The Party Positions on Immigration

Summary

The Political Scene | The New Yorker

Episode: The Party Positions on Immigration

Date: August 21, 2015
Host: Emilia Lester
Guests: Dorothy Wickenden (Host), John Cassidy (Staff Writer), Ryan Lizza (Staff Writer), Jeffrey Toobin (Staff Writer)

---

Overview

This episode of "The Political Scene" revisits the fraught debate over immigration in American politics, sparked by then-candidate Donald Trump but reaching deeper into Democratic and Republican party divisions. The episode features highlights from previous New Yorker discussions, offering historical perspective, legal analysis, and political strategy insights. Key themes include the nature of Obama’s immigration executive actions, Republican responses, public opinion, and the critical role of the courts in shaping the legacy of immigration policy heading into the 2016 election.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Obama’s Immigration Action vs. Past Reforms

[02:27–04:42]

• John Cassidy explains that Obama’s plan closely resembles the Senate bipartisan immigration reform bill, with a key difference: it isn't a law, but an executive action using prosecutorial discretion.
• Obama’s action:
  • Increases border security.
  • Eases restrictions for high-skilled immigrants.
  • Crucially, removes the threat of deportation for approximately 5 million undocumented immigrants with family ties in the US, provided they pay back taxes and have no criminal record.
• While past presidents (Eisenhower, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton) also used executive authority on immigration, Obama’s action is on a much larger scale.

“The biggest one was George H.W. Bush’s 1990 plan… that applied to about 1.5 million people… this is 5 million.” — John Cassidy [04:08]

---

2. Historical Nativism and Contemporary Xenophobia

[04:42–05:54]

• The discussion links current anti-immigrant sentiment to America’s historical pattern of nativism, usually rising during periods of high immigration.
• Notably, the current wave is not matched by historic levels of new arrivals, suggesting it is more about political and cultural anxieties than numbers.
• Right-wing media and politicians amplify these frustrations, tapping into both conservative bases and disaffected Democrats.

“It’s a symptom of a kind of distillation process that’s going on on the right in the United States.” — John Cassidy [05:09]

---

3. Political Strategy: Risks and Rewards for Obama

[05:54–07:39]

• Obama’s move is risky, potentially increasing Republican opposition in Congress.
• However, it's a calculated step to unite and energize the Democratic coalition—especially Hispanic voters—ahead of 2016.
• The strategy could further divide Republicans between hardliners and establishment figures.

“If Democrats are going to win in 2016, they have to put back together the Obama coalition. And now this… gives the coalition something to fight on, something to rile them up.” — John Cassidy [06:56]

---

4. Public Opinion and Partisan Differences

[07:39–08:39]

• Polling shows most Americans, including whites, support legalizing undocumented immigrants, aligning with Obama's substantive policy.
• However, unilateral executive action is less popular, creating a political paradox.

“About 55–60% of people are in favor of the substantive policy, but only between 35 or 40% are in favor of Obama going it alone.” — John Cassidy [08:17]

---

5. Republican Political Calculus

[09:23–10:50]

• Ryan Lizza notes Republicans’ tough stance on immigration hurt them in 2012 but proved beneficial in 2014 midterms in conservative states.
• Despite party leadership calling for reform, the grassroots remains opposed, deepening internal divisions.

“The RNC has put out an entire report talking about how they need to move off this position on immigration. And yet among… the base… it’s one of the most important issues.” — Ryan Lizza [10:12]

---

6. Judicial Roadblocks to Immigration Reform

[10:50–12:42]

• Jeffrey Toobin details how opponents shifted the fight to federal courts, specifically challenging Obama’s executive actions on technical grounds (e.g., the Administrative Procedures Act).
• A conservative Texas judge put the policy on hold, and the subsequent appeals were unlikely to succeed quickly.
• The courts, not Congress, have become the main battleground for major Obama-era policies—including immigration.

“Opponents of President Obama have turned to the courts to try to invalidate as much as possible of the President’s legacy. Part of that involves immigration.” — Jeffrey Toobin [11:03]

---

7. Supreme Court Dynamics and Obama’s Legacy

[12:42–15:42]

• Toobin and Lizza emphasize the role of the Supreme Court: Obama’s appointments haven’t shifted the court’s conservative-liberal balance, so outcomes are uncertain.
• Roberts and Kennedy are seen as pivotal justices, as their concern for the court’s reputation may outweigh partisan leanings in critical cases.
• Obama, meanwhile, focuses on defending his legacy in the courts, resigned to Congressional inaction.

“I think the way to think about Obama’s last two years is that he’s basically given up on Congress.” — Ryan Lizza [14:31] “All sorts of environmental efforts that the Obama administration is doing… will be before the courts.” — Jeffrey Toobin [15:42]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the scale of Obama’s executive action:
  “The Republicans are saying… these previous efforts are not comparable. They were… follow-ups to other immigration bills. It wasn’t what they call a sort of mass amnesty, which is how they describe this here.” — John Cassidy [04:20]

• On the strategic intent behind Obama’s move:
  “It might end up being a bit more of a cannier move than it appears.” — John Cassidy [07:19]

• On the Republican dilemma:
  “If you just look at the demographics and the electoral map, it’s very difficult to see how Republicans can win if they don’t sort of turn this Hispanic thing around.” — John Cassidy [07:23]

• On using the courts to block policy:
  “So opponents of President Obama have turned to the courts to try to invalidate as much as possible of the President’s legacy.” — Jeffrey Toobin [11:05]

---

Key Timestamps

| Time | Segment Description | |-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------| | 01:16 | Introduction and episode theme | | 02:27 | Obama’s action vs. Senate bill—similarities and key differences| | 04:42 | Historical context of nativism and current anxieties | | 05:54 | Obama’s political risks and the split in the GOP | | 07:39 | Public opinion and partisan differences in immigration | | 09:23 | GOP’s political costs and midterm dynamics | | 10:50 | The court battles and Texas judge’s role in halting reforms | | 12:42 | Supreme Court dynamics and Obama’s legacy | | 14:31 | Obama’s pivot to courts and focus on legacy defense |

---

Summary

“The Party Positions on Immigration” pulls back the curtain on the deep divides and political calculations shaping America’s immigration debate circa 2015. The episode navigates Obama’s attempt at reform through executive action, Republican party fault lines, polling paradoxes, and the consequential intervention of the courts. A must-listen for anyone seeking clarity on how immigration became a defining litmus test across partisan lines heading into the crucial 2016 campaign.

Transcript

[A]

As summer draws to a close and the kids go back to school, I know I'm going to want to keep in touch with my kids at a price I can afford. Back to school Shopping can be a hassle, but your phone plan shouldn't be. That's why I made the switch to Mint Mobile. For a limited time, Mint mobile is offering three months of unlimited premium wireless service for 15 bucks a month. So while other parents are sweating overage charges, I have a little bit more room in my budget for cool back to school threads. Say bye bye to your overpriced wireless plan's jaw dropping monthly bills and unexpected overages, Mint Mobile is here to rescue you. All plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text delivered on the nation's largest 5G network. Use your own phone with any Mint Mobile plan and bring your phone number along with all your existing contacts. Dish overpriced wireless and get three months of premium wireless service from Mint Mobile for 15 bucks a month. This year, skip breaking a sweat and breaking the bank. Get this new customer offer and your three month unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a [e-mail] New Yorker that's that's mintmobile.com New Yorker upfront payment of $45 required, equivalent to $15 a month limited time new customer offer for first three months only. Speeds may slow above 35 gigabytes on unlimited plan taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details.

[B]

This is the Political Scene, a weekly conversation with New Yorker writers and editors about politics. It's Friday, August 21st. I'm Emilia Lester, executive editor of newyorker.com There are many colorful expressions that one could use, and many have about Donald Trump. But this week I was particularly taken with a description of the would be Republican president from New York. It came from a piece by kelefer sana on newyorker.com For a time, Kelefer wrote, it seemed that Trump's campaign might be merely a spectacle, albeit a captivating one. But now he seems to have started something even more engrossing substantive political debate. Trump, it turns out, is the only Republican candidate speaking his mind on an issue that most of the field would prefer to avoid. And that issue is immigration. So, taking our cue from Mr. Trump, but with some facts in the mix, we thought we'd take a look back at some of the political scene's most interesting conversations about this very complicated subject. Let's start with John Cassidy and Ryan Lizzo, both New Yorker staff writers, talking about just what the differences are if any, between Democrats and Republicans on this issue. Here's host Dorothy Wickenden.

[C]

John, one of the things I've been wondering is how different Obama's plan is from the immigration reform bill that passed the Senate last year and then was voted down by the House.

[D]

Well, it's actually pretty similar because it's not a bill. As Obama said in his speech, he can't grant formal citizenship or residency. So it's a sort of halfway house to the bill. I would say what Obama is saying, it beefs up border security, which the bill did. It includes some easing of restrictions on people trying to come in who've got higher degrees, which was also part of the original bill. But the meat of it is what's going to happen to the 5 million undocumented aliens or immigrants who got family members who are already either citizens or resident aliens at the moment. They're subject to possible deportation. Obama is basically used his prosecutorial authority as the head of the justice system to say, I'm going to remove that danger of being deported. You're not going to get a permanent residency. There's no formal path to citizenship. But you know, you can carry on with your lives. You can save, you can have families. Nobody's going to come and deport you as long as you pay your back taxes and you haven't got a criminal record.

[C]

There's already a lot of controversy about this use of presidential power. But didn't Eisenhower, Reagan and George H.W. bush all act without congressional authorization to you?

[D]

There's a lot of historical precedents here. I mean, as you said, the president said in his speech that all previous presidents since the war have used their prosecutorial discretion in this way. And that's certainly true. You know, Reagan did it, George H.W. bush did it, Clinton did it.

[C]

And specifically on immigration, well, the right.

[D]

Comeback to that is yes, they did it, but in much smaller scale than this. The biggest one was George H.W. bush's 1990 plan, which was a sort of cleaning up of the 1986 formal immigration bill. And that applied to about 1.5 million people, or it was thought at the time. Actually, it ended up applying to less, but this is 5 million. So it is on a much bigger scale than previous presidents have done. So what the Republicans are saying, look, these previous efforts are not comparable. They were sort of follow ups to other immigration bills. It wasn't what they call a sort of mass amnesty, which is how they describe this here.

[C]

I draw upon your interest in American history, Rick. Interestingly, we're Seeing the kind of nativism now that the country has seen in various periods, but usually when there's been a big boom in immigration. Right. So when the Know Nothing Party emerged in the 1850s, that was as a result of many, many immigrants flooding into the country. Contrary to what Michele Bachmann and others are saying, we're not in the midst of an immigration influx now. So why, why are we seeing this kind of xenophobia?

[D]

It's a symptom of a kind of distillation process that's going on on the right in the United States. I think an awful lot of the, the other tenets of, you might say the Fox News talk radio religion are actually held by relatively few people, but in an intense, pure kind of form, but also with the average frustrated Democrat who complains to his friends, you know, well, I like Obama. I voted for Obama, but damn it, why won't he fight? You know why? He has now given his base some emotional satisfaction and a reason to be back in his corner now that he's got his fists up.

[C]

Also, John, it's a bit of a risk, but he clearly has calculated that this is going to further divide the Republican Party. So we're already seeing the furious conservative Republicans, but there are also more mainstream now more mainstream members of the party, including Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who worry about fanning those flames. And so Graham said, if you overreact, it becomes about us, not about President Obama. So how big a risk is Obama taking politically?

[D]

To the extent that he wants to get anything done in the next year, next couple of years, he is taking a risk because obviously the Republicans will be even more obstreperous in the new Congress. They're already talking about refusing to take up nominations, including Attorney General. But my feeling is that actually this is quite a canny political move because I don't think Obama thinks he can get anything done anyway in the next couple of years. And as you say, this is a way of sort of dividing the Republicans and is sort of a trap for them going into 2016. What we saw in the recent election was that the Obama coalition basically didn't show up at the polls. The young Hispanics, women. If Democrats are going to win in 2016, they have to put back together the Obama coalition. And now this, as Rick says, this gives the coalition something to fight on, something to rile them up. So it might end up being a bit more of a cannier move than it appears. Republicans have known for a decade that they have to reach out more, that they have to reach out to the Hispanics. I mean, that was what Karl Rove and George W. Bush were all about down in Texas, and even when he ran for president. But the party's turned its back on all that now. And if you just look at the demographics and the electoral map, it's very difficult to see how Republicans can win if they don't sort of turn this Hispanic thing around.

[C]

John One of the things that gets lost in all of this is how the American public feels about immigration policy. And the polls are a little bit confusing. But what are the differences, really, when it comes down to it, between Republicans and Democrats on immigration?

[D]

Obama made this speech after the midterms. That would suggest to you that it's an unpopular policy. If it was a popular policy, it would have made it before the midterms. That's the conventional wisdom anyway. But if you look at the polls, actually, there's been two or three done over the last week, and it shows that a majority of people, including a majority of whites, which is quite surprising, support some sort of legal status for the undocumented. That is the Obama policy and the policy which was in the Senate bill. So that's actually a popular policy. What seems to be less popular according to the polls, although it does depend a bit on how you phrase the question, is Obama going it alone? The polls show about 55, 60% of people are in favor of the substantive policy, but only between sort of 35 or 40% are in favor of Obama going it alone.

[B]

America is changing, and so is the world.

[E]

But what's happening in America isn't just the cause of global upheaval.

[D]

It's also a symptom of disruption that's happening everywhere.

[B]

I'm Asma Khalid in Washington, D.C. i'm.

[E]

Tristan Redman in London, and this is the Global story.

[B]

Every weekday, we'll bring you a story from this intersection where the world and America meet.

[E]

Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts.

[B]

That was from November of last year. And now here's Ryan again, this time with Jeffrey Toobin on why Obama went about immigration reform the way he did and what his legacy on the issue might be.

[C]

Okay, Ryan, you got to tell me, didn't Republicans lose the presidential election of 2012 in large part because of their draconian stand on immigration? And don't they suffer politically after each of these threatened or real shutdowns of various parts of the government? This time they're holding out on national security.

[F]

I think that's true on immigration, that the Republican Party has generally the last few years politically has not been beneficial to them to take the sort of hard line stance that was not really true. The exception was, of course, in last year's Senate elections, which took place in a lot of conservative states. And remember, Barack Obama didn't push through those executive actions on immigration because he was worried about the. The impact on the midterms is where it would be bad for the Democrats. But certainly in a presidential year, considering the growth of non whites in the electorate and how well Democrats have done with African Americans and Hispanics, this is a bad position for the Republican Party to be in. The RNC has put out an entire report talking about how they need to move off this position on immigration. And yet among, you know, the base of the party and the most prominent conservatives in the party, it's one of the most important issue. And there's a lot of senators who argue they won back the Senate and kept the House and ran on this issue and that they should stick to their guns and try and reverse Obama's actions, which he implemented after the election was over. And so there's a very messy process.

[C]

Jeff, who is this federal judge in Texas, Andrew Hanan, who is extremely conservative and has well known views on the subject.

[E]

Right. This is, I think, a preview of a theme that is going to be very significant in the last two years of President Obama's term, which is that Congress is paralyzed. They will maybe keep the government open 365 days a year, but that's really about all they will do. So opponents of President Obama have turned to the courts to try to invalidate as much as possible of the President's legacy. Part of that involves immigration. Now, just to talk generally about immigration, There are approximately 11 million people in this country illegally. The Department of Homeland Security has approximately a budget that could attempt to deport about 500,000 of them. So what the President did, he directed the Department of Homeland Security to say, we are not going to attempt to deport the following classes of people. Now, they weren't going to deport them anyway, but he established a policy that said these people are essentially off limits for deportation. 25 Republican states attorneys general, governors went to court. They picked very carefully which judge they went before. They went before this very conservative judge in Brownsville, Texas. And the judge said this policy did not go through the appropriate procedures. Before it was put into effect. The president violated something called the Administrative Procedures Act. So I'm putting the whole thing on hold. That is now the law of the land. So this major Immigration policy of putting some people off limits for deportation is not the law of the land anymore. It's on hold. And the Justice Department has now appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, also very conservative.

[C]

You've written several books where you've addressed in different ways the highly politicized nature of the Supreme Court, which you're saying is more politicized than it's ever been, which is really saying something. But Obama has managed to get two women appointed to the court who reflect his political views. What changes are you beginning to see?

[E]

All that matters in Supreme Court appointments, frankly, is whom they're replacing. And the fact that Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan replaced David Souter and John Paul Stevens means the ideological balance on the court is essentially unchanged. So you have five Republicans, four Democrats, Anthony Kennedy, occasionally in certain issues, gay rights, most notably, siding with the more liberal members. John Roberts surprising everyone, especially me, voting with the four liberals on the Affordable Care Act. And so the question here is, can the Obama position get five votes when this case is argued? And the answer is a resounding maybe, as far as I'm concerned, because I do think John Roberts in particular is concerned about the institutional credibility of the court. And to take four words in this statute and create a genuine crisis in the United States. I mean, this will be a crisis if the plaintiffs win. I'm not sure John Roberts is anxious to see the court cause that kind of chaos. It's not about the Constitution, which applies in every case. It's just about the words of this law. I think there are going to be at least Kennedy and Roberts thinking hard about whether they want to do that.

[C]

So, Ryan, a final word on all this. Obviously, President Obama sees all this coming. What is he doing? What can he do to address any of it?

[F]

I think the way to think about Obama's last two years is that he's basically given up on Congress. And after probably spending too long early in his term trying to to negotiate with Republicans, he's basically now in the other extreme where he has absolutely no interest in trying to negotiate anything except maybe a couple of these trade deals. And his view is to think about his legacy as a lot of presidents do in their last two years, and to protect the stuff he passed in his first term.

[C]

And he's right. But if the Affordable Care act, if it's dismantled by the Supreme Court, what can he do?

[F]

He's going to amount of vigorous legal defense on all those fronts. You know, he's appealed the decision in Texas we talked about, and Obviously they're going fight the ACA case aggressively. It's almost like the last two years, everything has sort of moved to the courts and Congress and Obama, you know, you wouldn't expect anything from them. And I think if there's two big things he wants to get done that will, you know, leave a positive legacy for a second term. One is the nuclear deal with Iran, and two is getting the climate change regulations implemented. But again, once those climate change regulations are also going to be challenged in the court, and that's going to be a focus fight that goes on for a long time after he's gone.

[E]

I think Ryan raises, he raises one, and I just want to raise the other. I think all sorts of environmental efforts that the Obama administration is doing, starting with climate change, but not limited to climate change, will be before the courts. And the other is net neutrality. The FCC passed an important new net neutrality law that is going to be challenged in the courts as well. So that's another. Those are two more areas where the courts will be handling Obama's legacy.

[B]

Jack Jubin is also a staff writer, and that conversation was recorded in February. This has been our end of summer refresher course on an issue that we'll be hearing a lot more about this fall and all the way up to the 2016 election. I'm Emilia Laster and this has been the political scene from the New Yorker. You can subscribe to this and other New Yorker podcasts in the iTunes store. The weekly audio edition of the New.

[E]

Yorker is [e-mail] this podcast is produced.

[B]

By Jill Duboff and Alex barron of new yorker.com I'm Katie Drummond. I'm Wired's global editorial director.

[E]

I'm Michael Colory, Wired's director of consumer Tech and Culture.

[C]

And I'm Lauren Good. I'm a senior correspondent at Wired. And our show Uncanny Valley is all about the people, power, power and influence of Silicon Valley.

[B]

At Wired, we're constantly reporting on how technology is changing every aspect of our lives.

[E]

So each week on the show, we.

[B]

Get together to talk about one of the biggest stories in tech, Right?

[E]

So whether we're talking about privacy, AI, social media, or a major tech figure, we will always explain the Silicon Valley forces behind these stories and how they affect you.

[B]

Make sure you're following Uncanny Valley in your podcast app of choice so you.

[A]

Don'T miss an episode.

[D]

From prx.