Obama administration won't seek deportation of young illegal immigrants

[jimmy olsen]

While I approve the policy I think this could have significant electoral consequences.

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/15/12238794-obama-administration-wont-seek-deportation-of-young-illegal-immigrants?lite

Obama administration won't seek deportation of young illegal immigrants

By Michael O'Brien, msnbc.com



Updated 10:58 a.m. - The Obama administration announced on Friday that it would no longer seek the deportation of most young illegal immigrants, and would instead allow them to apply for work permits, a significant policy shift with potentially major electoral implications.

The Department of Homeland Security said that, effective immediately, the government would no longer seek the deportation of illegal immigrants who were brought to the United States as children, and would allow them to apply for work permits if they meet certain criteria.

"Our nation's immigration laws must be enforced in a firm and sensible manner," said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in a statement Friday.
Advertise | AdChoices

A senior administration official said in a conference call with reporters that as many as 800,000 undocumented immigrants stand to benefit from this change. Napolitano said that the shift represented neither immunity nor amnesty -- buzzwords for conservatives who oppose illegal immigration -- but instead represented an instance of "prosecutorial discretion" in which the government had re-evaluated its priorities in enforcing the law.

The announcement represented a major policy shift, and its political implications will be significant.

The shift essentially accomplishes many of the legislative intentions of the DREAM Act, an immigration reform bill that had stalled in Congress due to Republican objections. President Barack Obama favors the legislation, while presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has said he would veto that law.

The new rule comes amid a bruising election year fight between Obama and Romney, in which the Latino vote could be decisive. Obama enjoys a strong advantage with Latino voters, winning 61 percent of Latinos vs. 27 percent for Romney in a mid-May NBC News/Wall Street Journal/Telemundo poll.

The Hispanic vote is of particular importance in swing states like Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Florida, among others. Those states could swing the election toward Obama or Romney, elevating the importance of the margin between the two candidates with Latino voters.

Obama's biggest challenge, though, has involved motivating Latino voters to turn out for him with the same strength they had in 2008. The president had faced lingering complaints stemming from his inability to advance the comprehensive immigration reform he had promised as a candidate in 2008.

The president was scheduled to make remarks about the immigration policy change at the White House at 1:15 p.m. ET on Friday.

In a memorandum to immigration enforcement officials, Napolitano wrote that immigrants who were illegally brought to the United States as children "lacked the intent to violate the law," and pose few national security risks.

The memo said the government would not pursue immigrants who met five criteria. Individuals must:

    Have come to the United States under the age of 16,
    Be no older than 30,
    Be currently enrolled in school, have graduated high school or served in the military,
    Have been in the country for five continuous years, and
    Have a clean criminal record.

A senior administration official noted that the new rules were not permanent, though, and conceded that a different administration with a different policy could conceivably choose to withdraw this regulation.

"The executive can always change its mind about how to exercise discretion," said the official.

The policy shift presents a challenge for Romney, who ran to the right of some of his opponents on the issue of immigration during the Republican primary. He had opposed the DREAM Act, and explained during a debate that his immigration policy involved "self-deportation."

That hard-line stance prompted handwringing among Republicans who have long worried about the long-term political fallout associated with alienating Latino voters. Florda Gov. Jeb Bush suggested earlier this week that much of the Republican rhetoric surrounding immigration had been "insulting."

"Change the tone would be the first thing," he said of his advice to Republicans. "Second, on immigration, I think we need to have a broader approach."

Ironically, the Obama administration's new rule would accomplish many of the same goals of a limited version of the DREAM Act proposed by Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, which stops short of offering young illegal immigrants citizenship, but gives them a type of legal status. Romney said he was considering the proposal from Rubio, a popular choice of conservatives to round out the Republican ticket as a vice presidential nominee.

[MadImmortalMan]

Makes sense. The kids didn't break the law. Their parents did.

[KRonn]

I agree with this idea for the most part. My issue is with how it was enacted. Should a President enact such executive orders like this? Previously he had said he couldn't do it, that it had to be properly legislated. Good political move of course, especially since Rubio is coming out with a version of the Dream act next week, and Romney has spoken positively about it.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Cynical political scheme.

[Scipio]

Cynical ploy that actually does the right thing.

Unfortunately, because Congress has historically had its head tremendously up its ass re: immigration.  The one thing that Teddy Kennedy and I could ever agree on.

I used to tell that fat, adulterous, Kopechne-murdering fuck, "Teddy, if it weren't for immigration and Irish whiskey, you and I couldn't agree on shit."

[Ideologue]

I guess this is fine, but I just can't muster much concern over the plight of immigrants.  If I tried to move to Canada, I'd surely be deported.  Why should I care one way or another for immigrants here, except in that I resent how they defraud the state and often cheat on their taxes?

[DontSayBanana]

Unfortunately, it's being turned into a political issue, because the Republicans are shrieking that Obama's preempting their authority.

What this and a bunch of other articles are failing to report is that the younger immigrants aren't being granted "amnesty" the way the Republicans are shrieking that they are- it's a two year deferral of deportation, just to give them enough time to sort out their paperwork.

[Martinus]

I guess this is fine, but I just can't muster much concern over the plight of immigrants.  If I tried to move to Canada, I'd surely be deported.  Why should I care one way or another for immigrants here, except in that I resent how they defraud the state and often cheat on their taxes?

Wow. Once again you show that your leftism goes only as far as your sense of entitlement.

[Ideologue]

I guess this is fine, but I just can't muster much concern over the plight of immigrants.  If I tried to move to Canada, I'd surely be deported.  Why should I care one way or another for immigrants here, except in that I resent how they defraud the state and often cheat on their taxes?

Wow. Once again you show that your leftism goes only as far as your sense of entitlement.

If you say so.  I resent employers who break the law to avail themselves of under-market illegal labor even more, because they're not compelled to the same degree.

Do you think it would be okay for native employees to agree to work under the table?  Because I think that's wrong, too.

Then again I work without time and a half.  I like to think I fall under an FLSA exemption, and am therefore breaking no laws, but that's really, really arguable.  Nevertheless, working OT without time and a half isn't exactly the same as tax evasion or working under the minimum wage.

[The Brain]

All criminals have a sob story.

[alfred russel]

While this is a welcome development, is it a dangerous precedent? For instance, could a republican president use the same logic to stop the enforcement of aspects of the clean air act (or even tax policy)?

[The Brain]

Let's ask a news source that thinks that "Florda" is a state.

[DontSayBanana]

While this is a welcome development, is it a dangerous precedent? For instance, could a republican president use the same logic to stop the enforcement of aspects of the clean air act (or even tax policy)?

It's not "stopping enforcement," it's a two-year deferral given a strict set of conditions.  Big difference, and it's irking me that news outlets aren't even reporting on the deferral aspect.

[KRonn]

Unfortunately, it's being turned into a political issue, because the Republicans are shrieking that Obama's preempting their authority.

What this and a bunch of other articles are failing to report is that the younger immigrants aren't being granted "amnesty" the way the Republicans are shrieking that they are- it's a two year deferral of deportation, just to give them enough time to sort out their paperwork.

Well, the Dems surely harrangued Bush when he issued executive orders in lieu of going to Congress. I think Pres Obama has done a lot of exec orders, though I have no idea if he's done more than usual for a President.

Congress and Repubs have been coming around to some type of Dream act. Rubio apparently has pretty decent Dem and Repub support for his bill. Too bad the Pres couldn't have joined in to help push that along, instead of going it on his own. So it's to be expected he'd get some push back on it, I'd think. Repubs can't push too hard though, as some of them will have their own plan next week. Romney is going to have to decide on all this too, to figure where he stands on things, and how it'll play with all the interested parties, Hispanics plus his own Repub base. Could be interesting for him!

[DontSayBanana]

See, here's the kicker, and why this whole runaround pisses me off: there wouldn't even be an issue if the USAG had been the one to give the order.  It's a deferral, which is fine as long as it doesn't push anything past a statute of limitations.  But since POTUS was the one who gave the order, it's a Republican bitchfest.

Deferral != nonenforcement.  Period.