Rick Santorum argued earlier this week, with a straight face, that President Obama has “sided with our enemies.” The same day, Santorum also accused the president of engaging in “absolutely un-American activities.”

The New Yorker’s George Packer raised an excellent observation about the way in which these allegations were covered. (thanks to D.K. for the tip)

[T]his kind of gutter rhetoric is so routine in the Republican campaign that it’s not worth a political journalist’s time to point it out. In 2008, when Michele Bachmann suggested that Barack Obama and an unknown number of her colleagues in Congress were anti-American, there was a flurry of criticism; three years later, when a surging Presidential candidate states it flatly about a sitting President, there’s no response at all.

Certain forms of deterioration … become acceptable by attrition, because critics lose the energy to call them out. Eventually, people even stop remembering that they’re wrong…. How many times and ways can you say that the Republican Party has descended into unreality and extremism before you lose your viewers and readers?

There was a point not too long ago when the standards of our discourse included more meaningful norms. Accusing the president of the United States, leading during a time of war and crisis, of “sided with our enemies” and engaging in “un-American activities” was just about the most extreme accusation imaginable.

Indeed, the phrases themselves suggest that the accuser believes the president is literally a traitor, guilty of treason.

The idea that a leading major-party presidential candidate would throw around such rhetoric was, up until very recently, madness. The idea that such a candidate would face no pushback whatsoever, with journalists barely finding it worth mentioning at all, was unthinkable.

But as the Republican Party has become radicalized, such rhetoric has become routine. GOP officials and their allies have no qualms about using labels like “socialist,” “communist,” and even “fascist” — without any regard for what those words actually mean — and after a while, we just roll our eyes. There they go again, accusing Americans they don’t like of sedition, disloyalty, and national betrayal. It must be a day that ends with “y.”

But here’s hoping that the tide will eventually turn, that ridiculous accusations will stop being acceptable by attrition, and that Americans will start remembering that they’re wrong.

We talked yesterday about Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital and the millions it made while crushing a Missouri steel company called GS Technologies. Reuters called the fiasco the “steel skeleton in the Bain closet.”

MoveOn.org has a new video highlighting some of Romney’s victims. One is Donny Box, whom we met on Thursday, and the other is Glen Patrick Wells, who spent a generation at the Kansas City steel mill Romney helped shut down.

“I spent 34 years in this steel mill,” Wells tells viewers. “They walked out of here with millions. They left us with nothing.”

What’s especially noteworthy about Wells is his political background. Greg Sargent talked to him yesterday and found that Wells is a self-identified conservative who voted for Bush and McCain. He’s so disgusted with Romney, though, that he’s willing to work with MoveOn.org.

Greg raised a related point that’s worth watching in the coming months.

As I’ve been saying, the battle to define Romney’s Bain years will be epic, as central to the general election as the war over the meaning of John Kerry’s war service was in 2004. And it’s already looking like there will be a cast of the layoff victims themselves who will be willing tell the story.

Indeed, if Dems have their way, these layoff victims will be this year’s version of the Swift Boat Vets — without the mendacity, that is — materializing out of Romney’s past to set the record straight about this central and defining episode in Romney’s life and career.

Quite right. It’s one thing to hear in the abstract about the mass layoffs Romney is responsible for, it’s something else to see these individuals, hear their stories, and consider their personal consequences after the Republican “job creator” entered their lives.

It’s not just two or three people, either. There’s a long list of Romney victims who will likely be eager to tell voters that if Romney does for America what he did for GS Technologies and companies like it, we’re all in a lot of trouble.

For quite a while, Bill Kristol, The Weekly Standard editor and leading Republican voice, has been pining for new entrants into the Republican presidential field. But this week, the GOP pundit seems to have found a new love — who happens to already be running.

[Rick] Santorum can hope to win. He has been running to win. And after what he pulled off in Iowa, it’s foolish to suggest he doesn’t have a chance to win. His Iowa performance, and his speech Tuesday night, were impressive enough to suggest to primary voters in subsequent states that they should make an effort to judge both his capacity to win and his capacity to govern.

Organizational and financial advantages often prevail. But isn’t the story of America that they don’t always determine the outcome? And, by the way, if the candidate with those advantages does prevail, won’t he be better off for having faced a serious challenger? […]

Santorum — and anyone else in the field, or anyone who may still enter — deserves “an open field and a fair chance” to compete for the “big White House” that Lincoln occupied. All American history is saying, and all we are saying, is … give Rick a chance.

That’s a nice sentiment, and given Kristol’s role in Republican Party politics, his appeal to “give Rick a chance” is pretty interesting. If The Weekly Standard editor starts taking steps to promote Santorum and encourage his political allies to do the same, it might actually have an impact on the race.

But Kristol has to know it would have been infinitely smarter of him to have made this pronouncement, say, two months ago. Four days ago, Romney won Iowa; three days from now, Romney will win New Hampshire. The latest polls show him as the clear favorite in South Carolina. Republicans can “give Rick a chance,” but so long as Republicans are giving Mitt their votes, this race appears to be over.

The only credible avenue left is for the various anti-Romney factions — Kristol and his allies, the religious right, the far-right netroots, etc. — to quickly settle on one candidate and start pushing everyone else out. But so long as Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry are dividing the right, Romney has reason to feel confident.

First up from the God Machine this week is a word from on high as to who will win the 2012 presidential election.

Most of us will have to rely on polling, projections, trends, and some guesswork, at least until the first Tuesday in November, but radical TV preacher Pat Robertson claims to have a direct line to the divine. This week, the televangelist told his national television audience that God whispered the election results in his ear.

“I spent the better part of a week in prayer and just saying, ‘God show me something,’ some things I’ll share with you. I think he showed me the next president but I’m not supposed to talk about that so I’ll leave you in the dark — probably just as well — I think I’ll know who it will be.”

I especially liked the part in which Robertson said he’s “not supposed to talk about that” — as if God spoke directly to the radical TV preacher and said, “OK, I’ll tell you, Pat, but don’t go spreading it around.”

Robertson also told his viewers that God believes President Obama “holds a radical view” of the nation’s direction. So there you have it — pay no attention to the historians and political scientists who note that Obama’s agenda has deep roots in the ideologies of both parties going back generations; Pat Robertson heard the opposite directly from God.

Also from the God Machine this week:

* State lawmakers in Tennessee are working on anti-bullying laws, but want to create a loophole that will allow religious youths to pick on gays.

* Gabino Zavala, an assistant bishop of the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Los Angeles, was forced to resign this week after acknowledging that he has two teenage children. Roman Catholic clergy, of course, are supposed to be celibate.

* Speaking of the Roman Catholic Church, Chicago’s Cardinal Francis George apologized this week for comparing an annual gay rights parade to a Ku Klux Klan rally.

* And an entity called the Church of Kopimism, focused on electronic file-sharing, has been officially recognized as a religion by the Swedish government. (thanks to R.P. for the tip)

Four years ago, John McCain ran into a little trouble when he owned so many homes, he forgot exactly how many and had to check with his staff. Mitt Romney is not quite in the same boat, but the issue does come from time to time.

Take this exchange last night in New Hampshire, for example.

Here’s the transcript for those who can’t watch clips online:

VOTER: I’m a middle class American, like a lot of people here. We’re all hurting, we really are. We New Englanders, we know that you should help your neighbors. It’s a little hard for me because I know you’re a multi-millionaire, I read this morning you have like four houses. Would you be willing to give up some of that so that we middle Americans can get some tax cuts?

ROMNEY: (Laughing) Well, that’s an idea. Okay, that’s right. Um, let’s see. Well, I don’t have four houses, that’s number one — although it’s a good idea, thank you for the idea.

For the record, Romney’s response was correct. He had four houses, but now, he’s been reduced to only three.

There’s the $12 million oceanfront residence in California (the one Romney is quadrupling in size); a $10 million home in New Hampshire; and a townhouse in Belmont, Mass. There’s also the nearby mansion, where one of Romney’s sons lives, and where Romney was registered to vote as recently as last year, but it’s technically not one of the candidate’s houses.

There was also the $5 million ski-house in an exclusive area in Utah, but he sold it in 2010.

Not bad for a guy who jokes about being “unemployed.”

Arguably more important, though, is what followed Romney’s initial response. After clarifying the fact that he doesn’t have four homes, he rejected the question’s premise and dismissed idea that the very wealthy should be asked to pay a little more.

“I know that there are some who say, ‘Let’s just get more money from the higher-income people, let’s just tax them some more.’ And I understand that’s popular in a lot of people’s minds,” Romney said. “But just don’t forget that old Margaret Thatcher line: ‘Sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.’”

I understand the philosophy, but I have a follow-up question for Romney: even if you don’t want to ask the wealthy to sacrifice, is it really necessary to give rich people more tax cuts, while raising taxes on those already struggling?

Today’s edition of quick hits:

* Amazing rescue: “In the middle of a tense standoff between Iran and the United States, the crew of an American destroyer patrolling the North Arabian Sea rescued 13 Iranian fishermen who had been taken hostage by Somali pirates more than a month ago, the Pentagon announced on Friday.”

* Syria: “A bomb tore through a densely populated neighborhood in Damascus on Friday, killing 25 people and wounding dozens more in the second attack in the Syrian capital in two weeks, Syrian television and other state news media reported.”

* Encouraging step: “The Securities and Exchange Commission said on Friday that it was making a major change in how it settles some securities fraud cases, telling companies that they will no longer be allowed to neither admit nor deny the commission’s civil charges when, at the same time, they admit to or have been convicted of criminal violations.”

* A new defense footing: “President Obama has for the first time put his own stamp on an all-encompassing American military policy by turning from the grinding ground wars that he inherited from the Bush administration and refocusing on what he described as a smaller, more agile force across Asia, the Pacific and the Middle East.”

* I think President Obama made a mistake last year when he called for a federal pay freeze. I’m glad to now see him move in a better direction: “President Barack Obama will propose lifting a pay freeze for U.S. federal workers in his budget plan to be unveiled next month to give government employees a 0.5 percent pay rise, a White House official said on Friday.”

* It’s a good thing Obama didn’t listen to Republicans on the auto industry: “Chrysler will add 1,250 jobs at two Detroit factories next year — another sign that the once struggling automaker appears to be making a comeback.”

* An overdue change: “The FBI is changing its long-standing definition of rape for the first time to include sexual assaults on males following persistent calls from victims advocates who claim that the offense, as currently defined in the agency’s annual crime report, has been undercounted for decades.”

* The Obama administration is clearly aware of the progressive criticism over the NDAA bill, and officials have prepared some responses to common concerns.

* The White House launches Summer Jobs+, a worthwhile summer-jobs program that will create “nearly 180,000 employment opportunities for low-income youth in the summer of 2012, with a goal of reaching 250,000 employment opportunities by the start of summer, at least 100,000 of which will be placements in paid jobs and internships.”

* C’mon, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.). I think you’re better than this.

* Liz Cheney will now be paid political commentator for Fox News. What a shock.

* Liberty University, a Virginia school founded by the late televangelist Jerry Falwell, appears to be throwing its support to Newt Gingrich.

* NBC’s “Community” is not yet dead.

* Fox News’ Neil Cavuto wonders whether President Obama can be impeached over his recess appointments. Yeah, give that a shot, Republicans. See how it turns out.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

For the most part, Republicans responded to the good jobs report this morning with quiet bemusement. They don’t want to say it’s encouraging, because Republicans don’t want to give the impression that the economy is improving. GOP officials and candidates don’t want to seem discouraged either, for fear of looking like they’re rooting against the country.

One Republican presidential candidate tried to split the difference.

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, campaigning in New Hampshire, managed to claim credit for Republicans.

Santorum, who has harshly criticized Obama on the economy, said he was “very gratified” that hiring had picked up but suggested the boost was tied to voters’ optimism that a Republican would win the White House. “There’s a lot of concern still,” he added. [emphasis added]

Oh my.

I rather doubt even Santorum believes this, but in case anyone’s inclined to accept such nonsense, the idea that employers would start hiring hundreds of thousands of workers in December 2011 based on vague political expectations about the party of a president who might take office in January 2013 is … how do I put this gently … stark raving mad.

I’m not unsympathetic to the GOP’s plight here. When someone sees a strong political benefit to economic suffering, it’s hard to know what to say when an economic recovery starts to pick up steam.

But that’s hardly an excuse for Santorum’s nonsense.

After catching Mitt Romney repeating another obvious falsehood, Greg Sargent noted this afternoon, “I know this risks getting boring and predictable, but we really should document them all.”

That’s a good idea. In fact, I’m thinking about starting a new feature for Friday afternoons, highlighting the Republican frontrunner’s most offensive falsehoods from the previous week. I’m thinking about making it a Top 5 list, but I suppose some weeks, it might be a Top 10 list.

Let’s take a look at this week’s contenders.

1. Romney campaigning in Iowa on Sunday: “[W]hen the president went around at the beginning of his term and apologized for America around the world, it made us just heartsick.”

He’s lying; the president never apologized for America. Romney knows this, but he keeps making the claim anyway.

2. Romney on Fox News on Tuesday: “I’ve still got the same positions on the issues I had four years ago. My record as governor and my positions are pretty darn conservative.”

That’s not even close to being true.

3. Romney talking about his jobs record on Fox News on Tuesday: “[At Bain Capital], we helped create over 100,000 new jobs.”

Actually, no, he didn’t.

4. Romney in New Hampshire on Wednesday said President Obama seeks “a ‘European-style welfare state’ to redistribute wealth and create ‘equal outcomes’ regardless of individual effort and success.”

This isn’t just a lie, it’s also “Glenn Beck-level insane.”

5. Romney in a new campaign ad airing in South Carolina: “The National Labor Relations Board, now stacked with union stooges selected by the president, says to a free enterprise like Boeing, ‘You can’t build a factory in South Carolina, because South Carolina is a right-to-work state.’ That is simply un-American. It’s political payback of the worst kind.”

Romney has said this before, and he’s been told every time, he’s lying.

Honorable mention: Romney continues to make wildly misleading comments about the president’s jobs record, too.

The hosts of CBS’s “The Early Show” this week seemed taken aback when Newt Gingrich called Romney “a liar,” prompting the disgraced former House Speaker to say they shouldn’t be “shocked” given Romney’s constant dishonesty.

As lists like these help demonstrate, Gingrich has a point.

Postscript: I plan to have another installment next Friday afternoon, but if you come across Romney whoppers and want to share them, feel free to email me.

A year ago, congressional Republicans were an exuberant bunch. Riding high after massive midterm gains, and with President Obama’s approval ratings faltering, GOP leaders and rank-and-file members felt very good about themselves, their standing, their agenda, and their future.

A year later, Republicans aren’t smiling quite as often. Thanks to their style of “leadership,” the GOP-dominated Congress has seen the bottom fall out of its public support, while Obama’s numbers steadily improve. Republicans haven’t gotten anything done, and probably won’t have anything to show for the entire Congress by the end of the year.

This has not gone unnoticed by the GOP lawmakers themselves, and Jake Sherman reported late yesterday that Republicans are now fighting amongst themselves over just about everything.

A year to the day since Ohio’s John Boehner and 87 eager freshmen took Washington by storm, House Republicans are bruised from battle, irritated with each other and have lost trust in their leadership.

The president whose agenda they came to Washington to stop is vowing to spend the year scoring political points against Republicans now, and they don’t have much leverage against him. […]

All told, the House Republicans are going into 2012 weaker and more divided than when they took control of the chamber a year ago. […]

Around the leadership circle — comprising Boehner, Cantor, Whip Kevin McCarthy and their allies — there’s more disunity, grumbling and finger-pointing than there has been all year.

Reading the piece, I’m not at all clear how this gets better. The party doesn’t have a policy agenda, per se, and has no credible shot at completing a legislative wish list. There’s no strategy, no message, and no policies that (a) enjoy broad caucus-wide support; and (b) might stand a chance of passing.

There are disagreements among the rank and file, among the leaders, between the leaders and the rank and file, and between House Republicans and Senate Republicans. Within the caucus, there’s reportedly “a growing deficit of trust.”

Not only is this a recipe for failure, it’s also the kind of dynamic that may ultimately put John Boehner’s job in jeopardy.

For what it’s worth, the piece has a tidbit of good news: apparently House Republicans just want to get the payroll-tax-cut fight out of the way, and don’t intend to re-litigate the fight that proved to be fiasco for the party in December. That suggests the one item on the White House’s 2012 to-do list may come together after all.

Regardless, House Republicans will gather for a Baltimore retreat later this month to ponder a course for the rest of the year. By all accounts, their discussion will be ugly.

Congressional Republicans hoped pro-forma sessions every third day on Capitol Hill would prevent President Obama from making recess appointments. It didn’t — the president decided these sessions were a sham preventing him from using his constitutionally-mandated powers.

Some credible observers have made the case that Obama overstepped his authority on this one. To crudely summarize the argument, it’s up to the legislative branch, not the executive branch, to decide when Congress is and is not in session. If lawmakers want to use pro-forma sessions to prevent a recess, it’s not up to the White House (any White House) to say the faux sessions don’t count.

It’s not a bad argument, but Laurence Tribe, a Harvard constitutional scholar, is more persuasive today making the case that Obama was correct to ignore “these sham sessions,” strike a “badly needed blow for checks and balances,” and do so with the support of both “the text and the original purpose of the recess appointment clause.”

Its aims, as Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 67, included facilitating appointments “necessary for the public service to fill without delay.” Although the main concern in 1789 involved difficulties of travel that kept a recessed Senate from acting swiftly, the broad imperative retains modern relevance, even when the Senate engineers its own unavailability.

Past practice also points the way. Presidents have long claimed, attorneys general have long affirmed and the Senate has long acquiesced to the president’s authority to make recess appointments during extended breaks within a Senate session. In 1905, the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded that “recess” referred to periods when, “because of its absence,” the Senate could not “participate as a body in making appointments” — a definition that precludes treating pro forma sessions as true breaks in an extended recess.

Since 1867, 12 presidents have made more than 285 such appointments, without constitutional objection by the Senate. And attorneys general going back to Harry M. Daugherty in 1921 have held that the Constitution authorizes such appointments.

Tribe added that this power could be abused, and shouldn’t be exercised “whenever the Senate breaks for lunch,” but presidents can resort to these appointment “in instances of transparent and intolerable burdens on his authority.”

And as Jonathan Cohn argues today, the Republican reliance on a nullification strategy, refusing to allow existing government agencies to function by blocking votes on their staff, offers just such an example. The GOP, Cohn explained, is “undermining duly passed laws they don’t like but can’t repeal,” and that’s untenable.

The natural question is whether I’d feel differently if this were a conservative president circumventing a progressive Congress. The details of all circumstances matter, of course, but I feel entirely comfortable saying that nullification is always wrong and constitutionally offensive, no matter which party is trying it.

I’d add, by the way, that the center-right Washington Post editorial board also agrees with the Obama White House’s move, as does Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.). Indeed, the entire basis for the president’s decision was spelled out months ago by Bush/Cheney lawyers.

It does not, in other words, have to be considered a partisan argument.

It’s a familiar story: Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital takes over a company, the company is ruined, and Romney and his investors make millions. But few of these stories look worse than the circumstances surrounding GST in Kansas City.

Reuters reports today on the “steel skeleton in the Bain closet” — a Missouri steel company called GS Technologies, which had been operating since 1888. Romney and his team took over in late 1993, and the only folks who benefited were at Bain Capital. (via T.O.A.)

Less than a decade later, the mill was padlocked and some 750 people lost their jobs. Workers were denied the severance pay and health insurance they’d been promised, and their pension benefits were cut by as much as $400 a month.

What’s more, a federal government insurance agency had to pony up $44 million to bail out the company’s underfunded pension plan. Nevertheless, Bain profited on the deal, receiving $12 million on its $8 million initial investment and at least $4.5 million in consulting fees.

Romney ruined plenty of companies, and laid off thousands of American workers, but what makes the GST story especially interesting is that bailout.

[Romney’s] supporters say the pension gap at the Kansas City mill was an unforeseen consequence of a falling stock market and adverse market conditions. But records show that the mill’s Bain-backed management was confronted several times about the fund’s shortfall, which, in the end, required an infusion of funds from the federal Pension Benefits Guarantee Corp.

The Republican took a chance on a company and decimated it. The workers lost; the community lost; and when GST needed federal intervention, the taxpayers lost*. But Romney and his investors still took home millions.

This is, incidentally, the same business failure featured in the new MoveOn.org ad, which we discussed yesterday.

Steel worker and Army veteran Donny Box worked at that mill for 32 years. “We lost our jobs, they made millions,” Box says in the ad. “Mitt Romney wants to call himself a ‘job creator’? Mitt Romney doesn’t care about jobs. He cares about money.”

Update/Correction: upyernoz argues persuasively that the Pension Benefits Guarantee Corp. relies on a business’ funds for unfunded pension liabilities. It’s a good point.

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that won’t necessarily generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* Who won the Iowa caucuses? Probably Mitt Romney, but in light of some minor discrepancies, we’re not entirely sure.

* The Boston Globe, ostensibly Romney’s hometown paper, endorsed Jon Huntsman in New Hampshire’s Republican presidential primary. (The Globe is widely read in the Granite State.) Four years ago, the paper’s editorial board also snubbed Romney, endorsing John McCain.

* With Huntsman’s back against the wall, the pro-Huntsman super PAC is spending another $300,000 on television ads in New Hampshire. The Our Destiny super PAC is believed to be largely financed by the former governor’s wealthy father.

* Newt Gingrich told voters yesterday that if he’s able to speak to the NAACP as president, he’ll “go to their convention, talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps.”

* Rick Santorum reportedly raised $2 million in two days for his presidential campaign. There’s no way he’ll keep up that pace, but it gives his campaign a fighting chance in the short term.

* On a related note, Santorum is fighting for a decent showing in New Hampshire, but he’s also looking ahead — the former senator’s campaign is making a big ad buy in South Carolina.

* Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) believes he’s very likely to face a recall election in June. I think he’s right.

* Will North Carolina Gov. Bev Perdue (D) face a primary challenge from state Rep. Bill Faison (D)? It appears to be a distinct possibility.

* John McCain accidentally endorsed the president yesterday, telling a group of voters, “I am confident, with the leadership and the backing of the American people, President Obama will turn this country around.” He corrected himself soon after.

There was a bizarre scene on the House floor a couple of weeks ago, when Democratic lawmakers tried to bring up a bill, and House Republicans simply shut down the chamber. When Dems tried to at least have their say on the issue, GOP leaders shut off the cameras.

This morning, we saw a nearly-identical display.

The House is holding pro-forma sessions, apparently in the hopes of blocking President Obama’s recess-appointment power (which he’s choosing to exercise anyway). Since the chamber would be open for business anyway, Assistant House Minority Leader James Clyburn (D-S.C.) decided he’d make some remarks about the payroll tax break.

But like two weeks ago, House Republicans refused to let him speak, banged the gavel, left the room, and again turned off the cameras.

The result is an odd GOP argument. When President Obama wants to raise the debt ceiling, congressional Republicans respond, “You can’t do that; we’re not in session.” When the White House wants to make recess appointments, congressional Republicans respond, “You can’t do that; we are in session.” And when James Clyburn wants to say a few words from the House floor, congressional Republicans respond, “You can’t do that; we’re not in session.”

I realize there have been some interesting legal, procedural, and semantics debates this week over what is and is not a “recess.” But if Republicans could just pick a line and stick with it, the discussion would be far more coherent.

For thousands of American families, this reform will have a tremendous impact.

Obama administration officials announced on Friday that they will propose a fix to a notorious snag in immigration law that will spare hundreds of thousands of American citizens from prolonged separations from immigrant spouses and children.

The change that immigration officials are offering would benefit United States citizens who are married to or have children who are illegal immigrants. It would correct a bureaucratic Catch-22 that those Americans now confront when their spouses or children apply to become legal permanent residents.

Although the tweak that officials of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services are proposing appears small, immigration lawyers and advocates for immigrants say it will make a great difference for countless Americans. Thousands will no longer be separated from loved ones, they said, and the change could encourage Americans to come forward to apply to bring illegal immigrant family members into the legal system.

As the L.A. Times report explained, under the status quo, those in the country illegally are expected to leave to apply for a green card. “Depending on how long they’ve lived in America, once they leave they are barred from returning for up to 10 years. They can claim that their absence would pose a hardship for their spouse or parent and ask the Department of Homeland Security to waive the re-entry restrictions. But to do that, they must first travel to a consular office abroad and begin a process that can take months or even years, experts say.”

What’s more, those waivers are often extremely difficult to get, leading to mass separations of families for several years.

Here’s what we’ll see going forward.

Now, Citizenship and Immigration Services proposes to allow the immigrants to obtain a provisional waiver in the United States, before they leave for their countries to pick up their visas. Having the waiver in hand will allow them to depart knowing that they will almost certainly be able to return, officials said. The agency is also seeking to sharply streamline the process to cut down the wait times for visas to a few weeks at most.

Charles Kuck, an immigration lawyer in Atlanta who is a former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, told the NYT, “This will open up a huge door to bring a large number of people into the light. There are hundreds of thousands of people who came to the United States illegally who are married to U.S. citizens who have not taken advantage of the waiver that is currently available. This changes their lives.”

Ideally, this would be part of a larger immigration-reform initiative, but the White House believes — correctly — that such an effort is impossible given Republican extremism and the results of the 2010 midterms.

Obama administration officials are therefore left to use their regulatory powers to take incremental steps.

That isn’t to say this is a small improvement. On the contrary, for those affected, it’s a critical breakthrough.

As for the politics, the White House’s move is likely to win praise from Latino voters — a key 2012 constituency — many of whom are already looking at the Republican alternative with warranted disdain.

* edited for clarity