You surely heard of a bill called the "DREAM Act." For a margarita, what does "Dream" stand for?
For another margarita, what group of people were exclusively
named in the bill to receive huge benefits if it passed?
If you said "children of illegal immigrants who arrived here before age 16," you win.
Next question: Which party was pushing this bill (i.e. virtually all their congresswhores supported it, with only two or three members of the other party)?
If you said Democrats, you're right.
The bill was first introduced in 2001 but has never passed. In the lame duck session after the 2010 election, Dems flexed their soon-to-vanish majority in the House to pass the thing, and it went to the senate, but failed there by a whisker because the Repubs filibustered. Dems needed 60 votes for cloture but could only muster 52.
Now, flash forward to present: Obozo is doing everything he can to win Hispanic votes, and he promised to pass the Dream Act. But since it failed in the lame-duck session, and the Dems no longer have a majority in the House, it's not gonna pass this session either. So Obama's Hispanic support is less than enthusiastic.
What to do, what to do?? Aha! Simply tell the head of the Dept of Homeland Insecurity to stop deportations and deportation procedures against children of illegals.
Fabulous! Order was quietly given, problem is solved and Obama regains strong support among Hispanics.
Except conservatives heard about the order and complained that it was a) a violation of existing law; and b) a de facto amnesty.
Since conservatives and independents are already upset with Barky for ramming "laws" down our throats via congressional bribery and executive orders, his strategists saw that this could easily wind up being another debacle for Dems. So an hour ago Janet Napolitano summoned reporters and said the order was neither immunity nor amnesty, but simply a "grant of deferred action." Napolitano also called it "an exercise of discretion."
What it really is is an exercise in breaking the law, by Obama and his underlings. Let me explain.
The laws of a country can't reasonably cover every particular topic, so there are many areas in which there's neither prohibition nor explicit approval of an act by the president. These are the areas where the president typically issues executive orders that spell out the policy of his administration (and the U.S. government).
But immigration policy isn't this type of gray area: Laws duly passed by congress provide that no one may enter the U.S. unless he or she meets one of several conditions--green card, tourist visa, student visa and so on. Historically we don't imprison violators but merely send them back home.
Failure to enforce U.S. law is one of the duties imposed on the president by the Constitution itself, and would seem clearly to be an impeachable offense.
Ah, say left/libs, but by ordering that deportations be halted, Obama isn't literally refusing to enforce
immigration law, but merely slowing enforcement. He could obviously reverse the order at any time. So...neener neener neener!
Fortunately this tactic has been extensively litigated, and an indefinite delay in enforcing a law is considered failure to enforce it. And no, I'm not going to provide a cite for that. If you want to argue the point, feel free to cite a case you believe supports your position.
Now, there's no disagreement that kids who were brought to the U.S. by illegal- immigrant parents had no say in the matter. I'll also agree that the case can be made that because they had no say in the matter, "it's not fair" to deport them. However, this strikes me as a flawed reasoning, because I don't know of any other area in which a minor would be permitted to benefit from the illegal acts of his parents, whether legally here or not.
Example: Suppose my parents defrauded a bank and ended up with a fancy car. They're charged and flee the country. Do I get to keep the car simply because I didn't actually participate in their fraud? Of course not. Yet liberals make this argument for the kids of illegal immigrants and no one knocks it down
, because "the victims" are poor innocent kids, right?
Anyway, I think failure to enforce the laws of the U.S. should top the list of impeachable offenses committed by Barky. This isn't "just lying about sex, which everyone does, so it's not very wrong," as the Dems characterized Clinton's perjury.
UPDATE: Conservative bloggers quickly tracked down Obama speaking in September of last year about the fact that his party couldn't manage to get the Dream Act passed:
This notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively, but the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there's been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It's just not true.
Then, having lulled conservatives and independents into thinking he meant what he said about not unilaterally acting to nullify immigration laws that displeased a crucial group of Dem supporters, he waited...what, nine months or so, and then unilaterally ordered his minions to stop enforcing immigration laws. While also ensuring that they would provide cover by saying this was NOT failing to enforce duly-passed law.
Amazing, brazen. Socialist/demagogue/thug through and through. "Constitution, what's that?"
(Oh, DREAM stands for "Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors.")