Putting aside whether one agrees with the underlying policy goal of Obama’s executive action on illegal immigrants (to be announced tonight), is this as flagrant an abuse of power as critics on the right argue?
No. It’s pretty much the same thing Bush I and Reagan did.
One of the reported proposals is offering a 50% discount on application fees to the first 10,000 illegal immigrants applying who meet certain income criteria. That is a slap in the face to all the families who have saved the money to go through the immigration process legally.
Not all the critics are on the right.
My grocery store is selling turkeys at 50% off this week. That’s a slap in the face to everyone that paid full price last week.
That’s a good point. Just like you can go to another grocery store, those people can take their business to another government.
OTOH, it’s good to know that we can now compare the government to private businesses with your blessing. 
Why the need to encourage participation?
Does this process create a listing that illegals might not want to be on sometime in the future? After all, Obama has stated that anything he does could be changed if only congress would act.
If we ask the American people what their priorities are for Congress, where does this fall on the list?
As opposed to all the ones who can’t get in legally at all? Arguments like this make the assumption that the majority of illegal immigrants ever had a legal option; they didn’t.
That’s a shitty analogy. This is much more like if your grocery store was telling thieves that everything they stole is theirs, 100% legal, for half price.
Of course they had a legal option: don’t break the fucking law. If you’re born in Britain and the United States refuses to allow you into the country, staying in Britain is a legal option.
The ones who were children didn’t have an option at all. The ones who came because they were starving/homeless didn’t have a humane option. The ones who entered because the alternative was a very poor life for their families didn’t have a good option.
When the President does it, that means that it’s not illegal.
- Richard M. Nixon
More like “escaped slaves” than “thieves”. They are here in the first place because we wanted cheap, easily abused labor.
Except we want them to break the law, we set up the system carefully designed to ensure they break the law. Then we blame them for it when they do what we want them to. It’s called blaming the victim. Condemning them as criminals mean we can pat ourselves on our backs about our moral superiority while we exploit, abuse and kill them.
My understanding is that Reagan and Bush’s actions merely extended (and were basically in the spirit of) recently passed legislation, namely the Immigration Reform and Control Act (1986). The law excluded in some cases children and spouses of those immigrants granted amnesty, and the executive actions effectively extended the law to include them. Whereas Obama is taking fairly broad unilateral action in the absence of any real Congressional action on the issue (ex the Senate bill passed in 2013).
As someone who’s generally sympathetic both to the president and the cause of a more liberal immigration policy and unsympathetic to House Republicans, I’d like to shrug that off as a distinction without a difference. But from behind the veil of ignorance, it looks like overreach to me and I don’t really like the precedent it sets for future presidents who might apply such powers to policies I disagree with.
Wouldn’t paying (half or full price) preclude calling it thievery?
And it’s true that illegal immigration is a misdemeanor, like public intoxication, vandalism, reckless driving or prostitution. I hope we see more politicians aggressively going after these crimes, like they do against illegal immigration (I’m thinking of you David Vitter).
Nah, whining about a discounted fee was the silly post. Governments give discounts all the time- they give amnesty for those filing taxes late or they give tax breaks to corporations for certain behavior or they’ll waive parking fees during special events. So the president proposes to reduce paperwork fees for people who are by and large not very well off. If you’re pissed about THAT, then you have a pretty low threshold of pissiness.
Yes. Even Obama himself has said so.
This action, in his own words, “would be ignoring the law in a way that would be very difficult to defend legally,” and “not an option.”
But that is pretty typical of him. Ignore what we said yesterday. We have always been at war with Eastasia.
Previous legislation that bush I “extended” went through in '86, and he took action in '90…not sure I would call that recent. The Senate passed S.774 last year in a largely bipartisan fashion (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s744#summary), but Boehner refuses to bring it up for a vote.
As for the legal precedent, and whether he has the authority, I recommend reading the memo written by 100 law professors who specialize in immigration law:
Thanks for the link. Seems to me the key passage is this…
… which I read as saying that the president can do virtually anything he wants with respect to (non)-enforcement of immigration laws. (“Halting all immigration enforcement” is a pretty accommodating bar.)
Maybe this is for another thread, but what are the limits of prosecutorial discretion within the president’s duty to take care that laws are faithfully executed?
Is that not the necessary first step in regularizing their status? And should we not want all undocumented immigrants not deported to be regularized ASAP?