The New York Times and Washington Post both enthusiastically greeted the announcement of President Obama's plans (conveniently announced after the election, constitutional objections aside) to bypass Congress and declare amnesty for some illegal immigrants, or as the Times cutely put it, "to enforce the nation’s laws with discretion."
It led Friday's Times, with White House correspondent Michael Shear, Julia Preston and Ashley Parker reporting "Millions May Stay And Work in U.S. In Obama's Plan."
President Obama will ignore angry protests from Republicans and announce as soon as next week a broad overhaul of the nation’s immigration enforcement system that will protect up to five million unauthorized immigrants from the threat of deportation and provide many of them with work permits, according to administration officials who have direct knowledge of the plan.
The phrase "illegal immigrants" cropped up precisely once, as did the more politically correct "unauthorized immigrants."
Asserting his authority as president to enforce the nation’s laws with discretion, Mr. Obama intends to order changes that will significantly refocus the activities of the government’s 12,000 immigration agents. One key piece of the order, officials said, will allow many parents of children who are American citizens or legal residents to obtain legal work documents and no longer worry about being discovered, separated from their families and sent away.
....
In the Senate, a group of Republicans -- led by Mr. Cruz, Senator Mike Lee of Utah and Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama -- is already planning to thwart any executive action on immigration. The senators are hoping to rally their fellow Republicans to oppose efforts to pass a budget next month unless it prohibits the president from enacting what they call “executive amnesty” for people in the country illegally.
“If the president wants to change the legal structure, he should go through Congress rather than acting on his own,” Mr. Lee said Thursday. “I think it’s very important for us to do what we can to prevent it.”
But the president and his top aides have concluded that acting unilaterally is in the interest of the country and the only way to increase political pressure on Republicans to eventually support a legislative overhaul that could put millions of illegal immigrants on a path to legal status and perhaps citizenship. Mr. Obama has told lawmakers privately and publicly that he will reverse his executive orders if they pass a comprehensive bill that he agrees to sign.
White House officials reject as overblown the dire warnings from some in Congress who predict that such a sweeping use of presidential power will undermine any possibility for cooperation in Washington with the newly empowered Republican majority.
Constitutional objections aside, the Times insisted not to worry, Obama's actions are totally legit legally.
The major elements of the president’s plan are based on longstanding legal precedents that give the executive branch the right to exercise “prosecutorial discretion” in how it enforces the laws. Those precedents are also the basis of a 2012 decision to protect from deportation the so-called Dreamers, who came to the United States as young children.
Lead writer Shear talked to the public radio show Marketplace about the story, and employed familiar liberal Times "out of the shadows" rhetoric in describing in glowing terms Obama's proposals of "deferred action," which would provide work permits and protect from deportation millions of illegals:
....you'd be out of the shadows....I think a lot of people would say, these folks are largely employed anyway. These are mostly people who have been living in the country for many years -- five, 10 years in some cases. They hold down jobs, but they're holding these jobs in kind of a hidden way, or in a way that they're constantly looking over their shoulders, and having to be worried about a deportation proceeding if they're caught and so I think the idea that the administration puts forward anyway is that if you bring these folks out of the shadows in that respect, allow them to hold these jobs in an above-board way, it actually helps the economy and doesn't hurt it.
Surprisingly, the Washington Post's own Friday front-page story was even more slanted, emphasizing the potential political harm for Republicans hopelessly "split" over the issue of amnesty for illegals. The first Republican politician quoted by reporters Robert Costa and Ed O'Keefe insisted that "we cannot listen to the loudest, shrillest voices in our party," while some sensible "centrist Republicans told Boehner and his leadership team...that this is the moment to take on the more extreme elements in their party." In liberal media land, only Republicans have "extreme elements."
Congressional Republicans have split into competing factions over how to respond to President Obama’s expected moves to overhaul the nation’s immigration system, which are likely to include protecting millions from being deported.
The leadership favors an incremental approach, while conservatives seek a possible government shutdown.
The brewing internal debate, which started to play out Thursday in meetings on both sides of the Capitol, represents the first significant test for Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) since Republicans won full control of Congress, forcing the leaders to balance their desire to show that the GOP can govern and their fears of upsetting the conservatives who lifted them to power.
“It’s a big test for the leadership. We cannot listen to the loudest, shrillest voices in our party,” said Rep. Charlie Dent, a moderate Republican who represents the Philadelphia exurbs. “At some point we have to fund the government, and we should not fight to attach some demand. I don’t want to stand by and watch as our party gets driven into a ditch.”
The Post dubiously harked back over a century to find that Obama's unilateral actions aren't unprecedented:
Other Democrats reminded reporters Thursday that several of Obama’s predecessors have acted without congressional support.
“Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, and there was much to be said about it at the time. But he led with executive action,” said Rep. Al Green (D-Tex.), adding later: “When Truman signed the order desegregating the military, there was much being said. But it desegregated the military.”
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), an advocate for an overhaul of immigration law, has been counseling House Republicans this week about the need to show empathy for undocumented workers as the party rails against the Obama administration, according to GOP aides familiar with his deliberations. He is concerned that too much vitriol could send the wrong message to Hispanic voters.
Still, Diaz-Balart said in a recent interview that Obama lacks the legal authority to act on his own and if he does so will upend any hope of bipartisan accord on a host of unrelated issues, including major trade agreements and tax reform.
....
A group of centrist Republicans told Boehner and his leadership team at a conference meeting Thursday that they must avoid another fiscal impasse and that this is the moment to take on the more extreme elements in their party. They argued that unless Boehner confronts Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and other conservatives pushing for a hard-line response, he risks seeing his conference unravel, much as it did last year during the 16-day shutdown that was cheered by the tea party.
Lastly, the Post patted incoming Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell on the head for taking a retaliatory government shutdown off the table.
