Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
Obama Jobs Program: Help Illegals Compete with Americans for Scarce Jobs
Today, the Obama Administration, in an obvious attempt to boost the President's flailing reelection campaign, announced that it would bypass Congress and rewrite the nation's immigration laws.
The Obama administration will stop deporting and begin granting work permits to younger illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and have since led law-abiding lives. The election-year initiative addresses a top priority of an influential Latino electorate that has been vocal in its opposition to administration deportation policies.
The second sentence of the Associated Press story addresses the true impetus for the policy change; election-year politics. Obama, and today's Democrat party, see the electorate as a patchwork-quilt of interest groups. Sprinkle enough goodies on certain blocks of voters and they believe they can put together just enough support to win. It can work to a point. But, when the pandering to specific groups undercuts one's overarching narrative it can erode support in the overall electorate.
Obama's policy change sends a clear message to Hispanic voters. It also sends a clear message to non-hispanic voters. Namely, Obama has just added millions of workers to the legal labor force. Millions of illegal immigrants will now be able to legally compete with Americans for the very few jobs available. This message will not be lost on working-class voters.
The media loves to obsess over GOP divisions on the immigration issue. What they fail to note, however, is the Democrats are equally divided. (A Breitbart award to the first reporter who goes to a union hall to get reaction to today's policy change.)
This is unsurprising because Americans are divided on the issue. We're a nation of immigrants and pride ourselves in being a land of opportunity for those eager to seek the American Dream. We are also, though, a nation of laws and many Americans of all political leanings are uncomfortable with the idea that someone can be "rewarded" by breaking the law. Especially at a time that Americans across the economic spectrum feel acute economic anxiety.
Its a tough issue. Which is why we have a Congress, where the nation's representatives can deliberate and try to find the right policy path. It isn't pretty and it often fails. But, that's how laws our made. We do not enact far-reaching rewrites of our laws by executive fiat. Political expediency doesn't negate an entire branch of government.
The media will no doubt applaud Obama's policy reverse on this issue. I've already seen a few commentators hail it as a brilliant move to shore up the Hispanic vote. But, the bigger question is, why does Obama need to shore up the Hispanic vote? He won their support overwhelmingly against McCain in 2008. Why does he need to bypass Congress and institute a policy that risks alienating working class voters?
Obama's entire reelection campaign is based on pandering to specific blocks of voters. Its all he has left. In just three and a half years, he's lost the ability to talk to the rest of us. He's lost the ability to communicate with our collective aspirations.
Click on the link and you'll see....I don't see a problem unless something printed here is not true, and if it is untrue feel free to correct the record.
Aside from that feel free to post whatever is not objectionable to you.
I just ignore "news" like this with such an obvious biased political tone. Its not so much news as it is infotainment. I'm not saying certain information is inaccurate, but for me they lose most of their credibility.
"Obama's entire reelection campaign is based on pandering to specific blocks of voters. " Ummm. HELLO!!?! All politicians do this! Duh. Wake up people, yer being played by both sides. Unfortunately thats the only way they can get folks to vote.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't bush bypass congress when he decided to start a war?
The dudes a politician. If it gets him votes and he thinks it's in his favor to not deport then he doesn't deport. I'm not sure if it's a major story or not. Maybe the media should get back to reporting seeing him at the beach with his shirt off. Or seeing his wife wearing shorts in public. How dare they.
President Obama returned Friday to a trusted tactic — satisfying his political allies by not doing something.
Conservatives were angry when Janet Napolitano announced the administration would stop deporting certain undocumented immigrants but they should have seen it coming. On issue after issue – gay rights, drug enforcement, Internet gambling, school achievement standards – the administration has chosen to achieve its goals by a method best described as passive-aggressive.
Rather than pushing new laws through a divided Congress to enact his agenda, Obama is relying on federal agencies to ignore, or at least not defend, laws that some of his important supporters –like Hispanic voters and the gay community — don’t like.
“If the president says we’re not going to enforce the law, there’s really nothing anyone can do about it,” University of Pennsylvania constitutional law professor Kermit Roosevelt said. “It’s clearly a political calculation.”
A White House official said the strategy is the result of a stalemate in Washington.
“We we work to achieve our policy goals in the most effective and appropriate way possible,” the official said. “Often times Congress has blocked efforts (ie [No Child Left Behind] and DREAM) and we look to pursue other appropriate means of achieving our policy goals. Sometimes this makes for less than ideal policy situations - such as the action we took on immigration - but the president isn’t going to be stonewalled by politics, he will pursue whatever means available to do business on behalf of American people.”
For Obama – and future presidents should Washington remain polarized to the point of perpetual inaction —it may be the only way to fulfill a range of campaign promises.
As of Friday, the federal government won’t deport undocumented immigrants under age 30 who came to the United States as children. It is a temporary, de facto implementation of a part of the stalled DREAM Act.
The result: a loud message to Hispanic voters to remember Obama in November.
On gay rights, too, the administration has asked agencies to do less. In February 2011 the Justice Department announced it would not defend DOMA against court challenges — an unusual step for the agency, which typically defends legal challenges to laws on the books. But the 1996 law, which bars the government from recognizing same-sex marriage, appears headed to the U.S. Supreme Court via either the 9th or 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.
In August, Obama’s DHS announced it would no longer deport the non-citizen spouses of gay Americans — a direct contradiction to DOMA as well.
The tactic has its start in the earliest days of the administration. In October 2009, the DOJ announced it would not prosecute medical marijuana users or suppliers in states where it’s legal, despite the state laws contradicting federal law. Federal law generally trumps state law in such matters.
Last September, the DOJ also announced a change of legal interpretation that effectively legalized Internet gambling. Two statutes seem to ban it – the Wire Act of 1961, which bars betting across state lines using the telecommunications devices, and the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which bans American banks from processing payments to online casinos.
On education, too, Obama has made policy by not enforcing the law. By fiat, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan granted waivers to 10 states freeing them from the strict requirements of the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act. In doing so, the president removed the mechanism that would force certain school standards to be improved.
“The president is using executive power to do things Congress has refused to do, and that does fit a disturbing pattern of expansion of executive power under President Obama,” said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law scholar at George Washington University Law School known for his support of progressive causes as well as his ire at Obama for not prosecuting Bush officials in connection with alleged torture of terror suspects.
“In many ways, President Obama has fulfilled the dream of an imperial presidency that Richard Nixon strived for. On everything from (the Defense of Marriage Act) to the gaming laws, this is a president who is now functioning as a super legislator. He is effectively negating parts of the criminal code because he disagrees with them. That does go beyond the pale.”
That Nixon analogy may be apt, John Eastman, a constitutional law professor known for his support of conservative causes at Chapman University School of Law in Orange, Calif. said. He cited Nixon’s abuse of the traditional presidential power of not spending, or impounding, allocated funds as an earlier example of a president opting not to carry out the will of Congress.
Yet other scholars cited a more recent example: President George W. Bush’s signing statements. The Republican came under fire from Democrats for his frequent decision to attach statements to bills he signed that indicated he found various provisions unconstitutional and, thus, would not enforce or follow them.
“There’s a difference between refusing to enforce a statute (as Obama is doing) and refusing to recognize a statute that binds the executive,” Roosevelt said. “The latter is what the Bush Administration used to do. When Bush issued signing statements that he would construe laws so as not to infringe on his Commander in Chief power, he was saying that he reserved the right to disregard them if he thought it was necessary to protect the country, since that’s what the secret memos said the Commander in Chief power required. … I view that as more extreme.”
Roosevelt, like Eastman and Turley, worries that the Obama approach will give a future president the license “to decide we’re not going to prosecute insider trading or enforce EPA regulations. They could do that.”
And while giddy liberals on Friday marveled at Obama’s brazen craftiness, legal experts say supporters might feel a lot differently if the tactic becomes an enduring precedent.
“Say a Republican were to follow this strategy after regaining the White House in January of 2013 and the Supreme Court upholds the health care bill and Romney can’t repeal it because the Democrats in the Senate filibuster it, he could basically repeal it through non-enforcement,” said Eastman.
They theoretically could but won’t, said former Obama legal adviser Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law School constitutional professor and prominent liberal scholar.
“It’s always possible to conjure hypotheticals that test the outer boundaries of the broad principle that the president is generally obligated to enforce laws duly enacted by Congress but has a paramount duty to obey the Constitution,” Tribe wrote POLITICO in an e-mail.
“Obviously the rule of law and the importance of orderly and stable governance in a system that relies principally on the judicial branch to ‘say what the law is’ precludes promiscuous presidential exercise of the prerogative of non-compliance. Yet it is also surely true that presidents cannot blindly follow Congressional directives unless and until a court tells them to stop!
What if a Congress were to tell the president to shoot all self-proclaimed Mormons on sight, the way the governor of Missouri once did in the 19 th century? Surely no president with a constitutional conscience could comply with such a directive.”
