Obama’s Lawlessness on Immigration

[peejay 327]

Obama’s Lawlessness on Immigration

by Kris W. Kobach

Posted 07/07/2010 ET

It is becoming increasingly clear that, when it comes to illegal immigration, the Obama Administration has a disturbingly cavalier approach to what the law requires. Three recent examples illustrate his disdain for the plain meaning of the law.

First, during an interview in Ecuador, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton let the cat out of the bag about the Obama Administration's plan to sue Arizona. In so doing, she revealed who was sitting in the driver's seat when it came to the Justice Department's decision: "President Obama has spoken out against the law because he thinks that the federal government should be determining immigration policy. And the Justice Department, under his direction, will be bringing a lawsuit against the act."

Clinton was correct in her prediction. On Tuesday, the Obama Justice Department filed suit against the Arizona law, calling the measure "invalid" and saying it interfered with federal immigration responsibilities.

In other words, the same political calculations that drove President Obama to criticize (and mischaracterize) the Arizona law, now drove the Justice Department to bring the suit. Not to mention the potential embarrassment that would result if the Justice Department came to an independent conclusion that Arizona's law is on solid ground. Barack Obama-constitutional scholar that his fans make him out to be -- can't say one thing and have the Justice Department say another.

The problem with Obama's strategy is that the federal judges will actually read the Arizona law and they will find that there is precious little for the Justice Department to attack. Put simply, there is no federal statute that Arizona's law conflicts with. The opinions of the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals (which are all of the circuits that have addressed the issue) support the authority of Arizona to enact its law. Another obstacle for the Obama Administration is the fact that the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in 2002 authored an opinion holding that state police officers have the authority to arrest illegal aliens-the same authority underlying the Arizona law. In short, the Obama Administration's suit is on very thin ice.

But even if one were to imagine that the administration had a strong legal argument, there would have been yet another reason not to file the lawsuit: It is completely unnecessary. Five suits have already been filed by the ACLU and its fellow travelers The issue is already teed up for the federal courts to decide. The administration achieves nothing by launching its own litigation, except for rallying the Democrats' open-borders base before the 2010 elections. The Justice Department should never be abused in this blatantly-political manner.

Case No. 2: According to Arizona Sen. John Kyl, Obama told him in a one-on-one conversation that the administration was not going to secure the border until Republicans agreed to go along with an amnesty for illegal aliens. In other words, enforcing the law is optional in the eyes of the President-just another bargaining chip for him to use in order to get what he wants. The White House (not Obama himself) now claims that Sen. Kyl is lying. But given Kyl's reputation for honesty, and the fact that the Obama Administration has radically reduced immigration enforcement since taking office, Kyl's account of the conversation has more credibility.

Obama's statement reveals that he has very little regard for his obligation under Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." He may not like federal immigration laws, but that does not entitle him to suspend them.

Case No. 3: According to eight Republican senators, the Obama Administration is now contemplating the possibility of unilaterally granting an amnesty to illegal aliens by executive action. How would the administration pull this off? Apparently by granting "parole" to millions of illegal aliens, en masse.

The problem with this scheme is that federal law doesn't allow it. The avenue of granting an illegal alien parole-and lawful presence in the United States-was created by Congress to be used on a case-by-case basis. If, for "urgent humanitarian reasons" or "significant public benefits," a particular alien needed to be allowed to remain in the United States, then the executive branch has the authority grant that alien parole.

The meaning of the law has been clear for decades. But now Obama is considering changing it to give himself unprecedented power to grant amnesty to millions with the wave of his hand. Never mind that the granting of a mass amnesty is plainly a legislative action-altering the legal rights of millions-and the Constitution reserves such legislative powers to Congress.

Taken together, these three episodes paint a picture of lawlessness. The Obama Administration seems to believe that the President has the authority to set aside a state law because it is contrary to his political agenda, suspend the enforcement of federal laws for political reasons, and seize from Congress the legislative power to grant an amnesty. So much for a country governed by the rule of law, not the rule of man.

RNC Member Mr. Kobach is Chairman of the Kansas Republican Party, former Counsel and chief immigration adviser to Attorney General John Ashcroft (2001-03), and the attorney defending the cities of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, and Valley Park, Missouri, against the ACLU in court. He is also Professor of Law at the University of Missouri (Kansas City).

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37913

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I really hate it when articles talk about amnesty via executive order. It's not feasible and cannot happen. If it did happen, then I would not want to be within 20 miles of Washington DC for the hell that would break loose.

There will eventually be some act by congress OR state's like Arizona, Texas, and other non-sanctuary states will act more on their own..

[slim 1,533]

Obama needs to be really careful with how Holder proceeds with this. If they're going to be very technical in their distinction between federal and state governments, we may just see a few more states start thumbing their noses at the fed. "That's our department, keep your nose out of it."

[peejay 327]

Obama needs to be really careful with how Holder proceeds with this. If they're going to be very technical in their distinction between federal and state governments, we may just see a few more states start thumbing their noses at the fed. "That's our department, keep your nose out of it."

Immigration is clearly a federal matter. Unfortunately the federal government under this administration is willfully and purposely refusing to competently do its sworn duty for ideological reasons. Of course other administrations from both parties have neglected immigration matters in the past, but not nearly as blatantly and obviously as this administration. Instead of failing to deter illegal immigration through neglect as other administrations have, they are actively deterring and squashing any effort to effectively deter illegal immigration.

Edited July 8, 2010 by peejay

[slim 1,533]

While it is the fed's "job" to do immigration, there's nothing stopping states from adding on.

They didn't seem to mind when states "added on" to infringing upon the 2nd Amendment. What's stopping them now?

[peejay 327]

While it is the fed's "job" to do immigration, there's nothing stopping states from adding on.

They didn't seem to mind when states "added on" to infringing upon the 2nd Amendment. What's stopping them now?

Here is a nugget from the other topic I posted this morning. It also sums up Obama and cronies' mentality in that regard:

You gotta love Obama's fair-weather friends of the Constitution. When a state acts to do the job the feds won't do, Obama's legal eagles run to the Founding Fathers for protection. When, on the other hand, left-wing cities across the country pass illegal alien sanctuary policies that flagrantly defy national immigration laws and hamper cross-jurisdiction enforcement, the newfound federal preemption advocates are nowhere in sight.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/264220-open-borders-doj-vs-america/

The bottom line is that the constitution is only worthy if it corresponds to their own ideology. They reject any part of it that doesn't.

[evli1966 88]

I really hate it when articles talk about amnesty via executive order. It's not feasible and cannot happen. If it did happen, then I would not want to be within 20 miles of Washington DC for the hell that would break loose.

There will eventually be some act by congress OR state's like Arizona, Texas, and other non-sanctuary states will act more on their own..

Paul it is feasible and can happen as per the powers granted the President of the USA.

I do agree if it does happen it will be bad in DC it will be bad all over.

I could see a motion being made now if it does happen before November to impeach Obama and be stalled until after the election in which he would surely be impeached for his actions against the will of the people.

You will also see stronger amendments to the presidential powers that would follow potentially tying the hands of future prsidents that would not act so negligent towards the will of the people.

I do not want to think what might even happen if he anounces this as a formal plan.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

You really have to question the Obama administration's loyalties when it so clearly favors illegal immigration over legal immigration and US citizens.

[peejay 327]

You really have to question the Obama administration's loyalties when it so clearly favors illegal immigration over legal immigration and US citizens.

I don't really see Obama's actions in terms of loyalty or disloyalty. Obama and his cronies are self serving opportunists. They see that they can exploit the fact that there are millions of illegal aliens present in the USA. Why waste them by actually enforcing the laws he is sworn to uphold when he can use them for his own personal gain and that of his party. That is what a party hack does. I personally believe this guy would do anything to ram his agenda through. Exploiting illegal aliens is just a means to justify the ends. It may not get him reelected, but it would certainly further his and the Left's agenda far into the future. The fact that it is sleazy just doesn't register. I sincerely believe these guys view illegal aliens as undocumented Democrats. That is the bottom line.

[IndigoSkies 168]

I for one cannot wait to live in United Confederated States of America; aka Jesusland.

[peejay 327]

I for one cannot wait to live in United Confederated States of America; aka Jesusland.

Go buy an island. Then your wait will be shorter.

[Pooky 3,876]

District Court Judge: No Time Frame on Injunction Decision

Updated: Thursday, 08 Jul 2010, 8:25 AM MDT

Published : Wednesday, 07 Jul 2010, 9:20 PM MDT

By JACQUES BILLEAUD

Associated Press Writer

PHOENIX - A federal judge hearing six legal challenges to Arizona's new immigration law said Wednesday that she is making no promises on whether she will rule on requests to block enforcement of the law before it takes effect July 29.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton told attorneys at a scheduling conference that she intends to take the time required to make a sound legal decision.

"I have to do the best job I can," Bolton said.

The Arizona law requires police officers, while enforcing other laws, to ask about a person's immigration status if officers have a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally.

It also makes it a state crime for legal immigrants to not carry their immigration documents.

The hearing was held as part of a lawsuit filed Tuesday by the U.S. Department of Justice, which alleges the new law is an unconstitutional intrusion on the federal government's power to regulate immigration.

Federal lawyers requested that the judge hold a hearing two or three days before the law takes effect to consider their request to block the law. Instead, the judge set a July 22 hearing.

Bolton said she found the timing of the federal government's hearing request laughable, given that it filed its lawsuit just this week.

"I think that is completely unrealistic," Bolton said.

John Bouma, a lawyer defending the law on behalf of the state, noted that the federal government waited to file its lawsuit after the July Fourth weekend -- two months after the first challenges were filed.

Arthur Goldberg, an attorney representing the federal government, said the lawsuit had to be reviewed by many people in the federal government before it was filed.

Bolton, who had been hearing five challenges to the law, concluded that she also will oversee the U.S. Department of Justice's lawsuit, which had been assigned to another judge.

AP Article

Interesting to see that the Judge hearing the other 5 challenges will oversee the DoJ challenge, too, despite it originally being assigned to another judge. I particularly like the part where she has a dig at the DoJ and the timing of their hearing request. Let's hope she weathers any Federal pressure and makes an independent decision.

[Mags 112]

Good grief. I never knew ANY of this. I can't believe he is in office at all. This country is going down the tubes, I tell ya.

I can't wait for the Republicans to get back in. They'll make this ALL right.

Edited July 9, 2010 by Mags

[Pooky 3,876]

Good grief. I never knew ANY of this. I can't believe he is in office at all. This country is going down the tubes, I tell ya.

I can't wait for the Republicans to get back in. They'll make this ALL right.

Have some bacon. It'll ground you in the real world for a bit.

Just don't bank on the GOP. The last person that tried an amnesty for the illegals was none other than BushBaby. You see, it's not a Democrat vs. Republican issue, no matter the impression the respective parties currently give you. It's a Washington vs. The People of the USA (or most of them, anyway).

You see both of the political parties have a vested interest in seeing the 12+ million illegal immigrants stay. The thing is that just like last time, the electorate is getting energised and making its voice heard in opposition to this prospect, which is a lot easier to do in an election year. And however it plays out, AZ SB 1070 has helped make more people aware of what is going on (a lack of Federal enforcement of immigration laws) and who is responsible (Washington).