Sunday, November 23, 2014

11.23.14: Backs Against The Wall - Immigration and Ferguson

The distilled view of the executive action that President Obama took this week is that most people agree with the measures, but they do not agree with how the measures were put in place.  The president acting alone doesn't sit well with the American people because the people that represent them make a big stink about the fact that they weren't included.  Hence, you get sound bites of people like Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) accusing the president of being a monarch.

But what really upsets Republicans is the fact that despite crushing the Democrats in the midterm elections, President Obama out-politicked them again with he took executive action on immigration.  But, they only have themselves to blame because the Republicans in the Senate couldn't get the Republican-controlled House to act on the immigration bill passed in the upper chamber.

With only two years left in his presidency, no more elections, and the knowledge that Republicans will not cooperate with him on anything, Mr. Obama's back was against the wall in terms of creating a positive legacy of his time in office.  So he acted on immigration and politically stuck it to Republicans.

Four of the five million people that the executive order affects are the parents of American citizens (kids born in the U.S.) and because the Republican House didn't pass a bill, the Democratic President gets all the credit for helping them out.  And a Democratic presidential candidate in 2016 is going to get those votes because the Republican candidate will have to campaign against this immigration action in the primaries, essentially forfeiting those votes.  

Because of this action, some Republicans are calling for a government shutdown - 'political suicide' is how Joe Scarborough described that on the program today.  He also used that term to describe proposed impeachment proceedings against the president, before explaining that using defunding measures would be very difficult to accomplish.

If in 2016 a Republican is elected president, does that person risk losing the Hispanic vote for at least a decade by revoking the Mr. Obama's executive action without any alternative legislation ready to go?  This brings us to the prospect of the Republican-controlled Congress constructing and passing immigration legislation, which Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) said was a necessity for Republicans.  Even there, the president can say that he pushed along Congress to take action, hence take some credit.

In the immediacy of all this, people are talking about the president and not the big win the Republicans just pulled off, and that's why they're so pissed off.  Republicans have no victory wave to ride into the next Congress.  They haven't even arrived in town and people already want them to have things done.

As we've pointed out previously, the actions taken by the president are legal, but are they dangerous in setting the precedent for expanded presidential power?  The answer to the latter point is yes, but again the Congress ceded the power.  They showed a clip of an interview that guest Jose Diaz-Balart did with the president where he said he would not, could not, invoke such action because it was not lawful.  It depends on the range of scope of the actions taken by the president, and what the lawyers say.

But really all of that isn't germane to the fact the president's political counter punch was extremely effective on two fronts - one, that it hurts the Republicans and two, that it personally benefits a lot of people while being an economic booster for the country.

And what goes under-said is the fact the Mr. Diaz-Balart pointed out, which is Mr. Obama has deported over 2 million people, surpassing George Bush's two-term total years ago, the population equivalent to the city of Houston, Texas.  An incredible number.  Another point that is not mentioned enough is that more people illegally immigrate to the United States through airports than across the border.

Despite that latter point, Hispanics coming into the United States via its southern border will always get a disproportionate amount of xenophobic blame in the immigration debate.  As we have always said in this column, they are not to blame - they are trying to create better lives for themselves because their backs are up against it.  The onus on and blame for keeping them out (if that's the goal) falls on the United States.  In other words, fix the laws.

And it has to be mentioned because no one does it enough and that is the unspoken discrimination that makes the whole thing reek ugly.  (If you want to get rid of it, you first have to own it.)

Sadly, it is something that also certainly applies to what is happening in Ferguson, Missouri as the town awaits a grand jury decision on whether or not to indict officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown.

 The debate between fmr. New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Georgetown professor Michael Eric Dyson quickly escalated into a highly animated tone when Mr. Giuliani cut in with the statistic of cited  the statistic that 93% of violence toward African-Americans is committed by African-Americans.  As Mr. Dyson correctly pointed out that those people do go to jail and that they are not ordained with the public's trust as is the case with Officer Wilson.

The whole thing ended with this exchange, but watch for yourself:

“The white police officers wouldn’t be there if you weren’t killing each other 70-75% of the time,” Giuliani said a few seconds later.

“Look at this! This is the defensive mechanism of white supremacy in your mind sir!” Dyson concluded. 


         
As the young protester in NBC News John Yang's piece said, "people are tired of being pushed up against the wall, and Mr. Giuliani's provocative statements and comparisons only reinforce that feeling amongst the African-American community.  With as much as we object to Mr. Giuliani's positions on this national, cultural issue, we agree with the way he would prepare for the grand jury's announcement.  Instead of the stupid move of declaring a state of emergency and calling in the National Guard like Missouri Governor Jay Nixon (D) did, Mr. Giuliani would have the police quietly prepared to react at a moment's notice.  Given the history, it's prudent, but it doesn't assume the worst from your citizenry like preemptively calling in the National Guard.  Frankly, it's the extra shove that the people of Ferguson simply don't need.


Panel: Joe Scarborough, Host of MSNBC's "Morning Joe;" Amy Walter, The Cook Political Report; Bill Richardson, fmr. Gov. of New Mexico; Jose Diaz-Balart, Host of MSNBC's "The Rundown" (Mr. Todd's old job)NBC News


No comments: