Iowa reaction to Obama's new policy on deportations

President Barack Obama announced today that his administration will no longer deport some illegal immigrants who were brought to this country as children. Details on the policy are after the jump. Senator Tom Harkin welcomed the change, but Senator Chuck Grassley and Representative Steve King denounced what they called an "amnesty" policy. At this writing, other Iowa elected officials have not commented publicly on the issue.

The Obama administration has deported undocumented immigrants at a faster rate than its predecessors, but hundreds of thousands of undocumented residents will supposedly be spared the threat of deportation from now on.

The new policy will not grant citizenship to children who came to the United States as illegal immigrants, but will remove the threat of deportation and grant them the right to work in the United States.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, the policy change will apply to those who came to the United States before they were 16 and who are younger than 30 if they have lived here for five years, have no criminal history, graduated from a U.S. high school or served in the military.

A memo from DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano ordering the "prosecutorial discretion with respect to individuals who came to the United States as children" argued that those covered by the order "only know this country as home." It said these people "lacked the intent to violate the law."

The new policy will apply to individuals who are already in deportation proceedings, the memo said.

The policy change will accomplish portions of the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, legislation that has stalled in Congress amid Republican opposition.

The U.S. House approved the DREAM Act in December 2010, but a Republican-led filibuster kept the bill from reaching a vote on the Senate floor. All the Iowa Democrats in Congress voted for the DREAM Act, while all the Iowa Republicans opposed it.

Obama's action looks like a blatant election-year attempt to appeal to the large and growing constituency of Latino voters. He could have enacted this policy years ago, or at least after the U.S. Senate killed the DREAM Act. But I'm glad the president did the right thing today, even if for the wrong reasons.

Homeland Security Department Secretary Janet Napolitano denied that the announcement was politically motivated. She described today's move as part of a "logical progression" on immigration policy.

"This was a decision out of my office as the secretary of Homeland Security," she told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "It was a decision made after we looked at what we've been doing over the last three years." [...]

"This is a logical progression from a series of decisions that we've made over the last several years to focus immigration enforcement on those who violated the criminal law in addition to the immigration law, those who are repeat violators, those who are recent border crossers," she said. "We need to, in our discretionary authority, defer action against these individuals." [...]

"Instructions have gone out to ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] and CVP [Citizenship and Immigration Resources] that they're not to put these young people into removal proceedings," she said.

Immigrants who may qualify for deferred action will be asked to walk into one of these offices and self-report their status, she said.

According to Napolitano, the goal of the policy is to remove the "cloud" hanging over the heads of "a group of young people, brought here through no fault of their own." She said the system would be set up internally so that self-reporters did not implicate family members as undocumented immigrants.

It's more accurate to say that the new policy pushes back the "cloud" hanging over some 800,000 U.S. residents' heads. Eligible undocumented immigrants will receive a two-year deferral to deportation, not a permanent reprieve.

The deferral may not even last two years if Mitt Romney wins the presidential election. Though it's hard to tell from this statement by Romney today:

I believe the status of young people who come here through no fault of their own is an important matter to be considered and to be solved on a long-term basis so they know what their future will be in this country. I think the action the president took today makes it more difficult to reach that long-term solution because an executive is of course a short-term matter. It can be reversed by subsequent presidents. I'd like to see legislation that deals with this issue, and I happen to agree with Marco Rubio as he looks at this issue. He said that this is an important matter and that we have to find a long-term solution, but that the president's action makes reaching that long-term solution more difficult. If I'm president, we'll do our very best to have that kind of long-term solution that provides certainty and clarity for people who come into this country through no fault of their own through the actions of their parents. Thank you.

Obama admitted the limitations of the new policy today:

"This is not amnesty. This is not immunity. This is not a path to citizenship. It's not a permanent fix," Obama said to take on conservative criticism of the step. "This is a temporary stopgap measure." [...]

The change is part of a department effort to target resources at illegal immigrants who pose a greater threat, such as criminals and those trying to enter the country now, Napolitano said, adding it was "well within the framework of existing laws."

Senator Tom Harkin, who voted for the DREAM Act in 2010, issued this press release today:

Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) today issued the following statement after the Obama Administration announced a new immigration policy modeled after legislation supported by Harkin.  The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act removes barriers to education for many young immigrants in Iowa and the United States.  

Audio of Senator Harkin's remarks from his call with Iowa journalists today on this subject can be found here: .

"I support the Obama Administration on this announcement today.  At the heart of this matter is a fundamental issue of human rights and fairness to children who came to this country as a result of their parents' actions.  They should not be denied opportunities.  

"I have supported legislation in Congress that supports this same goal - legislation that used to have bipartisan support.  It remains my hope that we can get the DREAM Act passed over the objection of Congressional Republicans."

Senator Chuck Grassley, who supported the DREAM Act filibuster, released this comment today:

Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, issued the following comment about the President's announcement that the administration will halt deportation and allow the issuance of work permits to those in the country illegally.

"The President's action is an affront to the process of representative government by circumventing Congress and with a directive he may not have the authority to execute.  The President once denied that he had the legal authority to do this, and Congress was assured more than once that the administration would consider individuals for this sort of deferred status on a case-by-case basis only, and that there was no plan to implement a broad-based program.   It seems the President has put election-year politics above responsible policies.  On top of providing amnesty to those under 30 years old, the administration now will be granting work authorizations to illegal immigrants at the same time young Americans face record-high unemployment rates.  Americans also deserve to know how this amnesty program for hundreds of thousands of people will be funded, and whether resources for border security and enforcement will be diverted.  Congress has the authority to write immigration laws, and with this order the President is disregarding the voice of the people through their elected representatives in Congress."

Illegal immigration has long been a flashpoint for Representative Steve King, and he threatened to file a federal lawsuit to stop the president "from implementing his unconstitutional and unlawful policy." His office also sent out this statement (emphasis in original):

King: Obama's DREAM Act Executive Order Violates Constitution

Washington, DC - Congressman Steve King released the following statement today in response to President Obama's plan to grant amnesty to an estimated 1 million illegal aliens through an Executive Order implementing the policies of the DREAM Act legislation that Congress has rejected.

"Americans should be outraged that President Obama is planning to usurp the Constitutional authority of the United States Congress and grant amnesty by edict to 1 million illegal aliens," said King. "There is no ambiguity in Congress about whether the DREAM Act's amnesty program should be the law of the land. It has been rejected by Congress, and yet President Obama has decided that he will move forward with it anyway. President Obama, an ex constitutional law professor, whose favorite word is audacity, is prepared to violate the principles of Constitutional Law that he taught.

"The American people have rejected amnesty because it will erode the Rule of Law. In much the same way, I believe the American people will reject President Obama for his repeated efforts to violate the Constitutional separation of powers."

  • really?

    hard to tell from this statement by Romney today

    it's the same as the reaction from the Obama administration to the Rubio proposal. It was not a winning hand because immigration advocates said that "something" was better than the "nothing but deportations" they were getting under this administration.

    Rubio forced Obama's hand. He deserves some credit for political courage because he is not a Democrat, and his actions were not viewed favorably by many in his party. The message to activists is clearly to work with both parties.

    I agree that a stay of deportation is weaker than legislation conferring non-citizen, but legal working status to those who fall under the guidelines. In turn, said legislation is less comprehensive than DREAM, and obviously, all of the above fall short of broader immigration reform.

    Electoral consequences, starting w/ Iowa. IA-01/IA-02: more independents/Dems who will react negatively than supporters of this action. Not a win for Braley or Loebsack.

    Latham not jumping out of the gate is interesting. It betrays that he doesn't see his race as a slam dunk. Perhaps the nr of Hispanics in Dallas/Polk is on his mind, so no King-like rhetoric from him. If he babbles about "unconstitutional" this and that, then he's more confident than I think.

    King - it's not amnesty. it's not "unconstitutional." I guess he sees this as a real base energizer, and I suppose he's right.

    National - Romney's camp claims to have set a target of 40% Hispanic vote, a high for the GOP. Don't see how this is remotely in reach w/o Rubio on the ticket, and I think the Obama administration is anticipating the same.

    • George W Bush didn't get much more than 40

      and he had a lot more going for him in this area than Romney does.

      I'm not sure I would read that much into Latham's silence. He doesn't send out many press releases, period. I am sometimes surprised by the issues he declines to comment on publicly. I think most of the time he's more comfortable not getting his opinion in the news.

  • sad day for america.....

    ...for any President to be acting "politically" when they claim that is the problem in DC. No surprise with this guy in charge though....

    Ask the unions what they think about all of these newly legals competing for their jobs.  It is not going to be pretty from that side either.

    Obama might need a new political calculator...this energizes the right and MANY on the moderate right to one side just as much as the formerly illegal left to the other.

    • I don't hear America crying(sad)

      I do hear the angry teeth grinding from the same people who continually despise every single act of and word spoken by this President and his wife.

      • Here is why...

        A new policy strategy of ignoring laws does not work for America....

        • curious

          were you this concerned when Branstad re-appropriated IWD funding?

          Reactions all around are overblown. 800,000 "illegal votes," please. This order does nothing more than offer temporary relief from deportation and the ability to apply for a work authorization permit while in limbo. Most will fall under this policy guideline:

          Immigrants who may qualify for deferred action will be asked to walk into one of these offices and self-report their status, she said.

          According to Napolitano, the goal of the policy is to remove the "cloud" hanging over the heads of "a group of young people, brought here through no fault of their own." She said the system would be set up internally so that self-reporters did not implicate family members as undocumented immigrants.

          I do not imagine that there are too many who will want to put other family members at risk. Very few will want to test the "system." Those who are currently on the docket will not be rushing to vote, as this would clearly be a criminal act that guarantees deportation.

          Similarly, I don't imagine a "flood" of new workers for low-end jobs. What else could they be? Employers don't hire people with temp work permits for anything but the lowest-status positions. Young adults contemplating college will still be stuck with out-of-state tuition & the absolute dregs for work opportunities. Pretty bad deal given that the US is currently experiencing no growth due to immigration. You are aware that ICE has already promoted shelving thousands of deportation proceedings for this reason?    

          I think conservatives are angry because Obama has stepped on Rubio's coming out party/Romney's Hispanic pitch. Romney may decide to go with maximizing white discontent over ad hoc immigration policy during a recession, but let's not pretend this would be because he's a standard bearer for Nation of Laws -- he'd just be a political opportunist as well.

          • I agree

            I am not convinced a lot of people will want to take Janet Napolitano's word for it that applying for this status won't cause trouble for other family members.

            • no kidding,

              I am not convinced a lot of people will want to take Janet Napolitano's word for it that applying for this status won't cause trouble for other family members.

              I forgot to add that anyone in their late 20s will take a pass. I mean, it's temporary, politically-inspired and the cutoff is 30, so why out yourself? I'm betting this turns out to be as effective as some of those foreclosure relief programs.

    • formerly illegal left?

      where do you guys get these ideas from? A temp work permit is not a voter registration card. It's Republicans that patented the "temporary guest worker" concept, you know.

      You should also understand that this very policy originally came from your side. Rubio will be on CBS Sunday Morning tomorrow -- it was taped in advance -- to promote this policy as legislation. It has been heavily criticized by the very Democrats cheering right now.

      In an interview with CBS News chief White House correspondent Norah O'Donnell (to air on CBS' "Sunday Morning" on June 17), Rubio said his plan would grant the children of undocumented immigrants a visa but not, he says, amnesty.

      "The Dream Act as it's been written originally is too broad, to be honest. It basically would apply to too many people," he told O'Donnell.

      Of his proposal Rubio said, "I think I've found significant support for it, both in my own party and hopefully with some Democrats, that allows us to address the issue of these kids in a humanitarian way, that allows us to recognize that what we want to do is give these kids a chance to get right what their parents got wrong, but not do it in a way that incentivizes people to do this in the future, and doesn't undermine our legacy as a nation of laws."

      Yes, this is a political move -- to preempt Rubio's rolling out this very policy tomorrow morning on national TV and later this week, his book hits the stands. In this sense, it's a successful political move.

      On the flip side, it raises Rubio's profile as well. Obama was forced to do this. Whether Romney picks Rubio now is an open question -- my opinion is that he almost has to. Rubio will have the opportunity to plead his case using channels not dominated by the mainstream media. He has a delightful Colombian wife. So, what are you hard-core anti-immigrant types going to do? I agree that these types of issues don't poll well in Iowa (and Obama may be penalized in Iowa as a result) but nationwide, the Hispanic, yes, legal, vote is too large to ignore.

      • in Reagan's day

        Some Republicans weren't afraid to advocate for real amnesty (for some undocumented immigrants).

        • It blows my mind

          that people are screaming about this nada-burger stay of deportation. That's all it is, legally, and from a legal viewpoint, why is anyone questioning whether an executive can defer an order administered via a federal agency? This is not amnesty and not even a DREAM Act. It's limbo-land on minimum wage with out-of-state tuition, at best, slathered with with ICE bureaucracy. For those who are not aware, dealing with ICE is its own hell on earth.

          But whether it's technically "legal" or not doesn't even concern me, just as I think the "constitutionality" of the hcr mandate is a diversion. The policy plain old sucks and only is "better" when compared to deporting people to countries where they are also foreigners.

        • in Reagan's day and today....

          ...most Republicans will advocate for immigrants and legal immigration, but not endorse illegal aliens attempting to be or come here while shunning our laws.

Login or Join to comment and post.