That is how the Daily Signal describes President Obama’s EO toward illegal immigrants in this article, “Obama’s Unilateral Amnesty Really Will Be Unprecedented – and Unconstitutional.”
Without a doubt, President Obama’s plan to alter Immigration is Unconstitutional. And let us just recap what President Obama has said about changing laws without Congress:
By his own admission, he is not in a position to do precisely what he is now saying he will do. So I guess he was wrong when he said at the end of the above video that he is not a dictator. Apparently, he is. And THAT is a Constitutional crisis.
I just have to ask: what the hell makes these illegal aliens SO special that our entire system of governance should be thrown into jeopardy just for them? What makes them think they are ENTITLED to be in this country without following the rules? What gives them the RIGHT to demand special treatment? They are taking services paid for by citizens of this country. That this president is willing to rend the very fabric of this nation – the ripping of the US Constitution – for people who BROKE THE LAW is astonishing. it is infuriating. And frankly, it is making me sick. I am all for people immigrating to the USA legally. And I am all for Congress working on possible fixes to our current Immigration policies. But for this president to unilaterally change our laws is appalling, and unacceptable no matter how people want to spin it.
And speaking of spin, let’s get back to the article from the Daily Signal for a moment. It addresses some of the claims the Democrats are making to try and substantiate Obama’s lawlessness. From Daily Signal:
According to the Associated Press, as well as House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Reps. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., and Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., President Barack Obama’s plan to provide executive amnesty to more than 5 million illegal immigrants is no different than unilateral actions that were taken by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
However, this claim plays a bit fast and loose with history and fails to explain the significant difference between Obama going against the will of Congress, which considered and rejected the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act on several occasions, including when both houses of Congress were controlled by the president’s party, and Reagan and Bush, who made administrative corrections designed to carry out congressional intent.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization ….” And it is the president’s constitutional duty, under Article II, Section 3, to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed ….”
In 1986, Congress passed the Immigration and Reform Control Act, which provided a general amnesty to almost 3 million illegal immigrants. According to the Associated Press, Reagan acted unilaterally when his Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner “announced that minor children of parents granted amnesty by [IRCA] would get protection from deportation.” In fact, in 1987, then-Attorney General Ed Meese issued a memorandum allowing the INS to defer deportation where “compelling or humanitarian factors existed” for children of illegal immigrants who had been granted amnesty and, in essence, given green cards and put on a path towards being “naturalized” as citizens. In announcing this policy, Reagan was not defying Congress, but rather carrying out the general intent of Congress which had just passed a blanket amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants.
Well, we aren’t going to let facts influence political rhetoric are we? Of course not. Which brings us to the claims the “Bush did it, too!” The article continues:
As the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website itself explains, the children of individuals who become citizens through naturalization have a relatively easy process for also becoming naturalized citizens to avoid breaking up families. And as Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies points out, the INS was, as a practical matter, going to “look the other way under certain circumstances with regard to minor children both of whose parents received amnesty.” This was well within the authority delegated to the executive branch and a “legitimate exercise of prosecutorial discretion.”
The Bush administration relaxed these technical requirements under a “Family Fairness” policy to defer deportation of the spouses and children of illegal immigrants who were allowed to stay in this country and seek naturalization through the IRCA amnesty. Shortly thereafter, Bush worked with Congress to pass the Immigration Act of 1990, which made these protections permanent. Significantly, the Bush policy and the 1990 act affected only a small number of immigrants–about 180,000 people–in comparison to Obama’s past (his 2012 implementation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival program) and anticipated unilateral actions that will affect millions of immigrants. [...] (Click here to read the rest.)
That is a BIG, huge difference in both cases. Yet that isn’t stopping prominent Democrats from twisting themselves up trying to justify this move that Obama himself declared unlawful.
Oh, and if you think for one second President Obama is concerned that people see his actions as “lawless,” allow Josh Earnest to put those fears to rest. From the Daily Caller:
[...] “We’ve heard this kind of rhetoric about lawlessness from House Republicans for some time. I know their most recent statement referred to ‘Emperor Obama.’ The matter of the fact, the President is somebody who is willing to examine the law, review the law, and use every element of that law to make progress for the American people. And if that is something Republicans are critical of, that’s maybe a criticism that the President wears with a badge of honor, I think.” (Click here to read the rest.)
Yes, “lawlessness” is seen as a “badge of honor” for this President and his supporters.
How telling is that? Wow. And they have the nerve to get pissy with the networks for not disrupting their programming for the Emperor. Serves Obama right.
And if Obama REALLY wanted to deal with Immigration, he could do what Greg Gutfeld suggested:
(Credit: The Five)
That says it all. And now it’s your turn. This is an Open Thread.