The Border Crisis is By Design

On October 8, 2005, Barack Obama  vowed to "fundamentally transform America" and he has certainly lived up to his promise.  With one crisis and scandal after another (IRS, NSA, VA, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, an out of control EPA, Obamacare, and negotiating with terrorists, to name a few) we are a much weaker and less esteemed country than ever before.  We are more racially divided, we are angrier, and we have little trust in our government or optimism for the future.

It's all by design.

He told you he was going to do it, and he did.

Obama's plan to transform America is no more evident than in the border crisis.  Andrew McCarthy has an excellent post on this topic at National Review Online:

The president has spent nearly six years giving effective legal immunity to millions of illegal aliens already here. His administration, meanwhile, hooks them on the government gravy train and fights state efforts to detain them, deny social services to them, and prevent them from fraudulently voting. Under those circumstances, the rolling out of a federal red carpet for teeming masses of illegal aliens must be understood as intentional.

It is absolutely intentional.

And, of course, Obama blames Bush for this.  No, really.  Andrew McCarthy explains that this is a clever ploy by Obama because much of this controversy involves a Clinton-era anti-human trafficking law which during the Bush years, in re-authorization, picked up an amendment added by Feinstein and Biden; in short, the anti-human trafficking law concerns those children who are "coercively trafficked into the country for purposes of sex-slavery or other indentured servitude."   

That is not the case here; so the blame-Bush's-law defense of the left does not play.  The Bush-era law attempts to protect those kids brought here unwillingly; the current crisis involved illegals coming quite willingly.

McCarthy again:

The January 2014 solicitation published by DHS’s bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement foretells (a) the arrival of 65,000 “unaccompanied alien children,” and, tellingly, (b) the administration’s intention to transfer them to “Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) shelters located throughout the continental United States.” 

Refugee Resettlement.  That does not sound like deportation.

It is team Obama's plan to relocate these illegals throughout the United States and into your neighborhoods.

The end result is thousands of new, unskilled workers on the public dole, a further erosion of our American values, an increased drain on our already troubled education system, and utter havoc in an already ruined health care system.  Of these illegals that are, in fact, children (and not all of them are - get that image of sweet, doe-eyed, hungry toddlers out of your head), how many are vaccinated and know English?  How many will want to assimilate into our American culture and become productive members of society?

Lest I be perceived as a heartless bigot, let me assure you, I'm all for legal immigration.  I know people who have done it the right way and as Americans, we welcome them with open arms.  That is our way.  This, however, is not the Ellis Island of your ancestors.

These new immigrants are not refugees from war torn countries; they are political pawns.

One of the more troubling aspect of all this is the secrecy; the administration touts "privacy rights."  Some of these illegals are being housed at Fort Sill, OK, yet an Oklahoma congressional representative was barred from visiting the immigration center.

The administration won't say where all these kids are going.  Two hundred of these illegals were sent to Nebraska yet the governor was not notified and the administration won't identify them or their locations.

"Governors and mayors have the right to know when the federal government is transporting a large group of individuals, in this case illegal immigrants, into your state," Mr. Heineman told The Wall Street Journal in an interview on Saturday. "We need to know who they are, and so far, they are saying they're not going to give us that information."

Here in Louisiana, Senator David Vitter sent a letter on July 10 to find out how many and where these illegals might be coming to this state.  He got no response.  According to the Louisiana Hayride:

And now, four members of the state’s congressional delegation – Bill Cassidy, John Fleming, Charles Boustany and Vance McAllister – have sent a similar letter.

Camp Minden is a possibility and local news station KSLA reported that Hirsch Coliseum has been contacted about holding some of them.  (Shades of Katrina refugees ... ).

Senator Vitter and Rep. Cassidy have introduced bills in both the House and Senate that would:

• Requires mandatory detention of all unaccompanied minors upon apprehension by border agents.
• Gives unaccompanied minors the option to voluntarily return to their country of origin.
• Places unaccompanied aliens children affiliated with gangs in an “expedited” removal proceeding.
• Raises the standards for “credible fear of persecution” to “substantiated fear of persecution” for unaccompanied minors seeking asylum under the law.
• Places unaccompanied minors without claims for asylum on the next available flight to their home countries within 72 hours of an initial screening, barring cost, feasibility, repatriation agreements with the minors’ countries and the health and safety of the minor.
• Extends the bar to reentry for all illegal aliens to 10 years.
• Requires Secretary of Homeland Security to submit an annual report to Congress detailing voluntary departures, deportations, and grants of refugee or asylum status.

In the end, it comes down to how much the states are willing to take of this nonsense.  As McCarthy pointed out:

And if a renegade United States government is not going to secure the borders of the United States, the states must secure their borders or surrender. As the Supreme Court recognized in 1837, each state has a sovereign right and duty of self-defense ...

Obama voters got what they wished for:  a fundamentally transformed America.

Rep. King Promises a Lawsuit While Romney Takes a Knee

There's a poll out today from Bloomberg reporting that 64% of likely voters approve of Obama's decision to stop enforcing immigration laws:

Sixty-four percent of likely voters surveyed after Obama’s June 15 announcement said they agreed with the policy, while 30 percent said they disagreed. Independents backed the decision by better than a two-to-one margin.

That said, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air took a look at the Bloomberg polling data and has a few questions about the results.  He notes the absence of any demographic data as well as the absence of any party affiliation, so it's difficult to weigh the bias of the poll.  As to whether or not Obama "is winning" the immigration discussion, Morrissey also questions that:

Furthermore, we have other consistent data to check.  For instance, Gallup’s tracking polls would have already shown a significant bump in the rolling averages if this issue really moves the needle as Team Obama hopes.  As of this morning, Obama’s approval in the three-day cycle that included Friday and the two days following the announcement sits at 46/47.  The addition of Sunday’s data added a point to his approval and deducted two from his disapproval, which means Obama got some small bump over the weekend … but hardly a game-changer.  The seven-day rolling average on the head-to-head race went from Romney up over Obama 46/45 to a 46/46 tie. 

 And if you go by Rasmussen, according to Morrissey, "there's even less impact."

So did this dictatorial fiat help Obama?  Probably not, in the end.

Rep. Steve King was on Fox News this morning discussing his intent to sue Obama over the immigration mandate.  King insists this is an over reach and a rule "by edict."  He expressed even more Constitutional outrage in pointing out that "we take an oath to uphold the Constitution, too.  Our Founding Fathers envisioned that each branch of government would jealously protect the authority granted to it in the Constitution."  He called this a "vast and insulting" over reach.

King is suing on the separation of powers issue;  he also points to Article 2 that the laws of this nation be "faithfully executed" not created by the president.  Watch the whole thing:



The point is clear that this edict, or "mandate by press conference" that Obama has thrown down is a political move.  It's another pandering move by a politician who doesn't have a record to campaign on.  It's a continuation of his intent to separate and divide us all and initiate class warfare among Americans.  It's all he knows how to do.

Obama issued this edict intentionally before Sen. Marco Rubio could introduce his version of the DREAM Act which, according to Daniel Foster, has a passing chance at legitimate, bipartisan, lawful immigration reform:

It’s simple. On Friday, retiring Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) told National Review editors that he expected the version of DREAM he cosponsored with Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) to be greeted with “tolerance by our most conservative friends, and enthusiasm from the rest.” 

Of course he said this even as the Obama administration was Friday-dumping the DHS memo on the public. Forty-eight hours later it was clear any momentum a Republican-friendly version of DREAM had was dead. As Rubio put it: “People are going to say to me, ‘Why are we going to need to do anything on this now. It has been dealt with. We can wait until after the election. . . . And it is going to be hard to argue against that.”

This is a dangerous precedent that Obama has initiated and it must be struck down.  Lawful reform must prevail.


Romney's response to the whole mess was dispiriting.  Milquetoast.  Weak.  John O'Sullivan has what Romney said when asked if he would overturn this edict and what he SHOULD have said:

Interviewer: But would you repeal it? 

Romney: I hope that when I am inaugurated, this illegality will already have been withdrawn or ruled unconstitutional. It is not too late for the president to have wiser second thoughts. But if it is still standing, then of course I will withdraw it and ask Congress to consider a wider and more thoughtful review of immigration law — one that strengthens our borders and ensures that immigration and citizenship are determined by the American people and their elected representatives. You cannot have our immigration laws determined by some people who smuggle people into America and others who manage to evade the police once here. You cannot have U.S. citizenship granted to people who break into our country and manage to have a child before they are caught. You cannot have two presidents in succession breaking their vow to uphold the Constitution. The people must be able to trust those they elect.

Romney should take a lesson from O'Sullivan and from Rep. King.  The weak-kneed response he gave just reinforces the concerns that conservatives had about him in the first place.

Charles Krauthammer says Romney's deference is the correct move and he makes a valid point; Krauthammer says that any day Romney is not talking about the economy is a day that Obama wins.  I think the two issues are linked and Romney should make that clear.  With up to 800,000 new work permits on the line, that must certainly figure into American unemployment numbers.

Krauthammer suggests it is Congress who should be outraged and offended as Obama has usurped their power.  Unless we have a cadre of fighters like Rep. Steve King in Congress, I'm not expecting much from them.


(More at Memeorandum)

We Are Now Under the Rule of a Dictator: "It's Not Amnesty!" (UPDATED)

I spent a lovely morning shopping four great estate sales today picking up a few little treasures for my various collections.  On the way home I stopped at the grocery store to get a few things and was tickled to see that they had three six-packs of my Sam Adams favorite, Latitude 48 IPA in stock.  It's a good thing I bought all of them because when I came home, fired up the computer and saw that Barack Obama is enacting the DREAM Act by fiat I had to go open one of those IPAs just to get my blood pressure back down to normal.

In case you haven't heard, from the New York Times:

Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children will be able to obtain work permits and be safe from deportation under a new policy announced on Friday by the Obama administration.

Obama says these illegal immigrants are "essentially Americans" and that this makes the immigration system "more efficient, more fair, and more just."  


Just not MORE LEGAL. 


Congress has repeatedly rejected the DREAM Act, but in ObamaWorld, that just doesn't matter:

Republicans were quick to criticize Mr. Obama, saying that he was overstepping his powers in an end run around Congress. But he said he acted only "in the absence of any immigration action from Congress to fix our broken immigration system."

Never mind the rule of law!


Is there no end to what he won't do through executive fiat?


Is there no limit to the blatant political pandering?


Pirates Cove responds:

Even the AP can’t stop themselves in pointing out that this is simply campaign year politics, rather than serious policy. What Democrats always forget when they essentially push some type of amnesty is that these people still can’t vote, and the other illegals that want these policies can’t vote, either. And those who came to the US and obtained their citizenship the proper way aren’t particularly keen on voting for those who give illegals a free pass.

Well, they can vote in Florida where the DOJ is suing to stop the purging of illegals from voter rolls.

Rush Limbaugh:

What's that gonna do to the unemployment number?  Are we gonna count 'em looking for work or not?  If we don't, the number won't drop. If we do, the number will go up.  What's it gonna do for those of you trying to get work to learn that 800,000 new illegals are in the job market who will work cheaper than you do?  And what's next is home mortgages and student loans.  Those are the next two things that are gonna fall.  

Rush is calling this the "Catch, Release, Vote" program.

Janet Napolitano:

"This is not immunity, it is not amnesty," said Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security, which oversees immigration enforcement. "It is an exercise of discretion."

Well, that's certainly parsing words.

Ed Morrissey:

So …. he’s going to hand out hundreds of thousands of work permits when unemployment is at 8.2% nominal, 14.8% U-6, and the civilian participation rate is near the 30-year low Obama set last month (now 63.8%)?  The only thing this accomplishes is driving the labor rate further downward and the unemployment rate further upward.  Work permits make sense when you’re creating jobs, but not when jobs are scarce.  I’m not sure that’s going to endear Obama to unions and blue-collar voters struggling to find work already. 

Well, as Rush asked, are we going to count them in the unemployment numbers or not?

Back to the New York Times and the parameters:

The policy, effective immediately, will apply to people who are currently no more than 30 years old, who arrived in the country before they turned 16 and have lived in the United States for five years. They must also have no criminal record, and have earned a high school diploma, be in school or have served in the military. 

My first question is how were they enrolled in school if they were illegal in the first place?

And obviously these age parameters include a whole new voting block for The One.

This will certainly open the borders for many more who want to come on over.  Nobody is going to stop you anymore unless you confess your membership in some drug cartel.  Sounds to me like all you have to do is come on in, go to school, stay for five years and you're all good.  That ought to make all those going through the proper channels feel all warm and fuzzy.

Obama will use Republican outrage as a campaign point in his re-election.  He will say that Republicans are anti-immigration and want to shut the doors on immigration.  This will be false.

All he needs to do is to craft a plan that will get through Congress - a plan that is acceptable for both sides of the aisle.  But the BrilliantOne has been unable to do that.

And so instead, he's going to rule America like a dictator.

Until November, that is.


Added:

Mark Krikorian:

The debate over this must not focus on the substance of the DREAM Act. We have a branch of government that does that kind of thing and it’s called “Congress.” The problem with today’s announcement is that it’s an unconstitutional expansion of executive power that can be applied to any area of law. If a future Republican president can’t get Congress to agree to a reduction in tax rates, say, or a change in environmental rules, he can just use this “discretion” to change things on his own. Democrats in Congress should be terrified of this precedent and stand with their fellow members across the aisle to put a stop to it. This is about the rule of law and nothing else.

Update:

Rep. Steve King (R-IA)  is suing to stop this unconstitutional ploy:

Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King said Friday that he plans to sue the Obama administration to halt implementation of its newly announced selective illegal immigration law enforcement policy. He told Mike Huckabee on the former Arkansas governor’s radio program Friday that he successfully sued his own state’s governor — and won — over a similar separation-of-powers issue. 

“I will tell you that — I’m not without experience on this — I’m prepared to bring a suit and seek a court order to stop implementation of this policy,” King said

Update 2:

Over at Legal Insurrection, Professor Jacobson reports (and has video & Twitter reaction) of the heckling of Obama at his speech today.

From CNN:

President Barack Obama did not respond kindly Friday to an interruption during his Rose Garden announcement of new immigration rules, telling the man shouting that it was neither the time nor the place to field questions. 

The reporter, who was wearing a temporary press badge, was identified as Neil Munro from the conservative website the Daily Caller. He later told CNN, "I have to ask the questions you all won't ask," referring to the reporters gathered who regularly cover the White House.

Here's the video:




Update 3:

Ed Driscoll reports that the Obamabots are making it a racial issue that Dear Leader was "heckled" or asked a question.

Update 4:

Senator David Vitter responds:

President Obama shows again how he isn't serious about securing our border or reforming our immigration system. He's certainly shown how serious he is about the politics of it. Like other DREAM Act proposals before, Obama's executive action today goes well beyond helping minor children caught in a policy loophole - it essentially grants amnesty to adults almost 30 years old.

Update 5:

Heh.  ABC News calls Daily Caller reporter Neil Munro "eccentric."

President Obama flashed anger for the first time in recent memory today as an eccentric conservative reporter interrupted his speech on immigration in the Rose Garden.

Even more curious, I'm wondering where ABC has been when they suggest that Obama hasn't "flashed anger" recently.  The man is a walking cesspool of anger.


More at Memeorandum and Instapundit.