Dana Perino is not a legal scholar. Andrew McCarthy, on the other hand, is not only a prominent legal scholar but also a former prosecutor. Here is his learned opinion:
‘’He [Obama} is claiming not only the power to determine what immigration laws get enforced and which illegal immigrants get prosecuted — power he unquestionably has. He also claims the power to declare (a) that criminal acts are somehow lawful — that illegal aliens now have a right to be here — just because Obama has chosen not to prosecute them; and (b) that those who engage in this unprosecuted activity will be rewarded with benefits (lawful presence, relief from deportation, work permits, etc.), as if their illegal acts were valuable community service.
‘’That is an utter perversion of prosecutorial discretion and a blatant usurpation of congressional power. Only Congress has the power to repeal criminal laws and confer positive legal benefits on non-Americans.’’
Dana Perino’s non-expert opinion on prosecutorial discretion has as much value to her listeners as her non-expert opinion on brain-surgery procedures. None. If she wants to pontificate on the latest issues without knowing what she’s talking about, she’d be better off appearing on ‘’The View’’ where no one takes the panelists’ opinions seriously rather than holding forth on a serious news network.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, what Obama says and what is actually signed could be two very different things. I mean it may be possible Obama is misleading the illegals on what he is doing. He did the DACA executive order and I don’t think a lawsuit was filed. Once everyone sees what’s in the signed document the legal scholars can opine the legality.