In a conference call with reporters a short time ago to expound upon the Obama administration’s decision to defer enforcement action against young illegal immigrants determined to not be security risks, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the new policy is not amnesty.
“I believe this action is the right thing to do,” Napolitano said, adding that immigration laws “are not designed to be blindly enforced nor are they designed to remove productive young people to countries where they may have not lived or speak the language.”
“This is not immunity, this is not amnesty; it is an exercise of discretion,” she said, saying the prosecutorial discretion “which is used in so many other areas is especially justified here.”
“I continue to urge Congress to pass the DREAM Act and re-examine our immigration system as a whole,” Napolitano said. “We should not forget that we are a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.”
The new guidelines are effective immediately but a framework to handle the deferred action applications won’t be in place for about 60 days.
Stay tuned for the full story on today’s announcement, including details from administration officials on the policy, President Obama’s remarks this afternoon in the Rose Garden, and congressional reaction.
No Congressional action necessary?
Isn’t it a violation of federal law to hire those here illegally? So how can an executive order grant illegal aliens the ability to work here legally? Federal statutes trump executive orders. And yes, I’m a lawyer (non practicing though.)
Would enabling the violation be a “High Crime or Misdemeanor”, in your opinion?
Interesting question. The Whine, by unilaterally granting work permits, could be considered to encourage employers to violate federal law by hiring illegal aliens, though I’d need to see the actual text of the statutes themselves. It’s not clear whether merely encouraging criminal acts, via mere words, is a crime or protected First Amendment speech. But here he’s going beyond that with granting work permits, this is an affirmative act. It’s the difference between encouraging a friend to break into a car and handing him a hammer and encouraging him to break into the car. It’s one thing to decline to prosecute these 800,000 — with limited DOJ resources there is prosecutorial discretion, but this is willfully ignoring the law, and acting against it with the work permits. I think it’s a misdemeanor, at least, but I’m not sure what the exact language of which applicable statute is.
The problem with impeachment is that it is a process that takes time, and we’re within 6 months of the election. Impeachment is necessarily a political act, and why vote on it if voters are going to vote him out a month or two later. Plus it’s no good if the Senate refuses to remove from office, and there are going to be at least 34 Democrat Senators supporting the guy.
Now a judge should invalidate all the permits based upon the President exceeding his authority.
Red states will deny the work permits, using state’s rights law, I should think. Blue states will allow it, and watch closely as blue states’ crime stats go up. Now, before you get your knickers in a knot over “prejudice” just think: More illegal aliens will flock to blue states, that means a large contingent of the nefarious, bad apples as well. That’s the basis for my statement.
Besides the fact that they are here illegally, like any conservative, I’m all for them going through the process of becoming a citizen in the normal, requisite manner.
Obama allowing a “gimme” is another desperate move by a manchild who is now completely irrational. Watch for more of this in the coming months. Romney is going to have his work cut out for him rescinding a BUNCH of executive orders.
NOT TILL OBAMA SAY’S SO. HE IS THE RULER, DID YOU FORGET?
Ms Napolitano, you might say this executive dictum is not amnesty, but it is a cold-handed and lawless end run against the United States Constitution.
We want to know when you will place yourself and President Obama on the list of radical extremists and arrest them for breaking the law?
Or… do you only put the Obama Administration’s political opponents on your so-called extremist list?
What happens when [G-d willing] Obama is kicked out and the next President rescinds this order? There being no constitutional basis for a true grant of immunity beyond a refusal to prosecute, all of the people who sign up for this program will have painted a target on their back.
“and the next President rescinds this order? There being no constitutional basis for a true grant of immunity beyond a refusal to prosecute, all of the people who sign up for this program will have painted a target on their back.”
It’s a nice thought, but I don’t see anybody but Romney beating Obama….
“We should not forget that we are a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.”
However, the Left in general, esp. In academia, has no issues demonizing the first group that immigrated here, the WASPs, the ones who made the immigration of all the other groups possible, and the ones who created that “more perfect” rule of law society, one based upon their English heritage, a rule of law society based upon the ideas of consent of the governed, restrained government held in check by mere paper, and the idea that the man of public office must be a man of virtue (and not just the man who got the most votes)—all concepts that the Democrats daily trash and the GOP will not full-throatedly fight for.
Issuing work permits is not an issue of prosecutorial discretion. It is an affirmatory act.
IOW, there will be no equal application of the laws.
Some people will be forced to obey the laws, and some won’t, depending on whether they’re pals with the Democrats or not.
Obama and his crew must go.
800,000 counts of directly failing to enforce the 14th Amendement’s Citizenship Clause.
Open and shut impeachment.
Riiiihgt. Eight hundred thousand. A mere bagatelle, wing-nuts!
She makes me ill. Did anybody bother to ask who would be reviewing these illegal aliens to make sure they’re not the kids of al Qaeda terrorists or, worse, that they themselves are not al Qaeda terrorists? Most people think “illegal aliens” means Mexicans. Sorry, but there has been a huge influx of immigrants from Pakistan and the Middle East into this country. Some legal, some not legal. But who is controlling or monitoring the inflow of these people into this country? The answer: Nobody. Just take their word for it that they’re fine, upstanding, wanna-be citizens. If one of these people decides to commit an act of terrorism on our soil just because Obama wanted to score some political points this year, then I hope people like Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are forced to go to the funerals of each and every victim. National security doesn’t seem to mean a thing to these people, and that makes the statements from the Director of Homeland Security even worse. Sleep well tonight knowing these people are in charge of YOUR safety.
As she can say what she guesses immigration law is not, perhaps Mz. Napolitano could tell us what it is?
Uncle Janet is a liar. This is de facto amnesty.
I hope the feds will use compassion here. More than 20 years ago, one of my employees stole into the US with his wife & two kids. His brother (and wife and four kids) stayed in Panama because he didn’t want to break US law. Now, he is being penalized for complying with US law while his brother is being rewarded for violating US law.
Would you, therefore, send work permits and food stamps for six and ballots to the deserving brother (and family) in Panama?
Panderer In Chief
>Abolishing Don’t ask don’e tell than his change of mind for the Gay vote
>Amnisty for the hispanic vote
>Suing South Carolina and supporting the Wisconsin recall for the Union vote
>Condums for the womens/athesist vote
>Supporting OWS for the socialist vote
>Leaking to the press to appear patriotic
Look for a partial forgiveness of student loans, legalizing pot and any other outrageous comments…this Socialist is desperate !!!
Napolitano: “This is not amnesty.”
She’s right. It’s criminal.
Reading all of the hushed academic comments regarding proper procedure above make me laugh a bit….albeit in a sad, head shaking way. What ever gave you people the idea that the administration gives a wit about your rules? What gave you the idea that Congress, outside of a few voices, will grow a pair and do ANYTHING?
These people are communist revolutionaries of the New Left. Gentile Whites are not compliant enough to achieve their goals. You haven’t been disarmed yet. So you will be replaced. And Obamacare will weed out what’s left.
Read Prairie Fire sometime. They were willing to execute 10% of the population in death camps. The current method is slower, but easier to hide, and achieves the same goals.
Anywho….back to your discussion on parliamentary procedure…
Ok, why am I supposed to obey any federal laws, rules, or regulations when city/state/federal agencies capriciously decide which ones they’ll enforce, exempting entire classes of people?
This is how you destroy faith in government…
Sounds like an interesting 14th amendment argument.
The dream act required college enrollment or military service so this appears less stringent. Given at least the possibility that this could be rescinded by EO or congress I wonder how many will apply.
This is why in 2008 some of us where calling Obama a “tyrant”. This is tyranny and yes this is amnesty.
darcy: This is amnesty.
Lying is what libs do best.
– showers.
Maybe it was stated above, and I was just pissed enough to miss it. Somebody riddle me this, though:
If one of these criminal aliens comes before the appropriate “authority,” to cash in on the new rules, will they be arrested? Will they be immediately charged in court and deported once convicted? If they are not immediately apprehended for the crime (felony, isn’t it?), then there is indeed a de-facto amnesty in place. Anybody who would think or claim otherwise is a damn fool, and I am fed up with fools.
Well that was a relatively fast evolution for a President who recently said he wasn’t authorized by congress to grant mass selective deportation exemptions based on race. Granted, it took a little longer to evolve than the President’s evolution on not enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act, because in his opinion it’s unconstitutional, even though the Supreme Court has not said squat on the matter. Ditto for don’t ask don’t tell. Curious how the democrats are rather silent on this imperial, unitary, dictatorial lawless Barack Presidency after spending eight years of pissing and moaning over George Bush. Unlike Barack’s Libya invasion from behind, at least George had a congressional authorization for war up front:the democrats even voted for it. No wonder the Russians and Chinese wont to a Security Council no fly zone resolution for Syria after Obama’s taking liberties with the meaning of no fly zones in Libya to include the active removal of the government. I presume the President will soon evolve his position favoring women registering for Selective Service and get the girls up to speed without waiting for congressional authorization: we have the war on women to fight to prevent violence against women and other man made natural disasters you know. Obviously Catholic law school students getting drafted will need free GI condoms to keep the girls fit for the rank and file line of duty.
Nappy is just like Holder. When Axelrod barks, they jump.
NapolitNO has the intelligence of a flea…. That’s why she hops so well.
“…Napolitano said, adding that immigration laws “are not designed to be blindly enforced …”
BULL!!!!!! Justice is SUPPOSED TO BE BLIND and LAWS ARE LAWS PERIOD!!!!!!
“We should not forget that we are a nation of laws …”
YOU DON’T FORGET, AND ENFORCE THE LAWS WHETHER YOU LIKE THEM OR NOT!!!!!!!
- Sorry for yelling. How much more can we take and survive?