Editor’s Note – Stand Up America US is proud to be a sponsor of this Burt Keefer production at AmericaWorking.org. In this era of high drama regarding illegal immigration and the President’s attempts at circumventing Congress on the issue.
It is high time to look at the real picture of the impact that illegal immigration has had and will continue to have on America.
The facts are hidden by phony numbers emanating from Washington, D.C. that no one seems to challenge and have stayed the same for years when we know the number is growing constantly. Burt has really captured the scope of the issues and we recommend that you share this far and wide.
Did you ever wonder why politicians keep telling us there about 11-15 million illegal immigrants in the United States? This number has been used for over 20 years, how can that be, and what is the economic impact to real citizens of America?
In this video, Keefer points out the glaring discrepancies and the dramatic cost of this broken system that no one seemed to really want to fix for so many years, especially in the past seven. When you consider how many “anchor babies” are already here, one’s head spins.
Editor’s Note – It’s the rule-of-law Mr. Obama! Okay, maybe not for the Obama and Clinton types who rule by fiat and expect you to take the punishment and just ask for another one.
Fortunately we have Texas, a state none-to-pleased with Obama’s unilateral executive orders, especially on illegal immigrants and numerous suits and attacks on that state’s government and a court system with a spine. They had Judge Andrew Hanen, a sober and sane judge who ordered Obama’s DHS to stop its unilateral deportation amnesty and support scheme.
In December, 2014, Texas and 25 other states, including North Carolina, filed a lawsuit in the Southern District Court of Texas seeking to block both DAPA and expanded DACA. The main grounds for their suit were the costs of issuing driver’s licenses and other associated costs of giving the undocumented immigrants legal status. Other issues being considered included exceeding executive power, failure to adhere to rulemaking procedures, and standing — the right of the states to challenge federal immigration policies.
On February 16, 2015, Judge Andrew Hanen issued a temporary injunction blocking both programs from going into effect. Current DACA requirements and two-year terms were supposed to remain unchanged and DAPA has not been implemented. (Read more here at the National Law Review.)
And then the judge had to reprimand the DOJ lawyers:
A federal judge in Texas on Tuesday angrily denied the federal government’s request to allow President Obama’s immigration executive actions to proceed, even as an appeals court signaled that it might disagree with the judge when it takes up the issue next week.
Judge Andrew S. Hanen of Federal District Court for the Southern District of Texas, in Brownsville, refused late Tuesday night to lift the injunction he had placed in February on the president’s program, saying that to do so would cause irreparable harm. (Read more here.)
Then, that ruling was upheld by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, so now what is Obama and his Department of Justice (for friends only, weaponized for enemies) want to appeal to the Supreme Court:
President Obama will ask the Supreme Court to clear the way for his long-delayed immigration overhaul, administration lawyers said Tuesday, setting up another high-stakes legal contest in the nation’s highest court over the fate of one of the president’s signature achievements.
The Department of Justice said in a statement that it will appeal a federal appeals court ruling that blocked Mr. Obama’s plan to provide work permits to as many as five million undocumented immigrants while shielding most of them from deportation.
“The Department of Justice remains committed to taking steps that will resolve the immigration litigation as quickly as possible in order to allow DHS to bring greater accountability to our immigration system by prioritizing the removal of the worst offenders, not people who have long ties to the United States and who are raising American children,” said Patrick Rodenbush, a spokesman for the Justice Department. “The Department disagrees with the Fifth Circuit’s adverse ruling and intends to seek further review from the Supreme Court of the United States.” (Read more here at the NY Times.)
We hate to break it to you Mr. Rodenbush, what your team is trying to do is anti-constitutional…but you really knew that already didn’t you? It’s called Article I, Section 8, Clause 4: Naturalization and was confirmed as follows in 1795:
Congress claimed exclusive authority over naturalization by establishing new conditions—”and not otherwise”—for aliens “to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them.” In Chirac v. Lessee of Chirac (1817), the Supreme Court affirmed that “the power of naturalization is exclusively in congress,” notwithstanding any state laws to the contrary. (Read extensive summary here at the Heritage Foundation.)
Once again, a co-equal branch of our federal government had to intervene and set the Obama administration straight. In fact, the appeals court used Obama’s very own words from the many times prior in which he said he could not do what he eventually did anyway – another end run around Congress. Read more here at Politico’s “Appeals court keeps block on Obama immigration actions.”
So much for the imperialism of this Presidency, welcome back rule-of-law! SCOTUS must continue to find for the constitution in this latest appeal as well.
Judges use Obama’s own words to halt deportation amnesty
A federal appeals court said President Obama’s own words claiming powers to “change the law” were part of the reason it struck down his deportation amnesty, in a ruling late Monday that reaffirmed the president must carry out laws and doesn’t have blanket powers to waive them.
The 2-1 ruling by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals punctures Mr. Obama’s immigration plans and is the latest in a series of major court rulings putting limits on the president’s claims of expansive executive powers to enact his agenda without having to get congressional buy-in.
In an opinion freighted with meaning for the separation of powers battles, Judge Jerry E. Smith, writing for himself and Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, singled out Mr. Obama’s own claim that he acted to rewrite the law because Congress wouldn’t pass the bill he wanted.
The key remark came in a speech in Chicago just days after his Nov. 20, 2014, announcement detailing his executive actions. Fed up with a heckler who was chiding him for boosting the number of deportations, Mr. Obama fired back, agreeing that he’d overseen a spike in deportations.
“But what you are not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” the president said.
The two judges said the Justice Department failed to explain away Mr. Obama’s remarks.
“At oral argument, and despite being given several opportunities, the attorney for the United States was unable to reconcile that remark with the position that the government now takes,” Judge Smith wrote.
Whether Mr. Obama acted within the law is the crux of the case.
Texas and 25 other states, which sued to stop the amnesty, argue Mr. Obama went beyond the boundaries set in the Immigration and Nationality Act, which sets out specific instances where, on a case-by-case basis, the Homeland Security secretary can waive penalties and allow illegal immigrants to stay, granting them work permits which then entitle them to Social Security cards, tax credits and state driver’s licenses.
A federal district court in Texas agreed with the states, halting Mr. Obama’s policy, and now an appeals court has also sided with the states.
Writing in dissent on Monday, Judge Carolyn Dineen King dismissed Mr. Obama’s claim that he changed the law, saying presidents often use imprecise language when talking about laws. She said Mr. Obama wasn’t making a legal argument in his response to the heckler.
Mr. Obama’s plan, known officially as Deferred Action for Parental Arrivals, or DAPA, was intended to grant up to 5 million illegal immigrants a proactive three-year stay of deportation and to give them work permits, allowing them to come out of the shadows and join American society — though they were still considered to be in the country illegally. To qualify, illegal immigrants had to be parents of U.S. citizens or legal permanent resident children.
The president characterized his plan as a use of prosecutorial discretion, reasoning that he was never going to deport them anyway, so they should be granted some more firm status.
But the court ruled that he not only didn’t follow the usual rules in making a major policy change, but that his claims of power to grant tentative legal status to a massive class of people went beyond the waiver powers Congress granted him in the law.
Monday’s decision is already reverberating across the presidential debate, with Hispanic-rights activists insisting Mr. Obama file an immediate appeal to the Supreme Court, and vowing to make immigration an issue in the 2016 election.
Editor’s Note – Once again Andy McCarthy has nailed the issue – this time on Obama’s upcoming justification for unilateral action on immigration. To put it simply, prosecutorial discretion as a basis for Obama’s upcoming action is tortured and twisted logic.
On at least 25 occasions, Obama has been recorded telling an audience that he is not king and cannot do what he is now about to do. But alas, even the king can be wrong, all hail the King, for only he can change his mind at a whim and so too history and declare any edict as he pleases because he so much wiser than we the people.
A most arrogant, petulant, and infantile king he may be, but his royal highness is not pleased with how his subjects acted recently and he must strike back with an edict.
In a time when video is a daily thing for everyone and smart phones capture history so easily, don’t be fooled by your lying eyes and ears. That applies to anyone in his government including his paid advisors – after all dude, those videos were so last term, so old!
No, ‘Prosecutorial Discretion’ Does Not Justify Obama’s Lawless Amnesty
Obama’s planned action perverts the meaning of the legal doctrine.
By Andrew C. McCarthy
Can the president make fraud and theft legal? How about assault? Cocaine use? Perjury?
You’d have to conclude he can — and that we have supplanted the Constitution with a monarchy — if you buy President Obama’s warped notion of prosecutorial discretion.
Tonight, Mr. Obama will unveil his executive order granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. According to news accounts, the criminal-law doctrine of prosecutorial discretion is the foundation of the president’s legal theory. It is the source of what he purports to be his authority to decree that these aliens have lawful status, a power our Constitution gives only to Congress.
Obama is distorting the doctrine.
As I explain in Faithless Execution (and in columns and posts here, here, and here), prosecutorial discretion is a simple and, until recently, an uncontroversial matter of resource allocation. It merely holds that violations of law are abundant but law-enforcement resources are finite; therefore, we must target the resources at the most serious crimes, which of necessity means many infractions will go unaddressed.
I’ve highlighted the last part because it is the key to understanding how Obama’s amnesty perverts the doctrine.
As is always the case with a well-constructed fraud, Obama’s amnesty has some cosmetic appeal because it derives from some indisputable claims. In the American system, the power to prosecute belongs solely to the executive. Consequently, it is for the president alone to prioritize which law violations will be prosecuted and which will go unaddressed. Congress writes the laws but it has no power to compel the president to enforce them. And immigration offenses, like other law violations, are more plentiful than the police and prosecutorial resources available to carry out investigations, arrests, trials, imprisonment, and deportations.
So President Obama is entirely correct when he says prosecutorial discretion makes it perfectly lawful for him to target finite immigration-enforcement resources against illegal aliens who commit serious crimes while overlooking millions of illegal aliens who violate “only” the immigration laws (plus identity-fraud offenses typically committed as those aliens illegally stay and work here).
Obama, like all presidents before him, has that power. This may be infuriating to those who would like to see the crisis of illegal immigration tackled more energetically. That, however, is a policy dispute; a president is not lawless just because one disagrees with him on policy. If that was all there were to Obama’s order, it would be unremarkable.
But it is not unremarkable. Some simple examples illustrate the difference.
There are also many more fraud offenses committed in the U.S. than there are law-enforcement resources to prosecute them. So federal prosecutors, in an exercise of prosecutorial discretion, will often establish a fraud threshold amount — say, $10,000 – beneath which they will not open a case. But that does not mean you now have a right to steal $9,999.
If police in a big city are overwhelmed with violent crime and focus their attention strictly on murder, maiming, and rape, that does not mean it is now legal to go around punching people in the nose.
There are many thousands of trials, and in them it is not unusual for witnesses to lie. It would not be possible to launch a perjury prosecution against every person who gives false testimony under oath. But this necessary exercise of prosecutorial restraint is not a license to commit perjury — an invitation to lawlessness that would destroy the judicial system.
If the Justice Department decides it is going to target its anti-drug-trafficking resources against big time heroin and cocaine distributors, that does not mean that personal possession and sale of small amounts of those drugs is now legal — or, indeed, that the government should facilitate drug possession and sales.
Prosecutorial discretion means you are not required to prosecute every crime — which, since doing so would be impossible, is just a nod to reality. It does not mean that those crimes the executive chooses not to enforce are now no longer crimes. Prosecutorial discretion has never meant that the passive act of non-enforcement has the legal effect of repealing criminal laws enacted by Congress. And it has never even been suggested, because to do so would be absurd, that under the doctrine of prosecutorial discretion, the executive decision not to prosecute certain crimes means the people who commit those crimes should be rewarded for committing them. That, of course, would only encourage others to commit them on a more massive scale.
Yet that is President Obama’s theory. He is claiming not only the power to determine what immigration laws get enforced and which illegal immigrants get prosecuted — power he unquestionably has. He also claims the power to declare (a) that criminal acts are somehow lawful — that illegal aliens now have a right to be here — just because Obama has chosen not to prosecute them; and (b) that those who engage in this unprosecuted activity will be rewarded with benefits (lawful presence, relief from deportation, work permits, etc.), as if their illegal acts were valuable community service.
That is an utter perversion of prosecutorial discretion and a blatant usurpation of congressional power. Only Congress has the power to repeal criminal laws and confer positive legal benefits on non-Americans.
As you listen to the president try to explain himself tonight, you are going to hear a lot about how his plan is just a sensible exercise of prosecutorial discretion — how he is just using the sparse resources Congress gives him to enforce the law in more efficient ways. It will sound unobjectionable — even appealing.
But understand, it will be lawless and an invitation to waves of law-breaking. Obama is not merely prioritizing crimes; he is equating his non-enforcement of congressional statutes with the repeal of those statutes. He is not merely ignoring some lawbreakers so he can pursue others; he is declaring that categories of non-Americans of Obama’s unilateral choosing have a right to break our laws and be rewarded for it.
That is not prosecutorial discretion. It is a lawless betrayal of the president’s constitutional duty to execute the laws faithfully.
Editor’s Note – For almost six years as President, along with his campaign rhetoric prior, and his short stint in the Senate, Obama has railed against big business, fat cats, bankers, Wall Street, and beyond. He always tried to appeal to the masses as being separate from the 1%, and for the 99%.
The problem is, he IS part of the 1% and caters to their needs in order to line Democrat Party coffers as well his two campaigns for the Oval Office. Hypocrisy is a word to describe others, while he sees himself as doing what has to be done to achieve his goals. He is the king of the ‘say or do anything crowd’ to get your way and becoming BFFs with big business.
Picking winners and losers, dividing peoples and industries, catering to the wealthy as he vacations on Martha’s Vineyard, and golfing with the elites of the world are his stock in trade. Why do his followers and the MSM not see him as the fake and fraud he really is?
Why the White House Is Now Trying to Be Besties with Big Business
Ready for a backroom deal brokered by the White House?
White House officials met Monday with business leaders and interest groups to talk about executive actions President Obama should consider on immigration, per press reports. Instead of working to secure the southern border, the White House appears to be looking to obtain allies for its administrative amnesty approach that is unjust, costly, and will increase illegal immigration.
Unfortunately, government and big business collusion is nothing new. We’ve seen them team up to support the Export-Import Bank and back a nearly 1,000 page comprehensive immigration bill that purported to have something for everyone.
So what opportunities are up for grabs on immigration? The president will likely insist on an administrative amnesty for perhaps as many as five million illegal immigrants.
According to Politico, business leaders and interest groups are advocating for measures that include “allowing spouses of workers with high-tech visas to work, recapturing green cards that go unused, and making technical changes for dual-purpose visa applications.”
The implication is that if the White House gives them some of these goodies, they will support Obama’s inappropriate administrative amnesty.
Lost in the conversation are those who lose out or who aren’t shown the same favoritism as the involved players, such as the American taxpayer who has to foot the bill for illegal immigration. Legal immigrants and those waiting patiently in line to immigrate from abroad legally also will lose
Other business interests are being left out, too. For example, as Politico mentions, representatives of the construction industry would like their slice of the pie by incorporating a low-skilled worker provision into any executive action agreement.
This semi-comprehensive approach is frustrating the left. “All bets are off” for broader immigration reform if Obama continues down this road, said Tamar Jacoby of Immigration Works USA, a pro-immigration reform group,adding that “Obama will poison the well” if he continues excluding their members—many of which are builders and contractors—from private discussions and neglecting to include their own carve outs in Obama’s final orders.
With similar negative responses from other groups, it’s easy to see why the administration continues to communicate that everything is still up for consideration
So why is Obama pursuing this partnership with Big Business?
For the administration, such a partnership would help blunt criticism. Instead of faithfully enforcing our immigration laws, the administration has gone out of its way to undermine them, making promises to supporters of amnesty that Obama will do everything within his power to address immigration through executive action.
Unfortunately for them, a recent CNN poll indicates that 45 percent of Americans believe Obama has gone far enough with executive action, leaving one to believe that handling the immigration issue unilaterally may prove unpopular.
As the New York Times points out, the administration is “essentially making policy from the White House, replacing congressional hearings and floor debates with closed meetings for invited constituents.” This “go-it-alone” approach is a far cry from an administration that “claims to be the most transparent in United States history.”
With the November elections quickly approaching, the Obama administration is likely trying to both appease its supporters and also be able to show. a collective front from business. So instead of focusing to secure the border and properly address the crisis of young accompanied minors, the White House appears to be pursuing business as usual in Washington—something we have unfortunately grown to expect.
Editor’s Note – At over 800 pages in the Senate Immigration Bill, are we not setting ourselves up for failure again? 800 pages? That harkens of another boondogle called PPACA or better known as ObameCare which was over 2,700 pages. Does anyone really read all of this? Listen to Governor Brewer below. There are three videos.
We need to understand what is really at stake here. The problem is not solely about Mexicans looking for a better life, its also about the Tsarnaev types and the thousands who have the same intentions – not to assimilate, just to arrive here and do their own deeds for their own ends.
There are at least 7,518 reasons to get the U.S.-Mexican border under control. That equals the number of aliens apprehended in fiscal year 2011 from the four nations that federal officials label “state sponsors of terrorism” plus 10 “countries of interest.”
Since January 2010, those flying into the United States via these 14 nations face enhanced screening. As the Transportation Security Administration announced at the time: “Effective aviation security must begin beyond our borders.” U.S. national security merits at least that much vigilance on our borders.
The roaring immigration-reform debate largely addresses Hispanic aliens who illegally cross the border. Far more worrisome, however, are the thousands who break into the United States from countries “where we have concerns, particularly about al-Qaida affiliates,” a top State Department official told CNN. (Read more here at Newsmax.)
Please read on and view the videos:
Gov. Brewer – AZ talks Border Security Issues Ignored by Senate Immigration Bill
The “Gang of” 8 grand immigration proposal, over 800 pages, is written by members of the same body that has failed to address the problem of meaningful immigration reform for over 30 years.
Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) stated that he wanted the 92 other members to join in this important debate. In the House of Representatives in particular, the silence of the GOP leadership is deafening.
Look at what is missing in this process: transparency; experts on many aspects of immigration reform; and law enforcement agencies involved in dealing with the problems on the ground. The GOP-led House of Representatives has promised regular order. How much transparency we will see from the Senate is undetermined. Most of all, valuable input from relevant Governors are left out of the equation.
A transparent public discussion is required. In 1986 we had outright amnesty and the promised enforcement of a secure border. Lack of promised enforcement by Democrats got us to this point with a significantly larger problem. Are we creating de facto amnesty again with a rushed comprehensive bill over incremental and combined approaches to the problem?
With America’s burgeoning Hispanic population–the largest block of illegal immigrants–more emphasis seems to be placed on who will vote en masse for which party over necessary solutions for the long-term future of this country. It is a bitter pill to take, with the term “lawful presence” in its prescription.
The recent terror attacks in Boston renewed calls from both Republicans and Democrats in the “Gang of 8” for immediate immigration reform. Border security is key, as Arizona Governor Jan Brewer recently stated in my American Forum.
%CODE% Video #1
Governor Brewer made the case for working with residents that live along the border, state police, sheriffs and other local law enforcement agencies. There is also the issue of sending the National Guard for additional resources.
%CODE2% Video #2
This is not a numbers issue; it is a human issue. We have citizens in constant danger along our southern border. There are areas where a fence is necessary and could prove to be effective. The Obama Administration restricts border patrol activity on federal lands, and the cartels, human traffickers, illegal aliens who break our law by crossing the southern border are not known for their obedience to the law. They cross onto federal land with impunity, and the proper authorities are not allowed to pursue.
%CODE3% Video #3
The “Gang of 8” proposal so far leaves more questions to be answered than solutions offered. Solutions must include standards, methods to achieve those standards, and metrics to measure their effectiveness. Long-term concerns, such as those expressed by Governor Brewer, much less solutions, are largely cast aside.
Please support our non-profit work at SUA
JOIN/SUBSCRIBE: Please join our team and receive periodic newsletters and announcements securely. (Your information will never be sold or transferred – Opt-out anytime.)
VOLUNTEER: If you are unable to donate your money, your time is just as valuable.
DONATIONS: Please consider a recurring monthly or a one-time donation.