Usa Thread

[Steve]

Does this have any consequences for Obama? Except the Cubans and the Puertoricans all other young Latinos will gain from Obama's decision.

My guess is overall it helps him. Viruently anti immigration are conservatives and wouldn't vote for him anyway. It could hurt him amongst some people in unions in the Ohio and Michigan areas. I don't see it as something independent will consider as the tipping point to voting for him. Texas and California will vote Republican and Democrat respectively no matter what. It will help him in New Mexico I think, a small swing states (5 electoral votes). Arizona is practically reactionary, that's how far right they are.

The swing states is what is important. It helps in Florida. Overall, some but not a great deal. Just about every President for the last few decades have been granting amnesties of some sort to some degree in some form. Even the Republican ones. Reagan did. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672

As the nation's attention turns back to the fractured debate over immigration, it might be helpful to remember that in 1986, Ronald Reagan signed a sweeping immigration reform bill into law. It was sold as a crackdown: There would be tighter security at the Mexican border, and employers would face strict penalties for hiring undocumented workers.

 

But the bill also made any immigrant who'd entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty — a word not usually associated with the father of modern conservatism.

[Bangkoktraveler]

Did Zimmerman's wife make bail?

[kamui]

My guess is overall it helps him.

 

I wonder if Obama is executing a well prepared plan after being politically almost impotent in the past years.

 

First the women: ordering the health insurance companies to pay for birth control pills. The GOP and the Catholic church took the bait and ran straight into his trap and thus mobilized women associations around the country.

Second the gay, buy supporting gay marriage and shutting down don't ask don't tell. The GOP couldn't really react, since more and more Americans are pro gay.

And now the Latinos, by bringing substantial relief to hundreds of thousands of young Latinos, who traditionally do not vote at presidential elections. Especially in regard to the immigration topic the GOP is now cornered and gave contradicting responses.

 

Every time it was done just with the strike of his pen, without endless fights with congress and senate. And every time it was aimed at group which was disappointed by Obama.

 

But of course this doesn't make Obama a winner - especially if the economy will tank further.

[Steve]

Of the two parties, the last few decades its been the Republicans, win or lose, who have been the best organized. More adept of finding a strategy that was the most effective, even in years when they were out of favor. They can make it closeer than it would have otherwise been. '08 could have been much closer if the financial collapse didn't happen. They would have lost anyway. There was no way they were gonna win after Bush's 8 years but it was going to be closer than it should be given their negatives. The financia collapse made it a landslide. McCain was polling decently till then.

 

For example, in the Florida recount of '00, the Republicans had all their info on USBs, etc. and the Dems had to look at paper files, etc. and were far less organized. The Republicans flew people in to demonstrate at strategic areas. Republicans win when they should and sometimes when they shouldn't ('04 election, possibly '00). Dems typically don't win elections they shouldn't. Kennedy in '60 was probably the last one. Before that Truman. The country was tired of a democrat in the white house after FDR died and that's why the '48 election was razer thin won. Kennedy's as well. Ike was popular, the economy was doing well and JFK had three big negatives. His age, experience and religion. Nixon was well known, had all 3 of JFK's negatives. Some would say Nixon won and it was stolen from him voter fraud. Dems won in modern times only when the Republicans messed up. '76 because of Watergate, '92 because of a recession and Bush alienating the Jewish vote, '08 because of Bush.

 

Anyway, Obama is very, very well organized. There is no way you defeat the Clinton machine and then the Republicans without being so. He has very good strategists working for him and he personally has good political instincts and will deviate from the script (his speech on race after the Rev Wright thing. He was strongly advised not to by his stratgists) when he feels its needed. His organization identifies key districts, key small niches to exploit and caters a specific message and ad campaign to that niche and demographic. The foot soldiers are well trained. He won Iowa agaist Hillary by identifying the fence sitters. He was unknown and they were courteous and listened to concerns. They followed up and made notes of any personal references on the computer so when they called back, they would say "...and how is your daughter doing in school? Did she pass that history test the last time we talked?". Often times he would personally make the call if it was determined they needed him as a closer. When interviewed, the Iowans talked about how much the Obama staffers would be kind and listened.

He has also used the social media and the internet very, very well. They were all over it.

If Obama loses it won't be for lack of organization. However, I think he dropped the ball by not maintaining contacts both with voters as well as volunteers. There were rumblings about that and many saying they will not work for the campaign this time or in a much reduced role.

 

He's a lawyer so it makes sense I guess.

[Flashermac]

From the Washington Post ...

 

Young illegal immigrants’ amnesty could tighten competition for jobs, college

 

 

President Obama has just opened a floodgate of opportunity for young illegal immigrants in the United States, but could it squeeze the aspirations of legal Americans in the process?

 

Across the nation Friday, immigrant advocates and Hispanic youth groups hailed Obama’s decision to offer legal status to some undocumented immigrants under 30 as a watershed in U.S. immigration history and a long-sought victory for ambitious youths denied a chance to realize the American dream.

 

“I thank God for this day. It has changed my whole life,†Jorge Acuna, 19, a college student in Silver Spring who came to the United States with his family as a child, told a cheering crowd outside the White House on Friday afternoon, minutes after Obama announced the new policy. Last spring, the community college student was nearly deported to his native Colombia. Now, under the amnesty, he will be able to pursue his degree in engineering.

 

But opponents of illegal immigration warned that the policy could create significant new competition for jobs and university slots at a time of nationwide recession and numerous states’ efforts to curb public spending.

 

“I see a tidal wave coming,†said Brad Botwin, president of Help Save Maryland, a group that opposes legalization for undocumented immigrants. “Half of our college graduates today can’t find jobs, and the unemployment rate for high-school-aged Americans is extremely high. This is unfair to U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who are out there struggling to get ahead.â€

 

...

 

My link

 

 

[Flashermac]

Obama immigration order: Does 'audacity of hope' mean unchecked presidential power?

 

 

Faced with a Republican Congress that seems stubborn to a fault and content to see Obama fail, America’s chief executive has decided to grab what some are calling an unprecedented rein on executive prerogative in order to move his political objectives down the field.

 

His supporters say it’s part of the President’s “audacity of hope†campaign message, exemplified by Friday’s decision to relax immigration rules for young illegal immigrants – a necessary antidote, supporters contend, to political polarization, stalemate, and gridlock in Washington.

 

As with other Obama decisions to ignore parts of the Defense of Marriage Act, not prosecute medical marijuana, and allow some states to opt out of No Child Left Behind provisions, the immigration order became perhaps the boldest decision yet by a president seeking reelection, critics say, to ignore laws passed by Congress in order to achieve a political objective, setting a troubling precedent for the power of the presidency.

 

In some ways, it’s part of the evolution of an “imperial Presidency,†a term used by historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. to describe Richard Nixon’s challenges to traditional checks and balances. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, also used a broad definition of presidential power to issue so-called signing statements where he declared parts of new laws unconstitutional and thus unenforceable by the commander-in-chief.

 

But whereas Bush reserved most of those powers for issues of national defense in wartime, Obama has expanded the president’s power into issues that are live wires in America’s political and cultural battlefields – gay marriage, marijuana, education, immigration – while reshaping the powers of the Oval Office in his wake. At some point, critics say, the question becomes: Who can check the President?

 

“This isn’t about immigration but about constitutional order,†says Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a conservative-leaning think tank. “One problem is that even Democrats in Congress now have no right to complain about future usurpations – they might as well all go home and have Napoleon run the country.â€

 

In his Saturday address, President Obama hinted at the forces that are pushing him to take what some are calling extreme measures to govern. While he said Republican recalcitrance is a reason to vote in November, he also hinted that the political situation is forcing his hand as an executive. “There’s no excuse for Congress to stand by and do nothing while so many families are struggling – none,†Obama said.

 

A White House spokesman expanded on the President’s thinking in an interview with Politico.

 

When Congress blocks Obama’s agenda, the unnamed spokesman said, “we look to pursue other appropriate means of achieving our policy goals. Sometimes this makes for less than ideal policy situations – such as the action we took on immigration – but the President isn’t going to be stonewalled by politics.â€

 

On the immigration issue, it’s still unclear whether the order overreaches the president’s constitutional prerogative. DHS said the order does not guarantee a path to citizenship or suggest amnesty, but is merely an expansion of constitutionally appropriate prosecutorial discretion over individual cases.

 

But many headlines highlighted another takeaway: That the President somehow has the power to actually order ICE agents to stand down from prosecuting their jobs, en masse. Critics say that Obama committed a constitutional fault if he bypassed Congress to create a new program where people can apply for a government benefit.

 

But even assuming that the order is legal, even progressive legal experts say Obama’s modus operandi has begun to undercut the basic balance of power in Washington.

 

His moves “fit a disturbing pattern of expansion of executive power,†constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley, who usually sides with progressive ideals, tells Politico. “This is a President who is now functioning as a super legislator†who is “effectively negating parts of the criminal code because he disagrees with them. That does go beyond the pale.â€

 

“Obama … has tried best, through hook or crook, to change America in ways that simple were not possible through legislative or even judicial action,†adds Victor Davis Hanson, a former classics professor and currently a fellow at the Hoover Institution, in a piece for the conservative National Review.

 

“Give the President credit,†he writes. “He has thrown down the gauntlet and essentially boasted: This is my view of the way the new America should work – and if you don’t like it, try stopping me in November.â€

 

It’s a message that many of the President’s supporters, some of whom have grown apathetic amid poor economic news and concerns about the overall direction of the country, have been waiting to hear, some political observers say.

 

“Obama came into office saying, ‘I’m going to work with Congress, I’m going to change this town,’ and he held up that hope for way too long, according to his supporters,†says Matt Barretto, a political science professor at the University of Washington, in Seattle. “Now you’re starting to see him realize that, ‘The things I campaigned on, I might have to do some of that myself.’ I think it means we’ll see more bold steps from the President.â€

 

My link

[Flashermac]

Obama’s policy strategy: Ignore laws

 

 

President Barack Obama returned Friday to a trusted tactic — satisfying his political allies by not doing something.

 

Conservatives were angry when Janet Napolitano announced the administration would stop deporting certain undocumented immigrants, but they should have seen it coming. On issue after issue — gay rights, drug enforcement, Internet gambling, school achievement standards — the administration has chosen to achieve its goals by a method best described as passive-aggressive.

 

Rather than pushing new laws through a divided Congress to enact his agenda, Obama is relying on federal agencies to ignore, or at least not defend, laws that some of his important supporters — like Hispanic voters and the gay community — don’t like.

“If the president says we’re not going to enforce the law, there’s really nothing anyone can do about it,†University of Pennsylvania constitutional law professor Kermit Roosevelt said. “It’s clearly a political calculation.â€

 

 

...

 

My link

[Steve]

 

 

But opponents of illegal immigration warned that the policy could create significant new competition for jobs and university slots at a time of nationwide recession and numerous states’ efforts to curb public spending.

 

“I see a tidal wave coming,†said Brad Botwin, president of Help Save Maryland, a group that opposes legalization for undocumented immigrants. “Half of our college graduates today can’t find jobs, and the unemployment rate for high-school-aged Americans is extremely high. This is unfair to U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who are out there struggling to get ahead.â€

 

 

I disagree with this. In I think its a wonderful thing. It can only be good for the nation for these folks to get as educated as possible. In the long run (and short run even) it makes the country stronger.

 

I don't want them to be under educated and not realize their potential. What's wrong with competition? Its unAmerican to not want competition. It brings out the best out of us.

 

These illegals aren't going back home. We're stuck with them no matter what kind of legislation you make. The overwhelming majority will be here and if so I want them to be as productive as possible.

 

Weak argument against illegals in my humble opinion.

[Steve]

Totally agree about Obama abusing presidential power. Too many things this administration is doing that continues the erosion of our civil liberties and the spirit if not the outright rights of the constitution. Romney will be no better and probably worse if the republican white house/congress from '00 t '06 is any indication.

 

This is a reason we need a 3rd party that respects the rights of the citizens and the constitution. I'm more worried about Republicans in power and what they will do the already frail constitution. This is a good reason not to vote for Obama but it would be an even bigger mistake to transfer that vote to a Republican.

[kamui]

I disagree with this. In I think its a wonderful thing. It can only be good for the nation for these folks to get as educated as possible. In the long run (and short run even) it makes the country stronger.

 

I don't want them to be under educated and not realize their potential. What's wrong with competition? Its unAmerican to not want competition. It brings out the best out of us.

 

These illegals aren't going back home. We're stuck with them no matter what kind of legislation you make. The overwhelming majority will be here and if so I want them to be as productive as possible.

 

Weak argument against illegals in my humble opinion.

 

Yep, the argument against the competition for jobs is a really weak. 800.000 educated, but undocumented, immigrants now can have a career in the USA. To keep them away from the white collar job market was a total waste of "human capital" (and public money).

 

It shows the helplessness of the conservatives in regard to Obama's immigration decision.