Dem's DACA Dishonesty

Discussion in 'Political Action Forum' started by API, Sep 10, 2017.

  1. API

    API PAF-CA Flyway Moderator Flyway Manager

    Dec 29, 2008
    The more one studies the DACA fiasco, the more the underpinnings get exposed. For example, in so many ways until taking an unconstitutional action, Obama was just another role player throwing self serving wrenches into the legislative process.

    What's becoming obvious is the amount of historical ignorance on display by the defenders of DACA.

    What's most unfortunate is how the the DACA acolytes have been played for chumps by ambitious politicians.

    Its a bit of a read, but still a valuable narrative about how we got to today's mess. At minimum, the Dems ought to be ashamed at their output.
    By CARL M. CANNON | Press-Enterprise
    September 9, 2017 at 8:09 am
    Carl M. Cannon is executive editor and Washington Bureau chief of RealClearPolitics.

    Fulfilling his role as the titular head of “The Resistance,” Barack Obama took to Facebook Tuesday to snipe at the Trump administration’s announcement that it was rescinding the 44th president’s 2012 executive action called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

    “We shouldn’t threaten the future of this group of young people who are here through no fault of their own,” Obama said. His post was florid and self-serving. But five words in his lengthy screed —“through no fault of their own” — are undeniably true.

    It’s not the fault of the “Dreamers” that their parents brought them here, without papers, as minors. On that we can agree. But whose fault is it that they are still in limbo? For that answer, Obama needn’t take to social media. He can simply look in the mirror.

    Ten years ago, a narrow consensus was forged in Washington, if only briefly. Its architects were Edward Kennedy and John McCain. Their carefully crafted legislation created a new temporary work visa, established an electronic data base for employers to check employees’ work status, and earmarked money for border enforcement. It also provided a path to citizenship for an estimated 11.6 million illegal immigrants, provided they paid a fine and back taxes, met English and civics requirements, and stayed on the right side of the law.

    President George W. Bush signaled his support. But the vote was going to be close, which Kennedy and McCain knew. Conservatives dismissed the path-to-citizenship as a fig leaf for amnesty. Organized labor hated the guest-worker program, known as Y-1. McCain and Kennedy could have overcome that opposition, albeit narrowly, except for one last little group of senators. Call it the Senate Presidential Wannabe Caucus. Its membership included Illinois freshman Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. That’s only two votes, but it was enough.

    On June 6, 2007, Sen. Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, introduced an innocuous-sounding rider to the McCain-Kennedy bill. Its official description was “an amendment to sunset the Y-1 non-immigrant visa program after a 5-year period.” As everyone in the Senate understood, this was a “poison pill” designed not to shore up the bill, but sink it. Dorgan got his way, too. The amendment passed 49-48, essentially killing comprehensive immigration reform.

    Kennedy was incensed. He’d implored Dorgan and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid not to do it. McCain felt particularly sandbagged by Obama, who’d inserted himself into the legislative negotiations uninvited, wrangled a concession he wanted, then voted with Dorgan. McCain assumed Obama didn’t want George W. Bush or himself — the man Obama expected to face in 2008 — to get credit for immigration reform. Ted Kennedy, who ended up endorsing Obama over Clinton anyway, believed this, too.

    Kennedy died in 2009 before he could convince Obama to revisit this issue. It wouldn’t have mattered. The GOP was becoming more nativist, the Democrats more cynical. The chance for a legislative solution had come and gone.

    But what about a non-legislative solution? This turned out to be President Obama’s specialty, the niceties of constitutional democracy be damned. In June 2012, with shifting public opinion polls now in his favor, Obama issued DACA, which he called “a temporary, stopgap measure” to curb the practice of deporting undocumented Americans brought to this country before their 16th birthday.

    Was this constitutional? It might have been, had the president announced that because his Justice Department lacked the personnel to adequately adjudicate 11 million cases, it was necessary to prioritize law enforcement’s areas of emphasis and that, henceforth, no federal government resources would be spent on deporting the “Dreamers.” Wink, wink.

    But that’s not what Obama did. He announced a formal new government program granting work permits to those without papers. This “temporary, stopgap” measure superseded existing federal immigration law and, two years later, Obama sought to expand DACA, prompting a legal challenge from several states. Was the president on shaky constitutional ground? One assumes so, if for no other reason than Obama repeatedly said so himself — and he did it in precise and colorful language.

    On Cinco de Mayo in 2010, he said, “Anybody who tells you … that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn’t been paying attention to how this town works.”

    “I am president, I am not king,” he said that October. “I can’t do these things just by myself.”

    “I know some here wish that I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how democracy works,” he said in April 2011.

    “I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books,” he added in July 2011. “… Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting … but that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”

    Later, he had the temerity to claim he hadn’t changed his stance, a howler that blew the minds of media fact-checkers.

    So that’s the backstory to Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ Tuesday announcement that the administration will rescind DACA because it’s unconstitutional. Trump has not spoken against DACA itself; moreover, he sent out a tweet reassuring “Dreamers” that they have nothing to worry about for six months. This gambit suggests that Trump wants DACA codified into law, apparently as part of a comprehensive package.

    Instead of responding to this overture in a spirit of compromise, Democrats chose vitriol and name-calling, their default position in the Trump era. Luis Gutiérrez, an Illinois congressman, called White House Chief of Staff John Kelly a “disgrace to the uniform he used to wear” over DACA. Remember last summer when every Democrat and most of the media went medieval on Trump for picking a fight with a Gold Star family? Well, John Kelly is a Gold Star dad, too. Luis Gutiérrez never wore the uniform.

    For sheer demagoguery, it was hard to top Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton’s erstwhile rival had this to say: “Trump’s decision on DACA is the ugliest and most cruel decision ever made by a president of the U.S. in the modern history of this country.”

    When one considers Woodrow Wilson re-segregating the federal workforce or FDR interning 110,000 Japanese-Americans who committed no crime, the thought occurs that this is possibly the most ignorant utterance by a U.S. senator in the modern history of this country.

    But historical amnesia was the Democrats’ de facto strategy and, in the interest of efficiency, they used the same talking points. “Trump is clueless & cruel,” tweeted former California Sen. Barbara Boxer. “Above all he is a coward.”

    Nancy Pelosi described it as “cowardice” and “cruelty.” Chuck Schumer called it “heartless.”

    And so it went. One wonders if this was DNC-circulated messaging, drawn up by some 24-year-old staffer. Someone apparently too callow to know that today’s Democrats are a historic anomaly. Normally Congress likes it when a president respects their prerogative to make law.

    Or perhaps these talking points weren’t written by a millennial. Perhaps they were written by a certain ex-president trying to help us forget that when he and Hillary Clinton — along with Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and Bernie Sanders — had the chance to grant 11 million immigrants access to the American Dream, they instead chose, for partisan purposes, to keep them in the shadows.​
  2. pintail2222

    pintail2222 Elite Refuge Member

    Oct 8, 2002
    Collier Co. Florida
    Wasn't DACA the one where Obama first said he couldn't do it because the Constitution didn't allow him to do so? He didn't have the legal authority?

    And then when he did it - didn't he claim it was temporary? A temporary stop-gap measure?

    "This is a temporary stop-gap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, and patriotic young people,”

    He didn't do anybody any favors after his reelection now did he?
  3. API

    API PAF-CA Flyway Moderator Flyway Manager

    Dec 29, 2008
    DACA... Candy for the chumps.
  4. Bear

    Bear Elite Refuge Member

    Nov 30, 2002
    God Bless Texas!!!
    DACA and DAPA were most likely headed towards the crapper anyway because of the states threatening to sue Trump if he didn't do something about rescinding the programs and the others states suing to protect DAPA and DACA issue made it to the now originalist leaning SCOTUS. A classic case of a high noon SCOTUS hearing. Conflicting states and therefore conflicting Federal Judicial districts.

    Commenting on the democrats not making any attempt to understand what's going on and just reacting without reason in essence they are/were willing to ignore the Constitution and give near unlimited authority to a President for their feel good reasons. This is how tyrants develop, (not saying Obama). Feel good intentions implemented to override laws limiting executive power.

    Presidents can not rewrite the laws with EOs. And there's that booger in the soup of the President's Oath of Office to uphold/preserve the COTUS. Obama essentially not only violated the tenet of the Constitution, which as a lawyer that taught Constitutional law at the prestigious Univ. of Chicago Law, he knew his EO was illegal and he therefore, and also, violated his oath of office. He may have even tried to establish a precedent as there is no constitutional authority for Executive Orders.

    Obama probably knew the Congress at the time very well and knew its flooded swamp chambers were filled with feckless...harrumph...harrumphs so he could get away with his unconstitutional EO.
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2017
    pintail2222 likes this.
  5. takemrarely

    takemrarely Elite Refuge Member

    Feb 28, 2004
    Now know this has to be fake news or that pillar of the community and force for justice for all, Maxine Watters, would have been screaming for impeachment.
    WoodieSC likes this.

Share This Page