On Tuesday, President Obama unveiled a comprehensive plan for immigration reform based on four tenets: continuing to strengthen border security, cracking down on employers hiring undocumented workers, creating pathways to earned citizenship, and streamlining legal immigration.
Speaking in Nevada, Obama said that the bi-partisan enthusiasm in the Senate is “very encouraging,” and offered a plan that closely resembles the framework outlined by a bipartisan group of eight senators. ”So at this moment, it looks like there’s a genuine desire to get this done soon,” Obama said. “The ideas I’m proposing have traditionally been supported by both Democrats like Ted Kennedy and Republicans like President George W. Bush.”
. . . McCain offered the following statement in response to Obama’s speech: “I appreciate the President’s support for our bipartisan effort on comprehensive immigration reform. While there are some differences in our approaches to this issue, we share the belief that any reform must recognize America as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. We should all agree that border security and enforcement is particularly important in order to ensure that we don’t repeat the mistakes of the 1986 immigration reform.”
What did the GOP learn from their election failures in 2012? Are they more sensitive now to the will of the People in taking care of everyone, especially the poor and the unwell? Do they understand that Americans are rejecting extremism, whether religious or militant? Will they now recognize that the era of rich white men is over, and the United States must embrace diversity? Are they ready to turn over a new leaf in 2013 and make the world a better place?
In a word ~ No.
In all the hubbub over the Fiscal Cliff, the 112th Congress failed to do anything about the Violence Against Women Act which has been in place for 18 years.
Why? Because Democrats wanted to add language protecting lesbians, Native American women, and illegal immigrants. Yeah - even though all those women were ostensibly protected by the law anyway, the GOP threw out the entire law rather than compromise on a few sentences that would have clarified some legal problems for minority women and those from other countries afraid to call 911 in case they might be deported. It can be introduced again, and surely will, but this is a great example of the fact that the GOP has not dropped the "War on Women" and indeed, they seem to be doubling down.
Another example: The very first bill proposed in the 113th Congress came from none other than wingnut extraordinaire Michele Bachmann, R-Minnesota. And what was her "fresh start" idea for a bill?
And there were plenty of other back-sliding proposals and actions the national Tea Party Republicans and their friends at the state level have made just in the past week. The New GOP is just like the old GOP, only possibly more deluded (if that's even possible).
Last night left no doubt that the Democrats have inspirational speakers who know how to touch the hearts of the base, or anyone else who might be watching. And it's not just Michelle Obama.
Stacy Lihn talking about her family's need for President Obama's healthcare plan.
Lilly Ledbetter and her struggle for equal pay.
Deval Patrick ~ the bullies win if we have no backbone.
Everyone is focused on Arizona because the Supreme Court ruling obviously applied specifically to their laws. But there are several other states with similar or identical laws on the books. In Alabama on the night before the ruling, there were protest marches and vigils in Birmingham. After the ruling, opponents in that state were optimistic that the "crackdown" on illegals would have to stop:
Alabama’s law, critics say, goes further than Arizona’s when it comes to potential racial profiling. The Alabama law makes it illegal to rent property to illegal immigrants and forces state universities and schools to check the citizenship status of their students.
Advocates opposed to the Alabama law were elated by the ruling. It represents, in their view, a death blow to the legislation they believe is discriminatory and crippling to businesses that rely on immigrant labor.
“I’m jubilant,” said Shay Farley, legal director at Alabama Appleseed, a group that is one of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit aimed at to throwing out Alabama’s immigration law.
“The Supreme Court today makes it clear that with respect to immigration enforcement schemes and regulation, that is the federal government’s job.”
Beyond the implications the ruling has on the law itself, Hispanic advocates told TPM Monday that the ruling could drive Hispanic voters to turn out against Republican legislatures like the one in Alabama.
“Any state legislature that is considering [Arizona-style immigration laws] like this will hear very loudly from the community,” said Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center.
Along with Arizona, five other states—Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Utah—have similar "show your papers" laws on the books. Meanwhile, from 2010 to 2011, 30 state legislatures rejected bills modeled after Arizona's.
Editor Tom Goldstein of the SCOTUS Blog calls the Immigration Ruling a "Big Win" for Obama Administration in discussion with Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC.
I think the Administration has to be very happy with the decision in the Arizona immigration case. They clearly won with respect to three of the four provisions of the very tough Arizona immigration law and it was basically a tie on the fourth. They didn't lose. The Supreme Court saying that on the ask for your papers provision, they didn't know enough about how the statute would be applied to know whether it was constitutional or not and they would have to wait to decide that question. They made pretty clear that you could ask for immigration papers if you had a reasonable cause if you weren't going to hold people for too long just to check their immigration status. So it does uphold that principle which is very important to a lot of Conservatives who favor the law that you can ask about the status but beyond that, it was a big win for the Obama Administration.
Hi, Peter. Thanks for taking the time. After reading over the opinion, what’s your immediate takeaway?
Well, it’s a split decision in that both sides got a bit of what they wanted. But in my view, it’s really only nominally a split decision. I think it’s mostly a victory for opponents of the law.
...*snip*...
Remind us again what 2(B) enabled the federal government to do, if you would.
Sure. That portion allows state authorities to ask someone to show his or her immigration papers if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person might be here illegally.
But 2(B) really doesn’t have any teeth, at least not in the way other provisions of the law do. 2(B) allows state officials to call [the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency] and say ‘hey, we think someone’s here illegally.’ But ICE doesn’t necessarily have to do anything in response to the state’s call.
And that’s part of why I really think this is mostly a win for the law’s opponents. Two of the three provisions that were struck down outright did have teeth — they allowed the state to put an alien in jail.
And 2(B) could be struck down later?
Right. The court ruled on the facial challenge to the law. But it’s kicking back to the lower courts the issue of whether the law is constitutional in the ways in which it gets applied. For now, we’ll have to allow those to work their way through the court system
...*snip*...
Justice Antonin Scalia, one of three dissenting justices, read a fairly scathing statement from the bench. What did you make of this?
It struck me as so much crying in the wilderness, to be honest. His view is pretty jurisprudentially extreme, and I think it could likely be the last time that Scalia gets to weigh on in immigration issues during his court tenure.
But I think a broad takeaway here is that on a court divided such as this one is, it’s Justice Kennedy who calls the shots.
Wow - news is still coming in after an intense morning.
You can read my collection of Pre-Ruling Tweets at Snark Amendment
No Health Care Ruling today ~ we must wait till Thursday. *sigh*
Today they ruled on three things:
1. Juveniles cannot be given life in prison without parole. Good all around.
2. The Court refused to hear an appeal from the State of Montana about corporations buying elections, therefore they upheld their previous Citizen's United decision. That's good for Mitt Romney, because as he says "corporations are people, my friends." But the decision will only get the Democratic base more fired up.
3. The biggest deal today - they threw out most of Arizona's state immigration law, except for the right to check someone's papers under "reasonable suspicion." Sheriff Joe Arpaio will be so happy about that, but it's also a win for the Obama Administration because Arizona lost everything else.
Angry scalia dissent to kennedy opinion on az sb 1070. Scalia makes harsh attack on obama dream act order at #scotus.
— Jeffrey Toobin (@JeffreyToobin) June 25, 2012
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected much of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, but upheld other provisions, giving a partial victory to the Obama administration.
The court ruled that Arizona cannot make it a misdemeanor for immigrants to fail to carry identification that says whether they are in the United States legally; cannot make it a crime for undocumented immigrations to apply for a job; and cannot arrest someone based solely on the suspicion that the person is in this country illegally.
However, the court let stand the part of the law that requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they detain, if there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is unlawfully in the United States. Even there, though, the justices said the provision could be subject to additional legal challenges.
"The national government has significant power to regulate immigration," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion, adding that "Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermined federal law."
Provisions struck down included:
-- Authorizing police to arrest immigrants without warrant where "probable cause" exists that they committed any public offense making them removable from the country.
-- Making it a state crime for "unauthorized immigrants" to fail to carry registration papers and other government identification.
-- Forbidding those not authorized for employment in the United States to apply, solicit or perform work. That would include immigrants standing in a parking lot who "gesture or nod" their willingness to be employed.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the minority, argued the court's ruling encroached on Arizona's sovereign powers.
"If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign state," Scalia wrote in the dissent backed by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.
The challengers to the Montana law, a small group of non-profits and corporations, told the U.S. Supreme Court in their petition that the riot of independent spending following Citizens United is irrelevant.
The Supreme Court majority said there was little difference between the struck-down federal law and the Montana law.
"In Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, this court struck down a similar federal law, holding that 'political speech does not lose First Amendment protection simply because its source is a corporation ...,'" the Supreme Court majority said in a per curiam, or unsigned, opinion, Monday. "The question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law. There can be no serious doubt that it does."
Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by the court's three other liberals, dissented.
The high court on Monday threw out Americans' ability to send children to prison for the rest of their lives with no chance of ever getting out. The 5-4 decision is in line with others the court has made, including ruling out the death penalty for juveniles and life without parole for young people whose crimes did not involve killing.
The decision came in the robbery and murder cases of Evan Miller and Kuntrell Jackson, who were 14 when they were convicted.
Once again we are in Dr. Seuss's "The Waiting Place" from Oh, the Places You'll Go while on "SCOTUS WATCH" this week, waiting to hear the verdict on Obama's Health Care Plan. Will they decide that the mandate is "severable" from the bill, or did they take the draconian measure of throwing out the baby with the bathwater leaving millions uninsured? Without a mandate does any of it work?
Either the verdict will come at 10 a.m. tomorrow, or on Thursday. Or rumor is they might add still another day because they just can't bring themselves to release more information in a day. Haven't they ever heard of Twitter or 24-hour news?
I wish the Justices would be as conscious of time and money as Judge Cleland in the Sandusky case. He made everything run on time, and got it done.
Scotus is also ruling on the Arizona state immigration laws and whether their conservative state government can usurp federal law. As if we need more controversy about Arizona! Wingnuts please stand by. Cue Sheriff Joe Arpaio for CNN once again.
This week may be crazy, and perhaps we can see a metaphorical omen in Hurricane Debby, which was forecast on Friday to move west towards Texas, yet is still churning up the Gulf Coast of Florida and heading northeast instead. Everyone has been caught unaware, mired in torrential rain. The prognosticators were all wrong. The computer models were a hot mess.
A harbinger of the week ahead, perhaps?
People of any persuasion could get bogged down by these verdicts - Democrats, Republicans, Teapublicans, Libertarians, people who just want to be Americans and are sick of bigotry, and people who are actually sick with fatal diseases and don't want to hear anymore broccoli jokes for the little time they have left.
Like Hurricane Debby, I bet the SCOTUS has a few surprises for us yet. No one really knows what is going to happen, except the Justices and they won't give us any warning before the tornadoes hit. But till tomorrow we sit in the dark, waiting for someone to turn on the light.
There's a lovely essay by President Obama on the "Dream Act" and the symbolism of the Statue of Liberty in Time Magazine. Funny how every American is descended from an immigrant family at some time in the past, but now want to slam the door on everyone else. Heart and mind disconnect, unfortunately.
Obama is such an optimist that he is still urging Congress to pass the The Dream Act. Considering the pressure the Republicans are under to save the Latino vote this election year, they might just listen to Obama this time. Or not (which is fine because he will be reelected more easily). But still, a lovely essay.
. . . There is still time for Congress to pass the DREAM Act this year, because deserving young people should be able to plan their lives in more than two-year increments. And we still need to pass comprehensive immigration reform that addresses our 21st century economic and security needs. Reform that gives our farmers and ranchers certainty about the workers that they’ll have. Reform that gives our science and technology sectors certainty that the young people who come here to earn their PhDs won’t be forced to leave and start new businesses in other countries. Reform that continues to improve our border security, and lives up to our heritage as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.
. . . I believe that, eventually, enough Republicans in Congress will come around to that view as well because it is the right thing to do for our economy — something CEOs throughout the country agree with — and it is the right thing to do for our national security. Above all, it is the right thing to do, period.
We didn’t raise the Statue of Liberty with its back to the world. We raised it with its light to the world. What makes us American is not a question of what we look like or what our names are. What makes us American is our shared belief in the enduring promise of this country – and our shared responsibility to leave it more generous and more hopeful than we found it.
ABC News is reporting that Marco Rubio is probably out of the Veepstakes and isn't being vetted as a possible running mate for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
He has not been asked to complete any questionnaires or been asked to turn over any financial documents typically required of potential vice presidential candidates.
Although it is possible that Rubio may yet be asked to go through the vetting process, it has been nearly two months since Romney named his long-time aide Beth Myers to run his vice presidential search. The fact that Rubio has not been asked to turn over any documents by now is a strong indication that he is not on Romney’s short list of potential running mates.
Officially the Romney campaign has no comment. And Rubio has refused to make any comment when it comes to vice presidential questions.
This comes as no surprise to me, because as I blogged in detail back in May, The Donald Trump (who was travelling around with Romney on Honeymoon-in-Vegas week) said Rubio was too young and too ambivalent, and that same week ex-Att. General Roberto Gonzales told CNN that Rubio wasn't experienced or "wise" enough to run for Vice President.
But the real kiss of death was probably last Friday when Rubio was the first Republican to praise President Obama's decision to extend safe status to 800,000 illegal "Dreamers" who have been trapped in legal Limbo. This is too far left of Very Important Tea Party Birthers such as Joe Arpaio and Trump himself. Add to that this quote from Rubio's new book, American Son, in which Rubio writes:
Many people who come here illegally are doing exactly what we would do if we lived in a country where we couldn’t feed our families....If my kids went to sleep hungry every night and my country didn’t give me an opportunity to feed them, there isn’t a law, no matter how restrictive, that would prevent me from coming here.
How dare he write such a *gasp* compassionate and understanding sentence! That does not compute for the Romneybot equation of Big Fence Plus Self-Deporting Grandma equals Republican Immigration Policy. That doesn't add up with Sheriff Joe Arpaio arresting a 6-year-old illegal girl after Obama's new rule went into place. And it especially doesn't add up with Donald Trump's Obama Birther Conspiracy Theory.
This is actually an opportunity for Rubio. Being an "outsider" to the Romney campaign puts him in line with other mainstream conservatives from Jeb Bush to Arnold Schwarzenegger to George Will to. Sanity is a good thing, and Rubio will probably thank his stars someday that he narrowly escaped.
This comes via eXtina on Daily Kos... and I'm glad she brought it to light because while my husband loves PBS, I'm an MSNBC addict. So I often miss these little political gems.
Mark Shields of PBS said that Friday was "The Worst Day of Mitt Romney's Life" because President Obama usurped him completely with his announcement about immigration.
That makes me smile. :) Shields said:
But, very bluntly, this is the worst day of Mitt Romney's life, as the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party. Being president means that you are at a negative end when there's bad job numbers. But being president when you can take an affirmative action that makes your opponent squirm, even though it is an action that is totally consistent with where you have been in a policy sense -- and this for Mitt Romney is a character issue, because in 2008, 2012, he ran to the hard right of John McCain, of Rudy Giuliani, of Mike Huckabee there 2008, and of Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry in 2012 on the immigration.
He embraced the Arizona -- controversial Arizona state law. He said he would veto the DREAM Act. And they're looking at the fastest growing constituency in the country. And he really is scrambling now to get back.
What does Mitt Romney do? Does he reject the president's action? Does he promise to repeal it? Does he promise to honor it? Does he support legal challenges against it? He -- I thought he was terribly slow off the mark today. His answer was equivocal.
It reminded you of the 3:00 in the morning phone call. What does a president do? Is he going to have to poll his consultants when that happens? I just think this is really dangerous, dangerous territory. And the White House effectively changed the entire terms of the debate and the narrative, where they have been on the defensive and losing, and put Romney I think squarely on the defensive, where he is squirming.
Mark Gerson of Washington Post:
Romney's promise to veto the Dream Act is a serious vulnerability from this campaign. The President drove a truck through that vulnerability today. He pre-empted Marco Rubio, whose legislation he's proposing on this topic.
This smacks a little bit of the "Chicago Way" to promise a benefit to a major target group in these key states five months before an election. I think that's a risk. There's also a procedural risk that the Congress is going to be concerned about. . . . the President went around the normal procedures. . . . but it is primarily a vindication of the power of incumbancy to change the dialogue.
And on Sunday Romney is going to be interviewed on CBS by Bob Schieffer, and while we can't expect hardball questions - eXtina calls Schieffer "that marshmallow" because he is always so pro-Republican - Romney doesn't need much help to trip over his own tongue and get mired in controversy once again. Stay tuned.
On Friday afternoon, Obama announced an executive decision that will halt the deportation of "Dreamers" - illegal immigrants who were brought to this country as children and who are now working or in school. He spoke in the White House Rose Garden about the fact that Congress and the Republicans have stalled out on the "Dream Act" that would have granted these young people a path to citizenship.
Those who might benefit from the change expressed joy and relief, with celebratory demonstrations forming outside the White House and elsewhere.
Pedro Ramirez, a student who has campaigned for such a move, said he was "definitely speechless," then added: "It's great news."
In a Rose Garden address Friday afternoon, President Barack Obama said the changes caused by his executive order will make immigration policy "more fair, more efficient and more just."
"This is not amnesty. This is not immunity. This is not a path to citizenship. It's not a permanent fix," Obama said to take on conservative criticism of the step. "This is a temporary stopgap measure."
Noting children of illegal immigrants "study in our schools, play in our neighborhoods, befriend our kids, pledge allegiance to our flag," Obama said, "it makes no sense to expel talented young people who are, for all intents and purposes, Americans."
This is the President at his finest playing multi-dimensional chess. The Latinos are jubilant that they can keep their jobs and finish their education; their families now have more hope than ever and a reason to stay politically active; the Democrats are thrilled that Obama is fired up about something that will also shore up the Latino vote; and Republican heads began to explode before he even finished his speech.
Chief Joe Arpaio, notorious birther, was sitting there on CNN even before the President began his speech, muttering to Wolf Blitzer that it wouldn't make his job any easier in Arizona and moaning "Why did he (Obama) have to go and do this? Why didn't he wait on the Surpreme Court?" referring to the fact that the Surpreme Court is about to rule as early as next week on Arizona's controversial law Senate Bill 1070 which would allow Arizona to have an "illegals round-up."
"The governor is optimistic that the heart of SB 1070 will be upheld and implemented," (Jan) Brewer spokesman Matthew Benson said. "The governor thought this was an appropriate time to revisit the issue and make sure Arizona law enforcement is as prepared as possible for partial or full implementation of the law."
SB 1070, among other things, makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally and requires an officer engaged in a lawful stop, detention or arrest to, when practical, ask about a person's legal status when reasonable suspicion exists that the person is in the U.S. illegally.
Federal courts halted that part and four other key parts of the law from being enforced. Brewer appealed to the Supreme Court to allow the entire law to go into effect.
Take that, Jan Brewer! :) Call off the police!
And take that, Mitt Romney - now Grandma won't have to "deport herself" back to Mexico, Honduras, or Cuba, as he talked about during the January Republican Debates. That was his far-right position pandering to the extremists, and it never sounded humane or convincing coming from Romney. Romney's etch-a-sketch will be shaking weekend as he tries to get back to the center and earn some goodwill from the 20% of Latinos who don't already see Obama as a better candidate.
Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, often mentioned as a possible VP for Romney, had some praise for Obama's move, but noted that it was only a stop-gap measure in effect for the next two years. He can hardly attack it too strongly or risk the censure of his own Latino constituents.
“Today’s announcement will be welcome news for many of these kids desperate for an answer, but it is a short-term answer to a long term problem. And by once again ignoring the Constitution and going around Congress, this short-term policy will make it harder to find a balanced and responsible long-term one.”
The problem with that strategy is members of Congress like Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa).
King, one of the most outspoken Republicans on the issue of border security and illegal immigration, is now saying he will sue the Obama administration over the policy. While he agrees with Romney and Rubio that this raises issues of congressional prerogatives, he’s taking it a big step further.
“I’m prepared to bring a suit and seek a court order to stop implementation of this policy,” King said on Mike Huckabee’s radio show.
Other immigration hawks in the GOP were also quick to decry the decision.
“It rewards law-breaking,” said Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.). “And it’s deeply unfair to those who came to this country legally.”
The fact is that there are all manner of conservative members of Congress who are more than happy to prosecute this issue in the coming hours and days — even as Romney would rather not.
Need more proof that Republican heads are 'splodin'?
How about this - a rude reporter for the conservative website Daily Caller broke Press Corp etiquette by shouting out President Obama as he was speaking. The President was steaming mad and told him off, then walked away at the end without answering any questions. Hopefully that jerk will never darken the White House Rose Garden again, and I noticed by the end of the speech that he seemed to have an entourage of Secret Service Agents standing right behind him. So long, guy.
Just fun times all around for political watchers and especially Democrats.
just know that Neil Munro, a reporter for the right-wag Daily Caller, attempted to interrupt President Obama while he was making an announcement on his new immigration policy this afternoon. The President wasn't having any of it, smacking down Munro and then telling him, "The next time I prefer you let me finish my statements before you ask a question."
For the first time in U.S. history, the minority birth rate exceeds that of Caucasion Americans. As the LA Times reports:
The United States has reached a historic tipping point -- with Latino, Asian, mixed race and African American births constituting a majority of births for the first time, theU.S. Census Bureau reported Thursday.
...Latino’s were 16.7% of the U.S. population in 2011, up from 16.3% in 2010.
...African Americans were the second-largest minority group in the United States, at 43.9 million in 2011, up 1.6% from 2010.
...Asians, who numbered 18.2 million nationally in 2011, were the second fastest-growing minority group, up by 3% since 2010.
Of course, these statistics scare the majority base of the Republican Party, who are lily-white in the main and not "into" inclusion anymore. Not to mention that it's the trend right now during a mean election year to slam immigrants, even those here legally, as somehow "Un-American" as if the phrase "melting pot" only applies to those of Irish, German and Italian descent. But this way of thinking is a logical dead-end, and can only signal the further marginal status of the right-wing.
It is not a good thing. The immigrants do not share American values, so it is a good bet that they will not be voting Republican when they start voting in large numbers.
[...]
Instead, the USA is being transformed by immigrants who do not share those values, and who have high rates of illiteracy, illegitimacy, and gang crime, and they will vote Democrat when the Democrats promise them more food stamps.
What Ms. Schlafly and her group forget is that these children are American citizens by birth, and therefore equal to everyone else. And she is confusing "minority" with the word "immigrant." Some and probably most of the minority children counted by the Census come from families whose ancestors have been in the country for well over 100 years.
Yes, they might grow up and vote Democratic someday, perhaps because the Democrats never questioned their legitimacy as citizens or their equal right to have a good life in the United States. Or they might grow up to vote Democratic because they remember which party helped their families to cope with the Great Recession when they needed help from the government. I'm sure their families will remember who did NOT want to help them, who wanted to cut off their health care and education, not to mention the food stamps - which are mostly given to WHITE needy families anyway. They will remember who didn't want them around, so just go ahead, Republicans - make yourselves obsolete by rejecting these innocent children who will grow up to be the MAJORITY. See how that works for you.
