mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Obama’s Dangerous Immigration Gambit
Features Icon
show comments
  • wigwag

    The idea that Obama’s plans for executive action on immigration reform will prove immensely damaging to his party is contemptibly ridiculous. Whatever the merits of his move turns out to be, his political party will surely benefit. America’s white/European population is plunging; its Latino and Asian population is sky rocketing. Obama will turn these voters into Democrats for decade to come.

    Face it; Caucasian voters (where most opponents to Obama’s immigration moves are likely to be found) have lost the demographic race every bit as ignobly as White Anglo Saxon Protestants lost the same race a century or more ago. If political expediency is the yardstick, Obama’s executive action will almost certainly immeasurably assist his Party.

    As for the GOP response; they can try to overturn Obama’s moves in court or they can impeach him and try to remove him from office. If they tried, it’s obvious they would fail.

    Obama wins; the GOP loses. You don’t have to like it, but reality is reality no matter how angry it makes you.

    • MartyH

      It’s not white Republicans against minority everybody else. It’s way more complicated than that. The Republican and Democratic parties will respond to electoral pressures. For example, the Republican percentage of Jewish and Asian voters are growing, as are the percentage of white working class voters. The Republicans, supposedly doomed by Obama, have actually been strengthened by him-they are at or near historical highs in representation in Congress and state legislatures. There is no real Democratic bench of capable leaders to challenge the deep Republican field. Clinton, Reid, Pelosi, Obama, Biden-Democratic leadership is old, tired, or both.

      Furthermore, Obama cannot grant citizenship. When Ted Kennedy passed, Scott Brown was elected. Democrats should have taken that as a warning about Obamacare and, instead, passed it. Four years later they are a smoldering heap, both nationally and at the state level. In the same vein, Oregon is run by Democrats and yet they voted down drivers’ license for illegals 2-1. Will Obama heed that warning or charge ahead with another unpopular measure? Obama is the Democrats’ leader; his actions are viewed by the populace as the party’s. He runs the risk of killing his parties chances in 2016, resulting in Republicans ultimately deciding the fate legislatively of those illegal immigrants that Obama is trying to normalize.

    • FriendlyGoat

      Thank you for making the case why Obama should “go big, go bold” on this. You have correctly identified why Republicans from stem to stern are “warning” the president not to do this. They know that almost every political scenario for them in response amounts to them wetting their pants. Impeach? Nah. Punish the people through budget? Nah. Sue in the Republican Supreme Court? Nah.

      • Gene

        FG, are you a young person? Do you know the definition of the word “precedent”? Do you know that precedent can and very well might bite you and those you love very, very hard at some point in the future? Think hard, my friend, about the things you support.

        • FriendlyGoat

          I’m aware there is an argument claiming that liberals in power should never do anything bold because, well, when the conservatives get power, THEN they will do something even more over-reaching to get even. I do not subscribe to that argument for three reasons:

          1) The conservatives will already do any outrageous thing they can get away with ANYWAY when/if they are in power. We’re in a post-tradition, post-civility political world—–especially on the raging TEA Party side. They are NOT promising to “play nice” if liberals “play nice”. Why should we liberals imagine that they are?

          2) The conservatives’ actions are always against people. Their over-reach is limited by what citizens will ACTUALLY permit—-not by what they might threaten. They might threaten to “privatize” Social Security, for instance, and they might catch hell in virtually every district at home—–as they did in 2005.

          3) The bolder the liberals are in when in office, the less likely we are to have conservatives even elected. We could have had single-payer medical for instance—–and by now people would be liking it so well that the “opposition to Obamacare” weapon would have never even existed.

          As for me, I’m past 60. I was “raised” conservative, in family, in churches and in a place I worked for my first two decades after college. Beginning about thirty years ago, I have personally been getting more liberal on most issues with every day which goes by. There is that old joke which says “If you’re not a liberal at 20 you have no heart, and if you’re not a conservative by 40 you have no brain”. I thought I had a brain at 20, but discovered by 40 that the heart stuff is much more important. Political issues MUST be discussed honestly, for instance, and the “conservative movement” no longer will do it—-even a little bit. So, I ain’t gonna be with ’em.

          • Arkeygeezer

            Do you favor rule by a powerful executive for “the people’s own good”?

          • FriendlyGoat

            It depends on the issue being discussed. I wouldn’t support Obama launching a preemptive nuke strike on Putin’s Russia or China, for instance, so that we Americans “would have a strategic advantage”. I did think that Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation was a good idea, though. I thought most of what FDR pushed through was good. I thought Truman integrating the military was good.

  • Arkeygeezer

    Yes, but the man is a Socialist. Socialists do not abide dissent, the will of the people or congresses. Socialists rule by fiat. If Obama stays true to his core, he will exceed his authority by taking executive action. The Congress’ recource is impeachment.

    • FriendlyGoat

      You do not have 2/3 of the Senate.

      • Arkeygeezer

        Impeachment is the recourse. In other countries, the recourse would be armed revolt. Whether impeachment is possible in these circumstances is yet to be determined. When the U.S. Congress is pitted against the President, anything can happen.

        • FriendlyGoat

          Yes, they can do to Obama what they did to Bill Clinton—–and then they can lose the vote.

      • Andrew Allison

        Surely you are not suggesting that the members of the Democratic Party (I can’t bring myself to call them democrats) in Congress are so craven as to violate their oaths to on the basis of partisan considerations? If, and I emphasize if, the President is found to have exceeded his constitutional authority, to do so would be such.

  • Boritz

    “the country he has sworn to serve.”

    What it means to serve “the country” is debatable. Maybe unilateral action on immigration would serve the country. Who knows? Again, debatable. What the president is actually supposed to be doing is “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution“. That constraint offers much less latitude.

  • John Tyler

    “……the damage to public confidence in the system and the President will be immense and very hard to repair…….”


    Our country is no longer a Constitutional Republic and is far closer to a tyranny , a dictatorship of ruling elites and unaccountable bureaucrats who answer ONLY to big monied special interest groups or liberal progressive millionaires who think just like that SOB Jonathan Gruber; and have contempt for the Constitution.
    Either the Constitution gets amended to rein in the federal tyranny – and soon – or the states should begin the process of seceding from the union.
    The federal government is a liberal, elitist, GRUBERIAN tyranny, of, by and for the liberal progressive , millionaire ruling elites. And these ruling elites Hate and Despise the citizenry.
    Jonathan Gruber did us all a big , fat favor by stating loud and clear what the ruling elites think of the citizenry and the Constitution. His message is totally unambiguous.

  • Rick Johnson

    Obama has shown that he cares little for the country that he has shown to serve. Why should he care if he further wrecks it.

    • FriendlyGoat

      Or why should he care if he steals the Republicans’ thunder?

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    The Constitution gives authority over Domestic Policy to the Legislature, it also gives the power of the purse to the legislature. This means that they can completely defund anything they don’t like.

    It is unlikely that enough Democrats would join with the Republicans in the new Senate to reach the 2/3rds majority needed for impeachment.

    • FriendlyGoat

      They can completely defund whatever the citizens ultimately permit them to defund. I expect the new Congress to take a run at silencing PBS, for instance. And I expect them to find themselves thoroughly trashed in their districts when they do so.

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    The act of a Tyrant.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service