Obama Administration Considers Bypassing Congress on Immigration Reform

[kpete]

Source: ProPublica

Obama Administration Considers Bypassing Congress on Immigration Reform

by Marcus Stern
ProPublica


The Obama administration, anticipating that Congress might not pass comprehensive immigration reform this year, is considering ways it could act without congressional approval to achieve many of the objectives of the initiative, including giving permanent resident status, or green cards, to large numbers of people in the country illegally.

The ideas were outlined in an unusually frank draft memo http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/memo-on-alternatives-to-comprehensive-immigration-reform prepared for Alejandro N. Mayorkas, director of the federal agency that handles immigration benefits, U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS). The memo lists ways the government could grant permanent resident status to tens of thousands of people and delay the deportation of others, potentially indefinitely.

"In the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, CIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations," said the memo, which was prepared by four senior officials from different branches of USCIS.

The 11-page document was made public Thursday by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who with six other senators wrote to Obama http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/congressional-letter-to-president-obama-on-immigration-june-21-2010 more than a month ago, asking for his assurance that rumors that some sort of reprieve was in the works for millions of illegal immigrants weren't true.

Read more: http://www.propublica.org/article/obama-administration-considers-bypassing-congress-on-immigration-reform

[LostinVA]

1. Yay! Maybe he can do an EO on DADT now!

[Igel]

39. No, he can't.

Congress passed a law. Contrary to belief, the president is not the supreme ruler, able to overturn a duly enacted and signed law. The (D) after his name doesn't stand for "dictator."

He can refuse to enforce the laws passed under the Constitution and found to be constitutional, of course. Then he's a scofflaw. I do believe we had one of them. Let's not do the same and then play that fascinating game, "tu quoque". It also means he'd be an oathbreaker, and a perjurer. Also not just real good.

[Bluebear]

45. 'Contrary to belief, the president is not the supreme ruler' - hot off the fax machine

[JonLP24]

53. He has the authority

to halt discharges by executive order in a time of war. It is true Congress needs to pass the law (and the Pres. signs it) but in the meantime he can halt discharges.

Explained here by Military LAW EXPERTS.
http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/New+Study+Says+Obama+Can+Halt+Gay+Discharges+With+Executive+Order

[MineralMan]

2. Hmm...interesting....

[BootinUp]

3. Is someone going to look at freeperville and

bring back an example of heads exploding?

[earthside]

4. Oh, boy. A Repuglican Congress.

If Obama did give "permanent resident status, or green cards, to large numbers of people in the country illegally" by executive order ... well, the Democrats would be lucky to keep ten or twelve Senators and twenty or thirty House members. (I exaggerate for effect, but not by that much.)

Insane.

[pezDispenser]

5. agreed, this sounds like a very bad idea.

[backtomn]

11. My fiance has a visa......

......she has done this legally. I see what she goes through when her visa changes or she visits her family.....she is genuinely concerned that she may not be able to return. If she loses her job, she is screwed. I am biased......but she is the kind of American we need....law-abiding.....working....speaks English.....comes from a country where people are required to vote. Compare that with illegal "immigrants" from Mexico today. If we want to make vast changes in our immigration law, I hope that we consider someone like her......but we should surely have majority agreement.

[EFerrari]

19. So, how many people apply for a visa in her country of origin in a year?

"The kind of American we need"?

Wow.

[GOPNotForMe]

29. Yeah that line stuck out to me too.

Sounded eerily close to stuff posted on FreeRepublic.

[atreides1]

21. Got news for you

Here in the US voting isn't a requirement, it's a right. You can choose to take part in the process or not, it's that whole freedom thing!

With one exception, that being law-abiding, Irish illegals probably meet your criteria as well, but then again they don't come from Mexico, so it's different, right?

It's a little scary to hear that she comes from a country where people are required to vote, not exactly the poster for democracy.

[Bette Noir]

13. Yeah, we can't agree not to deport tens of thousands of

hard-working, tax-paying brown people. The Republicans wouldn't like it.

[denverbill]

12. +1.

This is complete DLC/Rino territory. Pro labor Democrats (like me) and anti-immigrant Republickers actually agree on this for different reasons, but the mushy middle (pro-business Democrats and most Republicans, like Shrub etc) wants their cheap labor.

[Bette Noir]

14. Yes, definitely. Call 80-90% of brown people in this country "DLC."

The only thing that makes immigrants so easy to exploit is their "illegal" status. If they didn't have to fear ICE and the police, they wouldn't be competitive with Americans for jobs.

It's keeping them "illegal" that makes them bad for American workers, not their being brown.

[denverbill]

24. I don't care if they are brown, yellow or white, or Mexican, Indian or Canadian.

I care that they apply through legal means and stay and work here legally.

Yes, the INS was broken and unfunded for 20 years (thanks to Republicans), but granting amnesty to illegal immigrants every 20 years is a pretty lousy solution. It's like me practicing law without a license for 20 years and because I did a decent job, just saying it's fine to keep doing it. We are not supposed to reward bad behavior, and illegal immigration is bad behavior.

[blue97keet]

40. Having 20-some different "guest-worker" visas for every line of work

and from all over the world and catering to every special interest is NOT a threat to American jobs when we have the "best government money can buy" thanks still more to the Supreme court campaign finance ruling? Have some of you here never heard of global labor arbitrage and big bucks?

[EFerrari]

20. So, how does giving legal status to workers so they can defend themselves

translate into anti-labor?

[denverbill]

23. By rights, these folks should not have these jobs to begin with.

They snuck into the country, used false ID to get jobs, and have been getting by ever since.

If they had come here legally in the first place, they would have been able to defend themselves.

We need to change the law so that employers can only hire legal workers, vastly expand the capacity of the INS, force employers to fire any currently illegal employees, and make everyone reapply, legally.

I love giving hard-working people a chance to immigrate and succeed in America, but rewarding people who snuck in and used fake documents to get jobs isn't right.

[EFerrari]

25. Imposing a 20 year waiting list on people you're starving out with NAFTA

results in illegal immigration. Get it?

It's hard to understand how anyone who is truly pro-labor doesn't.

And if these people are legalized, they can be organized. There is no down side to that unless you really just need to blame someone who doesn't look like you for our government's whoring out to Wall Street.

[denverbill]

28. Feel free to criticize my position.

But calling someone a racist just because they don't agree with you on illegal immigration is like calling someone anti-Semitic because they think Israel should keep Gaza as their own version of the Warsaw ghetto.

I know exactly what NAFTA has done and I'd love to kill NAFTA. I very nearly voted for Perot because of NAFTA and would have if he hadn't done the whole withdraw from the race/get back in thing.

[EFerrari]

43. Well, if you think it all the way through

legalizing those people is a win for Labor. What remains is the racist cr@p the GOP uses to win elections.

[JonLP24]

55. NAFTA

and other free trade agreements has caused China to surpass Mexico in stuff produced for the US. Also manufacturing jobs have left Mexico in droves since NAFTA. Mexico also had an economic crisis of their own the year NAFTA took effect.

[GOPNotForMe]

30. So your solution is...?

Mass deportation, which is both cruel and practically impossible? That being out of the question, which realistically it is, what do we do? We wouldn't need to do a mass amnesty every 20 years is the laws were changed, including much more liberal and forgiving "open doors" for people wanting to come here.

Bottom line is that if you were born into an incredibly impoverished country and saw prosperity and opportunity waiting for you across an arbitrary and invisible boundary line, you CAN'T tell me from the position you are fortunate to be in now that you for sure wouldn't take advantage of that to make a better life for yourself and your family. So cut the self-righteousness.

[denverbill]

34. My solution is enact legislation requiring all employees be checked against a national database.

If they are here illegally, fire them and don't hire them back. They can find their own way home just as they found their own way here.

I never said I wouldn't try to sneak in if I was in their position. I probably would. But the whole time I was there, I would fear being found out, because I would EXPECT if I was caught, I'd be fired and/or deported. You can't knowingly break the law and expect there to be no consequences and you can't tell me that everyone who is here illegally doesn't know and fear prosecution under the law. They know what they are doing is wrong, no matter how good their reason for doing it.

[GOPNotForMe]

36. How kind.

Just remember that "legal" and "illegal" is only delineated because some people got together and decided something was or wasn't the "right thing." That doesn't mean that it is, in fact, right or wrong or moral or immoral.

And most of the people who are here "illegally" do fear being caught and deported back to the country they, for whatever reason, fled. And people's immigration status is more complicated than just painting them all as knowing law breakers. What about the people who came here as children because their parents brought them? What about those here on very tenuous asylum visas? What about those who will NEVER get visas through normal channels but live in hell (e.g., Haitians)? It's easy for you to just sit back and say that's so sad, but it's still illegal, Inspector Javert, but the real world of immigration policy is much more complicated than "illegal."

[blue97keet]

26. Agreed, the mushy corporatist middle wants more H-1B's too,

just like Clinton pushing NAFTA by executive order, and his economics team (Summers, Rubin) along with republicans setting the derivatives bomb.

[leveymg]

6. What they can do is speed up processing and grant waivers, and such, but they can't grant LPR status

to persons who don't have approved immigrant visa petitions. This memo is about incremental changes that don't require a change in existing law such as removing some paperwork steps, granting Deferred Enforced Departure, and making Temporary Protected Status (TPS) permanent for some groups.

It is not about wholesale legalization. The lead-in article is very misleading, Mr. Stern.

[TiredOldMan]

7. Bad precedent.

Could you imagine what a Rethug President would do if they could skirt Congress "just like the Democrats did"? They would give our entire lives to corporations without even one vote!

[The Northerner]

8. +1

[EFerrari]

17. Are you kidding? Remember Junior's signing statements?

BushCo skirted Congress at every opportunity.

[GOPNotForMe]

31. That's how administrative law works.

Congress delegates authority to the executive branch and so long as there are articulable standards, the agency with the newly delegated power can do many things without legislative approval.

This is also how Obama wants to use the EPA to do big environmental overhauls since congress won't move its ass there either (well, the senate won't).

[emilyg]

38. +10

[amandabeech]

9. Immigration is a hot issue this year.

If Obama were to do by executive order what Congress won't let him do by law, it will only enrage a big section of the electorate--that part that does not want increased undocumented immigration.

Whether the pro-immigration voters might be as motivated to show up at the polls to vote Democratic is less certain.

[Bette Noir]

16. Doesn't anybody get it?

THEY WOULDN"T BE "ILLEGAL" IF YOU MAKE THEM LEGAL.

The whole mishegoss is about discriminating against brown people.

My family was in Los Angeles, not only before it was part of the US, but before it was part of Mexico. I, personally, am affected by the "immigration" uproar, because IT'S NOT ABOUT IMMIGRATION.

[EFerrari]

18. Of course it's not about immigration. It's about firing up the racist Republican base.

It can't be about immigration because IMMIGRATION has been DOWN for years now.

[flyarm]

10. I thought he "couldn't do anything" isn't that what some here have said over and over and over again

ahhh he is at the mercy of the congress and senate we are told here repeatedly..

No.. he won't do anything that Liberals or progressives have fought for..but if it suits him ..he can do plenty!

[lobodons]

15. Keep Congress in session

Keep Congress in session until they fucking do their job and not only pass Immigration legislation, but also health care benefits for 9-11 responders and loans to small business's!!!!!!!

[Kweli4Real]

22. I sense a head fake ...

This floated memo serves two purposes; first, it puts the pressure on republicans to come to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform table; and secondly, will further polarize the republican base.

Although I am in full support of CIR, I would not support this action ... We do, after all, live in a democracy . Besides, it would surely come back to haunt us when the whitehouse changes hands.

[Unvanguard]

27. Good. Congress should be bypassed, the Senate especially.

Maybe if we actually had a functional political system, this would be unnecessary, but we don't.

[kelly1mm]

44. Yeah - I hate that three branches of government crap in the Constitution.

Speeking of which, the Constitution is just a God damned piece of paper ...... wait, that sounds familiar...... nevermind.

[Unvanguard]

46. Madison gave us a bad system laden with veto points.

Historical developments have made it worse. We now have a Congress that is systematically dysfunctional due to the Senate's insane procedural rules, the Senate's insane apportionment system, and a whole series of assorted problems with geographic-based single-member constituencies, a set of issues that combine to (among other things) make reliable accountability possible only when it comes to the executive branch.

If the President is going to be held responsible for everything on the basis of an ideological "the buck stops here" mindset--and that seems to be more or less how people approach it--then the President ought to have the power to implement his policy priorities. When Congress is dominated by politicking and obstructionism, there is really no alternative.

As a theoretical matter, I am not very fond of executive power: ideally the veto would go, the presidency's control over foreign policy would be drastically curtailed, and the interpretative discretion of regulatory agencies restrained. Unfortunately, at the moment, the danger to the republic posed by executive power is less than the danger to the basic functioning of our institutions posed by Congress's ridiculousness. This is not a happy reality, but it is what it is.

[kelly1mm]

47. There are several ways to modify the Constitution to address your

concerns. Probably the most effective to deal with all of them would be a new Constitutional Convention called by 2/3 of the states as found in Article V (the nuclear bomb theory of states rights). However, one of the fundamental "problems" of the Senate - equal state representation is off the table due to the last clause of that Article, as well as the fundamental nature of our federalized political system.

If you want to change the powers that the President has then change the Constitution. I will not support ANY President who does otherwise.

(I am not saying that the alleged proposals in the working paper were unconstitutional as I have not read them and the basis for them except for this OP. My objection is to those who say it s OK to do extra-constitutional actions just because our guy is in.)

[Unvanguard]

48. I didn't say it was "OK to do extra-constitutional actions."

My view is more complicated than that. I think it's clear that (a) the "original intent" of the Constitution was to establish a political structure where the President had a far more modest role than he or she does now, (b) the executive power of the President has been expanding for a very long time, without any particular responsibility on the part of Obama specifically, and (c) there are, unfortunately, good reasons for that trend, even though it has features that are unpleasant and potentially harmful.

Part of the difference here may be that I am only partly interested in any "original meaning" held by the historical document called the US Constitution, and rather more interested in the political understandings and norms that constitute our small-c constitutional structure, which is probably more democratically legitimate anyway. The Constitution lets Congress pack the federal courts, but it would be a violation of our understanding of what separation of powers and judicial independence means for them to actually do so. Similarly, bypassing Congress with this kind of policy-motivated executive action is perfectly acceptable if it can be done according to current understandings of executive power, which it quite possibly can, quite aside with whether or not it is in accordance with what Madison or the other framers would have wanted.

[kelly1mm]

52. Perhaps you are right in that this may be more in line with the

unitary executive model of Presidential power which is not a traditional understanding, but rather the result a series of encroachments of power by and to the executive branch since the great depression. I just do not like it. The Congress (especially the House) is more in tune (for better or worse) with their constituents. The congress is the branch that sets policy, not the executive.

Sorry if I took your original comment out of context. I simply reacted to the bypass congress, especially the Senate language to broadly I suppose.

[SILVER__FOX52]

32. Go for it, man.

Fuck these republican, twits.

[David Zephyr]

33. Barack Obama is acting like President Obama.

Kudos! K&R.

[Jefferson23]

35. Smart, and he seals the Hispanic vote too. Say good bye to those folks voting

for you GOP.

[pinboy3niner]

37. This is NOTHING BUT A CHEAP TRICK by Grassley

The memo is a preliminary internal draft, not yet fully staffed nor signed by the authors, not finalized nor submitted yet. It is an exploration of actions that "could"--but might never--be taken (and the word "could" appears throughout), some of those potential actions dependent on the development of new legal opinions re-interpreting existing rules. This kind of exploratory staff work goes on all the time in government agencies.

Someone in the agency leaked it, realizing the potential for accusing the President of having a secret amnesty plan. Enter "pull the plug on gramma" Grassley, who knows exactly how to spin the memo as being an Administration 'plan' (though he knows it's nothing of the sort):

"This memo gives credence to our concerns that the administration will go to great lengths to circumvent Congress and unilaterally execute a back door amnesty plan."

I'm normally skeptical of what government PR people have to say, but in this case the PR guy offers a far more accurate perspective than the distortions being peddled by Grassley:

Christopher Bentley, a USCIS spokesman, said last night that the agency would not comment on details of the memo, which he described as an internal draft that "should not be equated with official action or policy of the Department...We continue to maintain that comprehensive bipartisan legislation, coupled with smart, effective enforcement, is the only solution to our nation's immigration challenges."

Bentley said that internal memos help the agency "do the thinking that leads to important changes; some of them are adopted and others are rejected" and that "nobody should mistake deliberation and exchange of ideas for final decisions."

"To be clear," he said in an e-mail, the Obama administration "will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the nation's entire illegal immigrant population."

[Jefferson23]

41. Thanks for posting, imo this memo will only help Obama in the end.

Grassley has outsmarted himself here, the Republicans are fighting against something that Obama may not even consider, but the Republicans
are as clear as ever to the Hispanic community..fuck you.

[MikeW]

42. or ...

It will outrage independents and they will vote against Dems ... esp. the unemployed in America.

Dont think this will always play out poorly for the Repubs. this has always been their issue and they have always owned it.

If they even so much as hang the Amnesty necklace around Dems necks they may wreck us in November.

For some reason we always operate under the assumption that Hispanics will always vote with Dems on this issue. I think
thats unwise to assume that.

[Jefferson23]

49. It is unwise to pass immoral legislation, and that is what the Republicans

have attempted in Arizona. If anything, the Democrats had better watch themselves, as in NY and other Blue states they
are passing immigration policy that is one, counterproductive to the issue, two, is biased and does not address the employers role.

I could go on, but the reality is the political leaders within the Hispanic community made themselves very clear during the
2008 elections, if the Republicans abandon them on this issue they will pay.

Outrage Independents? I have seen no evidence of that in any significant measure, Independents carry a wide group, most
abandoned McCain when he added Palin to run with him. The reason being she was representative of the irrational bigoted right,
they're going to support a Republican who is going to do what exactly?

Tell them we'll round up millions of people and put them on a bus? That is what the fools wanted Bush to do, even he wasn't stupid
enough to believe that was a legitimate option.

[Raggz]

54. Is there one state anywhere that opposes the AZ law?

As far as I know, the voters like the law.

[JonLP24]

57. I don't

Plenty of cities and even some Nations are in this boycott (Which I opposed at first because I thought it would end up hurting the people they support but Tea Party assholes were busing people in from out of states-especially the Southeast-to have rallies for this law supported by the author who is a racist, Russell Pearce, Joe Arpaio, and JD Hayworth which got me to support one). :puke:

Also multiple people have gotten arrested the last two days protesting Sheriff Joe's sweeps which he said he would do no matter what the court says.

[Raggz]

59. Besides urban areas?

All of the polls show that the voters in most or (all states) support the AZ law. This means that opposing the law should hurt whomever does this, except in some urban areas.

[Jefferson23]

58. I haven't seen any poll worth it's salt on the issue. n/t

[Raggz]

56. This would help Republicans, a lot

Democrats support this, independents do not. Democrats cannot be elected without independents.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/141560/Amid-Immigration-Debate-Americans-Views-Ease-Slightly.aspx

[tidy_bowl]

62. The operative word is 'entire'

By placing the word 'entire' in that last sentence, one could reasonably then ask, 'what about some'? Or granting amnesty to'most'. It is not a clear declarative statement at all. It is either a poor choice of a word, or something else?

[anigbrowl]

64. indeed - they are indeed examining solutions that would help 'most'which is ok bt me.

[Raggz]

50. Is Congress Obsolete?

Why even have a Congress anymore?

[Raggz]

51. Without Congress we then have no Republicans

It works, just get rid of Congress and we have no Republicans in the government.

[treestar]

60. Looking at that memo, it is not trying to "bypass" Congress

It is looking at internal executive branch interpretations that have been interpreted strictly and interpreting them more liberally. Some of it was highly technical and hard to understand, but it appears no one who isn't already possibly close to legal would get a break.

[pinboy3niner]

61. Exactly

It's an explorations of possible actions that would have marginal effects--NOT the broad "back-door amnesty" Grassley is claiming it is.

[w4rma]

63. His administration have lost their collective minds. (nt)