This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/15/barack-obama-end-deportation-undocumented-migrants

The article has changed 11 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 9 Version 10
Obama to end deportation for young undocumented migrants – politics live Obama to end deportation for young undocumented migrants – as it happened
(40 minutes later)
4.45pm: "I happen to agree with Marco Rubio." 10.30am: The political day has just been eclipsed by a major announcement by the Obama administration: by executive order, the president will end the deportation of certain young undocumented immigrants – making an estimated 800,000 young people now safe. The order will stop the deportation of undocumented immigrants under 30 years old who came to the US before their 16th birthdays.
Let's all keep in mind that there is not yet any Rubio DREAM Act for Romney to endorse. To benefit from the protection, they must have lived in the US continuously for five years, have no criminal record or have graduated from high school or served in the military.
— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) June 15, 2012 They are eligible for two-year work permits, renewable indefinitely. The act does not provide a path to citizenship.
4.44pm: We now have the entirety of Romney's statements to reporters, in response to questions about the new immigration policy. The plan tracks closely to a proposal offered by Republican senator Marco Rubio of Florida as an alternative to the Dream Act.
Romney is in favor of limited amnesty for some young immigrants. He called for a "long-term" solution. He said the president's actions hinder a long-term solution because "an executive order" (it's not actually an executive order, tehcnically, we learned) "can be reversed." It's a mini-Dream Act, enacted by executive order, a total makeover of the administration's immigration policy.
It wouldn't be too hard to read this as Romney blaming the president for the failure of Congress to act. Huge news. The president will talk about the new policy in a speech this afternoon.
BuzzFeed's McKay Poppins reports from a Romney event in Milford, NH: 10.35am: Reception of the news might be characterized as "hot and cold":
"I believe the status of young people who come here through no fault of their own is an important matter to be considered and should be solved on a long-term basis so they know what their future would be in this country," Romney said.
/>He continued: "I think the actions that the president took today make it more difficult to reach that kind of long term solution because an executive order, of course, is a short-term matter that can be reversed by subsequent presidents."
/>"I'd like to see legislation that deals with this issue," Romney said. "And I happen to agree with Marco Rubio, as he said this is an important matter, we have to find a long-term solution."
4.35pm: Emily Friedman of ABC News sheds light on Romney's evolution on Rubio's immigration plan: 10.56am: The presidential announcement this morning is breathtaking on a number of levels.
In April, during presser with Rubio, Romney said he was still "studying" Rubio's Dream Act. Today he said he "happens to agree" with Rubio. In one fell swoop – and, as Mr. Drudge points out, without the participation of Congress – the president appears to have shifted major US policy with implications for hundreds of thousands of families, for the economy, for the country's very sense of self. To call it a major power play is not quite to capture the thing.
— Emily Friedman (@EmilyABC) June 15, 2012 About time, some on the left will say. Did anyone believe that Congress would act on the Dream Act (or anything else), when Congress has shown itself willing to drive the country to a brink of a default in the service of the most unhinged rhetoric of imagined fiscal purity?
4.22pm: Away from the national political stage for a moment, you may have been following this week's controversy in the Michigan statehouse, where a legislator – Rep. Lisa Brown – was banned from taking the floor for her earlier use of the word "vagina." Others will call this a gross abuse of presidential power. Does the president have the right to in effect move the nation's borders, unilaterally? If the president can do this, then why have we expended so much energy debating immigration policy?
A day earlier, the leglislature was debating a new anti-choice law that would regulate women's health clinics to the point many could no longer offer abortions. Brown made a speech that concluded, "I'm flattered you're all so concerned about my vagina. But no means no." What precedent is there for such presidential action? George W. Bush went to war in Iraq with the barest of pro forma assent by Congress. The federal government surveils US citizens without search warrants and without disclosing the surveillance. Obama has a "kill list" by which he terminates lives like a Caesar.
Then she was banned for vulgarity. On the other hand: What options does a popularly elected chief executive have when faced with a cynically intransigent legislature but to act alone and then defend that action in the courts and the airwaves and the ballot boxes?
Now she has written a piece for the Guardian about the experience: And how hugely relieving is this news – if the administration follows through – is this news for so many young adults and their families whose lives as Americans have always been conducted under the threat of those families being broken up by the state?
The next day, I was told I wouldn't be allowed to speak on behalf of my constituents on the House floor. Thursday was the last day of session before legislators went home for the summer, and a lot of work was getting done. There were proposals on funding teacher pensions and reducing income taxes – issues my constituents find very important. But I wasn't allowed to speak up for them. Because I had dared say "vagina" the day before. 11.09am: As a political move, the White House announcement this morning that the president would order an end to deportations of certain young undocumented immigrants looks very strong, inspired even, if a bit wild.
To hear some talk about it, you'd think I'd said a dirty word. One of my counterparts, Representative Mike Callton (Republican–Nashville, Michigan) said he couldn't even bear to repeat what I had said because it was "so offensive, I don't even want to say it in front of women. I would not say that in mixed company." Callton, by the way, holds a bachelor's degree in biology. Imagine what he went through in anatomy class. The timing of the move, after three weeks now of tough knocks on the campaign trail for the president, and just as rival Mitt Romney returns to the trail in earnest with a multi-state bus tour – and speaking now exclusively about the politics of the thing – the timing is good.
4.03pm: Mitt Romney has addressed the new immigration policy, McKay Poppins reports. It upstages Romney, it makes the president look decisive, it's an ace in the play for Hispanic voters. On the other hand, it might have come at a time when the president appeared to be slightly LESS beset. At a time when the president is really on his heels, there's something that seems a bit wild, not to say desperate, about the move.
"I happen to agree with Marco Rubio," Romney said. Only way Romney gets today's cycle back is if the bus has to maintain a speed of 55 mph or else Keanu Reeves will act again
As Poppins points out, that happens to be a big surprise to anyone who's been following Romney on immigration. Romney has been calling for a wall to be built separating the United States from Mexico. He has given no signal that he would be open to the kind of middle ground stance that Rubio seems to occupy. — Sam Youngman (@samyoungman) June 15, 2012
And what's more: how can you agree with Rubio when Rubio hasn't laid out his immigration plan, but only talked about it. Brian Beutler of Talking Points Memo sees the policy as usurping all Republican initiatives on the issue, to the extent that the GOP cannot challenge the policy. Instead, he says, expect attacks of the kind we outlined a few minutes ago.
"What he said." That's basically Romney's reponse to one of the biggest policy moves Obama has made while in office. Here's Beutler:
3.56pm: Neil Munro on interrupting the president: I didn't mean to interrupt the president. This was a doubly clever move by the Obama administration. Over and above the obvious appeal to a key constituency, the policy here mimics, I assume intentionally, what Republicans claim they want to adopt in a scaled-down version of the DREAM Act. But for Republicans, embracing Obama's move carries the same risk with their base as rejecting it does with immigrants — the voting bloc they're most concerned about alienating. A hunch: prepare yourself for a deluge of condemnations of executive-branch overreach, paired with real reluctance to say anything meaningful about what the directive actually accomplishes.
His statement appears on the web site of his employer, the Daily Caller, which also posts unapologetic statements from the editor and publisher. Hear's Munro: 11.18am: Here's Mitt Romney's new bus, which earlier today was going to make political news. The Republican candidate is embarking on a five-day, six-state "Every Town Counts" tour to highlight what Romney says are the president's failed economic policies.
I always go to the White House prepared with questions for our president. I timed the question believing the president was closing his remarks, because naturally I have no intention of interrupting the President of the United States. I know he rarely takes questions before walking away from the podium. When I asked the question as he finished his speech, he turned his back on the many reporters, and walked away while I and at least one other reporter asked questions. The tour begins with an event in New Hampshire.
How do we feel about what Munro did? You won't catch us defending the president's God-given right not to be interrupted, ever. But how do we feel about Munro expecting us to believe that he didn't mean to interrupt Obama? SMDH. Watch the video, embedded below. PIC: New Hampshire, here we come! #Mitt2012 twitter.com/dgjackson/stat…
3.47pm: Insofar as the Obama announcement is a blow in the presidential race, it sure is taking the Romney camp a long time to hit back. — Mitt's Body Man(@dgjackson) June 15, 2012
MSNBC saying Romney was asked about Obama's immig policy, had no comment 11.27am: It's live chat time – with resident US Politics live blogger Richard Adams and columnist Ana Marie Cox. They're talking for an hour. Join them now – meaning at 11.30am ET, in 3 minutes – right here:
— Michael Tomasky (@mtomasky) June 15, 2012 *NOTE: The widget may not work for some mobile users; to catch the last 15 minutes of the chat please visit us at a desktop station near you.
There's word out that Romney will speak soon on it. "Soon." Send your questions, jump right in.
3.23pm: On the road with Romney, the Wall Street Journal's Sara Murray: 12.32pm: Thanks everyone for participating in the live chat. See you here next week, same bat time, same bat place.
At Romney's second bus tour stop, an ice cream social in Milford, NH. No word yet on whether Romney will comment on immigration. As a parting shot, Richard Adams contributes this take on the immigration announcement:
— Sara Murray (@SaraMurray) June 15, 2012 In political terms this is a bold move by the Obama administration.
It's not unusual for Romney to ignore questions on a rope line. But today the silence is unusually deafening: Immigration is such a fraught issue within the Republican party that it will quite cunningly exploit the fault lines that lie within the GOP. Much of the party grassroots is highly hostile to any softening of immigration laws – as we saw during the presidential primary campaign, when "build the fence, secure the borders" was a mantra from Mitt Romney down. Look how much trouble Rick Perry got into trying defend Texas's very mild university tuition fee policy for exactly the same group of undocumented immigrants that today's announcement is aimed at.
Romney ignores multiple Qs on the rope line about the Obama Administration's immigration announcement. #election2012 The White House is trying to defang the reaction by insisting repeatedly that "this is not amnesty," as Janet Napolitano underlined, although that won't be enough for the thin-end-of-the-wedgers out there.
— Sara Murray (@SaraMurray) June 15, 2012 For the GOP the problem is that some parts of the party – such as Marco Rubio – actually back a similar plan. But the party is hamstrung by those who oppose any change. As someone put it on Twitter: "Would this have happend if Rubio had put forth a bill over the past three months instead of talking about his awesome bill he was working on?"
3.11pm: Here's a link to the "guidance" from Janet Napolitano laying out the new Department of Homeland Security policy on immigration: Romney has been pretty silent on the subject since the primaries ended. Now he'll have to say something – and this move pushes him out of his "it's all about the economy" comfort zone and on to tricky territory.
Meanwhile, here's the DHS guidelines for the actual policy. 1.usa.gov/MbQYp2 12.38pm: My colleague Ruth Spencer casts her eye over the wide world of reactions – overjoyed, enraged, skeptical, relieved – to the immunity announcement. Join the conversation here, or just read what others are saying.
— daveweigel (@daveweigel) June 15, 2012 Happy.
Guidance > Executive order > Congress What a beautiful view to see my fb smothered with the good news and joy from hundreds of DREAMers and allies... And this is just the start!
3.09pm: Meanwhile, at Mitt Romney's "Every Town Counts" event in New Hampshire: — Ivan Godinez (@Ivandreaming) June 15, 2012
A SUV w/ a fake dog strapped on top is circling Romney's event in Milford, NH instagr.am/p/L54Y0oIDgQ/ Skeptical.
— Holly Bailey (@hollybdc) June 15, 2012 lets remember that #immigration announcements are nothing without any REAL action. stay grounded and stay strong | theniya.org/breaking-state…
3.03pm: The Pew Research center estimates the new immigration policy could help up to 1.4 million children and young adults who are in the United States illegally. — NYSYLC (@NYSYLC) June 15, 2012
The 1.4 million estimate includes 700,000 unauthorized immigrants who are ages 18 to 30 but arrived in the U.S as children and are currently enrolled in school or have graduated from high school; and an additional 700,000 who are under the age of 18 and are enrolled in school. This includes 150,000 who are currently enrolled in high school. Bittersweet.
A Pew Hispanic Center survey taken late last year found that by a margin of 59% to 27%, Latinos oppose the deportation policies of the Obama Administration. Among Latinos, some 41% are aware that the number of deportations of unauthorized immigrants annually has been higher during the Obama Administration than during the George W. Bush Administration, while 36% say the two Administrations have deported the same number of unauthorized immigrants, and 10% say fewer have been deported under the Obama administration. I showed my mom the AP article & explained to her, & the 1st thing she asked, "But what about me in deportation?" & it about broke my heart
2.42pm: Video of the fooferaw in the Rose Garden can be found here.
/>Via. 		— Kemi Bello (@la_kemster) June 15, 2012
Now with embed! 12.45pm: The president's plan to grant some immigrants immunity from deportation and temporary work permits – but not a path to citizenship – reminded a lot of observers of a plan alluded to by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio. (As Richard pointed out in the live chat, Rubio talked a lot about his plan but never presented it, so we'll never know just how close it was to what the White House rolled out this morning.)
2.37pm: The new hero of the right, whom we have to assume will no longer be allowed anywhere near the president again. Munro interrupted the president's Rose Garden address – fairly formal setting, that – to ask about American jobs and "foreign workers." The president said "It is the right thing to do for the American people." Now Rubio, often mentioned as a potential running mate for Mitt Romney, has released a statement on the new executive order. Rubio calls it "a short-term answer to a long-term problem":
Obama's remarks interrupted by Neil Munro of The Daily Caller. @donovanslack snapped this photo of Obama's reaction: twitter.com/politico/statu… There is broad support for the idea that we should figure out a way to help kids who are undocumented through no fault of their own, but there is also broad consensus that it should be done in a way that does not encourage illegal immigration in the future. This is a difficult balance to strike, one that this new policy, imposed by executive order, will make harder to achieve in the long run.
— POLITICO (@politico) June 15, 2012 Today's announcement will be welcome news for many of these kids desperate for an answer, but it is a short term answer to a long term problem. And by once again ignoring the Constitution and going around Congress, this short term policy will make it harder to find a balanced and responsible long term one.
2.34pm: CORRECTION: Throughout the day we have mistakenly referred to the new White House policy as an "executive order." That is wrong; the president has not and will not issue an executive order, a signed piece of paper with potential sway as precedent. 12.50pm: *Gasp*. Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus has come out and accused the White House of playing politics with the immigration announcement and its timing.
The White House describes the change as a new policy within the Department of Homeland security. Buzzfeed's Zeke Miller reports:
may be distinction w/o difference, but GOPers keeps referencing "executive" order on immigration. None will be issued, per the WH. "Well, he's made a lot of promises that he hasn't kept," Priebus told reporters after his remarks [at the Faith and Freedom Coalition in DC].
/>"I think president is all politics, all the time," he said when asked if he thought the announcement was politically motivated."
— Rick Klein (@rickklein) June 15, 2012
Our apologies for the error.
As we discussed earlier, the president last year said "for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates [laws] would not conform with my appropriate role as President."
But it does conform to his appropriate role as president, the White House believes, simply to have a Cabinet secretary declare new policy, even when that policy is as far-reaching as the enforcement of immigration law.
2.27pm: Obama has concluded his Rose Garden speech on the new immigration policy.
He began the speech by talking about the contributions young immigrants make to American society, to the economy, to the military. He said it's unfair for the country to ask them to make those sacrifices while threatening them with deportation.
He said that the new policy had bipartisan support, as shown by the advance through the legislature of the Dream Act. The only reason the Dream Act is not law, he said, is that Republicans acting on political motivations have blocked it.
Obama said the new policy is a stopgap measure designed to address an urgent national problem that the legislature has shown itself unwilling to address.
The president was interrupted by Neil Munro of the Daily Caller. Munro yelled a question about unemployed American workers.
Here's Munro's Twitter bio: "Born Irish, then became a Cold War bridegroom. I worked at Defense News, Washington Technology, then 10 years at National Journal, and now at TheDC. Lucky me."
2.19pm: The president engages the member of the press – apparently? who? – who interrupted his statement on immigration.
"In answer to your question sir. And next time I prefer that you wait until I finish my statement. In answer to your question sir":
"It is the right thing to do for the American people, and here's the reason. Because these young people are already making extraordinary contributions to our society."
The president wraps up. The interrupter yells as the president leaves the podium:
"What about American workers who are unemployed while you employ foreigners?"
2.14pm:The president speaks:
"I have said time and time again to Congress, send me the Dream Act." But Congress has refused to act. The president says the Dream Act is a bipartisan bill that got 55 votes in the Senate.
It's a bipartisan bill. "The only thing that's changed, apparently, is the politics," Obama says.
"Effective immediately, the DHS is taking steps" to stop deportation proceedings against some undocumented immigrants, he says.
The action will allow immigrants "temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for [work permits]. This is not amnesty, immunity, a path to citizenship. THis is a stopgap measure... It is the right thing to do."
Obama is interrupted. "Excuse me sir, it's not the right time for questions sir. Not while I'm speaking."
2:08pm: The president is speaking in the Rose Garden about the new immigration policy. Live up top.
2.03pm: The Mitt Romney campaign has yet to comment on the president's new immigration policy. But at least one Republican knows exactly what he thinks about it: LAWSUIT.
A Congressman has vowed to sue the Obama administration over the new immigration policy, Matthew Boyle reports in the Daily Caller:
Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King said Friday that he plans to sue the Obama administration to halt implementation of its newly announced selective illegal immigration law enforcement policy. He told Mike Huckabee on the former Arkansas governor's radio program Friday that he successfully sued his own state's governor — and won — over a similar separation-of-powers issue.
"I will tell you that — I'm not without experience on this — I'm prepared to bring a suit and seek a court order to stop implementation of this policy," King said.
1.44pm: Oh no!
It's tough sometimes out there on tour.
Newt, Callista, and Ellis the Elephant await people to ask for autographs. #ffc twitpic.com/9wqv4w
— Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) June 15, 2012
1.33pm: How big is the new immigration policy? How many people does it affect? What kind of political impact could it have?
The Department of Homeland Security is saying about 800,000 undocumented immigrants would be eligible apply for notices to defer deportation for two years, on an indefinitely renewable basis, my colleague Ed Pilkington writes:
But Hispanic groups point out that most every Latino family in America has undocumented people in it living side by side with full citizens. The two demographics are inseparable, and even within Republican-voting Hispanic families, the Dream Act is a hugely popular cause. So I'd say political popularity for this move would cover pretty much all of the 21 million Latinos in America with the vote.
That's a lot of votes.
1.28pm: We're waiting for the president to speak in the Rose Garden.
It turns out that two of the country's most prominent and buffoonish (redundant in this case?) birthers share a birthday, and it was yesterday.
That's right, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, and New York real estate guy Donald Trump, both of whom believe that the president was not born in the USA, both celebrated yesterday, June 14.
Arpaio is 80. Trump is only 66. (Plenty young to run in '16!)
This to us reeks of conspiracy. Really, could it be a coincidence that ... oh whatever. Happy birthday, gents!
Two morons born the same day! RT @RealSheriffJoe: Donald Trump and I, fighting Obama's birth certificate, both celebrate our birthdays today
— Doug Mataconis (@dmataconis) June 15, 2012
1.03pm: The president is scheduled to speak in the Rose Garden at 1:15 about the new executive order. We'll be watching.
12.55pm: Does the president have the power to suspend deportations through executive order?12.55pm: Does the president have the power to suspend deportations through executive order?
According to an extremely prominent constitutional scholar, the answer is NO. The name of that scholar: Barack Obama.According to an extremely prominent constitutional scholar, the answer is NO. The name of that scholar: Barack Obama.
Asked last year by Univision anchor Jorge Ramos whether he could stop deportations with an executive order, Obama said no, Yahoo's Liz Goodwin points out.Asked last year by Univision anchor Jorge Ramos whether he could stop deportations with an executive order, Obama said no, Yahoo's Liz Goodwin points out.
The White House has a transcript of the conversation online, here. Here's the pertinent section:The White House has a transcript of the conversation online, here. Here's the pertinent section:
MR. RAMOS: Mr. President, my question will be as follows: With an executive order, could you be able to stop deportations of the students? And if that's so, that links to another of the questions that we have received through univision.com. We have received hundreds, thousand, all related to immigration and the students. Kay Tomar (ph) through univision.com told us -- I'm reading -- "What if at least you grant temporary protective status, TPS, to undocumented students? If the answer is yes, when? And if no, why not?"MR. RAMOS: Mr. President, my question will be as follows: With an executive order, could you be able to stop deportations of the students? And if that's so, that links to another of the questions that we have received through univision.com. We have received hundreds, thousand, all related to immigration and the students. Kay Tomar (ph) through univision.com told us -- I'm reading -- "What if at least you grant temporary protective status, TPS, to undocumented students? If the answer is yes, when? And if no, why not?"
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, temporary protective status historically has been used for special circumstances where you have immigrants to this country who are fleeing persecution in their countries, or there is some emergency situation in their native land that required them to come to the United States. So it would not be appropriate to use that just for a particular group that came here primarily, for example, because they were looking for economic opportunity.THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, temporary protective status historically has been used for special circumstances where you have immigrants to this country who are fleeing persecution in their countries, or there is some emergency situation in their native land that required them to come to the United States. So it would not be appropriate to use that just for a particular group that came here primarily, for example, because they were looking for economic opportunity.
With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed -- and I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we've got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch's job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed -- and I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we've got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch's job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.
There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.
That does not mean, though, that we can't make decisions, for example, to emphasize enforcement on those who've engaged in criminal activity. It also doesn't mean that we can't strongly advocate and propose legislation that would change the law in order to make it more fair, more just, and ultimately would help young people who are here trying to do the right thing and whose talents we want to embrace in order to succeed as a country. (Applause.)That does not mean, though, that we can't make decisions, for example, to emphasize enforcement on those who've engaged in criminal activity. It also doesn't mean that we can't strongly advocate and propose legislation that would change the law in order to make it more fair, more just, and ultimately would help young people who are here trying to do the right thing and whose talents we want to embrace in order to succeed as a country. (Applause.)
Did the president simply change his mind? Did he get new legal advice? Is it not actually his intention to carry out the executive order?Did the president simply change his mind? Did he get new legal advice? Is it not actually his intention to carry out the executive order?
How is it that he appears to be moving ahead this morning with an action he wrote off as unconstitutional a year ago?How is it that he appears to be moving ahead this morning with an action he wrote off as unconstitutional a year ago?
12.50pm: *Gasp*. Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus has come out and accused the White House of playing politics with the immigration announcement and its timing. 1.03pm: The president is scheduled to speak in the Rose Garden at 1:15 about the new executive order. We'll be watching.
Buzzfeed's Zeke Miller reports: 1.28pm: We're waiting for the president to speak in the Rose Garden.
"Well, he's made a lot of promises that he hasn't kept," Priebus told reporters after his remarks [at the Faith and Freedom Coalition in DC].
/>"I think president is all politics, all the time," he said when asked if he thought the announcement was politically motivated." 		It turns out that two of the country's most prominent and buffoonish (redundant in this case?) birthers share a birthday, and it was yesterday.
12.45pm: The president's plan to grant some immigrants immunity from deportation and temporary work permits – but not a path to citizenship – reminded a lot of observers of a plan alluded to by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio. (As Richard pointed out in the live chat, Rubio talked a lot about his plan but never presented it, so we'll never know just how close it was to what the White House rolled out this morning.) That's right, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, and New York real estate guy Donald Trump, both of whom believe that the president was not born in the USA, both celebrated yesterday, June 14.
Now Rubio, often mentioned as a potential running mate for Mitt Romney, has released a statement on the new executive order. Rubio calls it "a short-term answer to a long-term problem": Arpaio is 80. Trump is only 66. (Plenty young to run in '16!)
There is broad support for the idea that we should figure out a way to help kids who are undocumented through no fault of their own, but there is also broad consensus that it should be done in a way that does not encourage illegal immigration in the future. This is a difficult balance to strike, one that this new policy, imposed by executive order, will make harder to achieve in the long run. This to us reeks of conspiracy. Really, could it be a coincidence that ... oh whatever. Happy birthday, gents!
Today's announcement will be welcome news for many of these kids desperate for an answer, but it is a short term answer to a long term problem. And by once again ignoring the Constitution and going around Congress, this short term policy will make it harder to find a balanced and responsible long term one. Two morons born the same day! RT @RealSheriffJoe: Donald Trump and I, fighting Obama's birth certificate, both celebrate our birthdays today
12.38pm: My colleague Ruth Spencer casts her eye over the wide world of reactions – overjoyed, enraged, skeptical, relieved – to the immunity announcement. Join the conversation here, or just read what others are saying. — Doug Mataconis (@dmataconis) June 15, 2012
Happy. 1.33pm: How big is the new immigration policy? How many people does it affect? What kind of political impact could it have?
What a beautiful view to see my fb smothered with the good news and joy from hundreds of DREAMers and allies... And this is just the start! The Department of Homeland Security is saying about 800,000 undocumented immigrants would be eligible apply for notices to defer deportation for two years, on an indefinitely renewable basis, my colleague Ed Pilkington writes:
— Ivan Godinez (@Ivandreaming) June 15, 2012 But Hispanic groups point out that most every Latino family in America has undocumented people in it living side by side with full citizens. The two demographics are inseparable, and even within Republican-voting Hispanic families, the Dream Act is a hugely popular cause. So I'd say political popularity for this move would cover pretty much all of the 21 million Latinos in America with the vote.
Skeptical. That's a lot of votes.
lets remember that #immigration announcements are nothing without any REAL action. stay grounded and stay strong | theniya.org/breaking-state… 1.44pm: Oh no!
— NYSYLC (@NYSYLC) June 15, 2012 It's tough sometimes out there on tour.
Bittersweet. Newt, Callista, and Ellis the Elephant await people to ask for autographs. #ffc twitpic.com/9wqv4w
I showed my mom the AP article & explained to her, & the 1st thing she asked, "But what about me in deportation?" & it about broke my heart — Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) June 15, 2012
— Kemi Bello (@la_kemster) June 15, 2012 2.03pm: The Mitt Romney campaign has yet to comment on the president's new immigration policy. But at least one Republican knows exactly what he thinks about it: LAWSUIT.
12.32pm: Thanks everyone for participating in the live chat. See you here next week, same bat time, same bat place. A Congressman has vowed to sue the Obama administration over the new immigration policy, Matthew Boyle reports in the Daily Caller:
As a parting shot, Richard Adams contributes this take on the immigration announcement: Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King said Friday that he plans to sue the Obama administration to halt implementation of its newly announced selective illegal immigration law enforcement policy. He told Mike Huckabee on the former Arkansas governor's radio program Friday that he successfully sued his own state's governor — and won — over a similar separation-of-powers issue.
In political terms this is a bold move by the Obama administration. "I will tell you that — I'm not without experience on this — I'm prepared to bring a suit and seek a court order to stop implementation of this policy," King said.
Immigration is such a fraught issue within the Republican party that it will quite cunningly exploit the fault lines that lie within the GOP. Much of the party grassroots is highly hostile to any softening of immigration laws – as we saw during the presidential primary campaign, when "build the fence, secure the borders" was a mantra from Mitt Romney down. Look how much trouble Rick Perry got into trying defend Texas's very mild university tuition fee policy for exactly the same group of undocumented immigrants that today's announcement is aimed at. 2:08pm: The president is speaking in the Rose Garden about the new immigration policy. Live up top.
The White House is trying to defang the reaction by insisting repeatedly that "this is not amnesty," as Janet Napolitano underlined, although that won't be enough for the thin-end-of-the-wedgers out there. 2.14pm:The president speaks:
For the GOP the problem is that some parts of the party – such as Marco Rubio – actually back a similar plan. But the party is hamstrung by those who oppose any change. As someone put it on Twitter: "Would this have happend if Rubio had put forth a bill over the past three months instead of talking about his awesome bill he was working on?" "I have said time and time again to Congress, send me the Dream Act." But Congress has refused to act. The president says the Dream Act is a bipartisan bill that got 55 votes in the Senate.
Romney has been pretty silent on the subject since the primaries ended. Now he'll have to say something – and this move pushes him out of his "it's all about the economy" comfort zone and on to tricky territory. It's a bipartisan bill. "The only thing that's changed, apparently, is the politics," Obama says.
11.27am: It's live chat time – with resident US Politics live blogger Richard Adams and columnist Ana Marie Cox. They're talking for an hour. Join them now – meaning at 11.30am ET, in 3 minutes – right here: "Effective immediately, the DHS is taking steps" to stop deportation proceedings against some undocumented immigrants, he says.
*NOTE: The widget may not work for some mobile users; to catch the last 15 minutes of the chat please visit us at a desktop station near you. The action will allow immigrants "temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for [work permits]. This is not amnesty, immunity, a path to citizenship. THis is a stopgap measure... It is the right thing to do."
Send your questions, jump right in. Obama is interrupted. "Excuse me sir, it's not the right time for questions sir. Not while I'm speaking."
11.18am: Here's Mitt Romney's new bus, which earlier today was going to make political news. The Republican candidate is embarking on a five-day, six-state "Every Town Counts" tour to highlight what Romney says are the president's failed economic policies. 2.19pm: The president engages the member of the press – apparently? who? – who interrupted his statement on immigration.
The tour begins with an event in New Hampshire. "In answer to your question sir. And next time I prefer that you wait until I finish my statement. In answer to your question sir":
PIC: New Hampshire, here we come! #Mitt2012 twitter.com/dgjackson/stat… "It is the right thing to do for the American people, and here's the reason. Because these young people are already making extraordinary contributions to our society."
— Mitt's Body Man(@dgjackson) June 15, 2012 The president wraps up. The interrupter yells as the president leaves the podium:
11.09am: As a political move, the White House announcement this morning that the president would order an end to deportations of certain young undocumented immigrants looks very strong, inspired even, if a bit wild. "What about American workers who are unemployed while you employ foreigners?"
The timing of the move, after three weeks now of tough knocks on the campaign trail for the president, and just as rival Mitt Romney returns to the trail in earnest with a multi-state bus tour – and speaking now exclusively about the politics of the thing – the timing is good. 2.27pm: Obama has concluded his Rose Garden speech on the new immigration policy.
It upstages Romney, it makes the president look decisive, it's an ace in the play for Hispanic voters. On the other hand, it might have come at a time when the president appeared to be slightly LESS beset. At a time when the president is really on his heels, there's something that seems a bit wild, not to say desperate, about the move. He began the speech by talking about the contributions young immigrants make to American society, to the economy, to the military. He said it's unfair for the country to ask them to make those sacrifices while threatening them with deportation.
Only way Romney gets today's cycle back is if the bus has to maintain a speed of 55 mph or else Keanu Reeves will act again He said that the new policy had bipartisan support, as shown by the advance through the legislature of the Dream Act. The only reason the Dream Act is not law, he said, is that Republicans acting on political motivations have blocked it.
— Sam Youngman (@samyoungman) June 15, 2012 Obama said the new policy is a stopgap measure designed to address an urgent national problem that the legislature has shown itself unwilling to address.
Brian Beutler of Talking Points Memo sees the policy as usurping all Republican initiatives on the issue, to the extent that the GOP cannot challenge the policy. Instead, he says, expect attacks of the kind we outlined a few minutes ago. The president was interrupted by Neil Munro of the Daily Caller. Munro yelled a question about unemployed American workers.
Here's Beutler: Here's Munro's Twitter bio: "Born Irish, then became a Cold War bridegroom. I worked at Defense News, Washington Technology, then 10 years at National Journal, and now at TheDC. Lucky me."
This was a doubly clever move by the Obama administration. Over and above the obvious appeal to a key constituency, the policy here mimics, I assume intentionally, what Republicans claim they want to adopt in a scaled-down version of the DREAM Act. But for Republicans, embracing Obama's move carries the same risk with their base as rejecting it does with immigrants — the voting bloc they're most concerned about alienating. A hunch: prepare yourself for a deluge of condemnations of executive-branch overreach, paired with real reluctance to say anything meaningful about what the directive actually accomplishes. 2.34pm: CORRECTION: Throughout the day we have mistakenly referred to the new White House policy as an "executive order." That is wrong; the president has not and will not issue an executive order, a signed piece of paper with potential sway as precedent.
10.56am: The presidential announcement this morning is breathtaking on a number of levels. The White House describes the change as a new policy within the Department of Homeland security.
In one fell swoop – and, as Mr. Drudge points out, without the participation of Congress – the president appears to have shifted major US policy with implications for hundreds of thousands of families, for the economy, for the country's very sense of self. To call it a major power play is not quite to capture the thing. may be distinction w/o difference, but GOPers keeps referencing "executive" order on immigration. None will be issued, per the WH.
About time, some on the left will say. Did anyone believe that Congress would act on the Dream Act (or anything else), when Congress has shown itself willing to drive the country to a brink of a default in the service of the most unhinged rhetoric of imagined fiscal purity? — Rick Klein (@rickklein) June 15, 2012
Others will call this a gross abuse of presidential power. Does the president have the right to in effect move the nation's borders, unilaterally? If the president can do this, then why have we expended so much energy debating immigration policy? Our apologies for the error.
What precedent is there for such presidential action? George W. Bush went to war in Iraq with the barest of pro forma assent by Congress. The federal government surveils US citizens without search warrants and without disclosing the surveillance. Obama has a "kill list" by which he terminates lives like a Caesar. As we discussed earlier, the president last year said "for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates [laws] would not conform with my appropriate role as President."
On the other hand: What options does a popularly elected chief executive have when faced with a cynically intransigent legislature but to act alone and then defend that action in the courts and the airwaves and the ballot boxes? But it does conform to his appropriate role as president, the White House believes, simply to have a Cabinet secretary declare new policy, even when that policy is as far-reaching as the enforcement of immigration law.
And how hugely relieving is this news – if the administration follows through – is this news for so many young adults and their families whose lives as Americans have always been conducted under the threat of those families being broken up by the state? 2.37pm: The new hero of the right, whom we have to assume will no longer be allowed anywhere near the president again. Munro interrupted the president's Rose Garden address – fairly formal setting, that – to ask about American jobs and "foreign workers." The president said "It is the right thing to do for the American people."
10.35am: Reception of the news might be characterized as "hot and cold": Obama's remarks interrupted by Neil Munro of The Daily Caller. @donovanslack snapped this photo of Obama's reaction: twitter.com/politico/statu…
— POLITICO (@politico) June 15, 2012
10.30am: The political day has just been eclipsed by a major announcement by the Obama administration: by executive order, the president will end the deportation of certain young undocumented immigrants – making an estimated 800,000 young people now safe. The order will stop the deportation of undocumented immigrants under 30 years old who came to the US before their 16th birthdays. 2.42pm: Video of the fooferaw in the Rose Garden can be found here.
/>Via.
To benefit from the protection, they must have lived in the US continuously for five years, have no criminal record or have graduated from high school or served in the military. Now with embed!
They are eligible for two-year work permits, renewable indefinitely. The act does not provide a path to citizenship. 3.03pm: The Pew Research center estimates the new immigration policy could help up to 1.4 million children and young adults who are in the United States illegally.
The plan tracks closely to a proposal offered by Republican senator Marco Rubio of Florida as an alternative to the Dream Act. The 1.4 million estimate includes 700,000 unauthorized immigrants who are ages 18 to 30 but arrived in the U.S as children and are currently enrolled in school or have graduated from high school; and an additional 700,000 who are under the age of 18 and are enrolled in school. This includes 150,000 who are currently enrolled in high school.
It's a mini-Dream Act, enacted by executive order, a total makeover of the administration's immigration policy. A Pew Hispanic Center survey taken late last year found that by a margin of 59% to 27%, Latinos oppose the deportation policies of the Obama Administration. Among Latinos, some 41% are aware that the number of deportations of unauthorized immigrants annually has been higher during the Obama Administration than during the George W. Bush Administration, while 36% say the two Administrations have deported the same number of unauthorized immigrants, and 10% say fewer have been deported under the Obama administration.
Huge news. The president will talk about the new policy in a speech this afternoon. 3.09pm: Meanwhile, at Mitt Romney's "Every Town Counts" event in New Hampshire:
A SUV w/ a fake dog strapped on top is circling Romney's event in Milford, NH instagr.am/p/L54Y0oIDgQ/
— Holly Bailey (@hollybdc) June 15, 2012
3.11pm: Here's a link to the "guidance" from Janet Napolitano laying out the new Department of Homeland Security policy on immigration:
Meanwhile, here's the DHS guidelines for the actual policy. 1.usa.gov/MbQYp2
— daveweigel (@daveweigel) June 15, 2012
Guidance > Executive order > Congress
3.23pm: On the road with Romney, the Wall Street Journal's Sara Murray:
At Romney's second bus tour stop, an ice cream social in Milford, NH. No word yet on whether Romney will comment on immigration.
— Sara Murray (@SaraMurray) June 15, 2012
It's not unusual for Romney to ignore questions on a rope line. But today the silence is unusually deafening:
Romney ignores multiple Qs on the rope line about the Obama Administration's immigration announcement. #election2012
— Sara Murray (@SaraMurray) June 15, 2012
3.47pm: Insofar as the Obama announcement is a blow in the presidential race, it sure is taking the Romney camp a long time to hit back.
MSNBC saying Romney was asked about Obama's immig policy, had no comment
— Michael Tomasky (@mtomasky) June 15, 2012
There's word out that Romney will speak soon on it. "Soon."
3.56pm: Neil Munro on interrupting the president: I didn't mean to interrupt the president.
His statement appears on the web site of his employer, the Daily Caller, which also posts unapologetic statements from the editor and publisher. Hear's Munro:
I always go to the White House prepared with questions for our president. I timed the question believing the president was closing his remarks, because naturally I have no intention of interrupting the President of the United States. I know he rarely takes questions before walking away from the podium. When I asked the question as he finished his speech, he turned his back on the many reporters, and walked away while I and at least one other reporter asked questions.
How do we feel about what Munro did? You won't catch us defending the president's God-given right not to be interrupted, ever. But how do we feel about Munro expecting us to believe that he didn't mean to interrupt Obama? SMDH. Watch the video, embedded below.
4.03pm: Mitt Romney has addressed the new immigration policy, McKay Poppins reports.
"I happen to agree with Marco Rubio," Romney said.
As Poppins points out, that happens to be a big surprise to anyone who's been following Romney on immigration. Romney has been calling for a wall to be built separating the United States from Mexico. He has given no signal that he would be open to the kind of middle ground stance that Rubio seems to occupy.
And what's more: how can you agree with Rubio when Rubio hasn't laid out his immigration plan, but only talked about it.
"What he said." That's basically Romney's reponse to one of the biggest policy moves Obama has made while in office.
4.22pm: Away from the national political stage for a moment, you may have been following this week's controversy in the Michigan statehouse, where a legislator – Rep. Lisa Brown – was banned from taking the floor for her earlier use of the word "vagina."
A day earlier, the leglislature was debating a new anti-choice law that would regulate women's health clinics to the point many could no longer offer abortions. Brown made a speech that concluded, "I'm flattered you're all so concerned about my vagina. But no means no."
Then she was banned for vulgarity.
Now she has written a piece for the Guardian about the experience:
The next day, I was told I wouldn't be allowed to speak on behalf of my constituents on the House floor. Thursday was the last day of session before legislators went home for the summer, and a lot of work was getting done. There were proposals on funding teacher pensions and reducing income taxes – issues my constituents find very important. But I wasn't allowed to speak up for them. Because I had dared say "vagina" the day before.
To hear some talk about it, you'd think I'd said a dirty word. One of my counterparts, Representative Mike Callton (Republican–Nashville, Michigan) said he couldn't even bear to repeat what I had said because it was "so offensive, I don't even want to say it in front of women. I would not say that in mixed company." Callton, by the way, holds a bachelor's degree in biology. Imagine what he went through in anatomy class.
4.35pm: Emily Friedman of ABC News sheds light on Romney's evolution on Rubio's immigration plan:
In April, during presser with Rubio, Romney said he was still "studying" Rubio's Dream Act. Today he said he "happens to agree" with Rubio.
— Emily Friedman (@EmilyABC) June 15, 2012
4.44pm: We now have the entirety of Romney's statements to reporters, in response to questions about the new immigration policy.
Romney is in favor of limited amnesty for some young immigrants. He called for a "long-term" solution. He said the president's actions hinder a long-term solution because "an executive order" (it's not actually an executive order, tehcnically, we learned) "can be reversed."
It wouldn't be too hard to read this as Romney blaming the president for the failure of Congress to act.
BuzzFeed's McKay Poppins reports from a Romney event in Milford, NH:
"I believe the status of young people who come here through no fault of their own is an important matter to be considered and should be solved on a long-term basis so they know what their future would be in this country," Romney said.
He continued: "I think the actions that the president took today make it more difficult to reach that kind of long term solution because an executive order, of course, is a short-term matter that can be reversed by subsequent presidents."
"I'd like to see legislation that deals with this issue," Romney said. "And I happen to agree with Marco Rubio, as he said this is an important matter, we have to find a long-term solution."
4.45pm: "I happen to agree with Marco Rubio."
Let's all keep in mind that there is not yet any Rubio DREAM Act for Romney to endorse.
— Greg Sargent (@ThePlumLineGS) June 15, 2012
4.50pm: The day was a wash for Mitt Romney. That's not written, we hope, from a partisan perspective.
Fact is, the Romney campaign devised an elaborate campaign re-launch today, complete with a new bus, a picturesque New Hampshire farm, nice sunshine-y weather and the attendance of two potential running mates, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and N.H. Sen. Kelly Ayotte.
Ann Romney tweeted a cheerful thanks with a nice picture of the politicians serving ice cream.
But for all the stagecraft that went into it, and the potential traction of the candidate's message, the event was simply overshadowed by the president's major announcement on immigration policy.
It may be tempting to blame Romney for not responding sooner – how many hours did it take him? six? – to the shift in policy. Maybe if he had, he could have stolen some of the president's thunder, instead of vice versa.
But really, the announcement in the Rose Garden was so major there's probably nothing the Romney camp could have done. As every pundit worth his or her salt has pointed out today, we just saw the power of the incumbency.
Here's a snapshot of the Romney event from Sarah Wheaton of the New York Times:

The scenery and theatrics set the tone that the campaign hopes to convey over the coming days. After a live bluegrass show, with bales of hay in the background, Senator Kelly Ayotte introduced Mr. Romney, who was nowhere in sight. To a Copland-esque anthem, Mitt Romney's bus pulled alongside the crowd. The music switched to his rock theme, "Born Free," as he and his wife, Ann, walked along a catwalk to the stage, encircled by the audience.
5.15pm: We are going to wrap up today's live blog politics coverage. Thanks for joining in – here's a summary of where things stand:
• President Obama announced a significant shift on immigration policy that would cease deportations of young immigrants without criminal records and allow these immigrants to apply for two-year work permits that in turn would be indefinitely renewable.
• Immigrant rights advocates hailed the new policy was hailed as a major breakthrough. An estimated 1.4 million immigrants would be affected by the policy. It was embraced by groups representing the nation's 27 million Hispanic and Latino voters, although many said some version of, 'we'll see it when we believe it.'
• The move was criticized as circumventing Congress. The president met the criticism by saying that Congress refused to act on the Dream Act, and action was needed.
• The president's announcement upstaged a Mitt Romney event in New Hampshire, where the candidate kicked off a five-day, six-state tour called "Every Town Counts." Possible running mates Tim Pawlenty and Kelly Ayotte attended the event.
• Mitt Romney said he agreed with the position of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio on the immigration issue. Pundits noted that Rubio's stated position, while not fully articulated, seems close to the position the president took this morning. So everyone agrees?
• In an appearance in the Rose Garden, the president called the new policy "the right thing to do for the American people." He was interrupted by a heckler/reporter, whose question went unanswered.