NPR Likens Obama's Illegal Immigration Order to Louisiana Purchase; GOP Rep. King 'Immigration Hard-liner'
NPR rushed out of the gate on Friday afternoon to defend President Obama's announcement to "lift the shadow of deportation" from young illegal immigrants. Correspondent Frank James spun the policy change as Obama getting to "the stage in his presidency, like so many of his predecessors, where his frustration with congressional inaction has led him to act unilaterally."
James cited several apparent historical precedents, including "President Harry S. Truman's racial integration of the military by executive order," and Thomas Jefferson making the Louisiana Purchase. He also labeled Republican Congressman Steve King an "immigration hard-liner" for his criticism of the President's move.
The correspondent's article, "With DREAM Order, Obama Did What Presidents Do: Act With Congress," appeared on NPR.org not even two hours after Obama's press conference. Three paragraphs in, the journalist gave his "frustration with congressional action" line, and continued with two block quotes from William Howell of the University of Chicago, who explained that "immigration is another one of these policies where Congress is effectively stuck....I think in this sort of policy area, this is going to be the wave of the future. [Presidents are] going to say, these are small incremental moves but they're going to do it on their own."
James quoted from Howell again towards the end of his item, who added that "you would expect Republicans to scream and holler about an abuse of executive authority when the president does this in the same way the Democrats were doing that when Bush was in office. At it's base, this is about partisan politics that assumes the language of concerns about the Constitution. But what's driving people to speak out, really, is just opposition to the policies themselves."
The NPR correspondent then went into his historical examples:
And some of those policies are the stuff of history books, whether it was Obama's immediate predecessor signing an executive order authorizing warrantless surveillance by the National Security Agency following Sept. 11 or, going back decades earlier, President Harry S. Truman's racial integration of the military by executive order. President Abraham Lincoln used his executive power to sign the Emancipation Proclamation while President Thomas Jefferson used his to make the Louisiana Purchase. And there were members of Congress who expressed outrage each and every time.
Earlier in the article, James used his slanted "immigration hard-liner" label about Rep. King, and continued that the Iowa Republican is "consistent in his opposition to federal immigration enforcement changes that lean toward more leniency; he opposed the reform efforts of President George W. Bush in 2006."
The NPR journalist has a record of defending President Obama. In September 2011, James bizarrely likened the Democrat's push to get his "jobs bill" passed to Jesus appointing St. Peter to "feed my sheep." Earlier in 2012, he touted a Planned Parenthood-commissioned poll that found apparent majority support for the Obama administration's abortifacient/contraception mandate.
- Matthew Balan's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
When it comes to lables...
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 6:47pm.
When it comes to labels, I'll take "Immigration Hard-Liner" over "Immigration Wussy," any time.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
really it should not be about immigration
Submitted by dmacleo on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 7:25pm.
it (the discussion) should be about this administrations ease at which it decides to not enforce laws, its ease at suing states who follow the law, but immigration was the vehicle they used this time to see what romney does.
I hope as many are as pissed over all this as I am.
NPR
Submitted by mmilesll on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 7:45pm.
CUT THE FUNDING NOW
YES! YES!
Submitted by JustAl on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 8:35pm.
A thousand times. . . YES!
Well president Romney can
Submitted by MrSnuggles on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 10:25pm.
Well president Romney can just decide to unilaterally defund NPR, afterall Congress is at a deadlock. While we are at it, defund planned parenthood. Its the right thing to do.
They could also refuse
Submitted by MrSnuggles on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 10:34pm.
They could also refuse enforce laws that dont allow protestors to be in front of abortion clinics. Theres a slew of laws they could decide not to enforce.
Just a Minute
Submitted by BondPlainBond on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 8:02pm.
There is NO Executive Order.
There was NO vote.
There WAS another circumvention of Congress.
Obama IS a coward.
I'm gonna go there
Submitted by bobsmom on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 8:04pm.
daily we hear "Jim Crow", and now it's "Lousiana Purchase". I don't for a minute think, that anyone beyond HS graduation age of 1980 has a prayer in hell of knowing what those terms mean. I firmly believe, the Dems are so out of touch, they have no idea if their so called "constituents" have any idea what they are talking about. This may get me banned, but I challenge anyone to go out on the street and ask the "yoots" hanging there 3 questions. 1) would you vote for Barack Obama ? 2) Do you know what Jim Crow means? 3) What is the Louisiana Purchase?
Probable answers, 1) yes; 2)Bourbon; 3)The Saints?..........................
"Act WITH Congress? No, he acted against it.
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 9:02pm.
"With DREAM Order, Obama Did What Presidents Do: Act With Congress."
That's a rather ironic thing to claim, since Congress never "acted" on it. Let's get this straight: Obama acted unilaterally on it, something he's not supposed to be able to do.
The comparisons that are being use are asinine, by the way:
"Obama's immediate predecessor signing an executive order authorizing warrantless surveillance by the National Security Agency following Sept. 11."
An action that was legislated into law, by Congress, soon after the EO was signed. Prior to that legislation, the federal court prevent the government from acting on that EO because it was found to be Unconstitutional. Why was that "minor" detail omitted?
"President Harry S. Truman's racial integration of the military by executive order."
As Command in Chief, that's his responsibility. It's pretty much the only unilateral action a President is allowed to take. Prior to Truman, Woodrow Wilson, by Executive Order, SEGREGATED the forces which had been integrated since the Founding. In other words, Truman overturned an existing EO. Funny how that "minor" detail was omitted.
"President Abraham Lincoln used his executive power to sign the Emancipation Proclamation"
Which was meaningless because it was never enforced. It didn't have the power of an Executive Order. That's the difference between a Proclamation and a Executive Order. One is enforceable, the other is not.
The abolition of slavery occurred with the 13th Amendment, not the Emancipation Proclamation. Funny how that "minor" detail was omitted as well.
"President Thomas Jefferson used his to make the Louisiana Purchase."
That wasn't an EO, that was a treaty, one which was approved by the senate by a vote of twenty-four to seven. Yet another "minor" detail the author also omitted. Am I detecting a trend here?
Ether this fool is intentionally distorting history or he never learned any. I'll let you decide which scenario is correct.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
So, circumventing Congress, and the legislative process
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 8:36pm.
is acting with Congress? What's next, an executive order shutting down those portions of the internet that Baracka doesn't like? Perhaps, an EO requiring every American to get their news from ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN?
Maybe the next EO will require those of us who still manage to own a house to open up part of it to those who are here illegally, because they haven't been able to fully partake of the American dream?/sarc.
The ends justifies the means...
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 8:42pm.
they will not be satisfied until this country is in ruin.
If Obama proclaimed that
Submitted by celator on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 9:35pm.
If Obama proclaimed that every first born child should be killed, the NPR story would be:
"President Obama Finally Addresses Overpopulation problem;
Out Of Touch Republicans Object"
Alternative Title
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 9:47pm.
Obama expands reproductive health care for post-natal women.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Exactly! The Ministry of
Submitted by celator on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 10:11pm.
Exactly! The Ministry of Truth would approve.
As seen on NPR
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 10:55pm.
Obama expands reproductive health care for post-natal women.
With the signing of Executive Order 666, Obama today expanded reproductive health care for post-natal women, inexplicably incurring the wrath of far right Evangelical Christians. The EO, designed to drastically reduce medical costs nationwide and improve the reproductive health care rights of all women, goes into effect at midnight, Oct. 30.
During the signing ceremony, carried on in the basement of the White House for security reasons, hordes of irrational Tea Party members, spurred into a frenzy by extreme right wing GOP leader Rush Limbaugh, blocked public access to law abiding citizens for several hundred yards up and down Pennsylvania Avenue.
Several witnesses report that many of the Tea Party members were chanting "Time for the New Crusades!" and "Obama is the Devil!" while they gyrated rhythmically, dancing around an hastily erected Black Cross, and demanding for Obama to appear for "justice." "I thought that they would rush the White House and drag President Obama into the street so that they could crucify him," remarked one man who was afraid to reveal his name for fear of violent reprisal. "It was as if the Dark Ages had returned. The whole situation was terrifying."
Fearing for the safety of the public, local and federal authorities were forced to disband and disperse the unruly mob. Many Tea Party members, ignoring the requests to leave the area, were arrested and charged with public endangerment when they acted in what was clearly a threatening manner to the peaceful civilian authorities.
Several injuries were reported, including a broken arm of an elderly black woman, who was visiting DC to witness this historic moment with her grandchildren. She was quietly walking away from the illegal protest when the most violent protesters broke ranks and ran straight over her, trampling her under their feet. She was treated at the local hospital and released a few hours later. She is quoted as saying, "I Thank God every day that Mr. Obama is our President. If it wasn't for him, I would have had to sell my home of 50 years just to pay my medical bills. Where do these people expect me to live if they succeed in destroy our medical system as they are trying to do?"
The President has called for civility in this matter, asking the far right members of the GOP to try to convince the radical Tea Party to stop harming the country. The GOP has so far refuse to agree to Obama's sensible suggestion.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
The immigration law is very
Submitted by ricklail on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 10:03pm.
The immigration law is very clear. If you are here illegally you are breaking If you help an illegal in any way your are breaking He is breaking the law by not enforcing it, Even he can't change the law as written. I
Question:
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 11:40pm.
How is this policy decision not based on profiling?
Profiling, as we all know, is the next worse thing to racism. Making a judgment about someone based solely on their race, gender, sexual preference, or even on appearance is worthy of criminal prosecution in some cases. It's such a despicable act that the lines at security in our nation's airports are sometimes hours long for a single flight, and people are indiscriminately made to stand for invasive pat-downs for seemingly normal behavior. Little old ladies and handicapped young children are pulled aside and physically searched even though the level of terrorist-related crime among the little old lady and handicapped children demographics are quite low.
But the president said this about America's young, mostly Latin, undocumented immigrants:
Really? How does he know that?
From The Hill:
"Lacked the intent to violate the law"? But didn't the little girl on crutches that was felt up by the TSA likely lack the intent to violate the law? Or the little old lady with the Depends undergarments? Yet she was made to remove much of her clothing before being allowed to board an airplane. All she wanted to do was fly to another location. These illegals want to remain in the country and benefit from our taxpayer-funded programs. And they DID violate the law; intentions notwithstanding.
But simply because they fit a certain profile- which is defined in no uncertain terms by the DHS- they are given a special exception to violate our laws.
One more question: How many people who fit this very specific profile have been deported by this administration? I'd be willing to bet it's quite few. Again from The Hill:
It seems as though the focus of ICE is on felons and active criminals. So if there really wasn't a “shadow of deportation”, as the president said, then this seems like nothing more than a written version of a current directive; made public solely as a way to pander for votes.
This exemplifies just how dire their internal polls must be at this point. Less than five months until we render a verdict on this guy.
I found a picture of this group of Latinos who only
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 06/15/2012 - 11:56pm.
“study in our schools, play in our neighborhoods ... they pledge allegiance to our flag, they are Americans in their hearts and minds ". Here's a link to a group of these playmates, these fellow Americans.
Congress will do nothing and
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 2:49am.
Congress will do nothing and Romney won't say a word since they all agree with obama on this.
Obama cheapens American
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 7:17am.
Obama cheapens American citizenship with acts like these.
He says 'We Americans are nothing special, we're no better than a Somali warlord.'
We must do something!!!!! But why the wrong thing?
Submitted by dscott on Sat, 06/16/2012 - 3:23pm.
What Obama, Rubio and others are missing is the concept of fairness to those who are EXPECTED to subsidize their compassion and generosity and then make out us as mean because we object to yet another fleecing and mounting indebtedness of our children.
Hey, I don't begrudge anyone an education, however, NOT ON MY DIME, NOT ON MY CHILDRENS DIME AND CERTAINLY NOT PERPETUALLY. WE ARE NOT SLAVES! This crappy condescending attitude from the elites smacks of servitude. You want to be generous, then put YOUR money where YOUR mouth is, set up a foundation and YOU PAY for their education. Liberals are cheap skates, they make other people pay for their self righteous artificial morality.
If the child of an illegal wants to go to an institution of higher learning, then they should pay full freight OR go back to their country of origin and let them give it to them at their cost. The proper manner to handle this matter is to issue the foreigner a Student VISA and they pay the full amount like every other out of state child does. That's right, the child of the illegal is a FOREIGNER meaning you don't get more rights and privileges than a citizen.
It is unfair that out of state students pay more than an illegal and then have to compete with them in the job market. In fact, some enterprising lawyer should have figured out by now that forcing one group to pay for the services of another competing group is discrimination because that is exactly how a subsidy works in the college system.