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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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? ;)
“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.
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.
“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.
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
“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.
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.
Bill Waddell Says on
June 16th, 2012 at 9:17 pm
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
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?
“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.
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.
Subotai Bahadur
I would be fascinated to find out how an illegal immigrant gets a security clearance.
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.
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?
“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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.