Speaking at the National Council of La Raza’s annual conference recently, President Obama said, “The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. . . . But that is not how our system works.” The president is right to acknowledge that this isn’t how our government operates, but it seems the temptation to do things his own way is too much for him to withstand. This is especially true when it comes to our immigration laws.
Although Congress has defeated several amnesty bills in recent years, President Obama now wants to grant a backdoor amnesty to illegal immigrants by using executive-branch authority.
Advertisement
What had once been a rumor fueled by leaked administration memos is, as of last month, official Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy. The director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued two directives on the scope of DHS officers’ prosecutorial discretion that could allow millions of illegal and criminal immigrants to avoid our immigration laws.
The memos tell agency officials when to exercise “prosecutorial discretion,” such as when to defer the removal of immigrants; when not to stop, question, arrest, or detain an immigrant; and when to dismiss a removal proceeding.
The directives also tell officials not to seek to remove illegal immigrants who have been present illegally for many years. Millions of illegal immigrants have been in the U.S. since the 1990s.
Further, the ICE memos make clear that the administration plans not to use but to abuse these powers. If the Obama administration has its way, amnesty will be the official policy of the United States without a vote of Congress.
This will saddle American communities with the costs of providing education and medical care to illegal immigrants. It will also place our communities at risk by not deporting criminal immigrants.
As a result, I introduced the Hinder the Administration’s Legalization Temptation Act, also known as the HALT Act. This legislation prevents the Obama administration from abusing its authority to grant a mass administrative amnesty to illegal immigrants.
Regrettably, this isn’t the only instance in which President Obama has been tempted to do things his own way. It is part of a broader pattern of ignoring the law.
The Obama administration has all but abandoned worksite-enforcement efforts. Over the past two years, worksite-enforcement efforts fell 70 percent. Under this administration, there have been fewer arrests of illegal workers, as well as fewer criminal arrests, fewer indictments, and fewer convictions of illegal immigrants and employers.
While worksite-enforcement activities have plummeted, the Obama administration argues that it has increased the number of audits of employers. But audits do little to stop illegal immigration or discourage illegal hiring. Audits can result in fines, though employers consider them just the cost of doing business. Illegal workers are typically not arrested, so they continue to compete with citizens and legal immigrants for jobs.
We could open up millions of jobs for unemployed Americans by requiring all employers to use E-Verify. This program quickly identifies those working illegally in the United States by checking the Social Security numbers of new hires. E-Verify takes only one to two minutes per hire to use, and confirms persons who are eligible to work 99.5 percent of the time. And over 270,000 employers voluntarily use it today.
Of course, lost jobs wouldn’t be as large a problem if the border itself were secure and illegal immigrants couldn’t enter in the first place. But according to the Government Accountability Office, only 44 percent of the southwest border is under “operational control” by the Border Patrol.
Completion of the border fence would help secure our border. We know that a border fence can be very effective — in San Diego, the fence reduced apprehensions by 95 percent. But there is no fence in many other areas.
To date, the administration has built only about 650 miles of the 800 miles of border fencing that Congress required in 2006. Of the 650 miles, only 299 have vehicle barriers. And even vehicle barriers can be easily bypassed.
President Obama and his administration should not pick and choose which laws they will enforce. The fact that the president doesn’t like our immigration laws doesn’t mean he shouldn’t enforce them. It appears that doing things on his own is not just tempting, it’s what President Obama does.
— Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas) is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
Lamar Smith is absolutely correct. Obama must not be allowed to grant Executive Amnesty to illegal immigrants. It will lead to hundreds of millions of more illegal immigrants coming to the U.S. for the ever increasing benefits costing U.S. taxpayers $$$trillions.
What did Obama refuse to cut in the debt deal? -- Medicaid and other benefits to illegal immigrants. Obama also wants to pass the "Dream Act" which provides free tuition, room, and board to illegal immigrants. If you don't believe this, just read the "California Dream Act" bills AB130 and AB131, the first of which is already signed into law. Also, read the U.S. federal government financial aid FAFSA form that instructs college applicants with illegal immigrant parents to put down 000-00-000 for their parents' social security numbers and to only report family income assigned to a valid social security number. This GUARANTEES all illegal immigrant family receive full financial aid even if their undocumented income exceeds thresholds for aid. Our own procedures prioritize illegal immigrant families for college financial aid.
The Dream Act and other amnesty granting legislation will encourage many of the 1.5 billion youths worldwide to arrive illegally to the U.S. for readily available tuition, room, board, books, and personal expense paid for by the U.S. taxpayer. It is a $100,000 benefit that few can afford for their own children or grandchildren.
Who is concerned about the impact on U.S.-born students? There are only 2 million freshman spots at U.S. 4-year colleges and universities. Already it is increasingly difficult for U.S.-born citizens to enroll in college or to afford the escalating tuition that most citizens must pay in full because U.S.-born citizen families receive only documented income on valid social security numbers. Many public universities have increased tuition by 4-fold in the last 10 years.
What was Obama willing to cut in the debt deal? -- Defense and Medicare. This proves the point that Obama prioritizes illegal immigrants' economic interests above those of U.S-born citizen students and seniors and above our national security and right to sovereignty.
The only borders the President tries to control are Israel's.
The divine right of Kings isn't exactly dead. Its just subterfuged.
Sorry kiddies you've been had again. If you complain about it. it is because you are childish.
Don't forget how the administration declined to halt the purchase of illegal guns bound for Mexico. Nobody down in the food chain would do this unilaterally, they would need a supervisir to give them cover. How high up does CYA go when you are told to ignore dozens of assault type rifles being shipped south? If Holder knew, then Obama knew.
1. Amnesty is a pardon. Most recommended plans permit someone who has put themselves here or is born here, to proceed on to earning citizenship, if they choose. That would NOT be "amnesty." It would be more akin to conservative "due process."
2. President Obama has deported more illegals than conservative Bush. That's strong enforcement.
3. Enforcement of prohibition of hiring illegals could be better, in spite of the conservative Chamber of Commerce's desire to keep a large below-minimum-wage work force.
..."than the conservative Bush"... You must be joking? If it were up to Bush, we'd have let every Tom, Dick and Jose just walk on in. You're holding Obama up to a pretty low bar, there.
What's that sound coming from the Republican Presidential candidates? Crickets?
I understand the preeminence of the debt situation in politics these days, but has anyone even heard one tidbit or morsel from our candidates against this outrage? Illegal "immigration" is a debt issue, illegal "immigration" is a jobs issue. Obama's backdoor amnesty is a winning issue to run against and yet we hear nothing.
The first Republican candidate to forcibly speak out against Obama's illegal "immigration" non-enforcement policy automatically becomes my favored candidate. How long will I have to wait?
Amen to that. The pols all bend over backward to Hispanics now, rushing to be more in favor of throwing away America than their opponents.
Yet the vast majority of the country -- including plenty of Puerto Ricans and other Hispanics here legally -- is anxious for the law to finally be enforced, jobs returned to Americans, our communities restored, and the illegals' welfare burden removed.
Where is the GOP on this? This is the best way to win independents and blue-collar Democrats. It's a political windfall -- not to mention about the best way to save the country from lower education, income and living standards and crippling debt. Where is the GOP?
Dear "No Amnesty" --
Your "Executive Amnesty" tool is available for a President's administrative use when working with a difficult Congress.
Medicaid is not created for illegals. It is our Christian conservative obligation to help the widowed, orphaned, and homeless -- compassion for the under privileged. The Church is not spending it's 10% on them.
The "Dream Act" would allow citizenship to be earned after paying back taxes and more.
I agree that not requiring the report of income on a financial aid application is a violation of logic.
It is not likely that the 1.5 billion students in the world will come here under any circumstances.
The Defense Department is bloated. They build hardware we can't use to pad their pocket. They scare us because we need protection from "them." Would we call that a "protection extortion scheme"? (My dad worked for Douglas Aircraft in WWII, and I am a former USAF Officer.)
I am trying to list facts without exaggeration. Some Fox News anchors exaggerate to the point of making fabrications, such as implying that "he was elected President to destroy America." Really? I think they meant to say they don't agree with him on some policy or other. That would be OK, and understandable.
God bless.
"1. Most recommended plans permit someone who has put themselves here or is born here, to proceed on to earning citizenship, if they choose. That would NOT be "amnesty." It would be more akin to conservative "due process."
"Recommended Plans"? from who -- the political elite that isn't burdened by the problems illegals create?
"Put themselves here"? You mean cross the border illegally and then further violate laws in order to remain here? Should we give them amnesty because they have "put themselves here"?
"...or is born here"? If they were born here then they are citizens -- although if their parents were illegals they shouldn't be citizens either.
"proceed on to earning citizenship" We already have a process for earning citizenship, and the illegals didn't bother to follow that process.
"That would not be amnesty" You are right about that, because it is something far worse than amnesty. What you want is to reward the criminal with their ill-gotten gain. This is akin to allowing a car thief to escape punishment while legally be handed the pink slip in exchange for a small fine and some drivers ed training.
A re-write by changing a few nouns: "Earned citizenship is akin to allowing a residency thief to avoid jail or deportation while legally being handed citizenship in exchange for the full price of all back taxes and a citizenship class, test, and oath."
YES!
I would love to let other people be citizens in my country, too. There are a lot of beautiful people in our world.
Some Members of Congress appear to be concerned that Executive Branch agencies are implementing administrative policies and practices that ignore or circumvent existing federal statues or Congressional decisions to not enact particular legislation. Rather than engage in ad hoc reactions to such activities by federal agencies, perhaps Congress should consider comprehensive legislation to limit and rein in the ability of any federal administrative agency to try to ignore or circumvent existing federal statutes or implement policies and practices that Congress has explicitly decided not to enact into law.
Note: "deportment of more illegals" is not the same as "strong enforcement".
For example, let's say that in 2009, 100,000 illegals came into the country and 10% or 10,000 were sent back. Let's say that in 2010, 1,000,000 illegals came into the country and 20,000 (or 2%, if I did that math right in my head) were sent back. That's more illegals sent back, but is weaker in percentage. I made all the numbers up, since we don't know how many illegals really come here.
Whether you are for or against any kind of amnesty, the contention is false.
About the number of illegals and the percentage there of -- We have had fewer immigrants and more deportations, from what I have read. I am not an ICE expert, but I do remember reading the numbers from more than one source.
I'm a little bit confused. I searched the ICE website and found two directives relating to prosecutorial discretion on June 17, but I couldn't find anything about allowing illegals to stay if they have been here for a while: it said that length of *lawful* residence should be taken into account.
The general point, however, is well-taken. The president has the power to proclaim an amnesty. That has political costs. Directives involving prosecutorial discretion, on the other hand, seek to achieve a major policy goal without paying the political cost. The reason we permit presidential pardons but not presidential abdications of their responsibility to "take care that the laws be executed" is because we want such exercises of discretion to prompt scrutiny. Obama clearly wants all the power of the imperial presidency without even the de minimis accountability that comes along with it.
Read it again. The second memorandum specifically states that long time illegal residents are of the catogory to receive "discretion" which is code for the administrative amnesty.
Nice try Rcmasterson. You are still leaving out the fact that you are rewarding the criminal with legal title to their ill-gotten good. I do however like the idea of extracting past taxes from illegals in exchange for no punishment (i.e. jail)-- before we deport them back to where they belong.
What I don't see mentioned in this article is the number of illegals released back into the community after they have been detained. I work for an agency that houses illegals prior to their appearance before an immigration judge. In the last few months, we have seen a ten-fold rise in the number of illegals who are released on bond after being detained. I don't have current figures on the percentage of illegals who actually show up for court after being released on bond, but my experience indicates that number to be less than 5%. It's not just happening on the enforcement side.
Nice acronym (HALT), but since the chance of that act passing the Senate is slim, the chance of it being vetoed is 100%, and the chance of a subsequent 2/3 override is 0%, I don't see the point.
This whole "checks and balances" thing is a joke. If the executive branch doesn't want to enforce the laws (or assigns a compliant attorney general to argue against the validity of the laws in front of a compliant court), how can Congress stop that? The other way around (if the executive branch decides to create its own laws) can in principle be stopped by lack of budget, but how's that been working out lately?
