Fact check: Obama's actions 'same' as past presidents?

huangshang · 22-11-2014 7:37am #1

President Obama repeatedly claimed that there is presidential precedent for the executive actions he took on immigration. But are the actions Obama announced really the "same kinds of actions" taken by past presidents?

Obama's use of executive actions to defer deportation for up to 5 million people living in the country illegally relies on similar legal principles used by past presidents, although the issue of presidential authority may ultimately have to be decided in federal court. But there are some fundamental differences between Obama's actions and those taken by past presidents.

The actions taken by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush — examples often cited by White House officials — were attempts to address ambiguities in an immigration law that was passed by Congress. Obama's executive actions are different. They are a response to congressional failure to pass a law, and they affect a far greater number of immigrants currently living in the country illegally.

braddun · 22-11-2014 7:44am

Although commonly conflated in the media, the two terms aren't exactly interchangeable.

In short ...

A presidential executive order "is a directive issued to federal agencies, department heads, or other federal employees by the President of the United States under his statutory or constitutional powers," according to Robert Longley, writing at usgovinfo.about.com. "In many ways, presidential executive orders are similar to written orders, or instructions issued by the president of a corporation to its department heads or directors."

By contrast, a presidential executive action is kind of a catch-all term, writes NBC, which quoted an unnamed administration official in 2011 as saying: "It just means something the executive branch does. The use of any of a number of tools in the executive branch's toolbox."

Political writer Tom Murse says: "[Most] executive actions carry no legal weight. Those that do actually set policy can be invalidated by the courts or undone by legislation passed by Congress."
The terms executive action and executive order are not interchangeable. Executive orders are legally binding and published in the Federal Register.

"A good way to think of executive actions is a wish list of policies the president would like to see enacted."

Carcharodon · 22-11-2014 4:27pm

Who cares, he is finally taking the bull by the horns and getting some much needed work on immigration reform done
Republicans only plan is to object to anything he says or does, they have no plan and put the whole system in gridlock.
Congress and the senate are plain useless.

MightyMandarin · 22-11-2014 11:08pm

He's perfectly in his rights to make an executive order on immigration. The executive controls immigration in most Common Law countries and an interference by the Legislature is usually a breach of the separation of powers. Besides, his reasoning is undoubtedly appropriate; Congress has been nothing short of inept these past 6 years and it's about time he stopped being being bullied by the republicans. John McCain asking Obama to 'wait and see if this Congress will be different' made me laugh.

Amerika · 24-11-2014 3:22pm

In my opinion, what Obama did was a slap in the face of the separation of powers. Congress passes the laws, the judicial branch interprets those laws, and the executive branch enforces the laws. Yes, the president has some discretion in how those laws are enforced, but what he did in this case was simply rewrite parts of the immigration law that he didn’t like. The election this month showed us the people were not in favor of Obama’s policies. And what he did on immigration was proof he neither respects the will of the people or the rule of law. He has poisoned any chance of a bi-partisan congressional legislation to deal with illegal immigration, which was expected to happen in the next year. And the timing of his announcement shows us he did it purely for political purposes to try and bait republicans into another government shutdown and for them to look bad in the Hispanic community.

I keep hearing from his faithful that -- what he has done is probably "legal" and therefore should be accepted. Well what is legal by matter of loophole is not always right. So I ask those who defend his actions on illegal immigration because what he did may technically be "legal," is this: When a Republican president comes into office, will you defend his/her executive actions when he instructs the IRS not to enforce the tax code on any person or company who refuses to pay more than a new 10% flat tax and forces government to live within its means, or shut down Obama’s climate program and reduces the powers of the EPA, or authorizes drilling in ANWR, or instructs the DOJ to ignore any federal violations of voting rights and affirmative action, or rescinds Obama's amnesty action and issues an order to immediately start rounding up and deporting illegals?

Paleface · 25-11-2014 12:39am

America cannot deport all the illegal people living there. It would cost a fortune!

eire4 · 25-11-2014 1:43am

Amerika wrote: »

In my opinion, what Obama did was a slap in the face of the separation of powers. Congress passes the laws, the judicial branch interprets those laws, and the executive branch enforces the laws. Yes, the president has some discretion in how those laws are enforced, but what he did in this case was simply rewrite parts of the immigration law that he didn’t like. The election this month showed us the people were not in favor of Obama’s policies. And what he did on immigration was proof he neither respects the will of the people or the rule of law. He has poisoned any chance of a bi-partisan congressional legislation to deal with illegal immigration, which was expected to happen in the next year. And the timing of his announcement shows us he did it purely for political purposes to try and bait republicans into another government shutdown and for them to look bad in the Hispanic community.

QUOTE]

Only 36% of the people voted and obviously while the Republicans enjoyed major gains and had a great election the idea that the people have spoken and given them some kind of major mandate is simply not the case. Of the 36% who did vote obviously not everyone voted Republican either. What I would put forward is that the election showed this month that the majority of the nation is sick and tired of the broken system and the utter failure of congress be it Democrats or Republicans to work in any meaningful way that benefits the majority of Americans. So lets stop with this will of the people cannard.

FISMA · 24-12-2014 9:12pm

Carcharodon wrote: »

Who cares...?

People that believe in the rule of law, separation of powers, and the Constitution care.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

He's perfectly in his rights to make an executive order on immigration.

Wrong on many levels. First of which, Obama did not use executive order on immigration. Rather, a set of memos. Second, you need to understand the conditions under which the full force of law for the orders are met.

I think Judge Andrew Napolitano summed it up best when he stated: "The immigration orders that he issued, whether he calls them executive orders or executive memoranda, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, he can call it what he wants, were not within the limits of the law. He neutered the law and he made up the law. He basically said I will tell you how to avoid deportation if you do a, b, c, d, and e, and he made up the a, b, c, d, and e."

MightyMandarin wrote: »

The executive controls immigration in most Common Law countries and an interference by the Legislature is usually a breach of the separation of powers...

We are not talking about "most" countries, we are talking about America.

In the United States, Congress (the Legislative), not the President (the Executive), has the authority to write laws on immigration. Like those laws written under Reagan and Bush.

Lastly, as the OP stated, what Obama has done is nothing like what Reagan and Bush did. Those that say Obama is doing the same thing Reagan and Bush did are just reciting talking points.

In 1986, Congress passed the so-called Reagan Amnesty which granted citizenship to illegal immigrants who had been in the States for more than six years.

However, according to the letter of the law, illegally present minor children were not granted amnesty. Thus, parents would be granted amnesty, but not their minor children.

Reagan recognized the statutory shortcoming and used his authority to extend amnesty to the minor children as he believed was the original intent of Congress.

Years later, there was still a problem with children and spouses. President Bush then extended the amnesty to again remedy a statutory problem in accordance with the original intent.

Below is a nice image we give the kids in the States to help them understand how the government works, is supposed to work.

Black Swan · 28-12-2014 3:25am

I would suspect that the US American capitalistic system would have to radically change if their country was to reach zero population growth. So much of their GDP growth is tied to a population/consumer business growth model, and without the millions of illegal immigrants coming across their boarders every year, zero population growth (2.1 children per couple) would more than likely occur per their Population Reference Bureau.

That's why I think all the noise by both parties (Democrats and Republicans) about illegal immigration is just noise. Both parties will jump-up-and-down and point fingers at each other (during news media ops) about various aspects of illegal immigration, but will do nothing to completely stop it. Ultimately all the noise about Obama's immigration executive order(s) vis-a-vis the Republican controlled Congress's opposing position(s) are in essence moot from a political reality standpoint, and just used to score points like occurs in their American football game gridiron: Blue Team vs. Red Team.

Fact check: Obama's actions 'same' as past presidents?

Comments