Obama immigration Executive Order speech wrap-up

I watched only a few moments last night, and listened for a few more. It concerns me the president referenced Reagan and Bush 41 regulations and interpretations of laws* passed in Congress in comparison to his Executive Order that will completely ignore current law. But that’s not all conservatives are rightfully bitching about.

First, head over to read Paul Mirengoff’s piece at Powerline clearly explaining why previous actions by Reagan and Bush 41 provides no precedent for Obama’s action.

Unlike what Obama is about to do, Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 issued immigration regulations that were expressly authorized by a law passed by Congress.

In 1986, Reagan signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act. The Act required him to adjust the status of certain illegal immigrants to the category of “alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence.”

The Act also authorized the Attorney General to allow other illegal immigrants who did not qualify for the amnesty to remain in the U.S. if needed “to assure family unity.”

Accordingly, in May 1987, the Justice Department issued regulations that interpreted the the term “family unity” as calling for the maintenance of the “family group.” Family group was defined as including “the spouse, unmarried minor children under 18 years of age who are not member of some other household, and parents who resided regularly in the household of the family group.” Thus, not all spouses and children were included.

This regulation was not an exercise of prosecutorial discretion or the assertion of a generalized right to suspend “oppressive” immigration laws. Rather, the administration made it clear that it was carrying out the direction of Congress.

Also, remember that just because Congress passed and Reagan and Bush 41 signed the legislation does not mean all conservatives think it was the right thing to do then or today.

Go review the “fact check” article from the Associated Press. They touch on a few items. It very much annoys me when politicians point to one supposed cause when it comes to an effect. When they do that, you know they are lying. Just because the Obama administration is in charge and “working hard to secure the border” absolutely does not automatically mean their efforts resulted in a reduction in border crossings. That’s the explanation of the delusional for the simple fact there are hundreds of variables involved when it comes to the number of people who want to come to the United States illegally. To keep it short, one big one… it’s the economy stupid. How was the United States economy doing during the downward trend period? The numbers declined in part because there were fewer people who wanted to come.

Last night, the president said “All we’re saying is we’re not going to deport you.” So much for the president just employing prosecutorial discretion on a case-by-case basis. It is not at all lawful for the president to simply stop prosecuting a complete sub-set of crime and hand out work permits. I would expect a Supreme Court challenge here. I think the president moving forward to hand out work permits to five million illegal aliens would be an impeachable offense if he demands the Executive Branch does this.

We expect people who live in this country to play by the rules. We expect that those who cut the line will not be unfairly rewarded. So we’re going to offer the following deal: If you’ve been in America for more than five years; if you have children who are American citizens or legal residents; if you register, pass a criminal background check, and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes — you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily without fear of deportation. You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. That’s what this deal is.

Now, let’s be clear about what it isn’t. This deal does not apply to anyone who has come to this country recently. It does not apply to anyone who might come to America illegally in the future. It does not grant citizenship, or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive -– only Congress can do that. All we’re saying is we’re not going to deport you.

So in one sentence he says you will not have the right to stay here permanently, and the next sentence states we’re not going to deport you. Got it.

So, who is going to pay for all of this stuff? Five million registrations. Five million background checks. Five million tax reviews by IRS agents. Five million work permits. Total smoke and mirrors. By definition, these “undocumented workers” have no documents to prove anything. If illegal aliens start lining up, they will be churning out paperwork for them on-demand with few if any questions asked at all.

I can see James O’Keefe or one of his staff members showing up with an Publisher’s Clearing House notification and an old Blockbuster membership card in exchange for detailed instructions on how to fill out the application and get their photo ID and work permit.

Exit question: Will any federal employees charged with registering illegal aliens and handing them work permits stand up and say “this is not right.”

* On interpretation of the law by the Executive. Here lies a serious issue. There is no reason – none at all – Congress can not pass legislation that is very clear when it comes to how the Executive Branch should execute/enforce the law. This has been happening for the last five decades-plus and is all tied into my Symptom of the Disease series. By opening up legislation to very wide interpretation of the law – this immigration Executive Order will go WAY beyond that – Congress (the people) are handing over more and more power to the Executive Branch, in this case Emperor Obama. The states have handed over too much power to the federal government, and Congress has handed over too much power to the Executive through the passage of vague legislation.

31 replies
  1. ricbee
    ricbee says:

    Hopefully there will be an attempt to impeach him & he can spend the rest of his accursed term fighting that & not continuing to destroy the USA.

  2. Dimsdale
    Dimsdale says:

    I think the new Congress should accept his challenge and write a “comprehensive” immigration bill. They can add funding for a fence, border agents, National Guard relocations, drones (Øbambi likes those!), enforcement of all existing laws, pull the laws back before the Ted Kennedy “reforms” in 1965 etc., etc.

    He won’t like it, but it will answer his challenge. This could be an opportunity, drawing on the distrust of this regime and the simple fact that the majority of the real citizens (even hispanic) don’t like the notion of presidential edicts.

      • Steve McGough
        Steve McGough says:

        Why should they? We already have laws on the books, and they are not being enforced. Sanctuary cities… Nobody bothering with immigration holds… New laws passed by Congress do not have to be enforced if Obama does not want to enforce them. Simple as that now right?

      • Steve McGough
        Steve McGough says:

        I’ll revise. The House and Senate probably will bring up an immigration bill. Of course, they will demand the border be secured – with verification – prior to moves to “legalize” illegal aliens.

        They will be called racist bigots of course…

      • sammy22
        sammy22 says:

        If we have all manner of laws on the books why all this fuss, not to mention anger, threats of impeachement etc.? As to securing the border as a prerequisite to anything else, that is another excuse for not doing anything of substance one more time.

      • Dimsdale
        Dimsdale says:

        Sammy, all the fuss is because Øbama won’t enforce those laws, in fact, he is acting in defiance of them and his oath of office.

        I agree with Steve: the laws aren’t broken, no matter how many times they say it in a Goebbelsesque attempt to make it the truth.

        My point is that if he wants legislation, then by God, give him some to chew on. Reinstating the sponsor clauses Kennedy ripped out would be a fine start, and a case could be made for it. Make every change dependent on the border being secured first. Apply a fine to employers of $10k/per illegal/per day. No government bennies, including free schooling, never mind “in state tuition”.

        Now THAT is fixing the law!

    • Lynn
      Lynn says:

      Dims, I have read and reread your comments. I agree with it all. Steve has presented us with a complex issue on many levels. It is difficult to comment on everything he has questioned. However, you offer a sensible solution to deal with the challenge our unclothed “Emperor” has given Congress. Now as to the question Sammy has put forth, why is there a problem if the law is already there. I have no links to share or people to quote except to say Border Patrols and various governors have said that although money has been given to secure borders, it has somehow not been spent to do that. It is called government graft on a huge scale. As for the actions of the Department of UnJustice ruled over by the Indicted AG Holder, he has unilaterally disengaged the border patrols from doing the job they were hired to do, arrest illegals.

      • bien-pensant
        bien-pensant says:

        Lynne, sadly, we are once again faced, though on a grander scale, with the entirely lawless, imperial mentality of Obama and his regime.
        Do remember that it was HarryReed (D) who clogged up the Senate and refused movement of most bills. The House cranked them out by the ton.
        The wheel will turn after the new Congress is seated in January. Right now, the Republicans have to hold the line against the remaining lame democrat partisans.
        Obama may prevail in some few of these issues, but come January, he will be sorely wounded and facing not inadequate numbers of Republican votes, but bill passing majority of Republican votes. The wheel will have turned and Obama will be squealing to not be crunched under its steel tires. He will rant and rave the most horrible things about Republicans! But, a time of reckoning will be upon him. He may even have to play nice with others. Such a bring-down for him.
        We and our new Congress have to not fall victim to the “We gotta DO something” mentality crowd and the “there otta be a law” bunch.
        Let ’em (the democrats) burn in their own self-set fires. Played right, Obama is toast.

  3. ConservaDave
    ConservaDave says:

    The more Obama is allowed to get away with, the more emboldened he is to take the next step toward his ultimate goal…and he only has 2 more (scheduled) years to complete the task. If we do not get a serious opposition party (Boehner? McMilquetoast?) soon, willing to do whatever is necessary to stop the dictator-wanna-be-in-chief, it is indeed time to start forming a replacement party (remember the Whigs?) for 2016. If the establishment Republicans can start feeling the heat, maybe, just maybe, they’ll do the right thing.

    • Steve McGough
      Steve McGough says:

      A third party (on the right) would be a disaster for the GOP and conservatives. We simply have to get conservatives elected within the party and keep the pressure on them when they get into office. Bounce them if they move left.

      I’m not sure why people think starting a new conservative party would be the easy route compared to “taking over” the GOP.

      • bien-pensant
        bien-pensant says:

        A third party, attractive as it may sound, would only siphon off votes from Republicans. Democrats would benefit (a la Ross Perot). We have seen that play before and it isn’t good for Republicans, conservatives, libertarians or anyone on the Right.
        Consider that the Tea Party is continually rejected by the Republicans. Really? These are people on the Right are making war on the Tea Party.
        Why? Why is the
        Republican Party, the GOP, so resistant to accepting other recognized conservative, right-leaning groups?

  4. JollyRoger
    JollyRoger says:

    Too bad Barry never got properly vetted. The republi-duds should subpoena all of Barry’s sealed records- trust but verify. They’re sealed for a reason, and the duds should spend the next 2 years making hay with what’s in Barry’s records.

    • Dimsdale
      Dimsdale says:

      Vetted?? They never got past the cover of that ghost written book. He is the affirmative action president, and by “affirmative action”, I mean it is another term for the Peter Principle, which Øbama personifies.

  5. bien-pensant
    bien-pensant says:

    I don’t buy for a second that the immigration system for the US is broken, especially if that word comes from Obama. I works just fine. People are naturalized, it is a process. A process that evidently takes too long for the democrats.
    What I do see is Obama and the democrats are doing all of this for their political gain. No way amnesty is the right thing to do. It is the easy, lazy, illegal thing to do. Something that is legal but hard to do is secure the borders. There is no political will to do that.
    This is an exercise of political expediency on the part of the democrats. It is not a case of prosecutorial discretion. Obama is clearly usurping legislative authority and is breaching his sworn duties (again!).
    What past presidents did was extend existing legislation not make up new laws by executive fiat.

    Congress should consider impeachment; Obama has only contempt for Congress.

    • Lynn
      Lynn says:

      All true, but I don’t know if I can stand two more years of watching the erosion of checks and balances to just plain checks. By that I mean checks paid by “We the People”. I don’t know how Congress can stop this unless every law they write is to Defund, Defund, Defund. However, I have no idea if you can do that for Executive Actions. Thankfully I am not a lawyer or Supreme Court Justice to rule on thai mess. But, I tell you I pray every day that Bader stays alive, at least she is an enemy we know.

  6. Anne-EH
    Anne-EH says:

    Have an answer, but it will not get a reading. Build a wall just like what Israel did to keep the terrorists out. But then again, it did not work out last Tuesday when you had that terror attack. But then again, better to have a massive then to have open southern borders.

  7. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    A lot of words (including a sidebar about 3rd party), but not much about what to do about the millions of illegals already in the country. Anybody want to say what to do about the children born here and their illegal parents?

      • sammy22
        sammy22 says:

        Very thoughtful, ricbee. So you are in favor of deporting US citizens to their country of origin, that is the US?

      • Dimsdale
        Dimsdale says:

        I think ricbee is suggesting an aggressive form of family reunification. In their home countries. Being a US citizen via the 144th amendment is no bar to living in a foreign country, is it?

      • bien-pensant
        bien-pensant says:

        @sammy.22: Let them apply THROUGH THE NATURALIZATION SYSTEM!!!
        We, the US, have LAWS that address this situation. The system is not broken!!!!
        Just what are YOU advocating? Special benefits just because they are here illegally?
        I seem to remember that you are naturalized…
        Again. Just WHAT are you advocating? Let’s hear it! Enough bricks!

      • sammy22
        sammy22 says:

        @b-p. I advocate that a path to permanent residence be laid out as the President has outlined. I also think it is insane to even consider that children of illegals who were born in the US, hence US citizens, be deported. I also think that “repealing the birthright rule” is dumb, because it will likely require an Amendment to the Constitution (we already have the 14th Amendment). I was around when the ERA Amendment was voted and defeated after years of work, so you might as well forget amending the Constitution for the foreseeable future. For more info on how to acquire citizenship, read my comment to your comment at the bottom.

    • Lynn
      Lynn says:

      I would like to use some of those IRS agents who are going to check whether we bought Obamacare or not, to sit at the border states and process the illegals there. Unlike the illustrious President who has decided that those accused of sex abuse, rape various criminal activities & drunk driving can stay, in my world they would be deported. Obviously they have the life skills to survive and maybe become a drug lord in Mexico. First to allow citizenship would be those who have entrepreneural skills and higher education. Not a perfect plan but far better than the unconstitutional Executive Order.

    • bien-pensant
      bien-pensant says:

      Let them apply for citizenship just like any other foreign citizen to naturalize to become US citizens. Just because they are here is no reason to rush any citizenship or other process. Evidently that is not fast enough for the democrats; they want newly minted voters for the 2016 elections who are beholding to the democrat party.

      • sammy22
        sammy22 says:

        In order to apply for naturalization, one must be and have been a permanent resident in the US for some years (5 or 3 depending), plus other requirements. The President clearly stated that the executive order does not grant citizenship. If I were an illegal immigrant I would want permanent residency not citizenship. You cannot get (as things are now) to citizenship w/o permanent residency.

      • bien-pensant
        bien-pensant says:

        Hmmmm, Other requirements? Such as… job, money in the bank, sponsor, education, language proficiency, pledge not to be a burden on society, knowledge of the Constitution. (There is a deal breaker!) What else?
        ~
        Why only a permanent resident?
        If I was a democrat president, interested in the donation $$$$, I would want these people turned into (citizens) most likely democrat voters ASAP so that they could help crush any and all Republican opposition.
        These democrats are only interested in money and power …fundamentally change America…
        Pure Evil.

Comments are closed.