If Obama can unilaterally delay ObamaCare’s employer mandate, why wouldn’t he delay new border security measures too?

posted at 5:11 pm on July 3, 2013 by Allahpundit

An excellent question from Conn Carroll, especially in light of the news from CBO this morning that the Corker/Hoeven “border surge” will supposedly reduce illegal immigration by one-third to one-half. (The original Gang of Eight bill would have reduced it by just one-quarter.) That conclusion depends on a lot of assumptions, but the core assumption is that Obama will in fact enforce the new law as it’s written. Will he? He now refuses to enforce a key provision of his own signature legislation because it’s politically inconvenient for his party to do so. Come 2016, if Democrats are in trouble and desperate for Latino turnout, why wouldn’t he “delay” some of the Gang of Eight’s border provisions? Don’t forget, he’s taken unilateral action on immigration in the name of winning elections before.

Your call, Democrats. Either Obama rescinds the delay on the ObamaCare mandate in the interest of proving that border hawks can trust him to enforce the Gang of Eight bill, or he sticks with it and the Gang of Eight’s vaunted border-security measures effectively mean nothing, which leaves Republicans with zero reason to vote for the bill.

The exact same playbook is being deployed by liberals, and pro-amnesty Republicans, to pass amnesty. Just like the employer mandate was essential to getting a CBO score that said Obamacare would not add to the debt, E-Verify is now essential for convincing Americans that the Schumer-Rubio bill will, in Sen. Chuck Schumer’s, D-N.Y., words make illegal immigration “a thing of the past.”

But, like Obamacare and the employer mandate, once the 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the country get amnesty, E-Verify will have outlived its usefulness. Businesses already complain at the existing voluntary E-Verify system, and those complaints will only get louder as a new E-Verify system becomes mandatory.

Does anyone, anywhere, believe Obama would not delay implementation of E-Verify too?

Conservatives who do not trust Obama to enforce perfectly good law – whether it is No Child Left Behind, the War Powers Act, our current immigration laws, etc. – should not trust him to enforce whatever security measures are part of any immigration deal. There is no reason to believe that amnesty would not be every bit the train wreck that Obamacare already is.

Two further tidbits about today’s CBO report. One: They estimate that the $38 billion that Corker/Hoeven will cost will reduce the net population of illegals in the U.S. over the next 10 years from 10.4 million under the previous version of the Gang of Eight bill to 9.6 million. That’s a difference of 800,000 illegals, which, per the security pricetag, comes out to $47,500 for each one. Which prompts another good question from Carroll, via Twitter: At that expense, wouldn’t it be cheaper to just pay them to go home? This is what happens, I guess, when you follow the Senate’s plan of throwing money at a political problem rather than focusing on more efficient ways to solve the underlying policy problem. Two: CBO finds that, due to the added security expense, the new version of the Gang of Eight bill will reduce the deficit by $135 billion over 10 years versus $197 billion prior to Corker/Hoeven being added. But that’s myopic: Byron York noted a few days ago that the vaunted savings to entitlement programs like Social Security from adding millions of new taxpayers to the rolls will barely dent our Social Security difficulties long-term. Today’s newly legalized taxpayer is tomorrow’s retired citizen. Run the numbers and you’ll find that, instead of Social Security going bust in 2033 under current projections, a post-amnesty America would get a reprieve until … 2035. And that’s assuming, as noted above, that nothing in the enacted law changes before then either because the president decides unilaterally that he doesn’t want to enforce it or the GOP caves and accelerates benefits for illegals under pressure from Democrats and Latino voters.

By the way, Dave Weigel notes that influential House Judiciary Committee chair Bob Goodlatte is hinting that some form of a DREAM amnesty, which would legalize only illegals who were brought here by their parents when they were young, might be in the offing in lieu of broader comprehensive reform. That’s not a bad play if House Republicans can get some sort of border improvements in exchange. It doesn’t solve our “what if Obama doesn’t enforce it?” issue, but it limits the damage if he doesn’t while earning some goodwill with amnesty supporters. If Harry Reid wants to kill that bill because it doesn’t go far enough for his liking, that’s on him.


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

“If Obama can unilaterally delay ObamaCare’s employer mandate, why wouldn’t he delay new border security measures too?”

…so the light-bulb FINALLY went on with the slow-learners !

FACT: regardless of what atrocious AMNESTY bill is passed, OBOZO will continue to do whatever he wants.

TeaPartyNation on July 3, 2013 at 5:14 PM

we live in a monarchy…

brave new world…

it’s a damn shame we don’t have laws

harlekwin15 on July 3, 2013 at 5:14 PM

Because nobody’s going to challenge Obama delaying ObamaCare.

Chuck Schick on July 3, 2013 at 5:15 PM

Isn’t it wonderful to be able to connect the dots.

esr1951 on July 3, 2013 at 5:16 PM

Obama can seemingly do whatever he wants when it comes to enforcing or not enforcing laws.

supernova on July 3, 2013 at 5:16 PM

Just goes to show that the number one requirement for being a dictator is to have the press totally in the tank for you.

Labamigo on July 3, 2013 at 5:17 PM

This isn’t even a hypothetical. Remember that last year Obama announced that he wasn’t going to enforce our immigration laws when it comes to illegals who came here as children.

HidetheDecline on July 3, 2013 at 5:17 PM

Why can’t he just decide every law that will be enforced? Why would we even need a Congress? This is a horrible development, but it’s just another sign of the structural collapse of our system on every level.

DFCtomm on July 3, 2013 at 5:17 PM

The King and US.

JimK on July 3, 2013 at 5:18 PM

The liberal Democrats have destroyed all trust and faith in our government. The words of both parties are meaningless, spoken, written or implied. Meaningless.

Zorro on July 3, 2013 at 5:18 PM

No $hit. Didn’t even need King Obama to decree the 1 year Obamacare delay before any sentient Republican should have realized that.

crrr6 on July 3, 2013 at 5:18 PM

Conservatives who do not trust Obama to enforce perfectly good law – whether it is No Child Left Behind, the War Powers Act, our current immigration laws, etc. – should not trust him to enforce whatever security measures are part of any immigration deal.

Not seeing any “perfectly good laws” listed there…

Shump on July 3, 2013 at 5:19 PM

That is the Democrat plan. Selective enforcement of the law is their bread and butter. Enforce the existing laws and the new law is not needed.

Grunt on July 3, 2013 at 5:20 PM

Who’s going to prevent him from doing what he wants..? Laws are for the little people…

d1carter on July 3, 2013 at 5:20 PM

Gov. Bobby Jindal ‏@BobbyJindal 6h

You know things are bad when you can’t even successfully implement your own bad ideas.

Oil Can on July 3, 2013 at 5:20 PM

Let’s suspend all laws I mean WTF!

tim c on July 3, 2013 at 5:21 PM

Would this be a unconstitutuional power grab and lying to American people…wait where have I heard that?

d1carter on July 3, 2013 at 5:21 PM

If Obama can unilaterally delay ObamaCare’s employer mandate, why wouldn’t he delay new border security measures too?

It’s GOOD to be The King!

So STFU and dig into your wallet and pay for my African vacation.

GarandFan on July 3, 2013 at 5:21 PM

This is just pure power politics. If it helps The Party do it, if it hurts The Party don’t do it.

And then The Party of Hate sometimes sates the blood lust of progressives with a lynching to make them happy. Today this happens to be Zimmerman.

GardenGnome on July 3, 2013 at 5:23 PM

It’s GOOD to be The King!

GarandFan on July 3, 2013 at 5:21 PM

Poop. You beat me by 3 minutes.

John the Libertarian on July 3, 2013 at 5:24 PM

Just goes to show that the number one requirement for being a dictator is to have the press totally in the tank for you.

Labamigo on July 3, 2013 at 5:17 PM

Which tells you precisely who to punish if anarchy ever does break out….

The office Obama is in is NOT the office Bush was in.

harlekwin15 on July 3, 2013 at 5:24 PM

Obama sees no reason why he should have to suffer any consequences for anything, even if it’s his own plan and it’s going wrong. He’ll do like always: ignore what he doesn’t like, erase it from his mind so it doesn’t exist, then leave someone else to clean up the mess.

Of course, if the House gives a stiff fight against amnesty or if there is a genuine move to repeal Obamacare, he’ll be the first to scream about it. With LSM backing, no questions asked.

I think we’re past things like partisanship, delusion, and cognitive dissonance. Liberals are just full-blown crazy.

Liam on July 3, 2013 at 5:24 PM

The left is gonna love democracy if we ever elect a president that’s as far right as Obama is left. Thanks for laying the ground work preznit fly-strip.

antipc on July 3, 2013 at 5:25 PM

Obama can seemingly do whatever he wants when it comes to enforcing or not enforcing laws.

supernova on July 3, 2013 at 5:16 PM

Obama could eat a live dog in the Rose Garden and he’d still have higher than a 40% approval rating with our pathetic electorate.

happytobehere on July 3, 2013 at 5:26 PM

He can’t unilaterally suspend the law.

I’ve been thinking about the issue of standing that has been raised since this was made public yesterday. Many have cited Kennedy’s opinion in the Prop 8 case wherein he said, basically, that only the executive branch could sue for enforcement.

BUT, there is a problem with this. In the Prop 8 case, the defenders could not show that they would suffer harm if the ban was struck down.

OTOH, people, who have their insurance dropped by their employers next year, MIGHT have standing because they will be able to show harm, especially those in states that have opted not to run their own exchanges. Remember, that Obamacare specifically says that the Federal subsidies will only be available in state-run exchanges.

People, who have their employer-provided coverage terminated and live in a state without an exchange, could conceivably sue to obtain a court mandate that the Federal government uphold the law, as written.

In such a situation, rather than being like the Prop 8 defenders, those people would be in the position of those that were harmed – in that case, it was homosexual couples.

Resist We Much on July 3, 2013 at 5:26 PM

There are so many ways this decision should backfire on Obama — if only conservatives can get tough and organized. Obama has opened up himself and Obamacare to a world of trouble here. This also dovetails with the illegal NLRB moves, the cherry-picking on Dream Act, the DISCLOSE Act, etc. Obama is “fundamentally transforming” checks and balances in our system.

rrpjr on July 3, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Tinfoilish much? A bit, perhaps.

tommy71 on July 3, 2013 at 5:27 PM

It turns out the letter of the law in ObamaCare only requires the date be set for the mandate, not that it be effective. So it’s one more thing we had “to pass it to find out what’s in it” for.

This really has nothing to do with the immigration bill, the “enforcement” provisions in that are also very, er, flexible. And while the sponsors tout all the “benchmarks” that “must” be met before the “pathway to citizenship” begins, amnesty, er, legalization is immediate and irrevocable. So it is insufficient even if Pat Buchanan were President, not that I would wish for such a thing.

Adjoran on July 3, 2013 at 5:27 PM

why wouldn’t he delay new border security measures too?

Oh, he will, Isn’t done unpackin’ from his trip to Safari World.

Give him a bit more time.

He will.

He’ll “sequester” the hell out of it.

coldwarrior on July 3, 2013 at 5:27 PM

Is delay of Obamacare implementation in the legislation? Who knows?

It’s a good question — if he can delay Obamacare, what can he not do?

Seems to me that Congress deserves a whole ton of criticism on this — they’re too darned lazy to write bills that work. Instead, they leave lots of wiggle room for Federal employees — aka liberals — to interpret them in any manner they want, to meet any particular agenda [liberal] that they want, and there’s nothing anyone can do.

It is so far past time for Texas to secede. But we in Texas need to be very careful, because our Austin-critters are every bit as bad as the Congress-critters.

Mdirmeie on July 3, 2013 at 5:28 PM

The left is gonna love democracy if we ever elect a president that’s as far right as Obama is left. Thanks for laying the ground work preznit fly-strip.

antipc on July 3, 2013 at 5:25 PM

You guys always forget about the media. When a GOP president tries this the media will scream it from every rooftop, and all those low information voters will raise their heads from their grazing to hear what they have to say.

DFCtomm on July 3, 2013 at 5:28 PM

The liberal Democrats have destroyed all trust and faith in our government. The words of both parties are meaningless, spoken, written or implied. Meaningless.

Zorro on July 3, 2013 at 5:18 PM

The words are increasingly meaningless but their actions are increasingly menacing. A bad combination.

rrpjr on July 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM

This is a silly question…Obama has already opened the border and will keep it open as long as he’s in power.

The Bigger question is this…

If Obama can willy nilly decide which laws he enforces…What stops him from staying in power as long as he wants?

Congress?

The Supreme Court?

The Media?

workingclass artist on July 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM

They shoved Ocrapacare down our throats and now its sweet revenge time to force this crap sammich down their throats. And when they are done with their first serving, make another one and cram it down, too, while yelling “we told you so!”. I absolutely loathe the Prince of Evil.

hillsoftx on July 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM

the imperial presidency

chasdal on July 3, 2013 at 5:32 PM

Obama does whatever he wants because the GOP congress is spineless.

Raquel Pinkbullet on July 3, 2013 at 5:33 PM

Your call, Democrats. Either Obama rescinds the delay on the ObamaCare mandate in the interest of proving that border hawks can trust him to enforce the Gang of Eight bill, or he sticks with it and the Gang of Eight’s vaunted border-security measures effectively mean nothing, which leaves Republicans with zero reason to vote for the bill.

You make it sound like this is solely the Dems’ problem. It’s not. The Republicans have at least four reasons to vote for the Corker-Hoeven shit sandwich as it stands now:

Marco Rubio

Kelly Ayotte

Paul Ryan

Juan John McCain

Own it, Republicans. We’re being force-fed Obamacare by the Democrats, true-and-enough, but the Dems don’t have a monopoly on the conundrum that is “border security.”

gryphon202 on July 3, 2013 at 5:34 PM

President Machiavelli

22044 on July 3, 2013 at 5:34 PM

AP,

Exactly what I was thinking.

Laws? What laws?

wyntre9 on July 3, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Because he gave a pinky swear and crossed his heart, and that’s good enough for the Cuban Comb-over.

Rixon on July 3, 2013 at 5:37 PM

This isn’t the first time the President has stolen powers reserved for Congress and ignored the Constitution. But Congress has let him get away with it. Therefore each action builds on the last and with every congressional inaction they, and the people lose power.

McConnell and Boehner are complicit because they have done nothing on our behalf.

Raquel Pinkbullet on July 3, 2013 at 5:37 PM

“If Obama can unilaterally delay ObamaCare’s employer mandate, why wouldn’t he delay new border security measures too?” – THIS! THIS! THIS!

rgranger on July 3, 2013 at 5:37 PM

He will do whatever he pleases, count on it! And don’t expect any of those mental giants in Washington to stand on principle, or law, and challenge him.

Pardonme on July 3, 2013 at 5:37 PM

He now refuses to enforce a key provision of his own signature legislation because it’s politically inconvenient for his party to do so.

Have I missed where you discuss the illegality of Obama’s actions on the ACA?

conservative pilgrim on July 3, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Set up the gallows on Pennsylvania avenue, time to take care of business.

hip shot on July 3, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Come 2016, if Democrats are in trouble and desperate for Latino turnout, why wouldn’t he “delay” some of the Gang of Eight’s border provisions?

If Rubio and company really believe Hispanics hate them because republicans believe in border security, why would they enforce it either?

xblade on July 3, 2013 at 5:40 PM

What makes anyone think a Republican can get elected president in this country again?

Obama is at 46% approval at Rasmussen after 5 years of ridiculously bad performance, scandals, incompetence, corruption.

Truth of the matter is, the people sucking on the govt. tit has reached epidemic levels.

Raquel Pinkbullet on July 3, 2013 at 5:40 PM

If one can delay it, one can repeal it…

albill on July 3, 2013 at 5:41 PM

Give Obama the House and the Senate in 2014 and he’ll start enforcing the law. Right after he suspends a few of those pesky Amendments to the Constitution. And I’m not talking about just the first ten.

Curtiss on July 3, 2013 at 5:42 PM

“What if he doesn’t enforce it?”

We already know the answer to that question. HE WON”T!

And the limp units that “lead” the GOP will do nothing.

They passed welfare reform under Clinton, he wiped it out with an executive order.

He has created a virtual “dream act” by simply refusing to enforce the law.

It’s time to impeach this communist bozo!

MaaddMaaxx on July 3, 2013 at 5:42 PM

Well, hey…laws-smaws it’s good to be the king.

ExPat on July 3, 2013 at 5:43 PM

Don’t worry, Rubio says it’s all good.

VorDaj on July 3, 2013 at 5:47 PM

If Obama can unilaterally delay ObamaCare’s employer mandate, why wouldn’t he delay new border security measures too?

Why shouldn’t these Rethuglikkkans trust the most open and transparent administration ever?

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 3, 2013 at 5:47 PM

DFCtomm on July 3, 2013 at 5:28 PM

I never forget about Pravda USA. In fact, I count on them as a reliable source to get the lefts panties in a twist.

antipc on July 3, 2013 at 5:48 PM

Tinfoilish much? A bit, perhaps.

tommy71 on July 3, 2013 at 5:27 PM

Pollyannaish much? Evidently.

The law is the law.

Enforced the months after 31 Dec 2013 there sport.

You know Pelousy said we have to pass it to get to know what’s in it….

well what’s in it is so cool they don’t want to have to face the electorate.

harlekwin15 on July 3, 2013 at 5:48 PM

Point of fact, he has. How is that border fence completion coming along that was legislated in 2006?

Yeah.

Or how about the inane executive order that Stupak had him sign for the cACA to pass?

Yeah

I think 0 is incapable of telling the truth…..except to like minded travelers. For instance I’m sure he told Morsi the truth.

jukin3 on July 3, 2013 at 5:49 PM

It’s time to impeach this communist bozo!

MaaddMaaxx on July 3, 2013 at 5:42 PM

They won’t impeach him…He’s historical.

Besides Race Riots in the big cities or something…

workingclass artist on July 3, 2013 at 5:50 PM

we live in a monarchy…

brave new world…

it’s a damn shame we don’t have laws

harlekwin15 on July 3, 2013 at 5:14 PM

A preview of another 8 years if and when Killary wins. Now that liberals have proven the concept, the only way to stop it is make sure we control US Congress, SCOTUS is already in the bag for libs.

riddick on July 3, 2013 at 5:51 PM

Maybe we can borrow Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, the head of the Egyptian military, for a while.

At this point,I see little difference between Morsi and Obama.

MichaelGabriel on July 3, 2013 at 5:54 PM

Grab a bucket…Cause you’re might need it…

A soon-to-be-released book by Mark Leibovich reveals in excruciating detail the White House’s efforts to defend longtime Obama friend and adviser Valerie Jarrett in the run-up to a New York Times profile that ran in September 2012.

Leibovich, himself a reporter for the New York Times, got ahold of a White House memo titled “The Magic of Valerie” that included 33 talking points circulated throughout the administration.

Here are the talking points excerpted in Leibovich’s forthcoming book, This Town: Two Parties and a Funeral-Plus, Plenty of Valet Parking!-in America’s Gilded Capital:

The magic of Valerie is her intellect and her heart. She is an incredibly kind, caring and thoughtful person with a unique ability to pinpoint the voiceless and shine a light on them and the issues they and the President care about with the ultimate goal of making a difference in people’s lives.

Valerie is the perfect combination of smart, savvy and innovative.

Valerie has an enormous capacity for both empathy and sympathy. She balances the need to be patient and judicious with the desire to get things done and work as hard as possible for the American people from the White House.

To know what both drives Valerie Jarrett and why the President values her opinion so much, you benefit greatly from really getting to know the woman.

Valerie is tapped in to people’s experiences, their good times and bad. She knows from her own life what it is like to believe and strive for your dreams.

Valerie expects people to work their hearts out for the President and never forget where you work and the magnitude.

Single mother, woman working to the top in a competitive male dominated world, African, working for change from the grassroots to big business.

Valerie is someone here who other people inside the building know they can trust. (need examples.)

This Town doesn’t come out until July 16, but BuzzFeed picked up a copy at a Hudson Books bookstore in the Newark Airport, where it was already being sold…”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/white-house-memo-shows-obama-administrations-painful-efforts

*blech*

workingclass artist on July 3, 2013 at 5:55 PM

His implementation of DREAM was just as illegal.

slickwillie2001 on July 3, 2013 at 5:56 PM

which leaves Republicans with zero reason to vote for the bill.

But many of them will anyway because that’s what their cronies pay them to do.

FloatingRock on July 3, 2013 at 5:59 PM

Valerie expects people to work their hearts out for the President and never forget where you work and the magnitude.

Single mother, woman working to the top in a competitive male dominated world, African, working for change from the grassroots to big business.

Valerie is someone here who other people inside the building know they can trust. (need examples.)

This Town doesn’t come out until July 16, but BuzzFeed picked up a copy at a Hudson Books bookstore in the Newark Airport, where it was already being sold…”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/white-house-memo-shows-obama-administrations-painful-efforts

*blech*

workingclass artist on July 3, 2013 at 5:55 PM

Wow, so they confirm that Valerie Jarrett is not an American citizen?

Think I’ll go take a drive past Claude Rains’ grave…

Del Dolemonte on July 3, 2013 at 6:00 PM

The left is gonna love democracy if we ever elect a president that’s as far right as Obama is left. Thanks for laying the ground work preznit fly-strip.

antipc on July 3, 2013 at 5:25 PM

You guys always forget about the media. When a GOP president tries this the media will scream it from every rooftop, and all those low information voters will raise their heads from their grazing to hear what they have to say.

DFCtomm on July 3, 2013 at 5:28 PM

So what you’re saying is that such a hypothetical extreme-right president’s first step would be to take firm control of the media…..

That’s not such a barrier as you might think. While the media’s always going to love the left, if Obama is able to constrict media protections to just those working for major newspapers/news channels, then any new president would just need a little command and control at the top of those organizations to constrain all criticism to the fringes.

The left loves to whine about “corporations,” but they know government control of corporations is an easy path to power.

Of course, the real threat has always been from the left, not the right.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 3, 2013 at 6:00 PM

If Obama can willy nilly decide which laws he enforces…What stops him from staying in power as long as he wants?

workingclass artist on July 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Good question.

bw222 on July 3, 2013 at 6:01 PM

VJ is not African but an Iranian. She has done more damage to the USA than any country possibly could in all out war.

jukin3 on July 3, 2013 at 6:02 PM

So, can the citizens decide which laws they will obey..?

d1carter on July 3, 2013 at 6:03 PM

Words, just words

Barack Obama – 2008

Which is exactly how Obama views EVERY law!

Freddy on July 3, 2013 at 6:05 PM

If Obama can unilaterally delay ObamaCare’s employer mandate, why wouldn’t he delay new border security measures too?

Because one of the many provisions squirreled away inside the Obamacare legislation allows the administration to change implementation dates.

When and if an immigration law passes, it may or may not have something similar in it.

That’s why.

bgoldman on July 3, 2013 at 6:05 PM

They won’t defend DOMA. which was the law of the land.
They won’t implement parts of Obamacare.
They won’t implement e-verify which again is law of the land.
They won’t build the fence which the administration was required to build.

There is no way they are going to enforce border security.

They only implement laws that they like. So that’s that.

antisocial on July 3, 2013 at 6:08 PM

Should individuals recognize the individual mandate..?

d1carter on July 3, 2013 at 6:10 PM

They only implement laws that they like. So that’s that.

antisocial on July 3, 2013 at 6:08 PM

But they like Obamacare, and yet they’re still not implementing it.

So the chance that they would implement a law that they don’t like shrinks accordingly.

J.S.K. on July 3, 2013 at 6:12 PM

Wow, so they confirm that Valerie Jarrett is not an American citizen?

Think I’ll go take a drive past Claude Rains’ grave…

Del Dolemonte on July 3, 2013 at 6:00 PM

She’s whiter than George Zimmerman!

slickwillie2001 on July 3, 2013 at 6:15 PM

The Bigger question is this…

If Obama can willy nilly decide which laws he enforces…What stops him from staying in power as long as he wants?

Congress?

The Supreme Court?

The Media?

workingclass artist on July 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Suppose Hillary doesn’t run in 2016 (long shot I know but humor me). Does anyone really think there would much Democrat opposition to suspending the 22nd Amendment in some clever way so Obama could continue all the good work he has left to do?

Then he wouldn’t be just historical, he’d be epic.

Curtiss on July 3, 2013 at 6:16 PM

By the way, Dave Weigel notes that influential House Judiciary Committee chair Bob Goodlatte is hinting that some form of a DREAM amnesty, which would legalize only illegals who were brought here by their parents when they were young, might be in the offing in lieu of broader comprehensive reform. That’s not a bad play if House Republicans can get some sort of border improvements in exchange.

Says who? Certainly not conservatives.

voiceofreason on July 3, 2013 at 6:32 PM

Morsi has nothing on this guy.

rplat on July 3, 2013 at 6:33 PM

Obama has ‘suspended’ our Constitution too.

Axion on July 3, 2013 at 6:35 PM

which leaves Republicans with zero reason to vote for the bill.

Yet they will, and it will pass. Funny how that works.

rrpjr on July 3, 2013 at 6:36 PM

Well, Obama is not the only POTUS not to enforce the law. Bush did not enforce the immigration laws or build the fence. So there’s that.

they lie on July 3, 2013 at 6:55 PM

I’m wondering….what possible incentive does a business that’s victimized by this law have to take obama’s word for this?

What I mean is, since congress didn’t pass this change to the law, if a business actually decides to ignore the employer mandate for the year, what’s to keep obama from enforcing it “retroactively”? Especially against, say, a politically disfavored business like an oil company.

What mechanism is being used to do this arbitrarily? If it’s an executive order, can’t it simply be reversed with another executive order? Oh, sure, a court would be expected to side with the business under such circumstances, right?

Right?

runawayyyy on July 3, 2013 at 6:57 PM

He’s doing the same thing as Morsi!

PattyJ on July 3, 2013 at 7:02 PM

There’s not a dimes difference between the two. Oh wait, one has a white mother.

mmcnamer1 on July 3, 2013 at 7:34 PM

“If Obama can unilaterally delay ObamaCare’s employer mandate, why… does he have to follow any other law on the book?

FIFY

UnderstandingisPower on July 3, 2013 at 7:44 PM

BEHOLD the GLORY that is our Pharaoh Puttmost the First!

On your KNEES, you wretched subjects, and give obeisance to the Chicago Way!

fulldroolcup on July 3, 2013 at 9:14 PM

If Obama can unilaterally delay ObamaCare’s employer mandate, why wouldn’t he delay new border security measures too?

If Obama can unilaterally delay ObamaCare’s employer mandate, why won’t the next Conservative President be able to unilaterally set aside ObamaCare the whole time that they are in office?

RJL on July 3, 2013 at 9:15 PM

An excellent question from Conn Carroll, especially in light of the news from CBO this morning that the Corker/Hoeven “border surge” will supposedly reduce illegal immigration by one-third to one-half.

LOL, how cute – someone still gives credence to anything the CBO says.

Midas on July 3, 2013 at 9:49 PM

Yeah, as if Bush enforced all the laws. Remember how he ensured illegal immigration laws were enforced when he was in office?

astonerii on July 3, 2013 at 10:13 PM

“If Obama can unilaterally delay ObamaCare’s employer mandate, why wouldn’t he delay new border security measures too?”

Because he will not have the opposition party single-mindedly focused on undermining every facet of his border security measures? Because he will not have the Republican-controlled House pass a measure every Wednesday aimed at repealing the “Repealing the Job-Killing Evil Anti-American Border Security Act of 2013″? Because he will not have the other party start every budget proposal by proposing the elimination of a hundren zillion dollars of border securtiy spending?

Just a thought. I’m sure I’m too stupid to see past his perfidy.

Time Lord on July 3, 2013 at 11:34 PM

Because border security delay will not cost him votes in 2014

RdLake on July 4, 2013 at 6:37 AM

It’s not so much that Obama is unilaterally choosing which laws to support or ignore, but in the case of ObamaCare, much of the law is prefaced by “the Secretary shall determine”, giving wide berth to the whims of Kathleen Sebellius. Likewise, with the immigration bill, Janet Napolitano “shall” be determining what will and what won’t be enforced. Needless to say, expect favored groups to receive exemption from the egregious parts of the law.
Oddly, though, the promoters don’t seem to take into account the chance that various Secretaries under a Republican administration could just as easily “determine” that a lot of this crap could be ignored. Obama, Holder, and the rest set a precedent that they might regret. I don’t know if this is merely an oversight or stupidity.

tpitman on July 4, 2013 at 8:24 AM

If O can pick and choose which laws he likes and plans to enforce, why don’t we all have that same option?

wjmtexas on July 4, 2013 at 8:39 AM

Picking and choosing which laws to enforce and doing end runs when that fails, has been the MO of the regime since the beginning by stiffing GM stock holders and eliminating dealer agencies that were owned by repubs, favoring some banks over others, giving our medical records to the IRS,… wait, I’m runnin’ out of paper, the list is too long. Can someone tell me how do they know how much the current crop of illegals are making that they will be paying for border security with all these new taxpayers? I don’t get that part of this wonderful bill. I did pay $4.72 for a head of cauliflower yesterday, it wasn’t even organic, so they must pay those picking our fruits and veggies a lot more than we know.

Kissmygrits on July 4, 2013 at 9:16 AM

comes out to $47,500 for each one. Which prompts another good question from Carroll, via Twitter: At that expense, wouldn’t it be cheaper to just pay them to go home?

then they wouldn’t be voting for the Democrats if you sent them home, so Schmucky Scummer can’t have that.

8 weight on July 4, 2013 at 11:53 AM

Border Security is the big lie of this entire, “comprehensive”, immigration bill. And sadly, the GOP knows it. They’re not being taken in. They know it’s crap, but they’re doing it anyway.

First and foremost… they have “negotiated” for points of contention which are ALREADY ours. We’ve already got laws on the books to secure our border. We’ve already got approved legislation and funding for a border fence. They tell us that we have to pass this bill in order to achieve these things… but these things have ALREADY been passed.

Secondly, the same guy who was in charge of enforcing our laws yesterday and who has REFUSED to do so, is the same guy in charge of it tomorrow. There’s no effective “triggers” to force his compliance, no way to twist his arm and make him do the right thing. In fact, he’s completely free to utilize the entire Executive Branch to continue evading enforcement, all the while demagoging his opponents as “racist”, just as he currently does, should they make any noise about it.

And finally… If there’s no political will in Washington to secure our borders now, before these newly “legalized” migrants are eligible to vote, what makes ANYONE believe career politicians will somehow find a spine later?

Think about it. Their argument doesn’t even begin to make sense. They’re telling us that there’s this huge demographic we have to legalize in order to achieve border security, but CLEARLY there’s no will, no triggering method, and no intention of actually doing it. This cannot possibly have escaped their attention. You don’t lock your door after the burglars have come in. This bill will effectively open our border for all time. They will NEVER close it.

We are being LIED to.

Murf76 on July 4, 2013 at 11:59 AM

hey .. maybe O’Barky would cancel those student loan rates too .. ya think?

/had to ask
/.

CaveatEmpty on July 4, 2013 at 4:00 PM

The words are increasingly meaningless but their actions are increasingly menacing. A bad combination.

rrpjr on July 3, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Indeed.

AesopFan on July 4, 2013 at 4:15 PM

Oddly, though, the promoters don’t seem to take into account the chance that various Secretaries under a Republican administration could just as easily “determine” that a lot of this crap could be ignored. Obama, Holder, and the rest set a precedent that they might regret. I don’t know if this is merely an oversight or stupidity.

tpitman on July 4, 2013 at 8:24 AM

They are certain that the combination of a mass influx of “undocumented voters”, vote fraud, ignoring the Constitution, and bankrupting most industries not on their “Friends” list, will ensure that they are in power forever. Hence, they never need to worry about a backlash. (Especially if they succeed in disarming the American people, other than their friends the criminals, of course.)

The thing is, I’m not sure they’re wrong. Look at how long this sort of nonsense has gone on in Europe, and especially the UK.

Progressives here dream of being Euro-style technocrats. And one important fact there is that the “ruling party” can put up a certified drooling idiot for PM or whatever, and win.

The One’s re-election makes me fear that we have reached the same point.

clear ether

eon

eon on July 4, 2013 at 5:35 PM

How rare is it that your dire warning about “what could possibly go wrong” is answered so definitively and so quickly?

This most perfect answer to our warnings about amnesty comes just in time for House conservatives, but too late for Senate Gang of Eight dopes and their retarded Hispandering House mates, like Paul Ryan.

Jaibones on July 4, 2013 at 10:59 PM

Comment pages: 1 2