Border surge puts Obama legacy on immigration at stake
Google Images
After two years of playing offense, immigrant rights groups suddenly and unexpectedly find themselves playing political defense, pushing back against proposals to speed up deportations of people surging across the border illegally even while advocates plead with the White House to take politically risky executive action to halt deportations in the interior.
The advocates say they have “an audience of one” — President Obama, who for his career in Washington, stretching back to his days as a senator, has tantalized them with promises of action and even delivered some victories, but at times has seemed a reluctant partner.
Right now his legacy is at stake and he has the opportunity to redefine what it means to be President Obama,” said Lorella Praeli, policy director for United We Dream, an advocacy group that pressured Mr. Obama two years ago to grant tentative legal status to illegal immigrant young adults and now wants that policy expanded to include most illegal immigrant parents
Mr. Obama was initially cool to the idea of halting more deportations, denying he had the legal authority.
But under intense pressure by advocates and shamed by the movement’s leaders who dubbed him “deporter in chief,” Mr. Obama warmed to the plan and even set deadlines for himself to act.
Then came the border surge, with tens of thousands of unaccompanied children and families from Central America trying to cross into the U.S. and counting on immigration authorities to release them so they could gain a foothold in the interior of the country.
Advocates argue that the two issues are separate, but many Americans see them as the same and have reacted negatively.
A majority a CNN/ORC International poll last week said the most important thing in the immigration debate is to secure the border. That was a reversal from February, when a majority said legalizing illegal immigrants was more important than border security. ...
The only reason for the temporary illusion that a majority of Americans were not for border enforcement first was that pollster-advocates carefully worded their questions so that amnesty was called 'path to,' and their stressing that 'comprehensive immigration reform' would require strict border enforcement, something that is always dishonestly promised to American citizens by their open-borders overlords before every amnesty--but which never ever happens.
Posts
