Immigration

The Supreme Court's DAPA Decision Means More Ethnic Warfare on Immigration

Both parties have prefered to play identity politics rather than fix the problem

|

If immigration wasn't already the most important wedge issue in the 2016 election, the Supreme Court's 4-4 ruling on President Obama's Deferred Action for Parents of

SC Justice Dolls
pixbymaia via Scandinavia

Americans (DAPA) executive order just solidified immigration's status as the nation's most divisive issue. The one-sentence "decision" will turn this election into a fierce war of identity politics with Hillary Clinton's Latino base pitched against Donald Trump's white male supporters. Even though Clinton's policies will lead to more open immigration policies, which is a good thing, her modus operandi of rallying an ethnic constituency will be damaging for the country.

President Obama claimed that the ruling—which said only that the justices had failed to reach a decision and therefore the lower court's ruling blocking his action was "affirmed"—was not a "value judgment." That may be true. Nevertheless, it was still a body blow to DAPA, a core element of his legacy. As the name suggests, the order would have deferred deportations—not offered permanent legal status, mind you—to some four million primarily Latino undocumented foreigners who have American children and families but no criminal record. They would have also obtained work permits that would have allowed them to come out of the shadows and work without fear of deportation.

Although the ruling didn't say which justice had come out on which side, it is safe to assume that the justices split along ideological lines. Oral arguments showed that all the liberal justices were convinced that the president had the statutory and constitutional authority for the order. So the only two potential swing votes were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy. Ironically, both of them voted in favor of the administration in King v. Burwell, which challenged the legality of Obamacare handing federal subsidies to states that had refused to establish insurance exchanges. But the two justices went against Obama on this one.

Justices' judicial philosophy may be shaped by their deeper ideology, but no doubt, all the justices acted in accordance with their best legal judgment in this case. That, however, is not how DAPA supporters and opponents are likely to see it given the cynical partisan games their elected leaders have been playing on immigration reform, starting with the president himself.

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. He used all his political capital to foist ObamaCare on a deeply skeptical country (in the middle of an economic meltdown) and a unanimously opposed Republican Party. Nor did his political gamesmanship stop in the second term: Many advised him that if he was contemplating executive action, he should do it immediately after the collapse of the Gang of Eight bill in 2013. But that would have taken the issue off the table before the midterm elections, and he preferred to use it as a hammer to beat up Republicans. That strategy, however, backfired big time, because Latino voters, disgusted by the lack of action, stayed home and Republicans not only made gains in the House, but also took control of the Senate.

This meant that the president either had to give up on action altogether, which would have incensed his base, or proffer it with a weakened hand and without enough time to abide by all the procedural niceties such as an adequate notice and comment period as required under the Administrative Procedures Act. This was the core of the legal challenge against DAPA and what ultimately doomed it.

Republicans, of course, have played their own games. The Senate passed the bipartisan Gang of Eight bill 68-32, which included 14 Republicans, with a path to permanent legal status for undocumented immigrants. However, the Rush Limbaugh anti-amnesty caucus in the House refused to allow then-Speaker John Boehner to even schedule an up-or-down vote—precisely because the bill would have likely passed. In other words, the same minority that torpedoed President Bush's bill torpedoed this one as well.

A Supreme Court ruling where one of the justices crossed the aisle was the last hope to break the logjam after Justice Antonin Scalia's death. Since that didn't happen, the issue will now be settled by the next president. Hillary Clinton has pledged not just to keep but expand DAPA. But Donald Trump, whose plans to round up 11 million illegal immigrants and eject them in an Operation Wetback-style gambit have made him wildly popular with the white working class, obviously has no use for it. If Clinton gets elected, the issue will almost certainly reach the Supreme Court once again. Securing the right to appoint Justice Scalia's replacement just assumed even more importance—to both sides.

Both candidates will use the issue to mobilize their base—Hillary Clinton will target Latinos, because they are most affected by DAPA, and Donald Trump the white working class, because they are the most incensed about it. This election will degenerate into a full-blown game of identity politics—or what in pre-modern parlance used to be called tribal warfare. This is precisely what America with its fancy Constitution and grant of individual—not group—rights was supposed to avoid.

Neither side will give a whit about the rule of law enforced by neutral judges. This is a profoundly unfortunate outcome for American democracy and both parties are to blame for it.

A pox on both their houses.

A version of this article originlly appeared in The Week.

Advertisement

NEXT: Cleveland Takes Out $50 Million "Protest Insurance" Policy For RNC

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. Leaders say membership has gone up at the twilight of President Barack Obama’s second term in office, though few would provide numbers.

      So, scaremongering, speculation, and bullshit. But it must be really happening, because TRUMP!

      I can’t wait to see what levels of retardation are reached as we approach November.

      1. After the retardation already I think we’ve reached the point of diminishing returns.

        1. There’s no such thing as peak retard. Just wait.

          1. It’s logarithmic. The retardation grows quickly at first but the rate slows no matter how much derp they add.

            Seriously, it’s difficult to see how much more retard you can get out of a system with a blithering, narcissistic chucklehead on one side and a treasonous, habitually lying cuntwitch on the other.

            1. It’s like when matter and anti-matter meet – the resulting tard energy released will be YUUUUUGE!

                1. So what you are saying is that we should strap a Trumpalo and a progtard back to back and throw them against reality.

                  1. That could destroy the universe.

                  2. To complicated. Just put the two in giant hamster wheels facing one another. JUST far enough away that they can’t effectively scream at each other. Each runs forward trying to get close enough to fight, which turns the turbines.

      2. The Klu Klux Klan probably has fewer members at the moment than Raelians

        if they ceased to exist, they’d need to be reinvented simply to provide the media an archetypal boogeyman. We live in a white-supremacist society, you see; if we didn’t have LARPing Nazis in California, and Robe-Wearing Christian Crusaders in Alabama, that statement might almost seem ridiculous.

        1. The Klu Klux Klan probably has fewer members at the moment than Raelians.

          But the KKK has way more FBI infiltrators.

          1. I like the idea of confidential FBI informants investigating and trying to bait one another into committing a crime without realizing it.

            1. That would make a terrific movie.

              1. Ending: every KKK member turns out to be a government agent of some sort.

                1. Is that like when both sides of a sting operation are undercover law enforcement organizations?

      3. I enjoy Trump, if for nothing else, the fact that he invokes such vitriol and agony among the progtarded elite. I do so enjoy their pain. Their tears are delicious.

    2. I still don’t see why the modern KKK is any different or worse than La Raza, CAIR, or even the NAACP at this point.

      1. Because WHITE PRIVILEGE.

        That seriously is about the extent of the “argument”.

        1. You remind me of the scene in Orange is the New Black where Piper’s anti-gang task force turns into a White Pride rally.

          1. SEE!!! RACIST!! THEYS EVERYWHERE

            1. If you can’t see how drawing a moral equivalence between the NAACP and the KKK is racist then I can’t help you.

              1. If you can’t see how all of these groups are racist, then I can’t help you.

              2. Who said it wasn’t?

                I was simply commending you on finally finding a decent example to justify your claim that you’re surrounded by them

                1. There seem to be a lot more of them on Reason lately, for some reason. I can’t imagine why.

                  1. Have you stopped drinking recently?

                    1. Oh, you mean that I just didn’t notice all the racists because I was drunk all the time? That explains it.

                    2. Well…were you?

                    3. Yes, yes, noticing that other racial groups besides the KKK are racist makes one a racist. Of course it does.
                      Are you about done with your ridiculous virtue-signaling?

                    4. How come those other groups have their pride groups and we can’t have ours? Black Pride! Latino Pride!
                      What about WHITE Pride? WHITE PRIDE! WHITE PRIDE!! WHITE PRIDE! WHITE PRIDE!!!

                    5. *SYSERROR*

                      Nobody reboot her, for the love of god.

                    6. Maybe she just wants cake.

                    7. I want me some WHITE cake.

                      WHYCOME WHITE CAKE NOT TASTE AS GOOD, HUH????

                    8. Are you okay?

                    9. Finally had enough of the self-pitying loser brigade, huh, Hazel? Just wait till they pwn you with some bullshit statistics about IQ or whatever.

                    10. The Trumptards are living proof that white people are just as dumb as blacks and hispanics.

              3. Who says we want your help maybe we should split the country up.

      2. The USG did not create the Department of Homeland Security or build the Utah Data Center in reaction to the Oklahoma City bombing or an upsurge in White nationalism and the KKK. No one liked Timothy McVeigh, including himself. He thought his execution was just. These government enterprises are the reaction to the immigration and resettlement (government sponsored) of Muslims into the US. Islam is a political and religious philosophy incompatible with Western liberalism. Islam is not a race. No, we cannot all get along.

    3. I still fail to see how the modern KKK is any worse or different than La Raza, CAIR, or even the NAACP at this point.

      1. Are they worse than squirrelz?

          1. (Stuff nuts in cheeks in solidarity)

            1. Finally breaking free of that closet. Well done.

              1. its a squirrel’s world = we just live in it.

                1. Y’all are just a bunch of scuirophiliacs.

      2. I don’t know, does La Raza claim that Hispanics are genetically superior to whites? Does CAIR claim that Muslims are a superior race? Does the NAACP advocate black supremacy?

        1. Does the KKK advocate white supremacy at this point?

          I also don’t see how any of those implicit criticisms of the KKK, even if true, necessarily outweigh the negatives of the other groups mentioned.

          1. What the fuck is the point of calling yourself the KKK if you’re not advocating white supremacy?
            One would think that a rebranding would be in order, unless your goal is to attract the sort of membership that sees “KKK” and thinks “That’s an organization I’d like to join!”

            1. The Klan is a rotary club for morons.

              1. it’s a rotary club for racist morons.

                1. Perfect for progressives then. Nothing more racist than a progressive.

              2. The Klan is a rotary club for morons.

                That explains why Acosmist defends them.

                1. Hell, I’ll defend the Klan: it’s like safe spaces for precious snowflakes, a way for dumbasses to self-segregate.

                  1. The KKK is just one of the many racist and white supremacist institutions in America inflicting violence on minorities.

                    Like Yale

                    Elisia Ceballo-Countryman, a Yale sophomore, predicted that falling asleep in her dormitory Wednesday night would feel “violent.”

                    That is because the residential college in which she lives will continue to bear the name of John C. Calhoun, an 1804 graduate of Yale College and an intellectual forefather of the Confederacy who famously defended slavery as a “positive good.”

                    The university has decided not to strip Calhoun’s name from the college, so named in the 1930s, though it will drop the title “master” used for the faculty members

                    I worked with a Yale grad. His name was Toby.

                  2. Again proving that white people are just as stupid as blacks and hispanics.

                    1. White people gave the world Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and Piers Morgan. We will not be outdone for stupid.

                    2. white people are just as stupid as blacks and hispanics.

                      Ugh. Asian-Supremacist much?

                    3. Somewhat relevant:

                      http://knappster.blogspot.com/…..inuit.html

                    4. Eskimos are the master race; it is known.

                    5. 100% True Fact.

                      The only reason we aren’t currently living under our Kalaallit Overlords is the mere fact that geography has prevented them from getting the resources they could have otherwise. If they can live that well in a resource-barren tundra, just think what they could do in a land where agriculture is physically possible!!

                      That’s the REAL threat of Global Warming. If Inuit lands become farmable, then soon after Inuit World Domination will come to fruition!!

                      The only hope now is to start studying their language so that you can have preferential treatment in the slave pits overseeing the other warmlander slaves.

                    6. It is known.

                    7. I thought it was pygmy/samoan hybrids.

          2. “Does the KKK advocate white supremacy at this point?”

            Let me quick google that and…

            Yep. Yes they still do.

        2. Would Cair or La Raza advocate different policies if they did claim supremacy?

          1. Yeah. I know of a few groups that advocate for Muslim supremacy and… yeah they advocate quite different policies than CAIR…

            1. Muslims have a word for other Muslims that *don’t* think that Muslims are better than everyone else: apostates. And they deserve death.

        3. “I don’t know, does La Raza claim that Hispanics are genetically superior to whites?”

          I thought the entire idea was that the “Bronze” race was superior to everyone.

          1. Noticing the racism of non-white racist groups makes you a racist. Just ask Hazel and GILMORE. That seems to be their point, anyway.

            1. “Noticing the racism of non-white racist groups makes you a racist. Just ask Hazel and GILMORE. That seems to be their point, anyway.”

              Even if it did, so what? Who cares if they’re called a racist on the internet?

            2. That seems to be their point, anyway.

              you’re not paying attention.

              1. You’re not making sense. Unless you’re telling me I need to recalibrate my sarcasm meter.

            3. wtf is up with this ‘Hazel’ bitch anyway?

        4. “I don’t know, does La Raza claim that Hispanics are genetically superior to whites?”

          I thought the entire idea was that the “Bronze” race was superior to everyone.

        5. La raza advocates for ethnic self determination and affirmative action slots for people illegally in this country so yes while using violence against whites so yes. They do.

    4. Started working at home! It is by far the best job I have ever had. I just recently purchased a Brand new BMW since getting a check for $25470 this 8-week past. I began this 6 months ago and I am now bringing home at least $95 dollar per hour.
      I work through this Website. Go here____________ http://www.earnmore9.com

    5. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job Ive had. Last Monday I got a new Alfa Romeo from bringing in $7778. I started this 6 months ago and practically straight away started making more than $95 per hour.

      I work through this website____________ http://www.earnmore9.com

    6. My best friend’s ex-wife makes $95/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for six months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over $14000 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Just try it out on the following website…
      Go here________________ http://www.Earnmore9.com

  1. ” Latino undocumented foreigners” ?
    Stop the PC language. The most precise concept is ILLEGAL immigrant

    1. You must be new here. This is an article by Shikha Dalmia.

    2. How can they be illegals? They never signed our social contract. Hell, can they even read it? Can someone get an interpreter in here?

    3. Re: hpearce,

      Stop the PC language. The most precise concept is ILLEGAL immigrant

      Sure. Just like the U.S. had a bunch of ILLEGAL drinkers back in the 20’s.

      Until, you know, they suddenly weren’t.

      And that, my children, is how Legal Positivism rots the brains. All of a sudden, a PEACEFUL and voluntary action is made to become immoral by legislative fiat.

      1. I’d be a deontologist if it weren’t for all the laws.

        1. Hey, if you are gonna work on my teeth, I wanna see a degree.

      2. And that, my children, is how Legal Positivism rots the brains. All of a sudden, a PEACEFUL and voluntary action is made to become immoral by legislative fiat.

        Immoral and illegal are not the same words, nor do they mean the same thing. It would have been perfectly accurate during prohibition to describe someone as an “illegal drinker”, because drinking was illegal. You could take whatever position you like about the morality of drinking being illegal, but it wouldn’t make it any less accurate to say “illegal drinking” when drinking was, in fact, illegal. The issue hpearce raised was one of linguistic accuracy, not morality.

      3. All of a sudden, a PEACEFUL and voluntary action is made to become immoral illegal by legislative fiat.

        Speaking of brain rot, illegalimmoral.

    4. Only you and the populist wing would take human migration that been going on for thousands of years and try to make in illegal. I hope you cannot trace your family history back to the American Colonies or until early 19th century because then your ancestors came here with little on no documentation.

      1. “Only you and the populist wing” – oh, and just about every country in the world – “would take human migration that been going on for thousands of years and” actually make it illegal.
        Laws change. When many immigrants came here, there was no law against it. The millions that are the subject of these conversations came here when it was illegal for them to do so, as is the right of the government to so decide.
        You can rail against how things are, now, versus how they used to be, but it is a wasted effort.

      2. Yeah, I mean, migration has always historically occurred peacefully and unopposed. Checkmate, atheists.

    5. The most precise concept is ILLEGAL immigrant

      I think the most precise is “illegal alien”. You may or may not consider them immigrants depending on many factors.

  2. …the Rush Limbaugh anti-amnesty caucus in the House

    Who are these reps? New vocab?

    1. The good guys?

  3. The one-sentence “decision” will turn this election into a fierce war of identity politics with Hillary Clinton’s Latino base pitched against Donald Trump’s white male supporters.

    Present…

  4. Whoever wrote the H&R intro to this article is clueless. Meghan Trainor’s song is “All About the Bass”. Get with it.

    1. Sorry, “All About That Bass”.

          1. Goddamnit, Jezebel, why are you culturally appropriating our sarcasm?

          2. Uh, I’m pretty sure the song itself was a double entendre about being open to, perhaps even enthusiastic about, inter-racial relations.

          3. “That’s the blackest white man I’ve ever heard.”

            Turns out, the guy was half black, so my friend was half correct and half wrong.

            So instead of taking that as a life lesson about the stupidity of injection racial bullshit into everything, she doubles down on the stoopid.

  5. OT: You really can’t write this shit.

    One of the guns used in the November 13, 2015 Paris terrorist attacks came from Phoenix, Arizona where the Obama administration allowed criminals to buy thousands of weapons illegally in a deadly and futile “gun-walking” operation known as “Fast and Furious.”
    A Report of Investigation (ROI) filed by a case agent in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) tracked the gun used in the Paris attacks to a Phoenix gun owner who sold it illegally, “off book,” Judicial Watch’s law enforcement sources confirm. Federal agents tracing the firearm also found the Phoenix gun owner to be in possession of an unregistered fully automatic weapon, according to law enforcement officials with firsthand knowledge of the investigation.

    How many weapons did they release into the wild?

    1. The ATF ran the Fast and Furious experiment and actually allowed criminals, “straw purchasers,” working for Mexican drug cartels to buy weapons at federally licensed firearms dealers in Phoenix and allowed the guns to be “walked”?possessed without any knowledge of their whereabouts. The government lost track of most of the weapons and many have been used to murder hundreds of innocent people as well as a U.S. Border Patrol agent, Brian Terry, in Arizona. A mainstream newspaper reported that a Muslim terrorist who planned to murder attendees of a Muhammad cartoon contest in Garland, Texas last year bought a 9-millimeter pistol at a Phoenix gun shop that participated in the ATF’s Fast and Furious program despite drug and assault charges that should have raised red flags. Judicial Watch has thoroughly investigated Fast and Furious and has sued the Obama administration for information about the once-secret operation.

      1. Doesn’t matter, this story won’t get any air time, because Trump is teh racist is more important.

        1. Also, Holder is out of office now, so WDATPDIM?

      2. The fall-guy for that SNAFU, Ronald Weich, is currently a Dean of the University of Baltimore School of Law.

        Darrell Issa, “You sir, should be ashamed of yourself.”

        1. The fall-guy for that SNAFU

          I didn’t even know there was a fall guy already. I guess it was reported on page 24 below the fold or something.

          1. Fast and Furious was likely to get Holder cooked. So you throw some bodies on the fire…

            1. Fast and Furious should have put the president and anyone else who knew about it behind bars. If only to protect them from the wrath of the all their victims’ family members.

    2. Trust us with a monopoly on weaponry and violence. We’re here to help. No, really:

      http://tinyurl.com/z6vj9gg

    3. There is nothing wrong with the basic premise of Fast and Furious. Cartels buy shit. If you can sell them shit to track them, great.

      Fetishizing the particular objects purchased is inane.

      You sold them bottled bottled water. They used that water to stay hydrated while they killed people. Murderer! You supplied them with the EVIL MURDERING WATER!

  6. Immigration has been a festering wound in this country for decades[…] President Obama should have seized the first auspicious moment to get immigration reform done[…] But Obama blew it. He used all his political capital to foist ObamaCare on a deeply skeptical country

    You tell that as if it were a bug and not a feature. The Democrats couldn’t care less about immigrants or illegal immigrants. If they did in either case, the Democratic congress would’ve given Obama a comprehensive immigration reform LAW. But they didn’t, ON PURPOSE, because once immigrants become citizens and are allowed to vote, they have this nasty habit of fracturing into different groups of voters and not coalesce into a single and reliable Democratic block. No immigrant shares the slave mentality of that more dependable Democratic voting group, and so the Democrats choose to use immigrants as convenient pamphlets to show how racist and evil are the Republicans and that is it.

    1. Because immigration threatens domestic labor, and labor unions are huge Democratic donors.
      Of course, that didn’t stop the labor union thugs from jumping ship and voting for Trump anyway.

      1. Immigration doesn’t affect domestic labor as much as off-shoring does. The jobs simply leave.

        Immigration DOES suppress domestic wages though. Which wouldn’t be as awful a thing as it is except for the facts that it tends to operate at the lesser-skilled margins which means people eventually get fucked over by minimum wage laws (illegal immigrants can more easily work in the undocumented labor markets than can citizens) and are likely already in debt based on their current wage rate increasing rather than decreasing.

        1. Re: Invisible Finger,

          Immigration DOES suppress domestic wages though.

          That would be like arguing that adding a few midgets to a room full of people supresses the room’s average height of the same people. It is a statistical mirage and it is the result of bad economic thinking.

          1. I don’t disagree. It’s certainly IS bad economic thinking if one lives in a world of unfettered economies. Supply and demand applies to labor, but in a world of unfettered economies the incentive to relocate is greatly reduced.

            A Polish plumber isn’t relocating in order to invent something new. He could do that anywhere. He’s relocating because he can take plumbing work from someone else by working for less (especially if he’s willing to work undocumented). It may be true that he’s simply reacting to a shortage of plumbers in the new area, but that still suppresses the (high) prevailing plumbing wage in that area.

            I am certainly fine with that, pricing adjusts. The issue is when you have price-fixing schemes such as minimum wage, licensure, or prevailing-wage schemes in place. In fact, the immigrant is likely relocating BECAUSE such protection schemes have locked him out of work in his area. So the open-border policy enables other countries to further their socialist policies because they can dump their wretched refuse on the open-border country. If socialist economies collapsed in a matter of 10 years, this shit is self-correcting. But the reality is the collapses take a few generations.

            Just long enough for the immigrants to become citizens and vote for protection schemes in order to keep the next wave of immigrants out because they don’t want their wages suppressed. The shit just builds upon itself.

          2. That would be like arguing that adding a few midgets to a room full of people supresses the room’s average height of the same people.

            Nonsense on stilts.

            People don’t compete in a market for their height.

            Thanks for playing.

    2. Modus Operandi is to offer Marginalized Group some form of unmarginalization and delay delivery of your promises, blaming the other party. After the Group gets what they want from you they loose the reason to vote for you. Never offer the Group EVERYTHING it wants until absolutely necessary (don’t offer the gays the right to marriage, just some minor civil rights laws, until popular opinion turns enough that supporting the right to marriage is politically sound. Then switch positions but take absolutely NO initiative on legislating marriage (the one good thing about the court’s questionable gay-marriage-legalization: It took away the ability of the democrats to keep “supporting” gay marriage while doing nothing to legalize it))

      With immigration it becomes even more insidious. They COULD reform immigration laws and we could get a lot of legal immigrants and make everything easy. Democrats will not do that. In power they wish to ignore the immigrants and act as if that is just as good as reforming the laws. Because if they do THAT, then the immigrants can ONLY stay in the country for as long as the Democrats permit it and are in power. Which suddenly ensures the immigrants have a constant, vested interest in making sure the Democrats are in power.

      1. After the Group gets what they want from you they loose the reason to vote for you.

        Wrong. If people come with a bias for Big Government, (and HIspanics and Muslims *do*), that bias doesn’t disappear once they get the vote, it gets further translated into political power for Big Government.

        I posted the PEW data for Hispanic American voting patterns previously.

        PEW Research report on Muslim Americans
        http://www.people-press.org/fi…..report.pdf
        Muslims Lean Democratic over Republicans over 6 to 1
        Muslims Want bigger government over smaller government over 3 to 1

        Perhaps Shikha would like to explain how importing Big Government voters will make Americans more free.

        But I suspect not. Much easier and more fun to shriek “Racist!”

        1. Actually PEW data on Hispanic Americans and their preference for Big Government is below, not above.

    3. …once immigrants become citizens and are allowed to vote, they have this nasty habit of fracturing into different groups of voters and not coalesce into a single and reliable Democratic block.

      Yeah, like, sometimes they’ll break 5 points under two-thirds Democratic, and sometimes they’ll break 5 points over two-thirds Democratic. It’s like herding cats!

    4. But they didn’t, ON PURPOSE, because once immigrants become citizens and are allowed to vote, they have this nasty habit of fracturing into different groups of voters and not coalesce into a single and reliable Democratic block.

      Wrong every which way from Sunday.

      The 60s immigration reform was aimed at importing reliable Big Government Democratic voters, and it worked. Amnesty is about converting non voting political supporters into voting political supporters.

      Hispanic (and Muslim) Americans are reliable Big Government voters.

      PEW Research on Hispanic Americans
      http://www.pewresearch.org/fac…..democrats/
      Hispanics Lean Democratic over 3 to 1
      http://www.pewhispanic.org/201…..-religion/
      Hispanics Want Bigger Government Providing More Services over 3 to 1

  7. This is a profoundly unfortunate outcome for American democracy…

    Yes, it is. It’s almost like stretching the limits of executive authority to get a desired goal over the objections of the legislature wasn’t a very good idea. Wait, didn’t some of us warn that when Ms. Dalmia was advocating just that?

    1. The world is your playground and it you want to move from Somalia to Santa Monica or visa versa have at it. Nevermind that the kids in school will tease you for not speaking the local language fluently or just beat the shit out of you for whatever’s sake. It’s Disneyland everywhere!

      My Hong Kong gal likes the Disneyland ride ‘It’s a Small World”. I don’t, but she’s my gal and I go on it with her. Having just been equipped with a laser gun from the Buzz Lightyear ride I quipped “Where’s my laser gun?” She got a chuckle out of that.

    2. Can’t let Rule of Law get in the way of cocktail party invites.

      Or importing Big Government voters.

      Priorities, man!

  8. not offered permanent legal status, mind you…They would have also obtained work permits that would have allowed them to come out of the shadows and work without fear of deportation

    So that sort of sounds like indefinite, de facto legal status, which isn’t different in practice from permanent real legal status. Which I’m OK with as far as the end result, but let’s be honest about it.

    1. Not “indefinite” so much as “as long as the Democrats are in power”. Which is why it is simply an edict ignoring the law rather than reforming it.

  9. This election will degenerate into a full-blown game of identity politics

    For her next bout of prescience, Dalmia will predict the sun will rise in the east.

  10. I do agree that a split decision on a blatantly unconstitutional power grab by the executive is unfortunate. While refusing to prosecute is at least arguably within the President’s discretion, issuing work permits and the like without statutory authority is not.

    I also think that immigration policy is a perfectly legitimate topic for an election and one of those “national conversations” we’re always being told to have.

    I disagree that any and all people who are skeptical of open borders are racists.

    Seriously, Reason, is Shikha the best available writer on these issues?

    1. I disagree that any and all people who are skeptical of open borders are racists.

      Good luck convincing people self-appointed elites, RC.

      In fettered economies, and the US is one now, skilled labor and the upper castes are generally in favor of open borders because there is little to worry about – a 20% cut in earnings is manageable since it would apply to a high income anyway, and being skilled already they don’t have much difficulty acquiring additional skills.

      But not everybody can be skilled labor, despite the country’s education fetish (which certainly does a shitty job of educating anyway). I’m not one to deny the bell curve; skills are relative. Even if today’s unskilled labor is vastly more skilled than the most skilled labor of 300 years ago, it doesn’t mean jack shit to the unskilled labor in his contemporary economy. Sound economic theory says prices will adjust and the macroeconomy will be better for it. And if the adjustments in microeconomies happened relatively quickly, we’d never have a problem convincing people of sound economic theory.

      But microeconomies DON’T adjust as quickly. Unfortunately that causes people to consider protection schemes – and there are plenty in the upper castes that have been happy to sell sound economic theory down the river in order to advance their standing. And every protection scheme enacted only make the NEXT microeconomic adjustments take even longer which begets further calls for additional protection schemes.

      1. I disagree that any and all people who are skeptical of open borders are racists.

        Good luck convincing people self-appointed elites, RC.

        They know. “Racist!” is simply the most effective rhetorical club the Slavers have.

        *Very* encouraging that the club *failed* to stop Brexit, and *failed* to stop Trump from taking the nomination. If all that Trump succeeded in doing as President is rendering that club impotent, he would be worth it 5 times over.

  11. my co-worker’s step-aunt makes $68 hourly on the internet . She has been without a job for seven months but last month her payment was $16869 just working on the internet for a few hours. Learn More Here ….

    http://www.Profit80.com

  12. before I looked at the draft saying $9453 , I have faith that my mother in law woz like truley erning money part time at there computar. . there mums best friend haz done this 4 less than 14 months and just repayed the dept on their apartment and purchased a brand new Honda . read here …..

    Please click the link below
    ==========
    http://www.selfcash10.com

  13. RE: The Supreme Court’s DAPA Decision Means More Ethnic Warfare on Immigration
    Both parties have prefered to play identity politics rather than fix the problem

    We simply cannot allow more immigrants into our country.
    These wretched people are more often than not leaving the soft and cushy life that socialist nations provide them.
    All too often, these people enter our borders with the intent of becoming rich, enjoying the fruits of their labors and becoming good capitalists.
    This cannot be tolerated because we have Trump the Grump, Comrade Bernie, and Heil Hitlary working hard to ensure we become the socialist slave state we all want to be.
    Therefore, it would be prudent and wise, as Trump the Grump has stated many times, to build a wall, especially our southern border, to ensure our country does not import anyone not politically correct and does not welcome the upcoming enslavement and oppression our ruling elitist class has been so kind and wonderful to provide us.
    It’s time to shut the borders to those who believe in the evils of capitalism and the freedom it brings.

    1. All too often, these people enter our borders with the intent of becoming rich, enjoying the fruits of their labors and becoming good capitalists.

      Not what the numbers say. Hispanic Americans are reliable Big Government voters, and are disproportionately poor and on entitlements.

      http://cis.org/Cost-Welfare-Im…..Households

      At $8,251, households headed by immigrants from Central America and Mexico have the highest welfare costs of any sending region ? 86 percent higher than the costs of native households.

  14. all the justices acted in accordance with their best legal judgment in this case

    No one but Thomas and maybe Alito give a rat’s ass about “legal judgment”. The rest decide who they want to win and rationalize the victory.

    Look! Gay marriage has been hiding in the Constitution for more than a hundred years! So strange that we never noticed it before.

  15. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ? http://www.SelfCash10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.