Behind the scenes of Obama's immigration reversal

[Deacon923]

I thought this was a really interesting piece on Obama's recent decision to take action on immigration issues without Congress. Simultaneously beefing up border security and moving ahead with deportations, while also taking compassionate action for kids who were brought here by their parents. The far-left groups don't like the first parts, Boehner doesn't like the second part. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/behind-the-scenes-of-obamas-surprising-immigration-pivot/373989/

This is not the kind of thing that Republicans think Obama says:

Obama, according to those present, would have none of it. Kids all over the world have it tough, he said. Even children in America who live in dangerous neighborhoods would like to live somewhere else, but he can't solve everyone's problems. He told the groups he had to enforce the law—even if that meant deporting hard cases with minors involved. Sometimes, there is an inherent injustice in where you are born, and no president can solve that, Obama said. But presidents must send the message that you can't just show up on the border, plead for asylum or refugee status, and hope to get it.

"Then anyone can come in, and it means that, effectively, we don't have any kind of system," Obama said. "We are a nation with borders that must be enforced."

 

[Ball State Deac]

Makes sense.

 

[EatLeadCommie]

He says one thing and does another. That is his problem.

The article just reaffirmed what is already known.

1- that the immigration issue is being tackled for political purposes (if it benefited Republicans, they'd be the same way)
2- that he continues to operate unilaterally, which only perpetuates the problem
3- that he doesn't give a fuck
4- that the emphasis on enforcement is strictly verbal since he is still de-emphasizing deportations/removal and taking actions which undermine whatever cushy words and hopes he spouts about border security.

 

[ONW]

1. That's an opinion

2. He's unilaterally apply laws that his predecessors created?

"Most of this process was codified by Congress under the Homeland Security Act of 2002; Congress added some additional protections under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, in 2008.

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/16/5813406...mmigrants-daca

3. That's an opinion

4. "If you instead compare the two presidents’ monthly averages (number of deportations), it works out to 32,886 for Obama and 20,964 for Bush, putting Obama clearly in the lead. Bill Clinton is far behind with 869,676 total and 9,059 per month. All previous occupants of the White House going back to 1892 fell well short of the level of the three most recent presidents."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...rack-obama-deported-more-people-any-other-pr/

 

[EatLeadCommie]

1. That's an opinion

2. He's unilaterally apply laws that his predecessors created?

"Most of this process was codified by Congress under the Homeland Security Act of 2002; Congress added some additional protections under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, in 2008.

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/16/5813406...mmigrants-daca

3. That's an opinion

4. "If you instead compare the two presidents’ monthly averages (number of deportations), it works out to 32,886 for Obama and 20,964 for Bush, putting Obama clearly in the lead. Bill Clinton is far behind with 869,676 total and 9,059 per month. All previous occupants of the White House going back to 1892 fell well short of the level of the three most recent presidents."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...rack-obama-deported-more-people-any-other-pr/

1- an accurate opinion
2- your link doesn't work, but I found your info. His unilateral maneuvering is well established. Not sure why you even want to debate it. If you're talking about dealing with child refugees, that's something else entirely and I'd change that law. If you are talking about DACA, that's all him. If you're talking about the well-established pattern of people flooding into the US when they expect an amnesty, that's also pretty much all him (and a couple dumb Republicans that keep floating it as a possibility). Both DACA and the amnesty discussions (particularly codifiying the DREAM Act) encourage child migration. This is why the long-established Obama policy of blaming Bush for passing some 2002 law again falls flat.
3- the article linked said he didn't give a fuck. His actions indicate he doesn't give a fuck. It is consistent lame duck behavior to not give a fuck. I won't go so far as to say it is a 100% accurate opinion, but it is substantiated.
4- his removal numbers have been fudged for years. He changed the manner in which removals/deportations were counted so he could give lip service to being tough on immigration while simultaneously snuggling up to all the groups mentioned in the article. The administration was sued by ICE agents for it.

 

[Deacon923]

I am interested in the charges of number fudging on deportations. Can you provide a link to more information on this topic?

 

[EatLeadCommie]

I am interested in the charges of number fudging on deportations. Can you provide a link to more information on this topic?

The most recent thing I found. It has been ongoing for about 4-5 years now, I think. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...me-mostly-from-border-dhs-chief-say/?page=all

A lot of deportations that were ongoing and started during Dubya or the first months of the Obama administration were halted after having gone through most of the process, a waste of time and resources. I have documented this on previous immigration threads, but it would be difficult to track those links. I remember it was Houston ICE agents pissed about it.

 

[ONW]

1. "There ensued a brief debate about the underlying politics of executive action in the shadow of the midterm elections—whether it would motivate Latinos and progressives in larger numbers than Tea Party-inspired GOP voters; would it cut for or against Senate Democrats in red states like Louisiana, Arkansas, Alaska, North Carolina, and Georgia; and how it would play in 2016.

"He didn't seem to give a shit," Sharry said. "It was clear he was going on offense and going to run to the question."

2. "In this regard, Obama has aligned himself with congressional Republicans, even though they acknowledge it only rhetorically. Obama will soon ask Congress for more power to deport the unaccompanied minors, rankling Democrats like Senator Robert Menendez, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Menendez was displeased when briefed last week on Obama's enforcement plans. House Republicans may prove receptive to the money and the deportation authority when it comes time to write a continuing resolution."


3. See number 1. You are totally misrepresenting the quote and context of the statement.

4. Please provide a link to how the numbers are being fudged, and the ICE vs. the US Government lawsuit over these numbers.

 

[EatLeadCommie]

Here is a follow-up story on the original Houston Chronicle story (which unfortunately isn't linked in the article). They did a FOIA request after the initial story broke about the government dismissing removal proceedings against illegal aliens and found that HQ directed and commended the actions. http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...ds-downplayed-ICE-case-dismissals-2080532.php

This particular bit of nonsense appears to have officially started in August 2010.

 

[EatLeadCommie]

1. "There ensued a brief debate about the underlying politics of executive action in the shadow of the midterm elections—whether it would motivate Latinos and progressives in larger numbers than Tea Party-inspired GOP voters; would it cut for or against Senate Democrats in red states like Louisiana, Arkansas, Alaska, North Carolina, and Georgia; and how it would play in 2016.

"He didn't seem to give a shit," Sharry said. "It was clear he was going on offense and going to run to the question."

2. "In this regard, Obama has aligned himself with congressional Republicans, even though they acknowledge it only rhetorically. Obama will soon ask Congress for more power to deport the unaccompanied minors, rankling Democrats like Senator Robert Menendez, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Menendez was displeased when briefed last week on Obama's enforcement plans. House Republicans may prove receptive to the money and the deportation authority when it comes time to write a continuing resolution."


3. See number 1. You are totally misrepresenting the quote and context of the statement.

4. Please provide a link to how the numbers are being fudged, and the ICE vs. the US Government lawsuit over these numbers.

You conveniently left out the paragraph after, which showed that the WH was plenty aware of the political ramifications.

"Within the White House, the sense is that Obama's coming moves on immigration will not help anywhere but Colorado and possibly Virginia. Advisers hope, perhaps unrealistically, there will be a red-state push. The 2016 calculus is completely different. Inside and outside the White House, the consensus is that GOP inaction on immigration reform will define the campaign and any attempts to draft legislation in the next Congress—with or without a GOP majority in the Senate and the House—will complicate political prospects for Republicans seeking the presidential nomination and for Senate Republicans up for reelection in blue states, people like Florida (Marco Rubio), Illinois (Mark Kirk), Iowa (Chuck Grassley), Ohio (Rob Portman), Wisconsin (Ron Johnson), and Pennsylvania (Pat Toomey)."

That he doesn't give a shit doesn't mean that he is dismissive of the political consequences. It speaks to him being beat down and exhausted from 5 1/2 years of this stuff.

And you're again missing the boat on my second point. Whether he allies himself with certain Republicans or not, he has ignored them in creating his amnesty by executive order and fomented an environment that tells illegal aliens it is ok to come here because you will not be deported.

Links provided on number fudging above. Link on the lawsuit http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-08-23/ICE-lawsuit-deport/57255220/1

I don't know what the current status of the lawsuit is. I know it was allowed to proceed last year.

 

[FuckmouthedRube]

For somebody who allegedly doesn't care about other Dems and the Dem party, there's more than a little triangulation with an eye toward 2016 there. Obama pisses off some Latinos and the left by cranking up deportations, but there's a limit to his personal downside risk. 'Pubs can't get to 60 or 67 seats in the Senate so the stalemate continues. Boehner can't deliver jack since there's no guarantee he'll even be Speaker next year. Obama's baiting 2016 GOP candidates to go hardcore on immigration. That's a disaster for the GOP in a general election and 2016 also has the added benefit of 23 GOP Senate seats vs 10 Dem seats. Tom Tancredo was the last pure immigration presidential candidate and he flamed out (and just lost a GOP primary in Colorado). Dems would like nothing more than having Steve King as the voice of immigration in 2016, the same way Akin and Mourdock were the voices of abortion politics in 2012.

 

[ONW]

Here is a follow-up story on the original Houston Chronicle story (which unfortunately isn't linked in the article). They did a FOIA request after the initial story broke about the government dismissing removal proceedings against illegal aliens and found that HQ directed and commended the actions. http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...ds-downplayed-ICE-case-dismissals-2080532.php

This particular bit of nonsense appears to have officially started in August 2010.

The article doesn't say a word about fraudulent deportation numbers. And in fact, it documents that it was ICE HQ and lawyer who directed an increased dismissal of trials, which has fuck all to do with Obama.

And I guess "he doesn't give a fuck" about it has evolved to he didn't care about the political consequences to that's not really what he meant he's tired.

And I guess "he ignored them (Republicans) in creating amnesty by executive order" translates to "Obama will soon ask Congress for more power to deport the unaccompanied minors."
[/B][/B]

 

[EatLeadCommie]

The article doesn't say a word about fraudulent deportation numbers. And in fact, it documents that it was ICE HQ and lawyer who directed an increased dismissal of trials, which has fuck all to do with Obama.

And I guess "he doesn't give a fuck" about it has evolved to he didn't care about the political consequences to that's not really what he meant he's tired.

And I guess "he ignored them (Republicans) in creating amnesty by executive order" translates to "Obama will soon ask Congress for more power to deport the unaccompanied minors."
[/B][/B]

That's because the Houston story has nothing to do with fudged numbers and was not in response to your demand to links to stories about fudged numbers. I provided a different link in a different post for that. It has to do with my claim that the admin has declawed the enforcement side of things and ceased deportations that were not only in process, but already all but finalized. And if you think that ICE HQ isn't following the directions of the executive branch, then you're out to lunch. When the President makes a comment about immigration, it is implemented in policy.

I take his "doesn't give a fuck" approach as meaning just that. He's spraying everything with bullets before he hits the road. He's hoping to hit as many Pubs as possible, but doesn't give a fuck if he hits a few Dems. Parse it all you like.

Obama did create DACA unilaterally. That was an amnesty, albeit hopefully a temporary one that is ended soon. I have no doubt that this bit about asking Congress for more power to deport unaccompanied minors will come with some dumb strings attached. As I said, he doesn't give a fuck. I'm pretty sure he could find a way to send them home if he really wanted to since the law hasn't stopped him yet from crafting his own immigration policy. He creates this problem, then blames the GOP for hamstringing him with a 2002 law, then says he'll try to meet them halfway on this particular point. What a character.

I don't even think he believes the shit that comes out of his mouth anymore. What is amazing is that so many regular people do.

 

[RJKarl]

To say you ever believed anything Obama said would be a stretch. All the proof we need comes from your posts.

 

[ONW]

Neither does the other link you provided.

"ICE agents sue own agency over deferred deportations"

"ICE spokesman Ross Feinstein did not comment on the lawsuit but said more than half of the nearly 400,000 illegal immigrants deported in 2011 had been convicted of crimes, the largest number in the agency's history. He said that shows the decision to focus on the most dangerous illegal immigrants is a policy that works, and June's decision to defer deportation for young illegal immigrants enhances that strategy."

 

[Deacon923]

The first link ELC posted was a story quoting the ICE top guy stating that they changed the way they count deportations. Prior administrations counted only people caught in the interior and deported. The Obama administration apparently has started counting people turned back at the border as deportations, thus leading to the large numbers Obama supporters have quoted so frequently on this board. Deportations from the interior have not changed much. Looks like ELC was absolutely right on that one.

Shows the danger of quoting "statistics" that come from partisan sources.

On the other hand, I don't have much sympathy for the ICE agents who don't want to follow orders. Congress has not budgeted enough money (and never will) to track down all the millions of illegal immigrants, arrest them, and deport them all. The agency obviously must, and has the power to, focus its resources as it sees fit to best execute the laws. Just because this particular group of ICE agents would rather go arrest little children than go after dangerous illegals with criminal records doesn't make those agency decisions illegal or unconstitutional. It does kind of make the agents look like whiny pansies though. I'd be ashamed to put my name on a lawsuit like that.

 

[ONW]

The first link ELC posted was a story quoting the ICE top guy stating that they changed the way they count deportations. Prior administrations counted only people caught in the interior and deported. The Obama administration apparently has started counting people turned back at the border as deportations, thus leading to the large numbers Obama supporters have quoted so frequently on this board. Deportations from the interior have not changed much. Looks like ELC was absolutely right on that one.

Shows the danger of quoting "statistics" that come from partisan sources.

On the other hand, I don't have much sympathy for the ICE agents who don't want to follow orders. Congress has not budgeted enough money (and never will) to track down all the millions of illegal immigrants, arrest them, and deport them all. The agency obviously must, and has the power to, focus its resources as it sees fit to best execute the laws. Just because this particular group of ICE agents would rather go arrest little children than go after dangerous illegals with criminal records doesn't make those agency decisions illegal or unconstitutional. It does kind of make the agents look like whiny pansies though. I'd be ashamed to put my name on a lawsuit like that.

Changing the way you measure a certain metric isn't fudging. Fudging implies lying, cheating and acting malevolently.

If you want to say the numbers are skewed because of a change in the definition of a deportation, fine. Then the numbers are apples to oranges not out and out deceit.

 

[EatLeadCommie]

Oh, Jesus...between RJ defining amnesty to his liking and you defining fudging to yours, this thread is a hoot (ETA- the amnesty argument was on the other thread). Please continue to feel free to give me shit over what constitutes giving a fuck, however.

 

[WFU71]

Changing the way you measure a certain metric isn't fudging. Fudging implies lying, cheating and acting malevolently.

If you want to say the numbers are skewed because of a change in the definition of a deportation, fine. Then the numbers are apples to oranges not out and out deceit.

Would you buy "purposely manipulating the numbers for political purposes"?

 

[ONW]

Would you buy "purposely manipulating the numbers for political purposes"?

Can we agree on "massaging the numbers for political purposes?"