Obama on new DREAM Act policy: This isn’t amnesty, it’s the right thing to do

posted at 4:01 pm on June 15, 2012 by Allahpundit

Contrary to popular belief, this shift doesn’t appear to stem from any new executive orders from The One. It comes from a directive issued by Janet Napolitano (at Obama’s behest, of course) instructing DHS to defer action on all young illegals who meet the DREAM-like criteria specified in the directive. That’s why O is insisting that this isn’t amnesty: It’s not formal legalization, it’s de facto legalization insofar as they’re simply not going to enforce the existing law against a certain class of illegal immigrants. It’s prosecutorial discretion, in other words — exercised en masse on behalf of something like 800,000 people. President Romney’s DHS director could reverse it with a single memo, but of course Obama’s calculating that he won’t dare now that the precedent’s been established, especially given all the pressure Romney’s feeling and will continue to feel to be more competitive for Hispanic votes.

When O was asked about this last year, he claimed his hands were tied. Amazing what sorts of “evolution” can happen with Election Day bearing down:

THE PRESIDENT: I just have to continue to say 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…

[W]e live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it. And if all the attention is focused away from the legislative process, then that is going to lead to a constant dead-end. We have to recognize how the system works, and then apply pressure to those places where votes can be gotten and, ultimately, we can get this thing solved. And nobody will be a stronger advocate for making that happen than me.

His “rah-rah democracy” approach there is misleading: As Byron York notes, he’s been flirting with the idea of unilateral executive action for a long time. But his basic point, that you’ll need a compromise in Congress to finally settle this issue, is all too true. And Matt Lewis is dead right in thinking that Obama made that much more difficult today:

As someone who opposed the Arizona law — and has supported Rubio’s DREAM ACT — I am convinced that America needs to have a serious national discussion about immigration reform. Short-circuiting the legislative process deprives us of that organic discussion. It also guarantees there will be no bipartisan consensus. Perhaps Rubio could have persuaded more conservatives to back common sense reforms? The water is now poisoned. Obama — for transparently political purposes — has made sure that conservatives and Republicans will feel slighted and kept out of the loop.

That’s because they have been.

The downside, of course, is that this does nothing to heal this nation, nothing to bring us together, and only serves as a short-term solution for immigrants when a long-term solution — one based on consensus, not political opportunism — was needed.

If O actually cared about DREAM on the merits instead of as a cynical electoral cudgel against the GOP, he would have let Rubio float his own DREAM bill to try to shake some Republican support loose. The bill might have passed with Democratic support; even if it didn’t, Obama would have been in a better position at that point to act unilaterally since there would already be multiple Republicans on record as supporting the basics of DREAM (even if they opposed unilateral executive action). But he couldn’t afford to let Rubio take the lead lest the publicity surrounding that jeopardize Obama’s huge lead over the GOP among Latinos. So, just as he did with gay marriage, he cynically decided that now was the moment for a pure, bold, crystalline pander to one of the Democrats’ core client constituencies.

But I don’t know, maybe I’m underestimating him. As I say, now that a de facto DREAM amnesty is in effect, the politics of this have changed. If there’s any tried and true principle in the entitlement age, it’s that most politicians are deathly afraid to take something away from a group once it’s been granted — especially a group whose electoral power is increasing. Will President Romney or a Republican Congress really be willing to undo this when given the chance? At best, I think they might be willing to replace it with a new DREAM Act of their own, but unless there’s a ferocious backlash among the rest of the electorate, I’m skeptical that pulling the plug is an option.

Here’s a chunk of O’s presser. I’ve got updates coming below the video, so stand by.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Update: Daniel Halper at the Standard finds it awfully coincidental that the cover story of Time magazine’s new issue published yesterday is a puff piece on the illegal immigrant experience. I don’t know. Newsweeklies typically don’t need any nudging from the White House to run puff pieces about the “undocumented,” but a well-timed bit of favorable messaging in a major magazine will help Axelrod et al. sell this otherwise controversial policy. Who knows what sorts of little tidbits they’re feeding to journalists about policy shifts to come.

Update: At Reason, Mike Riggs asks a good question. If President Choom can decide that he has better things to do than deport young illegals, why can’t he also decide that he has better things to do than prosecute dope-smokers?

Today’s immigration announcement makes a compelling case that Obama is capable of using his executive powers to *not* enforce the law, and will do so when it’s politically advantageous. There’s a lesson there for drug reformers.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

It’s for the children!

HornetSting on June 15, 2012 at 5:10 PM

The 30 year old children!

jaime on June 15, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Just so we can revisit unemployment rates for affected populations after this decree has taken full effect, here are the recent numbers from the BLS (May 2012), “not seasonally adjusted”:
 

Black men: 14.4%
Black women: 10.8%
Black youth, both sexes, 16-19 years old: 35.2%
 
Latino men: 9.6%
Latino women: 9.2%
Latino youth, both sexes, 16-19 years old: 30.4%

 
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.htm

rogerb on June 15, 2012 at 5:12 PM

wren on June 15, 2012 at 5:08 PM

As long as cellphones are confiscated first !!

pambi on June 15, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Amnesty for all tax evaders for the next 20 years!

jaime on June 15, 2012 at 5:13 PM

thatsafactjack on June 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Here is how it will work in the real world :
Every gang-banger, cholo, chola, mecha, drug dealer, convicted felon , wanted terrorist will go to a Laraza or CAIR
” lawyer ” , give a name and age
( totally made up ofcourse) , enroll in some latino/hispanic school or other public school, and then get amnesty to start a chain of citizenships for foreigners about whom no one knows anything because there will be no records or investigations or fingerprints or FBI checks or communicable diseases tests .
Makes me feel so safe in this country now :(

burrata on June 15, 2012 at 5:13 PM

It’s for the children!

HornetSting on June 15, 2012 at 5:10 PM

“Vote yes on Prop 10 or else you hate children. You don’t hate children… do you?”: http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/151029/you-hate-children

Lawdawg86 on June 15, 2012 at 5:13 PM

rogerb on June 15, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Uniter, yups !!
YIKES.

pambi on June 15, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Time to Impeach.

aniptofar on June 15, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Long before November, hispanic voters will be asking “What has Obama done for me lately?” The panic and flop sweat at Team Obama must be overpowering to force such bad timing.

Pass the popcorn, and watch the unintended consequences among hispanics who are here legally.

WhatNot on June 15, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Tax evaders should get amnesty because:

a) They are doing it to improve their economic situation;

b) They don’t agree with the tax laws, so they shouldn’t have to follow them!

jaime on June 15, 2012 at 5:15 PM

First, the phoney war on women. Then, the ginned-up Trayvon controversy. Then, ‘I support gay marriage’ (as long as the states decide). And now he’s adding 800k (mostly) Hispanics to the worker rolls (and ultimately the unemployment line). I can’t believe that a President has to pander so aggressively to groups that he had in his back pocket in ’08. This strategy is sheer panic. Sheer panic.

joejm65 on June 15, 2012 at 5:15 PM

“It’s the right thing to do” is such a flimsy argument. Right/correct based upon what? Not that most illegals care why. But legal Americans DO care.

The DNC is sending out fundraising letters with this:

This is a defining issue for our country: if Mitt Romney and the Republicans refuse to allow immigrants who were brought to America as children to have basic rights, then we need to call them out.

Behind closed doors they tell illegals that they have a right to the same benefits as legal citizens. Sounds like treason to me.

But don’t expect O to use this in a major policy address. If he and the rest of the law-sneering leftists of the country believed it was a right, they would act accordingly in the light of day instead sneaking around. It is as intellectually incongruent as O’s bizarre stance that marriage is a “right” but that states should decide it. If it’s a right, why doesn’t he actually craft legislation to support it?

And they say O is a constitutional law professor…

LetsBfrank on June 15, 2012 at 5:16 PM

It will be amnesty if Obama can get away with it.

Philly on June 15, 2012 at 5:16 PM

George Bush received 44% of the Latino vote in the 2004 general election. McCain only got 31%.

Romney can’t afford to win less than 31-33% of the Hispanic vote. Not with the other minorities turning out and voting Obama at such high rates. There aren’t enough non-liberal whites to make up for that.

joana on June 15, 2012 at 5:06 PM

So are you suggesting that Romney try to out-pander Obama?

Bitter Clinger on June 15, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Not necessarily about stopping Rubio as a VP, but you’re definitely correct it was about stopping him from bringing the bill to the floor. It was about not allowing a Republican to be the one achieving a successful compromise on immigration reform.

joana on June 15, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Any move by Republicans on illegal immigration reform at a time of 8% unemployment and an ailing economy would be an absolute disaster for the party. It nearly killed the party in 2006 when pushed by Bush and McCain. Do we really want to go through that again so close to victory in 2012?

If Obama’s actions stopped any effort by Republicans on this front he saved the GOP a LOT of headaches in the coming months.

mpthompson on June 15, 2012 at 5:16 PM

If Romney is elected, he can end the deficit by NOT spending money that congress has appropriated, if that’s the way the game is played. Eliminate whole bureaucracies with the stroke of a pen. No more money for NPR/PBS. Etc, etc.

Someone less ethical than Romney could decide NOT to enforce civil rights laws, curtail Medicare payments, suspend treaties. Anything is possible if the President is not required to carry out the law.

Obama has no idea how far he is outside the law.

topdog on June 15, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Obama..”I can’t deport the children to Mexico…Eric has sent too many guns down there..”

Caper29 on June 15, 2012 at 5:16 PM

How does Homeland Security plan on determining when and at what age a lot of these illegals came here? It would seem impossible to really know in a lot of cases. Of course, in the long run it probably won’t matter. They’ll wind up passing out work permits to anyone who is under 30.

TarheelBen on June 15, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Romney can’t afford to win less than 31-33% of the Hispanic vote. Not with the other minorities turning out and voting Obama at such high rates. There aren’t enough non-liberal whites to make up for that.

joana on June 15, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Well look who’s here from the 1000-comment thread. Think you can hijack them all today?

Get ready for one piece of crap after another.

spiritof61 on June 15, 2012 at 5:18 PM

“Now, I’m not hear to start an argument.” “Yes you are” “No I’m not.” “Yes you are” With my apologies to the cast and crew of Monty Python’s Flying Circus.

Mini-14 on June 15, 2012 at 5:18 PM

How can prosecutorial discretion extend to the issuance of work permits? I’m not following that.

mbs on June 15, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Romney can’t afford to win less than 31-33% of the Hispanic vote. Not with the other minorities turning out and voting Obama at such high rates. There aren’t enough non-liberal whites to make up for that.

joana on June 15, 2012 at 5:06 PM

How do you know minorities will turn out to vote in high numbers like in 2008? They’ve suffered worse than anyone under this administration. And there actually are enough non-liberal whites to make up for those deficits with minorities. Obama is doing horribly amongst whites(and that’s BEFORE this debacle) and last time I checked they still make up 2/3 of the electorate.

Doughboy on June 15, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Not necessarily about stopping Rubio as a VP, but you’re definitely correct it was about stopping him from bringing the bill to the floor. It was about not allowing a Republican to be the one achieving a successful compromise on immigration reform.

joana on June 15, 2012 at 5:09 PM

That’s your definition of a suksessful compromise? I wasn’t aware that we’ve gone full blown tyranny here.

antipc on June 15, 2012 at 5:19 PM

This isn’t amnesty, it’s the right thing to do buying votes!

daj on June 15, 2012 at 5:20 PM

This is simply an attempt to move the discussion away from the economy. The more Republicans get sucked into it the better for Obama.

jpmn on June 15, 2012 at 5:22 PM

Border Security, E-Verify, Limited Amnesty for people who could prove they were brought here before the age of 12 and are not now over the age of 22 and have been here at least 10 years and who serve a full enlistment in the military.

I’m seeing neither Border Security nor E-verify in Obama’s executive order.

jaime on June 15, 2012 at 5:23 PM

The 30 year old children!

jaime on June 15, 2012 at 5:12 PM

It will be interesting to see what proof is required to show that the 30-year old “kid” came to the U.S. before age 16.

My bet is that any illegal who shows up with a birth certificate showing them to be age 30 or less (and for those over 30, buying or forging a fake foreign birth certificate will be no problem), and who is willing to sign an affidavit saying they crossed the border when they were under 16, gets to leave the ICE office with a brand-new green card and work permit (although good luck finding a job in the Obama economy).

AZCoyote on June 15, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Do my eyes deceive me, or is that lousy POS actually wearing an American flag pin on his GD lapel while he stands there crapping all over the Constitution?

waterytart on June 15, 2012 at 5:24 PM

+1 daj

cmsinaz on June 15, 2012 at 5:24 PM

This is simply an attempt to move the discussion away from the economy.

jpmn on June 15, 2012 at 5:22 PM

This isn’t a “discussion”. It’s an un-Constitutional act, done blatantly and brazenly defying America to defend the foundation of our nation. There is nothing more important than our Constitution. Nothing.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 15, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Obama..”I can’t deport the children to Mexico…Eric has sent too many guns down there..”

Caper29 on June 15, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Thread winner!

Rational Thought on June 15, 2012 at 5:26 PM

My bet is that any illegal who shows up with a birth certificate showing them to be age 30 or less (and for those over 30, buying or forging a fake foreign birth certificate will be no problem), and who is willing to sign an affidavit saying they crossed the border when they were under 16, gets to leave the ICE office with a brand-new green card and work permit (although good luck finding a job in the Obama economy).

AZCoyote on June 15, 2012 at 5:23 PM

This is exactly what is going to happen. Fraud will run rampant.

DFCtomm on June 15, 2012 at 5:26 PM

So the head law enforcers are not going to enforce the law.

davidk on June 15, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Romney can’t afford to win less than 31-33% of the Hispanic vote. Not with the other minorities turning out and voting Obama at such high rates. There aren’t enough non-liberal whites to make up for that.

joana on June 15, 2012 at 5:06 PM

How do you know minorities will turn out to vote in high numbers like in 2008? They’ve suffered worse than anyone under this administration. And there actually are enough non-liberal whites to make up for those deficits with minorities. Obama is doing horribly amongst whites(and that’s BEFORE this debacle) and last time I checked they still make up 2/3 of the electorate.

Doughboy on June 15, 2012 at 5:19 PM

I’m projecting a slightly lower turnout rate actually. But they’ll turnout massively and vote for Obama by large margins. African-Americans will still vote 92-8 Obama or something like that. Check the polls.

2/3s? Whites are actually more than that. But you’re probably underestimating the number of left-leaning whites. I don’t think this will cause Obama to lose votes with whites. Again, allowing the so-called “Dreamers” to have a path to legal residence but not citizenship is popular. Those who are fiercely against it were never going to vote for Obama anyway.

joana on June 15, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Well look who’s here from the 1000-comment thread. Think you can hijack them all today?

Get ready for one piece of crap after another.

spiritof61 on June 15, 2012 at 5:18 PM

My recommendation would be to confine responses to her to the 1000 post thread and keep this thread joana-response free.

/Yeah, I’ve been guilty of toying with the troll as well. A few pages of not responding would shrivel up and blow away. If you must respond, cut and paste to the other thread — it’s still on topic there.

AZfederalist on June 15, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Shouldn’t the tagline read. Its the left thing to do. Or. Its the leftist political thing to do.

Bmore on June 15, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Well, the SEIU either just got 800,000 new members or lost 800,000 union jobs to illegals.

natasha333 on June 15, 2012 at 5:29 PM

That’s your definition of a suksessful compromise? I wasn’t aware that we’ve gone full blown tyranny here.

antipc on June 15, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Any bill that passes with bipartisan support is by definition a “successful compromise”, regardless of one’s opinion about the merits of the bill.

And why would Rubio’s Dream Act be labelled as tyranny? Tyrannical is Obama using Executive Orders to legislative from the White House.

joana on June 15, 2012 at 5:31 PM

The purpose of the legislative branch is to write law.

The purpose of the executive branch is to sign or veto the law, and to enforce the laws that are passed.

The act of picking and choosing which laws to enforce and which ones not to, and especially exempted certain classes of people from signed law, in an unacceptable act of legislative by the executive branch.

This is blatantly unconstitutional.

Short of impeachment proceedings, the next step is for Congress to pass a law that says that the president may not carve out special classes of people within a law and refuse to enforce the law against that cohort, unless the law specifically allowed that.

The main basis of the violation is simple: the Oath of Office that the president swears:

US Constitution, Article II, Section 1

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

cane_loader on June 15, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Please don’t feed the troll.

The Rogue Tomato on June 15, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Well, there we have it.

The president just illegally declared an amnesty with the stroke of the pen, completely bypassing Congress.

Just like he did when dropping bombs on Libyans.

Libya was NOT considered part of the War on Terror.

The U.N. resolution authorized a “No-Fly” zone – NOT bombing wingless tanks.

I have never seen a president who more obviously requires Impeachment. Never in the history of the nation.

IMPEACH.

cane_loader on June 15, 2012 at 5:34 PM

He did it because of the numbers…

… 800,000 children?

The true estimate of illegals in this Country run between 25 and 30 million

NOT the 8 to 10 to 12 million the Left always spout, not wanting to scare living daylights out of the Citizens of this Country as to what a complete and total failure the Federal Government is regarding our border.

So, in the next four and a half months, Obowma will be using all of the resources of the Federal Government, as well as the unions, ACORN by another name, La Raza, et al…

… and under the guise of “work permits”, welcome centers will also be registering millions of illegals to vote.

Don’t think it can happen…?

Seven Percent Solution on June 15, 2012 at 5:34 PM

That’s your definition of a suksessful compromise? I wasn’t aware that we’ve gone full blown tyranny here.

antipc on June 15, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Any bill that passes with bipartisan support is by definition a “successful compromise”, regardless of one’s opinion about the merits of the bill.

And why would Rubio’s Dream Act be labelled as tyranny? Tyrannical is Obama using Executive Orders to legislative from the White House.

joana on June 15, 2012 at 5:31 PM

How many votes from the opposing party? One vote? Five? Whatever number of votes the spinner wants to declare as bipartisan?

HornetSting on June 15, 2012 at 5:35 PM

If O actually cared about DREAM on the merits instead of as a cynical electoral cudgel against the GOP, he would have let Rubio float his own DREAM bill to try to shake some Republican support loose. The bill might have passed with Democratic support; even if it didn’t, Obama would have been in a better position at that point to act unilaterally since there would already be multiple Republicans on record as supporting the basics of DREAM (even if they opposed unilateral executive action).

it is never about ‘caring’…it is always about a multi-generational one party rule…ruled by the left.

Teddy Kennedy blocked Nixon and Carter in their h/c initiatives. Leftists don’t want progress…they want things their way, and no other way…and they want to rule for two or three generations.

they got shook up in 94…and they don’t plan on letting that happen again

r keller on June 15, 2012 at 5:35 PM

waterytart on June 15, 2012 at 5:24 PM

I think that’s exactly what it is.

INC on June 15, 2012 at 5:35 PM

I wonder how much this will actually help Obama..it is so obvious what he is doing. The only people likely to be really happy about this are people who are already supporting him.

Terrye on June 15, 2012 at 5:36 PM

It’s prosecutorial discretion, in other words — exercised en masse on behalf of something like 800,000 people.

This is prosecutorial discretion in the same way that the Empire State Building is a chair because someone can sit on top of it.

Selectively enforced law is worse than no law, at all. It is tyranny with the false sheen of respectability. This is tyranny. Period. The Executive decides what to enforce and what not to enforce, and who to allow through and who doesn’t “get waivers”. This is insanity and they all need to go to jail.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 15, 2012 at 5:36 PM

When he forgives student loans I will be writing a letter to my representative, my senator, and the president DEMANDING the return of the $12,000 I spent to pay off my student loans, finishing in 2010. Refusal to refund my money will constitute outright theft.

cane_loader on June 15, 2012 at 5:36 PM

How many votes from the opposing party? One vote? Five? Whatever number of votes the spinner wants to declare as bipartisan?

HornetSting on June 15, 2012 at 5:35 PM

I think that depends on the bill, no? What do you think?

joana on June 15, 2012 at 5:38 PM

This hedonistic psychopath will be anything to get re-elected. What next-sell or give away all states which voted red in the last election because “it’s the rioht thing to do.”??? Thank God for Sheriff Joe Arpaio who says he will still arrest them. Obama may say something but it has no legal effect until congress enacts it into law-legally-they’re still illegal!!

MaiDee on June 15, 2012 at 5:39 PM

Selectively enforced law is worse than no law, at all. It is tyranny with the false sheen of respectability. This is tyranny. Period. The Executive decides what to enforce and what not to enforce, and who to allow through and who doesn’t “get waivers”. This is insanity and they all need to go to jail.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 15, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Obama is a tyrant. Plain and simple. the Founding Fathers are turning in their graves. In a sane America, 0bama would be on on trial in the Senate already after having been impeached by the House.

In 0bama, we are witnessing the fall of America. I am so sad I lived to see it. The nation is collapsing into dictatorship under this despicable tyrant.

cane_loader on June 15, 2012 at 5:39 PM

How can prosecutorial discretion extend to the issuance of work permits? I’m not following that.

mbs on June 15, 2012 at 5:18 PM

They simply won’t prosecute the people illegally issuing work permits.

The Rogue Tomato on June 15, 2012 at 5:39 PM

… and under the guise of “work permits”, welcome centers will also be registering millions of illegals to vote.

Don’t think it can happen…?

Seven Percent Solution on June 15, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Not in that scale, no, but we need Republican state parties to push for Voting ID laws anyway. Put them on the ballot. They’re hugely popular.

joana on June 15, 2012 at 5:40 PM

How many votes from the opposing party? One vote? Five? Whatever number of votes the spinner wants to declare as bipartisan?

HornetSting on June 15, 2012 at 5:35 PM

I think that depends on the bill, no? What do you think?

joana on June 15, 2012 at 5:38 PM

I think you’re arguments are as illogical as that question.
Oh, and you are an idiot.

HornetSting on June 15, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Just be sure to hide your money. Don’t spend any money, and if you can make money without the government knowing about it, do it. hoard it all and go live in a nice little area and live life.

Conservative4ev on June 15, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Your. Pardon.

HornetSting on June 15, 2012 at 5:42 PM

It will be interesting to see what proof is required to show that the 30-year old “kid” came to the U.S. before age 16.

My bet is that any illegal who shows up with a birth certificate showing them to be age 30 or less (and for those over 30, buying or forging a fake foreign birth certificate will be no problem), and who is willing to sign an affidavit saying they crossed the border when they were under 16, gets to leave the ICE office with a brand-new green card and work permit (although good luck finding a job in the Obama economy).

AZCoyote on June 15, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Utility bill printing software discs selling like hotcakes in the barrios…

slickwillie2001 on June 15, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Watch for it.

The Directors of FBI and DEA, all federal drug enforcements will be suspended and to bring a case against a person with any scheduled drugs will now take mitigating factors such as race, on a case by case bases. If they are deemed that they are not a high priority it will be a catch and release and sent home with any drugs on them given back for their personal use even schedule 1. They will also be amnesty from any state drug laws as they (federals government) will keep all drug crimes secret from the state level.

And if you do not like it you are a racist.

tjexcite on June 15, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Moby…….

Bmore on June 15, 2012 at 5:43 PM

Obama is a tyrant. Plain and simple. the Founding Fathers are turning in their graves. In a sane America, 0bama would be on on trial in the Senate already after having been impeached by the House.

In 0bama, we are witnessing the fall of America. I am so sad I lived to see it. The nation is collapsing into dictatorship under this despicable tyrant.

cane_loader on June 15, 2012 at 5:39 PM

Yep.

I think this nation is broken beyond repair. No one can take the Rule of Law seriously anymore. Everything is “discretion” in enforcement and “empathy” in adjudication. That’s pretty much it. We’re going to have to start all over. This sort of destruction can’t just be fixed by someone saying, “Okay … from NOW on, we’ll follow the law.” No one believes that and they shouldn’t.

Very sad – though many of us warned about this back in 2008 when so many (on the right, too) refused to even have any questions of Constitutionality addressed.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 15, 2012 at 5:43 PM

“The right thing to do.”

It wasn’t the right thing to do on January 20, 2009?

Or in 2010?

Or in 2011?

But let the polling numbers get a bit spotty in Colorado, and NOW it’s the right thing to do?

Got it.

juanito on June 15, 2012 at 5:44 PM

*I walk by the Occupy movement every day and see them trashing a beautiful park.

*We have religious freedoms being challenged with the contraception mandate.

*Gay marriage is being shoved down people’s throats whether they endorse or not.

*We just had a President willingly break the law again in an attempt to “buy” the election.

*We have an Attorney General that is so dirty and crooked, I don’t think he would know the truth if it bit him in the butt.

*Economy is in the crapper and people who are lucky enough to still have a job are doing the job of 4 people.

I’m getting scared that we won’t make it to Romney’s swearing in. Obama will destroy it all before then.

gophergirl on June 15, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Psst … Joanna herself said: QED .. Allow her to live up to that, k ??

pambi on June 15, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Obama… “I can’t deport the children to Mexico… Eric has sent too many guns down there…”

Caper29 on June 15, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Thread winner!

Rational Thought on June 15, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Seconded.

Fallon on June 15, 2012 at 5:46 PM

How many votes from the opposing party? One vote? Five? Whatever number of votes the spinner wants to declare as bipartisan?

HornetSting on June 15, 2012 at 5:35 PM

I think that depends on the bill, no? What do you think?

joana on June 15, 2012 at 5:38 PM

I think you’re arguments are as illogical as that question.
Oh, and you are an idiot.

HornetSting on June 15, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Hmmhmm.

So, you think that asking how many voters make a bill bipartisan is illogical and diotic?

How many votes from the opposing party? One vote? Five? Whatever number of votes the spinner wants to declare as bipartisan?

HornetSting on June 15, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Okay then.

joana on June 15, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Obama… “I can’t deport the children to Mexico… Eric has sent too many guns down there…”

Caper29 on June 15, 2012 at 5:16 PM
Thread winner!

Rational Thought on June 15, 2012 at 5:26 PM
Seconded.

Fallon on June 15, 2012 at 5:46 PM

Thirded! LOL

Happy Nomad on June 15, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Do my eyes deceive me, or is that lousy POS actually wearing an American flag pin on his GD lapel while he stands there crapping all over the Constitution?

waterytart on June 15, 2012 at 5:24 PM

NOW President Obama decides to wear an American Flag pin????

His internal polls must be absolutely horrendous!!!

Of course if he is going to claim that these young ILLEGALS Pledge Allegience to the American Flag, he probably figures that he needs to pretend to too.

Work hard to create a landslide election of epic proportions in November!

wren on June 15, 2012 at 5:50 PM

How many votes from the opposing party? One vote? Five? Whatever number of votes the spinner wants to declare as bipartisan?

HornetSting on June 15, 2012 at 5:35 PM

I think that depends on the bill, no? What do you think?

joana on June 15, 2012 at 5:38 PM

I think you’re arguments are as illogical as that question.
Oh, and you are an idiot.

HornetSting on June 15, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Hmmhmm.

So, you think that asking how many voters make a bill bipartisan is illogical and diotic?

How many votes from the opposing party? One vote? Five? Whatever number of votes the spinner wants to declare as bipartisan?

HornetSting on June 15, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Okay then.

joana on June 15, 2012 at 5:47 PM

No. I think your answer and then your question to me was idiotic. Try to keep up.

HornetSting on June 15, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Start impeachment proceedings IMMEDIATELY!

aniptofar on June 15, 2012 at 5:54 PM

Any bill that passes with bipartisan support is by definition a “successful compromise”, regardless of one’s opinion about the merits of the bill.

joana on June 15, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Exactly what legislation passed that allows illegals to become non-illegals, the New Powers of the President Act?

antipc on June 15, 2012 at 5:57 PM

No. I think your answer and then your question to me was idiotic. Try to keep up.

HornetSting on June 15, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Hmm, not sure what you mean. So, to you, how many opposition party voters are necessary to make a bill bipartisan? One? Five? Ten? It depends on the context/bill?

joana on June 15, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Well, just as I suspected, National Review, The Hill and Buzzfeed are reporting that Romney and Rubio believe that some illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay. Also, when Romney was asked if he would reverse Obama’s order he did not respond. It is because Romney is such a freakin’ phony that I have not gotten on board to support him.

KickandSwimMom on June 15, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Any bill that passes with bipartisan support is by definition a “successful compromise”, regardless of one’s opinion about the merits of the bill.

joana on June 15, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Exactly what legislation passed that allows illegals to become non-illegals, the New Powers of the President Act?

antipc on June 15, 2012 at 5:57 PM

What the heck are you talking about? No legislation passed, that’s why this is a blatantly illegal power grab from the executive branch.

joana on June 15, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Well, just as I suspected, National Review, The Hill and Buzzfeed are reporting that Romney and Rubio believe that some illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay.
KickandSwimMom on June 15, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Yeps.

Anyone who wanted a nominee who didn’t believe in that, should have hurried Tom Tancredo to run again.

joana on June 15, 2012 at 5:59 PM

“it’s the right thing to do….”

Translation:
Because I am the God of this Government and Congress sucks, deal with it you serfs.

PappyD61 on June 15, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Rule of Law? – dead

Constitution? – dead

Our great Republic? – a thing of the past.

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.” – Ronald Reagan

TarheelBen on June 15, 2012 at 6:00 PM

Sooo…

Two 20-year-olds work at the same McDonalds in California – an American with a real social-security number and a suspended driver’s license, and a Mexican with a fake social-security number, no driver’s license, a Matricula Consular card and a work permit. Neither one has auto insurance.

They get an older dude to buy them a six-pack of Four Loko after work and get drunk together. They drive home separately and run into a sobriety checkpoint, but barely pass the drunk test. In the process, the officer discovers that neither has a valid license.

The result:
The American gets his car towed away.
The Mexican gets let go, because the car-confiscation law was recently amended by the state to exempt Mexicans because it was “discriminatory” to deprive them of their transportation.

Another example of how Americans are becoming second-class citizens in their own country.

cane_loader on June 15, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Has anybody brought up the fact that this “discretionary” decision by the branch of the government tasked with enforcing our immigration laws appears to set up a potential “selective prosecution” defense for every other illegal immigrant this Administration actually prosecutes for the purpose of deporting? Equal protection and due process still mean something do they not? The government cannot pick and choose against whom they will enforce the law. Now, every other illegal immigrant looking at deportation will assert, through their progressive lawyer, that the government cannot deport them while choosing not to deport the 800,000 just as illegal immigrants covered by this Homeland Security ruling.

Mongo Mere Pawn on June 15, 2012 at 6:02 PM

No. I think your answer and then your question to me was idiotic. Try to keep up.

HornetSting on June 15, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Hmm, not sure what you mean. So, to you, how many opposition party voters are necessary to make a bill bipartisan? One? Five? Ten? It depends on the context/bill?

joana on June 15, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Let me spell out for you, since obviously, you didn’t get my point.
When there is a bill, say like obamacare, that is being voted on, how many votes by the opposing party are needed for it to be considered bipartisan? There was one yea from house republicans and it was lauded as bipartisan by democrats. Being somewhat liberal yourself, I figured you would know, since you seem so excited about bipartisanship for amnesty and all. So, how many? A McCain vote, a Graham vote to call it bipartisan for cover?

HornetSting on June 15, 2012 at 6:03 PM

KickandSwimMom on June 15, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Get real.

pambi on June 15, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Also, when Romney was asked if he would reverse Obama’s order he did not respond. It is because Romney is such a freakin’ phony that I have not gotten on board to support him.

KickandSwimMom on June 15, 2012 at 5:58 PM

I’m a Mittens hostage. I’ll vote for the turd, but he really sucks. I don’t hold out much hope that he’ll do anything good. I have my doubts if America makes it to Jan 2013 intact, anyway, and it’s clear that Mittens and the GOP cowards aren’t going to be defending anything. They’re pussies. They’re all as bad as the Crybaby Weeper of the House.

Well, America had a great run. I look to the Constitutional Union of American States to form some time very soon because the American creed will not be carried by the US. This nation is has been lain out, letting a Third World Dog-Eating Retard tear our foundation to shreds.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on June 15, 2012 at 6:05 PM

LINK to article on how La-Raza state reps in California changed the impound law to benefit illegals.

cane_loader on June 15, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Let me spell out for you, since obviously, you didn’t get my point.
When there is a bill, say like obamacare, that is being voted on, how many votes by the opposing party are needed for it to be considered bipartisan? There was one yea from house republicans and it was lauded as bipartisan by democrats. Being somewhat liberal yourself, I figured you would know, since you seem so excited about bipartisanship for amnesty and all. So, how many? A McCain vote, a Graham vote to call it bipartisan for cover?

HornetSting on June 15, 2012 at 6:03 PM

I couldn’t care less about bipartisanship. I was just explaining how it would be seen.

You guys have tremendous difficulties separating analysis, horse-racing analysis, from your policy vies.

In fact, scrap that. It’s not that you have tremendous difficulties. You’re simply unable to do it.

joana on June 15, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Anyone who wanted a nominee who didn’t believe in that, should have hurried Tom Tancredo to run again.

joana on June 15, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Which would have left ZZzero in the office.
Yups, I’m sure that woulda worked like a charm.

pambi on June 15, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Given all the documentation required of, um, undocumented immigrants to qualify for this directive, including proof that:

– you been in this country continuously for the past 5 years
– you were brought here illegally by your parents
– you were under 15 when you came here
etc.

never mind all the legal uncertainty about the directive right now, it will be interesting to see how many of the illegal underground actually go through this voluntary exposure process and reveal themselves to the Feds for listing by November.

The Latinos phoning in right now to SoCal radio talk shows aren’t sold on this at all. But they appreciate the gesture.

de rigueur on June 15, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Gergen calling this smart politics for crashing mitts bus tour
Helps dear leader

cmsinaz on June 15, 2012 at 6:08 PM

When will Congress stand up and refuse to let him usurp their power? What he is doing is illegal!

Christian Conservative on June 15, 2012 at 6:10 PM

de rigueur on June 15, 2012 at 6:08 PM

And, how many newly-created GUBMINT jobs will be added to insure all of this nonsense ??

pambi on June 15, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Which would have left ZZzero in the office.
Yups, I’m sure that woulda worked like a charm.

pambi on June 15, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Exactly. I wasn’t endorsing the idea of running Tancredo – au contraire. Just explaining KickandSwimMom that pretty much every realistic Republican nominee would state the same thing Romney claimed. Actually, Romney is by far the best candidate the anti-Rubio’s bill crowd could hope for.

joana on June 15, 2012 at 6:11 PM

This enrages me almost more than anything Obama has done to this point.

I am a citizen of a border state. I have seen my state destroyed by illegals and everything they bring with them.

If Obama thinks this is going to help him in Hispanic swing states, he is wrong. The general attitude toward illegals in my state is extremely negative.

It was entertaining reading the MSNBC thread on this today. Lots of Democrats saying they won’t vote for O because of this.

conservative_student on June 15, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Christian Conservative on June 15, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Agreed, but with so much to deal with, don’t Alinsky’s tactics (overwhelm) come into play, here ?
God bless Issa, for one !!

pambi on June 15, 2012 at 6:13 PM

40-50% of young Black Americans out of work and the Moron in Chief thinks legalizing illegals is the right thing to do- even for his base ?

Whats next- legalize Pot ??

These nummies are D-e-s-p-e-r-a-t-e !!

FlaMurph on June 15, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Anyone want to bet that Kagan gave him a headsup on the Arizona immigration opinion coming down on Monday, and it was not good news?

Wethal on June 15, 2012 at 6:15 PM

How is Romney going to reverse this, once work permits have been issued? I mean politically speaking? Think of all the crying illegals in the MSM saying they trusted America and gave their info to get this permit and now they can be deported

Legally speaking, however, it would NOT be an illegal ex post facto law were Romney to reverse it, because 0bama has no constitutional power to make law.

This is what makes rule by executive order so chaotic and unwieldy. People don’t like living by the whims of their leaders, and a whim is exactly what we are looking at here.

cane_loader on June 15, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Obama is a tyrant. Plain and simple. the Founding Fathers are turning in their graves. In a sane America, 0bama would be on on trial in the Senate already after having been impeached by the House.

In 0bama, we are witnessing the fall of America. I am so sad I lived to see it. The nation is collapsing into dictatorship under this despicable tyrant.

cane_loader on June 15, 2012 at 5:39 PM

If you want a good resource to teach your friends and relatives how quickly great countries can slide into tyranny and why President Obama qualifies as a Tyrant, get the book:

The Path to Tyranny: A History of Free Society’s Descent into Tyranny by Michael E. Newton.

Here is the link to the Kindle version of the book in case you need immediate access to educational materials:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Path-Tyranny-Societys-ebook/dp/B0037KM20G/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1339797234&sr=8-2&keywords=the+path+to+tyranny+by+michael+e.+newton

I just finished reading this book last night and thought it was excellent.

Imagine the chills that went up my spine when I heard about Obama’s speech this morning!

The book provides an extremely relevant history lesson with chapters on on how countries like: Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Ancient Israel, Communist Russia, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany fell under the rule of Tyrants.

And in almost all of the cases it was the people who willingly handed their countries over to the Tyrants.

I still have hope that we can save America from falling into an irreversible Tyranny, but we are running out of time and we have a lot of educating to do to make up for the indoctrination school children have been subjected to during the past several decades.

wren on June 15, 2012 at 6:16 PM

conservative_student on June 15, 2012 at 6:12 PM

“unexpected” ?? Hahaha.
Resident of a border state here, too.

pambi on June 15, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Any bill that passes with bipartisan support is by definition a “successful compromise”, regardless of one’s opinion about the merits of the bill.

joana on June 15, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Let me spell out for you, since obviously, you didn’t get my point.
When there is a bill, say like obamacare, that is being voted on, how many votes by the opposing party are needed for it to be considered bipartisan? There was one yea from house republicans and it was lauded as bipartisan by democrats. Being somewhat liberal yourself, I figured you would know, since you seem so excited about bipartisanship for amnesty and all. So, how many? A McCain vote, a Graham vote to call it bipartisan for cover?

HornetSting on June 15, 2012 at 6:03 PM

I couldn’t care less about bipartisanship. I was just explaining how it would be seen.

You guys have tremendous difficulties separating analysis, horse-racing analysis, from your policy vies.

In fact, scrap that. It’s not that you have tremendous difficulties. You’re simply unable to do it.

joana on June 15, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Your words, ding dong.
Can’t answer the question?

HornetSting on June 15, 2012 at 6:17 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4