Mediaboss Marketing

Time and again, the Obama administration has stepped forward with a new initiative on immigration. Time and again, those efforts have encountered difficulty, and time and again the White House has thrown up its hands, said it has done all it can, and tried to move on. And each time, immigration advocates have reacted furiously, successfully pressuring the administration to take back up the banner.

That recurring pattern has led to major shifts in immigration policy over the last three years. When the DREAM Act died in Congress, President Obama instituted a policyDeferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACAthat achieved many of the same goals. When immigration reform foundered in Congress, Obama unveiled an executive action that expanded DACA. (Actually, he promised to do so before the 2014 midterm elections, then flinched, then issued the rule after the election.)

Once again, Obamas initiatives have hit a rough stretch, though. First, in February, federal district Judge Andrew Hanen ruled against the program in a suit brought by Republican officials in 26 states. In addition, he put an injunction against it, meaning the administration couldnt move forward with it while the challenge was ongoing. The administration appealed Hanens decision to the Fifth Circuit, and it separately made an emergency request to the circuit to remove the injunction. On Tuesday, a panel of judges refused to stay the injunction, and on Wednesday the administration quietly said it wouldnt appeal that decision to the Supreme Court.

A Lonely Life for Immigrants in America's Rust Belt

But something strange has happened: Rather than erupt in anger at the White Houses concession, advocates have mostly lined up behind it. Why is this time different?

Part of it is legal strategy. Part of it is politics. But perhaps the largest part of it is a simple matter of trust: For the first time in a long time, the relationship between the White House and immigration advocates seems to be going well.

Obviously, our experience has been like pounding our heads against the wall for the first six years. Increasingly, advocates were seen as opponents rather than folks they could partner with, said Frank Sharry, the executive director of pro-reform group Americas Voice. But now, Sharry said of Obama, Hes earned more trust.

The low point in the relationship came in September 2014, when Obamahaving promised executive action before the electionchanged his mind, bowing to pressure from Democrats in tough races who worried the move would endanger them. Advocates were livid. (Democrats were still pummeled at the polls in November.)

Maybe the relationship just had to hit rock bottom to recover. Advocates were jubilant when Obama finally moved forward in November, and the legal challenge to the rule offered a chance for the White House to demonstrate good faith once again. When Hanen ruled against the administration, the administration appealed the decision to the circuit court. But it also requested an emergency stay of the injunction, asking the court to let it move forward with the changes while the legal challenge moved on.

If they hadnt gone forward after Hanen imposed the original injunction, I think things would have blown up, Sharry said. It was at a moment when we were like, can we trust these guys? DOJ was hemming and hawing about whether they should try to overturn the stay. The White House said, advocates want action. We felt heard. It was a unified call, and they responded.

See the article here:
Obama and Immigration Reform - The Atlantic