# President's Immigration Speech - Discussion **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 21, 2014, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-immigration-speech-discussion/705218 "2014-11-21T00:58:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a8b319/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_wuzzy)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-immigration-speech-discussion/705218/21 "2014-11-21T03:06:40Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I thought he hit it out of the park. My only problem is that he didn’t give it about three weeks ago when it might have energized his base. Im assuming Obama knows more about electoral politics than you do. If he’s waited until after the midterms then he has done so for good electoral reasons. > [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > Why did he wait until after the midterms 6 years into his presidency to do this? > > I’m assuming he is just pandering to Latinos. If he wanted to halt deportations he could’ve done it before. I guess he wants to draw distinctions between the 2 parties in the hopes Latinos will remember this in 2016. > > I supported obama, but the guy is so full of shit. He only supports policies that are safe, or he only supports them for political reasons. I’m assuming this is all a ploy to help win the dems the 2016 election. LBJ would do what was right and had principles. Obama is the opposite. > > I’m sure he will do more ‘executive action’ motions he could’ve done in the last 6 years designed to appeal to latinos, millennials, poor people, etc. Part of the Democrat strategy is to keep elements of Democratic support angry. An executive amnesty followed by Republican pushback will enrage many Hispanics voters. Job done. The _skill_ is to maintain Hispanic anger longer than white anger. We have seen this playbook many times before. ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-immigration-speech-discussion/705218/22 "2014-11-21T03:44:19Z")
> [@Eva\_Luna](#): > > Also, I have to say that I am kind of irked at all the legal preferences given to parents of U.S. citizens over other people who are at least as deserving. What about adult children who are taking care of their elderly and/or disabled U.S. citizen or permanent resident parents, but don’t have U.S. citizen children? Hopefully some of these people will be covered by the expansion of DACA, but I imagine some will fall through the cracks. It pisses me off that he wants to give preference to people who have been breaking the law for five or more years. You shouldn’t get points for doing something wrong longer than other people. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-immigration-speech-discussion/705218/23 "2014-11-21T04:03:02Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > …Part of the Democrat strategy is to keep elements of Democratic support angry. An executive amnesty followed by Republican pushback will enrage many Hispanics voters. Job done. The _skill_ is to maintain Hispanic anger longer than white anger. We have seen this playbook many times before. Shit, I _wish_ the Democrats were that cunning and devious. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a8b319/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_wuzzy)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-immigration-speech-discussion/705218/24 "2014-11-21T06:50:47Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Shit, I _wish_ the Democrats were that cunning and devious. You obviously have not been following the Jonathan Gruber story then. \*That \*story has cunning and deviousness written all over it; that transparency is bad for a lot of governmental legislation, taxation and spending. I dont believe the Democrats(or indeed they alone) discovered this in 2010 then forgot about it. If they can be devious sob’s in 2010 they can be devious sob’s in 2014 and beyond. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-immigration-speech-discussion/705218/25 "2014-11-21T06:58:10Z")
> [@elfkin477](#): > > It pisses me off that he wants to give preference to people who have been breaking the law for five or more years. You shouldn’t get points for doing something wrong longer than other people. Immigration law is _designed_ to be broken. We’ve been relying on illegal immigrants for cheap, easily abused labor for decades. They haven’t been doing anything “wrong” by breaking laws we _wanted_ them to break. ---
**Author:** ![JesterX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@JesterX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JesterX)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-immigration-speech-discussion/705218/26 "2014-11-21T07:03:47Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > You obviously have not been following the Jonathan Gruber story then. \*That \*story has cunning and deviousness written all over it; that transparency is bad for a lot of governmental legislation, taxation and spending. I dont believe the Democrats(or indeed they alone) discovered this in 2010 then forgot about it. If they can be devious sob’s in 2010 they can be devious sob’s in 2014 and beyond. Except ALL of the points Gruber made in his statement were brought up by republicans during the debate on ACA. So, for the life of me, I can’t understand why the conservative world is acting like this was some kind of sudden revelation. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-immigration-speech-discussion/705218/27 "2014-11-21T07:04:01Z")
> [@](#): > > …They haven’t been doing anything “wrong” by breaking laws we wanted them to break. Sure they are, its only that we were doing more wrong by making such a situation. Someone is willing to risk hiking the Sonoran Desert to be an American? I’ve been to the Sonoran Desert. Tell you one damned thing for sure, anyone willing to risk that to support their family? Ain’t a question of whether they deserve us, but do we deserve them? ---
**Author:** ![JesterX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@JesterX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JesterX)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-immigration-speech-discussion/705218/28 "2014-11-21T07:08:47Z")
I would rather they announce a “date certain” by which all undocumented immigrants to come forward and be registered. Then if they fail to register by that date, no matter what, they will NEVER attain legal status. That strikes me as a better incentive than just lowering the application fees. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-immigration-speech-discussion/705218/29 "2014-11-21T07:36:43Z")
It occurs to me that he has created a kind of “neutral zone” here. He hasn’t promised anything but a temporary stay until Congress makes its decisions. So it stands until they do. The Republicans want a way to please their nativist base but, at the same time, make sure that Latino-Americans blame Obama, but not them. So this state of affairs persists for…how long? Well, until the Republicans can square the circle of making a pig’s ear into a silk purse and back again while threading a camel through a needle, and not leave any fingerprints. Could be a while. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 10:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-immigration-speech-discussion/705218/30 "2014-11-21T10:00:01Z")
> [@Eva\_Luna](#): > > Also, I have to say that I am kind of irked at all the legal preferences given to parents of U.S. citizens over other people who are at least as deserving. What about adult children who are taking care of their elderly and/or disabled U.S. citizen or permanent resident parents, but don’t have U.S. citizen children? Hopefully some of these people will be covered by the expansion of DACA, but I imagine some will fall through the cracks. Are there really all that many undocumented immigrants that are children of U S Citizens? Okay, you put in permanent residents, that gives a little more wiggle room. Still, that doesn’t sound like a large category, IMO. Seems to me, Children of U S citizens and permanent residents already have a priority in legal immigration. ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-immigration-speech-discussion/705218/31 "2014-11-21T15:39:36Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > Are there really all that many undocumented immigrants that are children of U S Citizens? Okay, you put in permanent residents, that gives a little more wiggle room. Still, that doesn’t sound like a large category, IMO. Seems to me, Children of U S citizens and permanent residents already have a priority in legal immigration. There are plenty of undocumented children of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. [Take a look at the quota backlogs.](http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/english/law-and-policy/bulletin/2015/visa-bulletin-for-november-2014.html) Plus most people who entered the U.S. illegally cannot adjust their status to permanent residence in the U.S., and if they leave, they are subject to three or ten-year bars before they can return legally (or possibly permanent bars if they have more negative immigration history such as prior deportations, etc.) unless they can get a special hardship waiver. And hardship waivers are not a slam-dunk, and until recently required being stuck in your home country, sometimes a year or more, waiting for waiver processing, IF the waiver is approved. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-immigration-speech-discussion/705218/32 "2014-11-21T15:44:08Z")
Christ Jesus, what a choice! Take your American citizen kids with you back to Mexico or Guatemala, or leave them here in the care of God Alone Knows Who? ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-immigration-speech-discussion/705218/33 "2014-11-21T16:09:31Z")
By the way, [here are the details of the various components of the plan,](http://www.dhs.gov/immigration-action) for those who care to wade through them. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-immigration-speech-discussion/705218/34 "2014-11-21T23:35:19Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That is just exaggerating to silly levels and ignoring the past. The past immigration reform by Super Star Republican Ronald Reagan included a tacit forgiveness of that, AFAICR the only way I could had recovered my back taxes from back then is if I had reported the fake social security number I used, I considered all that money that was owned to me as a fair deal in exchange for becoming a resident back then and then a citizen. Yeah, but under the President’s plan, now you’d have to pass a background check and pay back taxes. Those requirements leave anyone who used a fake identity busted. According to this source, if an immigrant has been using a fake identity, they are probably SOL. > [@](#): > > Of the 5 million illegal immigrants covered by the president’s executive action, how many will come forward to apply for deferred action status and claim a work permit? > > That remains unclear. The president’s action is designed to encourage people who have been living illegally in the US to “come out of the shadows.” But it does not shield them from potential prosecution for identity theft or Social Security fraud. Those who are using a false identity to remain in the country might lose their job. > > Of the 1.2 million Dreamers granted deferred action status in June 2012, only half – or roughly 600,000 – have so far come forward. > **[Is Obama's immigration action legal? A Q&A.](https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/DC-Decoder/2014/1121/Is-Obama-s-immigration-action-legal-A-Q-A)** > > Republicans say President Obama's executive action on immigration violates the Constitution. This Q&A explores the legal and political questions raised by the move. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-immigration-speech-discussion/705218/35 "2014-11-21T23:40:15Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > That’s a particularly inept plan. It would cost billions, destroy families, and does nothing whatsoever to fix the immigration problem the GOP is causing by not addressing the issue. I mean, I’m sure it would sound sexy-as-fuck to the GOP base. Since, you know, _hurting brown people_. But it’s still a shit plan. Actually, it just informs those thinking of coming forward what the law is. If the Obama administration is not going to prosecute people for felonies committed in the course of staying in the country illegally, it should announce this intention. It has not, and therefore these offenses remain felonies punishable by jail time and deportation. As it should be. What is a “shit plan” is to amnesty tax evaders, identity thieves, and fake document peddlers, just so long as they aren’t citizens. Many immigrants have committed only one crime: coming into the country. If they got work, they got it because an employer knowingly hired them illegally. For those immigrants who defrauded employers, the US government, and US citizens, they are rightly going to still be fugitives. In addition, only Congress can enjoin states from punishing such felonies that were committed in their states. So any immigrant who committed crimes other than just entering the country illegally is at great risk if they submit to a background check and document their income. Which is required to get the deferment. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-immigration-speech-discussion/705218/36 "2014-11-21T23:43:06Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Yeah, but under the President’s plan, now you’d have to pass a background check and pay back taxes. Those requirements leave anyone who used a fake identity busted. > > According to this source, if an immigrant has been using a fake identity, they are probably SOL. > > [Is Obama's immigration action legal? A Q&A. - CSMonitor.com](http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2014/1121/Is-Obama-s-immigration-action-legal-A-Q-A.-video) Not so, as usual you conveniently forget that the same issue was brought before, what happened was that in the end the people hiring the illegals were also forgiven (as well as the former illegals) for not investigating much if the documentation was fake. Again, the only reason why illegals would bring forward this issue would be to get back taxes, of course clear attempts at defrauding others from their identity would still be an issue and grounds for deportation, but in general this was mostly a non issue before and it is just another example of a stalling and obfuscating tactic. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2014, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-immigration-speech-discussion/705218/37 "2014-11-21T23:46:02Z")
This is different. You have to prove you’ve been in the country a certain period of time and submit to a background check. When your background check reveals you are a US citizen or legal resident already, you lose. The President wouldn’t lie to us, now would he? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2014, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-immigration-speech-discussion/705218/38 "2014-11-22T00:19:51Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > This is different. You have to prove you’ve been in the country a certain period of time and submit to a background check. Give it up, I had to do the same back in the 80’s. Although I had to say that it was less onerous. > [@adaher](#): > > When your background check reveals you are a US citizen or legal resident already, you lose. Again, not my experience and a lot of others that did get relief. > [@adaher](#): > > The President wouldn’t lie to us, now would he? The Republicans do not think so, so they will do a lot of efforts to make the situation worse so as to paint him as a lier. A very similar racket to the one the Republicans attempted with the ACA. ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a8b319/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_wuzzy)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2014, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-immigration-speech-discussion/705218/39 "2014-11-22T00:22:31Z")
> [@JesterX](#): > > Except ALL of the points Gruber made in his statement were brought up by republicans during the debate on ACA. So, for the life of me, I can’t understand why the conservative world is acting like this was some kind of sudden revelation. Perhaps you can then explain why Democrats were so quick to distance themselves from Gruber? I mean, if this is such a non story why run away from him? After all its no revelation; no big deal. Democrats should just 'fess up on the matter. No harm will be done to them electorally after all. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2014, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-immigration-speech-discussion/705218/40 "2014-11-22T00:30:59Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_wuzzy](#): > > Perhaps you can then explain why Democrats were so quick to distance themselves from Gruber? I mean, if this is such a non story why run away from him? After all its no revelation; no big deal. Democrats should just 'fess up on the matter. No harm will be done to them electorally after all. The distance is to the remarks about the voters, and how Gruber got some things wrong. > [@](#): > > The New Republic: “The Obamacare Debate Was One Of The Most Transparent In Recent Memory.” In his article on Gruber’s comments, Beutler also explained that Gruber was wrong in his claims that the cost sharing tradeoffs in the ACA weren’t publicly discussed. In fact, Beutler asserted that the ACA “actually stands out for how much it was debated, and, for the most part, how transparent that debate was” (emphasis added): > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > [H]is suggestion that the key cost-sharing tradeoffs weren't widely discussed just isn't true. The idea that healthy people as well as sick people needed to participate in the system was central to the moral argument for the mandate, and figured heavily in the substantive debate over how much more insurers should be able to charge the elderly than the young. The risk-rating tussle is illustrative, because it was the rule, rather than the exception to the long legislative tug-of-war over the broader ACA. Conservatives have always said the health care law wasn't debated, that it was rammed through, nobody read it, etc, etc. But it actually stands out for how much it was debated, and, for the most part, how transparent that debate was. Which in turn explains how difficult it was to pass. [The New Republic, 11/12/14] > > > > ``` > > Senate Held Years Of Bipartisan Hearings On Health Care Reform Before ACA Passed. Former Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) posted a timeline of his committee’s work on health care reform since 2008, which included more than a dozen hearings through 2008-09 and “31 bipartisan meetings to discuss the development of a health care reform bill” between June and September of 2009. [[Senate.gov](http://Senate.gov), accessed 11/12/14] > > Sen. Angus King (I-ME): “There Was Long Debate About It On Both Sides.” Responding to Gruber’s comments, Sen. Angus King emphasized that there was much debate before the health care reform law passed: > > ``` > "I certainly don't endorse those kind of comments. But I can recall that debate. I wasn't in office. *t was a very vigorous debate," King said when asked about Gruber's comments. "Everybody knew that there were going to be additional taxes required to support the support for premiums under the Affordable Care Act. I don't see it as any deep, dark conspiracy. There were all kinds of -- there was long debate about it on both sides." [The Washington Post, Post Politics, 11/11/14] > > ``` As usual it is the Republicans and the right wing media who should fess up by doing news by “[nutpicking](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nutpicking)” In this case Gruber was not crazy, just mistaken, but the right wing media and the corporate one will not let that item stop them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-immigration-speech-discussion/705218.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/presidents-immigration-speech-discussion/705218.md?page=3)