November 4, 2014
President Obama’s ‘Lame Duck’ Mass Amnesty Plan
original article written by Net Advisor™
WASHINGTON DC. The Obama Administration has been ‘quietly’ planning a massive amnesty plan AFTER the 2014 Midterm elections. Why after the Mid-term elections? President Obama does not want to upset millions of voters that are already ‘angry’ says ABC News and CNN polls. Any more unilateral Presidential action of massive amnesty would arguably insure Democrats’ re-election defeat.
[1] Lame Duck
The period where one party loses control in Congress is called a “Lame Duck.” If the Democrats lose majority control in the U.S. Senate, Harry Reid (D-Nev.) who has blocked some 350 pieces of bi-partisan legislation including some 40 jobs bills proposed by the (R) controlled House, would be forced to step down.
Assuming post 2014 Mid-term victory for a majority control in the House and Senate by Republicans, Democrats will stay in power until sometime in January 2015 depending on any run-off elections. During this time, President Obama is more likely to bypass Congress and illegally abuse his Executive Authority and grant work permits and or de facto amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.
For example, during a Lame Duck session of Congress, Democrats lost control of Congressional power under President Clinton. The highly controversial North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed by President Clinton (D-Ark.) with Vice President Al Gore (D-Tenn.) casting the decided vote [Report, Point 7].
The result of NAFTA EXPORTED millions of jobs out of the USA [Report, Point 6] into countries like Mexico and Canada where labor is cheaper, and regulations are easier on business.
[2] How Reid Will Suppress Entire Senate During a Lame Duck Session
During the (2014 potential) Lame Duck session in the Senate, the House would (or should) block any illegal action by the White House. This requires the Senate to agree with the House. With Harry Reid (D-Nev.) as the current Democratic Senate Majority Whip, Reid can and will likely do nothing (effectively acting like an Accessory), allowing a President to illegally violate Constitutional authority.
[3] A Brief Look at Two of Obama’s Illegal Amnesty Programs
President Obama has numerous existing amnesty programs running without Congressional or Constitutional authority. “Asylum” (Amnesty) is up TEN TIMES Under Pres. Obama.
Lately, for whatever reason, President Obama has chosen the island nation of Haiti to allow 100,000 Haitians to come to the USA without a Visa, and grant them work permits.
The Obama Admin has a “refugee resettlement” program allowing undocumented (illegal alien minors) who arrive illegally in the USA, be allowed to stay in the USA. It’s a bit difficult to call people who traveled through Latin America and Mexico who then decided to “settle” in the USA be called, “refugees?” This is called, amnesty.
The Obama Administration is also permitting 200,000 illegal alien minors (include any adult or pseudo parent with them to come to the USA) through 2016. The Obama Administration told the media they were surprised at the number of minors and adults showing up at the U.S. border. The Obama Administration called this surge at the border, a “humanitarian situation.”
The facts are, the Obama Admin created this situation and upon everyone else discovering it, needed to re-frame the violation of federal immigrations laws.
Under U.S. law, any child in the USA is provided free K-12 education, welfare, healthcare (PDF) and other support all at the expense of existing U.S. citizen taxpayers.
[4] For Judicial Review
I’m not a lawyer, but did some research in this area and found the following for judicial review. According to Cornell University Law School, it is Congress – NOT THE PRESIDENT, who has the authority to pass any statutes that regulate immigration.
“Congress has the preeminent power in terms of passing statutes that regulate immigration and alienage. Consequently, the United States Constitution enables Congress to delineate the rights, duties, and liabilities that accompany legal immigrant status.”
— Source: Cornell University Law School
According to U.S. federal statute, any one who encourages or induces an alien to come to the (illegally) is in violation of law:
Any person who—
(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
(v)
(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
— Title 8 United States Code § 1324 (Source: Cornell Law School)
U.S. Government records state if one has been found in violation of the above Title 8 U.S. Code § 1324,
“shall be guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $2,000 or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or both, for each alien in respect to whom any violation of this subsection occurs…”
— Source: Official U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), page 347, Title 8 USC § 1324a (PDF)
[5] Obama Complicit in Enforcing the Laws He Swore to Uphold
A 2013 article argued that the federal government under the Obama Administration has become “complicit” in allowing illegal (drug) cartels traffic minors into the USA, and then border enforcement finishing the (drug) cartel’s job by delivering the illegal alien to their desired destination.
For those readers who have difficulty with the source of the graphic, please refer to the law:
“All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
— United States Constitution Article I, Section 1. (Source: Cornell University Law School)
Note the U.S. Constitution does not say, ‘all legislative power herein shall be vested in a president, monarch, dictator, king, or whatever he or she feels like.’ Such unilateral action by a President is not in alignment with Constitutional law nor is the intent of our Founders.
[6] ALL U.S. Presidents REQUIRED by Law to Uphold and Defend the U.S. Constitution
Prior to taking elected office, a U.S. President MUST swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
— United States Constitution Article II, Section 1, Clause 8. Source: University of Chicago, Records of the Federal Convention
According to Jon Roland a long-time anti-war, left-oriented Democrat at the Constitution Society, apparently turned Libertarian said the only time a President can lie, deceive, omit, or withhold information from the public must be exclusively related to national security issues. This may be to protect our troops and movements to keep the U.S. safer.
[7] Violation of Oath of Office Risks Impeachment
Mr. Roland said, “The word “perjury” is usually defined today as “lying under oath about a material matter”, but that is not its original or complete meaning, which is “violation of an oath”. We can see this by consulting the original Latin from which the term comes. From An Elementary Latin Dictionary, by Charlton T. Lewis (1895), Note that the letter “j” is the letter “i” in Latin.”
Thus, according to Mr. Roland, a U.S. President CANNOT commit public perjury (Latin: periurus), or break their President oath (Latin: periurium).
A President does not have the legal authority to bypass Congress’ Constitutional Authority to legislate as a president sees fit. A President cannot move unilaterally on legislative action with an excuse such as: ‘If Congress won’t act (meaning not do what I command), I (Obama as President) will act (without a Congress)’ (or the similar statement).
The United States Constitution has explicit laws of what Congress is supposed to do anytime a President, Vice President, or civil Officers (such as Congress including the Senate) exceed certain authority:
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
— United States Constitution Article II, Section 4 (Disqualification). Source: U.S. Constitution.net
Note the U.S. Constitution says “SHALL, be removed from office,” not might, not could be, not, we’ll it’s just not a big deal on this issue or that issue, or, we might be called names, or polls show blah blah blah, or it might hurt our next election. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it says, “SHALL, be removed from office…”
In January 2014, Obama threatened to bypass Congress by saying:
“One of the things that I will be emphasizing in this meeting is the fact that we are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we are providing Americans the kind of help that they need. I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone. And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward.”
— Source: MEDIAite, Jan. 14, 2014 (HTML PDF)
[8] Obama: On the Wrong Track
Americans aren’t interested in amnesty of millions of illegals, they are interested in jobs and unemployment issues (the economy). Again, the President cannot use Executive Orders to bypass Congress’ Constitutional Legislative Authority under Article I.
Yet, don’t let law stop Obama and his party violate the United States Constitutional to press for their personal political agenda? President Obama called Republicans “radicals” earlier this year and Left Democrats called the Tea Party “hostage takers, anarchists, suicide bombers and terrorists.” one judges radical by their actions.
Clear violation(s) of Constitutional authority is effectively deemed illegal, and thus radical by our Forefathers who wrote the Constitution to move away from a tyrannical government, and to provide a legal method to avoid having the U.S. be placed in tyranny again (Read: Declaration of Independence (July 04, 1776).
[9] Democrat Senator: Obama’s Amnesty Would Be Challenged
California Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein said in September 2014 that ‘if President Obama bypasses Congress and takes unilateral action on immigration’ that “it would be legally challenged.”
A U.S. Federal Judge previously said that Obama’s immigration policy of effectively trafficking illegal aliens is unlawful. The Obama Administration (DHS) is already in violation of federal immigration and trafficking laws says this Federal Judge in his 2013 ruling.
Senator Feinstein claims that ‘House Republicans have sat on (immigration reform) for over a year.’ Many Conservatives in the House are concerned about border security, and any so called “immigration reform” (amnesty) will just open the borders to even more people the U.S. cannot sustain financially.
[10] Problem With “Immigration Reform”
The problem with “immigration reform” is the false presupposition that the immigration system is broken. The real problem is that the laws are not being enforced or being enforced uniformly, and the lack of proper border security places the USA at risk.
Democrats are looking for new voters; and some establishment Republicans are looking for cheaper labor. Neither of these scenarios represents the interest of existing citizens of the United States who will ultimately pay higher taxes to fund the vast programs for illegals, and compete for jobs.
[11] House Passes Border Security Bill – ZERO Dem Support
On August 1, 2014, Congress including the House, Senate and the White House normally was scheduled to leave for vacation.
Pressured by Conservatives and Tea Party members motivated the House to pass a $694 Million border security bill. Not one single Democrat voted for the border security bill.
This should clearly tell you that Democrats have no interest in U.S. border security. Borders make a nation sovereign. A border is necessary to have domestic security from foreign invasion whether it’s economic risk – straining financial resources such as welfare, education, and healthcare; or by crime; or to cause chaos by anti-U.S. factions (terrorists).
[12] Summary
The People should watch what the President does in the Lame Duck session of Congress. Will Obama make good on his threats to unilaterally bypass Congress again and issue his own law on massive immigration (amnesty)?
Will Congress, SCOTUS, or fellow Democrats stop a clear violation of Executive Authority? Based on the current Republican leadership, there are no plans to stop Obama from doing anything illegal, even though it’s their duty to uphold and defend the Constitution too.
As for that border security bill passed by the House? That bill died in the U.S. Senate as Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was not interested presenting the Bill for the entire Senate to consider. Reid went on vacation instead of protecting the U.S. border.
If you have enjoyed our reports, consider donating any amount to help fray the costs of operations. Please read more in the upper right column. Share this report on Facebook and Twitter. Thank you!
Related:
Immigration Laws:
- Authorizing law enforcement to arrest and detain certain illegal aliens – 8 USC § 1252c
- Illegal Entrants and Immigration Violators – 22 CFR Part 40, Subpart G
- Reimbursement of States for costs of incarcerating illegal aliens – 8 USC § 1365
Original article content, Copyright © 2014 NetAdvisor.org® All Rights Reserved.
NetAdvisor.org® is a non-profit organization providing public education and analysis primarily on the U.S. financial markets, personal finance and analysis with a transparent look into U.S. public policy. We also perform and report on financial investigations to help protect the public interest. Read More.
