Yesterday the Current Occupier of the Whitehouse overruled our democratically-elected Congress and made law by fiat; in his pronouncement of amnesty to illegal aliens, Field Marshall Choomwagen effectively established the DREAM Act into law, previously voted against by our lawmakers.
This is not a political blog and I am not a lawyer, but this raw power move must be addressed - I am scratching my head over how is this legal? How can a President - any President - effectively dictate law from the podium in the Rose Garden?
How can this be?
Somebody Help Me Here
Never mind the economic recklessness of opening the floodgates to millions of uneducated, unskilled, illiterate (previously illegal) aliens - the question puzzling me is the ability of the Executive Branch to establish law against the will of our elected representatives; in essence, ruling against the will of the people of the United States.
How is this any different from a President arbitrarily establishing that marijuana - possession of any amount, cultivation, distribution and dealing of - is legal and will be subject to taxation, just like gasoline or liquor? How is this any different from a President decreeing that military conscription - the draft - is re-enacted?
STORMBRINGER is an Immigrant
I earned my citizenship the traditional way - through military service. Which brings up a side question; one of the conditions Obama described yesterday to allow amnesty to previously illegal, undocumented aliens is military service. This is interesting because it is impossible for an undocumented person to enter into the United States military.
Proof of United States citizenship (birth certificate and or passport) or legal alien residence - a.k.a. 'Green Card' - is required to enlist in the United States military. In order for an illegal alien - or any undocumented person - to join the military there would have to be an illegal conspiracy between that person, the recruiter, and any person or U.S. agency involved in the processing of security clearances. Such activities are criminal and there are significant penalties and fines associated with these sort of crimes.
Ergo, is the President of the United States granting amnesty by default to any and all representatives of the U.S. government who participated in such activities?
Of course I'm not surprised the press didn't pick up on this, and anyway this is a side issue. The greater question remains: Can the President dictate law against the will of Congress and the People of the United States?
Instinctive Outrage
Refreshingly, the press for once reacted immediately and appropriately; a fellow immigrant - reporter Neil Munro explains his exchange with Obama in the Rose Garden. Munro hails from Ireland; a land with a long history of struggle against tyranny. Your comments are welcome, of course.
STORMBRINGER SENDS
Excellent post, this needs to get out and expose this fraud.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question, he can't (legally). The Executive has no Constitutional authority to do as he's doing. His version of the oath of office apparently consisted of, "Bugger the Constitution."
ReplyDeleteWhile it certainly seems to be an illegal power grab, what's the difference between this and an executive order? Or rule by the regulations?
ReplyDeleteIn the second case, congress didn't pass the cap and trade CO2 nonsense, so the EPA goes ahead and regulates CO2 as a pollutant and has the same effects. Another example, congress specifically told the BATFE they can't regulate long guns like handguns, but the BATFE put in place a regulation that forbids sale of more than two rifles "of over .22 caliber" to anyone in a week. Rule by regulation.
President's love executive orders and being able to go around congress. This prez takes it to new heights, with his group of Czars - more than any other president, and having almost no cabinet meetings. He prefers to use none of the formal power channels, just people who answer only to him.
Congress is making itself irrelevant.
I'm not a lawyer, either. Just an observer.
It is clear that immigration in the USA is a mess. The legislation and the rules are completely unfit for purpose. However, that should be the debate, not just just ignoring the very real transgressions of the past.
ReplyDeleteTo be crude, the USA could probably accept an unlimited number of immigrants of north west European origins without the loss of any American identity whatsoever. Assimilation would come extremely easily from these regions.
However, for most of the people in these regions now, it is an extreme effort to go through the immigration process. (In the EU there is a treaty allowing every citizen of a memeber state to work in any other with no extra paperwork.)
However, you have economic migrants who have illegally entered the USA and that are told that their breaking of the law isn't a problem.
This sends out the signal to the world that those who are happy to take the risk to break the rules can come to the USA. It is worth it.
This is nothing short of an invitation to the world's detritus to have a go for the USA. It is nothing more offputting to traditional immigrant groups (e.g. Germans, English, Irish, Scandies) and also the welcome non-tradition groups of high education/means (e.g. Singaporeans, Koreans, Hong Kongese), who are effectively discriminated against through the expectation that they should follow the rules.
This is a question of American sovereignty. If the Republic makes laws to guard the borders and the character of the country then that should be respected. The countries that these illegals come from are (usually) afwul hell-holes. The reason there is an immigration process is so that the USA knows who its immigrants are. It is a country that will give a fair go to anybody, but the system should be respected now and reformed as required.
Illegal immigrants should be treated as hostile, lawbreaking invaders until their situation has been regularised or they have been de-immigrated.
Obama is a disater for the USA. He has seriously pissed-off ALL of the USA's recent valuable allies (England, Poland, etc...) and now is intent of destroying the character of the USA altogether though uncontrolled immigration.
Trust me - viewpoint from England and France: Obama is less well thought of by the British now than Bush was by the French in 2003. That's quite hard, but he's made it look easy.
Friday's unconstitutional statement by obama means that our regular flood of illegals will now become a tsunami. The speech was an encouragement to come to America by any devious means and chances are that in the near future you will be legalized.
ReplyDeleteA dictatorial president and entourage, a weak- kneed Congress and a biased and dishonest press add up to a insideous and disastrous attack on The Constitution, American culture and traditions and on the tax paying, law abiding citizens of the Republic.