Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

While you weren’t looking, Obama passed immigration amnesty

While you weren’t looking, Obama passed immigration amnesty

He didn’t pass it through Congress, even though he had overwhelming majorities for almost two years, because there were not enough votes.  He also didn’t do it by regulation, because that would take time and be subject to public comment and other messy procedures.

Instead, Obama simply has issued an internal policy not to deport illegal aliens other than those who have committed some other serious crime.

Janet Napolitano tried to justify the change based on the need to focus on violent criminals and couched the change in the language of prosecutorial discretion.  Those excuses were flat out pretexts; each of the justifications has existed for years.  This is simply part of Obama’s 2012 campaign, as he hopes to gain votes in states with large Hispanic populations.

This was no mere internal operating procedure or prosecutorial discretion.  This was a political decision which came only when the political process had failed to produce the results Obama wanted.  Even if you support the substance of the decision, it should worry you that we have a President with such a low regard for the political process.

I have often warned that what Obama could not achieve through legislation, he would achieve through regulation.  Now the corollary:  What Obama cannot achieve through legislation or regulation, he simply will do anyway.

Update:  Here is Obama’s speech in July in which he said he could not do what he just did (h/t Gateway Pundit)(click here to start at key point.)

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

William A. Jacobson: He didn’t pass it through Congress, even though he had overwhelming majorities for almost two years, because there were not enough votes.

For historical reasons, Senators representing a relatively small proportion of the population can bottle up legislation and keep it from ever coming to a vote. That’s what happened to the Dream Act; it was ‘filibustered.’ The 2010 vote was 55 to 41 — in favor of the bill.

If Obama exceeded his authority, then it may be possible to take the issue to the courts, or simply pass more specific legislation.

    William A. Jacobson in reply to Zachriel. | August 20, 2011 at 10:23 am

    Harry Reid and other Democrats waited until the closing days of the lame duck session to try to pass it, knowing it would fail. It was a public relations move, and nothing more.

    aguyfromjersey in reply to Zachriel. | August 20, 2011 at 12:16 pm

    I’m sorry, but that is the way the US Government works. If you can’t get it past the filibuster rule, and you control the senate, you don’t take it upon yourself to change the law. This crap has to stop.

      Zachriel in reply to aguyfromjersey. | August 20, 2011 at 2:38 pm

      That’s fine. Rather antiquated, though there is a lot to be said for tradition and stability.

      On the other hand, apparently the President has the power to direct law enforcement resources where he feels they are best applied. So, deporting young people who came to the U.S. as children may not be the best use of resources. Whether you agree with the President’s policy or not, “that is the way the US Government works.”

        Thus, if a future Republican president decides not to prosecute violators of certain EPA rules (or other major federal department regulations), that’s okay with you?

        Somehow I doubt it. And the same press not making much of a whimper now will be in full howl mode

        Funny how discretion becomes tyranny when you don’t support the result.

          sybilll in reply to T D. | August 20, 2011 at 7:42 pm

          Great point. If the Republican president in 2013 starting governing via executive fiat (undoing all of this largesse) as Obama is doing, the Progressives and their Marxist sympathizers would take to the streets.

          Zachriel in reply to T D. | August 21, 2011 at 8:45 am

          T D: Thus, if a future Republican president decides not to prosecute violators of certain EPA rules (or other major federal department regulations), that’s okay with you?

          That’s not what we said. If the President is not enforcing the law according to the will of the Congress, then take him to court, or if the law is not clear, then change the law.

        Except, of course, he has to (Supreme Court to Nixon) spend the money where Congress directs. Congress said spend money deporting illegals.

        Then there’s that whole oath of office thing, where he swears that “the laws shall be faithfully executed.”

        All you prove, Zachriel, is that you Copperheads are simply too dishonest to live in the same society with. We can fix that; look up why the Tories fled to Canada after the Revolution for how.

          Zachriel in reply to SDN. | August 21, 2011 at 8:45 am

          sybilll: Great point. If the Republican president in 2013 starting governing via executive fiat (undoing all of this largesse) as Obama is doing, the Progressives and their Marxist sympathizers would take to the streets.

          That is their privilege (ignoring your conflation of Progressivism with Marxism).

          Zachriel in reply to SDN. | August 21, 2011 at 8:50 am

          The previous reply was directed at sybylll.

          SDN: Except, of course, he has to (Supreme Court to Nixon) spend the money where Congress directs.

          Except that the Congress doesn’t provide unlimited supplies of money, so it has always been a prerogative of the President to allocate resources. Even in criminal matters, the President may direct additional resources against white collar crimes, or against civil rights violations, within the limits of the law.

          Is your concern really about the rule of law, which can be enforced through the courts, or is it really that you want to see young people who immigrated as children, who are culturally as American as most any citizens, be deported into a country where they no longer have roots?

          SmokeVanThorn in reply to SDN. | August 21, 2011 at 11:53 pm

          SDN – Kudos. Your pursuit of this issue caused Zachriel to reveal that he approves of Obama’s highhanded action.

Unfortunately, the handwriting is on the wall for 2012 – Obama is going down. This leaves him with literally nothing to lose at this point, so he is now in the preliminary stages of a scorched earth policy. Look for him to go for the gusto as he issues numerous EO’s and other “policy changes” between now and the elections of 2012.

While Obama has no leadership capabilities, he is clearly arrogant enough, and now desperate enough, to simply indulge his wishes at nearly any cost and without any regard for either the legislative process or the will of the people.

As a person motivated by deficiency, resentment and envy, and now at a total loss to either justify or rationalize what he has accomplished (not) to date, Obama will now play the only card he has left – the payback card.

I think its now time to start looking in greater detail at all of the senators that are up for re-election in 2012. Clearly, many are Democrats. We need to pin down now exactly which of them are behind Obama now so that we can remind the public who they are in 2012.

    Mutnodjmet in reply to Ipso Facto. | August 20, 2011 at 10:56 am

    Ipso Fact: I have begun with a list, which is here —

    http://templeofmut.wordpress.com/2011/08/17/freedom-of-spending-2-the-starbucks-edition/

    My Tea Party group is based in California — a state so blue that Crayola is going to have to come up with a new name. So, while we cannot expect Feinstein to be voted out, we will be dividing up the key races and following closely. We will be encouraging Californians to donate and phone-bank in key Senate races.

    I think the media is trying to make it all out the Presidential race. Happily, capitalism’s community organizers have other ideas.

“low regard for the political process” ??????
I think NO regard for the political process says it better.

What is done in 2011 can be undone in 2013.

    I’ve heard this theory yet each time the other party gets into power not much undoing occurs.

    I suppose this is reason why America so fed up with politicos constantly re-arranging the deck chairs on the sinking Titantic that they were motivated to Tea Party in 2010.

      Ipso Facto in reply to syn. | August 20, 2011 at 7:41 pm

      We need to start pinning down candidates and ask them to make very specific pledges about what actions of Obama they will vote to recind as soon as they are elected.

Unfortunately for Obama’s re-election campaign and Mike Bloomberg cheap slave-labor plan to stimulate the economy, the NY Liberal Times indicates illegal immigration is sputtering to a trickle:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/07/06/world/americas/immigration.html

Could be that Mexico’s 5.4% unemployment rate compared to America’s 9.2% is attracking Illegal Immigrants to leave America for more ecomincally fruitful ground. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/mexico/unemployment-rate

The economic wizards of Wallstreet-from Warren Buffet to Goldman Sachs- partnering with Havard’s Intellectual Giant President Barack Obama could be inadvertantly thwarting Obama’s own re-election plans.

I suppose it never occurred to the Proggs on Wallstreet and in the White House/Congress that severe economic repression and depression motivates people to flee towards more fruitful environments.

I contacted House Leader Boehner and thanked him for his service and informed him he and his colleagues were no longer needed. I guess we can reduce the debt by eliminating our government.

When politicians express such clear and outright contempt, disdain and disregard for the will of the people it must simply be called tyranny.

I don’t know how else you classify this.

The federal government has overthrown the Constitution and the Republic!

What are we up to now, Impeachable Offense No. 4?

….and that’s being conservative.

It is said the pathway to hell is paved with good intentions. This is the case with the latest action by Obama to pander to the Hispanic vote.

Who is will action most adversely affect? The Hispanic communities. Why? Because illegals hide out in plain sight in communities that are primarily Hispanic. Hispanics tend to live in the same neighborhoods they grew up in staying near their families. Even Henry Cisneros, former mayor of San Antonio, and Clinton’s HUD secretary, never moved out of the barrio he grew up in.

Now Hispanics are having to put bars on their windows and dooor, and purchase expensive alarm systems, because the illegals who come here for no other reason that to involve themselves in crime, can melt into a Spanish speaking neighborhood and nothing will be thought about it. But when crime happens, it is also the Hispanic neighborhoods that are seeing an uptick in crime. Crime those native Hispanics don’t want. Just as when the Irish gangs overun New York, they operated in Irish enclaves and it was the law abiding Irish who suffered the most.

These are people that Obama and Napalitano are not going to go after, but no one is asking the money question: if these illegals have been ordered deported, and DHS is NOT going after illegals who are simply in the work force, what was the reason for the deportation order in the first place? Illegals, who have not broken the law outside of entering the U.S. illegally, don’t wind up in a federal immigration court.

One problem is that the litmus test has been applied by using the “convicted felon” application. If they are “convicted” felons, and have served their time by which local jails have to release them, why were they not picked up by ICE the minute they walked out of jail and transferred to a deportation center? Not to mention that most illegals who commit henious crimes, do not have a previous record to rely on.

Perhaps Texas is a bit unusal as we have always had a large Tejano community. We grew up with them, we went to school with them, we married them. Most Hispanic couples with grown childre have at least one son/daugher in law who is a gringo. That ethnic line has been blurred over the last 50 years. And just as the Hispanics tend to live in a community that is primarily Hispanic (food, music, ethnic celebrations), as the Irish did in 19th century New York, this ill thought out, pandering for votes, decision on the part of Obama will will have the greatest adverse affect the very people he is trying to pander to.

    Aridog in reply to retire05. | August 21, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    I truly hope you don’t mind me “stealing” your comment here (with attribution) … cuz I just have to … written far better than my blustering. Acquaintances I have in ICE will appreciate it, especially the points you have illuminated. Sometimes the obvious is hard to recognize for some folks, but you’ve done a great job of laying it out in KISS principle fashion. Thanks.

workingclass artist | August 20, 2011 at 2:11 pm

Yeah…it’s already causing an increase of tensions in California between established Latinos many of whom were either sponsored in legally and gained citizenship,some older groups who benefited from Reagan’s amnesty and recent arrivals particularly from the Oaxaca region of Mexico.

Tejanos in Texas cast a jaundiced eye on this tactic. Many own businesses and vote republican. They want reform and secure borders not this crap…it’s a destabilizing factor, they’re a lot closer to cubans that way as a voting group, but liberals as usual don’t get it. I think it will backfire on them.

It is appalling that President Obama behaves as though this is a “Hispanic” issue instead of a law enforcement issue. Illegal aliens from many lands and of all colors come here daily. And Americans of Hispanic descent are not a cohesive voting block but reflect all the variety of American political, religious and social values.

For the President to claim he is working on a “jobs plan” and then announce he’s going to issue work permits to 11 million illegal aliens is simply shocking.

I’ve quoted you, Professor, and linked to this post on my blog: President Obama Overrules Law, Tells Illegals “Come Get Your Green Card”

workingclass artist | August 20, 2011 at 2:16 pm

Tejanos are as much a part of Texas as Anglos since the days of our revolution….So are Black cowboys after Juneteenth. We’re not perfect but in Texas our history binds us together more than it separates us…We focus on the business of living more than anything else…as the baptists would say Freedom to work & freedom to pray.

workingclass artist | August 20, 2011 at 2:20 pm

Obama’s action is a cynical tactic and people like him don’t see people…they just see race and issue and how to exploit it to gain advantage.

David R. Graham | August 20, 2011 at 3:28 pm

“What Obama cannot achieve through legislation or regulation, he simply will do anyway.”

Such as not vacating the White House when the time arrives that he must?

“… he simply will do anyway.” are prophetic as well as observant words. They prefigure experiences arriving in 20JAN13 and 20JAN17. America has been fundamentally transformed. It is not a Constitutional nation or a nation of laws. It is not even a nation. It is an area of the planet to be plundered and pillaged, and its former government is a tool for removing restraints on those activities.

The cat in the White House has been supremely successful in everything he has wanted to do. Why should he not do anything he wants? He has “a thing.” He turns opponents knees to jelly. He knows he can do whatever he wants. No man or company of men can stop him.

“… he simply will do anyway.” could be deemed a free-market economy, so why should conservatives be upset? Jeff Immelt is not. Drummond Pike is not. The Black flash mobs are not. Nor Chinese basketball players. All those people are doing what they want anyway, too. That’s freedom, or is it libertinism?

Adam Smith was a Professor of Moral Philosophy, not Economics (a subject which did not exist in either the Scottish, German, French or English Enlightenments). I believe his observations as well as his wishes have been misunderstood.

    Mr. Graham, please to get out of my head. You’re scaring me.

    Sinking into my cynicism, at weak moments I’ve conjured up thoughts of either Obama doing a LBJ (I can dream, right?) or far more likely, doing a Manuel Zelaya ala’ Honduras. The O-man seemed quite comfortable with the Zelaya maneuver.

The miracle of the cell phones…

“The better reception is due to two temporary cell towers (known as cell on wheels) that Verizon puts up here and in neighboring West Tisbury, said Timothy R. Carroll, the executive secretary in Chilmark. He said the White House Communications Agency, which handles phone systems for the president and other federal officials, had requested the towers.

They went up in early August and will stay until the end of the month, Mr. Carroll said, adding, “I would have been happy if they came in July.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/20/us/politics/20vineyard.html?_r=1

“Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kinda cool.”
–Clinton presidential aide Paul Begala, July 1998

Said like a good imperial ruler (king, dictator, tyrant, despot, etc.), and used in excess by those who wannabe.

I am glad to hear about the Tea Party group in CA that is getting organized to unseat as many Democratic senators as possible in 2012. All conservatives across the nation should consolidate their resources to bear on this objective. As the writer mentions, if we can’t get rid of Feinstein, we should not bother with that race, but instead, focus our resources (contributions) where they have a realistic chance of being effective.

Every single conservative across the nation should contribute to the campaign funds of Conservatives that are challenging defeatable Democratic Senators in 2012. Lets show the nation that we have learned a little about community organizing ourselves!

Are there any criminal penalties for nonfeasance by an office holder? I find it hard to believe that there are no legal checks and balances against any government official who refuses to uphold the law beyond voting them out of office. Since sovereign immunity shields people like Napolitano and Obama against civil suits for the results of their actions, there must be some remedy?

    Aridog in reply to dscott. | August 21, 2011 at 2:39 pm

    Of course there are … however, in the federal system, it is all about the money, the funding. As another commenter said earlier, there’s never a 100% appropriation, so executives, large and small, get to partition their spending efforts pretty much as they see fit. The “defesne” is always, “we had to allocate the funds to their best effect” … “it’s Congresses fault that there were not enough to do it all” …yada yada.

    The “Beltway Salute” isn’t a military form, it is the crossed arms fingers pointing to left and right “who me?” gesture. I spent considerable time in federal service and this phenomena made me crazy.

    I wish I had a clue how to remedy it.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend