[Rushtalk] Obama's Backdoor Amnesty / vote fraud Plan

Carl Spitzer cwsiv at keepandbeararms.com
Mon May 19 20:38:00 MDT 2014




Obama’s Backdoor Amnesty Plan


  

by Ian Smith

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ian-smith/obamas-backdoor-amnesty-plan/?utm_source=FrontPage+Magazine&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1b61e335b9-Mailchimp_FrontPageMag&utm_term=0_57e32c1dad-1b61e335b9-156558681





dhs-secretary-jeh-johnson-president-barack-obamaRecently installed
Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson is proving to be just as adept
as his predecessor was at blindingly carrying out the destructive,
lawless policies of the Obama administration.

This week the AP reported that Secretary Johnson’s been considering
changing the “priority list” at DHS’s immigration enforcement branch by
giving amnesty to illegal aliens who have not committed “serious
crimes.” It wasn’t specified what qualifies as “serious,” but those
given a pass apparently would include illegal aliens who have re-entered
the US after being deported before (currently a felony under federal
law) as well as fugitives from immigration proceedings – A report also
out this week from the Center for Immigration Studies says this latter
group alone could number in the hundreds of thousands.

This proposal to unilaterally change how immigration law is enforced
comes after the Schumer-Rubio bill stalled in the House and mirrors the
original Congress-defying amnesty Obama implemented in the lead up to
the 2012 elections. It also shows that the new era of lawlessness we
find ourselves in is apparently here to stay.

As the AP writes, “adjusting the department’s priorities for
deportation” has become a new approach for this Administration. This is
a reference to DHS’s newfound use of “prosecutorial discretion”, a tool
manipulated by the Obama Administration to “adjust” our immigration laws
in order to expand the number of future Democratic constituents. As
Stanford law professor John Yoo writes, “using ‘prosecutorial
discretion’ not to enforce statutes with which the President disagrees”
has become his “preferred tool for domestic policy.”

In the immigration context, “prosecutorial discretion” has been used as
weapon to weaken border and interior enforcement. For this, in part, we
can thank the Republican leadership’s almost total lack of opposition to
Obama’s amnesty plans.

Notwithstanding that a judge recently called Obama’s 2012 administrative
amnesty unconstitutional and illegal, anyone willing to look up the
history of “prosecutorial discretion” will see just how cynical this
administration is when it says it’s in the clear to retroactively
“adjust” our immigration laws.

“Prosecutorial discretion,” or “deferred action” as it’s also known, is
the general ability of any law enforcement agency to decline to arrest
someone for minor infractions, such as jaywalking in the case of the
police. Importantly, it’s not a policy entrenched in law; it’s an
administrative directive or tool that’s meant to be applied, not
broadly, but in minor and highly particular cases. For instance, in
1972, it was applied for the first time to John Lennon after his long
struggle against deportation ordered by the Nixon administration. Later
in the early eighties, the INS would grant deferred action to a
select-few US citizen widows and widowers who were facing deportation.

In 2011, Jessica Vaughn from the Center for Immigration Studies in D.C.,
gavetestimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration
Policy and Enforcement, where she called “prosecutorial discretion” an
“extraordinary tool” that due to its “lack of statutory guidelines makes
it especially susceptible to abuse.”

One year after Ms. Vaughn’s testimony and soon after the DREAM Act was
rejected by Congress for the 24th time, Obama placated the open-borders
lobby by telling DHS to apply “prosecutorial discretion” on a mass
scale. In June 2012, he issued an Executive Order telling enforcement
officials to stop arrests of illegal aliens under 30 and those who had
arrived before they were adults, a group estimated to number around
800,000 and later adjusted upwards to 1.4 million.

We know for a fact that our ex-law professor president understood that
“prosecutorial discretion” had never before been applied on such a mass
scale and that his Executive Order was way out-of-bounds legally.
Immediately after the DREAM Act failed in 2011, Obama told a group of
“immigration rights” activists that “[w]ith respect to the notion that I
can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not
the case… there are laws on the books that Congress has passed.” Of
course, considering he’s done everything possible to weaken border
enforcement, attacks state and local governments when they try to
enforce federal law on their own, and lets holier-than-thou “sanctuary”
cities ignore federal mandates to detain illegals, this really shouldn’t
surprise.In another critical law journal article about Obama’s illegal
amnesty,Professor Yoo asked, “[I]f a president can refuse to enforce a
federal law against a class of 800,000 to 1.76 million, what discernible
limits are there to prosecutorial discretion?” As we’ve seen with
Secretary Johnson’s latest proposal, if our representatives fail to
check the president, the limits to such lawlessness are unbound.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20140519/dec0392f/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list