Quote (Skinned @ Sep 7 2014 02:39pm)

wtf

Quote (Pollster @ Sep 8 2014 11:28pm)

There isn't a "change of policy," that's an exceedingly-poor characterization of events. The White House still feels like it has to act through executive order having given the House over a year to act only for it to do nothing, the only change is that it's going to act later than it originally planned. Two things in particular caused the delay: the humanitarian crisis on the border changing how people see immigration as a pressing issue, and Obama's persistent desire to have legislation fix immigration rather than him doing it on his own.

Quote (Santara @ Sep 9 2014 10:52am)

No, the first and foremost reason for the delay is the pending election. No one is buying this spin here.

Quote (Skinned @ Sep 9 2014 10:56am)

Agreed, and we're gonna pay for it.  And we deserve to, pragmatism is ruining the Democratic party.

Quote (Santara @ Sep 9 2014 11:52am)

No, the first and foremost reason for the delay is the pending election. No one is buying this spin here.

Quote (Pollster @ Sep 9 2014 08:37pm)

Except that it's not, in reality. No one's "spinning" anything either, these are simply facts that can't be denied.

The elections insofar that they matter in the White House's calculus at all are merely a function of the second factor mentioned earlier: the White House only considered them at all due to how they could potentially change what legislation, if any, would come in the next couple of years to address immigration. They were perfectly content, even happy, to issue one or more executive orders in advance of the elections, regardless of whether or not they hurt their party or not, but the situation on the border had a profound impact on how everyone viewed the issue.

Quote

President Barack Obama’s decision to postpone executive action on immigration has outraged Latino activists, as well as a number of Democrats and Republicans. The only ones breathing a sigh of relief are the Democratic candidates in swing states such as Arkansas, North Carolina, Alaska and Louisiana. Obama's recent talk of unilateral action on immigration has become a distraction for those candidates, who were having to spend their political capital criticizing the president’s decision to bypass Congress and go solo.

Immigration reform has become a hot button issue in the midterm elections. (A Gallup poll in mid-July noted that one in six Americans believe immigration is an important problem our nation is facing.) But Democratic candidates in red states are in danger of losing competitive races where the Latino voting population only makes up 2 to 3 percent of voters. So they pressed the panic button and begged Obama to hold off on his decision. These candidates, like Sens. Mark Pryor, D-Arkansas, and Mary Landrieu, D-La., have separated themselves from the president by publicly stating that he should not pursue executive action on amnesty, and instead work with Congress.

In an interview Sunday on "Meet The Press," the president blamed the delay on the shifting politics associated with the recent surge of illegal immigrants from Central America crossing the border. But the president’s delay is a dishonest political maneuver. The reality is clear: He made a decision sacrificing Latinos for the sake of saving the Democratic candidates.



The problem is that Obama knows taking unilateral action on immigration is unpopular. In a poll from Investors Business Daily, 63 percent of Americans said they oppose executive action from Obama on immigration and want him to work with Congress to fix the problem. Even editorial boards from major newspapers have warned against the president’s unilateral move. An editorial in The Washington Post stated that Obama would “trigger a constitutional showdown with Republicans.” And all hope for a bipartisan resolution in Congress will be lost if the president moves alone, which hurts Latinos and our nation’s economy.