Visual source: Newseum
President Obama has just opened a floodgate of opportunity for young illegal immigrants in the United States, but could it squeeze the aspirations of legal Americans in the process?NY Times:
Across the nation Friday, immigrant advocates and Hispanic youth groups hailed Obama’s decision to offer legal status to some undocumented immigrants under 30 as a watershed in U.S. immigration history and a long-sought victory for ambitious youths denied a chance to realize the American dream.
The immigration policy change that President Obama announced on Friday signaled to Hispanic voters that he is on their side and placed Mitt Romney in a tough spot.The Fix:
Just hours after word leaked out that the Obama administration would stop deporting young illegal immigrants who were brought to the United States by their parents, the issue is already causing headaches for the Republican Party.The Fix, again:
The party, which has previously split over its own president’s efforts on illegal immigration reform, is similarly stuck when it comes to Obama’s decision.
And at a time when party unity is paramount, the move is exposing fissures.
First it was his administration’s decision to force religious institutions to provide birth control to their employees; then it was the president coming out (so to speak) in support of gay marriage; and now it’s the administration’s announcement that it will cease deporting young illegal immigrants who were brought to this country by their parents.Gary Hart:
To the skeptic, all three decisions will seem politically motivated. But as with the first two, it’s not exactly clear just who the illegal immigration decision will wind up benefitting.
About the only thing that’s clear is that a can of worms has been opened.
One thing is abundantly clear: The decision certainly puts Mitt Romney and the Republican Party in a tough spot when it comes to wooing the Latino vote.
The principal theory of those of my generation who believed every bit as strongly in the social contract and care for the needy as the most ardent New Dealer was that the economic pie must continue to grow to generate the revenues required to finance that contract. To argue that taxes on the working middle class must continue even as incomes contracted is to virtually guarantee a revival of conservatism and anti-government sentiments of the kind that now characterize our politics.Maureen Gill:
The Democratic Party has not only been the party of hope, the party of compassion and inclusiveness, it has also been the party of innovation. By failing to innovate some 30 years ago, it has permitted itself to lapse into the defensive, if not also reactionary, posture that now plagues it. A well-motivated Democratic president now struggles to move the nation forward against a conservative tide that emerged in the policy vacuum created by Democratic failure to adapt and in a political climate where many people, especially young people, do not know the basic principles of the current Democratic Party or what it stands for.
The Know-Nothing movement of the mid-1800s would be very much at home in modern America. Know-Nothings were native-born, white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant males – women could not yet vote; the movement was a xenophobic, anti-immigrant response to massive waves of Irish and German immigrants flooding America between 1830-60, most especially Irish Catholics; however, Know-Nothings also railed against Jews, and in California, they targeted Asians, primarily the Chinese.Hart + Gill = tea party.
The movement’s name was the result of its semi-secret organization; when asked about the movement’s activities, members were instructed to reply “I know nothing.” The Know-Nothing platform called for: Severe limits on immigration, especially from Catholic countries; restricting political office to native-born Americans of English and/or Scottish lineage and Protestant persuasion; mandating a wait of 21 years before an immigrant could gain citizenship; restricting public school teacher positions to Protestants; mandating daily Bible readings in public schools; restricting the sale of liquor; restricting the use of languages other than English.
Again, a decision against the health law — which seems very possible, or even likely — would be terrible for Dems. But the provision barring discrimination against those with preexisting conditions is very popular. And if it becomes clear that the GOP sees no obligation to replace that provision, it could clarify the choice this fall in new ways and play unpredictably during the campaign.Sam Stein:
A political candidate being dramatically outspent by his opponent has few options. He can pin his hopes on a strong debate performance, dig up dirt on the opposition, or cut a particularly buzz-worthy television ad.
Or he can do what other industries, led by Major League Baseball, have done before: worship at the altar of Bill James.