75 thoughts on “Obama’s Unconstitutional Immigration Ploy”
I can’t wait for the incredible prosperity we’ll have after this. 5%? 10%? GDP growth for years!
Too bad my blue-collar friends will miss out on the prosperity. I imagine some programmers will lose their jobs to the Indians who are here illegally. It would be wonderful schadenfreude for Jim to lose his job to a newly-annointed green card programmer.
Your “blue-collar friends” are not missing out because more people are here. They are missing out because the Democrat’s regulatory state is stopping them from working a thousand different ways.. Nothing to do with immigrants, legal or illegal. The formula is simple. People * Freedom = Wealth. The only limiting factor in how many people we can have is food, and that’s not an American problem, is it? Until we hit that limit, more people means more customers for your blue-collar friends……..
“Your “blue-collar friends” are not missing out because more people are here. They are missing out because the Democrat’s regulatory state is stopping them from working a thousand different ways.. Nothing to do with immigrants, legal or illegal. ”
While I agree with People * Freedom = Wealth, the fact is that Freedom is missing. UNTIL that changes, new people use up the scarce resource of jobs. So while youwork on restoring Freedom, you have to take care of citizens first.
If your is Freedom, then you need to let citizens take care of themselves. Kind of the point of Freedom…..
I don’t think you are getting my point:
While we work to restore freedom, we have to artificially adjust the skewed market which takes jobs away from legal citizens.
But labor prices are mediated by supply and demand, just like goods and services.
I certainly agree with you that the regulatory state is keeping labor prices down (healthcare anyone?), but I don’t believe that a greater demand for food is the only variable to consider. Those same people would be eating in their own country, and we ship a lot of food overseas.
Our borders are quite transparent to Trade, and have been since the founding. They are affecting Labor Pricing wherever they are. Better to have them here, building up and improving our country, then enriching the Communist Chinese……
It would be wonderful schadenfreude for Jim to lose his job to a newly-annointed green card programmer.
As it happens I’m self-employed, and my software competes with products developed all over the world. As it happens I did sponsor an employee for an H1-B visa and then a green card, and now he’s a U.S. citizen. He’s a great programmer and human being, and the U.S. is lucky to have him.
And he got here legally. Good for him.
“As it happens I did sponsor an employee for an H1-B visa and then a green card, and now he’s a U.S. citizen. He’s a great programmer and human being, and the U.S. is lucky to have him.”
You mean to say that with all the skilled, out-of-work, legal American citizen programmers, you thought it would be swell to import one?
If you couldn’t find one then you either didn’t look very hard, or maybe your pay scales and bennies would only appeal to a programmer from a 3rd world hellhole.
I believe the timing of the amnesty announcement was specifically chosen to occur just prior to the Ferguson grand jury decision. Any chaos from the amnesty announcement today will be drowned out by the chaos of Ferguson on Saturday
Hey, this is one of the more Constitutional things he’s done. This was not the way to do it, but the President does have the Constitutional power to Pardon, and the Constitution really doesn’t limit that power. The Constitution also forbids “double jeopardy”. So he can pardon all the “illegal immigrants”, and until they cross the border again, they are immune to prosecution for the “crime” of crossing the border without papers.
Can he pardon a criminal who has not been tried let alone convicted?
That would appear to be the “Reprieve” part of the Pardon Power……
I don’t believe the executive order is anything like a pardon. Rather, it’s a set of policies and guidelines to federal law enforcement as to how they should handle illegal aliens (basically be ignored and let go) and orders to agencies to issue papers the equivalent of green cards to illegal aliens. Law enforcement will then be required to treat the papers as authorization for the person to remain in this country. Of course, the policies and guidelines will be completely counter to established law.
Illegal aliens will still be technically breaking US law, but if no one enforces the law, is that the same as granting them a pardon? In some ways yes, in other ways no.
The executive orders can be re-issued with the next administration where enforcement of existing law can be re-invoked. However, the administration is betting that enough inertia will be established that at a practical level, enforcement will become a moot issue because of the disruption to society if it is attempted (ie. riots and other chaos). The other danger is that liberal court appointees can also use lack of enforcement of existing law by the Obama administration as a justification for preventing enforcement in the future under some sort of fairness doctrine. Precedent in this area has been set before by courts, but I forget the details.
No one really knows how this will play out in the long run. That is where the danger really lies. We could be on the verge of creating an executive branch with the consent of the courts and legislature to operate outside the boundaries of established law. With the executive branch functioning as lawmaker, judge, jury and executioner, what purpose do the other two branches serve in our government?
“Can he pardon a criminal who has not been tried let alone convicted?”
Ford pardoned Nixon.
And Carter mass pardoned soo many Draft Dodgers……
How the country reacts over the next few months to this usurpation of power by the executive branch will be the best indication as to whether the American experiment with democracy will survive much longer. If it is demonstrated that dictators and strongmen can be elected into office and cease legislative responsibilities, we are only one step above Latin American banana republics and descending rapidly.
The country hardly reacted at all when George H.W. Bush did the same thing with his “Family Fairness Program” in 1990. Have we been a banana republic ever since?
Yes, that is the moment in which the U.S. became a major exporter of bananas . . .
GHWB didn’t do the same thing, Jim. Are you ignorant or dishonest, or both?
Bush Sr. protected 40% of the undocumented immigrant population from deportation by executive order. Obama is expected to protect 40% of the undocumented immigrant population from deportation by executive order.
Since Jim’s a Leftist, I’m going to guess “Both,” Rick.
He’s counting on that assumed stupidity, because I expect any requirements for duration of living in the USA, and to pay for background checks or pay fines will be hollow. I expect DHS will be unofficially directed to implement an immediate Shall Issue process for all applications. In other words, there will be no pre-approval investigation to determine if an applicant actually lived in the apartment listed on a photocopy of a rent-paid receipt from 2009 or earlier. And personal checks will be accepted for background checks or other fees. I expect DHS won’t wait until a check clears to approve an application. If the check bounces, DHS will mail a bill the applicant knows he/she can ignore.
By the time James O’Keefe or others penetrate the deceptions, it will be too late. Millions of applications will have been approved and documents issued. The “stupid” general populace will have been played again by Mr. Obama.
If there are requirements for duration of residency, then many new jobs will be created generating fake utility bills and other supporting documents. This happened before with a previous amnesty.
LarryJ,
Yup. Luis Gutierrez has been on Fox News several times this week, claiming there will be a rigorous process (my term- cannot recall his exact words), requiring applicants to submit fingerprints, proof of length of living in USA, and payment of the cost of a background check. Sounds good, but so did, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.”
Unless the southern border is sealed, there will be a rush of people to get in on the President’s deal. They’ll be willing and ready to pay a lot for faked receipts for rent, or faked proof of receiving some payment or service.
This is purely a political play (turn Texas, Colorado, Nevada, etc. Blue) and an ego trip for Mr. Obama.
I keep reading how the courts will be reluctant to get involved in a fight between the executive and legislative branch of the government. What the hell? Isn’t that the primary responsibility of the courts?
No. The primary responsibility of the courts is to judge the laws, aka, to be courts. The “fight between the executive and legislative branch of government” is, at best, an afterthought (Really, invented whole cloth by the Supreme Court in “Madison vs. Mayberry”). And a very tricky one, since FDR cowed the Supreme Court into allowing Congress to delegate it’s lawmaking power to the Executive branch (Which is the whole point of “alphabet soup” agencies. Executive, Legislative, and Judicial power in one tight, uncountable package.).
Obama will have to claim the constitution and other laws give him the authority to issue green cards counter to established law. The legislature will argue against that claim. Judging the validity of that claim is completely within the purview of the courts. Granted, the courts have limited, if any, ability to enforce their decision, but they do have a role to play.
Given the makeup of the courts these days, who really knows where they might come down on Obama’s claims. And if courts ruled against him, I can easily see Obama making a similar statement attributed to Andrew Jackson regarding the Worcester v. Georgia court ruling: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”
“Only after Republicans took control of the House did Obama return to immigration, and then only to score political points among Hispanic voters at the GOP’s expense. The White House has already made several unilateral changes to immigration policy, nibbling at the edges, while doing nothing to work across the aisle on a comprehensive solution.”
I agree with Morrissey that this has noting to do with solving the immigration issues and has everything to do with political points. As Morrissey said – for 2 years Obama had a filibuster-proof congress all to himself and could have passed immigration reform in whatever form he wanted and the GOP could not stop him in any way.
He didn’t do that.
So, in the same way that Blacks have suffered under Obama – his using them as a political wedge rather than a group of human beings to be helped – he’s ding the same to Hispanics. They will find themselves under the bus along with the Black folks.
Agreed, the motivations behind this are about politics rather than actually solving any problems. However, it is not a given that Obama will ultimately succeed in winning the politics of the situation. By following Obama, the Democrats are taking a huge risk and I hope they are banished to the political wilderness because of it.
Hispanics have greatly different and varied historical experiences coming to this country than the Blacks. This makes them much more diverse and they will be much more difficult for the Democrats to treat as a single monolithic entity, as they have treated the Blacks. Although the majority still votes for Democrats, I don’t believe this voting is nearly as culturally ingrained or reflexive as it is with blacks. The inroads that Hispanics are making into the GOP are a sign of this.
As Morrissey said – for 2 years Obama had a filibuster-proof congress all to himself
That is a common myth. Obama only had 60 votes for six months, between Al Franken being sworn in on July 7, 2009 and Scott Brown being elected January 19, 2010. And during that period Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd were frequently unavailable due to ill health.
The Senate doesn’t move quickly even when one party has 60 votes. It isn’t surprising at all that the Democrats weren’t able to bring immigration reform or cap and trade up for a Senate vote during a six month period that was largely dominated by debate over health care reform.
He could have done it. But he didn’t want to do it.
The Senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill. John Boehner could have brought it up for a vote, but he didn’t want to.
So what? Has any Speaker or Senate Majority Leader brought every single bill passed by the other chamber to a vote in his/her chamber?
“The Senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill. ”
Why not work with the other party to come up with something that can be supported by every rather than just far left open borders militant Democrat activists?
Do you actually believe the Democrat made any efforts to work with Republicans? If so, you got grubered again.
Do you actually believe the Democrat made any efforts to work with Republicans?
So? Democrats lost 10 Senate seats. What have Democrats actually done to compromise with Republicans? What actions has the President taken to work with Republicans in the House?
Obama does not bargain in good faith. He is unethical and untrustworthy. Rather than dictate what the House should do, he should take incremental steps to build trust that he won’t throw any deal under the bus the first chance he gets. Obama needs to rebuild his credibility and stop stabbing people in the back.
“The Senate doesn’t move quickly even when one party has 60 votes.”
They didn’t even try. Actually getting something done with the other party would take away Democrats favorite method of attacking their political opponents. Same reason whey Democrats did not support Miguel Estrada or immigration reform under Bush.
How hard has the GOP worked to address this problem? How many immigration reform bills has John Boehner allowed to get a vote in the House since he took the speaker’s gavel four years ago?
How hard has the GOP worked to address this problem? How many immigration reform bills has John Boehner allowed to get a vote in the House since he took the speaker’s gavel four years ago?
Immigration is not a top priority to the American population. It is only now a priority to Obama, when he is officially a lame duck with a lame duck Congress. That’s does not suggest a priority for Democrats. Keystone XL polls higher than immigration and the Senate Democrats just gave the finger to the American people on Keystone, and while they are impotent on Immigration, will none the less support the President’s middle finger to the citizenry.
“How hard has the GOP worked to address this problem?”
How hard have Democrats? Democrats are not willing to compromise because if nothing gets done, it serves their interests. Democrats don’t want to deal with fixing our legal immigration system. This is why Obama wants executive amnesty, so the immigration problem keep getting worse and remains a political issue that Democrats can spin on race.
You notice there is zero talk out of Democrats about fixing the system, just amnesty.
Democrats don’t want to deal with fixing our legal immigration system.
They had 6 years to do this, and it was never done. Only now, when they are lame ducks, do they think this is a big deal, while the American people do not.
“That is a common myth. Obama only had 60 votes for six months”
And therefore you destroy your own argument. Thanks for saving me the time.
Indeed. Elsewhere, Jim likes to note that a bipartisan bill passed with 68 votes, so Obama and the Democrats could have gotten enough votes, had they only reached across the aisle when they had all the power. Now they lost both sides of Congress and are demanding Republicans reach across to strike a deal on an issue the majority of the Americans neither care about nor want.
What is Obama doing? Doesn’t he realize that America needs this terrorized underclass living on wage levels below those that real American’s would accept, to underpin the economy?
Merits of the action aside, he’s doing whatever the hell he wants to do, regardless of its constitutionality or legality.
What he — and 70 Senators, and most of the House — want to do is give undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship. But it wouldn’t be legal for him to do that, so he isn’t doing that. Instead he’s only doing what the law lets him, giving a subset of those immigrants protection from deportation so they don’t have to live like wanted criminals.
No, Jim, what he’s doing is giving criminals free rein.
I wouldn’t call the average illegal immigrant a criminal, even though they did break the law coming here. But Obama is literally giving criminals free rein though by releasing illegal immigrants that have committed crimes, other than crossing the border, into the public.
There is not discretion in Obama’s policy of proprietorial discretion.
Correction, it was 68 Senators who voted for the Senate immigration reform bill, 54 Democrats and 14 Republicans.
How many of those Democrats will still be Senators in February? Doesn’t side like the American people agreed with those Democrats, so I see no reason at all to make immigration reform a priority other than to satisfy Democrat fundraisers.
“Instead he’s only doing what the law lets him, giving a subset of those immigrants protection from deportation so they don’t have to live like wanted criminals.”
That’s against the law.
The law says to deport them.
It’s one thing to claim you don’t have the resources to fight a crime. But that doesn’t mean the crime becomes not-a-crime nor does it mean it ought to be rewarded.
You are one sick twisted puppy
So for you, the end justifies the means. Great.
What’s wrong with the means? Immigration law gives the President this authority.
“What’s wrong with the means?”
The dishonesty for one. Obama and the Democrats want open borders but they can not make the case in the open so they gruber the American public. Then there is the racist angle where Democrats teach racism against white people and think they are importing a group of people that will be sympathetic to that message. What Democrats fail to notice, is that ideology is not skin deep. Being born a certain color does not predestine someone to follow an ideology.
Younger generations are more likely to be mixed race and the racism of the Democrat party doesn’t appeal to them as much because they don’t hate either of their parents. Their life experiences are at odds with the racial stereotypes inculcated by the Democrat party. With each interracial marriage and adoption, the tools of the Democrat party are weakened. Which is why they freak the f out anytime a Republican has a mixed race relationship or child.
So do you support protecting law-abiding undocumented immigrants from deportation? Or do you think it’s better for them to live under that threat? Do you object to what Obama is doing, or just how he is doing it?
“Or do you think it’s better for them to live under that threat? ”
They don’t live under threat. The only way they would ever attract the attention of law enforcement is if they broke some other law. There are tens of millions of illegal immigrants and only tens of thousands deported. Those deported are usually caught in the act of crossing the border.
“Do you object to what Obama is doing, or just how he is doing it?”
Both. He isn’t working to fix the legal immigration system so what he is doing now is a waste of time. He controls all the government agencies and has the power to write regulations but he isn’t using them to fix the long term problems our system has. Because he doesn’t want the problem to go away. He views racial agitation and identity politics as a benefit to him and the Democrat party.
I want the legal immigration system fixed. I don’t favor open borders but I do favor organized immigration from all over the globe. I want people to move to the USA who want to be Americans, who respect our culture, respect the people who live here, who share our ideals, and who are capitalists.
I don’t want to see citizenship forced on people who’s loyalty lies with another country but I would like these people to be able to come and work or visit our country. I don’t want Democrats to import La Raza racists to foment racial hatred and who view other Americans as the source of original sin in humans and who need to be punished.
I was really offended when MY President said that Hispanics needed to vote for Obama in order to punish a race of people that Obama views, and he hopes Hispanics view, as an enemy. Its disgusting. This is the type of crap we should have left behind a hundred years ago.
The only reason the President has any authority to do anything is the US Constitution. If he’s operating outside the constitution, he has no authority. IL-LEG-AL. Liar.
“Doesn’t he realize that America needs this terrorized underclass ”
Hate to break it to you but illegal immigrants from South and Central America are not a terrorized underclass. They receive very good treatment and the people who object to amnesty do so because they want the laws to be obeyed and the system fixed and not because they hate immigrants legal or otherwise.
These Reagan and Bush 41 executive actions were obviously different than what Obama is doing now. They were trying to implement a complicated amnesty that Congress had already passed. Congress’ action was a form of immigration relief that obviously fit within our constitutional system. Moreover, Congress left a gap when it came to immediate family members, including minor children, of individuals who qualified for the amnesty. Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 forbore from deporting people in that select group.
Obama is clearly contravening both ordinary practice and the wishes of Congress—as expressed in statute—by declaring an amnesty himself. This is nothing like Reagan’s or Bush’s attempts to implement Congress’ amnesty. Obama, in contrast to Reagan and Bush 41, is not trying to implement a lawfully created amnesty. There has been no congressional amnesty. In fact, there has been no immigration action from Congress in the past few years except the post-9/11 REAL ID Act of 2005, which made it harder, not easier, for aliens to qualify for immigration relief. More than that, Congress declined to pass a legalization of the type Obama is issuing during both Obama’s term and in a hotly-contested bill during President Bush 43′s term.
This is nothing like Reagan’s or Bush’s attempts to implement Congress’ amnesty.
Legally they identical.
Obama, in contrast to Reagan and Bush 41, is not trying to implement a lawfully created amnesty.
There’s nothing in immigration law that says presidents have the power to protect classes of immigrants from deportation, but only if they’re “trying to implement a lawfully created amnesty”. The writer is creating a legal loophole out of thin air. No loophole is needed, because any president has the authority to do what Reagan, Bush and now Obama have done.
Nothing in that article distinguishes the legal or constitutional status of Obama’s actions from Reagan and Bush I’s. If Obama’s action is illegal, theirs were as well. Congress could have protected the people affected by Reagan’s order in the 1986 bill, but they chose not to. Congress could have protected the people affected by Obama’s order, but they chose not to. In both cases the president had the power to do what Congress hadn’t done.
Obama the diplomat could have tried to work with the other party but chose not to in order create racial divisions that he and the Democrats will try and exploit with racist attacks. Rather than trying to improve race relations, Obama is intentionally trying to make them worse. He is doing this by making his own party more racist.
We wanted another MLK but we got a Grand Wizard with a tan.
Senate Democrats worked with Republicans to write a bipartisan bill that passed the Senate with 68 votes. John Boehner has refused to bring it or any other immigration bill up for a vote in the House, because he knows that most House Republicans oppose giving undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship, and they would vote him out if he let such a bill pass.
I’ve come to believe that Obama’s constant race-baiting is a form of impeachment insurance. If he was ever convicted and removed from office, every city in America would burn.
The House voted to fund the federal government and delay the individual mandate a year, and the Senate refused to bring it up for a vote and shutdown the government. Harry Reid refused to even bring up the House bill and the President shutdown the Executive Branch and used “essential” personnel to block access to state highways that could even overlook federal land. For his awful behavior, Reid lost the majority in the Senate.
“Senate Democrats worked with Republicans to write a bipartisan bill that passed the Senate with 68 votes. ”
Wouldn’t normal course of business mean the House would make changes to the Senate bill? Why would Republicans just vote on something without being allowed to put any input into the legislation?
As I recall, the House wanted to break the bill up and do things in steps in order to keep Democrats honest. Because Democrats in the age of Obama do not bargain in good faith, we need to go step by step to insure that they keep their word. Maybe you think that isn’t required but hopefully you have seen some of the Gruber and voter fraud videos by now.
Legally they identical.
No, neither is it legal to use the 2001 AUMF to fight a war against ISIS, which didn’t exist to participate in 9/11. Just because the President and Jim claims it to be legal doesn’t mean something is legal. The identical part was already discredited by Jon.
“neither is it legal to use the 2001 AUMF to fight a war against ISIS, which didn’t exist to participate in 9/11.”
In fact wasn’t it the Democrat position that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 (a lie of course) and so the war was wrong?
Evidently the expiration date has passed…..
“Legally they [are] identical.”
In one case, you’ve got Congress passing a law and the President faithfully executing the law. In the other case, you’ve got a President unconstitutionally writing his own law and passing it himself.
Congress is the only body with constitutional authority to make law.
Liar.
Democrat’s talking points revealed:
1. It’s not amnesty
2. The president’s legal authority and Congress’ role
I can’t wait for the incredible prosperity we’ll have after this. 5%? 10%? GDP growth for years!
Too bad my blue-collar friends will miss out on the prosperity. I imagine some programmers will lose their jobs to the Indians who are here illegally. It would be wonderful schadenfreude for Jim to lose his job to a newly-annointed green card programmer.
Your “blue-collar friends” are not missing out because more people are here. They are missing out because the Democrat’s regulatory state is stopping them from working a thousand different ways.. Nothing to do with immigrants, legal or illegal. The formula is simple. People * Freedom = Wealth. The only limiting factor in how many people we can have is food, and that’s not an American problem, is it? Until we hit that limit, more people means more customers for your blue-collar friends……..
“Your “blue-collar friends” are not missing out because more people are here. They are missing out because the Democrat’s regulatory state is stopping them from working a thousand different ways.. Nothing to do with immigrants, legal or illegal. ”
While I agree with People * Freedom = Wealth, the fact is that Freedom is missing. UNTIL that changes, new people use up the scarce resource of jobs. So while youwork on restoring Freedom, you have to take care of citizens first.
If your is Freedom, then you need to let citizens take care of themselves. Kind of the point of Freedom…..
I don’t think you are getting my point:
While we work to restore freedom, we have to artificially adjust the skewed market which takes jobs away from legal citizens.
But labor prices are mediated by supply and demand, just like goods and services.
I certainly agree with you that the regulatory state is keeping labor prices down (healthcare anyone?), but I don’t believe that a greater demand for food is the only variable to consider. Those same people would be eating in their own country, and we ship a lot of food overseas.
Our borders are quite transparent to Trade, and have been since the founding. They are affecting Labor Pricing wherever they are. Better to have them here, building up and improving our country, then enriching the Communist Chinese……
It would be wonderful schadenfreude for Jim to lose his job to a newly-annointed green card programmer.
As it happens I’m self-employed, and my software competes with products developed all over the world. As it happens I did sponsor an employee for an H1-B visa and then a green card, and now he’s a U.S. citizen. He’s a great programmer and human being, and the U.S. is lucky to have him.
And he got here legally. Good for him.
“As it happens I did sponsor an employee for an H1-B visa and then a green card, and now he’s a U.S. citizen. He’s a great programmer and human being, and the U.S. is lucky to have him.”
You mean to say that with all the skilled, out-of-work, legal American citizen programmers, you thought it would be swell to import one?
If you couldn’t find one then you either didn’t look very hard, or maybe your pay scales and bennies would only appeal to a programmer from a 3rd world hellhole.
I believe the timing of the amnesty announcement was specifically chosen to occur just prior to the Ferguson grand jury decision. Any chaos from the amnesty announcement today will be drowned out by the chaos of Ferguson on Saturday
Hey, this is one of the more Constitutional things he’s done. This was not the way to do it, but the President does have the Constitutional power to Pardon, and the Constitution really doesn’t limit that power. The Constitution also forbids “double jeopardy”. So he can pardon all the “illegal immigrants”, and until they cross the border again, they are immune to prosecution for the “crime” of crossing the border without papers.
Can he pardon a criminal who has not been tried let alone convicted?
That would appear to be the “Reprieve” part of the Pardon Power……
I don’t believe the executive order is anything like a pardon. Rather, it’s a set of policies and guidelines to federal law enforcement as to how they should handle illegal aliens (basically be ignored and let go) and orders to agencies to issue papers the equivalent of green cards to illegal aliens. Law enforcement will then be required to treat the papers as authorization for the person to remain in this country. Of course, the policies and guidelines will be completely counter to established law.
Illegal aliens will still be technically breaking US law, but if no one enforces the law, is that the same as granting them a pardon? In some ways yes, in other ways no.
The executive orders can be re-issued with the next administration where enforcement of existing law can be re-invoked. However, the administration is betting that enough inertia will be established that at a practical level, enforcement will become a moot issue because of the disruption to society if it is attempted (ie. riots and other chaos). The other danger is that liberal court appointees can also use lack of enforcement of existing law by the Obama administration as a justification for preventing enforcement in the future under some sort of fairness doctrine. Precedent in this area has been set before by courts, but I forget the details.
No one really knows how this will play out in the long run. That is where the danger really lies. We could be on the verge of creating an executive branch with the consent of the courts and legislature to operate outside the boundaries of established law. With the executive branch functioning as lawmaker, judge, jury and executioner, what purpose do the other two branches serve in our government?
“Can he pardon a criminal who has not been tried let alone convicted?”
Ford pardoned Nixon.
And Carter mass pardoned soo many Draft Dodgers……
How the country reacts over the next few months to this usurpation of power by the executive branch will be the best indication as to whether the American experiment with democracy will survive much longer. If it is demonstrated that dictators and strongmen can be elected into office and cease legislative responsibilities, we are only one step above Latin American banana republics and descending rapidly.
The country hardly reacted at all when George H.W. Bush did the same thing with his “Family Fairness Program” in 1990. Have we been a banana republic ever since?
Yes, that is the moment in which the U.S. became a major exporter of bananas . . .
GHWB didn’t do the same thing, Jim. Are you ignorant or dishonest, or both?
Bush Sr. protected 40% of the undocumented immigrant population from deportation by executive order. Obama is expected to protect 40% of the undocumented immigrant population from deportation by executive order.
Since Jim’s a Leftist, I’m going to guess “Both,” Rick.
He’s counting on that assumed stupidity, because I expect any requirements for duration of living in the USA, and to pay for background checks or pay fines will be hollow. I expect DHS will be unofficially directed to implement an immediate Shall Issue process for all applications. In other words, there will be no pre-approval investigation to determine if an applicant actually lived in the apartment listed on a photocopy of a rent-paid receipt from 2009 or earlier. And personal checks will be accepted for background checks or other fees. I expect DHS won’t wait until a check clears to approve an application. If the check bounces, DHS will mail a bill the applicant knows he/she can ignore.
By the time James O’Keefe or others penetrate the deceptions, it will be too late. Millions of applications will have been approved and documents issued. The “stupid” general populace will have been played again by Mr. Obama.
If there are requirements for duration of residency, then many new jobs will be created generating fake utility bills and other supporting documents. This happened before with a previous amnesty.
LarryJ,
Yup. Luis Gutierrez has been on Fox News several times this week, claiming there will be a rigorous process (my term- cannot recall his exact words), requiring applicants to submit fingerprints, proof of length of living in USA, and payment of the cost of a background check. Sounds good, but so did, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.”
Unless the southern border is sealed, there will be a rush of people to get in on the President’s deal. They’ll be willing and ready to pay a lot for faked receipts for rent, or faked proof of receiving some payment or service.
This is purely a political play (turn Texas, Colorado, Nevada, etc. Blue) and an ego trip for Mr. Obama.
I keep reading how the courts will be reluctant to get involved in a fight between the executive and legislative branch of the government. What the hell? Isn’t that the primary responsibility of the courts?
No. The primary responsibility of the courts is to judge the laws, aka, to be courts. The “fight between the executive and legislative branch of government” is, at best, an afterthought (Really, invented whole cloth by the Supreme Court in “Madison vs. Mayberry”). And a very tricky one, since FDR cowed the Supreme Court into allowing Congress to delegate it’s lawmaking power to the Executive branch (Which is the whole point of “alphabet soup” agencies. Executive, Legislative, and Judicial power in one tight, uncountable package.).
Obama will have to claim the constitution and other laws give him the authority to issue green cards counter to established law. The legislature will argue against that claim. Judging the validity of that claim is completely within the purview of the courts. Granted, the courts have limited, if any, ability to enforce their decision, but they do have a role to play.
Given the makeup of the courts these days, who really knows where they might come down on Obama’s claims. And if courts ruled against him, I can easily see Obama making a similar statement attributed to Andrew Jackson regarding the Worcester v. Georgia court ruling: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”
“Only after Republicans took control of the House did Obama return to immigration, and then only to score political points among Hispanic voters at the GOP’s expense. The White House has already made several unilateral changes to immigration policy, nibbling at the edges, while doing nothing to work across the aisle on a comprehensive solution.”
I agree with Morrissey that this has noting to do with solving the immigration issues and has everything to do with political points. As Morrissey said – for 2 years Obama had a filibuster-proof congress all to himself and could have passed immigration reform in whatever form he wanted and the GOP could not stop him in any way.
He didn’t do that.
So, in the same way that Blacks have suffered under Obama – his using them as a political wedge rather than a group of human beings to be helped – he’s ding the same to Hispanics. They will find themselves under the bus along with the Black folks.
Agreed, the motivations behind this are about politics rather than actually solving any problems. However, it is not a given that Obama will ultimately succeed in winning the politics of the situation. By following Obama, the Democrats are taking a huge risk and I hope they are banished to the political wilderness because of it.
Hispanics have greatly different and varied historical experiences coming to this country than the Blacks. This makes them much more diverse and they will be much more difficult for the Democrats to treat as a single monolithic entity, as they have treated the Blacks. Although the majority still votes for Democrats, I don’t believe this voting is nearly as culturally ingrained or reflexive as it is with blacks. The inroads that Hispanics are making into the GOP are a sign of this.
As Morrissey said – for 2 years Obama had a filibuster-proof congress all to himself
That is a common myth. Obama only had 60 votes for six months, between Al Franken being sworn in on July 7, 2009 and Scott Brown being elected January 19, 2010. And during that period Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd were frequently unavailable due to ill health.
The Senate doesn’t move quickly even when one party has 60 votes. It isn’t surprising at all that the Democrats weren’t able to bring immigration reform or cap and trade up for a Senate vote during a six month period that was largely dominated by debate over health care reform.
He could have done it. But he didn’t want to do it.
The Senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill. John Boehner could have brought it up for a vote, but he didn’t want to.
So what? Has any Speaker or Senate Majority Leader brought every single bill passed by the other chamber to a vote in his/her chamber?
“The Senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill. ”
Why not work with the other party to come up with something that can be supported by every rather than just far left open borders militant Democrat activists?
Do you actually believe the Democrat made any efforts to work with Republicans? If so, you got grubered again.
Do you actually believe the Democrat made any efforts to work with Republicans?
Fourteen Republican Senators voted for S. 744
“Fourteen Republican Senators voted for S. 744”
So? Democrats lost 10 Senate seats. What have Democrats actually done to compromise with Republicans? What actions has the President taken to work with Republicans in the House?
Obama does not bargain in good faith. He is unethical and untrustworthy. Rather than dictate what the House should do, he should take incremental steps to build trust that he won’t throw any deal under the bus the first chance he gets. Obama needs to rebuild his credibility and stop stabbing people in the back.
“The Senate doesn’t move quickly even when one party has 60 votes.”
They didn’t even try. Actually getting something done with the other party would take away Democrats favorite method of attacking their political opponents. Same reason whey Democrats did not support Miguel Estrada or immigration reform under Bush.
How hard has the GOP worked to address this problem? How many immigration reform bills has John Boehner allowed to get a vote in the House since he took the speaker’s gavel four years ago?
How hard has the GOP worked to address this problem? How many immigration reform bills has John Boehner allowed to get a vote in the House since he took the speaker’s gavel four years ago?
Immigration is not a top priority to the American population. It is only now a priority to Obama, when he is officially a lame duck with a lame duck Congress. That’s does not suggest a priority for Democrats. Keystone XL polls higher than immigration and the Senate Democrats just gave the finger to the American people on Keystone, and while they are impotent on Immigration, will none the less support the President’s middle finger to the citizenry.
“How hard has the GOP worked to address this problem?”
How hard have Democrats? Democrats are not willing to compromise because if nothing gets done, it serves their interests. Democrats don’t want to deal with fixing our legal immigration system. This is why Obama wants executive amnesty, so the immigration problem keep getting worse and remains a political issue that Democrats can spin on race.
You notice there is zero talk out of Democrats about fixing the system, just amnesty.
Democrats don’t want to deal with fixing our legal immigration system.
They had 6 years to do this, and it was never done. Only now, when they are lame ducks, do they think this is a big deal, while the American people do not.
“That is a common myth. Obama only had 60 votes for six months”
And therefore you destroy your own argument. Thanks for saving me the time.
Indeed. Elsewhere, Jim likes to note that a bipartisan bill passed with 68 votes, so Obama and the Democrats could have gotten enough votes, had they only reached across the aisle when they had all the power. Now they lost both sides of Congress and are demanding Republicans reach across to strike a deal on an issue the majority of the Americans neither care about nor want.
What is Obama doing? Doesn’t he realize that America needs this terrorized underclass living on wage levels below those that real American’s would accept, to underpin the economy?
Merits of the action aside, he’s doing whatever the hell he wants to do, regardless of its constitutionality or legality.
What he — and 70 Senators, and most of the House — want to do is give undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship. But it wouldn’t be legal for him to do that, so he isn’t doing that. Instead he’s only doing what the law lets him, giving a subset of those immigrants protection from deportation so they don’t have to live like wanted criminals.
No, Jim, what he’s doing is giving criminals free rein.
I wouldn’t call the average illegal immigrant a criminal, even though they did break the law coming here. But Obama is literally giving criminals free rein though by releasing illegal immigrants that have committed crimes, other than crossing the border, into the public.
There is not discretion in Obama’s policy of proprietorial discretion.
Correction, it was 68 Senators who voted for the Senate immigration reform bill, 54 Democrats and 14 Republicans.
How many of those Democrats will still be Senators in February? Doesn’t side like the American people agreed with those Democrats, so I see no reason at all to make immigration reform a priority other than to satisfy Democrat fundraisers.
“Instead he’s only doing what the law lets him, giving a subset of those immigrants protection from deportation so they don’t have to live like wanted criminals.”
That’s against the law.
The law says to deport them.
It’s one thing to claim you don’t have the resources to fight a crime. But that doesn’t mean the crime becomes not-a-crime nor does it mean it ought to be rewarded.
You are one sick twisted puppy
So for you, the end justifies the means. Great.
What’s wrong with the means? Immigration law gives the President this authority.
“What’s wrong with the means?”
The dishonesty for one. Obama and the Democrats want open borders but they can not make the case in the open so they gruber the American public. Then there is the racist angle where Democrats teach racism against white people and think they are importing a group of people that will be sympathetic to that message. What Democrats fail to notice, is that ideology is not skin deep. Being born a certain color does not predestine someone to follow an ideology.
Younger generations are more likely to be mixed race and the racism of the Democrat party doesn’t appeal to them as much because they don’t hate either of their parents. Their life experiences are at odds with the racial stereotypes inculcated by the Democrat party. With each interracial marriage and adoption, the tools of the Democrat party are weakened. Which is why they freak the f out anytime a Republican has a mixed race relationship or child.
So do you support protecting law-abiding undocumented immigrants from deportation? Or do you think it’s better for them to live under that threat? Do you object to what Obama is doing, or just how he is doing it?
So do you support protecting law-abiding undocumented immigrants from deportation?
“Or do you think it’s better for them to live under that threat? ”
They don’t live under threat. The only way they would ever attract the attention of law enforcement is if they broke some other law. There are tens of millions of illegal immigrants and only tens of thousands deported. Those deported are usually caught in the act of crossing the border.
“Do you object to what Obama is doing, or just how he is doing it?”
Both. He isn’t working to fix the legal immigration system so what he is doing now is a waste of time. He controls all the government agencies and has the power to write regulations but he isn’t using them to fix the long term problems our system has. Because he doesn’t want the problem to go away. He views racial agitation and identity politics as a benefit to him and the Democrat party.
I want the legal immigration system fixed. I don’t favor open borders but I do favor organized immigration from all over the globe. I want people to move to the USA who want to be Americans, who respect our culture, respect the people who live here, who share our ideals, and who are capitalists.
I don’t want to see citizenship forced on people who’s loyalty lies with another country but I would like these people to be able to come and work or visit our country. I don’t want Democrats to import La Raza racists to foment racial hatred and who view other Americans as the source of original sin in humans and who need to be punished.
I was really offended when MY President said that Hispanics needed to vote for Obama in order to punish a race of people that Obama views, and he hopes Hispanics view, as an enemy. Its disgusting. This is the type of crap we should have left behind a hundred years ago.
The only reason the President has any authority to do anything is the US Constitution. If he’s operating outside the constitution, he has no authority. IL-LEG-AL. Liar.
“Doesn’t he realize that America needs this terrorized underclass ”
Hate to break it to you but illegal immigrants from South and Central America are not a terrorized underclass. They receive very good treatment and the people who object to amnesty do so because they want the laws to be obeyed and the system fixed and not because they hate immigrants legal or otherwise.
Obama’s action is clearly constitutional, as were Reagan and George H.W. Bush’s similar executive orders.
http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/20/no-reagan-did-not-offer-an-amnesty-by-lawless-executive-order/
Yep, what’s wrong with the means?
This is nothing like Reagan’s or Bush’s attempts to implement Congress’ amnesty.
Legally they identical.
Obama, in contrast to Reagan and Bush 41, is not trying to implement a lawfully created amnesty.
There’s nothing in immigration law that says presidents have the power to protect classes of immigrants from deportation, but only if they’re “trying to implement a lawfully created amnesty”. The writer is creating a legal loophole out of thin air. No loophole is needed, because any president has the authority to do what Reagan, Bush and now Obama have done.
Nothing in that article distinguishes the legal or constitutional status of Obama’s actions from Reagan and Bush I’s. If Obama’s action is illegal, theirs were as well. Congress could have protected the people affected by Reagan’s order in the 1986 bill, but they chose not to. Congress could have protected the people affected by Obama’s order, but they chose not to. In both cases the president had the power to do what Congress hadn’t done.
Obama the diplomat could have tried to work with the other party but chose not to in order create racial divisions that he and the Democrats will try and exploit with racist attacks. Rather than trying to improve race relations, Obama is intentionally trying to make them worse. He is doing this by making his own party more racist.
We wanted another MLK but we got a Grand Wizard with a tan.
Senate Democrats worked with Republicans to write a bipartisan bill that passed the Senate with 68 votes. John Boehner has refused to bring it or any other immigration bill up for a vote in the House, because he knows that most House Republicans oppose giving undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship, and they would vote him out if he let such a bill pass.
I’ve come to believe that Obama’s constant race-baiting is a form of impeachment insurance. If he was ever convicted and removed from office, every city in America would burn.
The House voted to fund the federal government and delay the individual mandate a year, and the Senate refused to bring it up for a vote and shutdown the government. Harry Reid refused to even bring up the House bill and the President shutdown the Executive Branch and used “essential” personnel to block access to state highways that could even overlook federal land. For his awful behavior, Reid lost the majority in the Senate.
“Senate Democrats worked with Republicans to write a bipartisan bill that passed the Senate with 68 votes. ”
Wouldn’t normal course of business mean the House would make changes to the Senate bill? Why would Republicans just vote on something without being allowed to put any input into the legislation?
As I recall, the House wanted to break the bill up and do things in steps in order to keep Democrats honest. Because Democrats in the age of Obama do not bargain in good faith, we need to go step by step to insure that they keep their word. Maybe you think that isn’t required but hopefully you have seen some of the Gruber and voter fraud videos by now.
Legally they identical.
No, neither is it legal to use the 2001 AUMF to fight a war against ISIS, which didn’t exist to participate in 9/11. Just because the President and Jim claims it to be legal doesn’t mean something is legal. The identical part was already discredited by Jon.
“neither is it legal to use the 2001 AUMF to fight a war against ISIS, which didn’t exist to participate in 9/11.”
In fact wasn’t it the Democrat position that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 (a lie of course) and so the war was wrong?
Evidently the expiration date has passed…..
“Legally they [are] identical.”
In one case, you’ve got Congress passing a law and the President faithfully executing the law. In the other case, you’ve got a President unconstitutionally writing his own law and passing it himself.
Congress is the only body with constitutional authority to make law.
Liar.
Democrat’s talking points revealed:
1. It’s not amnesty
2. The president’s legal authority and Congress’ role
3. Who to deport
4. What to say to Republican threats on funding
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/11/20/revealed-four-of-the-talking-points-obama-wants-dems-to-use-on-immigration/
Hey Jim, if the law is selectively enforced, it will be selectively obeyed…
The administration will NOT make it harder for people to cross the border illegally like he claims.
The administration will NOT enforce requirements regarding paying fines like he claims.
There will be no enforcement of any of the items listed by Obama which were intended to placate his critics.
And his critics – which include 70% of the nation – knows this.