Fact check: What comparisons and contrasts can be made between trumps current term and Obama term in regards to both immigration, and performing war acts without congressional approval

1. Summary of the results

## Immigration Policy Comparisons

The analyses reveal stark differences in immigration enforcement priorities between the Obama and Trump administrations. Obama's approach focused on targeted enforcement, prioritizing threats to national security, public safety, and recent border entrants for deportation ^{[1] [2]}. In contrast, Trump's policy dramatically expanded the scope of enforcement, considering all undocumented immigrants as priorities for removal, including those merely charged with or suspected of committing crimes ^{[1] [2]}.

The Bipartisan Policy Center specifically notes that Trump's deportation priorities target "a broader set of unauthorized persons for removal," while Obama's more restrictive approach concentrated on "national security threats, serious crimes, and recent border crossers" ^[2].

## Military Actions Without Congressional Approval

Both presidents have routinely bypassed Congress when authorizing military strikes. Obama conducted bombing campaigns in seven nations in 2016, including Syria and Iraq, without congressional approval ^[3]. Trump's recent strike on Iran's nuclear facilities follows this established pattern of presidential military action without legislative authorization ^{[3] [4]}.

The analyses confirm that presidential military action without congressional approval has become routine, with both administrations justifying their actions through executive power interpretations ^[5]. Obama's 2011 Libya airstrikes serve as a direct precedent for Trump's Iran actions, with both administrations using similar legal justifications through the Office of Legal Counsel ^[4].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial contextual elements:

• The War Powers Resolution of 1973 provides the legal framework that both presidents have operated within, yet this constitutional backdrop is absent from the initial inquiry ^[5]
• Biden administration immigration policies represent a third approach that contrasts with both Obama and Trump, showing the evolution of enforcement priorities across three administrations ^[1]
• Constitutional scholars and legal experts like Lucas Guttentag from Stanford University have provided detailed analyses of how these deportation approaches differ in practice, offering academic perspectives missing from the original question ^[6]
• The political and reputational implications of military actions without congressional approval vary significantly between administrations, with experts noting that consequences are "largely political and reputational" rather than legal ^[5]

Congressional Republicans and Democrats benefit differently from emphasizing either the precedent-setting nature of these actions or their constitutional violations, depending on which party controls the presidency.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains no explicit misinformation but demonstrates significant framing limitations:

• False equivalency potential: By asking for simple "comparisons and contrasts," the question may obscure the fundamental philosophical differences between Obama's targeted enforcement and Trump's comprehensive approach to immigration ^{[1] [2]}
• Temporal bias: The question treats both presidencies as equivalent time periods without acknowledging that Trump's current term policies may still be evolving, while Obama's eight-year record provides a complete historical assessment
• Scope limitation: The focus on only two presidents ignores the broader historical pattern of presidential military action without congressional approval, which extends far beyond these two administrations ^[5]
• Constitutional complexity: The question oversimplifies the legal framework by treating congressional approval as binary, when the reality involves complex interpretations of executive power and the War Powers Resolution ^{[4] [5]}

Defense contractors, immigration enforcement agencies, and political parties all benefit from different framings of these issues, with financial and political incentives shaping how these comparisons are presented to the public.