Saturday, August 20, 2011

Future Democrats Of America

Two recent developments highlight the determination of Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats to increase the rolls of the Democratic Party by making illegal immigrants legal. First, the Obama administration via the Department of Homeland Security, intends to "review the cases" of 300,000 illegals who have already been ordered deported.

Second, in support of this action using his Constitution-skirting executive power, Obama plans to grant amnesty to many of the illegals in that group, among others. These two actions are intertwined, and together comprise another stealth attack on the powers of Congress which has consistently defeated the left's DREAM Act. Still, this action goes beyond the intent of the DREAM Act in that it's a blanket form of amnesty where the DREAM Act was a ploy to keep college illegals in the country.

Why now? Well, among Latino voters, support for Obama has declined from 85% to 49% in just over a year. The assumption in the Obama administration is that all legal Latino immigrants and naturalized Hispanic-Americans support illegal immigration. The White House-Capitol Democrats have decided that since they can't get amnesty in through the front-door, they had better do something quickly to restore their popularity among Hispanic voters.

It has not occurred to them that Latinos are among those most negatively impacted by the Obama failure to energize the economy and their reasons for abandoning him may have very little to do with the issue of immigration. Illegal immigration itself has shown a small decline since new jobs are few and far between. Even among the nearly-monolithic Obama black vote, his numbers are slipping, and that also has nothing to do with immigration.

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano sent a letter to the DREAM Act Democrats stating: "From a law enforcement and public safety perspective, DHS enforcement resources must continue to be focused on our highest priorities [creating new Democrats?]. Doing otherwise hinders our public safety mission--clogging immigration court dockets and diverting DHS enforcement resources away from individuals who pose a threat to public safety." Oh, spare me!

First, if the issue is limited resources, why waste those resources on illegals who have already been ordered deported? Sure, that would sweep up a large number of criminals whose only crime is being here illegally and haven't committed any other crimes yet, but it would also spare the Department the time and effort required to segregate out those illegals who have committed other crimes. Every hour spent reviewing each and every case already ordering deportation is an hour wasted in going forward with future investigations and deportations.

Napolitano says the 300,000 cases will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. In other words, a limited number of federal employees looking one at a time at 300,00 cases. That number alone says there's a major problem, and reviewing each case will make a bad situation far worse. Admittedly, some of these cases are at the final stages, and have not yet come to a final order of deportation, but that doesn't change the fact that 300,000 cases will have to be reviewed, leaving no time to process the thousands of new cases arriving at ICE and DHS.

Second, this is a purely political move. There is no legal or constitutional justification for this action. The claim that it is a security matter is pure nonsense. The administration has been taking heat from irredentists and open-borders advocates since it recently bragged that it had deported more illegals than the Bush administration over a comparable period of time. Taking voluntary self-deportation after arrest into account, that was a simple lie. But this attempt at proving its steadfastness in enforcing immigration law backfired. It convinced nobody who wants the law enforced, and it angered those who were already suspicious of Obama immigration efforts that looked very much like enforcement.

Napolitano herself inadvertently admitted that the political heat was the basis of her actions. Even the liberal Los Angeles Times saw through the subterfuge, saying: "They announced the review as the Obama administration has sought to counter criticism that it has been too harsh in its deportation policies." Since most open-border opponents think that the administration has been too lax, it is obvious that this move wasn't designed to satisfy their demands for true enforcement of immigration law. This move is not only reprehensible on its face, but it is an intentional attack on the power of Congress to enact immigration law.

The ploy is working within the Democrat immigration left. Says open-borders advocate Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois): "This is the Barack Obama I have been waiting for and that Latino and immigrant voters helped put in office to fight for sensible immigration policies. Focusing scarce resources on deporting serious criminals, gang bangers, and drug dealers and setting aside non-criminals with deep roots in the US until Congress fixes our laws is the right thing to do." Which non-criminals? Surely he doesn't mean those immigrants whose first act was to commit the crime of entering the United States illegally.

One of the arguments that has been used to claim that this action and the DREAM Act were not purely political is that even after the stealth amnesty, these people are not voters anyway. Aw, hooey. First of all, in many Democratic enclaves they're already voting. Lax registration rules in other states enables them to vote semi-legally. And the real purpose is to create future voters for the Democratic Party that enabled them to turn their illegal status into legal status by a simple wave of the Obama hand.

Immigration reform is one of the most important issues to be handled by the next administration and the next Congress. Those illegals who have volunteered to serve in the US armed forces during a multi-front war should be given special consideration (particularly those here illegally solely because they were brought here as young children by parents who entered illegally). But blanket amnesty, no matter how disguised and what it is called is both foolish and dangerous. To top it off, Obama's executive order is another power-grabbing end-run around the Constitution.

In response to our featured placard-carrier: "If you're here illegally, you are a criminal."

11 comments:

StanH said...

This was totally predictable, as Barry’s reelection gets more tenuous, look for a galloping usurpation of The Constitution. We can be certain that as 11/12 approaches and things go the way they are setting up, look for other acts of desperation from our Barry, and other assorted Washington statist, such as allowing prisoners to vote, ex-felons, etc.

LawHawkRFD said...

Stan: I'm waiting for his executive order suspending the 2012 elections since his continued presidency is in the interest of national security.

BevfromNYC said...

LawHawk - I am reading this article, but this question came to mind (but you may have addressed it)

Is it possible that, if/when Obama is not reelected in 2012, that he could grant amnesty to ALL undocumented illegals as his last act?

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: I didn't address it because it's too scary a thought. He could do that, but I don't think Congress would let it stand nor would the Supreme Court uphold it. That last act of desperation would likely be as the result of a Republican sweep and his petty tendency toward vengeance. And it might lead quickly to the undoing of most of his other executive orders.

LawHawkRFD said...

I SHOULDA SEEN THIS COMING DEPARTMENT: One of the exceptions to deportation that is included in Obama's executive order is "preservation of families." Under his current policy of recognizing gay marriage as a "family," the alien half of a gay couple in San Francisco will apparently get to stay. The couple was "married" in Massachusetts seven years ago and have been living together in San Francisco's Castro District for twelve. One is a natural-born American citizen. The other, whose final visa expires on August 25, is from Australia. This a dual slap at Congress's power to write immigration law and a symbol of Obama's reversal on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). He needs the votes of the swooning gay community as well as the open borders crowd.

Joel Farnham said...

Obviously this is to slow things down to a crawl. Trouble is this won't play out to the Hispanic community because they already don't like the pro-illegal immigration policy of the Obama Administration. Republicans don't understand the underlying problem of increasing the numbers of Hispanics. The new guys dilute the power of the individual from the original group.

Another way of putting it, let us say there are 5 guys in the original group. Each one has 1/5th power. Add 4 guys more. Each has 1/9th power. There is more than that. In original group, 3 out of 5 is a majority. Add 4 guys, the majority changes to 5 out of 9. If three of the four new guys vote with the minority of the original group (2+3) then that becomes the new Majority, 5 out of 9. Not only does it dilute, but can potentially change the politics.

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: It all depends on where you look for the Hispanic voters and how much they've been radicalized, and for how long. In Los Angeles, the Hispanic voters are heavily open-borders. In the suburbs, they are not. In "sanctuary cities" the Hispanic voters have been hammered for decades with the open borders, keep families together, just here to get a good job rhetoric. They have been deeply radicalized. Second and third generation Hispanic families outside the central cities, even in the border states, see illegal immigration as a threat to their jobs and their acceptance as un-hyphenated Americans. But no matter how you look at it, the Hispanic vote is not monolithic, and proper handling of illegals along with sensible reforms to immigration law could be a Republican plus.

If you polled the Hispanic voters in my area of California (outside of core Bakersfield), you would find illegal immigration to be very unpopular (and that includes my Hispanic sons-in-law). Go to East L.A., and you will find exactly the opposite.

AndrewPrice said...

This is a mess and it is yet another reason that the Democrats need to be kept out of power. January 2013 can't come soon enough. Let's hope the voters realize all of this and throw out the whole lot of them and not just Obama.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: I couldn't agree more. Every day the first thing I do is check my Obama countdown-to-election digital clock. It will take the White House, the House of Representatives and a supermajority in the Senate to undo the mess before economic and social doom arrive.

Tehachapi Tom said...

Hawk
We need to be super vigilant prior to the 2012 election. I would not be surprised to see some major crisis taking place in September of 2012. Another 9/11 or worse that bo could address to make him the savior of the country with. He probably would fail at that also. If anyone examines such an event carefully and finds he was even remotely associated with it he should be sent to Gitmo with the rest of his brothers.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tehachapi Tom: I don't think that Obama would consider engineering a crisis on that scale. He's an ignorant socialist redistributionist and a race-baiter, but he's not a murderer. He's more likely to manufacture a race riot or an excuse for an early withdrawal from the Middle East. I'm afraid suggesting that he would engineer another 9-11 is too much like the thinking of the 9-11 Truthers.

On the other hand, if what you're suggesting is that our enemies might take advantage of his weakness to manufacture a crisis that would keep him in office rather than a strong foreign-policy, national security Republican, that's possible. I still consider it unlikely, though, since extremists don't see good Americans and bad Americans, just the Great Satan. A 9-11 type attack, which I pray will never happen, would be more to advance the Islamist agenda than to save Obama's presidency.

Post a Comment