Issues & Controversies

IMMIGRATION AND EXECUTIVE ACTION Were President Obama's recent executive actions on immigration appropriate?

Issue Date: January 9, 2015

SUPPORTERS ARGUE For too long, inhumane immigration policies have ripped families apart and resulted in the deportation of law- abiding, hardworking immigrants. President Obama's executive actions were careful, constitutional moves to temporarily protect certain immigrants from deportation. Republicans have no grounds for outrage, since for years they have blocked congressional attempts to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

OPPONENTS ARGUE President Obama far exceeded his constitutional authority with his recent executive actions on immigration. Granting legal status to immigrants who are in the United States illegally only encourages more immigrants to cross the border without authorization and take jobs from tax-paying Americans. Border security, not amnesty, should be the first priority in immigration reform.

Associated Press

President Barack Obama (D) signs a memorandum related to his November, 2014 executive action on immigration.

Every year, millions of potential immigrants apply for permission to live and work in the United States. The U.S. government issues about 1 million residency cards, or "green cards," that allow people to move to the United States legally each year. After several years, green-card holders can apply for U.S. citizenship, which gives them the same rights as other Americans, including the right to vote and access to government benefits. Additionally, the government provides about 600,000 applicants each year with guest-worker visas, allowing them to live and work in the United States temporarily.

Millions of other applicants remain on the waiting list each year. Some, seeking to take advantage of economic and social opportunities often unavailable in their home countries, choose to sneak into the country illegally, or to stay past the expiration of their work, study, or tourist visas. Many of these immigrants are from Mexico and Central American countries—regions that are periodically plagued by drug violence and economic and political instability.

More than 11 million illegal immigrants, also known as undocumented immigrants, are estimated to live in the United States. Though many of them hold jobs and pay taxes on their wages, they cannot vote, and are generally unable to take advantage of government services, such as obtaining a driver's license or other official identification, or gaining access to welfare and Social Security. Undocumented immigrants also live in constant risk of deportation—forced removal—to their home countries. Every year, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the federal agency that oversees immigration, carries out approximately 400,000 deportations. Fearing that contact with police and government authorities will reveal their illegal status and result in deportation, many undocumented immigrants choose not to report crimes, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation.

Many illegal immigrants stay in the United States for years or even decades, establishing roots in their communities and often having children on U.S. soil. Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, any person born in the United States automatically obtains U.S. citizenship. Millions of children born to undocumented immigrants in the United States, therefore, have the protections of citizenship while their parents are at risk of deportation. In 2012, an estimated 150,000 children who were U.S. citizens experienced the deportation of a parent.

The budget the federal government allocates to Immigration and Customs Enforcement allows it to deport only a small fraction of the undocumented population. As a result, immigration agents must decide which of the millions of undocumented immigrants to target for removal. Many advocates for immigrants have protested the removal of law- abiding, employed immigrants from their families and the communities they have lived in for years. As a result, both federal and state governments have often targeted for deportation illegal immigrants with criminal records and those who have entered the country relatively recently. Though immigration authorities have officially adopted such priorities on paper, in practice, any undocumented immigrant risks being deported at any time.

Congress has attempted for years to pass comprehensive immigration reform that would address the presence of undocumented immigrants already in the United States, refine deportation policies, improve border security, and streamline the legal immigration application process to encourage the entry of skilled immigrants who would contribute to the nation's economic growth. Immigration reform plans, however, have been controversial. Some lawmakers have argued that the U.S. government's priority should be to increase the number of deportations and improve border security, while others argue that the government should focus on providing illegal immigrants who have been in the United States for years a pathway to citizenship. [See Immigration Policy]

During his presidency, George W. Bush (R, 2001–09) promoted an immigration law that would have given many undocumented immigrants an opportunity to apply for citizenship; but he faced stiff resistance from Congress, particularly within his own party. Indeed, many Republicans insisted that immigration reform should focus on border security and punitive measures against illegal immigrants. These proposals prompted massive protests from immigrants and their supporters, who insisted that their willingness to work in low-paying jobs strongly benefited the U.S. economy, and was crucial to many businesses in the United States. The president and legislators were unable to craft a compromise, and no comprehensive immigration reform law was passed during Bush's presidency. After Barack Obama (D) became president in 2009, he also promoted broad immigration reform, including a law called the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, also known by its acronym, the DREAM Act. Backed by many Democrats, the DREAM Act would have allowed children who had been brought to the United States illegally to earn citizenship if they attended college or served in the U.S. military. Republicans in Congress, however, blocked the bill. In the absence of new legislation, President Obama resorted to executive action—a policy change instituted by the president—to alter the United States' immigration policy. In June 2012, he announced the creation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Embodying similar goals to those of the DREAM Act, the DACA program allows illegal immigrants under the age of 31 who entered the United States before the age of 16, and who meet other criteria, to apply for work permits and legal status. Since President Obama announced the plan, about 600,000 immigrants—or half of the estimated 1.2 million eligible for deferred action—have applied to the program.

Following President Obama's election to a second term in November 2012, he again urged a comprehensive immigration reform law. In June 2013, the Senate passed such a measure, providing for both a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and increased border security, along with other features. Although the measure received strong bipartisan support in the Senate, Republicans in the House of Representatives opposed it, calling instead for the separate consideration of each portion of the bill. The House never voted on the measure, and it did not become law.

Republican victories in the midterm elections on November 4, 2014, strengthened the party's position in Congress and ended any chance that the House would approve the Senate immigration bill. Two weeks later, a frustrated President Obama again resorted to executive action. On November 20, he announced that he would implement a series of measures that would temporarily protect an estimated 5 million more illegal immigrants from deportation. He would expand the DACA and create another deferred action program to temporarily shield an estimated 4 million parents of legal residents from deportation. Obama also announced plans to encourage the legal migration of skilled workers to the United States, allow spouses of green card holders to apply for legal status without first leaving the United States, and prioritize the deportation of both illegal immigrants convicted of serious crimes and recently arrived illegal immigrants over otherwise law-abiding undocumented immigrants.

Obama framed the executive actions as impetus for lawmakers to pass broad immigration reform legislation. "To those members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better," he said, "or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill." [See President Obama Addresses Nation on Immigration (primary source)]

Coming just two weeks after Republicans swept the midterm elections, Obama's announcement stoked partisan tensions. Republicans denounced the use of executive action as an unconstitutional bypassing of Congress. Representative Matt Salmon (R, Arizona) condemned the move as "an impeachable offense," and Representative Paul Gosar (R, Arizona) called Obama a "rogue president" who disregarded "the rule of law." House Speaker John Boehner (R, Ohio) claimed that Obama had ignored "the will of the American people" and "cemented his legacy of lawlessness." [See Republican Senator Jeff Sessions Blasts Obama Administration on Immigration Policy (primary source)]

Indeed, much of the controversy surrounding President Obama's immigration executive action stems not only from the policy changes themselves, but also from his method of implementing them by invoking executive authority. Although presidents have long used executive authority on a broad range of issues—including exemptions in the enforcement of immigration law—Obama's action will likely apply to a far greater number of immigrants than have previous uses of executive authority.

Were President Obama's recent executive actions on immigration appropriate? Supporters of President Obama's executive actions on immigration argue that throughout his presidency, Congress has failed to enact sorely needed reform legislation, forcing Obama to take action on his own. Obama's plan protects immigrant families from being ripped apart, they claim, preventing children who are citizens from losing their parents to deportation. Protecting hardworking, noncriminal immigrants is a reflection of American values, proponents contend, and Obama's actions were well within his constitutional authority.

Opponents of President Obama's executive actions on immigration argue that in bypassing Congress, Obama failed to fulfill his duty to faithfully execute the laws of the United States, thus violating the U.S. Constitution. Granting undocumented immigrants work permits and protection from deportation, critics claim, will only encourage more immigrants to come to the United States illegally and take jobs from Americans who need them. Border security, not a pathway to citizenship, they insist, must come first in immigration reform.

Recent Executive Immigration Actions in U.S. History

The U.S. Constitution grants the president the authority to ensure that "the Laws be faithfully executed." Under that authority, presidents have claimed the right to issue executive orders—formal directives to federal agencies or employees that are separate from laws passed by Congress—and executive actions—an inclusive term referring to a variety of moves, including statements of new policies or the implementation of new rules or regulations. As the number and size of federal agencies have grown, particularly over the last century, the reach of executive power and the president's influence over how laws are interpreted and enforced have broadened. Congress can attempt to undermine executive actions by passing laws, defunding initiatives, or filing lawsuits, but in practice such moves have limited effect because the executive branch has great leeway in how laws are interpreted and enforced.

Every president since George Washington (1789–87) has issued executive orders or actions to govern the country. The use of such actions has long been controversial, particularly when they are viewed as thwarting Congress or circumventing existing laws. Among the most controversial—and far-reaching—executive actions in American history are the Emancipation Proclamation issued by President Abraham Lincoln (R, 1861–68) in 1863, the ordered internment of Japanese Americans during World War II (1939–45) by President Franklin D. Roosevelt (D, 1933–45) in 1942, and the integration of the armed forces by President Harry S. Truman (D, 1945–53) in 1948. President Obama has issued fewer executive orders per year than any president since Grover Cleveland (D, 1885–89; 1893–97), but he has nonetheless faced criticism from those who believe that the reach of the executive branch has grown too broad.

Presidents began taking executive action over immigration after the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1952. The law provided a comprehensive framework for U.S. immigration policy, compiling various provisions that had been passed previously. According to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website, the Immigration and Nationality Act remains "the basic body of immigration law" in the United States. In 1965, Congress passed another major immigration law, also called the Immigration and Nationality Act, which greatly expanded the numbers of immigrants allowed into the United States.

Most of the executive actions relating to immigration in the second half of the 20th century authorized groups from particular countries to enter the United States. In 1961, for example, after a communist revolution overthrew Cuba's U.S.-backed government, President John F. Kennedy (D, 1961–63) directed the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to establish a program to help Cubans fleeing the new government settle in the United States. Similarly, in 1975, as the U.S.–backed South Vietnam appeared poised to fall to the communist North toward the end of the Vietnam War, President Gerald Ford (R, 1974–77) initiated a program allowing around 130,000 Vietnamese to settle in the United States.

By the 1980s, illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America was rising. In 1986, President Ronald Reagan (R, 1981–89) signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which allowed approximately 2.7 million illegal immigrants who met certain conditions to apply for legal status. Though many undocumented immigrants obtained such status under the program, the law failed to address their immediate families, leaving their children at risk of deportation. In 1987, President Reagan attempted to remedy this situation by issuing an executive order that stipulated that children of parents in the process of legalizing could stay in the United States with their parents.

Reagan's order, however, did not cover children who had one parent in the United States legally and the other illegally. In 1990, President George H. W. Bush (R, 1989–93) established the Family Fairness program by executive action, allowing any spouse or child of any individuals receiving legal status through the IRCA to apply for protection from deportation.

President Bush's executive action on immigration a quarter-century ago was similar in some ways to the one announced by President Obama in 2014. "For Bush, it was the spouses and children of amnesty recipients who'd gotten legal status, but not citizenship," Vox writer Dara Lind explains. "[F]or Obama, it's the parents of native-born US citizens who just can't sponsor their parents until they turn 21." Observers note, however, that while Reagan and Bush's executive orders sought to address gaps in recent immigration legislation, Obama's was issued in the absence of any legislation at all.

President Obama Invokes Executive Action to Reform Deportations

During President Obama's first term, between 2009 and 2013, authorities authorized approximately 400,000 deportations each year. (Because illegal immigrants sometimes return and are deported again, the number of deportations in a given year does not necessarily correlate to the number of immigrants deported in that year.) Of these, an estimated 80,000 deportations, or 20 percent, involved the parents of children who were U.S. citizens.

A poll conducted in October 2014 indicated broad support among Americans for allowing undocumented immigrants in the United States who meet certain conditions to stay in the country. By April 2014, the U.S. government under President Obama had deported approximately 2 million people, among the most of any administration in American history. Some immigration activists even nicknamed Obama the "deporter-in- chief." The Obama administration, however, insists that it has adopted a "smart" system of deporting undocumented immigrants by focusing on three categories of immigrants for deportation—those who recently entered the United States, those who have been previously deported and returned illegally, and convicted criminals. The term "convicted criminal," however, has been applied fairly broadly, and includes, for example, immigrants charged for driving without a license, as well as more serious crimes. Observers have noted that deportations carried out by the Obama administration have not always followed these priorities in practice.

Indeed, immigration activists have accused agents of failing to uphold the administration’s professed deportation priorities, criticizing the forced expulsion of thousands of otherwise law-abiding and productive undocumented immigrants, which separated many of them from their families. In 2010, President Obama promoted the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, arguing that immigrants who had been brought to the country illegally as children deserved protection from deportation and a chance to earn citizenship. In 2010, the House of Representatives passed the bill, but Republicans blocked a vote on it in the Senate. Thus the DREAM Act did not become law.

In June 2012, President Obama established the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. This executive action allowed undocumented immigrants meeting certain criteria to apply for a two-year work permit and exemption from deportation. Under these criteria, an applicant had to be under the age of 31 as of June 2012; have come to the United States before he or she was 16; have resided in the United States continuously since June 2007; be a high school graduate or current student; and have not been convicted of a felony, three or more misdemeanors, or otherwise be deemed a threat to public safety.

Later in June 2012, in the case Arizona v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the executive branch's role in deporting illegal immigrants. Although the case focused on a controversial Arizona law that required state and local law enforcement officials to enforce federal immigration law, the Court's ruling stated that the executive branch of the federal government has the authority to set priorities to deport certain groups of illegal immigrants over others. A "principal feature of the removal system," the decision argued, "is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials…[who], as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all." The Court also noted that decisions on whether to deport an unauthorized resident can turn on "immediate human concerns" such as "whether the alien has children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service."

In the summer of 2014, a sudden rise in the number of minors crossing over the Mexican border into the United States reignited calls for immigration reform. Tens of thousands of children—mostly from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, three Central American countries plagued by gang violence—flooded into the United States illegally, overwhelming the immigration system. Conservatives blamed DACA for starting rumors in Central America that any children who entered the United States would be allowed to stay. President Obama requested emergency funds from Congress to house and process the children, most of whom would be deported back to their home countries, and renewed calls for legislators to pass a comprehensive immigration reform law.

As immigration legislation continued to stall in Congress, many observers speculated that President Obama might take further executive action. When asked if he would grant more immigrant protections, however, Obama repeatedly noted that in a democracy, it was the legislature's responsibility to adopt such policy changes, not the president's. "If we start broadening [DACA]," he told the Spanish-language television station Telemundo in September 2013, "then essentially I'll be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally." Similarly, in a separate 2013 interview, the president said "The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed."

In March 2014, however, Obama pledged to take executive action if Congress failed to pass an immigration reform bill. That month, the Obama administration launched a review of the nation's deportation policy and how executive actions could help immigration policy be more humane. One proposal that emerged was a presidential directive to prevent the repeated separation of families that often occurred under current policy.

In November 2014, President Obama announced that he would take executive action to broaden the class of immigrants who could apply for legal status. The action expanded the DACA program by removing the age cap. It also moved the date from which immigrants had to have been living in the United States from 2007 to 2010.

In addition to the DACA expansion, President Obama created a new "deferred action" program that would protect an estimated 4 million illegal immigrants who were parents of legal residents. In order to qualify, parents must have been in the United States before January 1, 2010. Under current law, U.S. citizens who are children of unauthorized immigrants can, when they turn 21, apply for legal status for their parents. The new program will protect parents of U.S. citizens from deportation until their children can formally apply for legal status.

Though the DACA expansion and the deferred action program offer protection from deportation and an opportunity to apply for work permits and legal status, they do not provide for an automatic permanent residency or a pathway to citizenship. Immigrants granted deferrals under the programs would be allowed to work and pay taxes in the United States but could still not vote or qualify for government services such as welfare or Social Security.

This table shows the number of people eligible to stay in the United States under executive action taken by President Barack Obama (D) in November, 2014.

Both the DACA expansion and deferred action programs are expected to begin in 2015. Though the Obama administration has estimated that the programs will protect millions of illegal immigrants from deportation, observers note that many eligible immigrants will likely be hesitant to apply for them. "[T]hese are people who've been living in the shadows for years," journalist Dara Lind wrote for Vox, "and have learned that any interaction with government officials could lead to their deportation." Lind noted, however, that DACA, which faced similar challenges, has created an infrastructure for officials to reach out to immigrant communities.

In addition to the expansion of DACA and the newly created deferred action program, the Obama administration also announced reforms to Secure Communities, a program operated by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency that was initiated in 2008 under President George W. Bush to identify and deport illegal immigrants who have committed crimes. Under Secure Communities, federal immigration agents can access a database that tracks any immigrant booked in jail and can then request local law enforcement to continue to hold that individual until immigration agents can remove him or her. Critics of the program have argued that it encourages law enforcement agents to racially profile and detain people suspected of being immigrants and that it has led to the deportation of many immigrants who are not guilty of any serious crime. Between 2008 and 2013, they note, more than 20 percent of immigrants deported under the Secure Communities program had not been convicted of a crime. Under the new reforms, immigration agents will request local law enforcement agencies to inform them only of immigrants who have been convicted of a third misdemeanor or a felony. In order to more consistently regulate the deportation of criminal immigrants, new reforms will also require ICE agents to demonstrate to their superiors why an immigrant who does not qualify for one of the administration's prioritized categories for deportation should still be deported.

A fact sheet released by the White House stated that Obama's executive actions would spur economic growth by expanding the U.S. workforce and reducing the national deficit through increased tax revenues. While many undocumented immigrants pay taxes on their wages, the White House fact sheet notes, the recent executive actions will expand that tax base greatly. The effects of illegal immigration on the economy have long been sharply disputed. Those who argue for strict crackdowns on immigration maintain that undocumented immigrants take jobs from Americans and drive down wages. Others, however, contend that the willingness of undocumented immigrants to perform unskilled jobs for low wages allows companies to keep prices low, which helps Americans and encourages consumer spending, promoting economic growth.

Republicans in Congress denounced President Obama's use of executive actions on immigration, but debated what their response should be. Some party leaders argued that legislators should focus on drafting and passing a comprehensive immigration law, while others favored taking immediate steps to nullify the president's executive action. Historically, Congress has often fought presidential moves that legislators oppose by attempting to defund specific programs. Obama's deferred action programs, however, largely rely on the discretion of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a federal agency funded not by congressional appropriations but rather by fees paid by applicants. Republicans in Congress could pass a bill striking down these programs, but Obama would likely veto it. Some Republicans have filed a lawsuit against Obama, arguing that in issuing the executive actions he exceeded his power under the Constitution, and others have urged impeachment.

Supporters Argue: President Obama Was Right to Take Executive Action on Immigration

Supporters of President Obama's executive action on immigration argue that such bold action was necessary to transform the nation's immigration and deportation policies, which, they contend, treat immigrants cruelly and callously. "This is the biggest victory for immigrants and their allies in the past 25 years," Frank Sharry, director of America's Voice, an immigrant advocacy organization, asserted in November 2014. "We rejoice with the millions who can come forward, get a work permit and live without fear. Giving some 5 million immigrants a chance to work legally and live in dignity…is a significant step towards bringing our dysfunctional immigration system into balance after years of ramped up deportations, out-of-control enforcement and millions of families being ripped apart."

President Obama's deferred action program, supporters argue, is humane to immigrants and beneficial to the United States as a whole. "The President's executive action will not only keep families together, it will enforce our immigration laws in a way that protects our national security and public safety," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, Nevada) stated in November 2014. "It will strengthen our economy by creating new jobs and allowing these families to fully contribute to the only country they call home."

Some legal scholars argue that, regardless of one's views on immigration itself, the executive branch of the government has the power to act on the issue. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, they note, provides the president substantial leeway to set immigration policy. "Immigration law is an area in which—for good or ill—Congress has given the executive wide latitude," Jonathan Adler, a legal scholar who has criticized President Obama's actions on other issues, wrote in the Washington Post in August 2014. "In evaluating claims of executive overreach it is important to consider the relevant statutes, as whether the President is exceeding his bounds largely depends on the nature and scope of the power Congress delegated in the first place."

Supporters argue that Obama's moves on immigration are constitutional, pointing out that deciding how to enforce the law is one of the president's primary responsibilities. "Obama's actions were well within the scope of executive authority under the Constitution," Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, wrote for Reason. "In a world where authorities can prosecute only a small fraction of lawbreakers, all presidents inevitably make policy choices about which violations of federal law to prosecute and which to ignore…. And if any lawbreakers deserve to benefit from prosecutorial discretion, immigrants fleeing Third World poverty and oppression have a particularly strong case."

Advocates of Obama's executive actions contend that Republicans have wholly failed to offer any competing vision of what productive immigration reform would look like. "[F]ury isn't a policy," Vox editor Ezra Klein wrote in November 2014. "[T]he Republican policy on immigration needs to be something more than opposing Obama's immigration policies. It needs to be something more than vague noises about border security."

Claims that Obama's actions ruin congressional prospects for bipartisan immigration reform, supporters argue, are false and disingenuous. "The President has faced unified and unrelenting opposition from Republicans in Congress since the first day of his presidency [in 2009]," Thomas Mann, a congressional scholar at the nonpartisan think tank the Brookings Institution, charged in November 2014. "Now that the President has decided to use his well documented constitutional and statutory authority to ease temporarily one of the most difficult and painful problems facing the country, Republicans are shocked, yes shocked that he would 'poison the well' and destroy any chance of bipartisan comity in the new Congress."

Supporters emphasize that the moves the Obama administration has taken are temporary, stopgap measures, not blanket amnesty. "[D]eferred action does not confer an immigration visa on the recipient and is subject to termination at any time," Raquel Aldana, a professor at Pacific McGeorge School of Law, argued in the New York Times in November 2014. "President Obama can certainly not guarantee it beyond his own presidency."

Opponents Argue: President Obama Was Wrong to Take Executive Action on Immigration

Opponents of President Obama's executive actions on immigration argue that the new policies are fundamentally flawed. Providing amnesty to undocumented immigrants, they contend, will only encourage more foreigners to enter the United States illegally. Protections provided by President Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, critics charge, created chaos by encouraging parents throughout Central America to send their children north in 2014. "When it comes to the crisis on the border, President Obama has no one to blame but himself," Representative Lamar Smith (R, Texas) stated in June 2014. "He is the one who promised amnesty to illegal immigrant minors already in the U.S. As a result, tens of thousands of illegal immigrant minors are now flooding across the border. Why are they coming? Because of the promise of legalization and amnesty that President Obama advocates."

Improvements in border security, opponents of Obama's action maintain, must come before any other immigration reforms. "Americans…are understandably unwilling to address the fact that we have over 12 million human beings in America in violation of our immigration laws," Senator Marco Rubio (R, Florida) wrote in a letter to President Obama in August 2014, "until we first do something to ensure that our immigration laws will not continue to be ignored."

Opponents have attacked the president for promoting policies that enable unauthorized immigrants to work legally at a time when many Americans are unemployed and facing difficulty finding a job. "The President is providing an estimated 5 million illegal immigrants with social security numbers, photo IDs and work permits," Senator Jeff Sessions (R, Alabama) argued in a November 2014 statement, "allowing them to take jobs directly from struggling Americans during a time of record immigration, low wages, and high joblessness."

The president's actions, critics further contend, are unconstitutional. "This amnesty plan was rejected by the American people's Congress," Sessions stated. "By refusing to carry out the laws of the United States in order to make his own, the President is endangering our entire Constitutional order."

The president's handling of immigration policy, opponents argue, far surpasses previous executive actions on the issue. "[B]oth Reagan's and Bush's moves [in the late 1980s and early 1990s] were cleanup measures for the implementation of the once-in-history amnesty that was passed by Congress," Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, an advocacy organization, argued in the National Review in 2014. "Obama's threatened move, on the other hand, is directly contrary to Congress's decision not to pass amnesty. In effect, Bush was saying 'Congress has acted and I'm doing my best to implement its directives,' while Obama is saying 'Congress has not done my bidding, so I'm going to implement my own directives.’"

Critics argue that Obama's use of executive action clears the way for future presidents to abuse the powers of their office. "Presidents could simply decide not to enforce entire sections of the Clean Air Act, tax code or labor laws, or exempt entire categories of people—defined unilaterally by the president—on the assertion that those laws are 'unfair' and there aren't enough resources to go around," Florida International University law professor Elizabeth Price Foley wrote in the New York Times in November 2014. "At some point, the discretion not to prosecute a law becomes a failure to faithfully execute it."

Immigration Reform and the 2016 Presidential Election

The executive actions on immigration taken by President Obama offer only temporary protection from deportation. Observers have noted that the next president, who will take office in January 2017, could revoke those protections and deport previously protected immigrants. Ultimately, Congress will face the challenge of constructing a longer-term framework for how to address the illegal immigrant population in the United States—if not under Obama, then possibly under his successor.

Analysts have noted that the influence of the Hispanic vote—the fastest-growing minority group in the United States— may cause some Republicans who have been the most fervently opposed to Obama's executive actions to temper their response. "[I]t is the tone of outraged rank-and-file members that most worries GOP elders," Washington Post reporter Robert Costa wrote in November 2014. "Ahead of the 2016 presidential election, they do not want to see Republicans tagged by Democrats as hostile toward Hispanics." Ultimately, the fate of millions of undocumented immigrants will depend both on the implementation of President Obama's actions and any moves taken by Congress in the next two years—as well as who wins the 2016 presidential election. Discussion Questions

1) Do you agree that family members of immigrants with legal status should be granted temporary protection from deportation? Why or why not?

2) Did President Obama exceed his authority when he took executive action on immigration policy? Explain your position.

3) Should immigration authorities deport immigrants who entered the United States as children? Why or why not?

4) Republicans argued that Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program contributed to the wave of child immigrants who flooded the border in the summer of 2014. Research this event and explain why you agree or disagree.

5) What should comprehensive immigration reform in the United States look like? Examine several proposals and then craft your own multi-point plan including the main reforms you think the U.S. immigration system needs.

Bibliography

Aldana, Raquel. "Obama's Constitutional Authority on Immigration Is Well-Recognized." New York Times, November 18, 2014, www.nytimes.com.

Chait, Jonathan. "Obama's Immigration Plan Should Scare Liberals, Too." New York Magazine, August 11, 2014, www.nymag.com.

DeSilver, Drew. "Executive Actions on Immigration Have Long History." Pew Research Center, November 21, 2014, www.pewresearch.org.

Klein, Ezra. "Obama's Advantage Is That He Has an Immigration Policy. Republicans Don't." Vox, November 20, 2014, www.vox.com.

Krikorian, Mark. "Obama's Unprecedented Amnesty." National Review, November 18, 2014, www.nationalreview.com.

Lee, Carol. "Why President Obama Had to Act on Immigration." Wall Street Journal, November 21, 2014, onlinewsj.com.

Lind, Dara. "Obama's Huge New Immigration Plan, Explained." Vox, November 21, 2014, www.vox.com.

———. "Obama Is Deporting More Immigrants Than Any President in History: Explained." Vox, April 9, 2014, www.vox.com.

Mann, Thomas. "Obama's Immigration Order Isn't a Power Grab." Brookings Institution, November 20, 2014, www.brookings.edu.

Meckler, Laura, Colleen McCain Nelson, and Eric Morath. "Obama to Protect 4 Million-Plus Immigrants from Deportation." Wall Street Journal, November 20, 2014, online.wsj.com.

Ortega, Bob. "Obama's Immigration Reform Action—What It Means." Arizona Republic, November 20, 2014, www.azcentral.com.

Peterson, Kristina. "Republicans Unsure of Response to Immigration Reform." Wall Street Journal, November 20, 2014, online.wsj.com.

Posner, Eric. "The Constitutional Authority for Executive Orders on Immigration Is Clear." New York Times, November 18, 2014, www.nytimes.com.

Price Foley, Elizabeth. "Allowing Some Illegal Immigrants to Stay Abuses Prosecutorial Discretion." New York Times, November 18, 2014, www.nytimes.com.

Somin, Ilya. "Why Obama's Immigration Policy is Constitutional." Reason, December 16, 2014, www.reason.com.

Yglesias, Matthew. "11 Key Facts About Obama's Immigration Initiative." Vox, November 20, 2014, www.vox.com.

Additional Sources

Additional information about President Obama's executive action on immigration can be found in the following sources:

Chomsky, Aviva. Undocumented: How Immigration Became Illegal. Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press, 2014.

Daniels, Roger. Coming to America: A History of Immigration and Ethnicity in American Life. New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1990.

Contact Information

Information on how to contact organizations that either are mentioned in the discussion about President Obama's executive action on immigration or can provide additional information on the subject is listed below:

America's Voice 1050 17th St. N.W. Suite 490 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 463-8602 Internet: www.americasvoice.org

Center for Immigration Studies 1629 K St. N.W. Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 466-8185 Internet: www.cis.org

National Immigration Forum 50 F St. N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20001 Telephone: (202) 347-0040 Internet: immigrationforum.org

Numbers USA 1601 N Kent St., Suite 1100 Arlington, VA 22209 Internet: www.numbersusa.com

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 500 12th St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20536 Telephone: (202) 732-4242 Internet: www.ice.gov

Keywords

For further information about the ongoing debate over President Obama's executive action on immigration, search for the following words and terms in electronic databases and other publications:

Deferred action program DREAM Act Immigration reform Pathway to citizenship Secure Communities

Citation Information

“Immigration and Executive Action.” Issues & Controversies. Infobase Learning, 9 Jan. 2015. Web. 19 Jan. 2016. .