The Nightmare Act

Posted on June 15, 2012

2


At this point the news is out and is ubiquitously so, regarding the announcement by the POTUS and by ‘Big Sis’ – Janet Napolitano at DHS, that federal immigration authorities are going to be pursuing a policy of select non-enforcement of immigration law.  Bad news travels fast.  I’ll spare you much of the mundane details that will be reported in depth elsewhere and simply hit the high points of this travesty, as well as what I think will be the significance of this event going forward.
First of all, let’s look at Barack Obama’s comments:
Effective immediately, the Department of Homeland Security is taking steps to lift the shadow of deportation from these young people,” Mr. Obama said in an appearance in the White House Rose Garden. “Over the next few months, eligible individuals who do not present a risk to national security or public safety will be able to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization.”
What he said later in the day was noteworthy as well:
This morning Secretary Napolitano announced new actions that my administration will take to mend our nations immigration policy;  to make it more fair, more efficient and more just, specifically for young people sometimes called dreamers”
Allow me to breakdown the President’s comments and then I will deal with ‘Big Sis’, who is acting as ‘La Hachera’ in implementing this gross violation of the Rule of Law. This adoption of policy by the White House is the latest in a series of direct contradictions with regard to actions that affect millions of Americans.
You will recall that he denounced Hillary Clinton’s plans to impose an insurance mandate when he was seeking the nomination 4 years ago. Then he turned on a dime and fully supported it. Obama, in discussing the Dream Act previously with reporters, insisted that his Administration did not have the authority to selectively non-enforce immigration law.  He also is on record, criticizing Bush’s ‘Imperial Presidency’.  That would be the  half White pot, calling the kettle Black.   It’s a whole new world when his re-election campaign enters its crisis control mode. Now the imperative to hand out favors, trumps even the meaningless lip service he paid to the limits of executive power.
the shadow of deportation”. Why is there such a shadow? There is a valid reason for such shadows to exist – and the answer is that ‘shadows’ are designed to be a harbinger of consequences. Once that shadow is lifted, there remains nothing else even symbolic, that inhibits brazen disrespect for law.
do not pose a risk to national security”. That’s only if you narrowly define national security as guarding against terrorist threats. However, if one takes the more inclusive, more holistic view of  national security, one cannot exclude the security threat posed to our nation’s economic well being as a consequence of permitting non-citizens to compete with legal citizens for employment, which at this time is a precious commodity and a limited resource.
new actions that my administration will take to mend our nation’s immigration policy”  You could add an ‘a’ in front of the word mend, and it would more accurately reflect what he has done. But he prefers to use the word mend, because it refers back to the main propaganda phrase of open borders advocates – that our immigration system is ‘broken’.  According to these people – any straightforward policy of law enforcement is by definition, a broken system. The way to heal it is to arbitrarily and unilaterally cease enforcement if Congress cannot be strong armed into violating the public will on the issue.
to make it more fair, more efficient and more just” I could spend hours with this one alone. It’s sad that the President has a bunch of pajama buddies instead of independent minded journalists parroting  his progressobabble without questioning it. Well, there was one gentleman today that did. His name is Matt Munro from the Daily Caller, who braved the stiff winds of scorn from the other Obama lap dogs, er – reporters.
More fair?  Fair to whom? Fair to taxpayers? Fair to legal residents? Fair to patient applicants for immigration and work visas who wait in line?  If anything is ‘broken’, it is the disrespectful treatment of folks that embrace the apparently obsolete notion of respecting another nation’s national sovereignty. More efficient? That one is incomprehensible in its entirity.
More ‘just’. Aha! Now I’ve got something to sink my teeth into. Here is another term that once had a virtuous connotation before its proper meaning was waterboarded into an integral part of the Marxist lexicon. ‘Justice, ‘Social Justice’, ‘Just’. There’s the evolutionary track of the communist vernacular. Part of the Left’s concept of justice, is the assumption that the laws of any nation that have not been wholly brought into compliance with the dictates of Marx and Lenin, are inherently unjust and therefore not only to be held in contempt – but also subject to revision, even if it means nullification of orderly process.
Now, to Janet Napolitano. Wait a minute. With all due respect to any of my readers with the first name Janet – my apology in advance – how is it that Janet is the name most associated in recent years with cabinet officials who aid and abet a President in the commission of acts of gross violation of their pledged oath of office?  Janet Reno…Janet Napolitano?  ‘Big Sis’ announced today:
We are a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants, and as I said [earlier], with respect to these young people, deferred action – the decision announced today – is simply the right thing to do.”
Typical anarchist conflation between a fundamental truth and an irrelevancy – and a vain repetition of a hackneyed phrase, to boot.  We are a nation of laws. The fact that some are immigrants, is not an argument in favor of  negating laws and violating the Constitutional order of governance that all of us – including public servants, are beholden to.  Excuse me Janet, but you couldn’t recognize ‘the right thing to do’ if it had a ‘Hello My Name Is’ tag on its sweater or lapel.
She goes on to say:
Our nation’s immigration laws must be enforced in a firm and sensible manner, but they are not designed to be blindly enforced without consideration given to the individual circumstances of each case. Nor are they designed to remove productive young people to countries where they may not have lived or even speak the language. Discretion, which is used in so many other areas, is especially justified here.”
I guess she knows what the intent of the law was and is, because she was a member of Congress who wrote those laws. She wasn’t???? Oh, well – she at least has a degree in Constitutional Law that gives her a framework of understanding sufficient to discern under which instances the framers of the Constitution had in mind to authorize arbitrary non-enforcement of laws that Congress has passed. Oh, she doesn’t?
But she was a lawyer and has a law degree. Let’s see who else has one …John Edwards, Bill Clinton.  OK fine, but she was the Attorney General of the State of Arizona. Elliot Spitzer was the Attorney General of New York State and John Mitchell was Nixon’s Attorney General.
All right, you win – case closed.  I’ll give Charles Krauthammer the last word on this:
“Beyond the pandering, beyond the politics, beyond the process is simple constitutional decency. This is out-and-out lawlessness. You had a clip of the president himself say months ago ‘I cannot do this on my own because there are laws on the books.’ Well, I have news for the president: The laws remain on the books, they haven’t changed. And I think this is not how you run a constitutional Republic. This ought to be in the hands of Congress, and it is an end-run. What’s ironic of course is for eight years, the Democrats have been screaming about the imperial presidency with the Bush administration, the nonsense about the unitary executive. This is out-and-out lawlessness. This is not how you govern.”
Advertisements