If It Isn’t “Amnesty, Immunity Or A Path To Citizenship,” What Is It?

by lewwaters

June 15, 2012, not exactly a “day that will live in infamy,” but an ignominious day just the same as Barack Obama, apparently believing he is a King or Dictator and not an elected temporary leader, took upon himself to completely ignore the will of the American people and Congress by declaring certain illegal aliens under the age of 30 will no longer be deported.

That citizens have been opposed and congress has voted against such moves towards amnesty have been completely ignored as Obama stated,

“This is not amnesty. This is not immunity. This is not a path to citizenship. It’s not a permanent fix.”

It isn’t a “fix” at all and contrary to what he says, it is indeed amnesty and immunity. What else could it be but amnesty and immunity?

Democrats pulled this nonsense back in 1986 when Republican Ronald Reagan was president, blaming the failure on him and not accepting any responsibility themselves, even though they wrote it and passed it as Democrats held majorities in both the House and Senate.

Expected to lessen illegal immigration, it had the opposite effect as now others saw that our laws mean nothing and there would be no enforcement and eventually, if they waited it out, they too would be declared immune to our laws.

Today, they once again won out as Barack Obama made a mockery out of our laws, our constitution and the separation of powers written into it.

Within hours of making his announcement, his reelection campaign sent out an email that said in part,

“Thanks to our president, this nation’s immigration policy just became more fair and more just.”

“Effective immediately, the Department of Homeland Security is taking steps to ensure that young, undocumented immigrants who were brought here as children by their parents, and who have followed the law since then, will be able to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings — and will be allowed to apply for authorization to work in this country.”

“They’re a group that we’ve come to call the ‘Dreamers’ — and today, the country they love is telling them they should be able to dream as big as they want.”

“For years, the President has called on Congress to make common-sense fixes to our broken immigration system. They haven’t. So he did.”

By what right does he take upon himself to usurp constitutional separations and decide he can just override both Congress and the American people?

Of course, the email also includes,

“Congress still has time to pass the DREAM Act. And if they do, policies like today’s will no longer be necessary.”

If that isn’t “do as I say or else,” what is it?

This is the act of a dictator, not an elected representative of the people.

Such a dictatorial act pleases Janet Murguia, president and CEO of the Racist National Council of La Raza (the Race) who said,

“When it comes to the Hispanic community, this action is a political plus for Obama. It’s always good to be able to point to your track record and move the needle toward a promise that you made.”

Even though such a promise is contrary to our jurisprudence and constitution as well as the will of the American people? By what right to illegal aliens, here in violation of our established law by committing a criminal act of entering our country illegally, stand up and demand anything?

Obama claims that in their hearts, they are Americans. But they have no regard for American law and expect all of the benefits granted natural born and naturalized citizen, the latter enduring years and years of efforts, fulfilling requirements and living within our laws all to one day, take our oath of citizenship to be granted what we gained by birth?

It is a slap in the face of all those who struggled to meet the requirements to take that oath as these certain ones today receive a pass on violating our laws and end up being moved ahead.

Article II Section 3 of our constitution lays out some duties expected of a president saying,

“He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.”

Usurping and ignoring our laws at his whim is not what I call “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, whose state has been perhaps hit the hardest by illegal immigration and has the dubious honor of being sued by the Il Duce administration for enforcing our immigration laws, labels Il Duce’s act today as “backdoor amnesty,” adding that is complicates the enforcement of their law, SB 1070 as illegal aliens will not receive documentation, complicating Arizona’s efforts at curbing illegal immigration.

In January 2007, after Democrats took control of both houses of congress and installed as head of the powerful House Judiciary Committee, Democrat Representative from Michigan, John Conyers claimed,

“Our country has been run, far too long, by an Administration that seeks to rule in secrecy. The Bush White House has ignored our founding fathers’ separation of powers, claiming an ever increasing scope of authority in direct conflict with the constitution.”

“For the past six years Congress has been silent, watching idly as its powers are usurped.”

“No longer.”

“Today we embark on a vigorous defense of our nation, reclaiming our constitution and reasserting the authority of Congress in our tripartite system of government.”

June 15, 2012, although no longer head of that committee sees silence from Mr. Conyers over Barack Obama’s continued usurpation of Congressional Duties and Powers as he willy nilly just declares his will to be the law of the land.

Spineless Republicans, House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell did not address the issue, claiming difficulty for Republicans trying to appeal to the Hispanics, who will not vote for Republicans anyway, preferring to vote for those who help them violate our laws and still receive the entitlements meant for American Citizens.

Lamar Smith, Republican Representative from Texas and now Chair of the House Judiciary Committee issued a Press Release saying,

“President Obama’s decision to grant amnesty to potentially millions of illegal immigrants is a breach of faith with the American people. It also blatantly ignores the rule of law that is the foundation of our democracy. This huge policy shift has horrible consequences for unemployed Americans looking for jobs and violates President Obama’s oath to uphold the laws of this land.”

Unlike Conyers, Smith lays out no plans to hold Il Duce Obama accountable.

Republican Representative Steve King of Iowa said he planned to file suit to halt the policy.

Presumed Republican candidate for President, Mitt Romney said the decision

“will make finding a long-term solution to the nation’s immigration issues more difficult,” adding “the plight of illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children is an important matter to be considered.”

Just what we need, more fence straddling and gutless actions.

If America is to regain her greatness and return to a rule of law, the lawless dictator, Il Duce Obama and his band of Socialist Democrats MUST be voted out this November. As gutless as Romney is, he will still be an improvement over Il Duce.

My greatest fear is if we don’t oust this band of Socialists, seeing Il Duce Obama’s quest to be dictator, 2012 just might be our last free election.

56 Comments to “If It Isn’t “Amnesty, Immunity Or A Path To Citizenship,” What Is It?”

  1. And our congresswoman’s position on this?

    Deafening silence.

    Like

  2. She has a position on something?

    If you remember, we had to coerce her into even mentioning immigration during the campaign.

    https://lewwaters.wordpress.com/2010/03/29/does-anyone-know-jaime-herrera%E2%80%99s-stand-on-illegal-immigration/

    Like

  3. That is an interesting thought Hinton. It would be interesting to know whether she is disgusted by such an illegal move, as she should be.

    Like

  4. So glad Mittens is showing such strong leadership in this area, if you call punting leadership.

    Like

  5. As acknowledged in the past, he is only slightly better than Obama, but slightly is better and he is the only one currently that the voters have indicated they will vote for.

    It is hoped that once in office, also hoping we can wrest control of Congress away from Socialist Democrats, feet can be held to the fire to begin unraveling socialism.

    But if we don’t get behind who voters have shown they are most willing to vote for, we get nothing but more of this stuff.

    Like

  6. Also noticed an article in the Oregonian a couple of days ago, indicating that Kitzhaber is planning to allow illegals to obtain driver’s licenses in the State of Oregon. Just another transparent attempt to build up the Dems voter-base. But what’s especially ironic is that fellow Democrat Gov. Kulongoski originally ended this practice back in 2008 because it turned out than Mexican gangsters were training their members to come to Oregon and get these ID’s and licenses to help them transport their “merchandise” more easily. I guess he thinks it’s OK to re-introduce that problem to get more votes for Dems.

    http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/06/restoring_drivers_licenses_for.html

    “Until early 2008, Oregon allowed residents to acquire driver’s licenses without either proving legal U.S. presence or providing verifiable Social Security numbers. But on Feb. 4 of that year, then-Gov. Ted Kulongoski’s Executive Order 07-22 took effect. “It appears that criminal organizations … are using Oregon’s permissive standards in order to assist persons to illegally obtain” licenses, the order explained. To combat this, it required applicants to furnish “a valid Social Security number or a written statement that the applicant has not been issued a Social Security number,” as well as “acceptable documentation to prove name and date of birth.”

    Like

  7. Progressive’s can’t think much further ahead than the end of their nose, Tom.

    Logic has no place in their world, only immediate emotions, what feels or sounds good for the moment.

    And when it all back fires?

    It’s Bush’s fault.

    Like

  8. I think that in your hearts, you all know that this is the right thing to do. Just because it was initiated by President Obama doesn’t mean that you have to oppose it. Kids who were raised in this country are Americans. They serve in our military. They should not be treated like law breakers – or are you going to hold them accountable for the sins of their fathers?

    Like

  9. Sorry Craig, but you are sadly mistaken.

    One of our largest disagreements and disappointments with Bush and the GOP is that they did nothing to curb illegal immigration, in spite of demands for it for years.

    What is right about rewarding those who violate our laws, just because they are here? What other lawbreakers are rewarded for violating the law?

    It is slap in the face to the millions of naturalized citizens who came in legally and endured years of necessary time before they could take the oath of citizenship.

    That is Obama is no different than we were demanding Bush take action. Difference is, Bush did take it upon himself to bypass congress and undo what congress already voted down.

    Incidentally, since illegal aliens are barred from serving in our Military, one must show proof of citizenship and a birth certifcate to enlist, where does this cry of “they serve in our Military” come from?

    Legal immigrants may serve and if killed in action, are granted citizenship posthumously.

    They are lawbreakers, period. And should be treated as such.

    Come in legally, just as we are expected to do if we enter their countries, or stay out.

    Just because they were brought here as children is no excuse.

    Like

  10. The Dictator Obama has no respect for American laws and the American people!!! Obama is trying to build his dwindling voter base with illegal alien criminals. Glad to see Congressman Stephen King, a true patriot, sue the Obama administration!!!

    Like

  11. Craig I agree there probably are circumstances under which kids who were brought in at a very early age and grew up here could be offered a path to citizenship. However that is for Congress to decide – not the executive in disregard of Congress’ wishes.

    Like

  12. Craig, actively taking steps to violate the laws of the United States that you’re sworn to uphold is NEVER the “right thing ” to do.

    It’s NOT the “right thing to do” to give these criminals rights that American citizens don’t have.

    It’s NOT the “right thing to do” to add 800,000 to an already over-crowded work force when those here legally can’t get a job.

    It’s NOT the “right thing to do” to have illegals clog up our overburdened education and medical and social service systems that WE have to pay for and to take steps to enable that.

    Is it the illegals fault that they’re here if they were brought here as children?

    Nope. It’s their parents. And their parents, who made that decision, are the ones to be held responsible, as is those who employee, house and license these law breakers.

    In short, if King Obama doesn’t like the law, then his option is to change it… not to write an illegal, unenforceable edict that ignores it, and lie about it every step of the way.

    I, for example, am a billionaire in my heart. But that doesn’t put any money in my bank account, and like these illegal aliens, if they don’t like it, they can always leave… and take their illegal parents and siblings with them.

    Like

  13. Doesn’t anybody get tired of talking about this? The bottom line is the “anti” crowd can/will accept an underclass of around 20 million people who can be exploited at will, and have no representation. Or you somehow think these folks can be harassed out of the country or forcibly removed? And don’t be telling me that because 5% leave on their own accord that your methods are working.

    And, please, all those of you who are willing to send in the SWAT teams and start loading train cars, SAY SO! I’m tired of your dilly-dallying around.

    Like

  14. Amnesty was tried once and instead of decreasing illegal immigration, it increased.

    What other criminals do we just ignore, Martin? Why do we have laws if they are to be selectively ignored?

    By what right do they protest and demand to be given anything? What other country permits such a thing?

    We give this group immunity and what next? What group comes next, Martin?

    What is your solution, just disband the Border Patrol and throw open the borders? Let anybody who wants in to come in, vaccinated or not? What about Terrorists caught coming in? What about gang members, drug lords, indigents looking for benefits at others expense?

    Stop dilly dallying around and give us your solution, Martin.

    Like

  15. Lew, as you know, I’ve often said CLOSE THE DAMN BORDERS! And I’ve always admitted that once they get in, like it or not, they are Americans. I may not like it but I believe in American ideals and I’m a pragmatist.

    Like

  16. Martin, I agree with you on sealing the borders, but just because they successfully infiltrate our borders does not make them Americans anymore than my time in Vietnam made me Vietnamese.

    I am really surprised that no one sees the connection between the increase in illegal aliens and the return of diseases we thought we had eradicated. We all were vaccinated and required our kids to be vaccinated. We require legal immigrants to be vaccinated and disease free when they immigrate.

    Hell, we have debris from Japanese Tsunami floating up on our beaches and the first thing they worry about is microbial bacteria and invasive species that might have grown on it.

    But, we throw open our arms for illegal aliens without a care of what they might be bringing in with them over the border? And once here, we owe them medical treatment and little or no payment required from them? And this after being told their medical system is so superior to ours (one of the arguments for Obamacare).

    And no one wants to talk about these people sending Billions of our money back to the home country, money that won’t circulate in our economy.

    I have yet to hear of one reason why we are the only country on the earth who is not supposed to enforce our immigration laws.

    Like

  17. Lew, there are only 3 options that I can see:
    1) Forced expulsion
    2) Harass & exploit them and their children and their children’s children forever (and blame them because they won’t leave)
    3) Make them Americans

    So you blame Obama because he won’t do #2. And you won’t allow #3. Dude, either call in SWAT or shut up.

    Like

  18. Actually, Martin, I blame all of the politicians in D.C. for ignoring years of calls to act on this.

    I blame Obama for acting like he is a dictator and his word alone determines law, screw Congress.

    My option all along has been a fourth option, cut them off from benefits, entitlements & employment.

    We hear they are not entitled to draw any of that, which is what is written. What they don’t tell you is that state employees are prohibited from asking about citizenship and if they are unable to speak any English, a first sign of a potential illegal alien, an interpreter is provided at taxpayer expense.

    As for the worry of who will pick the crops, honoree inmates or any able bodied person drawing unemployment or welfare. If they aren’t willing, they get cut-off too.

    Once our unemployment returned to reasonable levels, I’d be willing to discuss a guest worker policy.

    For now, I refer you back to the earlier post on illegal aliens taking advantage of the earned income credit, drawing billions of dollars in tax refunds for children in another country who have never even set foot in America.

    https://lewwaters.wordpress.com/2012/05/04/illegal-aliens-defrauding-the-american-taxpayers/

    Like

  19. Actually, Lew, I’d wished you’d picked #1 because #2 is unAmerican. I not implying in any way that you’re unAmerican – just that the action you suggest is not what The Constitution embodies – a permanent second-class citizenry.

    Is it safe to say that Republicans choose #2 and Democrats choose #1, and expecting Obama, a Liberal and Constitutional scholar, to go along with segregation is simply baiting?

    Like

  20. What is “un-American” about enforcing our laws, Martin?

    I expect Obama to act as is outlined in the constitution that I mentioned in the post, to uphold the law, not ignore it as his whim.

    We faulted Bush for not acting on illegal immigration, what makes you think I would give Obama a pass?

    I highly doubt his claims of being a “constitutional scholar.” If he really is, where is his records of achievement? Where are any college transcripts or records of any sort?

    His word is not sufficient, given so many unconstitutional acts.

    Like

  21. I may have mentioned this before… but if Obama doesn’t like the law, he needs to get it changed… not violate it by edict.

    That’s a little too Stalinesque for my blood.

    Like

  22. Sorry Martin, but just because someone claimed back in March 2008 that he was “regarded as a professor” does not equate to being a “constitutional scholar,” your claim.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/3/obama-flunks-constitutional-law/

    Would a real “constitutional scholar” continually violate the constitutional separation of powers?

    Like

  23. Did we just enter the Twilight Zone? Professors who TEACH Con Law in law schools are Constitutional scholars – by definition. I certainly accept Obama as a Constitutional scholar and I consider myself an aspiring Constitutional scholar. In fact, if you personally know any other Constitutional scholars, I’d like to talk to them. (Constitutional scholars have a way of recognizing each other… Okay, it’s just a secret handshade – but it’s a cool one.)

    Like

  24. Martin, I would expect anyone who “teaches” constitutional law to know enough about the constitution to follow it, not rewrite it at his whim.

    Then too, there is that little word “regarded” in your factcheck supporting claim. “Regarded as” is not exactly being, especially given the timing of when it was said.

    Some may regard me as a “journalist” for this blog, but that doesn’t make me one, does it?

    Some “regard” Ron Paul as a “constitutional scholar” too, but you don’t see me claiming he is either.

    If Obama is the “constitutional scholar” you think he is, how is it he seems ignorant of Article II Section 3 of the constitution where it says “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed?” I see nowhere that it says he may rewrite law at his whim, by passing the Legislative Branch who is charged with writing and passing law.

    Most “scholars” have published papers to back up their claims. Where are Obama’s? Where is any transcript or record of anything, other than 2 ghost-written books?

    Bush & Clinton had college transcripts.

    Where are Obama’s?

    Like

  25. I suppose whether or not Obama violated the Constitution is for the Courts to decide. One Congressman has already threatened to sue him, but “I don’t see much chance at all that this is something that is going to be successfully litigated,” said Dr. Ken Mayer, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who studies executive orders. He compared the move to a pardon or a veto. “Just about everybody from the left or right agrees that this is something at the core of executive discretion.”

    Putting aside the legal question, there is the question of what to do with several million ‘illegal’ children. Do we forcibly round them up and deport them to a country they’ve never seen, to people they do not know, or do we open up our arms to them and make it possible for them to contribute to the future of our nation? I vote the latter.

    Like

  26. Craig, others who were brought here as illegals have taken legal steps to become legal.

    There was the story last year of the woman upstate faced with this same situation who couldn’t get legal because, unlike her siblings, she waited until after she had been convicted of a felony before trying. She knew she was in the country illegally and took it for granted. Her siblings did what was needed to be legal.

    So, it’s not like they can’t become legal if they try.

    But it does show that Obama decided to pander to Hispanics for their vote after alienating many with his “evolving” view on homosexual marriage.

    Like

  27. “But it does show that Obama decided to pander to Hispanics for their vote after alienating many with his “evolving” view on homosexual marriage.”

    Definitely. He’s certainly the panderer-in-chief of the US. I’m sure he’s already picked up several hundred thousand votes from people to gullible to not see that – or who don’t care.

    Like

  28. Lew, this is only a suggestion: rather than exhausting your credibility on this intractable issue, instead determine what penalties you’d like illegals to face on their way to citizenship. (Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know it irritates you.)

    Like

  29. I already gave you my idea, Martin.

    Cut them off.

    Like

  30. Okay, like I said, Conservatives (perhaps all Republicans) are of the “harass & exploit” pursuasion. I’ll put that in my “Conservative Values” list.

    Like

  31. Well then, Martin, I guess that places you and maybe all Democrats in the kiss the asses of law breakers and suck up to those who suck our economy dry category, just so long as Democrats stay in power?

    Is that how this works?

    Like

  32. Sorry, Lew, didn’t mean to back you against the wall. Illegal immigration simply has no good answer – there’s only the least odious one. I’ll quit talking about it now.

    p.s. I found out yesterday (telling my kids about our debate) that my son’s girlfriend is illegal! (Yikes, that was close.)

    Like

  33. A scholar knows a lot about a subject. He or she doesn’t necessarily love the subject. (Deborah Lipstadt, for example, is a noted Holocaust scholar.) That’s where the confusion lies in your constitutional scholar conversation.

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg knows the Constitution like the back of her hand; she just doesn’t think much of it. Similarly, the President, as a former part-time lecturer at the U. Chicago Law School, could perhaps be considered a constitutional scholar of sorts. (But no constitutional scholar would ever attribute the idea that “we’re all created equal” to the Constitution–especially in a written and rehearsed speech! BO, however, did just that in his first State of the Union address.)

    But the real issue is, does he love and respect it? Pretty clearly, here, we’d have to say he’s–how shall I put it?–a pragmatist, not a lover of the Constitution.

    Like

  34. OK: Illegals want to become citizens. here’s how:

    1. Anyone deported for being here illegally is never to be allowed citizenship or legal residency under any circumstance. Ever.

    2. Any violation of any law in the US disqualifies anyone not a citizen from citizenship, permanently.

    2. Leave the US.

    3. Return to your home country.

    4. File for citizenship here like everyone else. You know, like those who follow the law, wait their turn and show some respect for the country they want to become a part of?

    5. To keep people out:

    a. Confiscate all assets from those who hire them.

    b. Imprison those who hire them.

    c. Confiscate all assets from those here illegally as part of the streamlined deportation process.

    d. Require proof of citizenship/status to get into school, vote, register to vote, buy a car or house, apply for credit or any social service program. End the idiotic tuition breaks that not even Americans can get, set up for illegal aliens.

    We have the means, which are, in reality, relatively simple.

    What we lack is the will.

    The question is this:

    Will King Obama’s amnesty… his efforts to circumvent and ignore the law he is sworn to uphold make it MORE likely, or LESS likely that the scourge of the illegal alien invasion is addressed?

    Did Reagan’s misguided and, in aggregate, rather foolish amnesty make it more likely, or less likely?

    What other laws can Obama summarily dismiss from enforcement?

    And, if enforcing the law makes me a fan of “harassment and exploitation” (Al thought I doubt that the requirements I advocate here, which would be applied to everyone equally, equate to that) then so be it. That’s a price I’ll pay.

    Like

  35. where it says “File for citizenship here like everyone else,” that should read “File for citizenship THERE like everyone else.”

    Like

  36. Kelly quit dilly-dallying – it’s SWAT for him. I’m especially impressed by his willingness to confiscate the property and imprison the people who would hire the Jews… Oh, ah, I mean Illegals.

    Like

  37. 🙂 Time to have the old men discussion group at your local coffee shop – grocery store? 🙂 This line of discussable points, reminds me….

    Like

  38. The Jews were legal citizens of their respective countries, Martin.

    Like

  39. Lew, one of the German claims for their actions against Jews was they were illegal residents:

    “Jews were forced to work at more menial positions, becoming second-class citizens or to the point they were ‘illegally residing’ in Nazi Germany.”

    Via harassment (called “persecution” in history books) they were encouraged to emigrate to Palestine before the Final Solution.

    Like

  40. Nazi’s false claims back then do not equal claims today of those who entered our country illegally, Martin. The Jews were legal citizens long before the Nazi Party came into existence.

    That is the difference.

    Equal would be more like was done to to the Japanese Americans back then.

    Like

  41. You’re gasping for air and grasping for straws Martin. Comparing Nazi Germany’s persecution of Jews who were lawful citizens of Germany to the United States lawfully expelling people who have knowingly and willfully violated her immigration laws is ridiculous and I think you know it.

    Like

  42. I was pointing out the similarities in mindset, Craig. By-the-way, are you #1-SWAT, #2-Persecute, or #3-Citizenship?

    Like

  43. From Merriam-Webster dictionary:

    Definition of PERSECUTE

    1 : to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict

    2 : to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches (as attacks, pleas, or importunities) : pester

    Like

  44. Martin, even the mindset is different.

    We want current laws enforced.

    Nazi’s wrote new laws to justify their hate.

    While Hispanics are the majority of illegal aliens in the country, they are just over half. Enforcement would apply to all illegals based on the fact they are here illegally, not because of what they are.

    We are not about ejecting all who were born in foreign lands or of parents who violated our laws to get here. We welcome those who enter legally and obey the law.

    Nazi’s were based on hate and wanted Jews dead, wiped off the face of the earth.

    If people in the country realize this law doesn’t have to be followed, why should any follow any other law?

    If the law is deemed wrong, there is a method to change it an if the majority votes to not change it, that is our system. Try again another time.

    But i see nothing in the constitution to allow any president to just bypass our lawmakers and take upon himself to rewrite law as he may see fit.

    Like

  45. Lew, from my point of view, you are being a coward. If you want SWAT teams and train cars, SAY SO! Stop hiding behind Obama. I’ll go to jail to confirm my belief that there should be a path to citizenship. My goodness, man, you’ve got The Law on your side yet you don’t have the courage to stand up and SAY WHAT YOU MEAN.

    Like

  46. Martin, how is it cowardly to seek a method to properly enforce our laws and not resort to brown shirt tactics?

    I know open borders people like to paint us a Nazi’s because we want our law enforced and stop the outflow of Billions of tax dollars to host countries and drug cartels, but that is the lie.

    I have openly stated my preference in how to deal with illegals and yet you try to put words in my mouth to suit the liberal mantra.

    The law is not “on my side” if there is a refusal to enforce it and active efforts to prevent enforcement. Obama put the law on the side of criminals in the country illegally.

    If you are unable to accept my words as I state them, Martin, don’t bother reading them.

    Like

  47. I STILL don’t know your position?! Please copy/paste the laws you mean into this thread. SAY WHAT YOU MEAN.

    Like

  48. You are trying my patience, Martin. This is not an episode of Perry Mason.

    Take your pick: U.S. CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION SERVICE

    Funny thing about entitlements, even right here in our state.

    While it is illegal for an illegal alien to apply for or draw entitlements, the agencies throughout the state are prohibited from asking about Immigration Status.

    If you don’t know my position on how to deal with the illegal immigration problem, it’s because you don’t want to know and would rather assign your view of what you wish to paint us as to me.

    Like

  49. I’m the attorney so I’ll help you out here, Lew:

    INA § 235 and 236 establishes the expedited removal process. The statute eliminates evidentiary hearing or administrative or judicial review for two class of aliens and allows an immigration officer to enter an order of removal.

    If the alien has been admitted or those who enter without inspection and resided in the U.S. continuously for more than two years, the applicable process of removal is defined under INA § 239, 240, 242 and 243.

    INA § 242 eliminates judicial review for various denial of discretionary relief from the Immigration Judge and the BIA. The statute explicitly states “no court shall have jurisdiction to review any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section 212(h), 212(i), 240A, 240B, or 245.”

    8 CFR 240.65 – “Eligibility for suspension of deportation” is the 1996 “amnesty” provision that Republicans hate.

    Lew, The Law is all about deportation, so if your position is you want to “enforce the law” then you’re saying “deportation” – with numbers like 20 million, that means SWAT and train cars.

    Like

  50. Martin, I have laid out my thoughts on encouraging illegal aliens to either self deport or to turn themselves in for repatriation to their home country.

    But I must ask, why do you hide behind portions of the law in order to help people violate our laws?

    Why even have a law or even attorneys if we may just selectively choose what we wish to do or how we act?

    Are we a “nation of laws” or not?

    Like

  51. Lew, enforce the law or change the law. It sounds like you do NOT want to enforce the law, which is deportation (good for you), but you would accept a permanent 2nd class citizenry, and their children, and their children’s children, that has no representation and is easily exploited. (Face it – they’re NOT going to leave on their own.)

    I’m not angry or expect more of you, Lew – I was just trying to get you to think through your position. ‘Nuff said.

    Like

  52. You may be an attorney, Martin, but Perry Mason you aren’t.

    You try to spin what I say and claim to be trying to get me to think.

    Maybe it is you who needs to try thinking.

    Either we are a nation of laws and uphold them, or we are not and all can just do as we please.

    If I violate a law, I am held accountable, hence I try not to violate any laws. If I do, claiming ignorance of the law is no excuse either, I am held accountable.

    But, those who enter the country in violation of our laws, knowingly so, are to be rewarded, thanks to slip and fall attorneys, including who claims to be president?

    There is a procedure to change laws that is not being followed. Just willy nilly ignoring established law with no repercussions is a road to anarchy.

    Like

  53. Martin, I think there should be a path to citizenship. I think it should be hard – harder than if they’d done it the right way, but not so hard as to be impossible. Nothing else would work anyway – and it wouldn’t be the humane thing to do.

    Like

  54. to clarify – it wouldn’t be humane to try to deport several million children who are essentially Americans.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: