Ten Things to Know About Obama's Immigration Actions

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"

On June 27, 2013, the Senate overwhelmingly passed a comprehensive bipartisan immigration reform bill by a vote of 68-32.   In the 17 months since then, the Tea Party-controlled House of Representatives neither acted on the Senate bill nor provided one of their own.  Last Thursday night, President Obama announced that he would be taking executive action on immigration.  The President formally signed these actions on Friday.  Here are 10 things to know about Obama's immigration plan.

1.  The immigration plan addresses three areas: additional resources for border security, an "easier and faster" way for "high-skilled immigrants, graduates and entrepreneurs to stay",  and dealing responsibly "with the millions of undocumented immigrants who already live in our country."

2.  The executive order will protect from deportation about 40% of the nation's 11 million undocumented immigrants.  The largest group, estimated to be between 2.5 and 3.4 million, consists of immigrant parents who have lived in the U.S. for at least five years and have children who either were born in the U.S. or are legal permanent residents. An additional 700,000 will benefit from an expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (aka "the Dreamer program"), a program that allows certain immigrants who were brought into the country as children to stay and work on a temporary basis.  [1, 2]

3. The president’s executive action offers deportation relief for the largest number of undocumented immigrants in recent history, but not the opportunity to obtain permanent residency or citizenship. Only Congress has the authority to offer a path to legal status.  [2]

4. If a future administration reverses course or if Congress passes an immigration law, the protection from deportation could be taken away. [2]

5. None of the immigrants who will be given new legal protections will get government subsidies for health care under the Affordable Care Act, nor will they be allowed to buy insurance via the state and federal exchanges.  Non-citizens are not eligible for Medicaid.  However, under a system informally known as “emergency Medicaid,” hospitals are reimbursed when they provide emergency and maternity care for people who would otherwise be eligible for Medicaid if they were in the US legally. [3, 4]

6.  The president has the constitutional authority to decide to not proceed with deportations. It has always been within the president’s discretion to decide whether to have the Department of Justice enforce a particular law. As the Supreme Court declared in United States v. Nixon, “the Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case.” [5]

7. The executive actions on immigration cannot be directly "defunded".  The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) agency is entirely self-funded through the fees it collects on immigration applications. The Congressional appropriation process has nothing to with it.  [6]

8. The additional border security measures mentioned by Obama include "continuing the surge of resources" to the border and focusing on the "deportation of people who threaten national security and public safety" and recent border crossers, [7]

9.  The "easier and faster" way for "high-skilled immigrants, graduates and entrepreneurs to stay" includes some tweaks to the current system but notably does not include an increase in H-1B visas, designed for temporary high-skilled workers. Congressional approval is needed for that.  Only half of those who applied for a H-!B visa this year received one; the permits disappeared in days. [8]

10.  Contrary to the fact-free myths spewing from right-wing critics, studies have shown that immigration has a positive impact on native-born workers and boosts productivity; immigration is not connected to the unemployment rate; and immigrants are predicted to pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits.  [9]

Powerless to defund the executive actions and sure to lose an impeachment vote in the Senate, Republicans will turn to obstruction and to the courts.

Republican Senator Ted Cruz, a Tea Party favorite, has talked about opposing Obama's actions by blocking all of his nominations.  Hopefully this will provide a wake-up call to Senator Reed to begin forcing votes on all the pending nominations before the 114th Congress is seated.  Judicial, executive branch and ambassadorial nominations that have already cleared by their committees have been slowed to a crawl by Republican actions.  With the Senate majority in January, Republicans will be able to block everything if they so chose.

As for the courts., prosecutorial discretion not withstanding, I imagine Republicans are scouring the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to find some basis, any basis, to proceed with a legal challenge.  They will have to do their homework thoroughly - Administration lawyers have been working for months to make sure the President's actions are legally unassailable. But then, who knows what will happen when the case reaches the politicized Supreme Court ?  The conservative majority have shown a remarkable tendency towards rulings that favor keeping Republicans in power.

References
[1] New York Times, Nov. 15   [2] Pew Research Center, Nov. 20   [3] New York Times, Nov. 19

[4] Christian Science Monitor, Nov. 20   [5]  New Republic, Nov. 18   [6] The Hill, Nov. 20

[7] White House Fact Sheet, Nov. 20   [8] Boston Globe. Nov. 24   [9] Media Matters for America, Nov. 21

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons; caption is from Emma Lazarus' poem inscribed on the Statue of Liberty plaque

Sunday Roundup - November 16, 2014

This is the weekly selection of news and opinion from sources outside the US mainstream corporate media.  Today we look at the US-China climate agreement, Mexico, immigration reform, Ukraine, the permanent war infrastructure, and the unheralded success of Evo Morales.

US-China Climate Agreement

Graphic from ThinkProgress website

On Tuesday night, the United States and China announced a historic agreement to reduce greenhouse emissions.  The plan...involves a series of initiatives to be undertaken in partnership between the two countries, including: expanding funding for clean energy technology research at the US-China Clean Energy Research Center; launching a large-scale pilot project in China to study carbon capture and sequestration; a push to further limit the use of hydroflourocarbons, a potent greenhouse gas found in refrigerants; a  federal framework for cities in both countries to share experiences and best practices for low-carbon economic growth and adaptation to the impacts of climate change at the municipal level; a call to boost trade in "green" goods, including energy efficiency technology and resilient infrastructure.  [Mother Jones, Nov. 11]
The announcement by the two largest carbon polluters in the world is a welcome signal ahead of the Paris 2015 climate conference.  China, the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, has agreed to cap its output by 2030 or earlier if possible...Now it has also promised to increase its use of energy from zero-emission sources to 20% by 2030...The United States has pledged to cut its emissions to 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025.  Both represent improved targets over previously announced goals.  [The Guardian, Nov. 12]
The deal was reached after nine months of intense negotiations.  The plan unveiled in Beijing by Obama and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, commits the two countries to ambitious cuts to greenhouse gas emissions after 2020, and could spur other big polluters to similar efforts.  After years of mistrust, the deal began to coalesce last spring after Obama sent a personal letter to Xi suggesting the two countries start to move in tandem to cut carbon pollution, the White House said.  The immediate inspiration for the letter arose from a visit to Beijing by John Kerry, the US secretary of state. Kerry, who had a strong environmental record when he was a senator, raised climate change to a top priority after taking over at State. [The Guardian, Nov. 12]
Related: 
"America's Solar Boom, in Charts"  According to a Deutsche Bank analyst: By 2016, solar power will be as cheap or cheaper than electricity from the conventional grid in every state except three. [Mother Jones, Nov. 7]
"How the Republican-led Congress could kill the climate change deal" [The Guardian, Nov. 12]

Mexico
On September 26 in the southwestern town of Iguala. 43 Mexican college students were detained by police after a protest against what the students considered to be discriminatory hiring and funding practices by the government.   They have not been seen since.  The former mayor of Iguala is under arrest and its police chief is on the run.  Mexico has been facing violent rallies since local authorities revealed that the 43 students were handed over by corrupt police to the Guerros Unidos gang, members of which confessed to murdering them and reducing their bodies to ashes.  On Tuesday, protesters blocked Acapulco Airport.  On Wednesday a crowd of about 500 protesters set ablaze the state congress building in the southern Mexican state of Guerrero in a violent rally over the alleged massacre of 43 college students....Their disappearance has posed the biggest challenge so far to President Enrique Pena Nieto's administration, with many questioning the government’s progress in fighting against drug violence. [Reuters, Nov. 13]
Related:
"Mexicans in ‘Forgotten State’ Hail Arrest of Fugitive Mayor" [Bloomberg, Nov. 4]

Immigration Reform
President Obama is pledging to take executive action on immigration reform before year end. Depending on the specifics, the executive actions may protect between 2 and 5 million immigrants from deportation.  A comprehensive reform bill passed the Senate in 2013 but the Republican-controlled House has refused to act.  At a news conference during a visit to Myanmar, the President said, "There has been ample opportunity for Congress to pass a bipartisan immigration bill that would strengthen our borders, improve the legal immigration system and lift millions of people out of the shadows....I said that if in fact Congress failed to act, I would use all the lawful authority I possess to try to make the system work better."  The executive actions are centered on an extension of the President's "deferred action plan" which was designed to protect young adults who were brought to the US illegally as children from being deported.  The plan is to include parents of children who are US citizens or legal residents.  The action is designed to prevent the break-up of families via deportations.  Other steps reportedly include increasing the number of high-tech workers allowed to live and work in the US, [expanding] the existing deferred action plans [by moving] the cut-off date for children arriving to 2010, and [shifting] border security resources to the US southern border. Republicans are gearing up to fight Obama's actions, and one potential outcome of the showdown is a government shutdown. [BBC News, Nov. 14]

Ukraine
The US and Europe are warning Russia on increased sanctions for Russia's part in "destabilizing" the Ukraine.  Vladimir Putin planned to leave the G20 summit early after the criticism.  Meanwhile, Reuters reported on Thursday of the counter accusations between Russia and Ukraine.  Moscow and Kiev accused each other on Thursday of violating a ceasefire and the United States warned Russia the West might punish it further for its "military escalation" of the Ukraine crisis.  Ukraine accused Russia of sending soldiers and weapons to help separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine launch a new offensive in a conflict that has killed more than 4,000 people. Russia warned Kiev that any resumption of hostilities against the separatists would be catastrophic for Ukraine.  Increasing violence, truce violations and reports of unmarked armed convoys traveling from the direction of the Russian border have aroused fears that a shaky Sept. 5 truce could collapse.  [Reuters, Nov. 13]

In an op-ed piece appearing in The Guardian, Volodymyr Ishchenko warns of the danger of ignoring the far right.  Ukrainian authorities and mainstream opinion in Ukraine continue to show unacceptable ignorance of the danger from the far right and even openly neo-Nazi forces, cooperating with them in elections and allowing them to take positions within law enforcement...It is short-sighted and formalistic to conclude that the Ukrainian far right is insignificant based on the lack of electoral success. The rhetoric of many politicians which could be called centrist or even liberal has moved significantly to the right, competing for the increasingly patriotic and even nationalist voters...Ukrainians have already paid a very high price for ignoring the far right. According to research into systematic protests, members of the far right were the most visibly identified political agents in the Maidan protests, from the very beginning of the movement to the overthrow of Yanukovych.  Moreover, they were relatively more visible in eastern and southern regions where Maidan did not have the majority support, thus pushing the local population even further away from the protest message.  Ishchenko concludes that this tolerance for the far right has already cost Ukraine lost territories, a mass destruction of industry and infrastructure, and thousands and thousands of lives. It is necessary to break with the “it might be beneficial for Putin” logic and start to think what is beneficial for all the people living in Ukraine, and whether the radical nationalist ideas can fit the Ukrainian future to which we aspire.

NATO Map (Wikimedia Commons)

John Mearsheimer has an in-depth analysis of the roots of the crisis in Ukraine in the September/October issue of Foreign Affairs.  The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West. At the same time, the EU’s expansion eastward and the West’s backing of the pro-democracy movement in Ukraine -- beginning with the Orange Revolution in 2004 -- were critical elements, too. Since the mid-1990s, Russian leaders have adamantly opposed NATO enlargement, and in recent years, they have made it clear that they would not stand by while their strategically important neighbor turned into a Western bastion. For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected and pro-Russian president -- which he rightly labeled a “coup” -- was the final straw. He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would host a NATO naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to join the West.   Mearsheimer asks us to imagine the American outrage if China built an impressive military alliance and tried to include Canada and Mexico. He proposes the West rethink its Ukraine strategy:  There is a solution to the crisis in Ukraine, however -- although it would require the West to think about the country in a fundamentally new way. The United States and its allies should abandon their plan to westernize Ukraine and instead aim to make it a neutral buffer between NATO and Russia, akin to Austria’s position during the Cold War. Western leaders should acknowledge that Ukraine matters so much to Putin that they cannot support an anti-Russian regime there. This would not mean that a future Ukrainian government would have to be pro-Russian or anti-NATO. On the contrary, the goal should be a sovereign Ukraine that falls in neither the Russian nor the Western camp.

The Permanent War Infrastructure
David Vine, writing at tomdispatch.com, discusses the long-standing US military presence in the Middle East  and the consequences of that policy.  Approaching its 35th anniversary, the strategy of maintaining such a structure of garrisons, troops, planes, and ships in the Middle East has been one of the great disasters in the history of American foreign policy. The rapid disappearance of debate about our newest, possibly illegal war should remind us of just how easy this huge infrastructure of bases has made it for anyone in the Oval Office to launch a war that seems guaranteed, like its predecessors, to set off new cycles of blowback and yet more war.  Vine traces the development of our base building policy and the morphing of the Rapid Deployment Force into the U.S. Central Command from 1980 through the present day.  Originally intended to maintain access to the oil-rich region during the Cold War era, the bases have become a "catalyst for anti-Americanism and radicalization” since a suicide bombing killed 241 marines in Lebanon in 1983....The garrisoning of the Muslim Holy Land was a major recruiting tool for al-Qaeda and part of Osama Bin Laden's professed motivation for the 9/11 attacks....Part of the anti-American anger has stemmed from the support U.S. bases offer to repressive, undemocratic regimes....Of course, using bases to launch wars and other kinds of interventions does much the same, generating anger, antagonism, and anti-American attacks....Rather than providing security, the infrastructure of bases in the Greater Middle East has made it ever easier to go to war far from home. It has enabled wars of choice and an interventionist foreign policy that has resulted in repeated disasters for the region, the United States, and the world.  By one estimate, the United States has spent $10 trillion protecting Persian Gulf oil supplies over the past four decades. Vine concludes: The sad irony is that any legitimate desire to maintain the free flow of regional oil to the global economy could be sustained through other far less expensive and deadly means....In addition to the direct damage our military spending has caused, it has diverted money and attention from developing the kinds of alternative energy sources that could free the United States and the world from a dependence on Middle Eastern oil -- and from the cycle of war that our military bases have fed. [TomDispatch, Nov.13]

Bolivia's Evo Morales

Photo of Evo Morales is from greanvillepost.com

While some warn that the rise of a racist far right presents a "clear and present danger "to both Western and Eastern Europe, Sergi Halimi writing in Le Monde Diplomatique wonders why the success of Bolivia's indigenous, leftist president Evo Morales has gone unremarked by the media. In times of crisis, a head of state who gets re-elected in the first round, having already served two terms, is a rarity indeed. One such is Evo Morales, whose win, with 61% of the vote, should have received more attention than it did. All the more so since he pulled off this electoral feat in Bolivia — which had five different presidents between 2001 and 2005. His victory follows a 25% reduction in poverty, an 87% real-terms increase in the minimum wage, a lowering of the retirement age and an annual growth rate of over 5% — all since 2006.  Pointing to the security failures such as the student massacre in Mexico - the students were protesting the neoliberal education reforms proposed by the conservative regime, Sergi Halimi asks us to imagine what would have leapt to mind had the student massacre taken place in Ecuador, Cuba or Venezuela. Or indeed in Bolivia, where President Morales has just been re-elected. [Le Monde Diplomatique, November 2014]

The Immigration Debate: The Emergency at the Border

Comprehensive immigration reform is dead.  There will be no action on this until Democrats regain control of Congress - an impossibility in the upcoming midterm elections given the gerrymandered and "safe" House districts. Only an overwhelming Democratic victory with strong Congressional "coat-tails" in the 2016 presidential race will change the composition of the House.  Otherwise, we'll need to wait until after the 2020 census and hope Democrats at least regain control of state legislatures in swing states.

Let's admit it.  The Republican stance on immigration is driven by the same political calculation that led to the voter suppression laws passed in Republican-controlled states.  People of color, with good reason, usually do not vote for Republican candidates.  Republicans are in the minority in terms of registered voters.  They cannot win future elections if the white male portion of the electorate dwindles significantly.  Throw in a bone to those in the Republican base that are racist and the development of their position becomes clear.  Republicans would rather continue in power and continue to represent the wealthy and corporate interests than do what is right.  Contrast this with Lyndon Johnson's enactment of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts in the mid-1960's.  He did the right thing in spite of the knowledge that, in his words, "we [Democrats] have just lost the South."

The most pressing immigration issue right now is the large number of unaccompanied minors seeking asylum in the United States.  Conditions in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras and Salvador are driving this. The flow of children seeking refuge has overwhelmed the ability of border officials to deal with it.  The Republicans are making much of it - the former half-term governor of Alaska even calling for President Obama's impeachment.

Unaccompanied immigrant children in a holding cell in Texas
(Image appeared on ThinkProgress website)

Data from the Pew Research Center for the 20 month period between October 1,2012 and May 31, 2014 shows that more than 85,000 unaccompanied minors have been apprehended at the US-Mexico border. The best analysis of the crisis I've seen is the July 24 article by Alice Speri on the VICE News Website. Speri correctly notes that the unaccompanied minors crisis is not really about border enforcement.  It's about managing an emergency refugee flow. "Most of these minors — as well as most of the families also crossing the border, usually mothers with young children — are arriving through Mexico from other Central American countries, and especially from Honduras and El Salvador, where they are fleeing poverty and some of the worst violent crime in the world."

A Federal anti-trafficking law mandates that, unlike their Mexican peers, the Central American children cannot just be turned back at the border.  The law requires that they receive temporary relocation, assistance, and an immigration hearing.  President Obama has asked for $3.7 billion to deal with the influx of minors.   Competing proposals for dealing with the situation have been made but the Republican and Democratic proposals are so far apart that there is little hope of action being taken.

Speri notes that "as the numbers of unaccompanied minors and anti-immigrant protests across the country have grown, some have called for those provisions — or 'the Central American exception,' as some critics of it have dubbed it — to be repealed."

Referring to the "downright racist and xenophobic reactions of some Americans (and politicians) towards the Central American children", Jose Antonio Vargas, an advocate for undocumented immigrants, asks, “I understand the argument that a civilized country needs to determine and protect its borders. I get that. But with all the billions of dollars and manpower that we’ve spent on the ‘border’, what exactly are we protecting ourselves from? Who exactly are we fearing?”

Mary Giovagnoli, director of the Immigration Policy Center, is also quoted in the VICE News article: “It is really imperative that we do not overreact to this situation by thinking that changing laws that are designed to protect kids is the solution. The protections are there because we know just how grave the circumstances can be....The children and families that are from Central America are coming because of extraordinary violence and threats to their wellbeing. That can’t be overlooked.”

As xenophobes and right-wing politicians mistakenly treat this as a border security issue, Pope Francis delivered a clear message for the world's political leaders: "This humanitarian emergency requires, as a first urgent measure, these children be welcomed and protected. These measures, however, will not be sufficient, unless they are accompanied by policies that inform people about the dangers of such a journey and, above all, that promote development in their countries of origin."  Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin added, "Whether they travel for reasons of poverty, violence or the hope of uniting with families on the other side of the border, it is urgent to protect and assist them, because their frailty is greater and they're defenseless, they're at the mercy of any abuse or misfortune." [Huffington Post, July 16]

Links
The Hill: "We should help children at the border, not criminalize them"

Think Progress: "Why kids are crossing the border alone to get to America"

Daily Kos: Who are you and what have you done with George Will?   (Something you probably didn't expect to hear on a Fox News show)