Thank you President Obama

Dear Friends,

I want to thank President Obama for his executive action on immigration.  It certainly does not solve the problem and many families can still be ripped apart by deportation, but it is a great step in the right direction.  This action will certainly be a part of the legacy of President Obama's time in office and in my view a very positive part of his legacy.  Unfortunately, another part of his legacy will be that he was the deporter in chief, having deported more people than any other President.

Nicholas Kristof had an insightful and well balanced op-ed in The New York Times this morning (here) entitled "Immigration Enriches You and Me".  It is certainly worth the time to read and consider it.

Another interesting op-ed piece in The New York Times was by Peter Schuck, a law professor entitled "Why Congress Can Impeach Obama" (here).  He is not arguing that Congress should impeach President Obama.  He argues that impeachment is more a political action than a legal action.  He is also doubtful of the correctness of President Obama's legal position that his executive order on immigration is within his authority.  It is a very interesting article written by someone who supports immigration reform and voted for President Obama twice.  In the end he believes that while impeachment is a political action it should only be used in extreme cases and that President Obama's executive order even if it does exceed his legal authority is not one of those cases.

I have wondered why President Obama does not put forth a detailed legal and political justification for his executive order including a clear analysis of the executive actions of his predecessors (particularly President H.W. Bush and President Reagan).  While it would not make any difference to the Republicans who deep down do not think that he should be President, it is possible that some real news outlets would actually discuss the issue of the extent of the President's authority.  It would be a good debate for this country to have particularly in light of the fact that Congress lets the President wage war and spy on us without authority.

At the risk of offending some of the few readers I have, I want to highlight another article in The New York Times this morning by Juliet Lapidos entitled "Hillary Clinton Takes Sides on Immigration" (here).  I am upset that Secretary Clinton has not taken a position on the XL pipeline.  However, at least on immigration she has taken a position supporting President Obama's action.  The article ends with a sentence that resonates with me as a person who finds it hard to support Secretary Clinton as the next Democratic nominee for President.

But she could have ducked responding to this specific action. The fact that she didn’t suggests that she thinks Republican complaints of “Caesarism” will matter less in two years than immigration advocates’ gratefulness to the Democratic Party.

It is hard for me to get excited about supporting somebody whose positions seem to be determined more by how they will be viewed by the electorate than by what she really believes.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal