If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
AND CONTRADICTS HIS OWN STATEMENT MADE LAST YEAR
by Sharon Rondeau
(Jun. 17, 2012) — On June 15, 2012, Obama declared a “policy change” in immigration policy which would affect the presumptive deportation of young illegals who meet certain criteria without congressional approval. Also on June 15, Janet Napolitano, Director of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) told the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to “exercise prosecutorial discretion” when encountering such illegal aliens for consideration of “deferred action.”
Those who meet the criteria would be eligible for up to two years’ deferment of removal from the United States and application for work permits, but allegedly will not receive an automatic “pathway to citizenship.”
Obama has been charged with treason for violating the Posse Comitatus Act in March 2009. Neither he nor his Justice Department has answered the charge. If prosecuted, Obama could be removed from office.
The Center for Immigration Studies has called Obama’s executive order “a lawless act” and an administrative version of the DREAM Act, which Congress failed to pass in December 2010. The Pew Research Center has reported that Obama’s estimate of perhaps 800,000 youths who meet the criteria to halt deportation is closer to 1.4 million.
The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) stated that Obama had “declared the DREAM Act now in effect” by Friday’s executive order. FAIR has compiled state-by-state statistics on the cost of illegal immigration and estimates that in 2009, the cost to the state of California was more than $21 billion. In 2012, politicians and economists are increasingly describing California as “bankrupt,” partially because of a drain on the health care system by illegal aliens. Many hospital emergency rooms have closed because they “could not afford to stay open as they were endlessly swamped with illegal immigrants, unemployed Californians and homeless people who were simply not able to pay for the services that they were receiving.”
(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
In several statements issued on the subject of illegal immigration, the Obama regime had indicated support for circumventing current immigration law through a series of memos issued by John Morton, Director of Immigrations and Custom Enforcement. The memos narrowed the scope of illegals to be targeted for removal from the country and their directives also used the term “prosecutorial discretion.”
White House advisor David Plouffe denied that Obama’s move was “backdoor amnesty” and affirmed that the regime has been seeking to “build on a series of steps” to accomplish its goals relating to illegal aliens. In response, some citizen writers are opining that Obama is behaving more like a king than a president of a constitutional republic and making “misleading assertions.”
In 2009, Obama had encouraged Congress to pass the DREAM Act, and a website dedicated to the legislation states that it is “home to the largest community of undocumented youth” in the United States. Provisions of the DREAM Act required a person to be “of good moral character” and 15 years of age or younger upon entry to the U.S. The site provides guidance on how people might deal with their own violations of federal immigration law.
Rep. Steve King (R-IA) has reportedly filed a lawsuit with the purpose of stopping Obama’s “policy change” from being implemented. King maintains that the issue is “about the Constitution and the rule of law.”
Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has provided an affidavit and might appear at a hearing in Florida on June 18 regarding Obama’s constitutional eligibility to serve as president and the placement of his name on the state ballot, has vowed to continue to arrest illegals in his county despite Obama’s edict on Friday. The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a brief requesting that the Florida case against Barack Hussein Obama be dismissed despite his having presented no proof that he meets the U.S. constitution’s requirement that he be a “natural born Citizen.” The U.S. Department of Justice has claimed that proving his eligibility would prove to be “an undue burden and expense” for Obama.
Arpaio is known to maintain a strict approach to illegal aliens in his county. In reference to Obama’s policy change, Arpaio said in an interview, “If there’s no law, we won’t enforce it.” He indicated that he is expecting an imminent ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court on Arizona’s immigration law passed in 2010 and stated that Obama’s announcement appears to be “politically-motivated.”
The Obama regime has sued the states of Arizona and Alabama over immigration laws passed by their state legislatures. The Justice Department has also filed suit against Arpaio, claiming that he has committed civil rights and constitutional violations. Arpaio has conducted an investigation into the long-form birth certificate which Obama released on April 27, 2011 in an attempt to convince the public that he was born in Hawaii which might purportedly qualify him for the presidency.
Arpaio’s office and Cold Case Posse have declared Obama’s birth certificate, Social Security number, and Selective Service registration form to be forgeries.
Research has shown that birthplace in the country might qualify an individual as “native-born” but not “natural born,” which is mandated by Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Often the two terms are used interchangeably.
It appears that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer expects the Supreme Court to uphold the state’s law, although the Justice Department claimed that the Arizona law posed a “conflict with federal law.” But does Obama’s executive order pose a conflict with “federal law?”