When George W. Bush Acted Unilaterally on Immigration

I’ve already posted a couple of times on past presidents, including St. Ronald the Magnificent, issuing executive actions to defer deportation for undocumented immigrants, but it turns out that it happened a mere seven years ago when Republicans, of course, did not scream for the head of George W. Bush for doing it:

“With his immigration bill dead, the administration rolled out a proposed rule to address some of the major issues in the failed legislation,” the Associated Press writes, before outlining some of the changes the president will enact without the consent of Congress.

But the article isn’t about President Barack Obama’s impending executive action to “expand temporary protections for millions of undocumented immigrants.” It’s from 2007 and it details President George W. Bush’s push to enact changes to immigration law after his own immigration reform bill failed in the Senate.

The rules required employers to dismiss workers whose Social Security numbers don’t match those in federal databases, tightened border security, and streamlined guest-worker programs and urging employers to fire undocumented workers.

In defending his actions, Bush sounded a lot like Obama does today.

“Although the Congress has not addressed our broken immigration system by passing comprehensive reform legislation, my administration will continue to take every possible step to build upon the progress already made,” Bush said.

White House Press Secretary Dana Perino explained that the administration had initially held off on the changes to allow Congress breathing room to deal with the immigration problem comprehensively, adding, “We’re going as far as we possibly can without Congress acting.”

I’m sure we all remember when Republicans shut down the government and began impeachment proceedings against Bush for establishing a dictatorship, shredding the constitution and deliberately trying to destroy America. Right? That happened, right? It must have happened because Republicans wouldn’t be hypocrites or anything, would they? To be fair, though, Obama is flagrantly guilty of the crime of issuing executive orders while black.

"Nah, they're the Party of Law and Order. They have 2 mascots called "Law" and ..."

Gianforte Lied to Police About Assault ..."
"And still the justifications roll in...First, although Franken is acting like a 7th grader in ..."

How to Think Critically About the ..."
"If you’re wondering why Trump has remained silent on the allegations against Roy Moore but ..."

Trump Admitted to Peeping at Teen ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • John Pieret

    Now, now … if Hillary did the same thing, they’d be willing to find her guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor, too … issuing executive orders while female.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Those are totally different actions. Obama’s trying to let those HispanoFreeloading MexiMoochers come over here and steal all our jobs and take all the Welfare, while Dubya acted to make their lives worse.

  • Evan Brehm

    What I don’t get is how the Republicans managed to get Constitutional Professor Jonathan Turley on their side over this issue. Turley has made some great speeches against the abuse of executive authority going back to the first President Bush. He’s pretty consistant in his oppositon to executive overreach and violation of the rule of law (supporting Bill Clinton’s impeachment for lying under oath, and later advocating for George W. Bush’s impeachment in 2007 over lying to the country about Iraq and for declaring the authority to indefinitely detain American citizens without a warrant as per the Military Commissions Act of 2006. He advocated Obama’s impeachment over the bombing of Libya. He generally seems to know his stuff, but he seems completely in the wrong here on Obama’s unilateral actions on immigration.