Posted on 07/29/2010 3:03:08 PM PDT by roses of sharon
According to an internal U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services memo going the rounds of Capitol Hill and obtained by National Review, the agency is considering ways in which it could enact “meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action” — that is, without the consent of the American people through a vote in Congress.
“This memorandum offers administrative relief options to . . . reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization,” it reads.
Also: “In the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place, deferred action and the issuance of Notices to Appear (NTA), and adopting significant process improvements.”
(Excerpt) Read more at corner.nationalreview.com ...
” That’s essentially the same position that Arizona is taking: if Congress won’t deal with the issue, we will.”
No, it isn’t. A State has the Constitutional sovereign right to do what they did. An individual does not.
“Why’s it great when AZ does it, but not great when the Executive Branch does it? “
Because it’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the ‘Executive’ to do it!
Immediate impeachment is the only proper recourse.
.
“Governor Rick Perry, please pick up the red courtesy phone.”
“IOW, what was ignored during this administration with respect to enforcement and specifically deportation, may be vigorously pursued in the next administration.”
.
We held that same hope in 2000.
.
He has to give himself amnesty.
No, they don't. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (Article VI, clause 2) deals directly with that issue.
An individual does not.
It's not "an individual." An executive order is supposed to be a statement of how the Executive Branch of the Federal Government will undertake its Constitutional duty faithfully to execute the laws.
This is almost certainly an unconstitutional move; but the claim that it's an "individual" action is simply false.
There seems to be no effective defense against a dedicated socialist autocrat determined to fundamentally transform our constitutional republic into a collection of provinces ruled by a socialist central government headed by a dictator and administered through “department heads” appointed by said dictator and answering only to him, absent any endorsement or oversight by elected representatives of the people, inasmuch as that form of government is being shoved aside into the trash heap of history.
Obama does not need two more years to complete what he and Soros intend to accomplish. There is no orderly, legal defense against the Executive Order.
Uhmm...because the Arizona law is simply an attempt to enforce the laws that are already on the books, and this particular faction in charge of the Executive Branch are themselves breaking the law and shirking their sworn duties.
There is no moral equivalency between those who are fulfilling their oath to secure this country and those who are breaking that oath.
Exactly, I want Fed agencies defunded so bad I can taste it.
If it will not do the Job, cut the funds and move on.
Our Director of USCIS, Alejandro Mayorkas is a CUBAN born refugee.
Congress can override an Executive Order -- if it poaches on their area of responsibility.
This Congress would not, of course, do such a thing. But the next Congress might...
Couldn’t Zero just issue a mass pardon for illegals like Carter did for the Vietname War era draft dodgers.
And as usual the financial burden falls on the states...So why should they care, there is no federal financial cost as far as they are concerned.
Actually, that’s not entirely true. They approve the absolute number of visas issued, but apparently agencies can then apportion them in different ways using various wiggle room provisions of the law. One of the reasons there are so many illegal Latin Americans is that Obama, shortly after he took office, announced through some agency that all quotas had to be the same so that areas that had produced fewer immigrants, specifically, Muslim countries, could send as many as our neighbors and historic immigrant producers, Latin American countries. Therefore, the legal quota for Latin Americans was restricted.
A country’s immigration law should be based on what is good for that country. We do not need more Muslim immigrants; we barely had any in the past, but already the Saudis are building huge mosques all over the country (including in the city near me, which has very few Muslims) because they know that Obama is going to get them in no matter what. I think many people will be longing for the days when the biggest threat was Mexican day laborers.
Individuals from Mexico or Pakistan or Yemen or Syria or... his aunt from Kenya?
A few weeks ago, I actually looked into this with some effort and even as an attorney with considerable experience - but virtually none in this field - I was amazed how complicated the relevant statutes were - probably by design.
There is some flexibility for the administration. I'm not going to deny that. There are some preferences placed on hemispheres, and then some ability to manipulate the country totals inside those hemispheres, and there are "diversity" visas which complicate things. But, these "differences" are measured by the thousand, and not the tens of thousands and by in large, the total number is fixed in stone. Obama - and any president - is surprisingly limited with respect to what visas may be issued for "humanitarian" purposes.
POSOTUS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.