SC's DAPA Cop Out Guarantees a Racially Polarized Election

Both parties have played partisan politics with immigration for 10 years


The Supreme Court's failure last week to issue a ruling may have killed President Obama's DAPA order for now. But that doesn't mean that the issue will go away. Both parties will

Immigration Rally
Boss Tweed Foter

use the fate of the 11 million undocumented aliens in the country to incite raw passion against the other just as they've been doing for well over a decade now. If they hadn't, the matter wouldn't have reached the Supreme Court in the first place, I note in The Week:

Immigration has been a festering wound in this country for decades, and certainly long before President George W. Bush's comprehensive reform effort crashed and burned in 2006. Given the fate of that bill, President Obama should have seized the first auspicious moment to get immigration reform done, given that virtually everyone agrees that America's immigration system is badly broken. This should have been soon after he got elected in 2008. At that time, he enjoyed considerable goodwill with the American public, Democrats controlled both house of Congress, and there was lingering buy-in from Republicans who had supported the Bush effort.

But Obama blew it.

Even if Donald Trump weren't the GOP's presumptive nominee, the SC's cop out would have turned this election into the ugliest game of identity politics in living memory. With him leading the charge, the country is in for a "rough ride."

Go here to read the whole thing.

NEXT: McConnell Won't Say Whether Donald Trump is Qualified To Be President, Spain Elections Lead to Second Hung Parliament in Six Months, Chile Beats Argentina: A.M. Links

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Tall Fences
    Wide Gates

    Ship’m all home. The kids can choose to stay here and work in my factory or go with their parents.

  2. “Both parties will use the fate of the 11 million undocumented aliens in the country to incite raw passion against the other just as they’ve been doing for well over a decade now.”

    I suspect both parties will shut up about it.

    Trump won’t want to talk about it much. He’s playing for centrist swing voters now.

    And Hillary needs swing voters in rust belt states to win. Hyping the problems of immigrants isn’t about to help her there. In fact, immigration and open borders don’t appear to be any more popular in middle America than they are in England.

    Whether that should be the case is one question; whether that is the case is another question entirely.

  3. “A pox on both their houses”? No, Shikha, a pox on you, for not having the nerve to admit what is obvious: the Democrat are right on immigration and the Republicans are wrong.

    1. It’s just obvious, no actual argument required. And you misspelled your name.

    2. The question isn’t “who is right on immigration”.

      The question is “who has authority to write laws on immigration.”

  4. This slobbering after an imperial presidency with autocratic powers, because on this issue its the only way to get what we want, is truly nauseating. Worse, even, than slobbering after a judiciary with autocratic powers, etc.

  5. And let’s face it, as well. Immigration was going to polarize this election regardless. Having Obama amnesty millions of illegals in the face of Congressional and popular opposition was certainly quite polarizing, thank you.

  6. Cop out?

    The SCOTUS decision left the injunction in place, which said that the DAPA cannot go into effect until after a trial which which determine it’s constitutionality.

    Otherwise, all these millions of people would have been given work permits, and then be expected to turn them back in after the court rules that the president can’t make new law.

    THAT would have been disruption.

  7. Because then Obama would have argued to SCOTUS, “You can’t take away these people’s work permits, think of all the disruption!” Lifting the injunction would have almost guaranteed that the EO was never overturned, despite it’s unconstitutionality.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.