Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsReagan and Bush Acted Unilaterally on Immigration, Too—for the Same Reason That Obama Will
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120334/obama-immigration-order-legal-bush-and-reagans-wereOn Tuesday, the Associated Press reported that two previous Republican presidentsRonald Reagan and George H.W. Bushhad taken unilateral action to protect undocumented immigrants from deportation, and the political reaction was much less vitriolic than what Obama has faced as he prepares to make a similar move. Conservatives, notably The Atlantic's David Frum and National Review's Mark Krikorian, quickly pushed back. Frum argues that, while legal, Obamas upcoming executive action would be an unprecedented violation of political norms. Krikorian goes further, calling it "Caesarism, pure and simple." But in the end, though they difference in their vehemence, both Krikorian and Frums analyses do more to reveal the flaws in the conservative position than prove the lawlessness of Obamas upcoming action.
Krikorian and Frums main argument is that Reagan and Bushs unilateral actions were simply fixes to the 1986 immigration law that granted green cards to three million undocumented immigrants. Reagan and Bush discovered that, due to an unintended consequence of that law, many spouses and kids of newly-legalized immigrants faced deportation, potentially tearing families apart. In response, Reagan and Bush implemented cleanup measures, as Krikorian terms them: In 1987, Reagans Immigration and Naturalization Service announced that kids of newly-legalized immigrants would not be deported; Bush extended those protections to spouses in 1991.
According to Krikorian and Frum, these actions reflected Congresss intentions because the legislative branch codified Reagan and Bushs executive action into law in 1992. Reagan and Bush acted in conjunction with Congress and in furtherance of a congressional purpose, Frum writes. Nobody wanted to deport the still-illegal husband of a newly legalized wife. Reagans (relatively small) and Bushs (rather larger) executive actions tidied up these anomalies. In other words, it would be unfair if Reagan and Bush deported children and spouses of newly-legalized immigrants. In fact, Bushs executive action was called the family fairness program.
In contrast, they argue, Obamas executive action is not what Congress intended. A new order would not further a congressional purpose, Frum writes. It is intended to overpower and overmaster a recalcitrant Congress. Krikorian was even more emphatic: Whatever their merits, the Reagan and Bush measures were modest attempts at faithfully executing legislation duly enacted by Congress. Obamas planned amnesty decree is Caesarism, pure and simple.
Krikorian and Frums main argument is that Reagan and Bushs unilateral actions were simply fixes to the 1986 immigration law that granted green cards to three million undocumented immigrants. Reagan and Bush discovered that, due to an unintended consequence of that law, many spouses and kids of newly-legalized immigrants faced deportation, potentially tearing families apart. In response, Reagan and Bush implemented cleanup measures, as Krikorian terms them: In 1987, Reagans Immigration and Naturalization Service announced that kids of newly-legalized immigrants would not be deported; Bush extended those protections to spouses in 1991.
According to Krikorian and Frum, these actions reflected Congresss intentions because the legislative branch codified Reagan and Bushs executive action into law in 1992. Reagan and Bush acted in conjunction with Congress and in furtherance of a congressional purpose, Frum writes. Nobody wanted to deport the still-illegal husband of a newly legalized wife. Reagans (relatively small) and Bushs (rather larger) executive actions tidied up these anomalies. In other words, it would be unfair if Reagan and Bush deported children and spouses of newly-legalized immigrants. In fact, Bushs executive action was called the family fairness program.
In contrast, they argue, Obamas executive action is not what Congress intended. A new order would not further a congressional purpose, Frum writes. It is intended to overpower and overmaster a recalcitrant Congress. Krikorian was even more emphatic: Whatever their merits, the Reagan and Bush measures were modest attempts at faithfully executing legislation duly enacted by Congress. Obamas planned amnesty decree is Caesarism, pure and simple.
Goes on to explain why their argument is invalid.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 611 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Reagan and Bush Acted Unilaterally on Immigration, Too—for the Same Reason That Obama Will (Original Post)
moriah
Nov 2014
OP
underpants
(182,829 posts)1. I ran across basically the same argument on Fox News site
Via google. This is the standard play - someone comes up with their talking point and everyone has a column for that week.
moriah
(8,311 posts)2. At least this was a good debunk to have on hand for when they rant.
Which should be starting loudly tomorrow.