Posted on 11/17/2014 10:35:42 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
Two presidents have acted unilaterally on immigration - and both were Republican. Ronald Reagan and his successor George H.W. Bush extended amnesty to family members who were not covered by the last major overhaul of immigration law in 1986.
Neither faced the political uproar widely anticipated if and when President Barack Obama uses his executive authority to protect millions of immigrants from deportation.
Reagan's and Bush's actions were conducted in the wake of a sweeping, bipartisan immigration overhaul and at a time when "amnesty" was not a dirty word. Obama is acting as the country - and Washington - are bitterly divided over a broken immigration system and what to do about 11 million people living in the U.S. illegally.q
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Sounds like the “Lie of the Week”
” No president in our history has granted amnesty by Executive Order.
Through consensus, our presidents have signed legislation that addressed the illegal immigrant problem one way or another.
President Reagan signed legislation meant to grant amnesty to roughly one million illegal immigrants that had arrived over thirty years. I was against it, but it in no may resembled a plan like the one today, that will legalize an amount easily able to be as large as 10 to 15% of our current citizen populace. Reagan approved of a plan to legalize roughly 0.4% of the nation’s populace in his day. Lied to about the amount of illegals in our nation at that time, the amenesty of that time amounted to 1.5% of our populace. Also included in that bill were stiff penalities meant to crack down on businesses hiring illegals. As soon as Reagan’s term in office was up, immigration enforcement in our interior ceased. Any foreign national that could get here, had very little to fear about being sent back home. Reagan was betrayed, right along with the rest of the nation’s citizens.
President Bush, for all his blow-hard comments during his first campaign, never passed immigration reform. His job was done, when the mere talk of an amnesty ballooned the number of illegals in the nation by at least 100% during his terms in office. It may have increased the number of illegals by as much as 200% (or even more).
Next we had Obama, following on the heels of the McCain/Kennedy bill. Foreign nationals were convinced it was only a matter of time before amnesty was granted, and they flooded our nation.
The revised U. S. Census for 2010, stated there were 9 million illegals in our nation. They had accumulated over the prior decade. In the 14 subsequent years since then, we are told only 2 million more illegals have come over the border. That is clearly a falsehood.
Today we have between 25 and 40 million illegals in our nation. Obama and the rest of our government by the consent of silence, are about to make them all legal.”
POST OF THE DAY.
Correct
Who do these idiots have such a crying need to invalidate US citizenship??
WTF?
If you see AP in the heading you know it is a hagiography about the ASSo PRESIDENT Obama, or is written by the ASSo PRESSitute, but most probably both types ASSo P. apply..
The 1986 amnesty was sold to the public as a one-time clean up of the problem and that strict enforcement of immigration law would ensure no recurrence of the illegal alien problem.
Neither faced the political uproar widely anticipated if and when President Barack Obama uses his executive authority to protect millions of immigrants from deportation.
REALLY?
Sounds like Andy was in short pants when all that was happening, because he wasn't listening to the entire story, or his attention span was extremely short.
There are two ways to lie. By outright misrepresenting facts; and by withholding facts altogether. Both are equally misleading, often fatally so.
First of all, this all happened in the late 80s and early 90s, immediately after the infamous "major overhaul of immigration law" in 1986.
Reagan signed that law after much debate with congress, contingent on the clear understanding that :
a)That the border WILL be sealed to physically prevent the ease and impunity of illegal alien crossings.
and...
b) This issue of illegal alien status would never need to be addressed again. . .
That occurred 28 years ago, and to this day, NEITHER ONE OF THOSE TWO ISSUES, "PROMISED AND CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD," HAS BEEN DELIVERED BY THE CRIMINAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!
So why is the country doing this all over again?
It's time for a convention of states to address the "automatic citizenship" of children of illegal aliens from any source, to amend the Constitution to erase this absurd problem once and for all.
If not now, when?
Do we need to repeat the absurdity of continuing to trust the intent or word of the progressive-democratic-communist party?
Things are not bad enough yet?
How many illegal aliens were involved in the 1986 overhaul?
How many actual and present, plus potential additional illegal aliens are involved today?
However those questions are answered, its's best not to ask the First Sociopathic Liar-in-Chief!!
I don't know how many times I've posted this in the last ten years, but it bears repeating. . .
"Sen. Jacob Howard, who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause believed the same thing ... as evidenced by his introduction of the clause to the US Senate as follows:
"[T]his amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
During the 1950s, however, this "Good Old Boy" system changed under Eisenhower - if only for about 10 years.
In 1954, Ike appointed retired Gen. Joseph "Jumpin' Joe" Swing, a former West Point classmate and veteran of the 101st Airborne, as the new INS commissioner.
Influential politicians, including Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D) of Texas and Sen. Pat McCarran (D) of Nevada, favored open borders, and were dead set against strong border enforcement, Brownell said. But General Swing's close connections to the president shielded him - and the Border Patrol - from meddling by powerful political and corporate interests.
One of Swing's first decisive acts was to transfer certain entrenched immigration officials out of the border area to other regions of the country where their political connections with people such as Senator Johnson would have no effect.
Then on June 17, 1954, what was called "Operation Wetback" began. Because political resistance was lower in California and Arizona, the roundup of aliens began there. Some 750 agents swept northward through agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions a day.
By the end of July, over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Another 488,000, fearing arrest, had fled the country.
By mid-July, the crackdown extended northward into Utah, Nevada, and Idaho, and eastward to Texas.
By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and an estimated 500,000 to 700,000 illegals had left the Lone Star State voluntarily.
Now, to me, that's in the neighborhood of 1,200,000 in three months.
By my cyphering, we can get rid of the mere 6,000,000 claimed by the doofuses --- in about 12 months!
Of course, not if we keep buying into the mindless "It's impossible!", "Can't be done!" --- and never try.
You know how when a mom catches her two children fighting and one kid points to the other and says, “He started it!” and the mom says, “I don’t care who started it; I’m ending it”? I wish we had a President who’d say, “I don’t care who started the allowing and coddling of illegal aliens, I’m ENDING it.”
With all due respect to mom & pop, as a consequence of the parents of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush not making sure that their children were taught about the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers, these presidents probably didn’t even consider the possibility that they were wrongly usurping 10th Amendment-protected state power to regulate intrastate immigration by granting amnesty to illegal immigrants imo.
Regarding so-called federal immigration laws, please consider the following. Regardless of PC interpretations of the Constitution’s Uniform Rule of Naturalization Clause, such interpretations used to foster the idea that the feds have the constitutional authority to regulate immigration, note that Thomas Jefferson had clarified the following about so-called federal government power to regulate immigration. Using language from the 10th Amendment nonetheless, Jefferson had written that the Founding States had never delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate immigration.
“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.
Regarding executive orders to pardon illegal immigrants, note that a president doesn’t have the absolute power to pardon, imo, like many people seem to think. This is because Congress uniquely has the legislative power to define what an illegal immigrant is, at least conceptually. But since the states have never delegated to Congress the power to legislatively address immigration issues, federal laws that define illegal immigrants are “void, and of no force” as Jefferson had written imo.
So the POTUS doesn’t have any broken federal immigration laws to pardon since Congress has no constitutional authority to make such laws in the first place.
H O W E V E R …
I doubt that the RINO-controlled Congress that we will have shortly is going to do anything about Obama’s constitutionally indefensible E.O.’s to pardon illegal immigrants, simply because the 10th Amendment is the best kept secret in DC.
Nor is Obama planning to use a EO.
He simply is not going to enforce the law. Just like what Reagan and Bush I did.
One of the many reasons Obama is going to do this is because we no longer hold Presidents accountable.
Reagan enforced the laws on the books. Bush didn’t.
Not only that, Reagan signed legislation making what he did at least legal.
Bush failed to abide by the U. S. Constitution, Article 4 Section 4 by failing to protect the states from invasion. He did not enforce the laws on the books, specifically the legislation Reagan signed.
As I understand it, Obama will by executive order declare certain groups to be free from being deportable. That isn’t just failing to enforce laws. It is a change to law by Presidential edict.
'Reagan's Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner announced that minor children of parents granted amnesty by the law would get protection from deportation. '
Did not enforce the law.
Bush I:
'acting through the Immigration and Naturalization Service, established a "family fairness" in which family members living with a legalizing immigrant and who were in the U.S. before passage of the 1986 law were granted protection from deportation and authorized to seek employment. The administration estimated up to 1.5 million people would be covered by the policy.'
Did not enforce the law.
Not any more! Hard to argue that it is unknown.
However there are probably hundreds of laws passed since the end of the 19th century to militate the "progressive" counterargument that many laws passed since have invalidated whatever understanding once existed regarding citizenship; unconstitutional or not.
I appreciate the nice try to convey that Reagan simply didn’t enforce the law, but I don’t know anyone who expects a one year old child to be deported when their mother was just naturalized.
Under the example concerning Bush we’re talking about brothers, sisters, husbands, and other family members. That is not the same type of thing at all. Border and inland enforcement continued under Reagan. Inland enforcement did not continue under Bush I at all.
There are some major differences, and common sense involved here.
So yeah, minors who are here illegally should be deported. Once again, Obama will use prior precedence from Presidents for such actions.
'Bush we’re talking about brothers, sisters, husbands, and other family members'
Yep. Bye. Now, Obama will use those such excuses to do his actions.
Thank you Theoria.
Theoria, it’s sad to see you exhibit such a disgusting twist on truth.
Sadly, you can’t grasp the difference between people old enough to travel on their own, and those who are under the supervision of mothers and fathers in the home, as they were in Reagan’s day.
How many big child immigration influxes did we see during Reagan’s term in office? Why don’t you tell us.
Zero is the answer.
Obama will do whatever he wants, but it won’t be based on something Reagan did.
Reagan's 'DACA' were for ages up to 18. The minor numbers were around 500k alone. So yeah, that covers alot of 'people' breaking our laws.
I was wrong. 100k.
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.
