Immigration

Obama Is Being a Coward, Not Caesar, on Immigration

He has the executive authority to give far more relief to unauthorized workers

|

King Obama
SS&SS / Foter / Creative Commons

Conservatives are outraged that President Barack Obama is threatening to use his executive authority to shelter undocumented foreigners from deportation now that immigration reform seems dead this year. But whether they like it or not, existing immigration laws give the president vast discretion to temporarily legalize an unlimited number of foreigners.

The president hasn't yet said exactly what he'll do, but some reports suggest that he might "defer action" against undocumented aliens who are parents of U.S. citizens or have held steady employment. This means that instead of being hunted down and deported, they'd be officially notified they won't be targeted for some period during which they would be allowed to work. This is what he did with illegals brought into the country as minors after Congress failed to pass the Dream Act. His new dispensation could potentially cover as many as 5 million undocumented workers.

This prompted New York Times columnist Ross Douthat to accuse the president of "domestic Caesarism." Granting temporary legal status by executive fiat, he insisted, would be "an extraordinary abuse of office" and tantamount to rewriting existing immigration laws.

But Margaret Stock, a Republican immigration lawyer and a Federalist Society member, notes that such accusations don't appreciate that all this is fully authorized by those laws. "The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and other laws are chockfull of huge grants of statutory authority to the president," she explains, a point also emphasized by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service in its 2013 brief. "Congress gave the president all these powers, and now they are upset because he wants to use them. Other presidents have used the same authority in the past without an outcry."

Most accept that the discretion that the executive branch enjoys in enforcing immigration law is as broad as what prosecutors enjoy in criminal law. And the reason is the same: More offenders than means to prosecute makes drastic prioritization necessary. But conservatives argue that failing to prosecute is not the same as legalizing, the further step that the president would be taking by issuing work permits.

But this is incorrect. Until Congress actually passes a law issuing permanent residency, nothing that Obama is suggesting would prevent future presidents from stripping these folks off their temporary status and deporting them. So an executive action falls short of "legalization" or "amnesty."

Moreover, offering work permits isn't some further step. It's part of the deferral process. Once the president officially defers action against some folks (or offers them parole-in-place, which allows them to live in the United States with oversight) they automatically become eligible for work authorization under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and driver's licenses under the Real ID Act of 2005.

This might seem crazy to anti-immigration hawks, but it makes good sense. Letting out-of-status foreigners stay is likely cheaper than deporting them. And if they are going to stay, it is far better to give them the legal means to earn their keep rather than seek handouts on the street or from the government.

Indeed, for over 50 years, every president has used his prosecutorial discretion to let some foreigners stay—and not just a few individuals but entire groups. John F. Kennedy used executive authority to prevent thousands of Cubans from being deported as did Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. And George W. Bush used it to temporarily protect illegals stuck in Hurricane Katrina-stricken areas.

Sure, Obama is hinting at going further. But nothing he's proposing comes close to exceeding the powers Congress has granted him, let alone constituting an "extraordinary abuse of power."

In fact, notes Stock, he could go even further and offer asylum to the Central American kids lining up at our borders, instead of sending them back as he's been promising to do. Section 207 of the INA gives him the authority to declare a humanitarian emergency and hand refugee status to all of them—and then some. (Or he could do so simply for some vague benefit to the United States.) And this wouldn't be unprecedented either.

The United States did this as part of Operation Pied Piper to accommodate fleeing children from World War II and then Operation Pedro Pan to provide a safe haven to Cuban kids.

Conservatives argue that if Obama extends provisional legal status when Congress has expressly refused to do so, then what's to prevent future presidents from, say, unilaterally offering a safe haven from estate taxes when Congress fails to repeal them. But this is a red herring because, in most other areas of law, Congress has not ceded so much power to the executive. Immigration is among the exceptions. This might be one reason why in House Speaker John Boehner's lawsuit against Obama's abuse of executive authority, immigration is not included.

Indeed, given the virtual carte blanche that Congress has handed the executive branch to do something about the undocumented population, the status quo—meaning looking the other way—is arguably the most lawless option.

So the real question is why has Obama been holding back? Partly, of course, he didn't want to poison the political well for permanent relief for these foreign workers, something only Congress can give. But it's been clear for months that the Republican-controlled House wasn't going to do anything.

It's possible that he doesn't fully understand the legal tools he has. More likely, it's good, old-fashioned politics. Pretending that his hands are tied and he can't do anything ("America is nation of laws," he's fake pleaded) because of Republican obstructionism offers a convenient way to demonize Republicans with Hispanics. It also prevents a backlash against Senate Democrats in vulnerable red states such as Louisiana in November.

Political cynicism is a bipartisan sport.

A version of this column originally appeared in the Washington Examiner

NEXT: Aid Helicopter Crashes in Iraq

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. *gets popcorn*

    1. *grabs seat next to Scruffy*

        1. Popcorn for an immigration thread?

          Fail. These require nothing less than 80 proof.

          1. I want tortilla chips and hot sauce. And a cold beer.

          2. Waiting for 8% of the show.

    2. I’d ask for some but I have a feeling you cooked up some nasty kettle corn monstrosity.

      1. Butter and salt only, the way it should be

  2. Seriously Shikha, do you have any interests besides fucking immigration?

    1. Info-graphics

    2. Seriously Baylen, don’t you have any interests besides food regulation?

      (also, see Detroit)

    3. “Fucking immigration”? Is that like sex-trafficking?

      I’ll shut up now.

    4. She has 6,000 cousins back in India who have heard that the US roads are made of gold and they want to shit on those roads. Why should they be forced to stay in India and shit on Indian roads when golden American roads are available?

      1. Classy.

        1. Have you been to India? I have, and its not.

          1. I’ve been to India (so many cows, so little good steak), but Indians who can afford to get to US are in the top % of the population, and US benefits greatly by having them here.

      2. “they want to shit on those roads.”

        What the?

        1. Have you been to India?

          1. No, I haven’t.

            I have though known many Indians living or visiting America, and I have not once seen one defecate on a road.

            1. What happens when we start allowing them in by the tens or hundreds of millions like Shikha wants.

              She wants unlimited immigration.

              1. “What happens when we start allowing them in by the tens or hundreds of millions like Shikha wants.”

                I don’t know, I’m guessing you’re going to say they will start defecating on our roads?

                1. Well if you actually added a few hundred million people to united states suddenly, then I bet people would end up defecting in the streets.

                  1. Defecting from where?

                  2. It’s so true. I mean my son is half Indian and it’s a real problem. I mean he’s a young adult and attending an ivy league university but, damn, anytime we go anywhere it’s everything I can do just to keep him from shitting all over the first road he sees. Obviously I’m used to it because I had to get that way in order to marry his doctor mother, who, after years only occasionally gets out of the car at red lights to take a dump so it doesn’t bother me really. And fuck, when the family visits, you have no idea how long it takes just to get to the damn restaurant. Best we keep that stuff far away from our lily-white christian god-fearing law-abiding utopia of freedom and virtue.

              2. What happens when we start allowing them in by the tens or hundreds of millions like Shikha wants.

                The economy takes off, unemployment goes to 0, the LP sweeps Congress and the Presidential election, and you become a complete recluse so that the furriners can’t get you.

                1. So when did India is full of LP supporters? I thought they generlly voted socialist?

                  1. Also how does bringing in hundreds of millions of poor uneducated people allow the economy to take off. Why would unemployment drop to 0.

                    If having huge amounts of poor uneducated people cause the economy to take off shouldn’t India be full of non-poor?

              3. “She wants unlimited immigration.”

                Actually, I think she wants immigration limited by market forces, but go ahead a slay whatever stawman makes you feel good.

                1. Then create a market based economy first.

                  We don’t have that, we have an economy which gives immigrants free stuff.

                  1. With that argument, any libertarian policy as it relates to free trade in goods and services is a non starter.

                    1. Because its not the free trade of goods if its subsidized from forced taxes.

                      Would you consider it to be free trade in goods if the goods were made by slaves?

                    2. Your problem is taxes and slaves, not free trade. Immigrants don’t get to choose on either.

                2. This is foolish. “Market forces” are relevant in cases where there is a consistent legal environment. It is generally relevant within a nation, someone so among nations at similar levels of economic development.

                  So long as we have welfare programs (government funded subsistence programs, call them what you will) the “market” means that lots of people in less developed nations would live better here on the dole that working at home.

                  1. sorry, somewhat, not someone

      3. Maybe you and briannnnnnnnnnnnnnn can get together and discuss black blood.

        1. Well Clearly, Jordan, I’m all for immigration as long as “those people” don’t have black blood. Because I’m a fucking nazi who consistently goes on racist diatribes…DUH!!!

      4. Do you bother to read your own posts before clicking “Submit”?

    5. Butthurt detected.

      1. You’re pretty familiar with butthurt arentcha Mr. Jordan?

    6. The over-sexualization of Western culture.

    7. Why would you want her writing more? It’s bad enough that we have to put up with her poorly written, poorly reasoned immigration bullshit…

  3. Can we let ISIS/ISIL take over border security and then they can sell the children into slavery?

    With the current state of the border, this may already be happening and we just don’t know it.

  4. Repost.

    1. Nevermind it’s just Dalhmia all her articles look alike to me.

  5. In the faint hope of heading off some serious derp-slinging: OT: Here’s a headline and a few paragraphs to fuel your libertarian inner Hulk.

    Via Hot Air.

    The Headline: Obama presides over unraveling of his predecessors’ foreign policy accomplishments

    The paragraphs: “We opened a Pandora’s box,” Baldwin told Times reporter Peter Baker. “Lots of bad things were flying out of there. But good things are there now too. It’s amazing we had the patience to be where we are today.”

    It was not America’s patience, but the patience of its political establishment that deserved the credit. The American public would have long ago abandoned Iraq to its own murderous devices had the political will existed in Washington to invite that kind of calamity. Sobriety and foresight guided Washington’s approach to the situation in Iraq, but only just long enough to provide Obama with the space he needed to desert Iraq entirely.

    Attn: Bo Cara

    This is what an actual Neocon sounds like.

    1. The American public would have long ago abandoned Iraq to its own murderous devices had the political will existed in Washington to invite that kind of calamity.

      Thank God we spent billions and sacrificed thousands so it could happen whenever stopped throwing good money after bad.

      1. Thank God we spent billions..

        We? Aren’t you Canadian?

        1. Stockholm syndrome, I think.

  6. Another excellent informed column from Shikhia.

    1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Oh man…phew

    2. Yes, Reason buries its head in the sand for a couple of weeks and pretends there is nothing notable going on at the Southern border, and then produces this pile of shit.

  7. Laws? Where we’re heading, we don’t need laws.

  8. “””In fact, notes Stock, he could go even further and offer asylum to the Central American kids lining up at our borders,””””

    People getting asylum get full welfare benefits, does Shikha plan on paying for this out of her pocket?

    1. Do you plan on paying for deportation out of yours?

      1. Already pay for it, Obama just has to actually do it.

        The homeland security budget should cover it nicely.

        1. That’s like saying our HHS budget will cover the welfare. More people on welfare, bigger the budget, more people deported, bigger the budget.

          1. No, you get rid of people when you deport.

            You add people to welfare if you let them in.

            Math is not your strong suit is it?

            1. You think deporting people doesn’t require resources?

            2. As Cyto notes, finding, catching and deporting people is not something volunteers do. It costs money.

              1. Yet if we don’t deport we much pay for them.

                Have you gotten rid of welfare, free schools, free medical, Civil Rights laws yet. If not then the taxpayer pays.

                1. English isn’t your first language, is it?

      2. Which is cheaper deportation or a lifetime of welfare benefits?

        There is a big difference between open borders in a Libertarian utopia, and modern America.

        1. Immigrants do not qualify for welfare benefits.

          Unless, of course, you consider education a welfare benefit.

          FWIW, education is paid for out of property taxes which “illegals” pay in exactly the same proportion (either directly as property owners or through a portion of the rent that they pay to their landlords).

          1. My point being, that if “illegals’ are welfare moochers on education because they aren’t carrying “their weight” then so are the native born poor.

            1. Um, no – the portion of “rent” is in NO WAY proportional to property taxes paid by single-family homes. Look at mill rates in ANY state and actual taxes paid by multi-family dwellings (easily obtainable data) and this will become abundantly clear.

              At this point, it is my opinion that we should revert to a system where only those who PAY are franchised…(said while my property taxes rose by 20% this year).

          2. I don’t know about all locales but some states (eg., Hawaii) fund education at a state level and have State Income tax.

          3. Oh yes, they do. As just one example, every illegal alien child is entitled to a public school education and the average cost of this education is $10,500 per year (2012 figures). An illegal alien child enrolled in first grade will cost the taxpayer $126,000 to graduate from high school.

          4. Illegals are not paying for property taxes to the same extent that they are consuming public school funds.

            Basic math: Each child costs the public school $10,500 per year.

            If you assume that 30% of the cost of rent goes to indirectly pay property tax, the illegal alien parent will have to pay out $35,000 in annual rent to break even. I can assure you that this is not happening.

          5. How much property tax do you get out of ten guys working for cash, living in a 2 bedroom apartment.

            The illegals working in the system now are in a pickle. Work permits takes away their edge in the job market. The workers won’t stay, the freeloaders will.

            They’re not better workers, just just more manipulable than a citizen. It would be kind a funny” Fuck You Man! I’m legal, no more 7 days a week, 12 hours a day crap from me. And I want more money.””No?” “I Quit!” EBT here I come

          6. yes, education is a welfare benefit.

            And immigrants DO get many benefits. Just not the ones formally called welfare.

            You might remember from the news, Obama’s illegal immigrant Aunt lived in subsidized housing for decades.

      3. deportation is a one time cost. Welfare goes on for generations, unfortunately.

  9. A metaphor or something?
    http://www.burlingtonfreepress…../13899687/

  10. “””‘But far from acting lawlessly, nothing Obama has proposed is outside his prosecutorial discretion, argues Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia”””

    Maybe Obama will use some of that prosecutorial discretion to deport Shikha Dalmia back to India?

    1. +1 Just Please Shut Up

    2. Is she from India? I thought Indians were supposed to be intelligent or something!

  11. So “prosecutorial discretion” is the same as a “pocket veto” of a law the President doesn’t like? Good to know.

    Are there any limits to prosecutorial discretion? At what point does refusal to enforce a law become a breach of the Constitutional obligation to faithfully execute the laws?

    What about classifying all these new immigrants as “refugees” seeking “asylum”? Is that prosecutorial discretion? Because that’s not something a prosecutor can do.

  12. I would like to see our immigration laws liberalized, and I can see the argument about prosecutorial discretion and the precedent set by other Presidents.

    But at some point this is a problem, having a President say ‘yes, I or my predecessors signed this law, and it says X applies to everyone Y, but I’ve decided that an entire class of people in Y are going to not have the law applied to them.’ It essentially allows a President to veto parts of bills without issuing a real veto. It also would allow a President to use such power to reward groups seen as friendly and punish groups seen as not, and perhaps worse to coerce groups into supporting (or not opposing) him for these reasons. To take one hypothetical example, what if a Democrat President declared that all illegals who join unions will not be acted against in order to bolster unions? Certainly other examples can be supplied.

    1. Prosecutorial discretion is saying “justice compels me not to pursue this individual case”. It is not “I refuse to enforce this law on anyone or on whatever group I happen to like”. Obama is doing the latter.

      1. I’m sure Obama would argue ‘justice compels me not to pursue any case with the following characteristics’ and that that is different. It’s not that he’s wrong it’s just that as you note at some point differences in degree become ones in kind, and prosecutorial discretion is perhaps a necessary but problematic thing at best, not something to be cheered in general.

        1. So southern democrat prosecutors during Jim Crow were just using their prosecutorial discretion when refusing to prosecute of investigate whites murdering blacks.

      2. Perhaps he has developed the doctrine of Presidential Nullification.

    2. “””I would like to see our immigration laws liberalized””

      The US has more legal immigrants then anyone country in the world.

      1. We also have some of the most liberal gun laws and highest rates of gun ownership, but I’d like to see our gun laws liberalized further.

        1. And India and Mexico have lvery imited gun rights and the people there voted for limiting those rights.

          So you want those voters in the US?

          1. And Ireland has blasphemy laws and just legalized abortion recently, and yet all those Irish American voters we let in for decades don’t seem to have made those a reality here.

            1. I didn’t realise that the Irish were the fasted growing demographic in the United States.

              1. They were at one time, and people such as yourself made similar arguments then, and we can all remember the mandatory rosaries and potato soup in our schools, right?

                1. People like me huh? I guess any objection to mass immigration is just nativism or something?

                  America was different place back then, people had to assimilate, people had to find work. People don’t have to do those things anymore.

                  1. I am not accusing you of nativism, just saying your argument is one with a long pedigree and one which did not bear out in those instances, which is reason to doubt it now.

                    This argument ‘this is a different America so we need to restrict this freedom’ could just as easily be applied to other areas, yet we never see it done here. For example, ‘in this age of crony capitalism and big government subsidies and contracts that didn’t exist in our history we just can’t allow corporations to get involved in political campaigns because the result will be rent seeking and cronyism.’

                    But you don’t hear that, it’s just this issue where conservatives see the threat of potential Democrat voters were we should chuck our values for utilitarian reasons.

                    1. I don’t think that corporations in their present form should exist under law, they can exist under contract but that would be a much more limited entity.

                      I certainly don’t think that corporations are people. People are people and they have rights, not entities created by law

            2. There has been no mass immigration from Ireland in 100 years.

              And Ireland even at its max did not have the numbers to swamp parts or all of the US.

              1. Gee, what explains all the “No Irish” signs that were displayed all over the country then.

      2. Probably more illegals as well.

      3. In absolute terms or as a % of the population?

    3. Why bother changing laws that are ignored anyway? We have a much more efficient solution now.

  13. At some point a difference in quantity becomes a difference in quality. Yes, the executive has the power to choose not to deport someone even though they are deportable, just like a local DA has the power to decline to prosecute a particular case. That however is not the same as deciding to no longer prosecute an entire class of crimes or entire laws. That is not prosecutorial discretion. That is legal nullification and effectively allowing the President to repeal any law he doesn’t like without going to Congress.

    There is no way Dalmia actually believes this. By her logic, a President who didn’t like Mexicans but did like Africans could deport every Mexican entering the country but grant temporary status to Africans. No way would she agree that was legal.

    1. Indeed. Dalmia has this monomania about immigration, and she seems totally blind to all the ill effects of mass immigration of poor people into a broke welfare state. (Please, no ignorant comments about “how illegals don’t get welfare”: they do, by the billions of dollars.)

      1. Are there other areas where you think libertarians should have their principles take a back seat in the name of possible ill effects on poor people?

        1. By “principles”, I assume you don’t mean things like “rule of law”, “separation of powers”, that kind of thing?

          1. I meant libertarian principles specifically, like the NAP.

            1. The violation of the NAP was when my money was taken at gun point to fund borders, roads, and other public property. It’s a further violation to tell me I have no say whatsoever in how that property is used, or who may use it.

              1. You argument is with the government and the welfare state, not people freely and peacefully associating with one another.

        2. You shouldn’t let your principles blind to you reality. If application of your principles results in a a lot of harm, then you need to rethink your principles.

          1. They look at mass immigration in a vacuum, not in modern day America with it’s humungous social welfare programs, it’s race grievance industry, it’s identity politics, etc.

            Ultimately mass immigration to united states from the 3rd world won’t be a victory for libertarians, but for socialism.

            1. This is exactly the same things that were said about, for example, Italians: “One 1891 cartoon claimed that ‘If immigration was properly restricted, you would never be troubled with anarchism, socialism, the Mafia and such kindred evils!'”

              http://www.loc.gov/teachers/cl…..lian8.html

              1. Hard to see how that was wrong, no? We didn’t restrict immigration and, lo!, we got the Mafia, socialism, and anarchism Marxism.

                1. Can we please try the anarchism next then?

                  1. Can we please try the anarchism next then?

                    Where do we get immigrants predisposed to anarchy and not looking to get in line for free shit?

                    Somalia, I’m thinking? Maybe not.

                2. If anything we got most of our socialism and Marxism not from Italian or Irish immigrants but from blue blood New Englanders, thank you.

                  1. Umm.. No Bo. We got abolitionism from New England. That’s about it. Africans, and European minorities had to create their own societies.

                3. Yeah he kind of defeated his own argument with that one.

              2. The fact that people have falsely cried “Wolf!” in the past does not prove that wolves don’t exist.

                1. The fact that people have falsely cried “Wolf!” in the past does not prove that wolves don’t exist.

                  They do exist, and the’re fun to hunt.

              3. ‘If immigration was properly restricted, you would never be troubled with anarchism, socialism, the Mafia and such kindred evils!'”

                And did we listen, nooo. And now we have anarcism, socialism, the Mafia and such kindred evils. Maybe we should have listened.

                1. And the biggest jump in socialism in this nation came with the New Deal, a decade or more after we put in place stringent immigration restrictions.

                  1. Humorless 1L is humorless.

                  2. And the biggest jump in socialism in this nation came with the New Deal, a decade or more after we put in place stringent immigration restrictions.

                    It’s almost like the working class ethnics that elected FDR to an unprecedented four terms were the fist generation children of the large turn of the century immigrants. Or something.

            2. You cannot have open borders and a welfare state at the same time:

              Pew Research Center: Hispanic Politics, Values, Religion

              Support for a larger government is greatest among immigrant Latinos. More than eight-in-ten (81%) say they would rather have a bigger government with more services than a smaller government with fewer services.

            3. I have no problem with immigration, but where does it say we have no right to be just a little choosy about who immigrates?

        3. There is nothing in a market based system that would allow free immigration or movement of people

          Market based would mean that every land owner had the right to restrict people from traveling on their property and there would be no public roads

          Its only the present socialist system that not only provides free public roads but forces people to serve those they don’t want to serve.

          1. In other words, you believe that anybody leaving their own house would be guilty of trespassing. Derp.

            1. How would they not be guilty of trespassing unless they got the permission of other land owners?

              Some of thes permissions would be long term and written into contracts, some would be short term, but nobody would allow everyone to use their property without at least some restrictions

              Property is based on control, if you don’t control use of that property then you have no ownership.

              1. Obviously, nobody on the other side of the magic line would be able to obtain permission.

                1. “””Obviously, nobody on the other side of the magic line would be able to obtain permission.”””

                  Some would, some wouldn’t. Some might allow a limited amount for free, some might charge an arm and a leg for just one.

                  But it certainly is not free movement. And if you can’t do it in a total market system why claim it for today as a right?

            2. You really are a fucking half wit Jordan. There is no principle in property law that requires me to grant you transit across my land, unless transit is necessary for you to get to your property. If the owners of property on the border don’t want to let anyone cross, then they don’t have to.

              1. If the owners of property on the border don’t want to let anyone cross, then they don’t have to.

                How does that contradict what I wrote?

              2. He seriously is John. he seriously is.

                1. Since John won’t answer my question from 2:54, then you go ahead. As a non-halfwit, it ought to be easy.

                  1. Oh, I’m not on his side, I just think you’re a fucking half wit.

          2. Here we go again…

            Barf.

  14. This article is too long to read and I don’t remember Shika’s default position. Is this immigration is good or immigration is bad?

    1. Ha. Her position is “You can never, ever have too much of a good thing. Ever. And the freedom of movement of a Honduran peasant trumps your freedom to avoid paying for his welfare.”

      1. Got it, thanks for the summary.

        I guess if I’m going to be stuck supporting the po folks does it really matter what color they are or where they came from? Can I opt out of supporting certain groups of po folks?

      2. And the freedom of movement of a Honduran peasant trumps your freedom to avoid paying for his welfare.”

        Talk about dishonest.

        1. My ownership of my house trumps your freedom of movement to come in there. Do you think that is wrong?

          The question is do the people of the US as a nation have a right to control their borders. If they don’t, then they don’t have a right to have a nation anymore. If you agree that they don’t, good for you. But you should be honest and admit that you deny that instead of putting out mawkish crap about poor brown people.

          1. “My ownership of my house trumps your freedom of movement to come in there. Do you think that is wrong?”

            You’re confusing private and public property.

            And, your dislike of immigrants doesn’t trump my willingness to have them in my home or work for me if I want.

            1. The decision of the government DOES trump your willingness to have illegal immigrants in your home or to work for you. This decision is enshrined in what the more educated among us refer to a “laws”.

            2. Granting people citizenship effects the future of property rights. We are legalizing and making voters out of people who generally do not believe in private property, at least for people who own more of it than they do.

          2. If they don’t, then they don’t have a right to have a nation anymore.

            Nonsense.

            1. If you can’t control your border you are not a nation. There is nothing nonsense about it. You just don’t like that fact and are too dishonest to admit it.

              If we don’t have the power to control the border, why do we have the power to pass any laws? By what principle does a government have the right to do anything? And more importantly, just exactly how is it that the government can pass laws that not everyone agrees with but are bound to follow none the less but somehow don’t have the right to control its borders? What is special about borders?

              I get it, you want free immigration. We all want a lot of things. But just because you like it, doesn’t mean the government can’t do it. You just don’t want to argue the merits of your position so try to avoid it by pretending the government doesn’t have the power because you said so.

              Your position is completely dishonest. Either admit that you deny the nation state or admit that you think open borders are a great idea but understand that the government by virtue of its sovereignty doesn’t have to have such.

              1. If we don’t have the power to control the border, why do we have the power to pass any laws?

                The two are completely independent.

                What is special about borders?

                Indeed.

                1. The two are completely independent.

                  No they are not. Why are they other than you say so? Borders decide how far the sovereignty extends. US law doesn’t apply to Canada does it? Law and borders are the same thing.

                  More importantly, you are so confused about this issue that you don’t even believe what you claim. By your logic, the government couldn’t stop criminals form entering the country. What power would they have? A few days ago you gave the example of “well why can’t New Mexico keep Texans from coming in?” thinking it was clever. Well, New Mexico can’t keep felons form Texas out can they? By your logic neither can the US as a whole. Hell, by your logic, China could dispatch 400 million Chinese to move here, demand the vote, and then merge with China and there would be nothing the US could do to stop them as long as they came here peacefully and not in the form of an army. If the country has no power to control its borders, it has no power. It doesn’t have the power when it produces results you don’t like. And if it has the power to say stop 400 million Chinese or the odd convicted murderer, then there is no reason why doesn’t have the power to stop anyone it likes.

                  1. “And if it has the power to say stop 400 million Chinese or the odd convicted murderer, then there is no reason why doesn’t have the power to stop anyone it likes.”

                    We call that reason the Non-Aggression Principle John.

                    1. Based of the scenario that John described it sounds more like the Useful Idiot Principle Bo.

                      I guess you support Russia’s annexation of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, because hey there are more Russians there then Ukrainians, and they came peacefully originally.

                    2. Yes, that was one non-aggressive annexation!

                      Derp.

                    3. Bo- The argument would be that the Russians in the Ukraine are the non-aggressive ones. They are voting to become part of russia. The armed resistance is only because that evil Ukraine is forcefully enforcing its sovereignty.

                  2. Borders decide how far the sovereignty extends.

                    Open borders != no borders

                2. “What is special about borders?”

                  We’ll be finding out as one of our borders is being opened.

            2. If a nation doesn’t even have borders then how does it exist? Perhaps you should define what a nation is.

              1. I never said anything about not having borders. Allowing freedom of movement does not preclude preventing enemy armies from crossing.

                1. What happens if they cross unarmed and then take over?

                2. Why would they use an army? Just send people over and let them take over peacefully

                3. So all Hitler had to do to take over Poland was just send enough German citizens over there until there was enough of them to just vote that Poland became a part of the 3rd reich.

                  1. Freedom of movement doesn’t mean automatic granting of citizenship.

                    And what is so horrible about a group of people peaceably and voluntarily moving into an area, voluntarily buying land and then eventually being a majority in that area and, say declaring an independent state? That’s what happened to create Israel, for example.

                    1. There’s nothing horrible about it, unless of course you’re one of the people that find themselves now a minority, living in a different state, with different laws, different culture, different language, etc.

                      Oh well screw them I guess, they can always just move from away from their homeland.

                    2. I love all these fucking stupid hypotheticals.

                      “If we don’t control our borders another country will send millions of citizens to take over non-violently!!!!11!!!!”

                    3. This will only happen if US imports European multiculturalist nonsense. As long as US stays true to its roots as a melting pot, it will do fine.

                    4. Malkavian: Yeah, thank heavens the federal, state, and local governments, as well as the education, media, and NGO establishments have so thoroughly rejected that multiculturalism stuff!

                    5. This is the problem then – keep multiculturalism out. Europe will have very serious problems because of it, but in US, it’s fine so far. Euros are burning cars in the suburbs; Dearborn, MI is relatively safe.

                      US should stick to its roots, but the people who push all that cultural nonsense are highly educated and intelligent native leftists, not immigrants who barely speak English.

    2. Remember our conversation from AM links about how many conservatives or right leaning commenters post here and how odd that is given Reason’s long time position on the leftward side of libertarianism? Here’s a thread for you, note that as many posters here are denouncing freedom of movement and association (immigration rights), positions that, for example, the LP Platform champions and was part of the original Nolan chart, as supporting them. Odd, eh?

      1. Odd? I guess I might have a hard time if someone set up camp in my back yard then the government told me I had to support them.

        1. That’s a pretty big straw man. No one here supports immigrants or anyone else setting up camp on anyone’s private property and everyone here opposes making people support other people, whether they were born beside you or not.

          1. So where are they setting up camp? Where is the public property, who is maintaining it, how are they being paid for the maintenance, and how much of my money is being siphoned off and given to the people who aren’t on somebody’s private property?

            1. So where are they setting up camp?

              Um… they rent houses/apartments just like anyone else?

            2. “So where are they setting up camp?”

              Most of them who get across the border go rent or buy properties and live in them. Are you a supporter of restricting me from renting my property or selling to them if I want to and they want to?

              “Where is the public property, who is maintaining it, how are they being paid for the maintenance”

              We call them roads, we pay taxes on them, and so do illegals who work here.

              “how much of my money is being siphoned off and given to the people who aren’t on somebody’s private property?”

              Again, no one here supports welfare for anyone regardless of their nation of birth.

              1. You are absolutely free to give access to your property to whomever you like. What about the rest who aren’t covered by ‘most’. We have homeless motels all over Mass that are paid for with tax dollars.

                So I pay for the amenities that immigrants use, should I have no say in how they’re used?

                Nobody here supports welfare yet it is a fact of life in the US. Since I have no choice but to contribute to the welfare of people that I will never meet and care nothing about shouldn’t I have some say in how it’s handled? Can I petition the government to not withhold any money that might go to people I don’t care about?

                1. Since I have no choice but to contribute to the welfare of people that I will never meet and care nothing about shouldn’t I have some say in how it’s handled?

                  Of course. But that doesn’t mean anything goes. Should we restrict people living below the poverty line from having children, for example?

                2. Why should you have any say in the dealing of those who are not using those amenities?

                  Also, I think we could change your argument to be about drug addicts just as easily. Many drug addicts get on the government dole in one way or another. Would that make you oppose drug decriminalization?

                  1. Let’s get this straight so you actually understand. If people want to come to this country, get jobs, and be productive I have no problem with that. I don’t care if 20 million people showed up, got jobs, and found places to live.

                    That being said, let’s not pretend that everyone coming in is in that position. The government is already in the business of taking away my freedoms. I’d like to keep it to a minimum.

                    1. If you’re against people on welfare be against people on welfare, but general restrictions on illegals falls on the industrious as well as the not. I think a general rule of thumb is not to impose restrictions on X for the sins of Y. Because some crazy people use guns for bad things we don’t think we should have restrictions on every gun owner, because some drug users become addicts and wards of the state we don’t restrict the freedom to use drugs, and because some illegals might cost taxpayer money we shouldn’t restrict them generally.

                    2. You are arguing from a perfect world standpoint, which is fine except we don’t live in a perfect world. When you flat out allow X because it would be good for a group of people, you also must recognize that another group will find a way to take advantage of X. It is somewhat shortsighted to say “let’s allow X because only a small group will take advantage of it and we can just take money from Y to cover that”, no?

              2. “””Are you a supporter of restricting me from renting my property or selling to them if I want to and they want to?””‘

                But the laws in the US force me to rent to them when I don’t want to. Why do you want to do this to me?

                1. I don’t, I oppose those laws too.

                  1. You oppose those laws, unfortunately you have no power. Sure it would be nice if they didn’t exist, but for now we have to deal with the world we actually live in.

              3. “Again, no one here supports welfare for anyone regardless of their nation of birth.”

                What people here support or oppose matters not diddly, as can be seen from the welfare bill the country pays for citizens as we speak. It will be the same for amnestied illegals as they, like many born-here citizens, discover that life on welfare is preferable to ill-paid outdoor work with heavy lifting.

          2. It’s not really a straw man, Bo, except maybe here. There are plenty of folks that agitate for basically that.

          3. Yet we have Civil Rights laws which require me to let everyone camp in my back yard if I rent out to anyone.

            I am not allowed to refuse service to immigrants or anyone else.

            1. So because we have awful laws restricting some freedoms we should support more restrictions of those freedoms?

              1. Yes, until you get rid of the laws taking money and property from me and giving it to your immigrant buddies

                Where is the Reason Article calling for getting rid of Civil Rights laws?

                1. “the Civil Rights Acts were important in securing the demise of Jim Crow, but those laws have long since outlived their usefulness in the regulation of private behavior in competitive markets. Now we need a return to freedom.”

              2. If my freedom is by law made contingent on your actions then I should have some say in your actions.

                1. “If my freedom is by law made contingent on your actions then I should have some say in your actions.”

                  Nothing slippery about that slope.

                  1. Funny, that’s a paraphrase from the guy who literally wrote the book on liberty. If you don’t want me to tell you what to do, don’t threaten to take away my freedoms based on your behavior. Next thing you know the government will be banning spherical magnets.

      2. “””freedom of movement and association””‘

        There is no such thing as a right to freedom of movement in a market based world

        And the Civil Rights laws have taken away Americans right of association by requiring businesses to serve people they don’t want to serve.

      3. Bo: I somehow missed the part of the Nolan chart that says nations have no right to control borders, and that anyone in the world can move to the US for any reason, and get welfare benefits.

        “Freedom of movement” is a nice idealistic principle. Unfortunately, the real world intervenes. A broke welfare state importing dependents who will vote for more socialism (as will their children) is hardly a way to support libertarian principles. Mass immigration will defeat all other libertarian goals.

        1. PapayaSF,

          The plank from the LP states:

          3.4 Free Trade and Migration

          We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

          It is the bold part that has to be considered.

          1. It would take some impressive twisting to get the bolded part to negate preceding sentence. Most people that are called ‘open borders’ are fine with border checks that turn away people with communicable diseases or histories of violence.

            1. Bo, I honestly don’t give a shit one way or the other if you want to let 10 million people who don’t share your language, culture, and values into the country. I am just screwing around right now waiting on a phone call from a tribe in New Mexico.

              But if you see land and money as property, then I would think those people coming into the country might pose a threat to you keeping it if you have to pay more for schools, medical treatments, security, etc. Whether you think that is a “threat” to property, I don’t know. But even the libertarian party understands that a sovereign has to be able to control its borders to remain a sovereign.

              1. Yes. The existence of the welfare state makes mass immigration of poor people problematic.

          2. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

            Why does the power only extend to those things? That is nice and reasonable and all but if you believe that, then you admit the government can control its borders. If you admit that power, then your appeal to authority no longer works. IF you want to stop this set of people, why can’t someone else want to stop people to protect the labor market or keep the population under control or whatever other reason they like?

            1. If you admit that power, then your appeal to authority no longer works.

              John, see my post above, I am not using this as an appeal to authority. I am answering Bo’s assertion that if the LP says it is good, it must be good.

              I accept that peoples absolutely have a right to determine what happens within their “lands.”

              1. Where do you get this “lands?”

                No one has a right to dictate what I do with my lands. If I want to rent to or employ an illegal, should you be able to restrict me because some other illegal somewhere else gets welfare? If you can get that out of the LP Platform statement I really would be impressed.

                1. Where do you get this “lands?”

                  See Bo, this is what happens when you have two paradigms looking at the same thing.

                  I get “lands” from tradition, culture and history. From my ancestors living on it for several thousand years. Lands that are known by the people who live here to be “our” land and “their” land. See, I think people can collectively own land, and you do not. It is a Lockean vs. non-Lockean view of land as property. It does not come from the LP platform statement.

                  I haven’t the time right now as I have a call to attend to, but some time in the future maybe we will have this discussion.

                2. Bo- If you bought land in a housing community with an HOA you absolutely could be restricted in what you do with your land. They could restrict how you build on it and restrict how you use common properties. They could even require you to use a certain lawn or trash company.

                  At the end of the day, your appeal to “Freedom of Movement” doesn’t mean much. I am all for freedom of movement and freedom of contract, but the fact is that at some point a bunch of people got together to form a covenant and our current immigration laws are one part of that.

                  1. Private contract (HOA) is great. Government forcing a farmer to rot his fields for no good reason – not so much.

          3. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

            A position entirely consistent with deporting the current wave of illegals from Central America en masse.

        2. It also didn’t have a ‘repeal drug laws and let addicts get welfare benefits’ part either, it just had a repeal drug laws section as well as a let peaceful people cross borders.

        3. Exactly. You cannot have open borders and a welfare state at the same time:

          Pew Research Center: Hispanic Politics, Values, Religion

          Support for a larger government is greatest among immigrant Latinos. More than eight-in-ten (81%) say they would rather have a bigger government with more services than a smaller government with fewer services.

      4. See what happens when you let just anybody in?

  15. The real mystery is not why Obama is doing so much, but why he isn’t doing more to offer relief to the victims of our insane immigration system.

    Well, aside from the crass political opportunism of using immigration as a stick to beat the “do-nothing” Republican House and try to gull Hispanics into thinking Repubs are racists and they should just join the Dem plantation . . . .

    It might have something to do with the notion that Congress, not the President, makes laws, and if the President can’t convince Congress to change the law, he can’t just change it on his own.

    And this is, as John observed, not “prosecutorial discretion”. What Obama wants to do is a change in the law.

  16. Any talk about immigration reform is totally useless, until the border is sealed. Use your imaginations to figure out what I mean by the word “sealed”. Historically speaking, this invasion of the U.S. reminds me of the barbarians crossing into the Roman Empire. On the other hand, one could say that The Mexican-American War of 1846-1848 has come home to roost. After all, that border created by The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo in 1848 is just “artificial, isn’t it? The Mexicans flooding across the border are just “repopulating” El Norte, aren’t they?

    1. They aren’t “repopulating” anything. Most of what is now the southwestern US was more or less empty up until the middle of the nineteenth century. Take Texas for example: Houston, Texas presently has a population larger than all of Texas had in the first couple decades of the 1800’s. Even including Native Americans there was far less than a million people in the state at that time.

  17. The usual clusterhump of people talking past each other.

    Open borders would be a fine and dandy policy. If the world were a different place than it is today.

    In the world as it is today, even a rumor of open borders sets off an avalanche of people, many of them dying along the way, who show up in this country as complete deadweight. The current wave of illegals is not merely unemployable, but is consuming our resources at a pretty good clip, and with no corresponding contribution to offset the “public” resources they enjoy. And that’s the ones who aren’t diseased or violent criminals already.

    Anyone who can look at the human, fiscal, and social carnage of our current flirtation with open borders and think “Yep, we need a whole lot more of this”, well, I just don’t understand.

    1. “Open borders would be a fine and dandy policy. If the world were a different place than it is today.”

      Legalizing drugds would be a fine and dandy policy. If the world were a different place than it is today.

      Lowering taxes would be a fine and dandy policy. If the world were a different place than it is today.

      Allowing people the right to own guns would be a fine and dandy policy. If the world were a different place than it is today.

      1. Don’t you think it’s kind of dumb to make three arguments that aren’t anything like the topic to try to make a point? That’s a rhetorical question by the way.

        1. How are they different than the argument he’s making? That’s not a rhetorical question by the way.

          He’s making the same argument that many make against ending the drug war, for example.

      2. The very people you want to legalize will be voting against your taxes being lowered and your guns not being confiscated. That’s the difference.

    2. Current wave of illegals picks lettuce. Sounds like employment to me.

      1. The ones using EBT cards at my local Safeway aren’t picking lettuce.

        1. I agree with that. EBT cards are the problem.

  18. The arguments here are bizarre. Chief problem here is welfare state, not immigration. I’m an immigrant myself; frankly, i don’t see what’s so evil about some Native American (haha) farmer paying me to pick his lettuce.

    From an economic point of view, promoting movement of capital (free trade), but not labor, is incoherent (they both need to match in the end), and gets libertarians labeled as shills for the rich to boot. Immigrants vote Socialist? So do most Natives, what a surprise. How is it grounds for restriction of a sound principle (freedom of movement)? Leftists claim that money votes, should we restrict rich people’s speech too? Back in the home country, Commies used to restrict peasants’ movement by denying them passports. It was retarded there, and it is retarded here.

    Arguments against welfare state are valid, but they are just that – arguments against welfare state. That affects us all – tax paying “Native Americans” and immigrants alike.

    1. Chief problem here is welfare state, not immigration.

      Then end the welfare state first. Some things only work if they are done in the right order.

      Immigrants vote Socialist? So do most Natives, what a surprise. How is it grounds for restriction of a sound principle (freedom of movement)?

      Immigrants vote socialist at a greater rate than natives. That’s one reason why Democrats support mass immigration: they are intentionally “electing a new people.” Thus that “sound principle” is being used to trump every other libertarian principle: limited government, low taxes, and all the rest.

      Libertarianism should not be a suicide pact. If sticking to one principle subverts all your other principles, you’re doing something wrong.

      1. We are in agreement on ending the welfare state. I’d argue that at this point, the only way it ends is if it runs out of money. Per your argument, immigrants accomplish the job faster?

        Immigrants vote socialist at a greater rate than natives.

        I did not know illegal immigrants could vote. But OK. Your other implicit assumption is that Republicans (in practice, not slogans), are not a welfare party, and actually support ‘limited government, low taxes, and all the rest’. Again, OK. Assume both assumptions are true.

        How did “Native Americans” came to develop libertarian logic? Education and thought process. Don’t you think this is a better way, over excluding people from your little club. I mean, i’m not the brightest of immigrants, but i lean libertarian based on some arguments i was able to gather.

        No, libertatrianiism should not be the suicide pact. That said, more people should be exposed to it (immigrants and natives alike), and it is best done when those people are close by, and explained why they are actually here, and not in their home country. Both libertarian base and immigrants could benefits from that.

        1. Flooding the country with poor immigrants is a non-optimal way to end the welfare state. Bankrupt countries don’t magically become libertarian. They tend to become dictatorships.

          As posted above, Latino immigrants are very pro-big government. Their children aren’t much better.

  19. Letting out-of-status foreigners stay is likely cheaper than deporting them.

    Immigration hysteria is not about saving the country money. It’s not about a single goddamned thing except keeping the precious gene pool as white as possible.

    1. Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,”

      http://factreal.wordpress.com/…..e-tougher/

      1. I didn’t say US immigration law wasn’t relatively liberal. I said immigration hysteria in the US is 100% about race. Immigration hysteria is also what is preventing any changes to current immigration policy.

      2. Racism probably does play a part in the immigration hysteria, but 100%, please. Back that up something other your own projections.

        1. Why do I leave words out of sentences so often? There should be a name for this disorder.

          Back that up WITH something other THAN your own projections.

        2. The fact that it’s hysterical, fact-averse, and focused entirely on one border and not the other.

          1. Tony, you disingenuous idiot, are there millions of poor Canadians flooding into the US, burdening schools and welfare systems, joining gangs, and driving drunk? No. So the fact that people are concerned with one border and not the other is entirely rational.

            And it’s not about race, it’s about culture. If Mexico and Honduras and Guatemala were filled with Aryans but nothing else was changed (still poor non-English speakers, etc.), the concern would be the same.

            1. But there aren’t millions of Mexicans doing that either.

              And any time one of you idiots says “culture,” you mean race.

    2. Wait there are still white people who don’t want to be bred out of existence? RACIST

  20. So….

    Unconstitutional executive authority = bad when we disagree with the issue? (Obamacare for example)

    Unconstitutional executive authority = good when we agree with the issue?

    Thanks Reason, got it now.

    1. I don’t think she offered much of a value judgment, just an explanation of how current law works.

      1. Emotionally charged language like “coward” speaks to a judgment, even if it wasn’t explicitly outlined. But, even leaving that aside, Reason leans heavily “pro open borders”, so my criticism still stands in that context.

        1. I don’t see how they couldn’t and maintain libertarian credibility.

          A free world will present circumstances you don’t like.

          1. My criticism isn’t about their open borders stance, it’s about the ridiculous executive power Obama has to do whatever he wants without Congress, and how this article seems to be supporting its use since they would agree with the outcome.

      2. Reason leans heavily “pro open borders”

        Reason’s stance would be more logical, at least, if that were the case. Reason only wants the US to have open boarders.

        1. What do you mean by this? That they only comment on the need for the US to have open borders or they have specifically defended the right of other nations to have sovereign borders?

          1. Open boarders is a universal philosophy. I am sick and tires of living in the US (not really) and I want to pack up and move to Japan. ‘Cause i can buy beer from vending machines there, or whatever. But those darned Japanese will not let me do that and become a citizen there.

            1. They want to keep vended beer for themselves.

        2. India is a fine example of open boarders, by the way. The civil war that separated India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh into separate countries was conducted for the purpose of separating Hindus from Muslims. It wasn’t about race, Tony.

  21. lol, those dali lamma folk crack me up man.

    http://www.AnonWays.tk

  22. Obama and the Democrats admit that the push to legalize illegal aliens is to gain electoral advantage and has nothing to do with how much and what kind of immigration is good for the US:


    Obama’s warning: ‘Right-size’ immigration expectations

    Quote:
    Adding to the elevated hopes about what Obama will do is the feeling among Democratic strategists that immigration reform is a clear political winner: … voters whom Obama might be able to activate, both among immigrant communities and progressives overall who see this issue as a touchstone, are exactly the ones that Democrats are hoping will be there to counter a midterm year in which the map and historical trends favor GOP turnout.

    In many competitive House districts and several of the Senate races that Democrats need to hold onto to have a chance of retaining the majority ? Colorado and Iowa, and to a lesser extent, North Carolina and Arkansas ? immigrant communities make up a significant bloc of votes. Done in a way that energizes Latinos and Asians, Obama’s taking the lead on immigration could prove a margin-making move for the midterms.

    Much of the discussions have focused on what can be sold to the American public and midterm voters, with the 2012 Dreamers model very much on the participants’ minds? Hispanic and Asian voters turned out in large numbers that fall.

  23. Good news! Illegal immigrants are providing us with employment opportunities!


    Collect more than $7,000 per month for ‘fostering’ adult illegal aliens

    The federal government is in dire need of U.S. citizens willing to house the thousands of illegal immigrants who enter the country each week, and they are willing to pay them to do so.
    ?
    Braiser mentioned that foster families will be paid $40 per day for each migrant they take in from Catholic Charities? Foster parents have the ability to collect more than $7,400 per month, considering that they can house six immigrants at any given time.

  24. Topics like this one are where I differ from other libertarians. You must have control over who comes into this country. There are bad people out there who wabt to kill you and me because of the freedom we believe in. I don’t want them to be able to walk in and shoot people.

    I also don’t want people to take my stuff. Believe me, if 30 or 40 of these “kids” comming across the border end up in your community, you will be paying for them. In schools with classrooms, teachers, special programs, translators; increases in crime and health care costs just for starters.

    If I were sure these people would not be criminals or terrorists, that they were not bringing diseases with them, that they were not going to be a large expense for communities across the country, maybe. But that assurance cannot be made in any believeable way.

  25. A favorite trick of Obama and Holder is to arrange some progressive group to sue them and then to settle out of court in such a way as to reverse what Congress intended. For example, they did this with the black farmers demand for reparations from the Department of Agriculture, and with environmental groups. I could see, in another example, immigration lawyers suing ICE because children are not furnished a lawyer at immigration hearings. Congress specified that the government was not to pay for such lawyers. But they might get a judge to accept a settlement to act otherwise. Is this constitutional?

    1. Since when did that question enter into the minds of our elected officials?

    2. Whether it is or is not, no one will have standing to challenge it.

  26. As for granting asylum, that is for those migrants who are already in the country and can’t go home–refuge is for those who are outside and want to get into the US because they fear persecution there. It is of interest that almost 30,000 have signed a petition to ask the President to ask Congress to grant Temporary Protected Status to Guatemalans in the US who fear returning. They feel they are entitled to the same status as Salvadorans and Hondurans in the US since the 1998 Hurricane Mitch and earthquakes. But the White House responded with a refusal, and told petitioners to seek relief from a comprehensive immigration bill. TPS, however, is not a path to citizenship, and must be renewed every 18 months (by DHS). The White House wants Democratic voters instead. But after the 1986 amnesty only 30% of Hispanics became citizens. Also, TPS would not apply to future migrants, so some would have to be deported. Thus the White House does not seek legislation, rather to stop deporting anybody and to issue work permits without eVerify and identity theft crackdowns.

  27. I fail to see how any part of this article indicts Obama as a coward. Most believe that Obama is going to use his executive powers to do something about immigration. We have yet to see which course of action he will take. Of course anything Obama does can be reversed by a future POTUS. Obama cannot make laws. Using “Coward” in this articles headline is disingenuous at best.

  28. Libertarians are the dumbest fucks in the world. California is a Socialist state precisely because of massive Hispanic immigration. Your ideology contains within it the seeds of its own destruction.

  29. The criteria of whether a group should be allowed to immigrate or not should be what their political beliefs are. If they lean pro-liberty and are likely to make the country freer let them in, if they lean statist and are likely to expand the power of government keep them out. This is consistent with the non-aggression principle.

  30. Just want to know how the illegals are covering the cost of raising a child – per USDA:

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/…..nance.html

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.