Obama to announce executive order on immigration

[Beet]

I doubt this is going to encourage a vast new wave of illegal immigration; illegal immigration has been on the decline for decades now as border security has increased. It's now only a fraction of what it was in the Bush years. And Obama's executive plans actually shift more resources to the southern border.

As for those already here, the fact of the matter is, the vast, vast, vast majority of these people weren't going to be deported anyway. Keeping them in illegal/shadow status will only hinder their assimilation into mainstream American society. The GOP should welcome that, as the quicker Hispanics assimilate, the sooner they will start diversifying their vote and some of them may even start voting Republican. The quicker they move up the economic ladder, the fewer children they will have as well. Keeping them poor and isolated and resentful will only exacerbate the worst tendencies in illegal immigrant "communities." In a way, he's helping out the GOP, although in the very long run.

[Beet]

The president shouldn't being doing this by executive action, that's for sure. I'm not sure what he's up to this week -- it sounds like he's trying to disrupt the narrative. Every time he pulls something else out of his sleeve (net neutrality, climate change treaty, immigration) that becomes the story. Otherwise, what would everyone have been talking about this week? How the Republicans swept the election and how bad of a shellacking the president's party took. I think he's trying to mix things up and take people's minds off the election.

The Republicans should just pass whatever immigration bill they can get through the Senate, and tell Obama to either sign it or veto it. If he vetoes it, they can say he preferred his own executive actions to Congressional legislation on the exact same topic, which wouldn't give him much of a leg to stand on. He pretty much has to sign whatever immigration bill Congress sends him now.

[Beet]

Accirding to the latest Politico article, Mario Diaz-Balart was on the verge of securing passage of immigration reform through the HoR right before David Brat shocked Eric Cantor in his primary. At that time pretty much everyone here was celebrating except for me. A victory for the forces of obstinacy over those of compromise and moderation, even when the latter is in the form of the otherwise arch conservative Mr. Cantor, is never a good thing. For all those who cheered on Mr. Brat yet would have preferred congressional over executive action, regardless on which side you fall, this is your result.

[Beet]

Accirding to the latest Politico article, Mario Diaz-Balart was on the verge of securing passage of immigration reform through the HoR right before David Brat shocked Eric Cantor in his primary. At that time pretty much everyone here was celebrating except for me. A victory for the forces of obstinacy over those of compromise and moderation, even when the latter is in the form of the otherwise arch conservative Mr. Cantor, is never a good thing. For all those who cheered on Mr. Brat yet would have preferred congressional over executive action, regardless on which side you fall, this is your result.

Weren't most members already safely through their primaries by the time Cantor got upset? That was probably just an excuse. If they were so chicken that Cantor's defeat scared them off, they probably wouldn't have had the balls to bring it up so close to an election to begin with.

I'm just repeating what I read on Politico. Supposedly, Diaz-Balart had 120 Republicans on board.

[Beet]

Accirding to the latest Politico article, Mario Diaz-Balart was on the verge of securing passage of immigration reform through the HoR right before David Brat shocked Eric Cantor in his primary. At that time pretty much everyone here was celebrating except for me. A victory for the forces of obstinacy over those of compromise and moderation, even when the latter is in the form of the otherwise arch conservative Mr. Cantor, is never a good thing. For all those who cheered on Mr. Brat yet would have preferred congressional over executive action, regardless on which side you fall, this is your result.

Weren't most members already safely through their primaries by the time Cantor got upset? That was probably just an excuse. If they were so chicken that Cantor's defeat scared them off, they probably wouldn't have had the balls to bring it up so close to an election to begin with.

I'm just repeating what I read on Politico. Supposedly, Diaz-Balart had 120 Republicans on board.

I'm calling massive BS. And major trolling from Politico.

Well the Washington Post is reportingly similarly- they say the bills advocates were so confident they were breaking out the celebration wine right before the primary. Media conspiracy?

[Beet]

Just remember that in the next election, we could be voting in Hillary, who flip flopped on giving immigrants drivers licenses in the 2008 primaries.

Hillary enraged Hispanics so much she only got 63% of the Hispanc vote.

[Beet]

Well, I don't know. On the one hand, Congress not doing what you want does not mean Congress is broken.

The problem with strong executives and "accountable government" is, where is the stability? One could easily see a Republican president issuing all sorts of bold policies, such as repealing Social Security, then a Democrat comes in and issues an order reinstating it, plus single payer universal health care, which we have for some years until the next Republican comes in and repeals it all again.

If the people are polarized and do not agree, it seems that a better solution would be compromise. After all, that is what you do in a relationship, no?

[Beet]

I was responding to King's "strong presidency" hypothetical.

If I wanted Obama to knuckle under, I would not have supported ACA. That is proof that the legislative process can work.