On Immigration, Politics is Different from Principle

President Barack Obama’s recently announced Homeland Security Directive, aimed at young immigrants, has reframed the entire Presidential campaign as June draws to a close. (cont.)

President Barack Obama’s recently announced Homeland Security Directive, aimed at young immigrants, has reframed the entire Presidential campaign as June draws to a close. The essence of the order means that, if they meet the directive’s criteria, DREAMers (as they’re called in reference to the DREAM act) would not be deported, and instead would have the opportunity to apply for a two-year work permit potentially allowing them to work, drive, and go to college here in the U.S.

As a longtime supporter of realistic, rational, and comprehensive immigration reform, I’m both glad at the announcement and encouraged that the President has finally come to terms with the fact that the same Republicans who insist he work with them on this issue have neither the will, the way, or, in the case of House Republicans, even the desire to do so. My stance on immigration has always been clear.

As the Senator of the most diverse district in Georgia, the 5th, I’ve seen firsthand the damage our nation’s incoherent immigration policy has done to this millennium’s huddled, yearning masses. Something needs to be done on the federal level that treats these people with both justice and kindness. Of course, that doesn’t mean the policy that President Obama announced is comprehensive enough to achieve such a tall order. It truly is a stopgap measure, one that will only provide short-term relief to the few who are caught up in a long-term problem.

With that in mind, it’s interesting to see the pushback that the President has gotten for announcing this. While the actual directive itself is a small stand on the principle those immigrants brought here as young children or infants shouldn’t be punished for their parents mistakes, the politics are being inflated to something bigger.

Speaker Boehner actually stated that changing this rule is “mak(ing) it much more difficult for us to work in a bipartisan way to get a permanent solution.” U.S. Senator Cornyn, a Republican from Texas, says its “poison(ed) the well for immigration”, while Senator Rubio, who was working on his own version of the DREAM Act to propose this session, has been quoted saying that the executive order will make immigration reform “harder to achieve in the long run."

I’m sorry, but y’all need to understand something: these Republicans are lying. It’s naive at best and disingenuous at worst, to say that all bipartisan efforts have been ruined when you are the ones holding back any significant progress on immigration. U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch, a Republican, was the first one who proposed the DREAM Act and got it on the table in Washington back in 2001 when President Bush was ascendant. Senator McCain was one half of the group that tried for bipartisan immigration support in 2007.

Only in 2010, when President Obama was in the White House and the DREAM Act was proposed yet again, did immigration reform become another party-line issue for Republican legislators. Of course, that was the year of the Tea Party and the power of the far-right base. Now that we’ve arrived in 2012 and have a presidential election, which, as a reminder, are usually won on the backs of independents, are these GOP leaders sorrowfully shaking their heads over President Obama “poisoning the well”, despite the fact that he’s currently the only one who’s actually done anything about our immigration problems?

The politics of this directive is different than the policy. Overall, this is a change that will positively benefit a small amount of immigrants that most Americans agree shouldn’t be penalized for growing up in our country. That’s probably why after this was announced, about two-thirds of American independents supported it. However, that same number is also the reason why the politics are different than the policy.

Politically, President Obama pulled the rug out from under the GOP by announcing this, forcing Governor Romney to articulate his own, distinct position on immigration (which is a weak point for Romney) while baiting the most ardent anti-immigrant anything supporters to come out of the woodwork and remind Hispanics why they might be wary of voting Republican this fall.

More moderate GOP leaders in Washington can’t attack the actual policy implications of this Homeland Security Directive for those same anti-immigrant reasons; after all, Senator Rubio’s prominence in the party is only one example of how they’re pivoting and trying to create a conservative-Hispanic coalition in order to adapt to America’s changing demographics. So all they can do now is complain about how the timing of the order is bad, or that it’s too political.

And that’s fine, but just be honest: You believe that the children of immigrants should be given a reasonable track to U.S. citizenship too, but you’re pissed that President Obama beat you to saying it.

Reprinted from State Senator Curt Thompson's (D-5th) blog. Also, check the Senator out on Facebook and Twitter.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

R++ One of the Famous Dacula Crew July 03, 2012 at 03:45 PM
If a different position is held IT must be due to RACIST groups or roots ... Please. The Federal government has responsibilities and NATIONAL border security is one of those. HOWEVER should it FAIL to act, the states ARE expected to PROTECT the welfare of its CITIZENS by all means at their disposal. Do you REALLY think that if any country attacked us that we would NOT use STATE or even local resources to supplement our defense? Would you in reality actually SUPPORT such a position? How does immigration differ?
R++ One of the Famous Dacula Crew July 03, 2012 at 03:51 PM
So lets fix it once and for all NOW at low tide, BEFORE the High tide comes back in. Fixing doesn't mean handing out "passes" until we run out of "takers" either, it means ENFORCEMENT.
David Brown July 03, 2012 at 03:51 PM
"R", thank you for proving the accuracy of the Public Religion Research Institute survey.:)
R++ One of the Famous Dacula Crew July 03, 2012 at 04:02 PM
Keep posting them and I'll call out the old, tired, ploy out every time.(Smiles) "White evangelical Protestants are the ONLY religious group among whom a majority disagree" seems like a racist based statement to me.
John Cook July 03, 2012 at 06:15 PM
Brian, interesting articles you posted. They point out President Obama's inability to lead his own party when they had a majority in both House and Senate. Others tried to take lead, but didn't have the political capital that a President always has, if he thinks the issue is important enough to use his influence: "Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) is working on his own immigration bill, and members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, led in part by Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), ramp up pressure on the administration to move for immigration reform . . . ." He used this in the 2008 elections and did nothing to move it forward. Now he is using it again during the election season. But he uses an Executive Order rather than demonstrating his lack of leadership ability to bring the parties together in Congress (as he promised to do in 2008). He's an ineffective disappointment.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »