President Obama Does Not Have the Authority to Ignore Immigration Law;

 To believe the President Obama has the authority to ignore Immigration law via prosecutional discretion, is to believe that  prosecutional discretion trumps the Constitution Article II's, Take Care Clause, which requires that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

Prosecutional discretion is not an absolute privilege. To believe the President Obama has the authority to ignore Immigration law via prosecutional discretion, is to believe that  prosecutional discretion trumps the Constitution Article II's, Take Care Clause, which requires that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
There's no logical stopping point to the prosecutorial justification underlying President Obama's immigration policies. Presidents could simply decide not to enforce entire sections of the Clean Air Act, tax code or labor laws, or exempt entire categories of people — defined unilaterally by the president — on the assertion that those laws are "unfair" and there aren't enough resources to go around. The president would have power to grant a "privilege" or exemption from any federal law, defying the plain language those laws and the will of the people's Congress. Constitutional Limits to Prosecutorial Discretion

The projected executive action (EA) by President Obama, if signed, will be doing the illegal immigrants all ready in this country a great disservice. In previous cases President Regan and Bush used an EA  that addressed omissions in existing immigration legislation, that did not cover the children of illegal aliens that were allowed to stay in the country to pursue legal status. In other words the EA addressed issue in an existing law and unlike President Obama's EA, did not create a new law, which is unconstitutional. The EA also does not carry with it the same authority of a law voted in by Congress and signed by the President; this EA will simply be a directions to Homeland Security (via prosecutional discretion) to stop deportations of illegal immigrants already in the country, but prosecutional discretion does not legalize a violation of the law, it simply says in this specific case justice is otherwise served by not prosecuting a law breaker. This means that Obama's projected order does not change the fact that the illegal immigrants in the US will still be violating the law; so this security blanket could quickly be pulled out from under these same immigrants by a court order or the whim of the next President.  In this case illegal immigrants will continue to live in the shadows not knowing what is going to happen to them as there is no law behind the President EA.

Consider the President has already shorted ICE with the money and agents necessary for deportations. President Obama’s budget would rewrite the federal government’s interior immigration enforcement priorities, cutting funding for states that try to help enforce immigration laws and scaling back the number of immigrants the federal government will detain while they await deportation. He sent the proposal to Capitol Hill on Wednesday, at a time when congressional lawmakers are trying to write a broad immigration bill to bolster border security and interior enforcement, and to screen millions of illegal immigrants who could gain legal status under the legislation. All of that will cost money, but Mr. Obama’s budget cuts overall funding for the Homeland Security Department. It particularly trims interior enforcement initiatives, such as the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which has widespread support among members of Congress...Ms. Napolitano’s budget boosts spending by $1.1 billion for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which includes the Border Patrol and officers who watch the ports of entry. But it reduces by nearly $650 million, or 11 percent, funds for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which handles interior investigations and deportations. Obamas Budget a Blow to Immigration Enforcers

There is also the effect the President's EA will have on blacks and other minorities. "As immigrants disproportionately increased the supply of workers in a particular skill group, the wage of black workers in that group fell, the employment rate declined, and the incarceration rate rose. Our analysis suggests that a 10-percent immigrant-induced increase in the supply of a particular skill group reduced the black wage by 4.0 percent, lowered the employment rate of black men by 3.5 percentage points, and increased the incarceration rate of blacks by almost a full percentage point." Blacks Hit Hard by Increased Immigration 

Another issue not being reported on is how President Obama's Executive Amnesty will continue the  victimization of illegal aliens.  Since the majority of Americans are already against amnesty without even experiencing the inevitable hardships it will cause, the left will again allow the focus of their unpopular agenda to be scapegoated. When one considers that Americans have yet to feel the full effect of ObamaCare, which has never been popular to begin with, the Presidents actions now will likely guarantee the next president will have to run on revoking both the President Obama's EA on immigration and ObamaCare as well.  And of course that doesn't even consider the likelihood that once Obama's  Executive Amnesty is in place, he will announce another EA to give healthcare to the illegal aliens in the country, now protected from deportation. Whatever happens there will surely be a collective sigh of relief (that has not been heard since Woodrow Wilson's time) once this lame duck President is finally gone. 

Obama Prepares for Executive Amnesty; Orders 31 million Green Card Blanks

On of the best ways to discover what the Obama Whitehouse is up to is to review government solicitations "drafts"; this is the methods in which government entities gets quotes for services.  Below a solicitation for what is commonly refereed to a Permanent Resident Alien Green Cards.

Consumables
Solicitation Number: HSSCCG-14-R-00028
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Office: Citizenship & Immigration Services
Location: USCIS Contracting Office

USCIS Contracting will be posting a solicitation for the requirement of Card Stock used by the USCIS Document Management Division. The objective of this procurement is to provide card consumables for the Document Management Division (DMD) that will be used to produce Permanent Resident Cards (PRC) and Employment Authorization Documentation (EAD) cards. The requirement is for an estimated 4 million cards annually with the potential to buy as many as 34 million cards total. The ordering periods for this requirement shall be for a total of five (5) years. www.fbo.gov/index   However part of the Draft was subsequently expunged after it was reported by Breitbart (but still available here "In addition, the Contractor shall demonstrate the capability to support potential “surge” in PRC and EAD card demand for up to 9M cards during the initial period of performance to support possible future immigration reform initiative requirements."

So President Obama's Department of Homeland security is planning on a surge of 4-9 million aliens a year (or 34 Million over 5 years) that will be receiving Permanent Resident Cards; this will increase the population of the US by about 10 %.  A USCIS official told MailOnline on Monday that the draft was published 'in case the president makes the move we think he will, obama-readies-executive-order-illegal-aliens The President Obama's Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked about the solicitation draft, he first responded that questions about the draft was a “relatively clever way” of trying to predict Obama’s decision". When pressed further Earnest made the ludicrous comment “You would have to ask the DHS about orders of green colored papers that they’ve ordered?” What? President Obama, through his official representative has reached a height of hubris never seen before in Presidential politics. Even the press corp sat stunned with one reporter shouting “Don’t be absurd with us!” replied White House CBS reporter Major Garrett. “That’s not just an ordinary piece of paper it’s central to what the president has promised in public to do" White-House-Order-For-Surge-of-Immigration-ID-s-For-Ongoing-Operations

So what would the affect of an additional 34 million amnestied immigrants. According the  Center for Immigration Studies, "Based on the 1986 amnesty, we estimate that incomes for uninsured illegal aliens would rise modestly after legalization, leaving 3.1 million (out of 3.4 million) uninsured illegal immigrants qualified for Medicaid".. "The estimated cost of providing Medicaid coverage to 3.1 million amnestied illegal immigrants would be $8.1 billion annually." So not counting the surge of patients that would probably leave state Medicaid systems overwhelmed and impossible to utilize, an increase of even 31 million amnestied immigrants would cost an additional  $81 billion a year. Further since, " During the budget period 2014-2019, in which Medicaid expansion takes effect, covering 3.1 million amnestied immigrants would conservatively cost taxpayers $48.6 billion"; an increase of 31 million amnestied immigrants would cost $480 billion over 5 years . medicaid-costs ; While I remain very skeptical of Liberal conspiracy scenarios, it is difficult not to equate President Obama's amnesty plans to the; Cloward–Piven strategy that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty". Cloward–Piven

It is also common knowledge that the electorate does not want President Obama's Executive Amnesty plan by a wide margin 63% to 22%; but the issue is much larger than that. President Obama himself has stated "There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.“ President Obama has said that if congress doesn't act on immigration, he will; ignoring the point that it is red letter illegal. Not only would this executive action not conform to the appropriate role as President, it would also be a violation of the Constitution's separation of powers. So President Obama knows that his Executive Amnesty  is a violation of his office and extremely unpopular, so just in case there a few voters that would not vote for a Democrat if the President goes through with his Executive Amnesty, he is waiting until the mid term election has passed; this and other political decisions based on the unpopularity of his policies, President Obama will surely go down as the most liberal and blatantly political President the US has ever known. 

Arizona Bashers; Don't Let Facts Get in The Way.

When one argues a point because they say it is the right thing to do, they are arguing ideology. The recent debate about the Arizona anti-illegal immigrant law is a study in ideology. Like many arguments from the Left, they tend to argue against representative issues, not the issue itself. The ideologues of the Left always starts an Arizona law argument with, 'the Federal Government has sole authority to enforce immigration law', perhaps not realizing this issue is the origin of the law, not a condition of it's demise. Once past the jurisdictional argument, the Left settles on the probability of racial profiling. Admittedly, while the law may prohibit profiling, law enforcement can not always be expected to perform the mental gymnastics necessary to make a detention lawful. I would, however make the case, that even this argument is not sincere. The reason is those that argue against the Arizona law, are actually arguing for a gauntlet policy for immigration. They begrudgingly admit the US needs some form of border control, but they contend, once the illegal immigrants have forded the border, illegal immigrants should be given amnesty.

My argument for this "gauntlet policy" is based on the fact that the Arizona law is a mirror of the federal law. If there is a profiling argument, it needs to also be applied to the federal law, as the federal law allows a detention based solely on the suspicion a subject is an illegal immigrant (the Arizona law requires a lawful detention first). The ideologues know they won't get any mileage on any such argument, so they make straw-man arguments against the Arizona law, assuming the federal government will continue it's half-hearted enforcement.

I mentioned in a previous post, Glenn Beck's book "Arguing with Idiots" and it's flawed premise that facts and history matters. If the argument is a state law will result in racial profiling, the question needs to be asked, "What if the federal government decided to send 10,000 ICE agents to Arizona to enforce the Immigration laws; would that be acceptable?" The answer I'm sure would be in the negative, complaining the federal law enforcement would also result in racial profiling. Those that argue against the Arizona law, including the Obama Administration, desire that the federal government maintain sole authority of enforcing, or in this case not enforcing immigration law. So any argument against the Arizona law, is obviously ideological and not fact based. To put this in prospective, it is much akin to gun control. The evidence is overwhelming that the more law abiding citizens that own and carry guns, the more violent crime rates go down, but that really doesn't matter to the anti-gun lobby; they just don't like guns and that's all that matters to them.

Arizona Seeks to End Illegal Immigration Slavery

The new Arizona law, making it a violation of state law to have entered the US illegally is based on the following law and case law.

(a) Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant-
(1)to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States;

Implied Authority (from the INA training handbook)

a. Implies authority is the authority to act, although it is not specifically stated in statue. For example INA 287(a)(1) gives authority to interrogate without a warrant any alien or person that is believed to be an alien about their rights to be or remain in the US. There is no mention of an authority to stop that alien. However, it is implied the officer must first stop that alien to interrogate that alien.

Yes, the above law makes it quite clear that law enforcement can now contact any person who's legal residency is in doubt. It appears to many to have racist overtones and is an open invitation to racial profiling; or is it? The truth is, INA 287(a)(1) is the federal authority given to ICE agents to detain and question suspected illegal aliens.

One of the most often quoted complaints, is the new state law violates the 4th Amendment protections of unreasonable search and seizure (seizure including one personage) and the 14th Amendment of Due Process and Equal protection; i.e. profiling. This argument however is moot, as the federal authority has already passed Constitutional scrutiny. The usual profiling argument is mitigated by the legal standing that profiling and/or racism does not exist, if race is simply one element of an investigation, and not the sole reason. However, in an effort to address such fears, the writers of the Arizona law went further to guarantee these protections by including the wording, The attorney general or city attorney shall not investigate complaints that are solely based on race, color or national origin.

One has to ask, what part of the law is so overreaching, when the federal enforcement officers already have the same powers. Much has also been made of the necessity of those contacted and detained for investigation to provide proof of legal residency; this has been compared by some as similar to fascist Germany oppression of the Jews, regardless of the fact that federal law has always mandated temporary residents keep their immigration identification on their persons at all times. The Left of course, like to use Nazi comparatives when ever they can, regardless that they are the constant purveyors of anti-Jewish rhetoric, and continue to show their disdain for the Jewish people by setting the bar so low, that the holocaust is now their moral equivalent of a jurisdictional argument.

The opponents of this law continue to try color it as repressive by saying, "The law would require the police 'when practicable' to detain people they reasonably suspected were in the country without authorization" (NY Times). The description implies that the law allows a detention based solely on "reasonable suspicion" of being in the US illegally, which is false. The law states that a lawful contact must take place prior to any detention based on "reasonable suspicion". The prior description also gives the false impression that the Police will be pulling over Hispanics without 'probable cause' to check their immigration status. However, again the law states, Notwithstanding any other law, in the enforcement of this section a peace officer may lawfully stop any person who is operating a motor vehicle if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the person is in violation of any civil traffic law.

In the strangest of description, the AP says, It "would make it a crime under state law to be in the US illegally"; You think? This silly description explains the outcry against this law better than anything else I have seen, as it describes illegal immigrants from the US southern border as a protected class. The purpose of this is can only be to maintain the status quo so the Left can continue to use illegal immigrants as pawns in their progressive agenda. Far from being compassionate, maintaining an illegal immigrant protected class guarantees the maintenance of an underclass, where the left has become the new slave masters, while they accuse the Right of racism.

From the New American, "While, in general, our federal government tends to interject itself into many areas not specifically authorized by the Constitution (which is, itself, a violation of the Tenth Amendment) preventing illegal immigration is one area where the document does assign responsibility to Washington. Article IV, Section 4. of the Constitution states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.”