Immigration

Obama Vows Immigration Action: No More Broken Families

|

Obama
White House

President Obama vowed executive action on immigration in a televised speech from the White House on Thursday night.

He began by criticizing House Republicans for failing to vote on a comprehensive immigration reform bill—necessitating the actions he is about to take.

"Had the House of Representatives allowed that kind of a bill a simple yes-or-no vote, it would have passed with support from both parties, and today it would be the law," he said. "But for a year and a half now, Republican leaders in the House have refused to allow that simple vote."

In lieu of legislation, the president announced additional resources for the border and an extended program for guest workers.

Most significantly, the president vowed to cease deporting illegal immigrants who meet certain criteria.

"We will take steps to deal responsibly with the millions of undocumented immigrants who live within our country," he said. "If you've been in America for more than five years; if you have children who are American citizens or legal residents; if you register, pass a criminal background check, and you're willing to pay your fair share of taxes—you'll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily, without fear of deportation. You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law."

Obama stressed that the current policy constitutes de facto amnesty, since many immigrants evade deportation as it is.

"Tracking down and rounding up millions of people isn't realistic," he said. "Anyone who says otherwise isn't being straight with you."

He also expressed his preference for Congress to pass some sort of immigration law in the future.

Full text of Obama's speech is available here.

Reason's Peter Suderman has reviewed the president's plan and believes it holds merit, although skeptics are right to point out the dubious Constitutional rationale.

In my own view, any night the government decides to stop ruining people's lives for not obeying absurd laws is a good night for libertarians.

Advertisement

NEXT: The Justice Department's memorandum on deferring deportation of some categories of illegal aliens

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. if you register, pass a criminal background check, and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes… …and promise to vote a straight Democrat ticket…..

    1. So tell me, if ever these 5mm people become citizens, who do you think they’ll vote for? Republicans which stoned walled them ALL OF THE WAY?

      1. Yeah, you’ve got a point. There are those Black people who vote straight Democrat because Republicans fought affirmative action.

        1. Never mind Republicans freed them from slavery …and made state troopers of them after the civil war so they could legally exact their revenge.

          1. Never mind Republicans today are currently going out of their way to supress the black vote and make no effort to distance themselves from lunatic racists in their party. Trying to link today’s Republicans with Lincoln when the majority of them would consider Reagan a liberal today is laughable.

            1. Brain-dead Democrat talking points don’t impress anyone here.

              1. Brain-dead red-vs-blue politics dont impress much either

            2. I assume you’re referring to the request that people identify themselves in some sort of proper fashion before voting.

              Of course in your mind this is all about black people because THEY ARE INCAPABLE OF FOLLOWING SIMPLE RULES. I don’t know how else to interpret your statement. Which of course is just racist, pure and simple. But, your racism is fine, cuz you’re a prog.

    2. Learn The Simple Secret To Making Money From Home , Work From Home Safe And Easily
      ==== ==== ===== http://www.walletwiki.com

  2. I can’t help but wonder whether the main purpose for this action is to provide the republicans with a gun to shoot themselves in the proverbial foot with.

    Does he expect them to embarrass themselves by shutting down the government to unfund this action? Does he expect them to throw out anti-immigrant rhetoric in response to his executive action and thus poison their already limited relationship with immigrants and their families?

    1. I’m not sure he’s clever enough to scheme that far in advance.
      I’m also not sure the GOP would suffer for griping; it seems that this is not a particularly popular position.

      1. No, it’s a reasonable theory that, at least in part, he’s trolling Republicans.

    2. As Sevo implied, 3D chess is so far beyond this guy and his staff that it’s hilarious. They have shown themselves to be so tone-deaf, incompetent, and lacking even the slightest subtlety or sophisticated guile (they have plenty of the unsophisticated kind, though), that at this point it’s laughable to even speculate that he’s doing anything for other than the most egotistical and childish reasons. This guy couldn’t scheme his way out of a paper bag, let alone rope-a-dope the admittedly stupid GOP. Think about that: he’s so stupid he can’t outwit the Stupid Party. What a guy!

      1. He outwitted the GOP twice in national elections you moron.

        1. If he could only govern as well as he campaigns…

          1. It wants me to respond to it so badly. I love its desperation. It’s so delicious.

        2. And the GOP outwitted him back. Twice.

            1. You mean ISIS?

            2. Denial: the first stage of grief.

        3. No he didn’t. He tapped into a national psyche that wanted to prove itself to be beyond racism. Whether he was smart enough to plan it all, or whether he just stumbled into it, is still unknown as far as I can tell.

        4. He outwitted the GOP twice in national elections you moron.

          Does that make Dubya a genius or something?

        5. Yes, he secretly tricked the Republicans into putting up McCain and Romney. Yeah, that ‘s it.

        6. Surely you realize that by this standard, George W. Bush is brilliant also.

          1. “Surely you realize that by this standard, George W. Bush is brilliant also.”

            Tony is Principals over Principles. If he had Principles then yes logically your statement would hold. But Tony doesn’t use logic. It’s all emotive reaction. Egro, if it makes his Principal look good then it’s right, but if the same idea makes his Opponent look good then it’s wrong. And in true Orwellian fashion he can consider both those thoughts simultaneously True.

            Ref. Doublethink: “The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies ? all this is indispensably necessary.”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

        7. The only morons are the ones who think those elections, the last one at least, were honest.

      2. I think you are underestimating Obama. Yes, he’s tone-deaf and incompetent, but that doesn’t mean he can’t also be crafty in a Machiavellian/Alinskyite way. Just ask the 2008 Hillary campaign. Or the Romney campaign. This may be a desperation move, but I’ll bet there was a lot of calculation behind it.

    3. I’m guessing that this is going to backfire on him in spectacular fashion.

      1. I think there’s a very good chance the Supreme Court will slap him down.

        1. It would take years for a complaint to get to the SC. Ain’t happening.

          1. Youngstown steel case. Two months. If SC wants they can move fast. They won’t. But that’s because they love them some coolie labor.

            1. Employers don’t want this. I’ve talked to some of them who almost exclusively employ illegal immigrants.

              They want the status quo. Illegals stay here, remain illegal and under the radar.

              Everyone is happy. Why is Obama stirring up a bunch of shit? Because he’s a sociopathic malcontent. The guy is fucking nuts. He will destroy every democrat in the country without a 2nd thought.

              Anyone who thinks employers who employ these people want them all legal are either ignorant or plain old stupid.

              1. Yep.

                It’s just his revenge for being defeated by proxy in the last election.

              2. The ones looking long term do. So you dry up a pool of illegal labor for a few years, but in doing so you give impetus to about a billion others in the Global South to head north because America is handing out green cards. Even legal labor drives down wages by increasing supply of labor. It’s not like the only wage depressing aspect of illegals is that they work off the books. Bring 100 million coolies to the U.S. and you can drive down wages a whole lot.

                1. There aren’t that many unskilled labor jobs in the USA and a lot of them will soon be replaced with robots. No, I’m not joking and I’m also right.

                  You import hundreds of millions of unskilled laborers and you’d better get ready to take care of most of them. We don’t even have money now to take care of the poor already here, and government never ceases for hunger to grow itself even bigger. Something has to give.

                  1. There is a ton of unskilled labor in the US. Large portions of Hispanics can’t compete for it because of their tendency to cluster in border states and poor English. ICE has conviently disspersed thousands of illegal immigrant children all across the U.S. You are vastly underestimating the amount of unskilled jobs there is in America espeicially in the service industries. Even high school dropouts who at least speak English can break into most service jobs and drive 10 dollar and hout jobs to minimum wage with no benefits in a heart beat. And all this automation you are heralding only takes place in a tight labor market. The Romans would likely have invented primitive steam power industry except for the fact cheap labor meant it was impractical. Technology thrives on expressive labor driving the search for alternatives.

                    1. And all this automation you are heralding only takes place in a tight labor market. The Romans would likely have invented primitive steam power industry except for the fact cheap labor meant it was impractical. Technology thrives on expressive labor driving the search for alternatives.

                      I can’t see where we are disagreeing here. Left alone, the cheap easy labor available from illegal immigrants gives them the niche labor market I spoke about in an earlier post. Take that away and it all evaporates. Illegal immigrants then lose all of their advantage of being here. Most of them are uneducated and I don’t expect them to understand this, but it’s quite obvious for anyone with a lot of business experience in the USA.

                    2. ” And all this automation you are heralding only takes place in a tight labor market.”

                      I’m an automation engineer, and I can authoritatively say that you are wrong. Certainly a tight labor market, increases the speed at which processes are automated, but it’s not the only driving factor. Cost of Capital is just as important. And the current level of technology is an even bigger factor.

                      Automation (the big picture) is made up of millions of different machines and processes that have varying rates of return. Effectively, the varying rate of return translate to a certain wage, when taking all the variables into account. This is largely determined by current interest rates (cost of capital).

                      That being said, automation continuously gets cheaper, because it’s largely driven by the price of computers and sensors. Which means the effective automated wage continuously drops.

                      The classic textbook example of this is a bulldozer. For large scale projects a bulldozer can not be replaced by manpower. Even at a $0 wage rate (slave labor), the cost to feed & house the crews is higher than the cost to operate the bulldozer.

                      Within 5-10 years, assuming self driving vehicles keep improving, paid drivers will start disappearing. Indeed, it’s not common knowledge, but in the industrial world, some construction vehicles are already driverless.

                      http://machinedesign.com/site-…..s_fig2.jpg

                    1. Open borders is a 2 way door.

                    2. I’m for international cooperation on this issue.

                    3. No it’s not. I’d like to see you trying to live illegally in Mexico.

              3. “They want the status quo. Illegals stay here, remain illegal and under the radar.”
                —————-
                I was wondering why any illegal would go for this. Pay back taxes (and wasn’t there a fine?), submit to a background check, take an English test, and get some two-bit temporary document that says you can do what you’ve already been doing AND alerts the IRS to your existence.

                All I can guess is that the taxes and fines will be waived for those who can demonstrate that they’re so poor they qualify for welfare, the English test is essentially “Will you vote Democrat, Yes or Yes?” and the background check only weeds out murderers and admirers of Sharyl Attkisson.

                1. A lot of these migrant illegal workers believe that Obama is going to give them permanent resident status and that there is a path to citizenship.

                  They won’t be very excited about what he’s going to offer.

                  I don’t see what’s in this for Obama, or for anyone.

                  1. I don’t see what’s in this for Obama, or for anyone.

                    Attention…that’s what’s in it for Obama.

                    Once you grasp that every single action Obama takes and every word he utters is designed for one, and only one, purpose, his entire agenda becomes very clear. And his entire agenda is “Look at me”.

                    It’s the agenda of a stupid, petty man. But it’s his agenda nonetheless. He’s not some evil genius…he’s an affirmative action hire who’s only qualification for his job was that he sounded superficially good in front of a teleprompter. Once you get beyond that, he’s just a typical dickhead with NPD who’s not all that bright, who can’t think more than a step ahead, and who has no other goal than people paying attention to him.

                    Probably has something to do with his shitheel parents both abandoning him, but that’s for a psychologist to delve into…

              4. The illegals, here now, are getting uppity – try to hire one in the Home Depot parking lot for less than $10 an hour and see.
                A whole new batch, coming in expectation of their amnesty will be more compliant.
                The employers will get rid of the illegals the have, now, and take on the mew ones at a lower price.

    4. He wants to get them to at least get talking about impeaching him.

    5. Your absolutely right. The USA is still an open frontier land. And first thing in the morning I’m cutting off 160 acres to make myself a modest homestead.

    6. The alternative is he actually cares about Latino families. And, we know that isn’t true.

      You want something done that you care about, and you begin by taunting the group that can stop you.

      He’s trolling.

      But, a reasoned response from the House would make him look bad, and win them votes. I wouldn’t count on that though.

  3. It’ll be interesting to see how many immigrants come out of the shadows, so to speak, for the obligation of paying taxes. The odds them being deported are already very low.

    And I’m still wondering why, if this was so important to Obama and the Dems, they didn’t do anything when they held Congress and the executive for two years.

    1. Because this way he can blame the Republicans, and doesn’t have to worry about losing votes since he’s not running again.

    2. Obama is a patient and smart man. He moves his agenda forward step-by-step. He knows the opposition will only take one step back for every two steps he makes forward.

      1. widget|11.20.14 @ 8:58PM|#
        “Obama is […] smart man”

        Uh, cite missing.

        1. Obama is a devious man. Better.

          1. No, he is not devious. He is a mixed-market socialist who supports positive rights. He’s a globalist, not a localist. He’s made no pretense to be anything other.

            1. You’re an Alex Jones Looney Tunes.

              1. You pulled that one of your ass. I tell you Barack Obama is exactly who he say he is and call me a conspiracy theorist.

                1. Don’t think of PB as an intelligent person responding to your comment directly. Instead, you should consider PB to be an aggressive Pit Bull (PB) defending his master.

                  It’s completely irrelevant to the Pit Bull whether your comment is correct or not. All that matters is that it senses your tone is threatening, so it growls.

                  1. JW…totally disagree. Palin’s Buttplug is not a pit bull. A pit bull actually has some power and influence, albeit in a limited way. But, our little numbskull PB has got nothing going for him.

      2. If smart means sparking a battle the Republican base won’t let the party forget for at least a decade to come, then the man isn’t just “smart,” he’s brilliant.

    3. Can they qualify for EITC?

      1. Have to have a social security number for EITC.

        1. Presumably they can get a TIN. Not just for Jehovah’s Witnesses anymore.

        2. They’re getting SSNs.

          1. If true that implies that at some point, they’ll be able to claim Social Security. That includes Disability claims, since it’s part of SS, as well as, death claims from beneficiaries.

            I believe that the SS Trust administration’s current forecasts don’t include any future claims by current illegal immigrants. Since, it’s always predicated on the existing law and expectations going forward.

  4. In my own view, any night the government decides to stop ruining people’s lives for not obeying absurd laws is a good night for libertarians.

    Principals ahead of principles, just like the Democrats and Republicans.

    1. Well, that presumes that bad laws represent principles; I’m not convinced.

      1. Are Obama’s actions principled?

        The Imperial Presidency is bad except when POTUS does something you like is the attitude that libertarians attack the Republicans and Democrats for having all the time.

        1. Winston|11.20.14 @ 8:52PM|#
          “Are Obama’s actions principled?”

          Likely by accident, but yes in similarity to this example:
          Several years back, CA in the agency of the Highway Patrol, quit arresting people caught with minimal amounts of dope.
          They are the executive; they co-opted the power of the legislature.

          1. Likely by accident

            Doing something by accident is by definition not principled.

        2. I wouldn’t attack the Republicans or Democrats for refusing to enforce an immoral law.

          1. I wouldn’t attack the Republicans or Democrats for refusing to enforce an immoral law.

            Having a president who can unilaterally re-write immigration policy on the fly is just a bit disturbing, don’t you think?

            This is Banana Republic stuff, and it’s astonishing to see libertarians justifying it just because in this one instance we got what we want.

            That’s so short-sighted. I’ll have to look you up in five years when the next president is using this exact precedent to do all manner of vile things that you don’t happen to approve of.

            1. I think I can safely say that I will never criticize a president for refusing to enforce an immoral law.

              1. Well then you’re tremendously short-sighted and aren’t taking into consideration the devastating effects a lawless executive will have on our system of government.

                There is a reason the president takes an oath to insure the faithful execution of our laws – because anything else is extra-legal anarchy and rule by a single man.

                You should not accept that just because you got what you want tonight.

                1. Again:

                  Having a president who can unilaterally re-write slavery policy on the fly is just a bit disturbing, don’t you think?

                  This is Banana Republic stuff, and it’s astonishing to see libertarians justifying it just because in this one instance we got what we want.

                  That’s so short-sighted. I’ll have to look you up in five years when the next president is using this exact precedent to do all manner of vile things that you don’t happen to approve of.

                  1. Your continual use of the slavery argument is so nonsensical I shouldn’t even bother refuting it, but I’m going to anyway.

                    1. Many of the aspects of slavery policy were unconstitutional to begin with, i.e. the Fugitive Slave Act. The Fugitive Slave Act was an obvious violation of state’s rights (one of the earliest and worst, in fact) and was so bad that Wisconsin refused to enforce it. Like your argument about the drug war, I think you could rationally argue that refusing to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act on constitutional grounds would be reasonable.

                    2. On the other hand, you have no right under our laws to come to America. None. If Congress decided to outlaw all immigration, it is well within their power to do so.

                    Given that you have no right to immigrate to America, please explain to me where the power of the president to supersede immigration policy comes from. I’d appreciate if you did so without glib recourse to your ‘B-b-but SLAVERY!’ argument.

              2. I think I can safely say that I will never criticize a president for refusing to enforce an immoral law.

                Look bub, when I was getting voir-dired for my latest jury experience the judge asked if I would nullify a case because I thought the law was an ass — for instance, if someone was taking medical marijuana, which is still illegal. I said YES I would, and I was excused.

                I was CALLED for jury duty and I was found unfit because I wasn’t going to cooperate with the law. The president RUNS for his position knowing full well what his duties are, and they include executing the law whether he agrees with it or not.

            2. Surely, having set the precedent, they’ll warmly embrace all dictatorial behavior exhibited by a future Republican president. Looks like the only huge loser in this whole mess will be “we the people.”

          2. Well, I can only say I hope, for your sake, you continue to have people in authority whose view of what laws are moral and immoral coincide with your own.

          3. The Lac….it isn’t an immoral law.

            Jailing people for 99 years for smoking a joint is an immoral law. Taking children away from mothers because the Mom let their kids walk 3 blocks to school on their own is immoral. Saying people should go through proper channels in order to become a citizen is not immoral. You might disagree with it. It might be cumbersome. But, it isn’t immoral.

          4. If “you can’t legislate morality” then how do you get to label a law as immoral?
            Whatever the reasoning behind a law – and ones specifically entrusted to Congress, that is elected by the people, to protect our sovereignty, doesn’t seem to me to be immoral – it is the law. Arguing for ignoring a law, because in your opinion it is immoral is nothing but anarchy – something you libertarians get labeled, rightly, all the time and why you will never be anything but a fringe party.

    2. Yep. Who gives a fuck that Obama is engaging in a massive power grab and is basically arguing that the executive doesn’t have to obey laws? Reason writers got what they want tonight, so there’s no problem!

      1. basically arguing that the executive doesn’t have to obey laws

        This attitude can’t possible lead to anything going wrong and something that libertarians hate.

      2. Reason writers got what they want tonight, so there’s no problem!

        Reason writers seem to be all over the map on this action, with most (especially the more senior ones) against it.

        1. Is that true? I only saw two articles to directly address it this week, Suderman and Soave.

          Suderman’s opinion was mixed. He didn’t like the precedent but liked the results.

          Soave, just says, Yeah Results!

          IMO, the precedent overwhelms any good.

    3. If Obama suddenly decided to stop enforcing federal drug laws, would you say the same?

      Most laws are evil.

      1. If Obama suddenly decided to stop enforcing federal drug laws, would you say the same?

        Yes because my personal desire to see the Drug War ended does not justify destroying the balance of power and turning the president into a dictator.

        1. The drug war is unconstitutional, Presidents are under no obligation to implement unconstitutional laws.

          1. ^^ This is a valid point. I didn’t consider that.

            1. I’d also add that to the extent that unconstitutional laws are good for liberty I support them. I have concerns about this action for many of the reason stated but to the extent it helps individual liberty I happy with it and unhappy with the ways it hurts.

            2. As I understand it, the mechanism is supposed to be that the executive executes the laws in accordance with his understanding of the constitution (or lack thereof, in the specific case) and is supposed to act as a further check on unconstitutional legislation himself. If he pisses off Congress enough, they can impeach him, but that takes enough votes that the threat of him not executing the law is still substantial. Of course, the whole process backfires if no one actually gives a shit about the constitution.

          2. But of course, that has nothing to do with immigration. Immigration laws are VERY constitutional, so the president breaching those actually is a serious abuse of power.

          3. The president does not have the authority to interpret the law. That rests with the judiciary. Back to Separation of Powers 101 for you.

        2. Yes because my personal desire to see the Drug War ended does not justify destroying the balance of power and turning the president into a dictator.

          Because the hallmark of a dictator is refusing to enforce laws?

          We should respect presidents who enforced Prohibition? Slavery? Conscription?

          This is the first thing Obama has got right, even if for what are surely the wrong reasons.

          1. Because the hallmark of a dictator is refusing to enforce laws?

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

            1. Explain.

              1. Hitler ignored the German Constitution and the act itself by abolishing the Reichstrat and the Presidency and by not publishing laws in the gazette.

                1. That’s false. Hitler was granted plenary powers by the Reichstag through the Enabling Act, and the act was renewed twice. Hitler didn’t become the Fuhrer by ignoring parliament, he became Fuhrer through acts of parliament.

                  1. You missed the whole part where Hindenburg had been bypassing the Reichstag since 1930. Reichstag Fire decree?

                    And the point was that Hitler ignored the German constitution and violated the enabling act by abolishing the Reichsrat and the Reichpresidency.

          2. Because the hallmark of a dictator is refusing to enforce laws?

            The hallmark of a dictator is becoming the law unto yourself – which can, obviously, include refusing to enforce laws passed through legislative processes.

            1. I would say that this distinguishes the difference even between a constitutional monarch and a dictator. Queen Victoria and the other Enlightenment monarchs did not arbitrarily murder their civilians any more than a rationally-constructed republic. There are as many unspoken assumptions about a politically stable point as there are spoken laws, and when political stability is not concerned both the spoken and unspoken are overthrown.

              Political stability is the sine qua non which any person desiring an institutional source for governance should prize greatly (even to the point of sacrificing some items of political preference in order to preserve).

          3. Prohibition was a constitutional amendment; failing to enforce it would be unconstitutional.

            Slavery was not a law, it was a practice, supported largely by state and local governments and enforced by the masters themselves.

            The US would not have survived several times in its history without conscription, so STFU on that. It would not be a sensible policy in 2014, but that’s because the nature of war has changed and mere warm bodies aren’t as important.

            1. Prohibition was a constitutional amendment; failing to enforce it would be unconstitutional.

              The proper solution was to repeal it rather than have FDR declare that certain sections of the Constitution are null.

              1. “The US would not have survived several times in its history without war slavery, so STFU on that.”

                Wow, this on a libertarian forum.

                1. No one said that.
                  Comprehend much?

          4. A dictator often passes laws people like. He does that to get a groundswell of opinion in his favour. Even a dictator requires some popular support. Then, once he has grounded himself in power, he passes laws the people don’t like. But, by then it is too late.

            So, yes a dictator takes laws into his own hands, and this is true even if we like the outcome of that particular law.

      2. And drug laws tend to be unconstitutional.

        1. Only federal ones.
          Each state gets to decide for itself and, in all but a few, the same drugs the feds don’t like, the states don’t either.

      3. OK, I’ll pose my hypothetical again. Would you support non-enforcement of the drug laws for just whites? More liberty, right? Would you support it for whites at the expense of non-whites but still a net reduction in enforcement? Again, more net liberty.

        1. That’s a good question. Is Obama being selective here? Is he delaying deportations for Mexicans but not West Africans?

          1. That’s a good question.

            Which you didn’t answer.

            Is Obama being selective here?

            Is he allowing all illegal immigrants to stay or just those with no criminal record? Why are those laws relevant and immigration law not?

              1. You mean like drug possession? Surely no one would be denied a work permit for that.

        2. Addressing this alone:

          “Would you support it for whites at the expense of non-whites but still a net reduction in enforcement? Again, more net liberty.”

          Being ‘white’, I would yield financial advantage *if* that advantage were gained at the loss of liberty on the part of another, whether that other were ‘white’ or otherwise.

          1. Yes, you would yield advantage, but that wasn’t my question. My question is really what amount of liberty are you willing to sacrifice in order to still get a net increase. I brought race into it just for shock value. The same question applies if I say non-enforcement for everyone whose names don’t begin with the letter ‘z.’

        3. I prefer to look for Pareto improvements, especially since I think liberty is not a commensurable value. If an action increases the liberty of some without decreasing the liberty of others, then yes, I am for it. The only hiccup is if there is strong evidence that there is some ploy to later reduce someone’s liberty.

          1. I prefer not to have to make trade-offs too. That’s not the question asked. The question was would you be willing to trade an increase in freedom for X number of people in exchange for a decrease in freedom for Y number of people as long as X is greater than Y?

            1. Where is the decrease in freedom in your scenario? You said the state would stop arresting whites for drug offenses. Where’s the additional loss in freedom?

              I guess it depends on my personal valuation of the “freedoms” involved. I would never praise such a tradeoff, but if it is the only practical option for undoing a great injustice, then I begrudgingly support it. I think it’s wrong to push a fat man in front of an oncoming trolley, but I’d probably do it if it saved many more lives.

              But, going back to what I thought was your question, I wouldn’t oppose increasing freedom because it was done unfairly or unequally.

            2. Hell, we’ve been having this discussion recently with gay marriage. I support the government recognizing gay marriages and affording gay couples the same rights as other married couples, though I recognize that governments will expand non-discrimination laws to further constrict business owners’ liberty. I think that’s terrible, but that’s the world today.

    4. In my own view, any night the government decides to stop ruining people’s lives for not obeying absurd laws is a good night for libertarians.

      Principals ahead of principles, just like the Democrats and Republicans.

      I’m not sure you understand the difference between principles and principals.

  5. “You’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily, without fear of deportation”

    Well, that’s reassuring.

    Also = if you like your new country? You can keep it. *temporarily*

    1. “You’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily, without fear of deportation”

      OK, I missed that entirely. WIH does it mean? You get to stay ‘legally’ for a week and a half and then we hustle your butt back across the border?

      1. It means it is not real status just a reprieve. I don’t think this is going to get the democrats many votes.

        1. “It means it is not real status just a reprieve.”

          Unless that ambiguity is cleared up, I don’t thing it’s going to get more than one or two roofers to come forward and sign up. Right now,’temporary’ is just a risk they take, but they take it under the radar.
          Signing up means that ‘temporary’ is governed by somebody sneezing in congress.

          1. Yes. The more I thnk about this the more I think the republicans should just make it clear they would like to stop it but can’t without help from the Democrats and just let them own it. It isn’t going to get them many votes and the backlash is huge.

            1. The more I think about it, the more it becomes a worthless piece of grandstanding simply as a result of the un-defined “temporary”.
              Hey, doper! Tell us you have dope in your pocket and we won’t arrest you! Temporarily…
              But I have to admit enjoyment in the discussion here…

              1. The more I think about it, the more it becomes a worthless piece of grandstanding simply as a result of the un-defined “temporary”.

                BUT: by the end of his term, this potato will be HOT. What will the next administration and Congress do with it?

            2. If Obama does less than granting permanent residence to illegals, I wouldn’t do shit if I were Republicans. Why react to to a bluff?

              It’s a win/win for Republicans.

              If Obama basically does nothing beyond political grandstanding, they let it go and people will be pissed at Obama.

              If he does more, he’s going to be in deep shit eventually.

          2. I somehow doubt the ambiguity will be heard down in Latin America. Get ready for another surge of illegals.

            1. And that is the worst thing that can happen let there be a real refugee crisis and the country really will deport everyonen

              1. Probably Obo with them.

                Yeah, if the R’s were smart they would let Obumbles be hoisted by his own petard here.

          3. “Unless that ambiguity is cleared up”
            Don’t worry, they will Gruber it.

            1. This.

              It doesn’t matter what they say. Because they’ll lie about it. Then brag about lying about it, because voters are stupid. And then deny anyone caught on tape doing the above has anything to do with them.

              Hell, Nancy Pelosi actually had the unmitigated gall to deny that she knew Gruber. Even though she had been publicly quoting his name a few years before.

      2. It means nothing changed, except that we want ya’ll to pay some taxes. They can already stay. And many of them already pay taxes with fake SS numbers.

        1. You’ll get a Genuine Inscribed Membership Card in a handsome faux-leather safety pouch and a secret decoder ring.

        2. The tax argument that has been repeated ad nauseam is, for the most part, a non sequitur

          These folks aren’t paying taxes now and they’re not about to start either. That would hurt them financially. Where’s the incentive in that?

          Admittedly, they might not have a choice on SS and UI. But, that assumes their employers, who also would now be forced to pay such employment taxes along with Worker’s Comp on them, will continue to employ them at the higher cost. Or that, individuals who employ so called “gardeners” or nanny’s will suddenly have a change of heart and withhold, report and pay employment taxes.

          Besides, libertarians should be more familiar with our federal and state income tax laws. Virtually none of the new citizen/non-citizens will exceed the zero bracket amounts after allowable exclusions and deductions. Those are actually pretty high these days. Thus, no effective income taxes.

    2. Camel’s nose under the tent.
      It is much easier to go from temporary to permanent than straight there.
      The D’s(dishonorables) know that they have a compliant judiciary, that just loves to make temporaries permanent because – unfair.

  6. Who gives a shit whether this particular executive order is good or bad? It is now the express position of the chief executive that he need not obey laws passed by the legislature, and can essentially do whatever he wants. Not only are the separation of powers now essentially eliminated, but we are now being ruled by a single man who flatly admits he cares nothing for the legislature and, I imagine, the Supreme Court.

    We’re going to be ruled by this guy for two more years, and whoever follows him will use this as a precedent to further increase the power of the president. The rule of law is dead, we are living in a de facto dictatorship, but Reason got its amnesty so who really cares?

    1. This is easily the most disturbing part. It’s really no different than all of the other ends-justify-the-means expansions of the state.

      1. And it’s a very good reason for the Supreme Court to step in once again and say “No, Mr. President, you can’t do that.”

        1. And what if he ignores them? Democrats won’t help impeach him.

          I’m honestly wondering if he isn’t going to kick off a gargantuan Constitutional crisis. What if he just starts ignoring Supreme Court decisions? What’s to stop him? Since the Dems will never vote to impeach, 35-40% of the public are mindless Obamabots who will support him anyway, and the Republicans lack the stones to shut the government down again, Obama is no longer constrained by any law.

          1. How about Red State governors failing to follow federal code? That could get fun.

            1. Texas and Oklahoma threatening to sue, not sure on what grounds. I think court remedies would take so long as to be pointless, but outright disobedience pitting the AG against state governors could be hellacious fun.

          2. Interesting thought – Obama actually and openly defying the Supreme Court. I really don’t think there are many Congressional Dems that would die on that hill.

    2. The rule of law is dead

      Meh, it has been dead for a while. I would argue around the time of “secret interpretations” of secret laws. Or 9/11.

    3. I was against this naked power grab too, until Obama quoted Scripture. Scripture! And we all know that dictators never use religion to further their goals.

    4. ^this^

      A nation of laws or a nation of men?

  7. “In my own view, any night the government decides to stop ruining people’s lives for not obeying absurd laws is a good night for libertarians.”

    While I get this point in an abstract libertarian sense, it still doesn’t address the main problem: The complicated process of getting a citizenship and the fact people broke the law (committed a felony) to get in. You have to balance the reality of the situation with the laws of the land.

    Very interesting all this.

    1. Possession of many drugs is also a felony. Are you still going to tell me we have to balance the reality of the situation with the laws of the land?

      1. Yeah. I know.

        Good point.

        1. I think Matt Welch is expressing what I failed to express.

      2. The drug analogy fails in several ways.

        1) The cost to me if someone uses drugs or not is trivial or zero. OTOH, millions of poor immigrants cost me tax dollars, either directly or indirectly.

        2) While legal drugs would mean more liberty, the legality of them does not shift the political landscape the way this does. OTOH, amnesty (or whatever you call this) will lead to millions of more voters for statism. (Yes, I know this doesn’t mean they can vote immediately, but eventually, that’s the plan, of course.)

      3. As much as I want the Drug War over, not at the sacrifice of the whole govt. This kind of prosecutorial discretion doesn’t relieve anyone of liability under the law; it sets up an enforcement regime even more capricious – dependent on the whim of the executive and his minions. You are begging for as much corruption as you ever had under Prohibition.

        1. Yep. All those people who follow Obama’s requirements are still liable to be deported in two years (or whenever Obama changes his mind). And if they register and pay taxes it’s going to be much easier to find them.

    2. I agree with Laconic, wtf does it being a felony have to do with anything?

      1. Well, I just heard Gov. King of Iowa say that. He’s argument is they broke the law and committed a felony – technically.

        1. It’s a rare american who has never committed a felony with out absurd laws.

          1. I just recently broke the law carrying my shot gun without my gun license.

      2. You don’t think getting into the USA illegally matters?

        I know up here they take that shit seriously.

        1. I don’t give any shits at all. It’s not a real crime.

          1. Because the laws are dumb to begin with.

            That angle I totally understand and can get behind.

          2. Not a real crime? Interesting. If someone enters your house and makes themselves at home, you don’t consider that a real crime?

            1. I’d say there’s just a bit of difference between someone crossing an imaginary line as they drive down the road and busting down my front door.

              1. So if your door is open, and there’s just this imaginary line thingy, we can walk right in and help ourselves to some milk.

                Only we aren’t talking about something as cheap as milk. It’s public schooling, emergency room healthcare and use of roads, bridges and other infrastructure while being an unskilled laborer from rural Mexico who will never pay enough in taxes to account for the above.

                While triggering a chain migration of similarly poor and unskilled family members who tend to stay that way for generations and – now this is the important part – will vote for a party that promises to redistribute wealth from the productive to the poor.

                And some libertarians will rejoice because the price for erasing imaginary lines was only a permanent unshakeable majority for the statist Democrats.

                1. “So if your door is open, and there’s just this imaginary line thingy, we can walk right in and help ourselves to some milk. ”

                  No, no walking through his open door is obviously a crime.

                  But walking across the imaginary property line in front of his house and setting up an outdoor revival in his front lawn should be perfectly acceptable. After all it’s just a group of peaceful people wanting to engage in practicing their Freedom of Religion, right?

                2. Beginning to see the lunacy of much of the libertarian thought process?
                  Welcome.

              2. All trespassing is based on imaginary lines too. You want to get rid of those laws?

            2. Except America is not my property.

              1. ^^ It’s not Obama’s or any other governmental agency’s either.

                One might argue, it’s all of ours. You know, the “legal” citizens.

  8. The republicans should pass a bill that gives these people permanent status but approves keystone and prohibits the EPA from regulating CO2. He would of course veto it. But everyone would know that he considers billionaire greens more important than this.

    1. Obama doesn’t give a shit anymore.

      1. No he doesn’t. But the democrats do. The whole game for the top is make democrats own everything he does so that he dooms them in 16 the way Bush doomed them in 08. You can’t punish him but you can punish th democrats for supporting him.

        They should also just refuse to condirm any of his appointments. The public won’t care and it will drive him nuts.

        1. He’s playing a long game, though. Out past his own presidency.

          The only Democrats whose voices matter at this point are Hillary and her rivals for the Democratic nomination–and they’re not about to piss off the radical Democratic base whose support they need to win the nomination.

          Remember, he already promised to do the same thing on an international climate treaty come the Paris conference in 2015, as well–which I expect to be a lot more unpopular than effective amnesty.

          The Republicans may end up with ever stronger representation in both the House and the Senate–and control of the White House, too, in 2016.

          But America isn’t going to look anything like it did in 2008, that’s for sure. How are we going to get rid of ObamaCare, a climate treaty, Wall Street regulation, a huge Medicaid expansion, and all the rest of Obama’s shit, too?

          We could end up with the most radical Republican congress and president ever–and still not be able to undo half the damage Obama has done to our country.

          1. Ken Shultz|11.20.14 @ 9:15PM|#
            “He’s playing a long game, though. Out past his own presidency.”

            I used to think some of his mistakes were planned. I now think that he’s an idiot who is occasionally lucky.

            1. I’m saying, he thinks he’s making his mark on history. He wants to fundamentally change America forever.

              He isn’t worried about the Democrats next election cycle. He doesn’t give a damn. He still has no idea what he’s doing.

              …but he’s doing it for posterity now. He’s doing it for the ages. But he still has no idea what he’s doing.

              1. Got it.
                He’s stumbling but hoping someone in the future sees it as visionary rather than a collection of ad-hoc reactions.

                1. He can see the Obama Memorial they’re gonna build next to the reflecting pool already!

              2. I am saying that he is having less effect than he thinks. The only real effect he is having is maybe emboldening China and Putin to start a world war. A world war is his most likely legacy. He is playing the long game but is retarded so he is not playing it very well

              3. “he thinks he’s making his mark on history. He wants to fundamentally change America forever.”

                I work in local government and frequently interface with city, county and state pols. They pretty much all want to “make their mark”. Nothing gets them off like the possibility of getting their name on something shiny, silver and fast. Think HSR and “moonbeam express”.

                Sadly, it’s just human nature. The very nature our checks and balances in government were meant to hold in check.

            2. I used to think some of his mistakes were planned. I now think that he’s an idiot who is occasionally lucky to be black.

              1. Do us a favor and don’t tell anybody you’re a libertarian.

                1. Why?

                  BigT is not completely wrong. You are implying racism based solely on his assertion that Obama’s race played into his political rise.

                  Can you honestly say that being black at at time in our lives when it is “cool” to be so in the mainstream didn’t contribute to Obama’s ascension?

                  Look at all the non-black youth trying so hard to show their acceptance of what passes for black culture these days.

                  Or, have an open discussion with any of your black or guilt ridden liberal friends about why they voted for Obama and continue to support him, at least in words, despite his failures?

                  An honest discussion of race might be enlightening compared to the ostrich approach and assertions of a post racial society.

          2. The climate treaty is meaningless it has no force of law without enabling legislation which will never happen. The EPA regs on CO2 are dead the day the Dems lose the White House.

            As far as Obamacare it ended the possibility of ever having single payer. No congress is enacting something like that again. And it is such a disaster that the major provisions are going to be repealed it is just a question of how little is left of it

            Obama hasn’t accomplished anything except laying waste to the Democratic Party. And re shed this is not a agh to citizenship. It is nothing.

            1. I hope you’re right, John.

              But Obama announced he was going for a treaty in 2015 that doesn’t require Senate approval before the midterms.

              “President Obama is working to create a new international climate change accord that would get other nations to reduce their carbon emissions, but in a way that would not require the deal to be ratified by the Senate.”

              http://thehill.com/policy/ener…..ate-action

              He’s been planning to bypass the Senate since before the midterms. He’s been planning this all along. We’ve been talking for years about how Obama was going to take the gloves off in his second term–and this is what that looks like.

              He’s not afraid of ignoring Congress. It’s all Republican now–he feels free to defy them all he wants. If there were Democrats still there, he might hold back. But why would he hold back now? What’s Congress going to do–impeach him for trying to save the world from climate change?

              Impeach him for trying to keep families together?

              If he tells the relevant agencies to do whatever the treaty says by executive order, then what is Congress going to do to stop him?

              1. He could get other nations to do whatever. But no treaty has the force of law without enabling legislation. There are tons of treaties on the books that are dead letters because the congress never passed enabling legislation. We just don’t meet the obligations contained in them.

              2. If he tells the relevant agencies to do whatever the treaty says by executive order, then what is Congress going to do to stop him?

                Defund those agencies. GOD I hope he does it.

    2. John, making these people legal residents will fuck over most of them. Why? Because it will destroy their niche job market. A lot of them will find themselves out of a job, like a lot of unskilled workers today.

      1. Yeah. If you are legal you can sue and the laws apply to you. It doesn’t aplly to agricultural workers. No kidding. It is a sham. The republicans need to just shut up and not let Latinos get fooled into thinking it means anything

        1. Brit Hume actually cautioned about this a few nights ago. He said wait and look at the thing; it might be all sizzle and no steak.

    3. And repeals Obamacare!

    4. “The republicans should pass a bill that gives these people permanent status but approves keystone and prohibits the EPA from regulating CO2. He would of course veto it.”

      LOL, John, what an Epic Fail!

      What the Hell do you think Obama would do? I’m guessing, he’d make an a very Public show of Vetoing the Bill and then declare that he was of course going to give illegal immigrants permanent legal status, because that’s clearly what Congress wants.

  9. Have we crossed the Rubicon now?

    Does this mean President Paul can executively order the IRS to stop prosecuting people for not paying the income tax?

    … until Congress does what he tells them to or whatever.

    1. You bastard. 1 minute you beat me by

      1. We should think twice about reelecting another president ever again if this stands.

    2. I’d support that action.

      1. Sounds good until the next guy shows up and by executive order stops prosecuting cops for working their way down the gun registries and confiscating…

        I really didn’t want to live to see America turn into an empire. Next thing you know, they’ll appoint a horse to the Supreme Court.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitatus

        1. And I’d oppose that.

          1. Not the horse though, that would be awesome.

            1. We already saw something like that happen back when Junior nominated Harriet Miers.

              Notice, the Republicans rejected one of their own. That was how we knew, despite billing, that Bush hadn’t actually turned the country into an empire after all.

              If the Democrats had control of the Senate right now, I suspect Obama might be able to get a horse confirmed if he wanted to. He got Harry Reid to all but commit political suicide–why not get the Democrats to confirm a horse?

              1. Miers was a trojan horse to get Republicans excited about Alito.

              2. You think Reid won’t win reelection in 2016? A few tens of thousands of Mexican illegals voting in NV should take care of that.

                1. I think Reid might be replaced in the leadership, and I think he might step down “to spend more time with his family”.

                  http://atr.rollcall.com/nevada…..e-in-2016/

                  Losing the Senate is why leadership changes. Time for Harry to take it easy and start lobbying for the mining industry or something.

                  I understand there are some questions about his health, as well.

            2. It would be a surefire way to get a ‘neigh’ vote.

  10. “any night the government decides to stop ruining people’s lives for not obeying absurd laws is a good night for libertarians.”

    yeah, i missed the part where he suddenly declared amnesty on people who owed back-taxes.

    1. That is a non sequitur.

      We should be happy that, for ONCE, he is refraining ruining SOME people’s lives.

      1. No because the power this is creating is going to be used I very nasty ways by future presidents selectively enforcing laws.

        1. Better than the law does not exist in the first place, but if the law is immoral, then not enforcing it is moral.

          1. The only thing worse than an immoral law is a law that is selectively enforced. But hey the rule of law is no big deal. Not like it is all that stands between you and the government taking everything. You got your pony. Big daddy Obama is a benevolent ruler and father for the nation.

            1. The only thing worse than an immoral law is a law that is selectively enforced.

              Are we really talking about a law being selectively enforced? Is it being used against some people and not others?

              1. Yes. People will still be deportd. They just won’t be if the powers that be decide not to. There is no basis in statute for who stays. It is just whatever Obama decides it is

            2. Are you suggesting that one man having the power to impose his morality on the country is bad thing? Certainly not!

        2. the power this is creating is going to be used I very nasty ways by future presidents selectively enforcing laws.

          Another excellent argument for having as few laws as possible.

  11. So Reason has gone all Heinrich Bruning on us?

  12. Dems are constantly tightening the restrictions and regulations on those wishing to leave the country, whether permanently or just to work. So, You can check in anytime you want, but you can never leave?

    1. To give one example, if a state tried to secede, Democrats would absolutely applaud the president sending in the airforce and bombing people to death. Somehow I don’t think Obama would give a tear eyed speech about the kids separated from their parents by mortar shells and drone strikes.

      The entire condescending nonsense about progressives caring about people is such an obvious lie. They use them as pawns to get what they want and when you don’t do what they want they will kill or imprison you.

      That’s what makes this entire situation frightening. You’ve got people like Obama with no morals whatsoever who are now completely unfettered by the rule of law. Yeah, I’m sure that will end well.

      1. I used to laugh at movies and tv shows that talked about a future American Empire. We have never shown a stomach for true empire. I’m not laughing anymore.

        1. It’s sad and frightening. At this rate, in another generation or so we’ll be Venezuela.

  13. In lieu of legislation, the president announced additional resources for the border and an extended program for guest workers.

    …is this legal?

    That is to say, is this less illegal than the other dubiously legal thing authorized by Obama tonight? That is to say:

    “We will take steps to deal responsibly with the millions of undocumented immigrants who live within our country,” he said. “If you’ve been in America for more than five years; if you have children who are American citizens or legal residents; if you register, pass a criminal background check, and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes ? you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily, without fear of deportation. You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law.”

    And it would be nice to get something besides a “Hallelujah, thank you Jesus” from the libertarian corner on this one. Responses like these:

    Reason’s Peter Suderman has reviewed the president’s plan and believes it holds merit, although skeptics are right to point out the dubious Constitutional rationale.

    In my own view, any night the government decides to stop ruining people’s lives for not obeying absurd laws is a good night for libertarians.

    Don’t exactly inspire sympathy when libertarians squawk about the horrors of Not Passing A Declaration of War or of any other procedural issue they are wont to complain about.

    1. **Also, I wouldn’t mind knowing what is “absurd” about immigration law per se as a category, or its particular manifestation in this case. Not what is “unjust” or “non-optimal”, but absurd (that is to say, lacking complete sense).

      1. I don’t see how anyone could look at our current immigration laws and not think they are absurd.

        1. That chart they showed earlier was quite the visual indeed.

          When they speak of ‘comprehensive reform’ do they mean fixing those complicated laws that make getting citizenship so hard to get?

        2. I think our immigration laws are non-optimal. If I were designing immigration policy, I would open up the gates wider and try not to choke up the bureaucracy with stupid rules that add to application processing time. Yet, I grasp our immigration law’s purpose. Anyone who is aware of the history of our immigration law could grasp it as well, given that it is essentially a modified version of the Kennedy bill for such passed in the 60s.

          I don’t agree with this bill, but I understand it and also understand immigration law as a rational category of government policy.

          It’s sort of like calling our court system “absurd”. It is broken in some ways, unjust in others, and sub-optimal in still others. Yet, it is rationally constructed.

          1. I don’t agree with this bill,

            Which bill?

            1. The Kennedy bill from the 60s.

        3. And Obama’s executive action makes the absurdity even worse, because it often results in better treatment for people who have violated US laws than those who have tried to play by the rules.

          Equally absurd are the incentive structures set up by government programs, which even more absurdly are now extended further to illegal aliens.

    2. Yep. If you cheer an unconstitutional abuse of power today on an ends-justify-the-means basis, it’s hard to take you seriously when you screech about the unconstitutionality of an abuse of power tomorrow.

  14. Of course, he’s willing to use executive power for this.

    But rescheduling marijuana, which he can actually do unilaterally without a Constitutional issue? Nope. Can’t do that without Congress. Damn those obstructionist Republicans not allowing him to do that.

  15. “I have only one loyalty, and that’s to the immigrant community.” ? U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez.

    I’m such an old-fashioned type, I remember when members of Congress were loyal to the United States. But don’t worry, I’m assured that mass immigration from other cultures has no negative effects on the country at all.

    1. Can you assure me that freedom of speech has no negative effects on the country at all?

      Can you assure me that the right to bear arms has no negative effects on the country at all?

      I continue to be astounded by how many soi disant libertarians are so quick to abrogate freedom of association.

      1. The top men gave you what you want. They would never use that power I a bad way never.

        And there is no right to immigrate here you think there is but there isn’t.

        1. Look, I’m open to being convinced that I’m wrong. Honestly.

          But AGAIN.

          If Obama were refusing to prosecute the Drug War, would I be hearing the same from you?

          If Obama were refusing to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, would I be hearing the same from you?

          Would you be telling me “there is no right to take Ecstasy / smoke dope / escape from your master here you think there is but there isn’t”?

          1. Yes you would be hearing the same

          2. Obama’s not going to refuse to prosecute the drug war because Obama loves himself some big ass unlimited HUGE fucking government.

            So that is a moot point.

            Please tell me that you don’t believe that Obama is trying to do something here because he’s so concerned about poor immigrants from Honduras? If you can tell me that then I can take you more seriously.

          3. The WoD is not remotely Constitutional as it is currently constituted, not particularly in keeping with the vestigial portions of federalism we still have, and the Controlled Substances Act allows the executive branch the power to add or remove drugs from the various illegal drug Schedules. It is entirely within the President’s mandate to remove drugs from that schedule which should never have been there in the first place, and in keeping with the pardon power to pardon prisoners who were put there as a result of a prior law (see Jefferson’s pardon of those jailed on account of the Alien and Sedition Acts).

            The FSA (especially the second one) was extremely controversial at the time in terms of Constitutionality, and arguably its enforcement was one of the primary aggravators eroding the state-federal stability point. It would have been both wise and prudent for the President (esp a Southern President) to decline its enforcement.

            Immigration is a power granted to the government, has been a historical function of every government, and bills regulating such originate in the legislature. Not enforcing these laws upends an integral and unique duty of the federal government, one which other parts of our political system cannot pick up the slack for. It is different; your ideology is making you stubborn.

          4. You’d be hearing all that from me. Anyone who swears to faithfully execute the laws of the country should do so. No one is obligated to run for president.

          5. I don’t see Obama ending enforcement of restrictive immigration laws: if you’re a legal immigrant or visitor from Europe or Asia, DHS will continue to make your life miserable and have you jump through hoops. H1b visas are still restricted, green cards are still restricted, companies still have trouble hiring from abroad. So, Obama isn’t actually fixing what’s wrong with immigration law from a libertarian perspective.

            What Obama’s executive action is doing is making a narrow special interest happy in hopes of gaining some more votes for Democrats. It’s political corruption and pandering at its worst.

            1. What the hell did that smirking Mark Zuckerberg get out of this?

              1. Nothing, unfortunately. Much as I dislike Zuckerberg, the US as a whole is better off with more immigration, in particular skilled immigration.

                The problem with Obama’s actions is that he rewards illegal behavior, selects for low-skilled workers, and makes them eligible for government benefits.

            2. As was stated by an immigration lawyer, last night, when Oblamo’s DACA was put into effect, resources previously allocated to the legal immigration system were diverted to the “dreamers” making the legal process, even slower.
              Under statism, something so many, here, are in love with, today, “fairness” is always in a vacuum, with no chance it could result in an unfairness to others.

      2. Can you assure me that your immigrants will respect all of those existing rights?

        I’m more astounded by how many azure libertarians are willing to ignore the laws as long as they get what they want. Surely that could never lead to anything they would hate…

        1. Can you assure me that no gun owner will commit a crime?

          Jesus, man.

          1. Hardly the same comparison. The revealed preference of the majority of this group is to vote for more government. The government already takes nearly half of my income and they support the party that would take even more AND has voted in just the last year to restrict those rights you listed above.

            Jesus, indeed.

    2. I guess the natives in his district can go fuck themselves.

      No rule of law and a nation of tribalism. That ought to work out well for Libertarians.

    3. My Representative, Raul Grijalva, is one of those types as well.

      That said, there were Reps in the 20s/late 1800s who said essentially the same thing about immigrant communities and socialism, respectively.

      1. Yeah, but I thought we got over that crap.

    4. Gutierrez is Puerto Rican. PR has been US territory for over 100 years.

  16. Doing nothing is nearly always acceptable. Ignoring the law to Do Nothing is similarly, nearly always acceptable. The problem is ignoring the law to Do Something. The purpose of law is to restrain the government, not force it to move.

  17. Seems to me this is just more carrot and stick routine Dems have been playing with Hispanic voters for the last decade. It makes meaningful immigration reform less likely, while laying the groundwork for future power grabs.

    Someone explain the upside, here.

    1. Good insight, Kevin

    2. The upside is that this hot potato will be tossed at whoever succeeds Obama and the 114th Congress, and there’s a darn good chance those people will chicken out and extend his offer indefinitely.

  18. Obama is a fucking moron. All this time the left has been proclaiming him a genius is just hilarious.

    The guy has never been clever about anything or done anything right. His signature health care law is a disaster.

    What he is doing now is nothing but being petulant and childish. I’ve never expected anything different from him.

    Who is this action benefiting? No one. What is the political advantage? There is none. Well, there will be for the GOP. There is not one single benefit for this for anyone. But Obama gets to act like a baby and throw his shitty diapers around. What a fucking loser.

    1. I think you are right. This action is nothing but giving pretend status to people that were not going to be deported anyway. But it makes Obama and the Democrats look like assholes The people on the right who think this is some kind of long game to turn the U.S. into Cuba are as dumb as the leftist who think Obama is a genius you are right this is just a temper fit

      1. I think the leftists have given up on the long game, for now. They thought their time had come, but it slipped through their fingers so easily and now they are in complete disarray. I mean, don’t get me wrong, they’re still going to be around for a long time to make people more miserable with what power they have. But I think it will be a long time, if ever, before they ever get as much power as they had in Obama’s first term, in this country.

        Right now it seems that they are in a civil war over whether to just go bat shit lefty crazy, or settle down and swing back to the center. I think that the bat shit left crazy faction has the upper hand and that is sure to really fuck them up even worse for a while.

        1. Who represents the center in this scenario? Hillary?

          “Bat shit left crazies” like Kucinich don’t have all that much power, but despite their glaring issues they at least have principles and will work with libertarians on issues like the drug war.

          1. I’m beginning to think libertarians would be fine with living in a gulag, if they could only get themselves some drugs.

  19. You Guys know that the Roman Empire and Hitler came to power once the Executive had neutered the legislature. And the people who did the neutering thought they were justified too.

    1. In Nazi Germany, parliament neutered itself: it voted to hand over absolute power to Hitler “for the good of the country”.

      1. The Reichstag had already been neutered through “presidential governments”.

        1. That’s just not true. Both Hitler and the parliamentarians voting for him (most of them) considered the vote important and meaningful. You can read their speeches and records of their deliberations.

          1. You’re an idiot. Hindenburg has already neutered the Reichstag since 1930 by ruling by decree. Once Hitler came to power he was able to use this power to intimidate the opposition into getting the Enabling Act passed.

            You never heard of the Reichstag Fire Decree?

            Or the Preu?enschlag? When Hitler came to power this event gave him control of the Prussian police.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preu?enschlag

            1. early February, the Nazis “unleashed a campaign of violence and terror that dwarfed anything seen so far.” Storm troopers began attacking trade union and Communist Party (KPD) offices and the homes of left-wingers.[1] In the second half of February, the violence was extended to the Social Democrats, with gangs of brownshirts breaking up Social Democrat meetings and beating up their speakers and audiences. Issues of Social Democratic newspapers were banned.[2] Twenty newspapers of the Centre Party, a party of Catholic Germans, were banned in mid-February for criticizing the new government. Government officials known to be Centre Party supporters were dismissed from their offices, and stormtroopers violently attacked party meetings in Westphalia

        2. By the way, the “it didn’t matter” meme is a common excuse used by the groups who voted for Hitler, foremost the Catholic Center Party. But if you read the records, it is pretty clear that they voted for Hitler because they liked his social conservatism, because they thought they got a good deal out of it, and they didn’t give a f*ck about anybody else. And after WWII, these opportunistic and selfish jerks had the gall to blame everything on atheism and portray themselves as victims.

  20. I think he just trolled the republicans. It seems this has moved away from an executive order to a “presidential memo”. I am unclear of the real difference, but it sounds a lot like the “historic climate agreement” with the Chinese, where we agree to keep doing exactly the same things we were going to do anyway. And exactly what are you supposed to “register” for if yer a good immigrant for five years and want to come out of the shadows?

      1. Thanks for the clarification. Wasn’t it a presidential memo that lead the the Fed’s leaving the medical marijuana industry alone in states it was legalized? That worked well. If we are still going to deport as many illegal immigrants as congress has budgeted for, what has changed but a silly temporary system to get illegal immigrants to out themselves?
        And still the “register” language I find curious.

        1. And now I see why I was unclear about the difference.

    1. If he does nothing but say that he will let ‘some illegal immigrants’ stay, then he effectively did nothing. Most of them can already stay.

      If he grants them permanent residence ahead of legal immigrants and a path to citizenship, then he’ s pissing into the wind and will fuck over the democrats in unprecedented fashion.

      1. I like John’s temporary “pretend status” above.

      2. Perhaps in the short term, but if they get voting rights, illegals will most certainly be a boon to Democrats.

        That said, I’m not sure how the executive branch can do that.

        1. Perhaps in the short term, but if they get voting rights, illegals will most certainly be a boon to Democrats.

          Why? Most legal immigrants I know here vote Republican.

          1. I mean, what is in it for them voting Democrat? Higher taxes? War on women?

            1. More welfare benefits, duh.

    2. I’m betting sss has it here.
      Obo has no real ability to accomplish what he claims beyond pretty much what is happening now.
      How is he to arrange for the bureaucracy to allow this “registration”? It has to be funded and there’s no chance for that.
      And who is going to sign up for “temporary” residency?
      More and more; it’s political grandstanding without any actual result.

  21. The Democrat political PR machine that is our current executive administration plays the hispanic/immigration race card. Why not? It worked in the past.

    The law of diminishing returns.

  22. “In my own view, any night the government decides to stop ruining people’s lives for not obeying absurd laws is a good night for libertarians.”
    I think the government they ran from probably had more to do with “ruining” their lives. That and their personal decisions. Run from tyranny! It’s the Libertarian Way!

  23. I think it’s pretty clear that Obama did this so TEAM RED can’t deport him SINCE HE’S KENYAN.

    *adjusts tinfoil hat, goes back to eating Banquet pot pie and watching “America Unearthed*

    1. Hear hear!

      And he is using chemtrails to control our minds!

  24. He should just go ALL THE WAY with amnesty and just offer these 5mm people a GREEN CARD. They are the parents of US Citizens anyway.

    You can count on OBAMA to FUCK EVERYTHING UP. This 1/2 ass move does NOTHING for these people other than makes them pay taxes until some republican asshole goes to the registry (a convenient place to find the illegals) and harass them.

    As a Liberal, I’m pretty disappointed. It’s the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” of immigration reform.

    1. You really don’t think that will piss off legal immigrants? I can tell you for a fact that it will piss them off a lot. It doesn’t take a genius to figure that out.

      1. I would had hoped that he would just give the H1Bs Greencards as well.

        As far as legal citizens, these are generally people that come from Europe Asia and other countries in which most White Americans don’t want out of here.
        The republicans just don’t like the Mexicans.

        1. It’s the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” of immigration reform

          Quite right since it is temporary. The Hispanics are being played, but it’s all Obama’s got. He is an ass for not sitting down with the elephumps and coming to some compromise. He is dividing the country not uniting it. Many R’s would support partial steps, but will now get their backs up since they are being walked over. He is starting a fight that will harm everyone involved. He’s so stupid.

        2. You’re completely full of shit. There are a hell of a lot of legal immigrants here from India, South Korea, and all of Latin American. I know a lot of them, and work with a lot of them, and none of them want illegal immigrants granted amnesty.

          I also know Republicans who are married to Mexicans and other Hispanics, including myself (I’m Libertarian, not Repulican), you dumb fuck.

          1. Impossible. Only Democrats are open-minded enough to marry someone from a different race.

            1. Right, including the newly elected Republican governor of MD who is married to a Korean.

              1. And Clarence Thomas
                And Mitch McConnell

                (yes, crusty, i know you were kidding)

              2. Asians don’t count.

              3. C’mon, you know Asians don’t count.

          2. I am a technology Manager with many people reporting to me in a Major NY Bank.

            I know these people from India and China.

            Like many Americans they come in two favors: 1. that is OK with this action and 2. the assholes that want to slam the door of opportunity on people that are not as fortunate as them.

            The entry process is RIGGED. Only the elite and highly educated get to come to the US from India. No poor Indian gets the opportunity to get an education in India in order to get a Job in India in order to get a Visa from the Embassy.

            1. “Only the elite and highly educated get to come to the US from India.”

              Uh, I take it you’ve never stopped at a 7-eleven for a Big Gulp. Have you? 🙂

        3. As far as legal citizens, these are generally people that come from Europe Asia and other countries in which most White Americans don’t want out of here.
          The republicans just don’t like the Mexicans.

          Today, CNN found that 38% of Americans approve of Obama’s actions, 48% disapprove, and 14% are not sure.

          Based on those numbers, I’m going to go out on a limb and say the people who oppose this aren’t all Republicans. Every poll finds that more people oppose amnesty than favor it.

          In fact, the people who are most against amnesty are the poorest people – who actually tend to vote Democrat.

          The argument that this is about racism is disproven by all evidence regarding who favors and who opposes immigration reform.

          1. Just stop it already, Irish. Everything is about racism. Oh wait, some things are about war on women. I almost forgot.

            1. Well, this is a rape culture issue because trafficking…something, something… illegals.

              I don’t know why you like rape culture so much.

    2. That is a good analogy. This doesn’t accomplish shit. everyone who gets this status is a pen stroke away from being deported.

      And this doesn’t bind immigration judges. They still apply the law So a future president wouldn’t even have to descend it to get rid of it. He could just quietly have ice start reporting people and there would b nothing anyone could do.

      1. Obama is the most ineffective useless piece of SHIT of a President I’ve ever seen. Every single thing he does is SHIT !!!

        1. Other than that, what do you think of him?

        2. Three exclamation marks . . . I take it you voted for him twice then?

          1. Would vote again!

            /Mitch Connor

            1. For your information, I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012. And, if Mitt Romney runs in 2016, I’ll vote for him.

  25. This directly impacts one issue I’ve always had with libertarians, which prevents me from self-identifying as one.

    Like other radicals, libertarians tend to think of law and governance as something of a tabula rasa for their purposes — one which can and should be modified at will based purely on preference and/or rationality. Most non-radicals, in contrast, have a vague notion that upsetting the apple cart is bad for everyone, even if they can’t articulate why. Libertarians don’t think about this very much because it is treated essentially as a given, and has been for so long in the US. It is, however, foundational to their viewpoint even operating at all. Whether one is libertarian or an-cap, there must be a stable political framework to enact a particular preference in order to speak of constructing a libertarian morality or a libertarian state; the degree to which a libertarian order can be realized directly relates to the degree of political stability which can actualize this morality in the real world. Put another way:

    Political stability is always a good (though not always the highest good), and must exist prior to any particular political order. Always.

    Compromising this stability compromises any potential or actual libertarian policy, unless one can realistically create a new point of political stability (a process which generally involves violence, either actual or threatened).

    1. You know, man, you been around here long enough, that it’s silly to think all libertarians are like leftist lemmings, blindly following some rigid ideology. We’re very individualistic. Sure, we agree on some core principles, but the debate is always ongoing.

      I for one am damn proud to identify as libertarian. For me, more than anything it means that I am an independent thinker, albeit one who always tries to side, within reason, on the side of liberty.

      1. We’re very individualistic.

        Yeah? Really? Well, speak for yourSELF, Hyperion.

        1. Shut up Almanian! Hyperion speaks for all of us, every last one, even you. We have all been assimilated into the Individualum.

          1. I knew it was only a matter of time before the Canadian Borg attacked. It was inevitable.

      2. You know, man, you been around here long enough, that it’s silly to think all libertarians are like leftist lemmings, blindly following some rigid ideology.

        I would never call libertarians blind, but they are characterized by rigorous, dogmatic ideology. It is what it is, and there are advantages and flaws to this approach.

        I like libertarians a lot and enjoy their approach to things, but I’m not going to lie about the flaws of this approach.

        To the degree that a specific libertarian doesn’t have this approach inform his views he’s drawing from sources other than libertarianism IMO; just as a Muslim who drinks is not acting in a manner comporting to his beliefs or a Marxist declines violent revolution in opposition to Marx, any libertarian may of course decide that he is not libertarian on a given issue.

        1. I would never call libertarians blind, but they are characterized by rigorous, dogmatic ideology.

          Oh, don’t I know it. If “freedom of movement” means a bunch of anti-libertarians move to a free-ish place and make it less free, you have to be dogmatic idealist to think that was some sort of net gain for liberty. But there are many like that around here. You can recognize them easily: they’re the ones who respond to reasoned arguments with vituperative name-calling.

    2. [Cont]

      In the US, political stability derives from the tripartite system of executive, judiciary, and legislature. Even small children know this. It used to also derive from the interplay between states and federal government.

      The latter point of political stability was essentially destroyed by the Civil War — a war which involved incredible amounts of violence, and which would require extraordinary violence to undo. Libertarians sometimes recognize this.

      The former point is still in place, even if the equilibria is not always stable. This use of EOs directly impacts this point of stability.

      Call it a Chesterton Fence, call it a Schelling point — it is a point at which people can rally around and agree to abide by, and removing this gives incredible power to whoever currently has power and is willing to use it. The Bolsheviks used this to great effect in the Russian Revolution; ditto the Jacobins in the National Convention.

      Knocking the political system off this point of stability for a philosophical trifle or whim is extremely dangerous, which is why only idiots and radicals need to be explicitly told such things.

      1. Very well-put. Without stability, any liberty one claims to have is a mere phantasm.

  26. “In my own view, any night the government decides to stop ruining people’s lives for not obeying absurd laws is a good night for libertarians.”

    Meh, there is no liberty without rule of law. A benign dictator (and that’s a hypothetical, Obama sure as shit isn’t benign at anything) is still a dictator and that is offensive to liberty.

  27. I asked my favorite employee tonight what he thought about this issue (He is from Argentina). He asserted that it wasn’t right, and said that he and his wife had to pay quite a bit of money to immigrate here.

    I wonder at the idea that the Latino community fully supports this move and that Obama is accruing good will toward the Democrat Party.

    1. Maybe don’t ask the Argentinian in order to gauge the pulse of Hispanics in general. Just about every Hispanic family in the US has an illegal immigrant close relative. The fact a few light skinned Argentinians are pissed doesn’t say much.

      1. There’s a lot packed into your statement, Sam.

        1. Don’t get me wrong I am entirely sympathetic to what he says. He is getting screwed big time and should be bitter as hell( in a constructive way). But this is about tribes and his tribe isn’t very indicative of the far more numerous tribes grouped on under the non-sensical Hispanic banner.

      2. Fuck Argentinians. They will not stop believing that they’re the Italians of South America, and I hate Italians.

        1. Beautiful county. One of the worse governments in South America, only Venezuela has them beat I think.

          Why do you hate Italians? Do you have any idea how good women of Italian ancestry can cook?

          1. Of which italian ancestry? The north’s cuisine is undoubtedly bland and German. The south’s OTOH, is excellent. But I, as well as them, would hardly consider themselves “Italians.” And as far as world cups go: USA USA USA

            1. My wife’s grandmother was from Sicily. All of the women in the family are fantastic cooks, it’s been handed down by generation. Not sure how that’s combined with them being in Northeastern Brazil now.

          2. Amazing to consider that Argentina was once one of the richest countries in the world. That’s what Peronism will do for you.

        2. Except of course the Italians have won more World Cups.

    2. I work with a fellow that has been going through the immigration process for the last 16 years. A long expensive process for him and our employer. He went to the state capital last week to get his fingerprints done. (What he seems to think is the last step) Tomorrow every other illegal immigrant in our community now has an equal status? Wow if it were me I would feel like a pure a$$.

      1. A perfect example of the misinformation being spread around about Obama’s action. You’re friend is being given legal status. The subjects of the executive action are not, it’s just a promise not to deport for a while.

  28. So who are all these losers commenting in this thread?

      1. LOL! Jack Frapp is jsut not gonna like that one bit!

        http://www.notanon.de/rp/thanksNSA.what

      2. I know it’s you, Rish. You can’t fool me with your LeBron lovin handle.

        1. Ahhhh…Yes! You caught me! I am Rish! Now, pay me money.

          I need $7568 per week from working a few minutes a day on my computer from home.

          1. Lol my social is 555-55-5555, I trust you.

        2. …your LeBron lovin handle.

          Why does everything have to be about athletics?

          Paladin Kits

          Cavalier
          This class represents the most common picture of the knight: the gentleman warrior who epitomizes honor, courage, and loyalty. He is specialized in battling ‘classical’ evil monsters such as demons and dragons.

          Advantages:

          Bonus +3 to hit and +3 damage against all demonic and draconic creatures.
          May cast Remove Fear 1 time per day per level.
          Immune to fear and morale failure.
          Immune to poison.
          20% resistance to fire.
          20% resistance to acid.
          Disadvantages:

          May not use missile weapons.

            1. Filthy Roundheads, with their short hair and tame music.

    1. My guess is that this is in there so that, if Republicans cut off funding, they can be accused of not wanting to secure our border.

    2. Like having an arrest per day for seven years is a big deal…you libertarians…

    3. This is an excellent point. That is definitely the worst immediate part about all of this: it sounds like he’s directing even more resources to the fucking Border Patrol.

  29. So will Reason stop criticizing John Roberts and Gruber? They weren’t going to let Republican obstructionists take healthcare aware from people.

    1. Catch up. At least half the Reason staff is opposed to repealing Obamacare. It’s called controlled opposition. Reasonoid libertarians only really fight when the Republicans are in the crosshairs. Otherwise, it’s a couple of barks and then role over and let the NYT touch your belly.

      1. My understanding is they’re opposed to repeal for strategic reasons, not because they favor Obamacare, and I agree with them on that. There are some parts of the bill that are popular (such as outlawing denying policies based on preexisting conditions). You have to take it apart piece by piece.

  30. This isn’t a case of prosecutorial or enforcement discretion, or managing enforcement resources. This is a case of a rogue executive usurping the legislative authority to repeal a law.

    Remember that Obama has also gone to court to prevent states from enforcing the laws, on the basis that enforcing immigration is a federal responsibility. Drug law enforcement is not an apt analogy at all.

    1. California Prop 187 was struck down by a federal court long before Obama entered the stage. CA wasn’t attempting to enforce federal immigration laws or make up their own laws. Prop 187 attempted to restrict or deny public benefits to non-citizens. No way, Jose, said the court.

      1. Huh? He’s taking about Arizona’s immigration laws.

      2. Huh? He’s taking about Arizona’s immigration laws.

  31. So Robby Soave is now Jar-Jar Binks?

  32. In my own view, any night the government decides to stop ruining people’s lives for not obeying absurd laws is a good night for libertarians.

    What laws are absurd? Citizenship laws? Borders? Without borders and citizenship, you don’t even have a damn country.

    1. Just the way Reason likes it. No borders, no cops, no standards, no punishment until someone inconveniences them. Then the riot squad better suit and ram some truncheons into skulls.

    2. Government should do nothing. Except those things that involve shooting people and relocating them.

      1. My body, my choice.*

        *Except on April 15th

  33. “Obama stressed that the current policy constitutes de facto amnesty.”

    bull.shit

    1. And it is obvious to any illegal currently here that Obo’s ‘sign up’ policy is bait to get tossed after the “temporary” status runs out.
      Like late next week…

  34. Why don’t we set up a system like the one used for college admissions. Specify a number of openings and jet people apply. Accept the ones that are the best candidate citizens – money, job, education, marriage, US family, health, etc – as factors. Why just take first come first serve?

    1. I think we used to do that before Ted Kennedy saw the way things were going and cooked up a new immigration law in order to change the electorate.

  35. So absurd are those laws that you can’t even argue against them!

    The incredulous stare is not an argumentation technique.

  36. Still think this should be a state issue. The constitution gives fedgov the power to regulate naturalization, becoming an actual citizen. Immigration without becoming a citizen, just a registered, resident worker, could be handled by the states. Just like there are sanctuary cities, there would be, in effect, sanctuary states.

    1. But then every state has to accept people naturalized in one state, due to freedom of movement within the US.

      1. They would have to accept them moving through their state, sure. But residents of Nevada aren’t entitled to any benefits from the state of California. If I live in PA but close to the MD border, I still have to use PA benefits, education system, follow its laws, get separate occupational licenses in some instances. MD can choose to or not to recognize a sort of reciprocal agreement. It’s not unworkable. PA wouldn’t have to provide education benes to a resident alien “registered” in Md.

        1. It’s not unworkable, but it would require dismantling 200 years of precedent for freedom of movement and freedom to take up residency in the state of one’s choice. I think you’d lose more than you gain.

  37. Now history shows us that you generally translate most of Obama’s speeches to truth with the careful use of ‘not’ and ‘un-‘ but “If you’ve been in America for more than five years; if you have children who are American citizens or legal residents; if you register, pass a criminal background check, and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes?you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily, without fear of deportation. You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law.” has me a bit stumped. Anyone care to translate?

    1. Wiggum: I mailed these bogus prize certificates to every scofflaw in
      Springfield. When they show up for their free motor boats we arrest
      them and beat them to the full extent of the law.
      Eddie: So the hook is baited.
      Lou: Nice metaphor Eddie!
      Wiggum: Yeah, good work, Eddie!

      Homer: Up and away in my beautiful my beautiful motor boat! Da da da da!
      Bart: But we didn’t enter any police raffle.
      Homer: That doesn’t matter, the important thing is we won.
      [parks]
      Marge: I don’t know, there’s something very peculiar about
      this!
      Homer: Sheesh! You’re the most paranoid family I’ve ever been
      affiliated with. [gets out]

      Homer: I’d like a yellow boat please, with extra motors.
      Snake: Yo! No cuts bro! Where’s my motor boat pig?
      Wiggum: Right through that door [he laughs. Snake enters we hear screams.]
      Wiggum: Alright, Simpson, Homer. Your’e next.
      Homer: Wohoo! [goes through] Howdy gents. I’m hear to collect my free…
      [they get him] Oh, oh, my boating arm. What’s going on?
      Wiggum: Your’e under arrest slimebag, what’s this punk in here for Lou?
      Lou: 235 unpaid parking tickets, totalling $175.
      Wiggum: I hope you brought your’e check book, wiseguy.
      Homer: [gets it out his back pocket.] You lousy cops. Lucky for you I’m
      double parked. [gives him check] Now, can I please have my motor boat?

    2. If you’ve been in the country for more than five years, have children who are citizens or legal residents, if you register and pass a criminal background check, are paying your taxes, you are free of fear of deportation until the next president.

      Sorry if the paraphrase was quite similar to the original. Both were written in clear English.

      1. What is “your fair share” of taxes?

        Because Obama is really big on people paying EVERY LAST CENT of “their fair share.”

      2. “until the next president.”

        Gee, asshole, why didn’t Obo say that? Are you designated as Obo’s mouthpiece, or did you just make that up?
        Well, shucks, why is that nut surprising?

  38. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Br?ning

    The Reichstag rejected Br?ning’s measures within a month. President Hindenburg, already bent on reducing the influence of the Reichstag, saw this event as the “failure of parliament”, and with Br?ning’s consent he called new elections. These elections cost the parties of the grand coalition their majority and brought gains to both the Communists and the National Socialists. This left Br?ning without any hope of regaining a majority in parliament and forced him to base his administration on the presidential emergency decree (Notverordnung) of Article 48 of the Constitution, circumventing parliament and the informal toleration of this practice by the parties. Br?ning coined the term “authoritative democracy” to describe this form of government, based on the cooperation of the president and parliament.

    Worked out well.

    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P…..government

      the “Grand Coalition” government of the Social Democrats and the German People’s Party [collapsed] over whether the unemployment insurance rate should be raised by a half percentage point or a full percentage point.

      the budget was defeated in July 1930, Br?ning arranged for Hindenburg to sign the budget into law by invoking Article 48. When the Reichstag voted to repeal the budget, Br?ning had Hindenburg dissolve the Reichstag, just two years into its mandate, and reapprove the budget through the Article 48 mechanism.

      Doesn’t look very relevant.

    2. Posted this on a dead thread, but it is apropos here:

      Democracies become very dangerous places to live in when people at large simply assume that the full force of state apparatus will be used without restraint against them once the other side gets into power. Right now, outside of dipshits like Tony and his counterparts on the right (as well as some over-cynical libertarians), this is not truly the case. Unfortunately, this type of EO and abandonment of the legislature (among other things) are exactly what confirm that this country is moving towards that model of venemous democracy — and once it gets there, Katie bar the door. As many of the Latin American republics have learned, there really isn’t a good way to get your democracy back after this outside of either severe punishment of anyone in politics who does this, or a dictator who gets the whole country to unify against him (thus providing a basis for temperance when the dictator leaves).

      1. Sad but true.

      2. People subject to the laws of a government are owed the right to vote for the composition of that government.

        1. I have no idea how this would apply to what I wrote, but there you go.

        2. And if 51% vote for the government to be composed of people who want to fuck over the 49%, so be it.

        3. “People subject to the laws of a government are owed the right to vote for the composition of that government”

          Lay off the juice before you post.

  39. I don’t understand why open borders is a libertarian philosophy. Can someone explain?

    1. Freedom of movement

      1. For me, freedom of movement makes sense within a country, but it doesn’t comfortably translate to loose immigration laws. The “community of nations” is too much of a barnyard.

      2. Then why have borders at all? Why have citizenship at all? Why have a Constitution at all?

        1. Those too shall pass

      3. The_Millenial|11.20.14 @ 11:05PM|#
        “Freedom of movement”

        OK, but free markets and free trade. If libert’ns support free trade, WIH would you restrict the freedom of selling your labor where you wished?

        1. I’m in favor of a less restrictive immigration system, so what’s your point?

    2. The short answer is “freedom of movement.” The problem is that such a position ignores culture, language, the existence of a bankrupt welfare state, and the wish of the Democratic Party to “elect a new people” in order to entrench and extend statism by importing millions of poor and uneducated pro-statists.

      1. I’m with you on that. For instance. What if every Muslim on earth right now, there are a couple billion of them, decided to move to the USA right now and establish Shariah law by sheer force of numbers. How many people posting here right now would be happy with that?

        1. An unrealistic situation. In any case, we’re not really arguing between completely open borders/an unrestrictive immigration system or no immigration at all. Rather, it is a matter of degree. I, myself, favor immigration laws that are less restrictive than those we currently have in place. I take it you would like more restrictions or a reduction in immigration.

          1. An unrealistic situation.

            Is it? Over about a century of unrestricted immigration between the US and Puerto Rico, and the Puerto Rican population residing in the US is much greater than that living in the US despite having very little Puerto Rican presence or prior migration before 1898. ~1/4 of all ethnic Mexicans live in the US, even with restrictions on Mexican immgration. Granted, the Middle East is just a scotch further away than Puerto Rico — but even only 1/100th of the worldwide Muslim population moving to the US would mean over 16 million people with above-average reproduction rates residing in the US. Based on evidence from refugee situations, the likelihood is that more than 1/100th of the world Muslim population would like a ticket to the US.

            This fear is, of course, why the EU is not savvy on allowing Turkey membership in the EU.

          2. It doesn’t matter if it’s not “realistic.” It’s a thought experiment, one I’ve used before. And in a variation of an old joke, if you agree that that scenario is a bad idea, then you are one of us evil “immigration restrictionists” and we’re just haggling over the price.

          3. I take it you would like more restrictions or a reduction in immigration.

            If you bought stock in a corporation, would you allow the corporation to give away stock in its treasury to anyone who wanted it for free?

            1. Free? They would pay taxes and contribute to the economy.

        2. I’m with you on that. For instance. What if every Muslim on earth right now, there are a couple billion of them, decided to move to the USA right now and establish Shariah law by sheer force of numbers. How many people posting here right now would be happy with that?

          That would be a real quick way of revealing the complete ridiculousness of democracy and arbitrary government power.

    3. I don’t believe that it’s a core libertarian philosophy. I think that freedom of travel and association is closer to a core libertarian philosophy.

    4. There are several ways for people to argue for libertarianism, and I’d say all of them have some argument for freedom of movement, freedom of contract and freedom of association. So I’d say all strains of libertarianism would keep the state from setting caps on immigration. That doesn’t mean immigration can’t be regulated, but the state needs a compelling reason to stop someone.

    5. It gets snuck in as freedom of movement, but that’s as invalid as sneaking in a pacifist foreign policy as an implication of the NAP.

      Libertarianism only works when there’s an overarching authority to enforce the NAP. That doesn’t exist across borders, so libertarianism ends at the border.

  40. This is a frightening move by Obama that, true to Obama’s form, is probably the worst solution available. This action sets a horrible precedent, and the actual policy likely delays real reform and may put some immigrants in an even more precarious position years from now.

    That said, I am overjoyed for those immigrants who take advantage of this reprieve, as they are temporarily safer from being imprisoned and removed from their new life. Though still a little concerned of what will happen to them now that the feds will be processing them as lawbreakers…

  41. Most of you probably know this already, but there isn’t any real epidemic of deportation, and Obama did not deport a record number of people. The deportation figures are inflated because it includes people fresh caught on the borders and individuals forced to return home after their work visas expired.

    So Obama ordered a 3 year protection on maybe…. 2,3 million people from a deadly threat that didn’t exist.

    “Now people can rise from the shadows and work in ethnic zones earning less than minimum wage or off the books, which they have not been doing before!” Hilarious.

    Meanwhile in CA (the state with the most illegals, as far as I can tell), UC tuition is going up, crackdowns on wage theft is mounting, and hospitals that supposedly accepted ACA patients were overstated.

    The way I see it, Obama gave the GOP some future ammunition, since I have ZERO faith in the government to successfully filter out the criminals from the innocent. How many unsavory characters will qualify deportation protection because they pled down to lesser charges or falsified information?It’s not rare for illegals to have left loans and other obligations from their motherlands.

    A grand announcement that doesn’t accomplish anything.

  42. Not to go all Godwin on this (and by the way I know from personal experience that Mike Godwin is pretty much a statist fool), but all this really seems like spring in Berlin, 1945. The F?hrer is spending most of his time in his bunker, giving orders to phantom armies. His closest advisors are either too deluded or too frightened to tell him the truth. The official media keeps reporting victories, but those seem to keep happening closer and closer to Berlin. The government is so out of touch with reality that they are ordering advanced jet bombers that might work and be ready in, oh, six months, with luck. But they’ve been retreating for three years, they’re being bombed day and night, Patton has crossed the Rhine, and the Russians are advancing from the East. There’s a stink of desperation in the air, a lot of pointless flailing in the name of “action,” and a sense that if the F?hrer is going to go down, he’s going to take everybody with him.

    1. I suppose we can at least be glad Obama is nowhere near as competent as Hitler.

      1. Nobody thought Hitler was competent before he took over though..

  43. What is all this nonsense about? Did somebody give a speech?

    1. Pl?ya Manhattan.|11.20.14 @ 11:25PM|#
      “What is all this nonsense about? Did somebody give a speech?”

      Yes, someone did and I doubt it had any effect at all.
      Political grandstanding, claiming to have accomplished something and in fact doing nothing.

    2. Basically, the government just admitted that, no, really, it can’t control the border, without being huge asses. So, we might as well make due.

      Don’t worry though: they have everything else under control. Just keep voting, people.

  44. Well, I just read some detail on what this ‘executive order’ does. It sounds to me like the president just ‘decreed’ a law. I didn’t think that was legal, but if he actually does what it sounds like, then we no longer have a divided government.

    1. But that’s okay because amnesty is more important than the rule of law and also one time slavery happened, so there.

      Incidentally, we need to invent a new logical fallacy for this website – the argumentum ad servitus, argument from slavery. Basically, every time someone makes a political argument, someone on this website will inexplicably say ‘well okay, but how would your argument work from the perspective of slavery?’

      If this were 1862 there might be a point to that argument, but since it’s not 1862 I have a difficult time figuring out how this is anything other than a non-sequitor.

      1. Unless Obama is a GOP secret operative, there is no win here, for anyone.

      2. This This This.

        For supposedly having a young and educated readership, this website and its writers seem to rely on stuff college freshmen are taught are invalid points of debate. Certainly in theme with the rest of their “ends justify the means” short sightedness.

        1. Educated people are just as likely to fall prey to sophistry and logical fallacies as uneducated people. More likely, in fact, as they are less likely to admit they don’t understand something.

      3. Incidentally, we need to invent a new logical fallacy for this website – the argumentum ad servitus, argument from slavery. Basically, every time someone makes a political argument, someone on this website will inexplicably say ‘well okay, but how would your argument work from the perspective of slavery?’

        This is pretty bizarre argument to make from a libertarian since libertarians have plenty of problems with what the US Government is doing right now. Not to mention it creates a false choice between either the status quo or slavery. Or that it could be used to justify anything the government is doing right now!

        1. Not to mention it creates a false choice between either the status quo or slavery.
          Lest you think that is an exaggeration:

          https://reason.com/blog/2014/11…..nt_4913349

          And while we’ve gotten rid of the worst stain on liberty in our history, we’ve got the FDA and the Fed now so we are no longer the champ?

  45. and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes

    “Paying your fair share of taxes” translates into “get your government check for the EITC”, plus other government benefits.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2012/…..mmigrants/

  46. So quite a few libertarians sound like those Germans who thought Hindenburg ruling by decree was a good idea since it would keep Hitler out of power. Of course once Hitler got to power he used those powers of ruling by decree to make himself dictator. Oops.

    1. You keep repeating the same bullshit. No, Hitler “did not make himself dictator” “by decree”. A majority in German parliament voted to give him dictatorial powers. In fact, all parties other than the socialists and communists voted for the Enabling Act.

      1. You never heard of the Reichstag fire Decree?
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree

      2. No, Hitler “did not make himself dictator” “by decree”.

        I didn’t say that. I said that “used those powers of ruling by decree” to make himself dictator. Which he clearly did by the Reichstag Fire Decree and the intimidation of the opposition.

        1. You realize the opposition was mostly Communists, right?

          Not sure if there’s an equivalent of Godwin’s Law for mitigating the badness of the Nazis, but it’s not like if it hadn’t been for Hitler there would have been a peaceful liberty-loving Germany in the 1930s. The consequences for world history would have possibly been far more severe if Germany and the USSR had had a lasting alliance in the 40s.

          1. You realize the opposition was mostly Communists, right?

            He also intimidated the Centre Party and the Social Democrats.

            it’s not like if it hadn’t been for Hitler there would have been a peaceful liberty-loving Germany in the 1930s

            Wow, you really killed that strawman. If I ever said such a thing could you please point it out?

  47. The President lost me when he started talking about what is “fair.” I abhor that term in regards to anything other than parrenting. Our system is about equality of opportunity not equality of outcome.

    And to be clear that equality of opportunity should only extend to citizens. I’m pretty sure that there is a yack farmer in Africa that would love a new start in America. I don’t see the masses lining up to ship him and click-pop the yack over here.

  48. The country is lost! We are all going to die!

  49. What the Republicans should do at this point is pass substantive immigration reform of their own–and dare Obama to veto it.

    I’m not saying that’s all they should do from a moral perspective, and I’m not saying that’s all they should do from a constitutional perspective; I’m not saying what the American people should do about this evil president and the dangerous precedent he’s setting either.

    …but from a purely strategic perspective, what the Republicans in Congress should do now is pass substantive immigration reform of their own–piecemeal if necessary–and dare Barack Obama to veto it.

    It’s one thing to assert executive orders in the face of congressional inaction, but quite another to assert executive orders despite congressional action after a veto.

    1. That’s what the President explicitly told them to do. It will be interesting, since there is potential if the repubs get their act together for senate dems or the president tone guilty of obstructionism and bipartisan bickering. The very things they have blamed the ‘phants of.

      On a side note, I don’t understand how such an “important issue” wasn’t pushed through when it was all team blue. They lost the initiative and seem upset that the other side didn’t roll over.

  50. my friend’s mother makes $64 /hr on the internet . She has been out of work for ten months but last month her income was $18244 just working on the internet for a few hours. go to website….

    ?????? http://www.payinsider.com

    1. The math in these things is never even close to reasonable. That’s 7 40-hour weeks worth of work in a month. Not the same thing as “a few hours”.

      I guess what I’m saying is, to fall for an obvious scam, you have to be stupid.

      I’m not sure I contributed much to humanity by writing this comment.

  51. “In my own view, any night the government decides to stop ruining people’s lives for not obeying absurd laws is a good night for libertarians.”

    Even if it results in an electorate that is likely to be even more hostile to libertarian policies than the current one?

    1. By the end of this thread, I hope it’s clear to everyone that Robbie doesn’t speak for us, Hit & Run, Reason.com, The Reason Foundation, Libertarians everywhere, or libertarians anywhere.

  52. *”Tracking down and rounding up millions of people isn’t realistic,” he said. “Anyone who says otherwise isn’t being straight with you.”*

    Nonsense. The Germans did that very thing using 1930s technology in the middle of a damned world war.

    Americans truly are the laziest people on Earth.

  53. The king announced the biggest intrusion into people’s lives by allowing millions of illegals to collect billions in welfare payments legally extracted from taxpayers who must now hand over their money to those here illegally who will not be sent back to their countries. They came to the US because it is a beacon of liberty compared to the countries they came from, where the rule of law is unknown and they brought their heritage with them since the first thing they did upon entering the country was to put their own desires above the law. Just because you disagree with a law doesn’t give you the right to ignore it. But that is what Obama has done in the manor of other tyrants who think they are above the laws they swore to uphold, without reservation.

  54. From a person that can spell Libertarian to Soave that obviously can’t, or maybe has toked way to much on his pot-ty: You need to get out of the spend others money/steal others property gutter. Just who do you think are going to pay for your freedom to be an idiot. Hint: you and me.

  55. By breaking his promise to have a bill in his first year, he gets to blame the republican House? What a schmuck! We must deal with millions of people who are competing for work, and using benefits paid for by workers. No one trusts Obama. He has lied too often about too much. I have complete disregard for Obama voters and supporters.

  56. Wouldn’t it be nice if Obama cared as much about the victims his military rapes!
    http://theusmarinesrape.com/FaceBook.html

  57. That’s not a lie. That’s denial. And, it’s worked for a long, long time.

    I’ve had to accept that, it works because, most people are stupid. More so than our legislators. 🙁

  58. No more broken families….
    So, does that mean if an Illegal Alien Dad (or Mom) commits a violent felony we’re going to give him (or her) a pass so as to not break up the family?
    This route leads to insanity, and a lot of other broken homes as the violence cascades through society.

  59. my neighbor’s aunt makes $75 /hour on the laptop . She has been laid off for 7 months but last month her pay check was $18092 just working on the laptop for a few hours. read the article………. http://www.payflame.com

  60. my neighbor’s aunt makes $75 /hour on the laptop . She has been laid off for 7 months but last month her pay check was $18092 just working on the laptop for a few hours. read the article………. http://www.payflame.com

  61. I saw a report that 57% of “illegals” are on welfare. Why doesn’t the President say to the five million (and how is he and the bureaucratic apparatus going to decide who they are) that you can stay but you can’t get any state welfare benefits. Of course, all welfare should be ended for any able-bodied people. But that’s not going to happen in our increasingly socialist nation.

  62. While I very much respect REASON’s editorial policy, I was shocked by the position taken on Obama’s decision to take unilateral executive action. You have caused me to think about this; but, the full fabric of his administration causes me to think that he too much acts as a Chicago-based community organizer rather than as a President.

  63. Learn The Simple Secret To Making Money From Home , Work From Home Safe And Easily
    ==== ==== ===== http://www.walletwiki.com

  64. I started with my online business I earn $58 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out.

    ??????? http://www.payflame.com

  65. Who said anything about breaking up families, they all get to go back to wherever they came from, together.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.