2/27/2015 - David Limbaugh
Honestly, are any of my Democratic
friends even slightly bothered by President Obama's habitual and brazen
lawlessness and what that could mean for our liberties?
Does it bother them that he
implemented two new administration programs to halt deportations and allow work
permits for up to 5 million immigrants living illegally in the United States
after clearly admitting he didn't have the constitutional authority to do so?
Does it bother them that after
having done so, despite his insincere promise, he has been openly defiant about
the decision U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen made in favor of the states
trying to block Obama's unlawful act? Obama said: "This is just one
federal judge. We have appealed it very aggressively. ... I'm using all of the
legal power vested in me in order to solve this problem." Me, me, me.
Does it bother them that his
administration has begun to refer to these immigrants as "Americans-in-waiting"
-- as if his iron will controls, irrespective of the Constitution, the law and
the prerogative of the coequal legislative branch?
Does it bother them that, like a
Third World despot tyrannizing his subjects, he said in a town hall forum in
Miami that there will be consequences for any federal agents who ignore his new
policies? Obama said, "If somebody's working for (U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement) ... and they don't follow the policy, there are going to
be consequences to it."
Are such threatened consequences, by
the way, really the business of a chief executive, even if he is acting
lawfully? Isn't his indignation a bit tough to take, given his own propensity
not to follow the law? Does anyone ever make him face consequences for not just
ignoring but violating laws?
As others have pointed out, Obama's
position on this issue, despite being legally wrong, is inconsistent. His
entire rationale is that these actions are within his executive power because
it is a matter of prioritizing immigration enforcement efforts with limited
congressional funding. Yet he will have zero tolerance for immigration
officials who attempt to exercise their discretion in not enforcing his
"orders."
Also, Obama's characterization of
his executive action as a matter of prosecutorial discretion is disingenuous.
Judge Hanen clearly held that Obama's program of Deferred Action for Parents of
Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents is "actually affirmative action
rather than inaction" because the program grants "legal presence to
individuals Congress has deemed deportable or removable, as well as the ability
to obtain Social Security numbers, work authorization permits, and the ability
to travel."
It is absurd for Obama to claim that
his action is within his prosecutorial discretion when it not only involves a
decision not to enforce a law or ruling but also grants new rights, as Hanen
noted, and is in contravention of existing laws. As Texas Attorney General Ken
Paxton has argued, "the president, on his own, has issued a separate
action in opposition to current law." This action, says Paxton, will cost
his state hundreds of millions of dollars for education, health care and public
safety.
Do you understand the argument?
Obama isn't just turning his back on deportment. He is granting substantive
rights to immigrants that are not his to grant, foisting the cost of those new
rights onto the states without their consent -- and doing so in violation of
existing laws.
The administration's duplicity is
readily apparent when you listen to the weasel words of Sarah Saldana, director
of ICE, in the emergency motion filed by the Obama administration to stay
Hanen's ruling. Saldana said, "Preventing the deferred action policies
from going into effect interferes with the Federal Government's comprehensive
strategy for enforcing our immigration laws."
Do those words, on their face, make
sense? How does preventing Obama's newly granted affirmative privileges to
these immigrants from taking effect interfere with the government's strategy
for enforcing its immigration laws? Isn't it more accurate and honest to say
that it interferes with Obama's attempt not to enforce those laws and to grant
affirmative rights to immigrants that Obama decidedly has no authority to grant
as president?
An action does not become something
it is not just because government officials describe or denominate it as such.
Otherwise, the Affordable Care Act would not be raising health care costs for
millions of American families, and Obama's scheme to commandeer the Internet
wouldn't be called "net neutrality." Obama's illegal immigration
actions are not within his executive authority merely because he depicts them
as within his prosecutorial discretion.
Obama's arrogance may cost him this
time, as he has gone way too far, even for him, by flagrantly violating the
separation of powers and exceeding his executive authority in granting new
rights to immigrants who are here illegally, providing no notice to the states
of his action to allow for public feedback and saddling the states with
enormous financial burdens.
No comments:
Post a Comment