Obama orders ‘Dream’ amnesty

Congress has refused to pass the Dream Act, which would offer a path to citizenship to young illegal immigrants who enroll in college or serve in the military. Today President Obama ordered a quasi-amnesty for young illegal immigrants who’d be protected from deportation and allowed work permits. To qualify, they must have arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16, live in the U.S. for at least five years, be no more than 30 now, have a high school diploma or GED, attend college or serve in the military. Those with criminal records will not be eligible.

If the executive order withstands a legal challenge, the promise of a work permit could motivate more immigrant students to finish high school — or at least earn a GED — and enroll in community college. Apparently, they won’t have to finish a credential.

I predict pressure to waive deportation for young immigrants with minor criminal records and weak academic credentials.

Update:  Obama’s executive order means increased competition for jobs and college places, the Washington Post headlines. The jobs issues will be the biggie.

I don’t know if Obama will gain more Latino votes than he’ll lose in the backlash against adding 800,000 young workers to the above-ground labor force at a time of high unemployment.

About Joanne

Comments

  1. I don’t know if Obama will gain more Latino votes than he’ll lose in the backlash against adding 800,000 young workers to the above-ground labor force at a time of high unemployment.

    There’s a mouthful. Will the media be able to suppress that part of it?

    • Stacy in NJ says:

      The media and “elite” (for lack of a better term) seem oblivious to the anger mounting on both the right and the left (particularly among union members) about the way immigration is being handled. The media will stick to the compassionate narrative until there’s some type of freak-out by the great unwashed, unmemployed and legal masses.

      • You mean the way FAUX News and the right-wing talk-radio vomit fests that whip up fear, frenzy, racism and xenophobia against immigrants who who not much different than all those unwashed Italians, Irish, and Polish who washed up on our shores during a period of unregulated immigration at the turn of the 19th/20th centuries. Is that the manufactured “anger” you are talking about?

        • The mass waves of immigration in the 19th/20th centuries was the exact opposite of unregulated. It was highly regulated and administered. That was the whole point of Ellis and Angel islands.

          It was also legal.

          • Oh please. You did not need prior permission to immigrate… all you had to do was show up at Ellis Island. The steamship companies would literally just hand over lists of all their immigrant passengers to the immigration inspectors. That was the sole record or application.

          • Oh please, did those immigrants have to come in through Ellis Island and other, official points of entry or could they just cross the border as they pleased? There were rules back then just as there are now and there were penalties back then for flouting the rules just as there *ought* to be now.

            You don’t like the way the rules are structured? Well there are ways to change those rules and sniffing dismissal isn’t one of them although your preference for dismissing the law when it displeases you provides some insight into your character.

        • Stacy in NJ says:

          No. I’m talking about the anger borne out of the hypocrisy of both the establishment left and right who both encourage illegal immigration for political purposes: the left because they believe they’re building a constituency and the right because they want to satisfy small business owners and undermine unions.

          The cost of this lack of real policy is borne by working class people who have their wages under cut and their communities inundated with individuals who consume services but pay little in taxes.

          You know, jab, you might consider your whole “FAUX” News shtick is as small minded and hate filled as any skin head’s mouth breathing nonsense.

  2. Should politicians only take actions which will improve the economy? Or should they sometimes do things which might hurt the economy slightly because they are the right thing to do?

    • It’s not the right thing to do; people who come here illegally are deliberately, knowingly breaking our law. Many use fraudulent ID, in addition to the illegallity of there mere presence here. BTW, Mexico enforces their southern border and makes no apology for it.

      • This applies to persons who were brought here as children… in many cases, this is the only country they even know as home. This action does NOT apply to the parents who broke the law.

        • Children? Not exactly; up to 16. BTW, who’s documenting age and arrival date of illegals? That will be gamed, absolutely: wrong, wrong, wrong. It’s increasing the magnet factor attracting illegals here.

          Mexico – because most of the illegals are Mexicans – has natural resources, a favorable climate, long and beautiful coastlines, geographical and historical attractions; it’s up to them to use these attributes to benefit their people. It’s not our responsibility. Period. It is our constitutional responsibility to enforce our borders and our immigration laws.

          • You seem blithely unaware of the history of immigration to the United States. The waves of immigrants that arrived at the end of the 19th century and into the early part of the 20th century was pretty much an unregulated mess… which in fact greatly benefited our country. Literally, all you had to do was show up. Oh yes, there was the whining of the nativists who bashed the Irish, Italian, Polish immigrants flooding our shores, using pretty much the exact same rhetoric we find here.

          • It benefitted our country THEN… It doesn’t NOW.

    • Unfortunately, for much of the right wing today, there is no “right” or wrong”, there is only: “if Obama is for it, we’re against it.”

      Poor Marco Rubio… I wonder if his support for a modified DREAM Act will scuttle his chances to be the first Latino VP.

      • Stacy in NJ says:

        Look in the mirror, Sunshine. The left’s “principled” objections to Bush’s wars, Gitmo, and drone strikes evaporated the day Obama took office. It leaves one suspecting that those objections were less principled than claimed. Oh, yeah, the Patriot Act is still law.

  3. Politicians shouldn’t do things that will hurt the economy a lot, particularly when it’s not the right thing to do, is a blatant overreach of executive power, and is nothing but pandering in the hopes he’ll pick up a few votes anyway.

    Apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln thought the play quite interesting.

    • Sure you wouldn’t rather try to draw a parallel between the Holocaust and enforcement of the law on illegals? The comparison to the Civil War is no more or less specious and the Holocaust’s more recent.

  4. To qualify, they must have arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16, live in the U.S. for at least five years, be no more than 30 now, have a high school diploma or GED, attend college or serve in the military.

    How do you verify the age and residency of undocumented aliens?  This will be a scam just like the 1986 shamnesty:  The people hired to check the documents will be ethnic activists, and they’ll approve the flood of illegals surging across the border to take advantage of this new scam.

    We need to toss the lot of them and nail the door shut, starting with repeal of Plyler vs. Doe.

  5. I predict pressure to waive deportation for young immigrants with minor criminal records and weak academic credentials.

    Which will be immediately be followed by pressure to allow these young “immigrants” to bring/keep their family in the united states in the name of compassion and humanity, and then will be followed by pressure for an amnesty because “these people are already here, and it would be impossible to deport all of them”.

    This will immediately be followed by another wave of millions of illegal immigrants willing to wait a decade or so for us to legalize them.

    • Richard Aubrey says:

      gahrie,
      By that time, maybe nobody will want to come here. Consider the expenses of supporting the just-barely-legal immigrants who can’t work because they have to get legal minimum wage, who would lose bennies if caught committing honest employment, sanctuary cities with crime exacerbated by the gated-community leaders’ refusal to deport or cooperate with deporting criminals.
      See Hanson on California.

  6. The comparison to the Civil War is no more or less specious and the Holocaust’s more recent.

    Um. What?

    Had nothing to do with the Civil War. Look up the idiom.

  7. E=P and gahrie are right. Anything that acts as a magnet for illegals to stay here or more illegals to come here should be made illegal. This would include schooling at any level and all other public benefits. Immigration laws should be changed to eliminate all chain migration/family reunificaton and to prioritize immigration for those who have needed skills. We already have plenty of low-skilled people.

  8. Actually,

    The reason why another amnesty won’t happen (at least in my lifetime) is that in 1986, Reagan and Congress assured the people of the U.S. that this would be the last amnesty that would be passed by Congress. If the DREAM act couldn’t pass when the economy was red-hot, there is no chance it can pass now.

    Also, the U.S. government is scheduled to start making 1.2 trillion dollars in AUTOMATIC cuts over the in-ability of congress to pass cuts themselves. I seriously doubt that any Congresscritter (save the most liberal ones) are going to try to get an amnesty passed this year.

  9. Actually, this was not an official “executive order”, but instead a memorandum to the Dept. of Homeland Security to use prosecutorial discretion in not pursuing deportation proceedings against young adults who were brought here as children and were educated here. It is not “amnesty” nor is it a “path to citizenship.” It is merely a temporary halting in deportation of young adults who meet the qualifications, giving them a chance to find legal employment…

    This was Obama’s way of forcing Congress’s hand… if they don’t like this temporary action, they can simply act on immigration reform. Alternatively, Obama will be voted out of office, and this temporary order gets lifted. It’s a ballsy gamble on Obama’s part… he is trying to do what he thinks is right, despite the real negative effect it might have on his reelection prospects, which are tenuous at best.

    • Stacy in NJ says:

      Okay, if you say so.

      It was a desperate attempt to shore up a constituency and undermine a political threat.

      Hispanics who favor immigration “reform” have been justifiably frustrated with Obama’s lack of action. This is a bone.

      Marco Rubio was a likely contender for the VP slot and was working on a bi-partisan DREAM-like act that was being received favorably in the senate. In doing this Obama steals a small victory from Rubio. Big Deal.

      Next on his agenda: Stop prosecuting pot smokers. What a humanitarian.

      It’s the economy, stupid.

    • It was the Obama administration (once again) deciding that Congress and the Supreme Court were in their way, and deciding to ignore them. Just like how they ignored the other branches of government when the Dept. of Education made a ton of new regulations to pick on private, non-Ivy colleges, or when the Dept. of Energy made a ton of new regulations to pick on coal powered electrical plants, etc. Take your pick.