Tag: DAPA

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama, House Democrats Ignore Constitution

Several significant events yesterday indicate that there is a profound disregard for the Constitution, as well as the role of law, on the part of the White House, its appointees, and its supporters in Congress.

Approximately two hours after the President learned that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t overturn a lower court decision rejecting Mr. Obama’s move to disregard portions of the immigration law, he contemptuously stated that he would take action that essentially ignored the ruling.

In 2014, the White House announced its plans to implement a program called Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA), which overlooked existing immigration statutes. The move ignored the fact that changes to the law would have to be passed by Congress. It was opposed by 26 states, which brought a successful law suit to block the unconstitutional maneuver.

In his statement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court, the President pledged that he would place the affected immigrants on a “low priority” deportation list, and they had “nothing to worry about.” Mr. Obama unlawfully ignored the Constitution, Congress, the courts, and over half the states.

The President’s supporters in Congress also acted in contempt of the fundamental law of the land. Having lost again in their bid to expand gun control, Democrat Representatives, led by Rep. John Lewis, rather than doing what losing Representatives have always done (try again later, rephrase their proposal, or make the issue a factor in the next campaign)  staged a sit-in, quite possibly the most juvenile and contemptuous act that the venerable institution has endured.

The tactics were described by the New York Times  as a “dramatic,25-hour siege by House Democrats.” Adding to the tawdry nature of the move, Democrats sent out a fund raising letter featuring the sit-in stunt.

Is this how American laws should be enacted: not through winning debates, not through persuading others to agree, but through sophomoric stunts and “sieges?”

In his weekly address, House Speaker Paul Ryan discussed the sit-in:

“One of the things that makes our country strong is our institutions. No matter how bad things get in this country, we have a basic structure that ensures a functioning democracy. We can disagree on policy, but we do so within the bounds of order and respect for the system. Otherwise it all falls apart.

The male organ size for pleasurable lovemaking should be greater than 3 generic sildenafil inches in erect condition. Therefore, Musli Kaunch capsules viagra sales in canada and Spermac capsules are highly effective to stop this wrong practice. For the male, there can be erectile problems, premature ejaculation, and low testosterone level. viagra pfizer canada The main reason of less usage of sildenafil generic from canada this drug is its no requirement of prescription. “I’m not going to dwell on the decorum of the House here today, other than to say we are not going to allow stunts like this to stop us from carrying out the people’s business. Why do I call this a stunt? Well, because it is one… Let’s just be honest here. Here are some facts:

“Yesterday, the House Appropriations Committee considered its bill for Homeland Security spending. At the committee, Democrats offered in committee an amendment offering the gun measure they say they wanted. That amendment failed on a bipartisan basis. So just yesterday, the Democrats offered this gun measure they claim they want, and it failed on a bipartisan basis in committee. There was a vote, it was in the committee, through regular order, and the vote failed. That’s a fact they didn’t want to talk about.

“Here’s another one: if Democrats want a vote for a bill on the floor, there is a way to get one. It just takes 218 signatures on a petition, and they can have a vote. It is that simple. That’s how the House works—it’s a well-known process.

“But they’re not doing that. They are not trying to actually get this done through regular order. No, instead they’re staging protests. They’re trying to get on TV. They are sending out fundraising solicitations, like this one: Your contribution will go to the DCCC. Fifteen dollars. This one says, try giving us $25. But if you want, you can send us $50, $100, $250, $500, $1000. Because look at what we’re doing on the House floor. Send us money.

“If this is not a political stunt, then why are they trying to raise money off of this—off of a tragedy?

“What they’re calling for failed in a committee in the House. The reason I call this a stunt is because they know this isn’t going anywhere. It already failed in the Senate.

“They may not like this fact, but this bill couldn’t even get 50 votes in the United States Senate, let alone 60. Why is that? Why is it that this bill failed on a bipartisan basis in committee and this bill failed on a bipartisan basis in the Senate? Because in this country we do not take away people’s constitutional rights without due process.

“This is not just Republicans saying this. It’s groups like the ACLU who are saying this.”

Neither the immigration ruling nor the gun control legislation is the key issue here.  What is important is recognizing a pattern of contempt for the rule of law, and the Constitution itself, by Mr. Obama and his supporters in Congress. A dangerous precedent is being set, one which could lead to a breakdown of the form of government that has made the U.S. humanity’s most successful nation.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama Overreaches on Executive Power on Immigration

On February 18, the New York Analysis of Policy and Government noted:

“Has the Obama Administration decided to unilaterally, without the involvement of Congress, change the immigration law of the United States… In a report entitled ‘Immigration Handbook for the New Republican Majority’ outlining how Congress should respond to White House actions, Senator Sessions has accused the Obama Administration of acting unilaterally and in defiance of the Constitution. ‘President Obama has declared null and void the sovereign immigration laws of the United States in order to implement immigration measures the Congress has repeatedly and explicitly rejected. His order grants five million illegal immigrants work permits, Social Security, Medicare, and free tax credits—taking jobs and benefits directly from struggling American workers. U.S. citizens have been stripped of their protections they are entitled to under law…”

The issue is moving closer to a U.S. Supreme Court hearing. The Courthouse News Service  reported on March 29 that the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on April 18 on the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, or DAPA, plan, an executive action that Mr. Obama announced in November 2014, which was enjoined by the Fifth Circuit. Texas, and 25 other states, submitted the brief to the Supreme Court, noting that the DAPA’s immigration regarding the non-deportation of illegals violates the law, and constitutes an overreach of executive power.

SCOTUS Blog  reports “While the twenty-six states challenging the initiatives concede that the secretary of Homeland Security has unreviewable discretion to set immigration enforcement priorities (which the Supreme Court affirmed most recently in Arizona v. United States), they contend that the Obama administration has attempted to ‘effectively rewrite the laws’ through this particular use of its discretion. In particular, they argue that the Obama administration has exceeded the bounds of its authority on the basis that beneficiaries of DAPA and expanded DACA would be lawfully present and eligible for employment authorization while these initiatives are in effect.”

The American Immigration Council supports the concept that the President’s action is acceptable under “prosecutorial discretion,” and describes the program as follows:

“The Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) is a prosecutorial discretion program administered by USCISthat provides temporary relief from deportation (called deferred action) and work authorization to unauthorized parents of U.S. citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs). The DAPA program resembles the DACA program in some important respects, but the eligibility criteria are distinct.

The program will be open to individuals who:

  • have a U.S. citizen or LPR son or daughter as of November 20, 2014;
  • have continuously resided in the United States since before January 1, 2010;
  • are physically present in the United States on November 20, 2014, and at the time of applying;
  • have no lawful immigration status on November 20, 2014;
  • are not an enforcement priority, which is defined to include individuals with a wide range of criminal convictions (including certain misdemeanors), those suspected of gang involvement and terrorism, recent unlawful entrants, and certain other immigration law violators
  • present no other factors that would render a grant of deferred action inappropriate; and
  • pass a background check.

buy canada levitra The rest of the year, most biker women keep in touch by email and snail mail. Always and in every case need of alcohol rehabilitation is not needed, as for the people who have not traveled so far in the journey of drinking they can always return and focus on their lives this habit and what prescription viagra it’s doing to them. I would personally buy tadalafil 20mg tabulate the lab tests results, etc, and write it up. Comfort-level – It will decide sildenafil india the course of your action because if you don’t get to the basis of which is causing your emotional distress! It is also no big secret that people enjoy the consequences of alcohol! But, why can some like it occasionally while some require it daily? The stark difference here is that the occasional drinker is using it just for that; enjoying the chance to as the.
DAPA grants will last for three years. The DAPA program should be ready to receive applications within 180 days.”

The issue might expand. CNS’ Terence P. Jeffrey worries that if, as Solicitor General Donald Verrilli believes,  Obama has “prosecutorial discretion” to implement DAPA, he could also make illegals eligible for Social Security, disability and Medicare.

The brief submitted by the majority of all states in the U.S., notes Jeffrey, states that  “The Executive Branch unilaterally created a program — known as DAPA — that contravenes Congress’s complex statutory framework for determining when an alien may lawfully enter, remain in, and work in the country,” the attorney general and solicitor general of Texas explained in a brief submitted to the Supreme Court on behalf of the states seeking to block the policy. DAPA would deem over four million unlawfully present aliens as ‘lawfully present’ and eligible for work authorization, says the Texas brief. And ‘lawful presence’ is an immigration classification established by Congress that is necessary for valuable benefits, such as Medicare and Social Security.”

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes that the legal issue is not complex.  While the President has the discretion to take limited action in particular instances, it is clear that he cannot take steps that essentially nullify or alter an existing law. DAPA essentially does precisely that.