GOP Senator Warns of Violence After Obama Immigration Order

WASHINGTON — Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn warns there could be not only a political firestorm but acts of civil disobedience and even violence in reaction to President Obama's executive order on immigration Thursday.

"The country's going to go nuts, because they're going to see it as a move outside the authority of the president, and it's going to be a very serious situation," Coburn said on Capital Download. "You're going to see — hopefully not — but you could see instances of anarchy. ... You could see violence."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ay-capital-download-with-tom-coburn/19263969/

 

They didn't do "basically the same thing". Reagan signed an immigration bill into law in November 1986. The law didn't extend enough protections against deportations to minors of immigrants covered by the law and efforts to amend it failed. The INS announced that minor children of immigrants covered by the law would not be deported but spouses that were not covered would be deported. So Crabby, do you think the U.S. government should take unnaturalized kids out of the hands of their parents and deport them?

The Senate approved an amendment covering the children of legal immigrants in 1989 by a huge margin, but the House did not. In 1990 Bush extended the law to cover children (and others relatives).

Key differences between now and then:

1. Reagan signed a law passed by Congress. Obama is going to take unilateral action.

2. The public mood was (mostly) in favor of changing the status of immigrants so they could be considered legal. The mood today is very divisive, with a majority of people opposing amnesty.

3. The tally on the Senate amendment that was passed in 1989 was 81-17; the tally on the Senate law passed in 2013 was 68-32. In both cases the House did not act.

4. Bush's action was an extension of a law already on the books. Obama will be making a new "law" all by himself.