Skip to main content

The real reason why Republicans are upset with President Obama's executive action on immigration

Ever since President Obama took office in January of 2009, he's spoken out about the need for immigration reform. Much to his dismay, however, through a term and a half, Congress has been negligent on taking action regarding the matter. Democrats feared losing votes on election day and Republicans feared a Democratic President being credited with accomplishing immigration reform, and with that, losing millions of former illegal immigrants to the Democratic Party in coming elections. In other words, the two parties decided their own political futures were more important than proving they deserved political futures by actually working together and accomplishing something in Washington.

Upon seeing that there was less chance of Congress working together on the matter than of a dead man winning the lottery, President Obama decided to, like Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush before him, take executive action on immigration. This infuriated Congressional Republicans. Some called for a lawsuit against the president. Others called for impeachment. Many referred to him as a king or an emperor, even though conservative scholars said his actions were legal and these same Republicans didn't make a peep when former Presidents Bush and Reagan took similar executive actions.

The truth of the matter is that Congressional Republicans aren't necessarily angered that the president made an executive order or even with the concept of immigration reform. They're angry because they thought they had the president cornered on the issue, that he wouldn't give up trying to work with Congress, and this inevitable stalemate would result in the Democratic Party losing some minority votes (especially in the Hispanic community) in the 2016 election. They're angry because now President Obama has placed them in a difficult position, he'll now get credited for immigration reform, and this will result in the Democratic Party likely earning more minority votes come election day.

While the Republican Party thought they were one step ahead of the president and that he'd allow for things to stay that way, he decided to make an unexpected next move which placed he and his party one step ahead of them, and they're having trouble deciding what their next move should be. If the GOP decides to fight President Obama on his executive order and finds a way to win, they'll be seen by many immigrants as the anti-immigrant (especially Latino) party. This will likely motivate minorities to turn up in larger numbers come election day. If the GOP fights President Obama on the issue and loses, they'll still be seen by many minorities as the anti-immigrant party, and once again, this will likely rile such voters, enough to make a big splash on election day. If the GOP lets things go, then while President Obama will be credited for the big move and change in direction on immigration reform and it will likely help his party in the coming elections, it also leaves the door open for the GOP to slowly, but surely, attempt to appeal to minority voters. The best move the GOP could make, in my opinion, would be to applaud the president on his actions and to even announce that there's more he can do on the matter, specifically tell the media about these ideas, and adamantly state that they'd be happy to work with the president to accomplish such goals. While President Obama, a Democratic President, would still be largely credited with immigration reform, it would likely place the two parties on more even-footing within the Hispanic community come election day, and would, at least temporarily, place the GOP one step ahead of the president on the issue yet again. Of course, I don't expect this to happen. Judging by the early comments on the matter, the GOP is about as likely to applaud President Obama on his executive action and work with him to accomplish more on the matter of immigration reform as a mime has of being the winner on The Voice.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"