Lone ranger challenges Obama immigration fiat

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, told WND that he plans to file a motion in federal court to block the Obama administration from implementing a controversial executive order announced this week excluding many young illegal immigrants from deportation.

The order is aimed at illegals who were brought to the U.S. before they turned 16 years old and are currently younger than 30. The president says it’s unfair to punish those young people for decisions their parents made and argues those young adults are already contributing to society.

But King says Obama’s move defies the U.S. Constitution by attempting to create new laws via executive order after the DREAM Act, a bill that would have similarly granted benefits to young illegal aliens, failed to pass Congress.

“I don’t need Congress to defend the Constitution,” King said, indicating he was open to others in Congress joining him, but that he planned to proceed, alone if he must.

“Barack Obama’s executive order defies the will of the American people,” he explained. “Congress has considered and refused to pass the DREAM Act.”

King told WND that he has a team of lawyers working through thorny legal problems, including venue – in which court he should choose to file the action – and standing, the argument that this is a case that allows King to bring legal action in the first place.

“Obama has directly challenged the separation of powers, a principle fundamental to the Constitution,” King said. “If we stand by and allow Obama to succeed, we might as well get out a black pen and start marking out those parts of the Constitution Obama finds offensive to him.”

King noted that Obama’s statute disregards existing federal law that demands illegal immigrants be apprehended and deported, regardless of the age at which they came to the United States or if they have graduated from high school.

He also pointed out Obama’s speech in March last year, when Obama said he did not have the authority to do what he just did.

Read more here.


Car Goes Flying Through the Air During Horrific Race Crash

Agenda 21 in Virginia Public School

Are We in Revolutionary Times?

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.

Read more here.

Obama’s Immigration Announcement: Another Loss for the Middle Class

The politics of the Obama administration’s immigration announcement make a certain grim sense: The people who will most intensely oppose are already fiercely hostile to the administration; the people who will most support were indifferently favorable. The decision mobilizes, for the administration, voters who might otherwise have seen little reason to turn out on voting day: economically hard-pressed Latinos who have seen little material improvement over the past three years.

The policy results however make less sense. The decision to grant residency and work rights to young illegal aliens who meet certain conditions is an amnesty in all but name. A conditional amnesty, yes, but amnesty. The trouble with amnesty has always been the incentive effects. It’s possible that amnesty may be a necessary final stage in immigration reform, but to put amnesty in place before effective enforcement measures are in place—and before authorities are certain that as many illegals as possible have voluntarily repatriated—is to invite another wave of illegal migration just as soon as business conditions improve.

That may not seem on the verge of happening soon, but it will happen.

In a time of very high unemployment, it seems simply reckless to invite future waves of migration—and especially of the low-skill, low-wage migration that America has mostly attracted over the past four decades.

Read more here.