(Newsmax) – In anticipation of Democrats losing control of the Senate, White House officials are implying that candidates should have tied themselves more closely to President Barack Obama, but according to the National Journal, “this is pure delusion.”
“Obama is the main reason Republicans are well-positioned to win control of the upper chamber next Tuesday. And Democrats’ biggest strategic mistake in this election is that most candidates didn’t run away far and fast enough,” wrote Josh Kraushaar, political editor of the National Journal.
“Given the president’s rock-bottom approval numbers in the many Republican-friendly Senate states that Democrats needed to win — as well as the reality of a worsening political environment for the party as early as last winter — that distance was a downright necessity. But a host of Senate candidates failed to create it, and the party is likely to pay the price in Senate seats.”
SEND CONGRESS A PINK SLIP: Gun grabs, Martial Law, amnesty, executive orders, unconstitutional laws, bypassing Congress and the Constitution— Obama has committed a string high crimes and misdemeanors. YOU can send a PINK SLIP to every member of Congress putting them on notice: “IMPEACH OBAMA NOW OR WE’RE KICKING YOU OUT!”
The Journal named Sens. Mark Udall of Colorado and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire as two examples of vulnerable Democrats in swing states who didn’t do enough to distance themselves from Obama.
And in red states held by Democrats, the magazine said, the limited criticisms of the administration’s policies on Obamacare and the Keystone XL pipeline were not sufficient to convince voters of a true distinction from Obama.
There have also been deficiencies in the way the Democratic candidates in Kentucky and Arkansas have conducted their campaigns. In the first instance, Alison Lundergan Grimes found herself in difficult territory by trying to appease both liberals and conservatives. In Sen. Mark Pryor’s race, he relied too much on attacks against his opponent’s conservatism and a misguided assumption about the strength of his own personal brand.
“To be sure, in a nationalized election, even those who break from an unpopular president often fall victim to his political problems. The biggest victims in the 2010 wave election were House Democrats in conservative districts, most of whom voted against the president’s healthcare law. Their opposition did little to help them. But in Senate races, where candidates’ personal brands play a bigger role, there’s more opportunity to create space,” the Journal said.
“This year’s midterms are shaping up to be a referendum on President Obama’s management, giving anxious voters an opportunity to express their frustration about everything from the president’s handling of healthcare, growing terrorism threats, an Ebola scare, and a broken immigration system, among others.”
The Journal concluded by saying “Democrats should have recognized that the president was falling out of favor with the public and inoculated themselves a long time ago. Instead, many bought the White House’s spin, and are at risk of going down with a sinking ship.”
By LAURA MECKLER
WASHINGTON—The White House is considering two central requirements in deciding which of the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants would gain protections through an expected executive action: a minimum length of time in the U.S., and a person’s family ties to others in the country, said people familiar with the administration’s thinking.
Those requirements, depending on how broadly they are drawn, could offer protection to between one million and four million people in the country illegally.
The deliberations follow President Barack Obama ’s promise to act to change the immigration system, after legislation overhauling immigration law died in Congress.
Republicans have protested that Mr. Obama would overstep his authority by acting alone. Several Democratic candidates in tight races also have complained, and last month the president canceled plans to announce the changes before the election.
Mr. Obama, who has been criticized by immigrant-rights advocates for the delay, wants to grant new protections—such as safe harbor from deportation and work permits—to many people who are in the U.S. illegally but have significant ties to the country, said three people familiar with White House thinking.
Such protections would be temporary since the president lacks authority to give people permanent legal status.
Demonstrators protest President Obama’s immigration policies in Washington earlier this month. ENLARGE
Demonstrators protest President Obama’s immigration policies in Washington earlier this month. AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
One person said officials are leaning toward granting protections to people in the country illegally for 10 years and who meet other criteria, though that could be broadened to include more recent arrivals.
Parents of U.S. citizens are likely to qualify, people familiar with discussions said, as long as they meet other criteria. But it is unclear whether the policy would include parents of so-called Dreamers—people brought to the U.S. illegally as children, and who were given a temporary legal status in 2012.
Also unclear is whether other family ties, such as being married to a U.S. citizen, would qualify somebody for new protections. Illegal immigrants cannot win legal status by marriage unless they return to their home country for a period of years.
The answers to those questions will determine whether up to four million people or as few as just over one million gain protections, according to estimates prepared by the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute, which the White House has consulted.
White House spokeswoman Katherine Vargas said the president hasn’t made a decision or even received recommendations from his cabinet secretaries. “It is premature to speculate about the specific details,” she said. Still, a mid-December announcement of the change is expected by many immigration experts.
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R., Fla.), who tried to move immigration legislation through the House this year, said executive action would amplify distrust among Republicans in Mr. Obama and make legislating harder. “The right’s going to fly off the rails,” he said. “How do you trust someone who says he does not have the legal authority to do something and then does it anyway?” Mr. Obama previously said that his ability to change immigration law on his own was limited.
White House officials also are considering allowing more young people into the 2012 “Dreamer’’ program that grants temporary legal status and work permits to those who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children, according to two people familiar with discussions. Some 580,000 people were enrolled in the program as of June.
No matter how the White House draws the criteria, the number gaining new protections is certain to be less than the eight million or so who would have benefited from legislation that the Senate passed last year, but that died amid GOP opposition in the House.
Any package along these lines is sure to be attacked by Republicans and possibly some Democrats as presidential overreach. Administration officials say they are working to make sure that whatever they do is legally and politically defensible.
One person people familiar with the process said the White House is trying to craft a plan that survives Mr. Obama’s presidency and isn’t so unpopular that a future Republican president could easily reverse it. “It has to be politically sustainable,” this person said.
One of the most politically sensitive questions is whether to include parents of young people in the Dreamer program, known formally as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. These people are among the most politically active in the immigration debate and are demanding that their parents not be left out.
The president “must be inclusive, and he must be broad, to protect as many people as possible,” said Cristina Jimenez, managing director of the group United We Dream. “Any package of administrative reform must include our parents.”
Republicans have said that broad executive action would kill any chance for immigration legislation next year. Democrats reply that chances already are low that the two parties could come to agreement on a bill. Immigration activists are pressing Mr. Obama to take the most sweeping action possible.
The White House also is expected to change criteria used in deciding who is a priority for deportation. It may, for instance, say a traffic violation doesn’t make someone a priority, though other convictions do. The legal rationale is that the administration lacks the capacity to deport all illegal immigrants and has discretion to set priorities.
Other changes are expected to benefit businesses that use large numbers of legal immigrants, such as technology companies. One change under consideration would “recapture” unused visas from previous years in order to make more visas available to such companies, according to one person familiar with the deliberations. This person said that a second change that companies have requested—changing the way visas are counted so that a family unit counts as only one spot toward the limit—is less likely.
This person said the administration is also considering a change that would make it easier for foreign students to stay in the U.S. after graduation while they await employment-based visas.
White House officials are inclined to wait to announce the new policy until after a must-pass spending bill has cleared Congress, to avoid tangling that legislation with any GOP effort to roll back the immigration policy.
Further, the Louisiana Senate race may not be decided until a Dec. 6 runoff, and White House officials want to avoid injecting immigration into any re-election fight by Sen. Mary Landrieu , a Democrat.
It also is possible that the Georgia Senate race will remain unsolved until an early January runoff, but a senior administration official said there is no thought to pushing the announcement into next year. Mr. Obama has repeatedly vowed to act by year’s end.
The pro-amnesty Hispanic activist organization the National Council of La Raza helpfully promoted a Washington Post article explaining which states people can vote in without having to use a photo ID.
“Voter ID laws are at-issue across the country, with newly Republican-controlled legislatures having passed them in numerous states after the 2010 election,” explained The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake. “Most states still request some form of ID, but don’t require it. Another 20 states don’t require identification. In case you’re wondering where your state is at in all of this, a helpful (sic) graphic from the Post’s graphics team.”
So who ended up using the Post’s helpful graphic? The country’s foremost pro-amnesty Hispanic immigrant organization.
The Chicago chapter of Asian Americans Advancing Justice tweeted Blake’s article with the message, “Reminder — #Illinois does NOT require #voterID to cast a ballot,” along with the pro-Democrat hashtag #TurnOutForWhat. The tweet was helpfully retweeted by the National Council of La Raza.
“Could control of the Senate in 2014 be decided by illegal votes cast by non-citizens?” That is the question posed by political scientists Jesse Richman and David Earnest, who answer in a forthcoming article in the journal Electoral Studies: “Most non-citizens do not register, let alone vote. But enough do that their participation can change the outcome of close races.” And, the researchers note, 80% of non-citizen votes go to Democrats.
The estimated percentage of non-citizens voting is small, especially in midterms: “Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010,” Richman and Earnest wrote in the Washington Post. Yet that small percentage “was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections.”
They single out the close election for U.S. Senate in Minnesota in 2008, in which a victory for incumbent Republican Norm Coleman was reversed in a controversial recount that gave the win to comedian Al Franken. Non-citizen votes, they say, could quite easily have been the reason for Franken’s win–and therefore were the reason Democrats could count on a “60th vote” for Obamacare, which passed the Senate in late 2009:
Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes.
The North Carolina State Board of Elections revealed Friday that it looked at data from the N.C. Division of Motor Vehicles and Department of Homeland Security and found that 1,425 are likely non-citizens and therefore ineligible to vote.
Of those non-citizens on the voting rolls, the State Board of Elections confirmed that 109 illegal immigrants who have been shielded from deportation and allowed to obtain work permits and drivers licenses through President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, are included in the voting rolls. They are also ineligible to vote.
The revelation comes with the midterm elections less than two weeks away, including a squeaker U.S. Senate race between incumbent Sen. Kay Hagan (NC-D) and state House Speaker Thom Tillis, a Republican.