Image 01 Image 03

Obama’s Intended Immigration Consequences

Obama’s Intended Immigration Consequences

ICE prepares for new surge of illegal immigrants.

You know who’s really excited about Obama’s new immigration plan? Future illegal immigrants.

Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner reported:

ICE readies 2,400 beds for new spring surge of illegal immigrants through Texas

The Obama administration is bracing for another surge of illegal immigrants next spring, bringing online a family detention center that will have 2,400 beds.

“We must be prepared for traditional, seasonal increases in illegal migration. The Dilley facility will provide invaluable surge capacity should apprehensions of adults with children once again surge this spring,” said Acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Thomas S. Winkowski.

In advance of the president’s new pro-immigrant announcement set for Thursday night, ICE is readying its strategy for next year when over 100,000 illegals are expected to flood over the U.S.-Mexico border.

The agency said in a statement that it hopes illegal immigrants look at what they are doing in building holding facilities like the 2,400 bed center in Dilley, Texas, and will decide the trip isn’t worth it.

Uh huh. Good luck with that.

Charles Kruathammer recently nailed the issue with a prediction.

On Special Report with Bret Baier, Krauthammer summarized Obama’s plan.

Transcript via Real Clear Politics:

Krauthammer: Obama’s Executive Action A “Gigantic Neon Sign” Inviting a Mass Migration

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: You don’t have to misinterpret it, you just have to interpret it. This executive action is a gigantic neon sign on the Rio Grande saying to Central Americans and to other people around the world, if you wait in line and you apply for legal immigration, you’re a sap. You come here illegally, you have children, and eventually you will be legalized.

This will cause a complete new cohort. We will have 11 million new illegal immigrants in 10 or 15 years, we will be through this again and again. I would not oppose this if we were going to be serious about shutting the border. There is no seriousness whatsoever coming out of the administration or the Democrats on that. This is an invitation to a mass migration.

It almost seems like that was the plan all along. After all, the recent midterm elections proved that the Democratic Party needs new voters. Now Democrats just need to figure out a way to get them the vote.

But what to do about it?


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


It’s a lame duck last ditch effort to squeeze in as many brand spanking new Democrat voters while he can, as well as a juvenile nyah-nyah to all the racists who’ve disagreed with his policies.

    Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to Henry Hawkins. | November 21, 2014 at 1:24 pm

    No U.S. citizen has to follow anything that this “illegal” White House pResident says or passes.

    No need to impeach Obama – just arrest the common criminal.

Much as I love Special K (Charles The Kraut Hammer), he’s as wrong as hell about something he said here.

The Congress can walk and chew gum. They can pass good, positive stuff AND fight this tyranny.

And they’d best do BOTH. I’m looking at you, John Cornyn.

This should lay the ground work for the direction to go forward …

In its editorial this morning, however, the Wall Street Journal reports that the Office of Legal Counsel “made its justification public about an hour before the speech.” Talk about just in time manufacturing! (The rationale is “prosecutorial discretion.”)

… and there you have it folks ..

the reason ObamaCare waivers were given out .. “prosecutorial discretion”
the reason any criminal law may be ignored by the POTUS .. “prosecutorial discretion”

…. Reform “prosecutorial discretion”

    JPL17 in reply to Neo. | November 21, 2014 at 11:36 am

    Unfortunately for Obama and his minions, prosecutorial discretion — which can sometimes justify the government’s refraining from action — doesn’t EVER justify the government’s engaging in affirmative illegal acts.

    In this particular case, the policy Obama announced last night will require the feds to affirmatively issue work visas that the government has no authority to issue under existing statute.

    Indeed, I have yet to see any attempt by the Obama administration to use “prosecutorial discretion” to justify the illegal granting of work visas. That’s because they know it’s illegal but going ahead with it anyway.

We learned something last night, a very dangerous thing:

If a large enough number of people break the law, the government is not only powerless to stop it, but the party in power will pardon the law-breaking just to win that bloc’s votes.

The US is moving away from the concept of government by law, in support of government by man, party, and ideology – a beneficent dictatorship, wherein history tells us every dictator believes himself beneficent to the people, even if he has to kill them to dispel dissent and establish peace.

    Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | November 21, 2014 at 11:20 am

    But, Henry, some of us have known that for always.

    AND it is not necessarily a BAD thing. Look up Prohibition.

    It’s sometimes called “Irish Democracy”.

    Radegunda in reply to Henry Hawkins. | November 21, 2014 at 11:25 am

    This has been known for some time regarding Democrats (and some Republican pols) and foreign nationals who break our laws. But I’m trying to think of a law that citizens break with impunity and then demand that our government disregard the lawbreaking, and then the government treats the lawbreaking citizens like victims of a “broken” system and obligingly changes the system to accommodate their wishes.

    Is there any sort of lawbreaking by citizens in which the lawbreakers are so openly defiant and the authorities so grovelingly indulgent?

      Anchovy in reply to Radegunda. | November 21, 2014 at 11:35 am

      “Not paying no racist taxes what was originally used by the white man to keep the black man down.”

      A. Sharpton (D-MSNBC)

      Ragspierre in reply to Radegunda. | November 21, 2014 at 12:11 pm

      Well, let’s change some of your invective, or just pull it out, and look at history.

      Jim Crow was brought down in the US by people who violated the law…openly…and demanded the law deal with them according to its terms. This is pure civil disobedience.

      Women gained suffrage by, in part, breaking the law and demanding that the law change.

      Prohibition was brought about by people who broke the law and demanded it deal with them. Carrie Nation committed trespass and property destruction because Kansas, which had a prohibition clause in its constitution, was not enforcing the law.

      Prohibition was destroyed by people who broke the law, many of them NOT openly, and who demanded the law accommodate them.

      Gandhi led a march to obtain salt in violation of the Salt Tax, and demanded that the law deal with him and his followers strictly. The Salt Tax was abolished.

      Now, are any of these LIKE illegal immigration? No. Not in the least. Why?

        sdharms in reply to Ragspierre. | November 21, 2014 at 1:00 pm

        RagPierre: I really don’t know the answer. Can you explain. (I am serious)

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | November 21, 2014 at 2:06 pm

        Well, let’s look at this by breaking it down.

        Low-intensity invaders come here with NO CLAIM to being here by right, nor do they come here to OPENLY confront what they regard as an immoral law. They come here as outlaws, knowing and not contesting their status.

        Except for a few activists (see Race, La), NOBODY is making any case that our laws are immoral. They have declared “Your laws are illegal”, which nobody can even take seriously. Every nation on earth has laws protecting their territory.

        But for the average low-intensity invader, no such claim would even occur to them. They certainly do not come here and declare themselves to be who they are, and ask that the law deal with them strictly. (Though a lot of them come here and present themselves to the authorities so they can avoid the dangers of their coyotes, and start the goody-train.)

        I’d say the majority of them come here expecting their stay to be temporary, knowing they can be identified and ex-migrated (though that is much less likely recently). I’ve known a lot of guys in the building trades who would surrender themselves to La Migra every Christmas, so they could get free transportation home. They would return after the Holidays. It was all a game.

        There are a few exceptions to this, Jose Antonio Vargas being one. He has openly declared himself, and has defied the authorities to deal with him (while still making special pleadings to avoid really facing the consequences of his choices). So we could call him a half-assed civil disobedient.

        Now, the rest of them will certainly take any daft thing that it seems the Deemocrat/Collective seems inclined to offer them. But they STILL are not making any claim of right, they’re just lining up to take what some crazy people are offering. Why the hell not?

        Radegunda in reply to Ragspierre. | November 21, 2014 at 2:25 pm

        1. Where is the “invective” in my comment? Is it “invective” to point out that illegals have been openly defiant and that politicians have been grovelingly indulgent toward them?

        2. Do you deny that illegal aliens have been a protected class when it comes to flouting the law — not just immigration law but also laws concerning forgery and identity theft, and traffic laws too?

        3. Do you believe that foreign nationals have a moral right to compel us, the citizens of this country, to change our laws to suit their wishes even if it hurts us?

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Radegunda. | November 21, 2014 at 2:01 pm

      What I imagine is some demographic group trying to use this, say… making this up on the fly… maybe feminists garner the support of 2 million people who collectively refuse to pay their federal income taxes unless and until their demands are met. A Democrat majority wouldn’t want to act against an important bloc for them, while a GOP majority would be scared spitless to do anything, lest they be viewed as anti-women. This is just an example, but that sort of thing.

        Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | November 21, 2014 at 2:21 pm

        Of course. What prevents anybody or any group from following the Jeffersonian model of armed rebellion (tree watering, etc)?

        There are obvious answers. But my question is still; what are YOU prepared to do?

        Most all the people I know are VERY law-abiding people. Suggesting they NOT abide a law is outrageous.

        I always tell them, if they insist on abiding every law, they only are waiting for the law making them slaves. I don’t owe that kind of allegiance to law. There are things my government cannot ask me to eat.

          Radegunda in reply to Ragspierre. | November 21, 2014 at 2:30 pm

          “Most all the people I know are VERY law-abiding people. Suggesting they NOT abide a law is outrageous.”

          But illegal aliens as a whole are openly PROUD of violating the laws of this country, even while they demand every legal protection and material benefit that our government bestows on citizens. They’ll argue that the borders are artificial and nobody should be able to control which side they settle on, but obviously it matters very much to them which side they’re on.

    Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to Henry Hawkins. | November 21, 2014 at 1:28 pm

    Henry, you say that as though it is a “bad” thing. LOL

    All those octogenarian, geriatric hippies that committed the crime that is Obama think it is just fine and dandy.

    Our founding fathers and mothers revolted against much much less. Over stamps and tea I seem to remember…….

      Imagine 15 million blacks refusing to pay taxes until reparations are made for Jim Crow, slavery, etc. I see government doing nothing the law calls for when a citizen refuses to pay taxes. Because there are 15 million of them, they’d be viewed as a bloc neither Dems nor the GOP would want to anger. It would be another ‘to hell with th law – it’s too hard!’ situation and ‘negotiations’ would ensue, not prosecutions.

Can we just end the “anchor baby” provision in our immigration laws? We’re one of the only countries on Earth where if you happen to be born here, you’re automatically a citizen, even if neither of your parents are. If we change that, it might go a long way towards solving, or at least being able to reframe, the problem the next time.

    There are a lot of 14th Amendment issues attached to this.

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Obama Claus only takes from others and gives away what belongs to others…

Our current soviet style government:

Income tax gives the IRS almost complete tyranny over us.

The IRS has your name, address, your SSN. They know who your children are, where you work, your exemptions and soon your Obamacare health records will be available for their perusal.

The IRS does not abide by the Fourth amendment. They can size property w/o due process. Ask the newly nominated AG.

The Fifth Amendment is useless. Your personal info is on a tax form and can be used against you in court.

The 7th is gone – no trial by jury in U.S. Tax court unless you pay the IRS first and then sue.

The 1st should allow preachers to speak out politically but the all powerful IRS will revoke the church’s tax-exempt status.

There is no presumption of innocence in tax court. You have to prove you are innocent.

We have given up our freedoms, our privacy…for what?

I believe it will take more than a legal insurrection to regain our freedoms, especially since our democratic republic is now diluted with millions of needy illegal immigrants wanting stuff from Big Nanny and/or wanting to kill us to gain control.

This is no longer about immigration reform.

We need to start calling this for what it really is.
A decades long military incursion by proxy. The countries who are abetting in the massive displacement of their citizens have technically embarked on an undocumented war on the US.

The next president must hold these countries accountable and seek restitution for the economic and social costs incurred by their citizens. It’s time we put their governments on notice for their systematic assault on our sovereignty.

We will also not entertain the illegal’s absurd attempt at emotional blackmail with their self-inflicted plight of family separation. Real family separation is when our nation sacrificed generations of uniformed fathers and sons to 2 great wars to prevent not only the conquest of our borders…but those of the illegal’s native country as well.

That is, of course, the bottom line: to whom does our federal government owe its loyalty? To Americans who are struggling in the evolving world economy, made worse by the current administration’s inept economic policies? Or to citizens of Mexico, Honduras and other nations, who already have a home but–understandably!–would prefer to take their chances in the U.S.? It seems obvious to me that the President of the United States owes a fiduciary duty, not to human beings generally, wherever they may reside and of whatever country they already are citizens, but rather to Americans.

But that is not how Barack Obama sees it. Worse, he is willing to act in an obviously unconstitutional manner, not to benefit Americans, but to benefit citizens of other countries. It is hard to imagine a worse betrayal of his oath of office.
—John Hinderaker

Well, yes.

It becomes perfectly rational if you frame it in terms of Cloward-Piven.

    Observer in reply to Ragspierre. | November 21, 2014 at 2:16 pm

    But that is not how Barack Obama sees it. Worse, he is willing to act in an obviously unconstitutional manner, not to benefit Americans, but to benefit citizens of other countries. It is hard to imagine a worse betrayal of his oath of office.
    —John Hinderaker

    That’s what happens when a majority of the U.S. electorate decides it’s a good idea to elect a self-professed “Citizen of the World” as U.S. president, rather than an American.