Senator Harkin says inaction by Congress forced president to act on immigration

radioiowa.com ^ | November 20, 2014 | Matt Kelley

[Tailgunner Joe]

Iowa Senator Tom Harkin says he understands why President Obama will likely issue an executive order today providing temporary legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants. Harkin, a Democrat, blames the Republican-led U.S. House for its inaction on immigration. He notes, the Senate passed a bipartisan immigration reform bill 18 months ago, a bill that hasn’t yet come up for debate in the House.

“So, it’s forcing the president to do something on an executive basis, which, I would admit should be done legislatively, but the crisis is real and the president has to act, so keep that in mind.” Harkin says if House leaders would allow the bill to go to a vote, it would likely pass. He’s expecting the president to take action today where the legislative branch of government has failed.

“I think he’s going to clarify in an executive order what his lawyers tell him that he can do executively,” Harkin says. “I think he’s going to do something about the “dreamers,” the young kids who are brought here as children or young kids, to let them be a part of our society and go to college here.”

The most controversial part of the expected executive order would grant legal status, at least on a temporary basis, to as many as five-million immigrants who are now in the country illegally.

Harkin says, “I believe that he’s going to stay the deportation of certain segments of people who have been here for a long time and are working and paying their taxes and everything else in this country.”

One Republican U.S. Senator says the president’s actions today may spark violence and “anarchy” from immigration opponents. Harkin says the comments from Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn go too far in predicting such a negative reaction about the president’s pending executive order. “I wish Mr. Coburn would use less inflammatory language,” Harkin says. “This is the kind of thing that stirs people up and implicates fear and anxiety in people rather than calmly discussing it and talking about it.”

The president is expected to address the nation from the White House tonight.

[Jane Long]

Sorry, Barky...it doesn’t work that way. That’s why we have THREE separate/= branches of Government.

By law, you can’t stomp your feet and write your own laws, when Congress doesn’t give you your way.

Let’s see if our laws are even going to be upheld...to STOP this nonsense.

[alancarp]

Sometimes, Mr. President, the answer is NO.
Just because you want the ice cream doesn't mean that you can have it.

[tumblindice]

The `rats new meme: `He had no choice.’ (Sigh)

I’m less concerned about what Barry does tomorrow than I am about the way the GOP responds.

This is an attempted hi-jack of our constitutional form of government by the executive branch.

The federal government’s salient function—its raison d’être—is to coordinate the protection of the states from foreign invasion.
The Congress passes or does not pass laws—not the president; Obama refuses to enforce federal immigration laws and sues states to prevent them from protecting themselves, resulting in the dilemma we face today.

Here’s my new meme: `We have a would-be tyrant in the White House.’

[PBRCat]

Congressional inaction???

That is bull.

It is the duty of conscientious legislators to block the passage of bad bills. This activist nonsense is ridiculous. The Congress is not the Supreme Soviet where the members must rubber stamp the dictates of the beloved leader.

[Amendment10]

"inaction by Congress forced president to act on immigration"

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

Didn’t inaction on immigration by Republicans RINOs just help RINOs win back control of the Senate?

After doing some more scratching concerning so-called federal government power to regulate and pardon immigration, please consider the following. Regardless that PC interpretations of the Constitution’s Uniform Rule of Naturalization clause, Clause 4 of Section 8 of Article I, now wrongly blurr distinctions between immigration and naturalization, not only did Thomas Jefferson write that the states have never delegated to Congress, expressly via the Constition, the specific power to regulate immigration, immigration a 10th Amendment-protected state power issue, but James Madison, regarded as the Father of the Constitution, had essentially written the same thing.

As mentioned in related threads, here again is the relevant exerpt from Jefferson’s writing.

“4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the — day of July, 1798, intituled “An Act concerning aliens,” which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force [emphasis added].” —Thomas Jefferson, Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions - October 1798.

And here is the related excerpt from the writings of James Madison in Virginia Resolutions.

"That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, ...

…

… the General Assembly doth solemenly appeal to the like dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid, are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people [emphasis added]. ”— James Madison, Draft of the Virginia Resolutions - December 1798.

So while the idea that Obama cannot pardon illegal immigrants without the legislative support of Congress is at least conceptually correct, it must be emphasized that Congress still cannot legislatively address any aspect of intrastate immigration without the required consent of the Constitution’s Article V 3/4 state majority via an immigration amendment to the Constitution imo.

H O W E V E R …

I expect the powers to be to continue to emphasize the PC interpretation of the naturalization clause, if they even do that, simply because it remains that the 10th Amendment is probably the best kept secret in DC.

[morphing libertarian]

Inaction (not passing a law) does not give the president the power to enact them.

[rdcbn]

Has not anyone given these Democrat morons the heads up that their whole “Inaction on the Obama Agenda” talking point may be just a smidgen unwise given that the American voters just elected a bunch of Republicans , whom they really are not that enthused about and have misgivings regarding their leadership, for the sole purpose of enforcing a whole bunch of inaction on Obama, the Democrats and their agenda

[Dqban22]

Obama Was Against Illegal Immigration Before He Was For it

by Selwyn Duke

17 November 2014

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/19547-obama-was-against-illegal-immigration-before-he-was-for-it?tmpl=component&print=1

“The number of immigrants added to the labor force every year is of a magnitude not seen in this country for over a century. If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers threatens to depress further the wages of blue- collar Americans and put strains on an already overburdened safety net.” (The opinion of the anti-illegal-alien crusader Barack HusseiObama from his 2006 autobiography The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream)

Obama had super majority in both cameras during the first two years of his presidency, but he didn’t give the amnesty during his first 100 days as he promised to those living illegally in the country… Furthermore, as senator, Obama opposed George W Bush when the republicans tried to give a legal status to those living illegally in U.S.

Blacks are going to be the main collateral victims of Obama's anti-Black amnesty. Black Americans are already suffering higher unemployment since Obama took power. Obama’s new class of protected immigrants will take over their jobs and Blacks will be forced to share their welfare checks and food stamps with them

http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21PR-Amnesty_Black_Employment_081114.html

[Uncle Miltie]

"Inaction by Congress on Enslaving Americans to 0bama forced president to act"

What's the difference?

[fruser1]

Everyone has been waiting 30 years for the border to get enforced. So this means we can do it ourselves now right?

[schaef21]

Headline when “W” was president:

Inaction by Congress forced President Bush to act on the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve. Drilling to start next week.

Yeah..... that would have flown with the Dems and the media.
You bet.

[Bluestocking]

In other words, according to the Democrats, all the President has to do is declare that something is a ‘’crisis’’ and it’s okay for him to assume dictatorial powers.

Even when the U.S. was attacked on 9/11, President George Bush did not declare martial law and take over the country. Yet a situation involving illegal aliens that the U.S. has been living with for decades is suddenly a crisis of epic proportions?

This is tyranny.

[Amendment10]

"Inaction (not passing a law) does not give the president the power to enact them."

Again, since the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate immigration, evidenced by the writings of both Jefferson and Madison, federal inaction concerning illegal immigration, including the president having no power to pardon illegal immigrants, is actually the only “option” that the feds have under the Constitution imo.

[Iron Munro]

Denmocrats say El Presidente O’Bozo is acting because Congress wouldn’t.

Well - for years he and Harry Reid made sure that Congress wouldn’t act but now he and the democrats have been rebuked by the voters.

So he is in a mad rush to get his Executive Order out before the new Congress is sworn in because he knows they will act by putting bills on his desk that he won’t like.

[SunTzuWu]

I don't buy into the premise that action must be taken.

No action on a subject is the Congress's prerogative.

[morphing libertarian]

Doesn’t 1-8-4; give the powerr to congress

[Amendment10]

"Doesn’t 1-8-4; give the powerr to congress"

Please note that James Madison kept a daily log of debates at the Constitutional Convention and was undoubtedly very much aware of 1-8-4. But regardless that it is easy to fall into the trap of subjectively reading the power to regulate immigration into that clause, the writings of Jefferson and Madison clearly indicate that such an interpretation is wrong.

[mrsmith]

Their ‘legal justification’:
http://t.co/DUhTa6YIuX

[potlatch]

[EternalVigilance]

Harkin, you old communist, just shut up and go home to the Bahamas. You’ve done enough damage to this country already.