White House to halt deportation of young illegal immigrants

I tried to save the marriage.

 

Rubio:

There is broad support for the idea that we should figure out a way to help kids who are undocumented through no fault of their own, but there is also broad consensus that it should be done in a way that does not encourage illegal immigration in the future. This is a difficult balance to strike, one that this new policy, imposed by executive order, will make harder to achieve in the long run.

Today’s announcement will be welcome news for many of these kids desperate for an answer, but it is a short term answer to a long term problem. And by once again ignoring the Constitution and going around Congress, this short term policy will make it harder to find a balanced and responsible long term one.

http://www.nationalreview.com/campa...cy-ignores-constitution-goes-around-congress#

 

Rubio is both right and wrong here. He is right in that it is a short term answer, but that's not an effective argument against the policy. He is wrong in saying that it ignores the Constitution. It does not ignore the constitution, Congress delegated it's power to the Executive branch if it didn't want the executive to have this power it should never have delegated the power to begin with. In fact, it would be unconstitutional for it to try and retain the power to veto after the delegation. He is also quite likely right in saying that it will make it harder to find a long term solution. But that has nothing to do with the mechanics of the policy, it's just Rubio's acknowledgement that because Obama is for it now, Republicans have to be unequivocally against it.

 

Except it would appear there's nothing unconstitutional about it (although I'm sure we'll see in the coming weeks whether that remains the case).

I'm not suggesting the administration isn't pursuing its own agenda, but given that Congressional gridlock was almost a certainty, I actually found it refreshing that the administration found the cajones to pursue a legal (albeit somewhat underhanded) solution.

 

Yoo is on point:

Obama's Immigration Move Marks an Unprecedented Stretching of the Constitution
John Yoo · 2 hours ago
President Obama's claim that he can refuse to deport 800,000 aliens here in the country illegally illustrates an unprecedented stretching of the Constitution and the rule of law. *He is laying claim to presidential power that goes even beyond that claimed by the Bush administration, in which I served. *There is a world of difference in refusing to enforce laws that violate the Constitution (Bush) and refusing to enforce laws because of disagreements over policy (Obama).

Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the President has the duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." *This provision was included to make sure that the President could not simply choose, as the British King had, to cancel legislation simply because he disagreed with it. *President Obama cannot refuse to carry out a congressional statute simply because he thinks it advances the wrong policy. To do so violates the very core of his constitutional duties.

There are two exceptions, neither of which applies here. *The first is that "the Laws" includes the Constitution. *The President can and should refuse to execute congressional statutes that violate the Constitution, because the Constitution is the highest form of law. *We in the Bush administration argued that the President could refuse to execute laws that infringed on the executive's constitutional powers, particularly when it came to national security -- otherwise, a Congress that had a different view of foreign policy could order the military to refuse to carry out the President's orders as Commander-in-Chief, for example. *When Presidents such as Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, and FDR said that they would not enforce a law, they did so when the law violated their executive powers under the Constitution or the individual rights of citizens.

The President's right to refuse to enforce unconstitutional legislation, of course, does not apply here. *No one can claim with a straight face that the immigration laws here violate the Constitution.

The second exception is prosecutorial discretion, which is the idea that because of limited resources the executive cannot pursue every violation of federal law. *The Justice Department must choose priorities and prosecute cases that are the most important, have the greatest impact, deter the most, and so on. *But prosecutorial discretion is not being used in good faith to cancel all prosecutions of an entire class of federal laws. *A President cannot claim discretion honestly to say that he will not enforce an entire law -- especially where, as here, the executive branch is enforcing the rest of immigration law.

Imagine the precedent this claim would create. *President Romney could lower tax rates simply by saying he will not use enforcement resources to prosecute anyone who refuses to pay capital gains tax. He could repeal Obamacare simply by refusing to fine or prosecute anyone who violates it.

So what we have here is a President who is refusing to carry out federal law simply because he disagrees with Congress's policy choices. *This is an exercise of executive power that neither the most stalwart defenders of an energetic executive -- nor the Framers -- can support.

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Obama...ion?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

 

The words John Yoo and "stretching the constitution" should only be applied to "John Yoo is going to jail for stretching the Constitution".

This is the man who is the perfect example of the embodiment of an executive branch deciding wildly to interpret the Constitution in all kinds of fragrant ways. In fact, it brings me back to how your lawless tyrant is worse than this "lawless tyrant", especially when the Bush Administration was all about violating the Constitution to use force or to spy on its' own citizens. Funny how you liked the former, and disliked the latter.

The U.S. Constitution specifically includes the habeas procedure in the Suspension Clause (Clause 2), located in Article One, Section 9. This states that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."

OH, BUT THE FRAMERS, them good apples, forgot to mention (so it must be true) that this is even the case when the invasion is external, you know, because when you're invading others it's still an invasion of...some sort.

High comedy quoting John Yoo on "stretching constitutional law".

 

Absolutely agree. I personally wish the president had acted sooner given the aggressive nature in which illegal immigrants were being deported prior to this legislation. Nonetheless, beggars cant be choosers, and I'm willing to take an executive order that clearly plays to his base in preparation of election season than another failed attempt at drafting immigration policy and watching hundreds of thousands of people continue to get deported.

One of the things I find interesting about this issue is the manner in which some GOPers have criticized Obama's courting the Hispanic vote through this move- it's as if such intention is beneath political office, while courting executives for fundraising and capitulating to corporate interests is squarely within the acceptable domain of a politician.

 

So now the President is choosing what laws to enforce. This doesn't surprise me at all. He is not the first President to do something like this and will not be the last. I wonder how people would feel if a President decided to not enforce tax laws, gun laws, or environmental laws?

 

Violating the Constitution for political reasons is beneath the office. The policy is not the issue, it's the total endrun around Congress. Rule by edict/decree rather than laws. He is constitutionally sworn to enforce the law, he can't just declare he won't because he doesn't like the policy.

The timing of this is fairly obvious. Rubio was making progress on a compromise bill and if he and Romney had come out with something it had the potential to bleed Hispanic support from Obama (who couldn't get anything passed despite supermajorities in Congress).

 

Of course, the Obama Administration was much more aggressively enforcing immigration laws than the Bush administration. Does that mean Bush was violating the Constitution since he obviously wasn't enforcing it 100%? Given that every administration in history has focused on different law enforcement priorities, were they all violating the Constitution?

I'm starting to believe Republicans' definition of "violating the Constitution" is "I don't like what he's doing" as opposed to actually having any idea of how the Constitution actually works.

 

I disagree with the characterization that this is just different law enforcement priorities. This is ignoring the law entirely, not selective enforcement. Granting of work permits goes well beyond passive selective enforcement.

They could use the priorities justification to ignore any law by this reasoning.

The Constitution explicitly gives congress the power to determine rules for naturalization, not the president.

 

But the endrun is a great play when the Supreme Court's carrying the ball, isn't it?

 

Major, it's more like "I don't like what he's doing because he's doing it."

 

Yes, AND? Congress constitutionally delegated it's powers to the executive branch. If they wanted the executive to deport every single person in the United States who was eligible for deportation, they would have codified it and funded it, but they didn't because aren't idiots.

Sorry if you disagree with the characterization, but that is what it is. But it doesn't really matter how you choose to characterize it since it does not matter one bit in the question of constitutionality. Since the passage of the INA, the executive branch has always had the ability to grant deferred action and work authorization to individuals who it felt like were not an immigration priority. Work authorizations are an integral part of the scheme. In fact, I can't really see how it would ever make sense to give someone deferred action and not work authorization. I didn't hear you bemoaning the constitutionality of giving of deferred action and work authorization to Hatians fleeing Haiti after the disaster, or the use of deferred action and work authorization for those who have cooperated with law enforcement against drug criminals.

Look, I understand not liking the policy because of who it helps (otherwise law abiding kids who identify as American), but that has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the move.

Also as Northside has already so adptly pointed out, John Yoo is not a legitimate source for mainstream constitutional analysis. Take anything he says with a grain of salt.

 

It is particularly politically motivated because it is an election year. We all know why he is announcing it now - he needs the support. Still, it is the righ thing to do.

I think this is what happens when congress decides it will just oppose everything the president does as a matter of principle. They force Obama to either be a weakling castrated president, or they force him to push the limits of executive power. What is happening in gov't in not healthy for our democracy today. It's sad an unfortunate - and I really think guys like Newt and Norquest have done a lot of damage.

It's sad because there are so many great ideas that come from the Republican party. So much sound policy. And the biggest victim of how this congress operates isn't the Democratic policy that is getting sidetracked, its the actually logical legitimate ideas from Republicans that would solve problems but are not going to be allowed by House Leadership out of a political need to oust Obama.

 

Actually, as long as one parent is a citizen so is the child, no matter where they were born. Earth, Moon, Spaceship. It doesn't matter. Basso knows this because I stuffed it to him on a Birther thread - the whole birther thing is moot. Since Obama's mom was a natural citizen, it doesn't matter where he was born, he is considered natural citizen.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/us...toid=32dffe9dd4aa3210VgnVCM100000b92ca60aRCRD

 

Republicans: We need to reign in all this spending!

Obama: Oh, really?

Republicans: Yes! Now!

Obama: (Cuts funding for deportations) Problem?

Real thing to ponder is whether this will decrease the unemployment rate.

 

"Natural born" for presidential eligibility purposes is different than that for being a citizen.

But i agree, it's a moot point in obama's case, since he's already president.

 

Which previous president does Obama most closely resemble? Not Carter, but Nixon.

VDH writes well:

------

Are We in Revolutionary Times?
By*Victor Davis Hanson
June 15, 2012 6:51 P.M. Comments8
Legally, President Obama has reiterated the principle that he can pick and choose which U.S. laws he wishes to enforce (see his decision to reverse the order of the Chrysler creditors, his decision not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, and his administration’s contempt for national-security confidentiality and Senate and House subpoenas to the attorney general). If one individual can decide to exempt nearly a million residents from the law — when he most certainly could not get the law amended or repealed through proper legislative or judicial action — then what can he not do? Obama is turning out to be the most subversive chief executive in terms of eroding U.S. law since Richard Nixon.

Politically, Obama calculates that some polls showing the current likely Hispanic support for him in the high 50s or low 60s would not provide enough of a margin in critical states such as Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado, or perhaps also in Florida and Virginia, to counteract the growing slippage of the independent vote and the energy of the clinger/tea-party activists. Thus, what was not legal or advisable in 2009, 2010, or 2011, suddenly has become critical in mid-2012. No doubt free green cards will quickly lead to citizenship and a million new voters. Will it work politically? Obama must assume lots of things: that all Hispanics vote as a block in favoring exempting more illegal aliens from the law, and are without worry that the high unemployment rate hits their community among the hardest; that black voters, stung by his gay-marriage stance, will not resent what may be seen as de facto amnesty, possibly endangering his tiny (and slipping) lead in places like Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. And because polls show overwhelming resistance to non-enforcement of immigration law, Obama also figures that the minority who supports his recent action does so far more vehemently than the majority who opposes it. Time will tell; but my gut feeling is that his brazen act will enrage far more than it will delight — and for a variety of different reasons. As with all his special-interest efforts — the Keystone cancellation, war-on-women ploy, gay-marriage turnabout, and now de facto amnesty — Obama believes dividing Americans along class, ethnic, gender, and cultural lines will result in a cobbled together majority, far more preferable than a 1996 Clinton-like effort to win over the independents by forging* a bipartisan consensus.

Economically, why would we formalize nearly a million new legally authorized workers when unemployment is approaching its 41st consecutive month over 8 percent — especially when Democrats used to label 5.4 percent unemployment as a “jobless recovery”? Here in California, the slowing of illegal immigration, due mostly to the fence and tough times, has led to steep wage hikes for entry-level and farm labor, and given a little more clout to Americans in so-called unskilled-labor fields. In other words, it really is true that the real beneficiaries of border enforcement are low-paid Hispanic-Americans and African-Americans who become more valued when they are not competing with virtually unlimited numbers of illegal-alien workers.

When you collate this recent act with the class-warfare rhetoric, the “punish our enemies” threats, the president’s and Eric Holder’s serial racialist statements, the huge borrowing, the national-security leaks, the takeover of health care, the push for redistributive taxes, and even the trivial appointments like a Van Jones, Anita Dunn, or Armendariz, you can fairly conclude that Obama most certainly did not like the way the United States operated for the last 30 or so years, and has tried his best, through hook or crook, to change America in ways that simply were not possible through legislative or even judicial action. Give the president credit. He has thrown down the gauntlet and essentially boasted: This is my vision of the way the new America should work — and if you don’t like it, try stopping me in November, if you dare.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/303037/are-we-revolutionary-times-victor-davis-hanson

 

Not so fast...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...obama-heckler/2012/06/15/gJQA2R9ifV_blog.html