Posted on 06/29/2010 5:14:10 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
There is currently a rumor spreading around that the Obama administration has been having talks with the Department of Homeland Security on whether it is possible to give amnesty to the estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants currently thought to be living in the United States of America. Bill O’Reilly mentioned this rumor on the “Talking Points” segment of his Friday evening show “The O’Reilly Factor”.
Mr. O’Reilly was at pains to stress that this rumor, which had originated among some Republicans, was NOT something that he believed in. He declared that if it did come true, there would be grounds for impeachment.
“Also, the President has appointed a sanctuary city supporter as liaison between the feds and the states on the immigration issue. Harold Hurrt, former police chief in Houston and Phoenix, is outwardly sympathetic to illegal aliens. As [police] chief, he refused to enforce federal immigration law. Now Hurrt is a federal immigration official? Come on, that's insane.”
He discussed the rumors of a possible attempt by the administration to bypass Congress, declared clearly that he did believe these claims, and then stated:
“However, the hiring of Chief Hurtt proves that the President is extremely “left” on the immigration issue. So, we have a better policy in Afghanistan and a worse policy in the immigration arena. Confusion is never good for any country. All the polls say the folks are losing confidence in Mr. Obama’s leadership……”
Harold Hurtt resigned from his post as chief of police in Houston, Texas, in December 2009, after the new mayor-elect, Annise Parker, had expressed a desire for a new chief of HPD. Hurtt had been in Houston as police chief since early 2004, at the behest of Mayor Bill White.
Last night, the widow of a Houston police officer who had been murdered by an illegal immigrant, condemned the policies that Hurtt had allowed to continue during his tenure as HPD chief. Joslyn Johnson, who is a police sergeant, said that policies that prevented police from checking the immigration status of suspects remained in force nearly seven months after Hurtt retired.
Sgt. Johnson blamed these policies for the death of her husband Rodney, and is suing Hurtt. It is argued that if Hurtt had implemented the measures contained in the ICE 287 (g) program (allowing local law enforcement agents to link up with ICE agents), the illegal immigrant could have been identified as illegal and deported before he carried out the murder. The 287 (g) program would have given training and support to officers in the handling of illegals. On September 21, 2006, while he was handcuffed in the back of Rodney Johnson’s patrol car, the illegal alien had managed to bring his arms to the front, withdraw a gun and shoot Officer Johnson four times in the back of the head.
In his role as HPD chief, Hurtt had apparently decided that implementing the federal 287 (g) program was not the best use of available resources. On Wednesday June 23, 63-year old Hurtt took up the post of director of ICE's Office of State and Local Coordination. He will commence his duties on July 6. On the day that his appointment was announced, he defended his decision not to implement the 287 (g) program in Houston, saying: “I had concerns about officers in the field concentrating their efforts and resources on the enforcement of immigration.”
Letters
On Saturday, News Max mentioned that last Monday (June 21) eight Republican senators had written to the president expressing their fears that he may grant a unilateral amnesty or deferred action, if his attempts to reform immigration faltered in Congress.
Those who signed the letter are Charles Grassley of Iowa, Orrin Hatch of Utah, David Vitter of Louisiana, Jim Bunning of Kentucky, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, James Inhofe of Oklahoma and Thad Cochran of Mississippi.
Republican Congressman Steve King of Iowa had suggested to Fox News that the White House had been consulting experts on a means to grant amnesty to a “large number of people.”
Something is wrong if senators feel that they are so alarmed by what a President “may” do that they should feel the need to write open letters. Shortly after the missive by the eight senators was sent to the President, another letter was given to the President, signed by 87 out of America’s 100 senators. This letter, spurred on by Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, urged the President to stand firm behind Israel while it faced challenges to its existence, including that posed by Turkish Islamist “charity” IHH which led the “Gaza Flotilla.”
Letters, and rumors of possible attempts to bypass Congress, thrive in a climate of uncertainty. Until recently, the Taliban knew more about the administration’s plans to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, than many American politicians knew about the White House plans to tackle immigration.
The saying “nature abhors a vacuum” seems applicable here, and the plunge in approval ratings for the administration, as well as the anxiety born of uncertainty driving senators to write letters, seems to derive from a lack of real leadership and direction.
Last week we had the undignified and shocking sight of a Republican senator (Jon Kyl, Arizona) claiming:
“Here's what the President said: “If we secure the border, then you all won't have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform,” in other words they're holding it hostage. They don't want to secure the border unless and until it's combined with comprehensive immigration reform."
When Jon Kyl was then accused of not telling the truth by Presidential aides, the mood turned surreal. And still, little seems to have moved forward on the issue of border security or illegal immigration. Last week it was suggested that, instead of either presenting a plan of immigration reform, or deciding to act decisively on illegal immigration, Eric Holder would be suing Arizona for its “discriminatory” immigration law. When a law has been made because federal authorities have not made an effort to address the illegality of illegal immigration, and the administration attempts to penalize those who introduce such a law, it seems that the lunatics have taken over the asylum.
If some strong sense of leadership is not presented soon, rather than prevarication and uttering nonsensical dogma, November will become a turkey shoot for the GOP. There seems a dithering that is unhealthy.
The issue of illegal immigration is important. Why have any immigration rules if those who have flaunted these rules get rewarded? The Dream act has made allowances for those who were minors when they were brought in, but their parents have no right to stay. Voters will need to know what the administration intends to do about immigration, and Harold Hurtt does not inspire confidence.
When senators feel they have to write letters, this happens because even they – despite being close to the heart of the establishment - have been kept in the dark by the shadowy nucleus inside the administration.
For the sake of national stability, the leadership must lay its cards on the table and state exactly WHAT it intends to do, about the oil spill, the oil moratorium, Afghanistan, Iraq, border security, the economy…. Any other approach will create a larger vacuum into which will flow doubt, distrust, contempt, and paranoia.
Enclosing oneself in quiet rooms, discussing endlessly with advisers on the options available, is not leadership. It may be governance. If a decision is made and then declared as a diktat, then it could be seen as imposing authority, even being a “ruler.” But true leadership requires acting in a manner that inspires others to follow. Leadership is about setting out objectives with confidence and earnestness. Indecisiveness is a political kiss of death.
The immigration issue, and how to deal with those who have illegally entered the country, is important to many voters. When universal health insurance is implemented, will there be a movement to protest that people who may not be legal can sue for having their rights breached, when asked for their identity and documentation?
Are some more equal than others?
When this administration came to power, many hailed the move as an end to racial discrimination, at least in politics. Copious buckets of newsprint gushed into editorials around the world, praising the election of a black president, apparently fulfilling Martin Luther King’s famous “dream”.
Yet where does Dr. King’s vision mesh with the nation that the United States has become – where Federal Judge Stephen C. Robinson has ruled that in Port Chester, N.Y., each Hispanic resident can have six votes, but non-Hispanics can only have one vote? This was because – despite having the vote – Hispanics (comprising half of the population of 30,000) had failed to vote in a Hispanic candidate. They had a choice, and a chance to vote in a Hispanic candidate, but did not use that right. Defying the fundamental principles of democracy, principles of “reparation” are imposed, in a grossly unequal manner. When there are enough Hispanic trustees, will the ruling be reversed?
On the front of the United States Supreme Court building is engraved the legend: “Equal under the law”. Those words have been taken to heart by Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis who is at pains to reassure undocumented (read: illegal alien) workers that she is supporting their rights. Illegal aliens’ inalienable rights are protected. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan has supported sharia finance, when sharia law is based upon discrimination, both against women and against non-Muslims.
Even though Arizona Governor Jan Brewer insisted that training would be given to law enforcement officials to ensure that the state Immigration Bill SB 1070 did not allow discrimination, Attorney General Eric Holder will swoop down to sue the state for racial discrimination, while little is done to prevent illegal immigration and the crime that follows in its wake. Will Harold Hurtt provide an answer? And Stephen C. Robinson declares that Hispanics in Port Chester should be given six times more the “equality under the law” than anyone else, and gets no censure from the government.
Something is rotten in the state of the nation. And in the Gulf, where the oil still spills, there are fears of an imminent hurricane……
Not a fan of OReilly, but I think he’s right on this one...
If Obama tries it, he’s toast.
10 million? more like 30-40 million.
There certainly isn’t any rush to get rid of the illegals and now Obozo is calling on “immigrant rights groups” and unions to push for amnesty.
bttt
If Obama tries this by an Executive Order, the EO could be rejected by the Senate and overridden. Do any of you remember Executive Order 13083 when Bill Clinton tried to remove the Tenth Amendment? The Senate overturned it and tonguelashed the White House. Seems like the vote was 99-0, or something similar. Obama might have been elected by a slight majority, but that majority is evaporated. He should be impeached if he tries to circumvent the congress.
Asylum and permanent residency are both strictly controlled by existing US law. As such, they cannot be undone by an Executive Order, and the law(s) as it currently exists, do not allow for such asylum to virtually all of these immigrants, nor does it outlaw for an expedited permanent residency process (short of asylum).
I suppose it's possible something could be slipped into some omnibus budget bill, or other huge piece of legislation that would amend the existing law. That would be somewhat unlikely, but not altogether impossible.
If enough oil spills in the gulf they will be able to ride in buses from Mexico to Florida. ;-)
Well, in the interest of accuracy, that's not entirely correct. The branch of government most likely to intervene would be the Judiciary, who still maintains judicial review of (almost) all Executive Orders. Executive Orders cannot make new law if that power wasn't ceded to the President in previously passed legislation, nor can an Executive Order set-aside existing law.
For Congress to undo an Executive Order, both houses would have to pass legislation, and assuming the legislation was vetoed by the President, they'd have to override that veto like any other veto, 2/3rds majority in each house.
Can’t wait to get my quota of those bastards.
This is a relief to know.
However, how do you know all this stuff? I’m amazed.
If history gives us any guide, leftists do not care about the finer points of the law. The question becomes, Could he get away with it?
I didn't "know it" until it came up last week and I took the time over the weekend to read the relevant statutes. Like so many other people, I just wasn't sure.
The suit DID NOT give Hispanics six votes and everybody else one. It gave EVERYBODY six votes, which they could plump for one candidate or divide amongst up to six candidates. IN other words, "cumulative voting" as practiced in some corporations, and for the Illinois legislature, prior to the 1970s.
He screwed that pooch when he insulted the Supreme Court, in person and on national television. Presidential Executive Orders have only been struck down by the Supreme Court twice in the previous 235 years of the Republic. I'm positive this would be number three.
Keep in mind, however, he could still pardon them. Pardons are viewed as an absolute power of the President, not subject to review. Once they're pardoned, that's it. They can no longer be prosecuted, but they can still be deported.
As Former Army special forces .. I welcome this meeting!
Maybe a good idea or maybe not, but wasn’t six for some and one for others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.