Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
 

 
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Contributors:
  •   Please send any comments or suggestions about America 3.0 to:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Lex's Tweets
  • Jonathan's Tweets
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Obama and amnesty

    Posted by Michael Kennedy on June 16th, 2012 (All posts by )

    On Friday, as is often the case, Obama announced a new executive policy to impose a two year moratorium on deportation of young illegals if they can show they were brought here as children and have finished high school with no encounters with the law. They must be under 30 and were brought here before age 16. He promised that citizenship was not included and did not mention if family members were affected. Janet Napolitano, head of Homeland Security announced that this was the new policy but there has been no confirmation of an executive order.

    I don’t have a real problem with this policy but it avoids Congress and legislation, a problem that even Obama acknowledged last year. It is a transparent ploy to appeal for Latino votes. Everyone knows that.

    It also will close an opening for compromise.

    Obama’s decision probably reduces the likelihood that the scenarios of greatest concern to me will come to pass, especially if Obama is re-elected. Irate Republicans are even less likely than before to cooperate with the administration on this issue now that it has acted so high-handedly and in such a patently political manner. As Marco Rubio, who is planning to sponsor some sort of DREAM Act, said today, by imposing a new policy by executive order, Obama has made it harder in the long run to reach consensus on “comprehensive policy,” i.e., one that gives illegal immigrants additional benefits and a path to citizenship.

    The attraction of the action taken by Obama may have been that it would trump a possible Republican compromise on this topic. Now, suspicion has grown that amnesty and voting rights are the next step. The use of executive order for such a change in policy has been attacked as illegal.

    So what we have here is a president who is refusing to carry out federal law simply because he disagrees with Congress’s policy choices. That is an exercise of executive power that even the most stalwart defenders of an energetic executive — not to mention the Framers — cannot support.

    Even Obama said the same a few months ago in explaining his then inaction. “I wish I could wave my magic wand,” Mr. Obama said. “Until Nancy Pelosi is speaker again… At the end of the day, I can’t do this all by myself. We’re going to have to get Congress to act. I know Nancy Pelosi’s ready to act. It’s time to stop playing politics.”

    Well, playing politics is the order of the day and the Republicans should focus on the illegality of doing it by executive order and not on the policy, itself. With proper safeguards, the policy is a good idea although there may be backlash from semi-skilled unemployed who just got a million new competitors. Certainly the unemployment figures should now be adjusted for all the new legal job seekers.

    The distraction of the Daily Caller reporter interrupting the president was an amusing sidelight. Had Obama demonstrated humor and a benign manner, it might have been a good moment for him. Instead, he showed anger and the incident will probably lead to more interruptions as it seems to be the only way to ask this president a question.

     

    26 Responses to “Obama and amnesty”

    1. Subotai Bahadur Says:

      Thursday, they called the Egyptian military’s takeover of the country a “slow motion coup”. They have nothing on us. Ours started in January of 2009 and is still ongoing. The rule of law and the Constitution have been consistently ignored by this administration and its agents from Day One.

      1. His authority under the law and Constitution to do this is at best questionable, and at worst non-existent. Aside from his Oath [yeah, I know; but technically he took it.], there is the matter of Article II, Section 3 that requires the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. There is no leeway allowing him to deliberately and openly refuse to enforce statutes that have been signed into law.

      2. If he gets away with this, expect more rule by decree before November, possibly up to and including an Enabling Act.

      3. Congress can do nothing because their power is the power of the purse. We have not had a Constitutional budget for 3 1/2 years, and have been promised that there will not be one in this presidential term. Thanks to the administration’s agents in the Senate.

      4. Romney’s people have been amazingly fast in responding to Obama’s campaign propaganda. It would be a good time to put out a series of ads noting that we have an “official” unemployment rate of 8.2% and an unofficial U-6 of close to 20%. And with the declared automatic granting of Federal work permits attached to the illegal amnesty, Obama is adding at least 800,000 competitors to out of work Americans in the job market.

      5. Obama’s agents are claiming that the amnesty will not include citizenship or the ability to vote. I would point out that in the recent Wisconsin election, Democrat bastion Dane County had a voter turnout of 119% of the registered voters, and no one batted an eye. And that Obama’s Department of Justice is suing to stop every attempt at preventing vote fraud around the country, including the removal of known foreign nationals who have voted illegally.

      6. Incidentally, Napolitano has declared that the illegal family members of those who get the amnesty are also exempt from enforcement of the law.

      http://thehill.com/video/administration/233011
      “The parents are not qualified for deferred action,” she added. “[But] internally, we set it up so the parents are not referred for immigration enforcement if the child comes in for deferred action.”

      This is all happening on our watch.

      Subotai Bahadur

    2. Robert Schwartz Says:

      Raising procedural issues (as valid as they may be, and they are very valid) is not generally a strong point. I think this is a situation where allowing Hussein to walk across the minefield is the wisest thing to do.

      The problem with immigration is that both parties are deeply divided. The portion of the Democrat party that sees a Mexican and thinks: “My Gardner” or “My Countryman” is pro-immigration, just like that portion of the GOP who thinks: “My Employee”. OTOH there a lot of Republicans who think: “Law Breaker”. There is a large group of Democrats who think: “Undercutting My Wages”. Many of them are black. In 2007, the CBC sat on immigration proposals in the House. They won’t criticize Hussein publicly — “It’s Still A Black Thing”, but it will be another reason, like unemployment and gay marriage for them to have to stay home and wash their hair on election day.

    3. Michael Kennedy Says:

      I agree that both parties are divided. Mike Bloomberg was quoted one time as saying, “Without undocumented immigrants, who would maintain our golf courses?” Bloomberg is, of course, a fool. Has somebody verified that he actually founded Bloomberg News?

      The Republicans don’t do enough to simplify our legal immigration process but even that is controversial. Engineers agitate against H 1B visas. I suppose they would rather the work went to the visa applicant in India. Certainly the Indian engineer would work for less money in India. When I was an engineer in 1959, the engineers were complaining.

    4. Bill Brandt Says:

      Talking about what should have been is pointless – but illuminating in that had Reagan had more foresight – all this would have been avoided. But in his 1986 compromise – it was agreed that Congress would enact laws for employment of illegals – thereby extinguishing the incentive for illegal immigration – if this act was passed.

      of course Congress never did such a thing and Reagan should have told them that “once you have these laws in place I will sign this”

      I think too Obama is trying this to divert the subject from the economy.

      But it will be interesting to see how this changes the voting patterns – all these young people who thought he was so great 4 years ago – still unemployed – and now competing with former illegals.

    5. Jonathan Says:

      Obama’s reelection strategy is to fire up the leftist and black base by demonizing Republicans and Republican constituencies, to encourage voting fraud, and to promise the Moon to the various Democrat interest groups that together might bring enough marginal votes to reelect him. His latest executive order essentially invites illegals to vote for him. I suspect there will be other EOs of this type, perhaps forgiving student loans or mortgages, etc.

    6. PenGun Says:

      You do understand that actual voter fraud is vanishingly small.

      You understand it’s likely that “a voter turnout of 119%” just means your registration process is poor, or as does seem to be the case, heavily conflicted.

      Bloomberg is, of course, a fool. LOL. A rich and very powerful one … how can that be? ;)

    7. Michael Kennedy Says:

      “You do understand that actual voter fraud is vanishingly small.”

      How do you know that ? Loretta Sanchez was elected in Bob Dornan’s district (He had been a fool to try another run at president) in Orange County by about 450 votes. There is pretty good evidence that the tiny margin was due to illegals voting (From Santa Ana, a big center of illegals). The local GOP then tried to scare away illegals in the next election and made a big story for the lefties.

      There were arrests and, I believe, convictions in Milwaukee in 2006 for vote fraud. The Democrats certainly provide enough information for suspicion with actions like the DoJ trying to block purging dead registrants from Florida voter rolls. Tammany Hall, not to mention Daley’s Chicago, were famous for vote fraud.

      Attorney General Rogers told Nixon in 1960 that he had enough evidence of fraud in Illinois and Texas to overturn the 1960 election of Kennedy. Nixon declined on the basis of national interest in avoiding the upheaval. Teddy White wrote this after Watergate in stating the Nixon expected similar forbearance from the media in 1973-74. He was wrong, as we know. Mark Felt’s coup d’etat worked because the media hated Nixon so much.

      “If it’s not close, they can’t cheat.” Walker avoided another Coleman frenzy by winning big.

    8. Michael Kennedy Says:

      Sorry. The most recent convictions were 2010. Multiply any convictions by at least 10 to estimate the numbers. Norm Coleman’s defeat and the Washington governor election of Gregoire were clearly fraudulent. Both were by small margins of “found ” votes after a delay.

      Gore was trying to manipulate the count in Florida with the help of the FL Supreme Court when the USSC finally stopped it.

    9. Anonymous Says:

      “You do understand that actual voter fraud is vanishingly small.”

      You are very much mistaken with regard to the Chicago area. Voter fraud is large scale and organized and happens unless it is observed and confronted.

      I have no reason to believe that the methods used in Chicago, which are not complicated, are not used all over the country wherever there is an opportunity.

      A 119% turnout may mean many things. But if you don’t believe that there are precincts where people who are not registered are allowed to vote, because there is no one in the polling place to stop it, you are mistaken.

      There is no basis for this assertion.

    10. Robert Schwartz Says:

      MR. RAMOS: Mr. President, my question will be as follows: With an executive order, could you be able to stop deportations of the students? …

      THE PRESIDENT: ***

      There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.

      http://vidayfamilia.univision.com/es-el-momento/obama-y-la-educacion/article/2011-03-29/transcript-of-president-obamas-townhall?page=3

    11. tyouth Says:

      “So what we have here is a president who is refusing to carry out federal law simply because he disagrees with Congress’s policy choices. That is an exercise of executive power that even the most stalwart defenders of an energetic executive — not to mention the Framers — cannot support.”

      To defy the will of congress in this matter (which is the same as defying the will of the people) is so egregious and plain that I think it must surely bring bring about calls for impeachment hearings.

    12. Bill Waddell Says:

      In fact the laws on the books protect the children of illegals born here, yet the anti-immigration crowd demands their ouster.

      In fact, the executive order Obama issued is virtually identical to the George Bush’ proposal.

      In fact, a number of those covered under Obama’s move are, or have, served in the military. Everyone knows that to deport an active duty or honorably discharged vetern is just plain wrong.

      In fact, for all of the bluster and ballyhoo, the Republican controlled Congress has not submitted a single piece of legislation to the Senate or Obama for consideration. They could not even muster a majority to make e-verify mandatory.

      I am as anti-Obama as anyone,but the Republican party has no position on the subject and Romney – who so many of the Chicago Boyz writers seem to think so highly of – has tap danced around the issue in general – and Obama’s move in particular with the mastery of Bojangles.

      So far the Republican Party has been long on criticism and woefully short on action when ity comes to illegal immigration.

    13. Subotai Bahadur Says:

      Bill Waddell Says on
      June 16th, 2012 at 9:17 pm

      In fact the laws on the books protect the children of illegals born here, yet the anti-immigration crowd demands their ouster.

      In fact, the executive order Obama issued is virtually identical to the George Bush’ proposal.

      In fact, a number of those covered under Obama’s move are, or have, served in the military. Everyone knows that to deport an active duty or honorably discharged vetern is just plain wrong.

      In fact, for all of the bluster and ballyhoo, the Republican controlled Congress has not submitted a single piece of legislation to the Senate or Obama for consideration. They could not even muster a majority to make e-verify mandatory.

      With all due respect, some things are being conflated here that should not be.

      1) The laws do in fact protect the children of illegals born here. Because they are US citizens. The President’s unconstitutional decree affects those brought here illegally, illegally; as children under those same Federal laws which are still in force and valid. They are foreign nationals who entered secretly and are present in our country against our laws.

      2) Obama’s order may be akin to George Bush’s proposal; but that proposal did not have the force of law, was never enacted into law, and George Bush did not have the constitutional authority to declare his proposal had the force of law. In the absence of a Constitutional Convention granting that power, Buraq Hussein Obama also lacks the constitutional power to give a proposal the force of law or declare a Federal statute selectively invalid at whim.

      3) Those who have served in the armed services, had access to a program to obtain a green card as a result of those services unless they enlisted under false pretenses/identity. If they did, they committed yet another Federal felony compounding the first created by their illegal presence. And of the 800,000-1.4 million affected [and their families who are being given an exemption from Federal law, because Obama says they can], a miniscule number are veterans. Further, in the list of legalizing conditions, graduating from High-freaking-School is given the same status as service in the military for Obama’s amnesty. Granting that schools in Democrat controlled areas are combat zones, that is a false and insulting equivalence. In a … discussion … with some veterans today; that is provoking fury among those who served.

      4) There is no requirement that the Republican controlled House submit a piece of legislation on any subject for the benefit of the Democrats. The Democrats are completely free to submit any legislation that they want on the subject. And if they do, and they get it through the legislative process, it becomes a law and the Constitution is observed. The refusal of the Republicans to pre-emptively do Obama’s bidding does not create a constitutional justification for Obama to rule by decree.

      This does not mean that I am happy about the group that is pleased to consider itself the “Leadership” of the Republican Party. They are as close to being a clone in character of the Scottish nobility from the movie Braveheart as any group could be. They are far too fond of the perks of office, and too fearful of the Democrats to care for the future of the country. If we survive this, they will be dealt with. But, that dealing will be in accordance with the Constitution, unless Obama renders the possibility of following the Constitution moot.

      PenGun Says on
      June 16th, 2012 at 3:34 pm

      You do understand that actual voter fraud is vanishingly small.

      Making the assumption that you are a real person, and not an employee of Organizing For Obama operating out of their online operation center in a certain yellow building just outside downtown DC; you are, I believe, British and not American. I could be remembering the particular country wrongly, and I will stand corrected if so.

      You have not been in our country to watch our elections over the last few decades, some of which have been mentioned in this thread. But far from all. Vote fraud is the norm in any area controlled by the Democrats. Our electoral system has been perverted so that our voter rolls are rife with false registrations, even if there is no fraudulent intent. Every effort to clean up the voting system, even by matching the voter rolls with death certificates issued in the area; is blocked by the Democratic Party [in and out of office] as somehow being racist. We are approaching the point where the electoral system may no longer be considered legitimate. They do not realize the downside if we reach that point.

      Subotai Bahadur

    14. Bill Waddell Says:

      Subotai Bahadur

      Anyone can parrot Glenn Beck. Be specific. What precisely is your solution to illegal immigration? Seal the border? Round ‘em up and ship ‘em out? No exceptions? No extenuating circumstances? …simple problem – simple solution?

      Do I have it about right?

    15. Michael Kennedy Says:

      “the Republican controlled Congress has not submitted a single piece of legislation to the Senate or Obama for consideration.”

      The Obama proposal copies a proposal that Rubio was planning to introduce. That is probably the source for Obama’s EO. The Rubio proposal, if introduced, would be a legislative proposal, hopefully including such safeguards as excluding relatives. Chain migration is destroying England and has been a major error in all of the pseudo-amnesty proposals thus far.

      Obama six months ago, said he did not have the power. It would require legislation, What has changed ? He is losing the election.

      Amnesty for illegal immigration was passed in 1986. It did not solve the problem. Try practicing medicine in southern California. I have. The Los Angeles County Hospital used to be a good hospital. It has been overwhelmed by illegals. They have buses running from Tijuana to the well baby clinic for American citizens (anchor babies) living in Tijuana. Medical students at USC have to learn Spanish. They have a crash course before classes start for the first year.

      My former cleaning lady (made legal by the 1986 amnesty) panned to retire to Tijuana because the houses were cheaper. Her husband was disabled and her son schizophrenic.

    16. Subotai Bahadur Says:

      Bill Waddell Says on
      June 16th, 2012 at 10:47 pm

      *sigh*

      OK, the discussion above was about the Constitutional violations involved in the Obama decrees. You insist on me coming up with a total solution to the illegal immigration problem in the space of a blog comment. So be it.

      I do write in other venues on political topics. Below is what I wrote a few years ago. I can only find my backup, and I cannot find the link to where it appeared, which would simplify things. So here are 2000 words. I ask the indulgence of the CHICAGO BOYZ, because I have been asked in effect to put up or shut up.

      Oh, Mr. Waddell, there are 9 numbered points here. Only the first has to do with controlling the border. 2-9 have to do with how to increase the number of immigrants, and get the kind we want and need.

      Because I prefer that we remain sovereign on our own soil; I do have my own personal preferences for Border Security. In Short:

      1) Control the freaking border. First rule of holes; when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

      a) Similar to the Air Defense Identification Zones and the Maritime Defense Identification Zones; where the use of deadly force is authorized to prevent foreign intrusions without permission, create a Border Defense Identification Zone 1 mile wide along the Mexican Border in between all legally incorporated city areas. These are now military zones. Eminent Domain to take total Federal control of the Fence Zone and to create Easements to allow access to all land in the BDIZ. Land in the BDIZ not within the Fence Zone may be used by the landowner for any legal, non-mission interfering land use, subject to military approval. Given the nature of most of the land involved, at most cattle grazing will be the most likely use.

      The BDIZ will be controlled by the US Military as a national defense mission. Incorporated areas between segments of the BDIZ will be protected by ICE and other civilian agencies, who will exercise the defense mission as civilian law enforcement along the physical border as it passes through or along cities.

      b) Build the Fence. Along the actual physical border within the BDIZ, the linear barrier as described below will be built, manned, and patrolled. It is actually more than a fence. Just on our side of the border; two parallel heavy duty fences, topped with razor wire, 15’ high at least with multiple coils of razor wire at the base on both sides of each fence. 20’ wide of smooth roadway between the interior razor wire coils. Fronted on the side of the fence facing Mexico with a 10’ wide and 10’ deep trench with vertical walls with razor wire in the trench. Provisions will be made in the construction of the Fence Zone to allow incorporation of command detonated mines as tactically appropriate in the Fence Zone.

      c) On the side of the fences facing Mexico, an access road running the length of the fence south of the trench, then 20’ of open ground, then a simple chain link fence marking the actual physical border with appropriate signage in both English and Spanish. Besides marking the border and declaring that past the chain link fence it is US territory, the following sign will be incorporated in the sign design in both languages.

      [graphic did not paste. Standard US GOVT "Use of Deadly Force Authorized" sign]

      On the US side of the parallel fences, another access road running the length of the Fence, and north of the access road 100 yards of open space, such taken together to be denominated as the Fence Zone. The fence will be monitored with electronic sensors and IR and visual cameras similar to those used in other high security zones [I know what I want, but it would take too long to describe. It was in use in private industry in the 1970’s and since then has been upgraded ….. considerably.] The BDIZ and the fence will be under constant military patrol by US troops with deadly force authorized for those who do not surrender immediately upon being challenged. Appropriate access points/routes for both sides and in between the fences will be incorporated in the design and construction.

      2) Right now, we get about 1 million immigrants per year, almost totally illegal Mexican nationals. I want to EXPAND immigration, on our terms. I think we can legally assimilate 1% of our population a year, if we really mean it, which would be roughly 3 million per year. The addition of 3 million working, assimilating immigrants a year from around the world can only be helpful for the economy.

      3) Take the 1% immigration quota and divvy it up evenly by continent. Let the State Department and DOD decide which countries on each continent are friendly enough to us to have an immigration quota from each continent on an annual basis, and what percentage of the continental total. i.e. we really do not need any more Saudi’s or Yemeni’s for obvious reasons, etc.

      4) Hold all legal immigrants to what I call the Ellis Island tests:

      a) Proof of no criminal record, or at least what we consider a crime. Telling your local dictator to get stuffed probably should get you bonus points. We do, however, have enough thieves, murderers, drug dealers, rapists, child molesters, etc. I could tell you tales that would make your head spin about the backgrounds of some of the Mexican national illegals we have locked up here.

      b) If you have certain diseases, thank you we have enough here and you get to play the home game in your own country. No AIDS, No drug-resistant TB, No Hepatitis, No Ebola, and other diseases to be named later by the Public Health Service.

      c) No membership in movements at war with the US. I know that Hussein Pasha truly loves HAMAS and Hezbollah, but his love can be a long distance relationship. DOD and Homeland Security can make the list.

      d) Must have, or be able to learn, a legal trade; or be a minor child, spouse, parent, grandparent, or blood sibling of a US citizen who meets all other requirements. Must not receive any public assistance during the years pending receiving First Citizenship Papers [4 years]. Priority may be given to specialized skills, or those bringing in capital to start legal businesses and create jobs if all other factors are satisfied.

      e) Must have a financially stable US citizen sponsor [not a corporation, but an individual] who is personally liable for seeing that his/her sponsored immigrant(s) do not go on public assistance during the years they are awaiting their First Papers, and repaying any costs that they do incur from public assistance. A sponsor may withdraw sponsorship, but is still liable for the debts incurred until either a new sponsor takes over, or the foreign national is deported. A sponsor may not, under Federal felony penalty; impose charges, indebtedness, force sponsored immigrants to commit illegal acts, or force them to live in inhumane conditions as a condition of sponsorship. We are trying to import free citizen applicants, not indentured servants. If a sponsor should default or withdraw, their sponsored immigrants shall have 6 months to find a suitable replacement sponsor before becoming subject to deportation.

      f) violation of the terms above, especially conviction of any crime, will mandate immediate, permanent deportation without appeal.

      5) All tests for citizenship will be conducted in English, to promote a basic knowledge of the language that will allow assimilation. We do not care what language is spoken in the home, or in any non-official setting; but a basic knowledge of English helps allow new immigrants from being forced to live in ghettoes and allows access to all that the nation offers.

      6) Once you are a legal resident, with a sponsor, you will be allowed to work in any legal job that will hire you. HOWEVER, the use of the free e-Verify or subsequent system devised to determine legal work status shall be mandatory by employers of anyone who cannot produce proof of citizenship/legal residence. Failure to use the available system for such checks shall expose the employer to the same penalties as are being used in Arizona. First offense of hiring an illegal alien without checking will close the business for 30 days. Second offense will close it for 6 months. Third offense will close the business permanently. It shall be an affirmative defense for an employer that he did in fact use the system to check legal status and were advised that the applicant was legal.

      7) Anchor babies: In the event that aliens are deported and they are parents/guardians of minor children who are US citizens; the following process will be followed.

      It is noted that in the normal course of life, minor children live wherever their parents live. If alien parents are deported, the parents will have the option of leaving their US citizen children with US citizen guardians. If such does not occur, the child(ren) will be deported with the parents after the following procedure:

      a) the Department of State will take and maintain copies of birth/immigration data for each individual child.
      b) they will take and maintain records of the fingerprints, retinal patterns, and DNA for each child, such records not to leave the US.
      c) the child(ren) will be deported with their parents.
      d) upon reaching the age of 18, regardless of any prior acts of allegiance required by their country of residence before turning 18, the deported US citizen child may appear at any US diplomatic mission, claiming his/her citizenship. The mission shall take such application; current copy of the applicant’s fingerprints, retinal patterns, and samples of DNA and securely forward them to the Department of State in Washington, DC. The Department of State will compare the forwarded information with the records on file. The results of the comparison will be forwarded by the Department of State to the initiating diplomatic mission. If the comparison verifies, by ALL the tests, the citizenship of the applicant, the mission will issue appropriate and necessary documentation to allow the applicant to travel to any location in the US that the applicant desires at government expense. Upon arrival in the US, a repeat confirmation of the identification will be made with fresh samples within 24 hours by ICE. At that point appropriate documentation of citizenship WILL be issued if the first tests are confirmed, the new citizen being free to leave custody at the point of confirmation. The Federal government will provide a reasonable amount of financial aid and services for integration of the applicant into American society, to include education and job training.

      8) Foreign nationals illegally present in the United States will be given a period of 6 months to register with the United States government. Upon registration, they will be subject to the same process as above, every bit of the screening; and deported immediately, permanently, and without appeal if so indicated by failure of the Ellis Island tests. If foreign nationals fail to register in the allotted period, later attempts at compliance notwithstanding, they will be deported immediately, permanently, and without appeal regardless of how they might do on the Ellis Island tests or prospective sponsorship. If the foreign nationals illegally resident in the US who register in the time period pass the Ellis Island tests, they will be allowed to stay as immigrants on par with those described above, with the following proviso. In addition to all the above requirements, foreign nationals who were present illegally in the United States at the time of registration will have their mandatory period of sponsorship and waiting for application for First Papers DOUBLED, and any violation of the conditions above will result in immediate, permanent deportation without appeal.

      9) In matters of immigration, other than special bills passed through Congress and signed into law by the President for the benefit of specific individuals, the decisions of the ICE as to the legal status of all aliens in the US not granted citizenship, with the exception of #7 above shall be final with no further recourse to Federal or State courts.

      This probably could be put together in a statute of less than 5 pages. Simple, effective. Our strength as a nation comes in large part from being able to assimilate people from around the world into Americans. Right now, we are doing our best to avoid assimilation of anyone and drawing our immigrants almost exclusively from one country and by definition only bringing in criminals.

      Subotai Bahadur

    17. Mark A. Flacy Says:

      “In fact, a number of those covered under Obama’s move are, or have, served in the military.”

      I would be fascinated to find out how an illegal immigrant gets a security clearance.

    18. Bill Waddell Says:

      Mark,

      I am sure we would be shocked at the answer to how many illegals are in the military with secirty clearances. My illegal father in law received one and worked in US Army intelligence. It was only when he tried to re-enlist they realized the error they made.

      Keeping illegals from security cleared jobs and about 99% of the ‘solution’ offered by Subotai Bahadur rely on the competence of the government. I wonder how many people really understand how e-Verify works and why it has not been made mandatory.

      In fact, if an employer opts to use e-Verify everyone hired must be put through the system. Mr. Bahadur writes “the use of the free e-Verify or subsequent system devised to determine legal work status shall be mandatory by employers of anyone who cannot produce proof of citizenship/legal residence.” Perhaps he is unaware of the facts that (1) currently everyone must provide such proof in order to get a job; and (2) most illegals provide such documentation – albeit forged or belonging to someone else. So what is an employer to do?

      If the employer opts into e-Verify, every new hire’s SSN is entered into the system. Those whose SSN trigger a problem are given notice in writing that they have failed, The employer must still hire the person, but that person has 90 days to clear up the mismatch problem. Why give them 90 days? Because the records in Washington are so hopelessly screwed up and disjointed that lots of people reject who are as much US citizens as I am. Why doesn’t the employer tell them they cannot work until it is cleared up? Because so many of the rejects are nothing more than bureaucratic snafus and employers would lose a lot of good people who would not simply sit at home unemployed waiting for the government to sort things out, and because the government knows it would be denying a lot of valid US citizens the right to work simply because of government ineptitude.

      Why can’t employers just subject those people they are suspicious of to e-Verify? There are all kinds of discrimination lawsuits waiting to happen.

      The fiasco that is e-Verify should come as no surprise. Is anyone really shocked that the government screws things up and can’t keep the records straight? Is it really a surprise that my father-in-law fell through the cracks and worked in Army intelligence? Are you shocked to hear that an old lady has to fight with the Social Security administration for months to get her monthly check right?

      Yet people like Mr Bahadur suggest the solution is to simply rely on the government to develop and successfully implement complex systems.

      He suggests immigrants provide “Proof of no criminal record”. Proving negatives is impossible. I have no idea how I would prove such a thing … get a printout of some kind from the local cops or the FBI, I suppose saying I have no criminal record … but that would not be ‘proof’ – simply an indication that their records don’t show me as a criminal. There is no national data base of all criminal records in the USA and, even if there were, refer back to the e-Verify debacle. What would Mr Bahadur have the immigrant do – bring a piece of paper from Mexico, or have us tap into some Mexican government computer? And have us believe it? What does it cost us to create and maintain the ‘no fly’ list and how well is that working?

      Mr. Bahadur (and many other people) lays out a complex and expensive border security approach. Forget about the cost and the fact that it relies on the support and investment of the Mexican government. The real problem is that it ignores the fact that most illegals came into this country legally and over-stayed their welcome. A completely airtight wall at the border would not stop this problem.

      Illegal immigration is a very difficult and complicated issue. I would suggest to Mr Bahadur that, if it were as easy as his 9 point plan (most of which is already in place and is obviously not working), someone would have done it long ago. I don’t know which simple minded solution is the more unworkable, ineffective and naive – sealing the border with fences and armed guards or granting amnesty. Both are inane.

      Suggesting that the Obama administration merely has to enforce existing laws is silly. What evidence is there to suggest they are not enforcing them? The fact that there are illegals in the country is hardly proof – no more than the fact that some people get away with speeding is ‘proof’ that the cops don’t enforce traffic laws. And the illegals problem is hardly new. Apparently Bush 1 & 2 and Clinton blatantly refused to enforce the laws too.

      In fact, the problem is very complicated and very difficult to solve. If it is to be solved at all, it won’t be by people who grossly over-simplify and politicize it. Mr Bahadur suggests it can all be fixed with a statute of less than 5 pages. One must be very naive indeed to believe that, and rather full of one’s self to think that no one else is smart enough to come up with an answer to a huge problem that he can distill to 5 pages.

    19. TMLutas Says:

      Re: PenGun – In my long experience with him, he’s always identified himself as Canadian so, no, not an american though he likely gets our TV.

      In general, I do wonder what’s going to happen when this EO is rescinded. Will the employers know who among their employees they need to fire?

    20. Michael Kennedy Says:

      “Those whose SSN trigger a problem are given notice in writing that they have failed, The employer must still hire the person, but that person has 90 days to clear up the mismatch problem.”

      This is what happened with Meg Whitman’s maid. Apparently, she told them she had corrected the problem and Whitman’s husband, a neurosurgeon, ignored or did not get (maybe the maid collected the mail) a notice that she was not cleared. The result of that fiasco was Jerry Brown at the wheel as California goes over the cliff.

      The political will to enforce much of the proposal above does not exist. One reason why employers willingly hire illegals, as long as they can get cover with forged documents, is that illegals have a better work ethic than most US teenagers. The jobs are mostly low income and involved low skills, exactly what US teenagers need to enter the workforce. Most employers I have heard from say a big problem is simply getting young workers to show up on time and every day they are supposed to.

    21. tyouth Says:

      The illegal immigration issue is not, repeat not, as fundamental or important an issue as the constitutional challenge that B. H. Obama raises in his attempt to buy votes with this ploy. This is no less than arbitrary, dictatorial authoritarianism. Immigrants (legal and non-legal) are attracted and drawn to this country because of a better way of life and they (and we native-borns) must be aware that this better way of life is due to a system that is relatively equitable due to being a representative republic nation of laws, not arbitrary men. We must take notice that most of the places that modern immigrants come from do not provide a better life largely because regulations are provided and enforced by such men as Obama. I pray that we draw a hard line, finally, here.

    22. Bill Waddell Says:

      Tyouth,

      I don’t disagree with you regarding the dubious constitutional legitimacy of this executive order, but how does this differ from every other executive order? I don’t see how this is any more or less legitimate than Eisenhower desegregating the schools, Clinton going into Kosovo or Roosevelt rounding up all the Japanese Americans … or for that matter all of the executive orders that are much lower profile such as Bush creating the Central Bank of Iraq. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for getting rid of Obama but this seems to make a better case for getting rid of executuve orders, although the courts have generally upheld them.

    23. Michael Kennedy Says:

      “Roosevelt rounding up all the Japanese Americans …”

      There is a lot of history about that but very little is known by modern Americans. There was hysteria in California and Washington. There was fear of a Japanese invasion and of sabotage of aircraft plants, which were mostly in California. The California Attorney General, ironically Earl Warren, was warning of civic unrest with serious threats to the Japanese ethnic group from their neighbors. The army did not ant the job but eventually was forced into it.

      Roosevelt had a lot of power because of the war./ The similarity with the illegal immigration situation just doesn’t exist. INterestingly enough, it was not an issue in Hawaii because of the racial makeup of the population and the impracticality of any solution. There was, however, martial law in Hawaii. There were also a few incidents of espionage and of Japanese ethnic residents helping a shot down Japanese pilots early on. The Niihau incident.

    24. Bill Waddell Says:

      Michael,

      I don’t doubt the differing circumstances. It is the fact that existing laws were contravened by executive order and it’s constitutionality that is in question. Perhaps Roosevelt was justified by some provision in Presidential war power.

      My real question is how Tyouth raises Obama to some sort of critical threat to the constiution when what he did is actually standard operating procedure for presidents. Not justifying the practice – or arguing your point – just asking why is it a crisis when Obama does it.

      By Tyouth’s logic Eisenhower was equally guilty of “arbitrary, dictatorial authoritarianism” when he issued the executive order contravening a raft of laws permitting segregation.

    25. Michael Kennedy Says:

      Bill, I may have my dates wrong but Eisenhower’s actions followed Brown vs Board of Education, which invalidated “separate but equal.” He was upholding current law at the time.

    26. Michael Kennedy Says:

      Yes, Brown v Board was decided in 1954. Eisenhower activated the 101st Airborne to enforce it in LIttle Rock in 1957. It wasn’t an EO.