Obama has an immigration policy. Republicans don’t.

Posted: November 20, 2014 by watsonthethird in Conservative Hypocrisy, Conservative Idiocy, Current Events, Immigration, Politics
Tags: , , , , ,

Ezra Klein tells it like it is tonight.

[O]ne way or another, Republicans need to decide what to do with the 11 million unauthorized immigrants living in the country now. They need to take away Obama’s single strongest argument — that this is a crisis, and that congressional Republicans don’t have an answer and won’t let anyone else come up with one.

Republicans aren’t just the opposition party anymore. They are, arguably, the governing party — they will soon control the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, most state legislatures, and more governorships. And the governing party needs to solve — or at least propose solutions — to the nation’s problems. And that means the Republican policy on immigration needs to be something more than opposing Obama’s immigration policies. It needs to be something more than vague noises about border security.

This isn’t a problem made up by Obama. It’s math. There are 11 million unauthorized immigrants living in the country right now. Congress allocates enough money to deport roughly 400,000 of them annually. Our policy towards the 10.6 million unauthorized immigrants we’re not deporting is that we don’t have a policy. Democrats support a path to citizenship. Republicans don’t support anything.

“Republicans don’t support anything.”

Actually, that’s not quite right. Since 2008, Republicans have supported one thing: Stopping President Obama–and by extension, the rest of the country–from solving problems. Because in their eyes, he’s an illegitimate president. To compromise or work with him in any manner would be to confer to him some legitimacy, even if only a tiny bit. And that is one thing Republicans have not been willing to do.

That, really, is Obama’s advantage right now. Even if you think he’s going too far, he at least wants to solve the problem. Republicans don’t seem to want to do anything except stop Obama from solving the problem. That’s not a winning position. More to the point, it’s not a responsible one.

It’s worth reading Klein’s entire post. It’s short.

  1. The Left assumes the fact that congress is passing legislation, it must therefore be doing something, and since something is better than nothing, it must be doing something good. Never have they accurately described the reason for business cycles, or income inequality; but since lobbyists and lawyers are writing legislation and congress is voting they must be doing something that improves the situation. This is completely pragmatic, and assumes the more bills that are passed, the more good that is being done. All without considering, how government action via the Central Bank, Fannie and Freddie, and the Community Reinvestment Act; misallocate funds in a free market, leading to high overvaluations, and cause Recessions (Boom, then Bust).

    • Welcome, Keith. I don’t know about “the left,” but I wouldn’t subscribe to the theory the any law is better than no law. And boom and bust cycles have existed long before things like the Community Reinvestment Act, so I’d need to see more evidence to suggest that the CRA, for example, is causing boom and bust cycles that didn’t exist before. Isn’t boom and bust a feature of free market capitalism?

      As for lobbyists and lawyers writing legislation, how would you fix that problem?

      • I specified those, in reference to what was a current problem discussed in Washington, without mentioning CRA, Fannie, Freddie, and the Central bank. Booms and busts occur as a result of misallocation of resources, when prices are not the reflection of supply and demand on a free market. In a free market, prices vary and are able to adjust to changes in consumer demand; and exchanges are voluntary(1). People buy things they want at the market price; and producers are signaled to where consumer demand exists, and products in low supply bid up the price and incentivize competitors to provide a similar product.

        When the state spends money, it confiscates it by force; there’s is little incentive for them to make sure they get the best bang for their buck, or buy things consumers value. If society valued them, they would have bought them voluntarily. Prices rise in the products they purchase, because after being subsidized, it is consumed more; and do not adjust as they otherwise would- leading to high over evaluations rapidly in the industry receiving most funds.

        The Central bank is the primary cause, thats why bust’s are worse since it’s creation in 1913; because it allows the state to print money, it before had to tax its citizens directly. This theory is consistent with every Panic and Recession in America, from 1792 Copper Panic, Panic of 1819, 1873, Panic of 1907, Recession of 1920, Great Depression, and the recent Bust. If gave F.A. Hayek the 1974 Nobel Prize; and is often ignored, but is the best competing theory I have come across. – Austrian Business Cycle Theory

        (1) Yes thieves steal in both economies, but the overall effect is trivial in comparison

      • So no, they are caused by government intervention in the private market.

        As for your second question- Lower taxes, the lower the better.

        Lawyers and lobbyists run to the place where $3,4 Trillion a year is taken by force; it’s a ton of cash to try to get a piece of, and they have no incentive to pay close attention to where the money is spent.

        It also leads corporations to try to get money by lobbying to D.C. instead of trying to spend time and resources on things they could sell of value on the free market.

      • meursault1942 says:

        “Isn’t boom and bust a feature of free market capitalism?”

        Yes, it is–and it used to be much worse (and more frequent) than it is now.

        There’s a lot of religious-style belief in free market fairies and the idea that the free market is always right, and when it isn’t, that can only mean the market is insufficiently free and pure–a position that even Alan freaking Greenspan had to admit was fundamentally naive. But it’s appealing if you’re already coming from a right-wing perspective: Government is bad, and any problems in the economy therefore must be due “government interference” because government is bad and the market is infallible.

        I must admit, though, that while I’ve seen conservatives insist that tax cuts are the answer to a vast array of situations–every economic situation imaginable calls for tax cuts in their world–this is the first time I’ve seen the claim that tax cuts will prevent lobbyists from writing legislation. One wonders if Keith has even heard of ALEC, for starters.

      • rustybrown2012 says:

        Meursault’s absolutely right of course. I find Keith’s correlation between powerful lobbyists and taxes bizarre and naive, but fully what I would expect from a libertarian. The faith in lower taxes and less governmental interference is belied by the relative affluence, stability and healthy middle class of mid twentieth century America compared to present day, not to mention strong contemporary European economies like Germany, which don’t appear to be suffering under a higher tax rate and a government that regulates in concern for it’s population’s overall welfare.

    • Cluster says:

      Keith, you are a voice of truth and reason. Very good comments of which I am sure it will be hard for the fellas here to wrap their head around.

  2. meursault1942 says:

    Why go to all that trouble of coming up with ideas and trying to solve problems? That’s just socialist-talk! Besides, it’s way easier to just go full Retired Spook and indulge in paranoid fantasies of race war. That counts as a policy, right?

  3. 02casper says:

    The causes of the recession aren’t quite as simple as you stated.


  4. 02casper says:

    On the other blog you stated “The stark differences between Reagan’s and Bush’s executive actions vs Obama’s are substantial”. Substantial in what ways?

    • Cluster says:

      Reagan and Bush were putting defining measures on an existing law, i.e.; the immigration reform bill of 1986. Obama is simply establishing his own reform. This has been pointed out on several occasions yet Democrats still lie about it. In fact, Democrats lie just about everything.

  5. meursault1942 says:

    O/T but funny: Wingnuts are now 0-for-7 on BENGHAZIIIIIIII!!111!!121!!!!. But you know what they say: 8th time’s the charm!

    Of course, as we point and laugh at conservatives, it is important to remember that they are so deranged that it is a “fact” to them that BENGHAZIIIIIIII!!111!!121!!!! is a real scandal that proves how “corrupt” and “lawless” Obama is because reasons. When we talk about their divorce from reality, this is exactly what we mean.

  6. Cluster says:

    The best course of action is to just ignore this executive order and the increasingly irrelevant President, and go to work helping legal Americans. The actions the President took really don’t amount to much anyway, it was simply a partisan effort to pander to one base and anger another. Juvenile and petulant, but that’s who this President is. If he did care, and that’s a big if, he would have done something back in 2009. But he didn’t and we all know why.

    The real obstructionist was Harry Reid who buried hundreds of bi partisan bills under his desk and once those start to arrive on the President’s desk after being debated in the Senate, we will all realize who the party of no is.

    • rustybrown2012 says:

      Right. I can’t wait to see all those brilliant, scuttled Republican bills which would have aided our recovery if only for the evil Democrats. Can you point to one, or must we wait in breathless suspense and just let our imaginations go wild? You know, like waiting for proof of global cooling?

    • 02casper says:

      Just curious on how you are going to ignore the executive order.

    • Cluster says:

      It’s not difficult to ignore something. Much like what I do with this blog 90% of the time. This blog is as irrelevant and inconsequential as Obama’s executive order is. The fact is, we haven’t been deporting families, this is really just an extension of Obama’s unilateral action on the Dreamers a while back and in reality the Obama regime is suing my State for actually trying to enforce immigration laws. So nothing has changed. Simply the actions of a petulant child who can’t wait another 60 days after dragging his feet for 6 years.

      Among many of the bills laying waste on Harry Reid’s desk are tax reform, regulatory reform, an opportunity for corporations to receive tax incentives to repatriate trillions of dollars – actions of which will help legal Americans. And when Obama veto’s the keystone pipeline among other sensible legislation that will finally arrive on his desk, America will know for sure which party is obstructionist.

      • So we should expect a blizzard of bills to come out of the 114th Congress, right? By the way, why is it that none of the Republican responses to President Obama’s immigration executive order includes passing an immigration bill?

      • rustybrown2012 says:

        Okay then. We’ll anticipate the “hundreds” of very substantial bills to be freed from Democratic obstructionism. What we’ll actually get is the usual Republican agenda of undermining this twice elected President and showering favors on the wealthy. As with trickle down economics, the GOP’s standard ploy is: “Trust us, the good things are just around the corner!”

      • meursault1942 says:

        There is the inconvenient fact that Obama has been deporting at record levels. Oh, and more than 500 days ago, the Senate passed an immigration reform bill. The teabagger-led Congress–the most disliked Congress in the history of this nation–did its usual mindless obstructionism, though. Too busy chasing BENGHAZIIIIIIII1!!!1112211!!! You know, really responding to the will of the people and doing the important work.

        You can’t go more than a few words without lying; you really have internalized all the wingnut bullshit, haven’t you? Next you’re gonna tell us that Keystone XL will create thousands of jobs and that tax cuts spur economic growth!

      • Cluster says:

        People being turned away at the border are now counted as deportations, so your “record level” comment is sad, but not unexpected. Keystone will create thousands of jobs, not to mention keep the oil from going to China where they will not be as careful with it in the refining process, so as an environmentalist, you should support Keystone.

        The Senate passed immigration bill does very little for security, thus does not solve the problem. So what’s the point? I prefer to resolve the problem so we are not talking about this again in 10 years.

      • 02casper says:

        “Keystone will create thousands of jobs, not to mention keep the oil from going to China where they will not be as careful with it in the refining process, so as an environmentalist, you should support Keystone.”

        Most of the jobs will only last until the pipeline is built. Afterwards not so many. Maybe 50 or 60. And the damage to the environment isn’t worth it.

        “The Senate passed immigration bill does very little for security, thus does not solve the problem. So what’s the point? ”

        You mean we shouldn’t do anything unless the bill is perfect? And the problem isn’t just about security, it’s about what to do about 11 million people, most of whom came here for a better life just as our people did.

      • meursault1942 says:

        Oh, you mean the ATEP program that Bush used as well, albeit not as effectively? No matter how you slice it, you can’t escape the fact that Obama has done a vastly superior job to Bush. And besides, I thought conservatives wanted people to be turned away at the border. What gives? These inconsistencies make it look as though conservatives are bereft of any principles beyond mindless obstructionism…but that couldn’t be, could it?

  7. 02casper says:

    “Right. I can’t wait to see all those brilliant, scuttled Republican bills which would have aided our recovery if only for the evil Democrats.”

    He’s probably talking about the 50 some times Republicans tried to get rid of Obamacare. You know, the law that has helped millions of legal Americans get health insurance.

    • Quiet, Casper. The right is ignoring this.

    • rustybrown2012 says:

      That’s funny, Casper. We can rest assured facts will not interfere with Cluster’s raging purple hard on (metaphorically speaking) over Benghazi. Just as he is immune to contravening evidence on all the other issues he’s so wrong about. No wonder he’s so angry!

    • rustybrown2012 says:

      Hey Cluster, direct question: should we spend more taxpayer dollars investigating Benghazi?

      • rustybrown2012 says:


      • Cluster says:

        You know people like you are completely irrelevant now at the national and state levels following the last election. People are tired of your divisive nature and incessant lying. I think, yes, Congress has a responsibility to find out why Obama and Clinton lied in the aftermath of Benghazi.

      • See? Like I said in the other post, if conservatives don’t see it on Fox New, or don’t hear it on Rush Limbaugh, it didn’t happen.

      • And you’d think Republicans would be kind of angry for being misled for two years, but… oh, wait. They still are.

      • rustybrown2012 says:

        Well Cluster, about Benghazi, like I said to you last year – Good luck with that! And good luck with thinking that this normal election cycle with the lowest, oldest voter turnout in US history is some kind of national sea change.

      • rustybrown2012 says:

        Too funny that a man who favors a partisan, tax payer funded witch hunt over an issue that has been thoroughly investigated and debunked accuses others of being “divisive”.

      • meursault1942 says:

        “And you’d think Republicans would be kind of angry for being misled for two years, but… oh, wait. They still are.”

        Well, the fact that 7 out of 7 investigations have come up empty only proves how deep the conspiracy runs!

        Just for fun, though, try to image what reaction conservatives would’ve had if anybody had tried to apply this level of scrutiny to the push to invade Iraq, which was demonstrably based on proven falsehoods. That’s where conservatives are, though: Obsessed with lies to mindlessly attack the opposition; obsessed with lies to mindlessly protect their own. It’s the closest thing conservatism has to a principle these days.

  8. popscott says:

    Obama has an BAD immigration policy. Anything this dictator is trying to pull is a bunch of garbage.

    • Welcome, popscott. Perhaps you would like to elaborate on why his immigration policy is bad. Frankly, the fact that you refer to the president as a “dictator” tells me you’re not terribly serious.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s