For over six months now, all the signs have suggested that the Obama administration had quietly made it their policy to allow illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S. as long as they wished, as long as they had no record of "serious" crimes.
At first the administration denied this was their policy (since it would clearly violate the Constitution's requirement that the president enforce the laws of the U.S.), then they clammed up. But now, with Obama's re-election chances falling, they've officially announced it.
Q: Why would Obozo's handlers do something that would anger so many voters?
A: Apparently they believe they'll get more votes--they'll lose a few current voters but hope to gain more immigrant votes than they'll lose.
Q: I didn't think illegal immigrants could vote unless they became citizens. So how could they help the Democrat vote before then?
A: Haven't you seen how polished the Democrats are at stealing elections? Hell, dead people vote Dem, Mickey Mouse is a registered Dem, people living at addresses that turn out to be vacant lots vote Dem. With real live people it will be even easier to cast fraudulent ballots.
Note the source for the quote below: The Democrat-loving Associated Press.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The government says many illegal immigrants who don’t have criminal records but are facing possible deportation will get to stay in the U.S. indefinitely and have a chance to apply for a work permit.
Deporting illegal immigrants who are convicted criminals will be the Obama administration’s priority.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says authorities will make a case-by-case review of the approximately 300,000 illegal immigrants who are facing possible deportation.
Immigration advocates say the Obama administration hasn’t lived up to its promise to only deport the “worst of the worst,” as the president has said.
You were warned this was coming. You didn't believe the Democrats could be this brazen. And note that's "Democrats" rather than just Obama, because if senate Dems opposed this move Obama would be impeached and convicted in a heartbeat.
Refusing--I say again, refusing--to enforce the law by deporting people who have entered this country illegally--i.e. in violation of the laws of this nation--is a direct violation of the Constitution and thus is an impeachable offense.
If he can violate this law with impunity (as he will), what law will be next? What would prevent him from ordering his corrupt treasury secretary to seize your bank accounts or stock holdings? If you answered, "Why, that would be illegal!" you still don't get it.
Here's another quote from the article that pinpoints the Democrats' clear, blatant, egregious move to nullify the laws of the U.S. when they know they don't have the votes to get the law changed in congress (i.e. the legal, time-honored way to do it):
Laura Lichter, president-elect of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said...the [new] policy does bring administrative changes to the immigration system at a time when congressional action seems unlikely.
Yep, it sure does bring changes all right.
Wake. The. Hell. UP !!
"Congress is so stuck in its partisan politics, the immigration situation is getting worse and worse and worse," Lichter said. "This is the administration's only way, and frankly a very appropriate way, to come up with an interim fix."
Ah yes, of course: Wanting the Obozo administration to actually enforce the laws of the U.S. is being "stuck in partisan politics."
And by "fix" Lichter doesn't mean "stop illegal immigration and deport those here illegally" but rather, to institute a policy that is clearly contra to the law, to simply allow illegals to stay here "indefinitely."
They sure put the "fix" in all right. Wake. The. Hell. UP !!
Finally: We already have illegals flooding across the border (though said to be a bit fewer at the moment with our unemployment rate so high). What effect do you think this new official policy will have on the rate of people entering the U.S. illegally?
Now, do you think the cunning policy-makers in the Obama administration didn't think about this and take it into account when planning this official announcement?
UPDATE: The quoted article was far too candid in reporting the story--it attributed the new policy directly to the Obama administration. Apparently someone on the Obama crew noticed, because the AP article was quickly rewritten to make it less obvious.
Take the headline: It now reads "U.S. makes criminals priority for deportation." Now that's something the average voter would love, since--well, hasn't everyone who's entered the U.S. illegally broken the law? And isn't someone who breaks the law a criminal by definition?
Now the first paragraph of the AP story as originally posted:
The government says many illegal immigrants who don’t have criminal records but are facing possible deportation will get to stay in the U.S. indefinitely and have a chance to apply for a work permit.
In the revised version the first 'graf now reads,
Many illegal immigrants who were facing deportation despite having no criminal record will be allowed to stay in the country and apply for a work permit under new rules from the Homeland Security Department. Looks substantially the same. But notice the first version gives the source as "the government." Since Obama is in charge of the administration, many voters would understandably believe this change was approved by him (which of course it was). That's far too candid. So the AP rewrites it to read "under new rules from Homeland Security."
Also note that the illegal immigrants were facing deportation "despite having no criminal record." The artful phrasing implies that illegal immigrants haven't broken any laws. Because they have "no criminal record." A seed has been planted in the minds of readers.
One of the hardest changes to spot is because it's not there. Just kidding: it's a word--and actually a significant concept--that's been omitted in the rewrite. If you didn't spot it on the first read, take another look.
It's the word "indefinitely." The very first sentence of the original article said that illegal immigrants "will get to stay in the U.S. indefinitely." That's far too candid an admission, so that "psychological flag word"
was taken out of the revised version.
The story's second paragraph has also been totally rewritten:
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced Thursday that the department will focus on deporting illegal immigrants who are criminals or pose a threat to national security or public safety.The original version said
"Deporting illegal immigrants who are convicted criminals will be the Obama administration’s priority." The problem was that this specifically put the phrase "the Obama administration" near the top of the story, which again would make the association too obvious.
Solution: Change the focus to Napolitano.
Did you notice the other significant change? The original said the priority would be on deporting "convicted criminals." The rewrite says "will focus on deporting illegal immigrants who are criminals."
, thinks the average voter, that's great, right?
Means the government's gonna deport 'em all eventually, right? 'Cause, y'know, that "criminal" thingy.
But of course this is not the policy--the administration doesn't propose to deport "criminals," and for the rewrite to omit "convicted" took an overt decision. That is, the rewrite misleads the average voter into thinking the Obama crew is getting tough on illegal immigration, when the reverse is true. And again, it cleverly breaks the association between "criminal" and "illegal immigrant." That is, when it comes to immigration you can break the law and yet magically not
have committed a crime!
Wire-service stories don't rewrite themselves. Unless the writing was grammatically atrocious (it wasn't) or someone attributed a quote incorrectly (that doesn't seem to have happened in this case), you don't rewrite just for fun. Someone picked up a phone and "strongly suggested" that the story needed to be rewritten.