(Documented) Cigars for Everyone!

by John Patty

In case you've been in a coma, President Obama just made the headlines by (1) deferring prosecution of undocumented immigrants and (2) "normalizing" relations with Cuba.  Wow.  Truly big news---one piece of which that was somewhat expected and the second of which was seemingly the product of divine intervention.  Is this timing chance?

Arguably, no.  And, if the argument along these lines is right, it's pretty deft timing.

I'll keep this post short, because the point, relevant or not, is succinct.  Immigration and Cuba are cross-cutting issues that benefit the Democrats.[1]   The key links here are two: one in the Mischiefs tradition (parties) and the other in "my" tradition (process).

The first link is somewhat obvious (though I haven't seen it made): both actions relate to "South to North" immigration and the politics intertwined therein.  In the end, pro-immigration politics in the US is first and foremost about familial ties: if my relative can't legally immigrate, I think the immigration process is flawed.[2]  To a sizable minority of US citizens, the US/Cuba relationship has been a mere 90 miles more distant than the divide experienced by many people living near "The Bridge" in El Paso everyday.  To be direct about it, President Obama has arguably doubled down on being open borders with these two (deliberately high profile) actions.

That, from a partisan perspective, is important: who knows if President Obama really cares about the 2016 elections, but one might think now that he really does: because his actions are arguably close to a deal-maker in terms of securing a chunk of the Latino vote in the upcoming election(s).  To neuter any objections to this, note that any president of any party could have done either of the things that President Obama has done.

And, arguably even more important is the fact that President Obama's actions make this clear.  Yes, he's a lame duck president with a Congress that is in partisan terms united against him. But, wait...., that equates him with his predecessor, George W. Bush, who was widely and aptly noted for his ability to speak Spanish.  Regardless of intent, Obama---as well known a Democrat as the GOP could "hope" for---has made a "solid X solid" pro-Latino play with these moves.

The second link---process---is at the heart of my argument.  Suppose that a Member of Congress wants to fight either of these moves by President Obama.  After all, as alluded to above, each revolves around executive autonomy that is necessarily conditioned on at least implicit Congressional acquiescence.

I don't want to get too far into the weeds on this one, so I'll note only that the legitimacy/validity of each of President Obama's actions is based on a claim of executive discretion.[3]  Aside from impeachment, the only practical route to rolling either of the actions back---the only practical way to "beating Obama" on these is to either (1) pass a law to the contrary, which is presumably impossible because, well, President Obama has a veto pen, or (2) withhold appropriations from (i.e., "defund") the authorities responsible for implementing the actions.[4]

So, okay Mr. Smarty Pants...this is easy:  defund it!  ....Right?

Wrong.  

You see....Obama did not "double down" on the same horse---the putative political brilliance of the sequence[5] is that the "executive autonomy meets immigration meets compassion" dimension that joins the two decisions also joins two very different electoral bases, each of which is arguably pivotal in subtle but important ways.  The (traditional) pro-immigration bases are located in many states, but perhaps most importantly in Texas.  The Cuban-American base (which is much more complicated and/but also much more politically nimble) has a large and politically potent presence in Florida.

Uh. Oh.  Whassup, Texas Gov Rick Perry and Senator Ted Cruz (R, TX)?  How YOU doin', Former Florida Gov Jeb Bush and Senator Marco Rubio (R, FL)?  Wait, are you guys all considered Presidential Contenders in 2016? And, you're all from the same party?  And, no....IT'S NOT THE PRESIDENT'S PARTY?

Simply put, Obama might have placed four of the stronger presidential contenders from two of the more important states (Texas has lots of money, Florida has lots of money and is plausibly "in play" in electoral terms), each of which has a very large Latino population, in a very tight bind.  If either or both of these actions play well among Latino voters (which I suspect they both might, not to mention cigar smokers), then any attempt by any of the four to actually fight Obama on this move will perhaps make sense in the long term partisan battle for Latino voters' hearts and minds, but will absolutely not redound to the four potential contenders' (presumptive) personal goal of securing the GOP Presidential nomination in 2016.  It's a prisoners' dilemma: if any of the four stand against Obama, his opponent from the same state can stand forward as a favorite son who has just a bit more compassion.

I'm sure that Jeb, who speaks Spanish too, has heard from his brother about the apparent electoral appeal of "compassionate conservatism."

In the end, let's smoke 'em when we get them and watch how this plays out.

_______
[1] Full disclosure: I think these are the right decisions for reasons both political and moral.  That is beside the point, however, if one reads (and I write) the argument correctly.
[2] Anti-immigration politics is---to serve the dish straight---ultimately about fear of the unknown.  That is not intended as a patronizing judgment: a well-functioning democracy revolves around citizens acknowledging and, to best of their ability, assuaging their fellow citizens' fears.  But, in the end, neither "economic" nor "cultural" anti-immigration arguments hold any water.  Nonetheless, that fact does not release us from acknowledging the seeming appeal of those arguments' premises.
[3] The immigration action is (most easily) based on a claim of inherent/implied discretion.  The Cuban action is (as far as I can tell) based on a more explicit Congressional grant of discretion.  Yes, you're right, it's time to move on.
[4] It's kind of fun to imagine how one would actually and effectively defund the immigration action, which (in terms of the political "meat" of the action) is essentially a direction to not prosecute.  Think about it.
[5] Again, I don't know if this was the intent and, frankly, I don't care.  This isn't an homage to Obama.  It's merely a plausible story about the effects of his actions.