What He Actually Said

[Econoline]

There's probably going to be some discussion here about the President's speech on immigration so I thought that, for the record, I should post the full text of the speech--so we can be clear as to what he actually did and didn't say:

My fellow Americans, tonight, I’d like to talk with you about immigration.

For more than 200 years, our tradition of welcoming immigrants from around the world has given us a tremendous advantage over other nations. It’s kept us youthful, dynamic, and entrepreneurial. It has shaped our character as a people with limitless possibilities – people not trapped by our past, but able to remake ourselves as we choose.

But today, our immigration system is broken, and everybody knows it.

Families who enter our country the right way and play by the rules watch others flout the rules. Business owners who offer their workers good wages and benefits see the competition exploit undocumented immigrants by paying them far less. All of us take offense to anyone who reaps the rewards of living in America without taking on the responsibilities of living in America. And undocumented immigrants who desperately want to embrace those responsibilities see little option but to remain in the shadows, or risk their families being torn apart.

It’s been this way for decades. And for decades, we haven’t done much about it.

When I took office, I committed to fixing this broken immigration system. And I began by doing what I could to secure our borders. Today, we have more agents and technology deployed to secure our southern border than at any time in our history. And over the past six years, illegal border crossings have been cut by more than half. Although this summer, there was a brief spike in unaccompanied children being apprehended at our border, the number of such children is now actually lower than it’s been in nearly two years. Overall, the number of people trying to cross our border illegally is at its lowest level since the 1970s. Those are the facts.

Meanwhile, I worked with Congress on a comprehensive fix, and last year, 68 Democrats, Republicans, and Independents came together to pass a bipartisan bill in the Senate. It wasn’t perfect. It was a compromise, but it reflected common sense. It would have doubled the number of border patrol agents, while giving undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship if they paid a fine, started paying their taxes, and went to the back of the line. And independent experts said that it would help grow our economy and shrink our deficits.

Had the House of Representatives allowed that kind of a bill a simple yes-or-no vote, it would have passed with support from both parties, and today it would be the law. But for a year and a half now, Republican leaders in the House have refused to allow that simple vote.

Now, I continue to believe that the best way to solve this problem is by working together to pass that kind of common sense law. But until that happens, there are actions I have the legal authority to take as President – the same kinds of actions taken by Democratic and Republican Presidents before me – that will help make our immigration system more fair and more just.

Tonight, I am announcing those actions.

First, we’ll build on our progress at the border with additional resources for our law enforcement personnel so that they can stem the flow of illegal crossings, and speed the return of those who do cross over.

Second, I will make it easier and faster for high-skilled immigrants, graduates, and entrepreneurs to stay and contribute to our economy, as so many business leaders have proposed.

Third, we’ll take steps to deal responsibly with the millions of undocumented immigrants who already live in our country.

I want to say more about this third issue, because it generates the most passion and controversy. Even as we are a nation of immigrants, we are also a nation of laws. Undocumented workers broke our immigration laws, and I believe that they must be held accountable – especially those who may be dangerous. That’s why, over the past six years, deportations of criminals are up 80 percent. And that’s why we’re going to keep focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security. Felons, not families. Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a mother who’s working hard to provide for her kids. We’ll prioritize, just like law enforcement does every day.

But even as we focus on deporting criminals, the fact is, millions of immigrants – in every state, of every race and nationality – will still live here illegally. And let’s be honest – tracking down, rounding up, and deporting millions of people isn’t realistic. Anyone who suggests otherwise isn’t being straight with you. It’s also not who we are as Americans. After all, most of these immigrants have been here a long time. They work hard, often in tough, low-paying jobs. They support their families. They worship at our churches. Many of their kids are American-born or spent most of their lives here, and their hopes, dreams, and patriotism are just like ours.

As my predecessor, President Bush, once put it: “They are a part of American life.”

Now here’s the thing: we expect people who live in this country to play by the rules. We expect that those who cut the line will not be unfairly rewarded. So we’re going to offer the following deal: If you’ve been in America for more than five years; if you have children who are American citizens or legal residents; if you register, pass a criminal background check, and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes – you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily, without fear of deportation. You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law.

That’s what this deal is. Now let’s be clear about what it isn’t. This deal does not apply to anyone who has come to this country recently. It does not apply to anyone who might come to America illegally in the future. It does not grant citizenship, or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive – only Congress can do that. All we’re saying is we’re not going to deport you.

I know some of the critics of this action call it amnesty. Well, it’s not. Amnesty is the immigration system we have today – millions of people who live here without paying their taxes or playing by the rules, while politicians use the issue to scare people and whip up votes at election time.

That’s the real amnesty – leaving this broken system the way it is. Mass amnesty would be unfair. Mass deportation would be both impossible and contrary to our character. What I’m describing is accountability – a commonsense, middle ground approach: If you meet the criteria, you can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. If you’re a criminal, you’ll be deported. If you plan to enter the U.S. illegally, your chances of getting caught and sent back just went up.

The actions I’m taking are not only lawful, they’re the kinds of actions taken by every single Republican President and every single Democratic President for the past half century. And to those Members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill. I want to work with both parties to pass a more permanent legislative solution. And the day I sign that bill into law, the actions I take will no longer be necessary. Meanwhile, don’t let a disagreement over a single issue be a dealbreaker on every issue. That’s not how our democracy works, and Congress certainly shouldn’t shut down our government again just because we disagree on this. Americans are tired of gridlock. What our country needs from us right now is a common purpose – a higher purpose.

Most Americans support the types of reforms I’ve talked about tonight. But I understand the disagreements held by many of you at home. Millions of us, myself included, go back generations in this country, with ancestors who put in the painstaking work to become citizens. So we don’t like the notion that anyone might get a free pass to American citizenship. I know that some worry immigration will change the very fabric of who we are, or take our jobs, or stick it to middle-class families at a time when they already feel like they’ve gotten the raw end of the deal for over a decade. I hear these concerns. But that’s not what these steps would do. Our history and the facts show that immigrants are a net plus for our economy and our society. And I believe it’s important that all of us have this debate without impugning each other’s character.

Because for all the back-and-forth of Washington, we have to remember that this debate is about something bigger. It’s about who we are as a country, and who we want to be for future generations.

Are we a nation that tolerates the hypocrisy of a system where workers who pick our fruit and make our beds never have a chance to get right with the law? Or are we a nation that gives them a chance to make amends, take responsibility, and give their kids a better future?

Are we a nation that accepts the cruelty of ripping children from their parents’ arms? Or are we a nation that values families, and works to keep them together?

Are we a nation that educates the world’s best and brightest in our universities, only to send them home to create businesses in countries that compete against us? Or are we a nation that encourages them to stay and create jobs, businesses, and industries right here in America?

That’s what this debate is all about. We need more than politics as usual when it comes to immigration; we need reasoned, thoughtful, compassionate debate that focuses on our hopes, not our fears.

I know the politics of this issue are tough. But let me tell you why I have come to feel so strongly about it. Over the past few years, I have seen the determination of immigrant fathers who worked two or three jobs, without taking a dime from the government, and at risk at any moment of losing it all, just to build a better life for their kids. I’ve seen the heartbreak and anxiety of children whose mothers might be taken away from them just because they didn’t have the right papers. I’ve seen the courage of students who, except for the circumstances of their birth, are as American as Malia or Sasha; students who bravely come out as undocumented in hopes they could make a difference in a country they love. These people – our neighbors, our classmates, our friends – they did not come here in search of a free ride or an easy life. They came to work, and study, and serve in our military, and above all, contribute to America’s success.

Tomorrow, I’ll travel to Las Vegas and meet with some of these students, including a young woman named Astrid Silva. Astrid was brought to America when she was four years old. Her only possessions were a cross, her doll, and the frilly dress she had on. When she started school, she didn’t speak any English. She caught up to the other kids by reading newspapers and watching PBS, and became a good student. Her father worked in landscaping. Her mother cleaned other people’s homes. They wouldn’t let Astrid apply to a technology magnet school for fear the paperwork would out her as an undocumented immigrant – so she applied behind their back and got in. Still, she mostly lived in the shadows – until her grandmother, who visited every year from Mexico, passed away, and she couldn’t travel to the funeral without risk of being found out and deported. It was around that time she decided to begin advocating for herself and others like her, and today, Astrid Silva is a college student working on her third degree.

Are we a nation that kicks out a striving, hopeful immigrant like Astrid – or are we a nation that finds a way to welcome her in?

Scripture tells us that we shall not oppress a stranger, for we know the heart of a stranger – we were strangers once, too.

My fellow Americans, we are and always will be a nation of immigrants. We were strangers once, too. And whether our forebears were strangers who crossed the Atlantic, or the Pacific, or the Rio Grande, we are here only because this country welcomed them in, and taught them that to be an American is about something more than what we look like, or what our last names are, or how we worship. What makes us Americans is our shared commitment to an ideal – that all of us are created equal, and all of us have the chance to make of our lives what we will.

That’s the country our parents and grandparents and generations before them built for us. That’s the tradition we must uphold. That’s the legacy we must leave for those who are yet to come.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless this country we love.

[wesw]

well, I usually listen to all speeches by presidents, but I only listened to his opening paragraph before turning off the TV.

I felt he was being manipulative in a way that I really disliked, and that I didn t believe a word he said. so, I have not formed an opinion about his proposal yet.

still not moved to read it, probably does not represent the actual order correctly anyway....

[MajGenl.Meade]

I'm impressed. Mr. Obama managed to get (probably one of) Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Ezekiel in there. One should indeed be kind to foreigners and not oppress them.

Of course, illegal immigrants are not being oppressed because they are foreigners but because they are lawbreakers. Perhaps Mr. Obama needs to read a bit more about lawbreakers.

[Econoline]

Exodus? Leviticus? Deuteronomy? Ezekiel?

Gee, I thought Stranger In a Strange Land was a science fiction novel by Robert A. Heinlein.

Of course, illegal immigrants are not being oppressed because they are foreigners but because they are lawbreakers...

...and, of course, most of them are lawbreakers only because they are foreigners. (And then there are the ones who have also broken other laws...which are precisely the ones the President proposes to concentrate on deporting.)

Perhaps Mr. Obama needs to read a bit more about lawbreakers.

Perhaps that book about illegal immigrants leaving Egypt, crossing the Rio Grande Red Sea without permission while pursued by the Border Patrol, and settling in Canaan without visas?

I only listened to his opening paragraph before turning off the TV.

Go ahead, Wes, read it (above). It'll take a lot less time than watching it on the teevee, and you won't have to listen to an annoying politician's annoying voice. (That's a little trick I've been using on and off since the Bush administration--the first Bush, G.H.W., that is--and I assume it works just as well for people who find Obama annoying.)

---

ETA:

BTW...when Congress has only given Immigration and Customs Enforcement enough resources to deport 400,000 illegal immigrants per year (out of what? 11,000,000? 12,000,000?), it makes a lot of sense for the executive branch to have some policies and priorities regarding which 400,000 are deported each year rather than to just randomly deport the first 400,000 undocumented immigrants that federal officials happen to stumble upon.(And of course the fact that Congress has only provided sufficient resources to remove a small fraction of the undocumented immigrants within the United States is itself a legislative judgment that most of them should not be deported. If Congress wanted every single undocumented individual removed from the country, they could communicate that fact by providing enough resources that it would not be an impossible task.)

[Guinevere]

Exactly Econo!

It would be crazy *not* to have a prioritization policy in the absence of sufficient resources.

[Lord Jim]

..and, of course, most of them are lawbreakers only because they are foreigners.

Uh, no...

They are lawbreakers because they are foreigners who are here illegally....They are foreigners who broke the law either by coming to this country in contravention of this nation's laws or by staying here beyond the time they were legally permitted to do so.

From a visceral standpoint, I find this highly offensive. Every single person who is in this country illegally should be repatriated to their country of origin, every last one of them, where they can then begin the procedure for immigrating here legally. End of story, full stop. They have no legal right to be here, and they shouldn't be here. What part of "illegal" don't they understand?

However...

I fully realize that this is never going to happen, and I'm also enough of a political realist to understand that if my party wants to win national elections, we need to reach a compromise on this and put the issue behind us.

In 2004, George W. Bush got 44% of the Latino vote. In 2012, Mitt "self deport" Romney got 27%. In the latest midterms the percentage of Latinos voting GOP rebounded somewhat to 38%, but if we want to elect Presidents, we're going to need to be more in the 40-45% range, not down in the 20s...

And there's no reason we can't do this; polls show that there's much about what the GOP stands for that appeals to many Latinos; but we can't do it if we don't get this immigration monkey off our backs.

For this reason, I supported the bill Bush tried to get through in 2007, and I also support the bill the Senate passed this year. I really wish Boehner would just put the damn thing on the floor for a vote where it would probably pass, and we could get this behind us.

The longer this drags on, the more damaging it is strategically to the long term health of the GOP as a national party. But the shortsighted Tea Party knuckleheads and those who continue to be afraid of them don't seem to get this.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Exodus? Leviticus? Deuteronomy? Ezekiel? Gee, I thought Stranger In a Strange Land was a science fiction novel by Robert A. Heinlein.

I grok you not:

Scripture tells us that we shall not oppress a stranger, for we know the heart of a stranger – we were strangers once, too

.

Here's your smilie.......

What LJ wrote...

[Lord Jim]

As to what Obama said specifically:

If you’ve been in America for more than five years; if you have children who are American citizens or legal residents; if you register, pass a criminal background check, and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes – you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily, without fear of deportation.

Sorry, but that's a lot more than just "prioritizing" who will be deported in the face of insufficient resources...

What he's describing there will clearly require the creation of a bureaucracy to administer and monitor. This doesn't prioritize existing resources; it requires additional resources.

Whether what he did is legal or not remains to be seen. The Party Line of course is, "oh, this is just the same as what Reagan and George H W Bush did, it's no big deal, blah, blah, blah..."

As oldr said, "the devil is in the details" and we don't know what the details are. Once they're known, it will be up to the courts to decide whether what he is doing is more like "prosecutorial discretion" or more like "making law".

But however this shakes out legally, politically he has now completely poisoned the well on this issue. Even Republicans (like myself) who support comprehensive immigration reform are up in arms about this. (After his speech, I saw Nicole Wallace and Steve Schmidt, two establishment, moderate/conservative Republicans who both support the Senate bill, sounding every bit as condemnatory about this executive fiat as Ted Cruz and Rand Paul)

The latest poll shows that while comprehensive immigration reform, (including a path tho citizenship) is supported by over 70% of the public, (including a majority of Republicans) only 38% support Obama acting unilaterally. The chances that he will get the money he needs to administer this program for five million people from Congress are none and none.

Of course that probably won't stop him. He'll just take the money from somewhere else (like border security) and claim he had the "executive discretion" to do that too.

[Econoline]

..and, of course, most of them are lawbreakers only because they are foreigners.

Uh, no...

They are lawbreakers because they are foreigners who are here illegally....They are foreigners who broke the law either by coming to this country in contravention of this nation's laws or by staying here beyond the time they were legally permitted to do so.

Yes, yes, I understand that. But you completely missed my point (which may only make sense in the context of being a reply to Meade's post).

Let me try again: Most of them are people living and working and going to school and doing all sorts of other things--NONE OF WHICH ARE ILLEGAL. If (natural-born or naturalized) U.S. citizens or resident aliens were doing those same things, whatever they may be, they would not be considered "lawbreakers" by anyone. The only thing that makes these perfectly normal people, living perfectly normal lives, doing perfectly normal things every day--the only thing that makes them "lawbreakers" is that they are foreigners doing these things.

I supported the bill Bush tried to get through in 2007, and I also support the bill the Senate passed this year. I really wish Boehner would just put the damn thing on the floor for a vote where it would probably pass, and we could get this behind us.

The longer this drags on, the more damaging it is strategically to the long term health of the GOP as a national party. But the shortsighted Tea Party knuckleheads and those who continue to be afraid of them don't seem to get this.

I think we're in substantial agreement on this part.

[MajGenl.Meade]

The only thing that makes these perfectly normal people, living perfectly normal lives, doing perfectly normal things every day--the only thing that makes them "lawbreakers" is that they are foreigners doing these things.

Not so, grasshopper. Resident aliens are foreigners; non-resident aliens with work/study permits are also foreigners. They are not "lawbreakers" by being present in this country, working and studying. They are not lawbreakers by being foreign.

Illegal aliens are breaking the law. It is not "being foreign" that is the legal obstacle. The word "illegal" is a clue, no matter how often the left tries to soften it all by creating new terminology - "undocumented immigrants" or "workers" indeed! What clever marketing and sophistry that is!

A good start would be to jail employers of illegal aliens or hit them with huge, punitive fines. Another good start would be to demand evidence of citizenship (or ARC) from parents putting children into schools. Another good start would be to deny any state or national benefits to non-citizens/non ARC holders. Another is to pass the legislation currently on hold and find a way to bring into the fold (legally), desirable aliens. (Cue for Gob).

All this harkening back to the early 20th century and how the USA welcomed immigrants kind of glosses over the entire Ellis Island kind of control and review - those immigrants were legal and waited in lines and were subjected to the rules (no matter how onerous or stupid)

[Econoline]

But however this shakes out legally, politically he has now completely poisoned the well on this issue

Oh, yeah....riiiight....Like things were going so swimmingly between Obama and Congress before he did this. Give me a break.

Face it: after stalling on the (bipartisan) Senate bill for two years--hell, after stalling for seven years if you count the 2007 bill!--and after picking up even MORE of a Republican majority in the recent election...You'd have to be crazy to think that there was any chance in hell that the House would do anything at all to address this issue before 2017 at the earliest.






ETA: Of course Boehner could still prove me and Obama wrong by bringing up that 2012 bill for a vote...right?

[Lord Jim]

The word "illegal" is a clue, no matter how often the left tries to soften it all by creating new terminology - "undocumented immigrants" or "workers" indeed! What clever marketing and sophistry that is!

That bit fries my bacon too...

Every time I see the euphemism "undocumented" (which makes it sound like some sort of innocent paperwork snafu... ) being substituted for the correct and honest term "illegal" great green gobbets up I want to throw...

They had a documentary on illegal immigrants recently on MSNBC (Take a wild guess what the POV was...)

One of the people who they featured was a really snotty young guy who whined about not being able to do something "just because I don't have a piece of paper."

It was clear that the viewer was supposed to view this clown sympathetically; I saw him as anything but an object of sympathy. If all American citizenship means to him is "a piece of paper" then he is precisely the type we don't want here. We have more than enough home grown ingrates with a sense of entitlement thank you very much, without needing to start importing them. I'd put him on the very next bus home.

[Econoline]

Well of course U.S. citizenship* is more than just "a piece of paper"...everybody knows that it's a treaty with an Indian tribe that's "just a piece of paper"!



* BTW, Jim, if that young man who so annoyed you was from Mexico (or Central America, or, well, anywhere in the western hemisphere) he already had "American citizenship". (You're welcome, Meade.)

[MajGenl.Meade]

Yes, thanks Eco. LJ means "USian" citizenship. I notice (tongue stuck in cheek) that you've not bothered to argue again that "foreign" is the problem for er... illegals. Oh sorry, Man Utd just scored against the Bastards.. got to go

[Joe Guy]

If we were to not automatically grant legal citizenship to children of undocumented/illegal aliens, one thing it would do is remove the incentive for many of them to come here and live off of the government benefits allowed to their children.

Government workers who issue benefits and give services to the undocumented parents of legal citizens are not allowed to report them to ICE.

Does anyone here have an argument for continuing those policies?

[Lord Jim]

Of course Boehner could still prove me and Obama wrong by bringing up that 2012 bill for a vote...right?

This action by Obama makes that or any other legislative effort to address this pretty much impossible, since you can't expect the Congress to give in to Executive blackmail. Certainly there will be no negotiations about it between Obama and congressional leaders for the foreseeable future. The first thing they will now be focused on will be legal, legislative and budgetary approaches to undoing this unilateral action.

Obama had to know this; perhaps making a it impossible for the GOP to take a legislative approach was the reason behind what he did.

And another reason may have been to send the signal to the new Congress that he's completely unaffected by the election results and that he has no intention of trying to work with them.

[Crackpot]

You mean it put republicans in a no win situation because passing legislation will make them feel weak and being obstructive will blow their chance at looking like they can actually legislate?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Who cares what some Kenyan says?

[Lord Jim]

You mean it put republicans in a no win situation because passing legislation will make them feel weak and being obstructive will blow their chance at looking like they can actually legislate?

That calculus could certainly have played a role, plus he knows that having no legislative action on this will be damaging to the GOP in 2016, and I'm sure that's something he'd like to see.

If he really wanted to make a good faith effort to get a deal with the new Congress, he could have done something like announce the plan that he was going to put in place, and then say he was going to delay it till say, March 31st to make a good faith effort at negociating a bill (or series of bills).

[Econoline]

Jim - Perhaps you missed this part of my "ETA" comment:

Also too, again:

Face it: after stalling on the (bipartisan) Senate bill for two years--hell, after stalling for seven years if you count the 2007 bill!--and after picking up even MORE of a Republican majority in the recent election... You'd have to be crazy to think that there was any chance in hell that the House would do anything at all to address this issue before 2017 at the earliest.

Crackpot - No, it just gave the Republicans an excuse to PRETEND that they MIGHT have done what they had--for years--already demonstrated that they had no intention of EVER doing.