Monday, July 28

Did Obama order federal employees not to enforce actual U.S. law? If so, will he double down soon?

Obama appears to be violating standing federal immigration law. The means of this violation--formally titled "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals" (DACA)--was first made public in memoranda issued in 2011 and 2012 by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Such memos are considered to have the same authority as presidential executive orders, and in this case they allowed illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. indefinitely, contra to law.  For example, in 2012 DHS issued a memo--with the explicit approval of the Obama administration--which not only stopped deportations of illegal alien youths but also gave them work permits.

Here's the actual text from the white house website:
Today [August 15, 2012] the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will begin accepting requests for consideration of deferred action for childhood arrivals. Deferred action is a discretionary determination to defer removal action of an individual as an act of prosecutorial discretion. Under this process, USCIS will consider requests on a case-by-case basis.

While this process does not provide lawful status or a pathway to permanent residence or citizenship, individuals whose cases are deferred will not be removed from the United States for a two year period, subject to renewal, and may also receive employment authorization. To be considered for this process, you must show that:
  • You came to the United States before reaching your 16th birthday
  • You have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time
  • You were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012
  • You entered without inspection before June 15, 2012, or your lawful immigration status expired as of June 15, 2012
  • You are currently in school, have graduated or obtained your certificate of completion from high school, have obtained your general educational development certification, or you are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States
  • You have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat
I use the term "appears to violate" because many statutes contain a boilerplate clause that gives the president the power to suspend many provisions in the event of a national emergency.  I've been trying--so far unsuccessfully--to see if the controlling immigration law has such a loophole.  However, I suspect that if the law had such a emergency loophole, Team Obama would have long since cited the exact paragraph and line number as authority. 

Since they didn't, my guess is that no such authority exists.  But given the well-known difficulty of proving a negative, the jury is still out on that one.

Why is this important?  Because Team Obama has leaked to its media allies that Obama will take stronger action--again via executive order--at the end of the summer to give some form of amnesty to illegal aliens. 

But, you think, that shouldn't be a problem because we've been under DACA for two years now and the sky hasn't fallen.  Isn't the proposed action just a small expansion of DACA?

Well, according to the White House only about 1.7 million illegals qualified for DACA amnesty.  By contrast, the total number of illegal aliens estimated to be in the U.S. is between 11 million and 30 million, depending on whose estimate you think is more accurate.  But even with the low one, you're looking at over six times more illegals legalized.

I suspect the strategy all along was to use DACA as a trial balloon.  Because it was "for the poor innocent kiddies," they expected--correctly--that only a few hot-heads would *seriously* oppose it.  Then if no one pitched a fit over the unconstitutional usurpation of legislative power after a year or two, they'd be clear to go full-throttle.

They've already seen that the Repubs are sharply divided on the issue, so even if we wind up with a majority in the senate, I don't think enough Repubs would vote to remove.  As I see it that leaves two possibilities:  In earlier years--as when Nixon was being pursued for the Watergate coverup--the Supreme Court could order the president to comply with the Constitution's mandate to "faithfully enforce the laws."  Today, though, it seems pretty obvious that Team Obama has some pretty powerful leverage on the chief justice.  With Roberts voting Dem, the court won't get involved.

The second possibility would be the House growing a pair and passing something like "No funds appropriated by the U.S. shall be spent on legalizing the status of anyone who entered the U.S. without complying with all the provisions of the Immigration Act of 19XX."  Unfortunately there are probably lots of ways to get around such a provision.  Plus, Obama and the Dems could go to court seeking to have any such act ruled unconstitutional, and they'd probably win--for the same reason that the Supreme Court is unlikely to order the president to comply with...anything.

What you need to understand is that legalizing even 11 million new Democrat votes--let alone 20 million or more--will mean Democrat control of both houses and the presidency for the next 50 years.  The Dems know this, and their recent track record suggests they're willing to do virtually anything to get that.

I think this has been completely plotted out; that nothing seems likely to stop it, and that once Obama declares it by executive order or Memo or magic pixy dust, it'll be essentially impossible to undo.

I'll also predict that 15 years from now a handful of "progressives" will surface confirming the strategy and bragging about how they outsmarted the Republicans and the Tea Party.  Kinda like Billy Ayers couldn't resist bragging "Guilty as hell, free as a bird."  If you've buggered the country that thoroughly and gotten away with it, the temptation to take credit for being that smart would be terribly hard to resist.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home