where some Jewish voters are looking askance at Obama.  Any Republican objections will be touted as Republican racism.

There are some downsides, though.  Congress might get testy at having Obama’s challenge to its authority.  The question is whether Democrats in Congress will be sufficiently testy to challenge their President in an election year.  My guess is that they will not, so the only “nay” voices will come from Republicans — who will then be charged with covert racism that they’re hiding behind a thin procedural screen.  Never mind the Constitution, of course.  Only racists care about that document anyway.

There are two demographics, though, as to which Obama might have been too smart by half:  blacks and unions.  As to both, cheap Hispanic labor is a threat.  In a time of seemingly intractable unemployment, for Obama to pour new competition into the market, rather than to create new jobs, might be a mistake.  I’m sure, though, that the Obama-ites have already examined this problem and concluded that any potential black voter or union hemorrhage is more than offset by increases in Hispanic votes.

I said in the post caption that this is an Open Thread and I meant it.  What’s your take?

Be Sociable, Share!
  • lee

    Will someone please explain to me, clearly, how these “Executive Orders” work? I remember Schoolhouse Rock and even the more cynical takes on how a law comes to be in Legally Blonde II and the Simpsons, and the common thread of all three involves CONGRESS. So how can some of the things that have such a huge impact, like this, be enacted merely by fiat by the President? I don’t understand….

  • Danny Lemieux

    I, too, am unclear. The President cannot legislate, so I don’t see how he can do anything more than blather about this. The Congress, meanwhile, has a choice – they can either reprimand the President for trying to usurp their constitutional authority or…they can go home, because they will have totally relinquished their power to the Executive branch and therefore no longer serve any useful purpose.

  • Pingback: Rhymes With Right()


    If I was reading about this end-run around Congress in Egypt …oh wait, I did Barry Rubin’s prediction for Egypt: Massive violence The difference – Egyptians don’t internalize their anger and we do.           

  • shirleyelizabeth

    Always on a Friday.

  • Indigo Red

    Why shouldn’t Obama rule by fiat? He bought Chrysler which was then purchased by Fiat.

    Joking aside… the Constitution in Article 2, Sec II allows the Executive (President) to appoint the principle officers of the executive offices (cabinet secretaries) which are constituted to carry out the laws proposed by Congress and signed into law by the Executive who, in turn, has the responsibility to carry out the laws. In doing so, the Executive has the implied authority to make the rules, either directly through Executive Order or departmental regulations, in order to carry out the law.

    Obama’s E.O. today directs one or more of the Executive departments to carry out the Constitutionally enacted law in a particular manner. No new law was created, nor is one required. The Executive or his Cabinet Secretary acting under Executive authority can decide how and when any law is enforced. Such decisions often have the effect of nullifying particular laws through minimal enforcement like the border “catch and release” provision of today’s Executive Order.

    Unlike laws, Executive Orders are temporary and serve at the pleasure of the President. When a new President is inaugurated, often the first order of business is to rescind E.O.s of the previous administration as demonstrated by Obama’s record breaking rescission session on his first day in office. Although E.O.s generally are accepted as having the force of law, they are only regulations carried out through threat, intimidation, or sheer force of physical or financial might from which the citizenry can seek redress through the courts that can and frequently has overturned onerous government regulation.

  • Michael Adams

    There’s a funny thing about the Unions.  The “leadership,” the Union paid organizers and business managers, have shown their inherent stupidity, by insisting that the unrestricted immigrants can be unionized.  Why they’ll join a union and be limited to working for the union’s approved wage, when they can make more money taking what work they can get, at whatever they can individually negotiate, is beyond me. The membership. of course, will be furious, and, if they live in a Right to Work state, there’ll be further drops in union rolls, as more workers seek to prevent more of their dues being spent on campaigns that actively oppose the economic well-being of those workers.
    The “racism”thing can be torpedoed, if the point can be publicized that forty per cent of Hispanic Texans, for example, oppose unrestricted illegal immigration. That’s pretty remarkable, when one knows just  how leftist the Spanish networks are, even Univision, which seems to be headquartered in Florida, and the announcers all have strongly Cuban accents. (Forgive me if I have used the wrong network name.  I get the English ones mixed up, too.Most of the time, no one would suggest that I have ADD.  Television just triggers something in me.)

  • JKB

    A couple of issues.

    The move on the hot illegal immigration issue may ingratiate Obama with some Hispanics. And start the fire storm of debate. Rubio might have supported this plan but I doubt he supported cutting out the Rule of Law.

    However, the real issue is Obama’s decision to ignore black letter law. Some argue discretion and resource allocation but the consequence is that any President can now negate any law he wishes simply by non-enforcement. Like Obamacare, the next president could simply not go after people who don’t participate and not approve funding allocated for the operation. Or, say civil rights, a President could simply rule that there shall be no investigations. In fact, I think that is why the federal government rolled into Alabama and Mississippi back in the 1960s. Because the Governors wouldn’t enforce the laws.

    So the question is, how many Hispanic Americans are there that will embrace Obama’s usurpation of powers and how many Americans of Hispanic ancestry are there who might find the negation of the rule of law troubling? Seems a little insulting to me that Obama presumes Americans with certain ancestral ties approve of damage to the Rule of Law for some ephemeral racial gain?

    I’d like to see this framed as a Rule of Law argument and ask the question of everyone, are you an American with your allegiance to the Constitution or a “-American” willing to subtract out what makes America, America.

  • Ymarsakar

    ” Why they’ll join a union and be limited to working for the union’s approved wage, when they can make more money taking what work they can get, at whatever they can individually negotiate, is beyond me.”

    They aren’t given a choice. Either they join or they  will be threatened. In Mexico more than 50% of the money sent back is diverted to ransoms, blackmailing drug gangs, or Mexican corrupt officials. The union taxes and monopoly may be seen as an improvement if they gain certain benefits and security.


  • Ymarsakar

    “However, the real issue is Obama’s decision to ignore black letter law. Some argue discretion and resource allocation but the consequence is that any President can now negate any law he wishes simply by non-enforcement.”

    That power has always been with the Executive Branch, since Andrew Jackson. In some fashions the office was designed to work like that. But few have the will or desire to use such power. Bush didn’t. 

  • Mike Devx

    This couldn’t have been an easy open-and-shut decision to make, even in a case of pandering.  Did you notice how President Obama kept repeating, “This is temporary, this is temporary ONLY, it’s a stop-gap!”  So my take is that there is significant potential political downside to this pandering, that they’ve identified already, and are trying to head off.

    This reminds me of the gay marriage kerfluffle a few weeks back.  In choosing to satisfy one Democrat Group (“Our Gays”), Obama pissed off many in another Democrat Group (“Our Blacks”).

    Illegal immigrants do take jobs and depress wages, and they do this at a cost to other poorer people. And across all constituencies, there are people who care about following the Law, and they are never happy at any of these amnesty attempts.


  • Ymarsakar

     Be prepared for what Obama will do to the nation come the post elections, whether he wins or loses. If you think you have seen fire, havoc, and destruction in the last 4 years, just wait. You might be surprised at how far evil can take things on this planet.


  • jj

    This is a perfect illustration of why term limits are a necessity.  The fact that what he’s done is nowhere supported by law isn’t going to matter, and he’s going to get away with it.  He’s going to get away with it because the congress, whose only interest should be in supporting the law of the land, won’t call him on it because they’re all too worried about upsetting their own cadre of Hispanic voters.  They’ll put self-interest ahead of the country’s interest every day, ten times a day.  For this the sons-of-bitches should be shot, not merely voted or term-limited out – but I’ll accept their simple removal.
    The little bastard will get away with this, and it’ll be because all of these “public servants” we have working for us are so wrapped up in their own self-interest that the country comes a distant third in their consideration – maybe. 
    So don’t give it a thought, little Jug-ears isn’t a complete fool, he wouldn’t have done it if he didn’t know he’d come out ahead.  He probably devoted as much as three seconds to thinking through the political implications of this – that would be all it would take to know where our roomful of heroes would come down – before he went ahead and did it.  he knows there’s just about zero political cost – for him – to such a move.

  • Ymarsakar

    The reason why evil rules is because evil has no cost and a lot of benefit. If you want to keep losing, continue to supply evil with cheap victories.

  • lee

    Personally, I think we should adopt the same immigration laws as Mexico. See how well THAT goes over! Mwah-ha-ha-ha!