Posted on 11/17/2014 10:35:42 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
Two presidents have acted unilaterally on immigration - and both were Republican. Ronald Reagan and his successor George H.W. Bush extended amnesty to family members who were not covered by the last major overhaul of immigration law in 1986.
Neither faced the political uproar widely anticipated if and when President Barack Obama uses his executive authority to protect millions of immigrants from deportation.
Reagan's and Bush's actions were conducted in the wake of a sweeping, bipartisan immigration overhaul and at a time when "amnesty" was not a dirty word. Obama is acting as the country - and Washington - are bitterly divided over a broken immigration system and what to do about 11 million people living in the U.S. illegally.q
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Minors in the home of people who have been granted amnesty, were never going to be sent to another nation. If you want to spin that as Reagan going off the grid, you’re welcome to do so, I think it’s absolutly nuts to look at it that way.
Contrast that with what is going to take place now. Obama will simply grant amnesty to between 25 and 40 million people.
How does that measure up to 500 thousand children of people who have just been granted amnesty through legislation?
You see it as the same thing. I don’t share your view even remotely.
As for people brought in from Nicaragua, was that merely a presidential edict, or was it something Congress had ownership of as well?
I don’t know how refugee status is relegated. I don’t know the history of that sort of thing.
As for Obama not doing anything different than Reagan, you can push that for all it’s worth if you like. I’m not buying it.
Amnesty was wrong the first two times and made the problem worse both times. It was also passed by Congress those times if my memory is correct. Now that we know it’s a failure, there is no excuse for Obama to usurp congressional power for this foolish policy.
Refugee status for Central American Nation’s citizens in the 1980s...
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/central-americans-and-asylum-policy-reagan-era
What RR did 25 years ago was on a tiny scale compared to what Benito Obama has in mind. Plus, there has been a gigantic cultural and socioeconomic shift. Culturally, the pro-illegal movement has become powerful, pervasive and virulent in its assault on the rule of law and national sovereignty, coupled with the intense leftward shift in Democrat circles. Socioeconomically, we are in the midst of a massive invasion of illegals who are overwhelming virtually every social program, school systems, hospitals, prisons and the legal system. All that was not in play when RR did whatever he did, counting on the good faith of DemocRats who said that the amnesty was the last.
I respectfully disagree. Why don’t you ask some of your friends what they think of the unique, 10th Amendment-protected power of the states to regulate immigration, including to pardon illegal immigrants, and post some of the responses that you get?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.