November 21, 2014

Executive actions on immigration have long history

President Obama’s executive action to protect millions of unauthorized immigrants from deportation is an act that both follows and departs from precedents set by his predecessors.

As immigrant advocates — and the White House itself — point out, presidents have a long history of using their discretionary enforcement powers to allow people to enter and remain in the country outside the regular immigration laws. But Obama’s move offers relief to more people than any other executive action in recent history — about 3.9 million people, or roughly 35% of the estimated total unauthorized-immigrant population — a point that some opponents have used to differentiate Obama’s action from those of past presidents.

Obama’s announcement follows his decision in June 2012 to grant temporary reprieves from deportation for 1.5 million eligible unauthorized immigrants who’d been brought to the U.S. as children — the program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. In the memorandum announcing DACA, then-Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano framed it as part of the executive branch’s role “to set forth policy for the exercise of discretion within the framework of the existing law.” Obama’s action expands that program, and protects other groups, using a similar rationale.

Most previous executive actions on immigration were targeted fairly narrowly, according to a summary compiled by the American Immigration Council. The 39 “executive grants of temporary immigration relief” since 1956 listed by the council covered, among other groups, Ethiopians fleeing that country’s Marxist military dictatorship in the 1970s, Liberians who escaped their country’s brutal civil wars, and foreign students whose academic eligibility was interrupted by Hurricane Katrina.

Other actions taken by prior administrations affected considerably more people. Most of them were eventually formalized or superseded by legislation, though sometimes — as often happens with complicated subjects such as immigration — the new laws led to new issues.

Here’s a rundown:

Cubans fleeing Castro: In early 1961, at a time when thousands of Cubans were trying to escape the new Castro government, President Kennedy directed Health, Education and Welfare Secretary Abraham Ribicoff to set up a “Cuban Refugee Program” to provide federal assistance to Cuban refugees, including medical care, financial aid, help with education and resettlement, and child welfare services. That program was formalized the following year by the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act, and by subsequent legislation. By 1971, 600,000 Cuban refugees had entered the U.S.; as of 2012 there were more than 1 million Cubans living in the U.S. who had immigrated since 1959 (representing 97% of all Cuban immigrants), according to the 2012 American Community Survey.

The Cuban program, however, sparked a lawsuit from would-be immigrants from elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere, who argued that the immigrant visas given to Cuban refugees unfairly limited spots that otherwise would be available for them. In 1977, a federal court in Chicago ordered what was then the Immigration and Naturalization Service to issue so-called “Silva letters” to about 250,000 people — nearly all Mexicans living in the Southwest, according to a 1985 Los Angeles Times article — giving them temporary protection from deportation and letting them work while the complex case worked its way through the courts. Eventually, about 145,000 Silva letter holders received visas; the rest (at least those who were still living in the U.S.) remained in administrative limbo until the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act enabled them to apply for legal permanent residency.

Refugees from the Indochina wars: In early 1975, when it became clear South Vietnam was going to fall to the communist North, the Ford administration evacuated around 130,000 Vietnamese from Saigon. Ford and his successor, Jimmy Carter, subsequently allowed more Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian refugees to come to the U.S.; between 1975 and 1979, about 360,000 people from the countries of Indochina were allowed to remain in the country.

Mariel boatlift: Between April and October 1980, approximately 125,000 Cubans and 25,000 Haitians (who were trying to escape that nation’s grinding poverty and the brutal Duvalier dictatorship) arrived in south Florida by boat. The Carter administration used its discretionary authority to admit most of them into the country; those migrants eventually were made legal permanent residents by the 1986 immigration-reform law.

Spouses and children: The 1986 law, however, created a new dilemma: how to deal with spouses and children of newly-legalized immigrants who didn’t themselves qualify for legal status. In October 1987, the Reagan administration said it wouldn’t seek to deport minor children living with their parents as long as both parents qualified for amnesty under the 1986 law. Reagan’s successor, George H.W. Bush, expanded that policy in February 1990: Under the new “family fairness” rules, all spouses and unmarried children of people who gained legal status under the 1986 law could apply for permission to remain in the country and receive work permits. Bush’s policy was formalized later that year as part of the Immigration Act of 1990.

Central American refugees: The conflicts in El Salvador, Nicaragua and elsewhere in Central America in the 1980s and early 1990s led to a new series of executive actions on immigration. In July 1987, Attorney General Edwin Meese announced that the approximately 200,000 Nicaraguan exiles then living in the U.S. would not be deported so long as they had a “well-founded fear of persecution.” Meese also encouraged them to seek work permits and reapply for asylum if they’d been denied before.

A similar number of Salvadoran refugees were allowed to remain in the country in “temporary protected status” under the provisions of the 1990 immigration law. When that status expired two years later, Bush extended it; his successor, Bill Clinton, extended it again, until the end of 1994. Eventually, the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997 allowed Nicaraguans, Salvadorans, Guatemalans and others to apply to become legal permanent residents. This opportunity was eventually extended to several thousand Haitian migrants (estimates range from 20,000 to 40,000) who’d been left out of the 1997 law — first by executive action from President Clinton, and ultimately through passage of the Haitian Refugee Immigrant Fairness Act enacted in October 1998.

Chinese in U.S.: On at least one occasion, a president actively discouraged Congress from carving out an exception to the immigration laws. In November 1989, the first President Bush vetoed a bill that would have provided emergency immigration relief for Chinese nationals in the United States following the Tiananmen Square massacre. In his veto message, Bush said that he was already providing greater protections to the Chinese through administrative actions and “opposed congressional micromanagement of foreign policy.” In April 1990, Bush formalized and extended his policy by Executive Order 12711.

Correction: This posting has been updated with a revised total of 3.9 million unauthorized immigrants affected by the president’s order.

Topics: Barack Obama, Immigration

  1. Photo of Drew DeSilver

    is a senior writer at Pew Research Center.


  1. Alberto Vito-Juliez3 years ago

    I know for a fact that Reagan affected more than 4 million immigrants. This is because my parents and grandparents were one of the beneficiaries of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act(IRCA). This was supposed to be for a small amount of workers with no criminal record, good standing, some that were attempting to become educated, and other categories. The ones that benefited from it the most were Latinos. Same as today were about 75% of illegal immigrants are Latinos. 57% of total illegal immigrants are from Mexico. I believe that amnesty is unfair to the other refugees and legal immigrants who need to come here as bad as the illegals do. This is because Latinos aren’t the only ones that need to leave their country as refugees. Chinese immigrants do it legally more often than Latinos, and more than Mexicans. If we granted amnesty to about 3 million Mexicans, shouldn’t we also give it to 3m Chinese, 3m North Koreans, 3m Jews, 3m Palestinians, 3m Salvadorans, etcetera?

    I am in a strange position because my family benefited from amnesty in the 80s. Yet it is unfair for the other groups. My family escaped from Civil War in El Salvador, however. They did not come here for better job opportunities as an increasing number of illegal immigrants are coming to the US. There are many more illegals coming into the US than before for better jobs than for escaping an oppressive government. Immigrants from before are different than immigrants now.

    1. dARIO2 years ago

      I could say the same about your family immigrated here with visa’s prior to 1975 from a S.American country…according to your argument, my argument that your family should have been given amnesty is valid. However, you also argue exactly what every affirmative action beneficiary states…I got this on merit and we should not allow it to continue. It’s called hipocrite.
      The reason illegal immigration exists is that by human’s very nature we’re a peoples whose always migrate. We search and seek resources, be it jobs, food, shelter or better civilization that can accomodate. By the same token, civilization governments and peoples also seek and search better resources in other countries…thus the war in your mother country….and many others

  2. Tychesd3 years ago

    Obama executive order way larger in magnitude – numbers than any previous president, as the above figures show.

  3. yo3 years ago

    they are already working so, is not going to take our jobs, and they are doing the jobs the lassies ,, americans not want to do, but finnaly those inmigrants are going to pay the right taxes, the driver licenses and insurances,

    1. Tychesd3 years ago

      They are limited by their illegal status to certain types of jobs. With work permits, they can take ANY job.

      1. dean3 years ago

        Why is there no discussion, complaints, about those who hire these illegal’s?

        1. Sonja2 years ago

          Because that would put some blame elsewhere in a culture that wants to blame Obama for everything under the sun.

          1. Milt Moyer2 years ago

            Sonja: What you said is incorrect. Under our immigration laws, if one hires an illegal one is breaking the law. There are at least three problems with doing this. (1) The illegal receives compensation which cannot be taxed because there is no social security number. Also, the illegal makes no contribution to Social Security, other contributory Federal items, and makes no tax payment to the states in which the illegal dwells. (2) The business party of this “relationship” also does not contribute their portion to Social Security (plus other items) AND undercuts his competitors because he does not have the same labor expenses. (3) When the illegal is paid illegally, it takes the opportunity away from others. One being union workers who would earn more, pay union dues, and pay taxes. Non-union parties suffer the same fate. As a closing: The problem that we have is not that we need new immigration laws but that we need to enforce the ones we already have. So, the blame that Obama wears as our current President is that he is in charge of executing (Executive Branch does not mean “for Executive Only”) whose purpose is to execute our laws. Obama’s problem has been that he thinks he is the legislature which makes the laws.

  4. Jim3 years ago

    The problem with the screaming lede is that the facts don’t support the argument here. Mr. Obama’s move is an order of magnitude greater than any executive action since Kennedy, except for George H.W. Bush’s extension of a law passed by Congress in 1986. George W. Bush took no such action, and Mr. Clinton took one small action. Your table clearly shows that Mr. Obama has taken an extraordinary action. Furthermore, this table neglects the extent to which Congress had been involved in earlier bills that did or did not pass.

    1. Milt Moyer2 years ago

      Good point and true bone of contention. When or if Harry Reid and the Democrats can either bury a bill in committee or vote it down, the President says I will veto that bill. Interesting is how a majority voting “Yes” is not how a bill can be passed. Now, this nothing new but it certainly does lead to nothing getting done. Frankly, when Obama says “Bring me a bill and I will sign it” he means bring a bill that I could have written myself and I will sign it. As witnessed during this past week while traveling abroad, President Obama does not consult with Republicans, he insults Republicans. What did he recently say? “Republicans are afraid of widows and orphans.” So blatantly untrue.

      1. Milt Moyer2 years ago

        “Your (my in this case) is awaiting moderation?” That is interesting.

  5. ben50733 years ago

    Does anybody here have any realistic, good ideas on how to deal with over 10 million people that are living in the U.S. illegally?

    1. Tychesd3 years ago

      Make it impossible for them to work here.

  6. Rita J Nuss3 years ago

    This needs to be stopped! Enough is enough!At the very least severely minimized.What are we teaching these people?Especially those from south of the border. Some of these actions in past decades were understandable.But what is going on with mexico\central America is just the height of stupidity and abuse! I for one am sick of it.This is a different day.Do you think Mexico or central America would do the same for us if the situation were reversed!?

    1. Karen3 years ago


  7. Ed3 years ago

    Congress is charged, under the Constitution, with immigration. I will agree that Congress has bee stagnant of this and many other important issues. Whichever party brings a bill up for a vote the other party automatically opposes it regardless of the content. If it passes the House then Major Obstructionist Harry Reid has the sole power to block it and has done so more than not. Then he and Obama crow that the Republicans are not doing anything and the clueless believe him and take up the cry that the Republicans are against (you fill in the blank). Obama has overstepped his Constitutional powers too often in order o further his agenda. He swore an oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution and laws, an oath he has readily violated often and evidenced by his illegal changes to Obamacare, the environment and now immigration. He cannot, legally, change enacted laws to suit his ego, his party or his agenda and has done so too often. He is a lame duck president, performs lamely and provides lame excuses for his actions or, just as often, outright lies to further his agenda. I am sure he will go down as the worse president in history.

  8. Felice Bachrach3 years ago

    Reagain granted amnesty to 3 MILLION. Where is that on your chart??

    1. Tim3 years ago

      He signed a law. What Obama did was lawless.

    2. Tychesd3 years ago

      Reagan signed a law that passed Congress that was touted at the time as the last amnesty that would ever be needed. Bill also included workplace enforcement that has not been fully implemented.

  9. Robert Alexander3 years ago

    The main difference is that the Republicans have refused to bring it to a vote in the House not because a majority oppose it, but to keep Obama from getting any credit for legislation passed on his watch. What other reason does the Speaker of the House have for not allowing an up or down vote on the bipartisan bill sent to the house more than a year ago?
    One might understand if all Republicans were opposed to the bill, but precisely because it had a chance to become law, it was not allowed to have an up or down vote.

    1. Karen3 years ago

      The REAL reason? There’s no closing of the border with it! Most Americans opposed it bcuz of that. Throw that in and you would have a passed bill that All Americas would support! Dems oppose closing the border bcuz it would decrease their voting block. PERIOD!

    2. dean3 years ago

      Robert Karen–Remember a group of Republicans interrupted OBAMA on the floor of the HOUSE, when he was making an early speech after he had just been elected by the voters They were yelling they would do everything possible to see him fail. They have held true to that pledge for the full term of his office.

  10. Bill Sleeper3 years ago

    As an American Veteran, married to a foreign national, we went through the process as dictated by law for my wife to immigrate here at a cost of thousands of dollars. My comment is this: Mr. Obama, We want our money back.

  11. ed3 years ago

    Robbing people on the street has a long history also, that doesn’t make it right, even if they are just trying to give their family a roof over their head and food. The argument that they are just trying to help their family is bogus, we didn’t build this country by illegally going to Canada, taking jobs from Canadians for way less then they could survive on , and send mony home every week. These people broke the law to get here and have broken the law every day since with the identity theft necessary to stay, it’s an insult to the intellect of all law abiding citizens and everyone who went through the hell it takes to come here legally. They need to stay home and build their country into someplace people want to go.

    1. ben50733 years ago

      Suuuuure… The U.S. didn’t build this country illegally. Riiight.

    2. Versaint3 years ago

      @whoever be against immigrants, legal or not! It is important to remember if by 18th century it was the period of rules for our based ancestors, by now! Where most of us would be and aware of what category of status? Then, for history: I do believe that Jean Baptiste pointe Du Sable didn’t regret for being a refugee from Haiti, afterward became the basic founder of Chicago ill. As well, Mother Mary E. Lange, first Black Nun in Baltimore. Sidney Poitier. Albert Einstein from Hamburg, Germany in 1933, just six years later he personally wrote a letter to the U. S. president, Delano Roosvelt to provide an operating system for the nation then faced the World War II. Formerly, Joe Gaetjens had saved the US football in the World Cup in nineteen fifty. For example, Annie Moore, the first person in the line on opening day of the new immigration station at Ellis Island. That day Jan. I, 1892, happened to be her 15 birthday (1892) — Colin Powell’s Parents from Jamaica as well, and of course, the unforgettable Haitian soldiers at Savannah, GA. Where their strategy and their blood made the difference all through the 19th century, for the freedom of America over the British army, so on and on! According the olden times, the mean reason the melting pot became what it is in our glowing days because it had been built by the human synthesis. Therefore folks! This is a game of politicians just for politics. Subsequently, they are only ones who know the real cause why this undeniable concern takes so long to be backed up, as well as most of ‘them’ belong to the migrant roots.

    3. dario2 years ago

      American citizens promised the mexican government that if allowed into mexico they would be loyal mexican citizens, convert to catholicism, and spanishize their name….shortly after we got the mexican american war.

      Upon signing the Guadalupe Hidalgo treaty (ending mex -amer. war) Californios land owning class in California were systematically defrauded and purged of their landholdings.

      War of 1812 was not only USA versus british but also part of manifest destiny for new USA to invade and conquer Canada. Fortunately for Canadians we lost ..see…

      Now this endemic conquest for resources is just not US only policy but policy of all state governments in ever expanding search for resources. Might makes Right is the world of politics then and is now. Just remember this when China starts becoming bellicose and throwing their weight around

  12. Mark Jones3 years ago

    Failure to enforce immigration laws against 3.9 million people is not “reform” or “action on immigration”, it is simply an admission that UCSIS, CBP, and DHS aren’t doing their job to enforce existing immigration law. That is, lack of enforcement against those 3.9 million people isn’t a policy, it’s a necessity, a consequence of the tatters that the immigration-related parts of the administration are in. The president is just trying to reframe his failure as “reform” by making a big deal out of the fact that he is prioritizing enforcement in a particular (and arguably reasonable) way.

    It’s unclear whether existing immigration law could be enforced with better results than it is right now, given the laws that we have; figuring that out is the job of the president. Based on the difficulties of administering current immigration law, the president should have made proposals to Congress to improve the situation. Obama promised to propose an immigration bill within the first 100 days of his presidency. That is, he promised to take the politically risky step of putting a concrete proposal on the table. What has he done? He has given lots of speeches blaming the Republicans and making excuses for not doing what he promised to do.

  13. Nannette C. Garcia3 years ago

    Very well said. I have seen these countries such as Cuba and Mexico with thirteen year old eyes and still remember as if I was still there. There is no such thing as freedom or fairness in either country. They are both run by a system that is out of their control and to go back would be insanity defined. I am not for an open border by any means, we need to take into account that the ones who are here now are the ones who are working the jobs no self-promoting American would even think about. What does that say about their character and the fact that they are willing to work in deplorable conditions, meager pay, criminal abuse, and still stay. We are all immigrants, myself included, I am a 3rd generation born here and could never forget those images from years ago. I would be ignorant not to want to try to help the ones already here. They do not infringe on anyone and by issuing this EO, they will now be able to stand as proud as we are and try to make this country a better place. I support our President and would vote for him again.

  14. Ramhid3 years ago

    I can see giving some refugee people temporary status when they escape prosecution, civil war, etc on their country, but I will not buy into that illegal that crossed our borders should get amnesty. That’s precisely what President Obama is doing. He’s legalizing people who entered illegally or over stayed their time, created ankle babies, brought in more family members illegally, and abuse the welfare system. I seen this situation myself.

    1. CarolynM3 years ago

      The term is “anchor” babies and your misuse tells me all I need to know about the merits of your opinion.

  15. JaneB3 years ago

    Thank you for FACTS not spin. This is rally interesting.

  16. Nina Bulles3 years ago

    Of the almost 5 million people impacted by the President’s EO’s this year, how many can genuinely claim refugee status and how many are people inadvertently left out of bills/act passed by Congress? Having lived through all of the above situations, I think you are providing biased fodder for those who wish to ignore abuse of power. How many of the above EO’s were opposed by the majority of elected representatives and voters? And no, I am not a Republican or Tea Party member, but I am now a former Democrat.

    1. Joseph Andrews3 years ago

      None of those covered by the EO need to claim refugee status and I doubt any will. As far as I know, refugee status is an entirely different categories with an entirely different eligibility criteria….

    2. Frank3 years ago

      What you call “abuse of power”, I call “Leadership”. President Obama was elected by the American people to do a job, and that is exactly what he is doing. Congress has refused to address this issue. Also, what is your source for your claim that his EO is “opposed by the majority of voters”? Let’s say hypothetically this is thru. I would then refer you to the Federalist No 10, written by James Madison, which addresses the “Tyranny of the Majority”, which you seem to espouse here.

      1. Marvin3 years ago

        If this is not abuse of power, I don’t know what is. While I sympathize with most of the people that the EO covers, they are still in the country illegally. You can give them any PC or fancy name you wish, the truth of the matter is that they broke our laws. I, myself, am an immigrant. Why did I have to wait in line and follow due process to become a proud US citizen when I could have done it their way. This is wrong because it sends the wrong message that if you hide from the law long enough you will be eventually rewarded. This EO is wrong. wrong, wrong. Never has any previous EO by any president covered that many people. The only reason he did it is to antagonize the new Congress and push them into a face off on every issue from now until the end of his presidency. It is rue that he was elected to do a job and obviously the people don’t like the way he has been doing it. The result of the last election shows that. Same thing he did with the so called Affordable Care Act which is anything but. He shoved it down our throats before he lost the majority in Congress back then. Might as well by him Napoleon’s hat.

        1. Sean Wilton3 years ago

          The results of the last election prove nothing… 65% of the country didn’t even vote.. How’s that the wills of the people?

      2. Adam Contreras3 years ago

        Leadership? Federalist papers? Please don’t try manipulate the situation to sound different than it really is. He’s completely abusing his power. His oath in and of itself is based on the principle that he will uphold the Constitution, uphold the laws and enforce the laws Congress has made. That in an of itself sinks his boat. You can’t compare this to any other President either because every single one of them was fulfilling the intents of Congress. Bush and Reagan for example; Congress made the Amnesty and when the crap hit the fan because they accidentally left out spouses and children; they used executive orders that enforced the bill of Amnesty Congress had passed. They didn’t go against, they didn’t counter what Congress had done; they helped define without changing it or creating any new law.
        This President is disingenuous.. hell every single Democrat since the time of Reagan that has spoken at all in reference to immigration has been completely disingenuous. Democrats are for open borders. They’ve let that cat out of the bag so many times.. For example the Deal with Reagan, don’t veto amnesty and we’ll fund border enforcement. What happens? soon as the bill is signed they pull a bait and switch. No funding. Same with Bush. No fence money, no National guard to help stop the flow.. no enforcement. The opposite is true; attack the minute men because they aren’t fed agents. So where are the Fed. Agents? Oh we don’t need any, the border is secure. That’s been their line. The border is secure.
        There are only 2 things broken with immigration.
        1. No enforcement.
        2. What to do with illegals that are already here and situated with families.
        These 2 problems are bundled into the term “Broken Immigration” and “Immigration Reform”. It’s used by Democrats to appeal to the latino vote and they LOVE IT.

    3. Marek Minecki3 years ago

      74 percent of voters approve immigration reform with pathway to citizenship and had the Republicans allowed the immigration bill that passed the Senate to a vote in the House it would have passed as well… so you are wrong on immigration reform not being opposed by “…the majority of elected representatives and voters…”

      This is not a trivial matter for immigrants stuck in legal limbo and every year makes a difference so something had to be done… in the end Congress will pass the current Senate bill or after 2016 when Democrats gain control of the Senate and maybe even the house with a Democratic president it might be even possible to get a better immigration bill.

      1. Robert Alexander3 years ago

        Too bad the 74 percent did not vote for Democrats in the last election. Democrats should have stood with their President. Then more of them would have been elected. Too much of the news is controlled by too few wealthy individuals and corporations. Just look at the coverage of the President’s address to the nation. Never in recent history has a President had such a snub by the rich and powerful media organizations. We the people have a right to the news and it should not belong to the highest bidder.

      2. Adam Contreras3 years ago

        For one thing “Immigration Reform” is a red herring. There is nothing wrong with immigration policies other than there is no enforcement and they don’t know what to do with illegals that have been here so long that making them leave hurts someone’s feelings and makes them look bad. So please drop the whole “Immigration Reform” or “Meaningful Immigration Reform”; it’ a load of dung.
        The house had been working cooperatively with House Democrats for a while (yes a while.. contrary to popular beliefs in this I want it NOW generation; Federal LAWS were INTENDED to take years and years, debate after debate after debate.) and you know what happened? The President ORDERED House Democrats to stop working with Republicans because he was only interested in the Senate Bill Dingy Harry had. This “Senate Bill” has little enforcement bite to it. It has enough loopholes to where he can do whatever he wants when it come to enforcement. Open Borders mean anything to ya? That’s why they’ve avoided funding and including enforcement in all their attempts at “Immigration Reform”

      3. Don Rosenberg3 years ago

        Marek, as a publisher of a magazine for 15 years that focused on market research I can tell you that 74% number is bogus. In these surveys the questioning is biased by the choices given. There has also been a multi-year campaign fostering incorrect information about what the bill does, the tax ramifications, the security effectiveness and the impact on the economy. Furthermore by making this a “comprehensive” bill it hides the relative value proposition for each segment of the immigrant population that is impacted. You can make a good argument for increased H1B visa’s and some dreamer relief but the bulk of those here illegally on their own are a significant drain on the economy and will continue to be so even if they become legal.

        So far the closest thing to a vote by the people on this issue is what happened in Oregon on election day. The legislature passed and the governor signed a drivers license bill last year. The law got put on the ballot. In a very blue state where a Democratic governor was re-elected and their Democratic senator, Jeff Merkley considered one of the extreme liberals in the senate, was re-elected in a landslide, and legalization of marijuana was passed voters rejected driver’s license for illegal aliens with 66% of the vote. It’s inconceivable to think that at least 74% of Oregonians (remember its a very blue state) want these people to be put on a “pathway to citizenship” but won’t let them get a drivers license. The pro license side also outspent the anti by a 10-1 margin.

        You might be correct that the bill will eventually pass but that doesn’t mean it’s a good bill that will be effective. Over the next two years the public might actually get the truth about illegal immigration and this could be a decisive issue in 2016 voting.

    4. Duane3 years ago

      Nina get your facts straight, S.744 – Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act passed the Senate 06/27/13 but the Republican House of Representative have failed to bring it up for a vote because if they did it would pass. It has bi-partisan support, and would destroy the right wing conspiracy that Obama is unable to reach across the aisle and work with the other side. Boehner was going to put it up for a vote but was bullied not to do so by Ted Cruz and other Tea Party Republicans not to do so. I agree that not all Americans or elected official agree with the bill but those who oppose are in the minority. If the Tea Party felt the bill would not pass they would not have had any problems allowing it to go the floor for a vote.

      1. Adam Contreras3 years ago

        Wrong Duane. It has the same issues that Obamacare had, too much shoved into one ugly beast. Like all the other previous Democrat attempts; another bill with no enforcement. Democrats have always been weak when it comes to the enforcement; some have even admitted that they wish we could have open borders.. Nonetheless; they’ve never failed to prove anyone wrong when it comes to their non stop attempts to avoid enforcing our Borders. In FACT; this is the Bill the House was currently working on in a BiPartisan fashion, step by step one issue at a time (as it should be). The President ordered House Democrats to stop because he only agrees with the Senate Bill. The Senate bill has (like all the others) no bite when it comes to enforcement.
        So please. At least be genuine with your arguments, don’t take portions of a situation that fit your storyline and try to sell them off as the only facts in a storyline; simply because it fits better with your ideological leanings.

    5. Sean Wilton3 years ago

      He gave Republicans a chance over and over again and they came up with squat so he was left with no other choice….

      1. Adam Contreras3 years ago

        It’s not for him to give anyone anything. Congress makes laws. He’s not the king, he doesn’t get to order them to go make a certain law he wants. States do that, Congress does it; the President doesn’t.
        Wasn’t his choice to take.
        Since he was raised to be an agitator, he knew how to push the buttons of folks like you to make you think that he could and he should.