President Obama lets people break laws that he doesn't like. The latest example is his backdoor amnesty for thousands of illegal immigrants, as a still-fuzzy but insidious picture is emerging.
Obama shows a pattern of refusing to enforce laws (or refusing to permit states like Arizona to enforce them). When he dislikes our laws, Obama forces change by dictate rather than seeking legal change through the political process. Congress gets bypassed.
Those benefiting can claim a new category of legal immunity: FBO's -- Favored By Obama.
Selective enforcement is being taken to new extremes. Furor would follow any straightforward official announcement that Obama is forgiving thousands from deportation, so the new amnesty policy is coming to light gradually, memo by memo and place by place.
One new memo from Obama's Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) declares ICE's unwillingness to act on local arrests of illegals unless they are accused of serious offenses like felonies or DUIs; a second memo announces that thousands of pending deportations will be dismissed because the defendants don't face serious charges -- if of course you don't count immigration violations.
From Houston comes word that immigration lawyers have been "stunned" when they arrive in court only to learn that the government was dismissing their cases, part of a systematic review of thousands of pending deportation cases.
From Miami it's reported that tens of thousands of cases are involved. From Dallas we hear that even some with criminal records will have cases dismissed, that "defendants can have one misdemeanor conviction, but it cannot involve a DWI, family violence or a sex crime."
Excusing an additional misdemeanor, in addition to violations of immigration law, makes a mockery of the legal process.
The Washington Post reports that unionized ICE employees are angry and voted "no confidence" in ICE Director John Morton, adding, "Immigration officers say the new measures limit their enforcement efforts . . . Current and former ICE attorneys in New York, Houston and other offices say they are angry that they have been instructed to drop efforts to deport some immigrants."
Obama's team praises and excuses itself by claiming to deport more people in its first year than ever before. But numbers can be gamed. The period they brag about actually is a fiscal year that includes George W. Bush's final months.
The Center for Investigative Reporting says this year's deportation numbers are down by about 20 percent as Obama's first full fiscal year nears its end. However, they stress that they are focusing resources on removing illegals who committed additional offenses. The system indeed is backlogged, but why resort to large-scale dismissal of cases rather than allocating more resources?
The respectable course would be an effort to change laws rather than a refusal to enforce them. But Obama's Justice Department, like ICE, has chosen paths of non-enforcement.
The infamous dismissal of voter intimidation charges against Black Panthers led to testimony that claimed the decree came down from an Obama Justice Department appointee, directing that no voting rights cases would be filed against black defendants accused of violating the rights of whites.
Then there was Attorney General Eric Holder's announcement that federal law against marijuana would not be fully enforced in states with so-called (and loophole-ridden) medical marijuana laws. He ignored the Supreme Court ruling (Gonzales v. Raich, 2005) that those state laws were overridden by the federal prohibition.
Whether the issue is immigration, voting rights, drug laws, or anything else, there's an even greater threat involved in the administration's approach. Our very rule of law is threatened by the Obama edicts of not enforcing laws. The proper course is to seek change of disliked laws through the political process -- and to abide by the results of that process.
Backdoor amnesty is wrong. And so is slamming the door on our system of laws.
This column first appeared at www.foundry.org.
Follow Ernest Istook on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Ernest_Istook
The issue here is not so much people as soveriegnity. Mexico does not respect the US and has recently developed a strategy of sending as many of it's citizens as possible north in hopes of using them to gain political power. This is why all the hubbub about how powerful a voting block Latinos are.
In 1986 the Republicans bought the same line. They also bought the line that amnesty would stop illegal immigration. Neither turned out to be true. As an amnesty grows possible now more people than ever want to come here to get it. The ones who came to work are leaving but the border patrol is still very busy.
But having 12 million unregistered foriegn citizens here is not good for America, especially when they are mostly from one nation. And more coming every day at their behest? What is that country up to?
Obama is simply trying to please both sides. He can't and that is making everyone hate him. Obama needs to be less Hoover and more FDR
As far as trying to give backdoor amnesty, GWB did worse. Before 9-11 he was talking open borders with Vincente Fox. But like Bush, this will backfire on Obama soon enough.
It is like the OP is trying to damn Obama for doing a good and sensible job.
Back when I supervised kids on the school playground, we had a couple rules that existed solely to make it easier to control and keep an eye on them, or worse, existed for no apparent reason at all. They weren't there to make things more fun for the kids, or to keep them safe. So you had invisible borders that made absolutely no sense to the kids, rules that you could only justify by saying "Because I told you so".
The immigration rules are "Because I told you so" rules. To my mind, you don't become a criminal by entering the country illegally. A criminal is someone who selfishly sets out to hurt people, or who recklessly pursues their own course without caring if they hurt people.
I would greatly prefer the Right direct its anger at those who HIRE illegals, especially those who do so knowingly, rather than this rail against the illegals which comes out as disguised racial fears.
Did you say to the offender, "its ok, go back to enjoying yourself". Or did you say "you now face loosing your PRIVILEGE to be on the playground and so you must be punished".
If you said the first thing then the likely outcome is kids hitting each other without fear or concern for their actions - Kind of like what we have now. The illegals don't care about our borders because the wealthy, big business, chambers of commerce and others who make money off the flow of massive low paid immigrants push to keep their numbers up and thus wages down for millions of citizens too in the competitive job market.
But of course the employers should face massive fines and jail time. The problem lies in proving the employer KNOWS they were hiring an illegal. Every attempt to pass E-Verify, which would give employers and prosecutors the ability to know who to hire has met massive attacks by many differing groups including most liberal ones.
The only fair way to go after the problem is to remove the rewards (all of them including any amnesty or pathway to citizenship) and to go after the people who encourage them to come here like employers, immigration attorneys, groups like LaRaza and politicians.
But as far as to whether corporations knowingly hire illegals or not, there are ways to find out. Sometimes it is simply a pattern of behavior, sometimes it will be internal memos. You just need to find the right incentive to get people to come forward with the information.
How about offering amnesty to illegals who rat out companies that hire them? Or at least in the event of an indictment resulting from their testimony.
FOR A SHORT EXPLANATION OF WHY ISTOOK IS WRONG, READ HERE:
http://www.vpatellaw.com/blog/ice-removal-policy-not-amnesty-for-immigrants/
Research these right wing rags before you believe anything they say. They lie
.
The Heritage Foundation is a conservative American think tank based in Washington,
Heritage's stated mission is to "formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."[3]
From 1995 to 2005, the Heritage Foundation ran Townhall.com, a conservative website that was subsequently acquired by Camarillo, California-based Salem Communications.[13]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation
Here is a better explanation of the truth on the same subject.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7169978.html
(cont'd)
It makes NO sense to continue to fight in court, when you don't have a winning hand. It is a waste of time and money.
He works for the people and he is really embarassing Republicans. He's had to make concessions I know, but he is finding there is more than one way to skin a possum!
Obama and the Dems have produced bills that are ONLY for the American people and this country and we know it!
Republicans have written a single bill, not one. Even when they did have power, they were so incompetent the couldn't even produce a BUDGET! That's the height of incompetence.
NO ONE IS GOING TO HAND THIS COUNTRY BACK TO THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE PROVEN OVER AND OVER FOR DECADES, ABOUT 8 OF THEM, THAT THEY ARE INCAPABLE!
Then again maybe that's the reason why he's doing it.
Oh, wait, he did less.
But, in contrast to Obama, Bush really secured our borders.
Oh, wait, he did less.
Hypocritical Heritage Foundation ---not a peep out of them when Bush was Pres. Now their panties are in a tight wad.
And, by the way, good for Obama and the Attorney General for using discretion. Hispanics are not America's enemy---the Right Wing is more insidious to our welfare.
"Obama's team praises and excuses itself by claiming to deport more people in its first year than ever before. But numbers can be gamed. The period they brag about actually is a fiscal year that includes George W. Bush's final months.
"The Center for Investigative Reporting says this year's deportation numbers are down by about 20 percent as Obama's first full fiscal year nears its end."