Reactions to President Obama's Decision on Immigration

Mona Charen in National Review:

Now the Left is adding presidential fiat to the category of powers it will cheerfully accept if it produces outcomes they favor. This is not constitutional government. This is not separation of powers. This is strong-arming.

Andrew Sullivan at The Dish:

His political isolation now is a function, first and foremost, of unrelenting Republican opposition and obstructionism. From time to time, then, it is more than good to see him openly challenge the box others want to put him in, to reassert that he has long been the reasonable figure on many of these debates, and to remind us that we have a president whose substantive proposals should, in any sane polity, be the basis for a way forward, for a compromise.

Jonathan S. Tobin in Commentary:

The first is that even if the Senate bill deserved support, it is the prerogative of the Congress to pass laws. The president may advocate, lobby, cajole, threaten or bargain with members to get his way. But if the executive branch fails to get the legislative branch to approve measures, it must accept the verdict and try again. Such a failure does not grant the president the right to usurp Congress.

Fred Barnes in The Weekly Standard:

There’s a lesson from President Obama’s first term that he should have learned long ago. It’s simple: On an issue that affects many millions of Americans, it’s best—even necessary—to have bipartisan support in Congress. Going forward in a purely partisan fashion is bound to cause national discord, increase polarization, and heighten distrust in Washington. Worse still, it means the issue will be controversial for years to come.

Paul Krugman in The New York Times:

That’s not to say that I, or most progressives, support open borders. You can see one important reason right there in the Baldizzi apartment: the photo of F.D.R. on the wall. The New Deal made America a vastly better place, yet it probably wouldn’t have been possible without the immigration restrictions that went into effect after World War I. For one thing, absent those restrictions, there would have been many claims, justified or not, about people flocking to America to take advantage of welfare programs.

Editorial Board of USA Today:

What's more, by taking such broad action through executive order, Obama has set a precedent for future presidents. As hard as it might be for Democrats to believe, some day there will be a Republican president. And that president could use an executive order to suspend enforcement of laws such as the Obamacare tax penalty for not buying health insurance. If that president's action seems excessive, or even autocratic, he or she will shrug off the criticism by pointing at Obama's immigration order.

Ezra Klein in Vox:

I don't think this is an easy decision. It requires judgment calls on not just the policy and the underlying laws Obama is citing, but on the political system's likely response to Obama's actions. At the beginning of this section, I said I would make clear where I'm leaning, and leaning really is the right word. Three days a week I lean towards the policy. Four days a week I lean against it. I'm hoping, as the specifics of the policy are rolled out over the next few days, to see or hear something that makes this a clearer call.