Obama Set to Radicalize Immigration System
But is it an impeachable offense?
Brace yourselves…executive action on immigration policy is coming.
Next week, President Obama is scheduled to reveal a 10-point, comprehensive immigration reform plan through executive action. The plan’s most controversial provisions would expand deferred action and halt deportations for millions of illegal immigrants.
Although Republicans have repeatedly warned Obama against going over the heads of the House and Senate on the issue of immigration, the President has vowed “not to wait” for Congress to act.
Republican warnings don’t seem to have as much persuasive power as donor dollars, and Obama has those flowing in by the bucket. Immigration reform has become a pet project of the left, and over the last decade left wing organizations and NGOs have pumped millions into groups backing radical immigration reform—and now those groups are expecting Obama to keep his promise to stop deportations.
The calls started shortly after President Obama’s news conference on the day after the midterm elections. He had said he would go ahead with action on immigration before year’s end, in spite of warnings from Republicans that he could wreck relations with the new Congress they will control. White House officials were calling immigrant advocates to talk strategy and shore up their support.
The officials wanted to reassure them, several activists said, that the president, after delaying twice this year, was ready to take the kind of broad measures they had demanded to shield immigrants here illegally from deportation.
The White House calls — and the president’s decision itself — reflected the clout the immigrant movement has built up in recent years, as it grew from a cluster of scattered Washington lobbying groups into a national force.
A vital part of that expansion has involved money: major donations from some of the nation’s wealthiest liberal foundations, including the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Open Society Foundations of the financier George Soros, and the Atlantic Philanthropies. Over the last decade those donors have invested more than $300 million in immigrant organizations, including many fighting for a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
Obama’s plan to bypass Congress could have consequences far beyond those immediately related to the status of illegal immigrants. Currently, Republicans are trying to work out how to fight on immigration without triggering another government shutdown. Congress needs to pass a funding measure to keep the government running after December, and some are calling on Speaker Boehner to pull funding for new visas as a way to derail the President’s plans.
House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers, R-Kentucky, who is crafting a yearlong so-called “omnibus” spending measure, warned that effort could trigger a shutdown, and insisted no one wants to go down that road.
“There’s no one stronger than me against unilateral action by the President on this subject, however it’s been said before – don’t take a hostage you can’t shoot,” Rogers told reporters after a meeting with all House Republicans on Thursday.
The debate over how to confront Obama is posing a sudden challenge for Republican leaders fresh off their victories during last week’s midterm elections, which gave them control of both chambers of Congress for the first time in nearly a decade. A day after the election, Mitch McConnell, who will become Senate majority leader in January, said Republicans would take positions Obama wouldn’t like but pledged not to shut down the government.
Politics aside, some wonder why all of the focus seems to be on illegal immigration, while those who attempt to come to the United States legally are being shunted aside. (I’ve personally wondered why we focus so much on political stereotypes like “the American dream,” and less on why that dream came to be—have we forgotten that the naturalization relationship is a two way street? Are we trying to help workers, or help progressive politicians earn political capital with Ford?)
Still others believe Obama’s efforts to overhaul immigration alone could be an impeachable offense:
Our lame duck president is a dangerous president, and the reason has nothing to do with immigration specifically. Time and again, Barack Obama has demonstrated that he has more regard for his own agenda than for the will of the people, the duty of the legislature, and the requirements of the Constitution.
Our current crisis has less to do with H-2As and H-2Bs, and more to do with a President who refuses to respect the job he was trusted with, and a large group of donors and activists who refuse to entertain the fact that he might.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
You mention normal immigrants being shunted aside. It currently takes *over a year* to get an immediate family member (think: wife) of a US citizen into the country through ‘proper’ channels. God forbid the tyrant O’bama pushes this through, but if he does, those of us who paid thousands of dollars in fees and have already waited more than a year should be granted full refunds, immediate visas, and be given heartfelt apologies by the US gubmint.
Want ‘reform’? Start right there.
And god forbid you move once your wife gets her alien registration card (nice name for it, eh?) It costs you $498 to voluntarily provide ICE with your address change on your card. Your wife gets to pay taxes to WITHOUT REPRESENTATION
Legal “alien” can’t vote. I bet Obama is going to make sure these illegals he grants amnesty to, will be fast tracked to be able to vote, also.
145 of the DREAMer EO amnesty recipients already signed up to vote in North Carolina — despite the fact that it is illegal, and despite the fact that the very first question on the N.C. voter registration form asks “Are you a U.S. citizen?” and warns that if you are not, you must not complete or submit the form.
Remember how we were told that these “kids” just want the chance to become “good Americans”? Don’t “good Americans” obey the law? How many chances do these foreigners get to break our laws before we say “enough!”?
May I ask why commentators on this subject adopt the language of the democrats?
“[A] 10-point, comprehensive immigration reform plan through executive action” is actually a 10-point usurpation of legislative powers, allowing unlawful entry of illegal aliens. It is NOT “reform,” it is DEFORM. It isn’t “immigration,” it’s INVASION, which the federal government is to protect the states from – look it up in the constitution.
Please don’t adopt the terminology of the left. It only helps them. Let’s call it what it is: a violation of his oath of office to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.
A very good point. I believe the current author is new and this comment will hopefully help her in future articles.
It has been pointed out before (and on these very pages) that what’s happening on the border isn’t immigration, and it isn’t even an invasion – it’s a crime wave.
However such honest terminology hasn’t caught on. Newspeak reigns supreme; everyone still calls it “immigration reform,” even though it ain’t.
Same thing as a “Clean CR” (continuing resolution). Any bill that funds the ENTIRE federal government, to the tune of trillions of dollars, has got more flotsam and jetsam in it than a human being can fathom. Nothing CLEAN about it.
I’m not a catchy wordsmith, but the nature of such a bill is actually the “Hurricane Debris CR.”
“…Obama’s efforts to overhaul immigration alone could be an impeachable offense”.
Well, no. They could NOT. It could not be any kind of offense for a President to try to get any particular thing “overhauled” via the proper process.
It IS an impeachable offense to blatantly circumvent the Constitution in a naked effort to change the demographics of the United States Of America, in violation of his/her oath of office and specific laws.
I’m sure she meant by his “efforts,” his actions that you describe as impeachable. Not merely imploring congress to adopt legislation.
She didn’t say that, did she? She introduced an important video segment with a badly written assertion, didn’t she?
The only question is: What are we going to do about it? Are we just going litter the blogosphere with outraged posts? Or, are we going to protest for real?
“Protesting” is ineffectual.
I’m ready to fight. If Obama wants to screw America, I’m for screwing Obama.
I’m for screwing the larger Collective, too. They depend on us being passive. Screw THAT, too…!!!
Agreed.
To me this is the most outrageous American event in my lifetime. It comes close to making me ill when I think too long about it, including both obama’s actions and the impotent response of Republican “leaders.”
See, e.g., http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-future-of-aztec-america.html
I have called my house rep, Dr. Phil Gingrey’s office, and asked that he vote ask a CR through the fiscal year (Sept. 2015) so the House can use the power of the purse to defund it.
We have a man that runs a nonprofit, D.A, King, (The Dustin Inman Society) here in Georgia and he is trying to get them to remove driver’s licenses from DACA types.
Friday, at a meeting with my local state house reps, I brought up for an Article 5 convention, eliminating birthright citizenship. I didn’t get far, because the week before when I brought it up, he called me “incredibly racist.” So much for the GOP.
I’m slightly active the county GOP.
Call your house and senate officials, and ask them to vote AGAINST a Continuing Resolution through September 2015 and to vote FOR only a short one, so they can rein Obama in by defunding his usurpation on amnesty.
Amy Miller: But is it an impeachable offense?
No. The executive has broad latitude under the law concerning enforcement. Importantly, the president’s actions are subject to judicial review. Furthermore, Congress can pass legislation to override most executive actions.
The excessive use of executive action does tend to erode the legislative power, but it is well within Congress’s power to reassert their powers.
Yeah, no. You’re full of crap, as usual, Zachie.
McCarthy does a very nice job of telling the truth to your lies…
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/392726/point-impeachment-andrew-c-mccarthy
Ragspierre: McCarthy does a very nice job
Well, no, he doesn’t. The executive has broad discretion under current law. McCarthy points out that Congress has the power to act to constrain the president, but won’t. Congressional inaction is hardly a valid reason for impeachment.
Abuse of the executive’s power over immigration enforcement now belongs in this category of maladministration that impeachment alone can counter. One must use the qualifier “now” because this was not always the case. Immigration enforcement was originally a state responsibility. Washington has supplanted the states since the early 20th century, an erosion of federalism largely responsible for our current immigration crisis. That, however, is a subject for another day. Like it or not (I don’t), the federal courts’ ill-conceived application of preemption principles has left the states and the American people vulnerable to a lawless president who refuses to protect them from illegal immigration while preventing them from protecting themselves. (Obama’s theory that disarming the state somehow promotes security works about as well in Arizona as it does in Ukraine.)
I drew on Faithless Execution in last weekend’s column and in a follow-up Corner post, positing that, short of credibly threatening impeachment, Congress and the courts can neither compel a president to enforce the laws nor stop him from using his plenary pardon authority to grant a sweeping amnesty. That gets Obama two-thirds of the prize he is pursuing — namely, several million aliens whose illegal status has been purged, put on the path to inevitable voting rights that will give Democrats an invincible electoral majority.
As for the remaining third, Congress could, in theory, block the president from granting illegal immigrants legal status and other positive benefits (such as work permits) without impeaching him. To do this in reality, though, Congress would have to use its power of the purse. Translation: It would take the credible threat of a government shutdown to check the president’s lawless conferral of benefits.
Alas, that constitutional parry has already been disavowed by GOP congressional leadership. If they persevere in this disavowal, it will be in defiance of their base (and against the sound tactical advice of Mark Krikorian). Yet such a signature display of preemptive surrender would come as no surprise given that, as previously argued here, their opposition to Obama’s imperious method of achieving that goal seems, shall we say, less than genuine. Moreover, the judiciary that Mr. Obama is stacking with Lawyer Left activists like himself can be relied on to twist the Constitution into mandating any benefits the president does not succeed in awarding.
Against this backdrop, I am gratified that Fox News’s Megyn Kelly and Charles Krauthammer have just given the topic of impeachment in the immigration context more of the serious consideration it deserves. Appearing on The Kelly File Thursday, Dr. Krauthammer asserted that the president’s anticipated amnesty decree for millions of illegal aliens “is an impeachable offense.”
He is plainly correct.
—McCarthy
You lie, Zachie.
But why break type.
Ragspierre (quoting): “As for the remaining third, Congress could, in theory, block the president from granting illegal immigrants legal status and other positive benefits (such as work permits) without impeaching him….
“Alas, that constitutional parry has already been disavowed by GOP congressional leadership.”
In other words, Congress already has the authority short of impeachment, but chooses not to use it. Congressional inaction is hardly a valid reason for impeachment.
See, this is just more of your usual school of red herrings.
Obama’s threatened conduct IS impeachable. So you drag the red herring of blaming Congress for “inaction” across the trail.
You next drag the red herring of GITMO out. Barracula was shut down, not by Congress, but by outrage among the voters, liar. Plus, he’s been releasing prisoners at a brisk clip ever since. AND he’s threatening to close it by EO. Another STUPID lie in your attempt to make an argument…ANY argument.
Next, you trot out the Emancipation Proclamation. How stupid are you? Pretty, apparently. We are not, liar.
But you fail utterly to address my point about funding. Which is no surprise, as you cannot honestly address ANY of the arguments I’ve made.
Ragspierre: So you drag the red herring of blaming Congress for “inaction” across the trail.
Actually, that was your citation.
Ragspierre: was shut down, not by Congress, but by outrage among the voters
The shut down of Guantanamo was prevented by provisions of the 2011 Defense authorization bill.
Ragspierre: Next, you trot out the Emancipation Proclamation.
Yes, the Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order, which is why it was limited to states in rebellion.
Well, lying Zachie, show by proof that ANY Congressional action would stymie a lawless Pres. ScamWOW.
See, I don’t find ANYTHING compelling that shows that, if Congress limited funding for Barracula’s ILLEGAL illegal alien amnesty, he would not simply wire around that. Illegally.
Even were he impeached, which of the EXECUTIVE agencies would remove him from office if he refused to go?
See, liar?
Ragspierre: I don’t find ANYTHING compelling that shows that, if Congress limited funding for Barracula’s ILLEGAL illegal alien amnesty, he would not simply wire around that.
Your own citation argues that Congress has the power short of impeachment to rein in the executive, but chooses not to wield that power. And, indeed, they do have such power, and have used it in the past. For instance, Obama was going to close Guantanamo, but the Congress prevented that through legislation.
There are many examples of executive orders from history. Perhaps the most famous was the Emancipation Proclamation.
Ragspierre: Even were he impeached, which of the EXECUTIVE agencies would remove him from office if he refused to go?
All of them. If Obama were impeached, his power would be immediately divested and flow elsewhere.
Well, I’ve done it again.
I’ve helped Zachie here prove what a liar he is, and how he employs red herrings as his primary tool in posting his lies.
Thanks, Zachie, for all your help.
A vital part of that expansion has involved money: major donations from some of the nation’s wealthiest liberal foundations, including the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Open Society Foundations of the financier George Soros, and the Atlantic Philanthropies
As an aside, Soros’ organization was one of the biggest backers in California’s Prop 47 debacle (along with the ACLU) that took whole categories of felonies and reduced them to misdemeanors. At least 10,000 current state prisoners will be released into the public because of it.
This will also affect the thousands of illegal aliens in CA prisons/jails .. now no longer felons who can be transfered to fed custody for deportation, they too will be released into the populace to await Obamamnesty.
I’d prefer compromise. Obama ends DACA, shelves Amnesty, and enforces the law. Congress agrees not to impeach him, and clap him in irons in Gitmo.