The difference between immigration policy and soundbites for votes

By Michael Vass | July 3, 2012

Pres. Obama at SOTUPresident Obama, in the face of mounting pressure to avert the pressumed decision of the Supreme Court, announced on June 15, 2012 a new policy on illegal immigration. This new policy, affecting the nation, was not approved or even reviewed by the Congress. It was not presented to the American public for debate or comment. It was a unilateral decision made by the President without transparency, with great benefit to his supporters and re-election efforts, without regard to its impact on the nation.

President Obama said,

“They are Americans in their heart, in their minds, in every single way but one: on paper.”

That paper happening to be the immigration laws of the nation, enacted by Congress. Laws that continue to exist but now are curbed to allow de facto criminals, who are actively evading the legal system, to get a pass. An expansion of the powers of the Executive branch that if done by any prior Administration would have resulted in a massive backlash from the news media and civic groups. But the Obama Administration has been and continues to be a favored politician, with much of his actions excused or overlooked.

Take into account what is the result of the change in immigration law that President Obama chose for the nation.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, on implimentation of the policy created by the Executive branch only, released a memo (Exercising Proset¢orial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children)

“Our Nation’s immigration laws must be enforced in a strong and sensible manner.”

Strong and sensible. Indicating a set of rules and guidelines that must be adhered to for the consistent and legal implementation of the directive of the President while maintaining the law created by Congress. Considering the legnth of some laws passed by Congress, and the ability of criminals to seek out loopholes in such laws, one might expect a detailed set of criteria and clarity of purpose.

The reality is far from that.

The news media has long enjoyed the rush of announcing news that impacts the nation, without concern on the follow-up of how the impact affects the nation – especially when such an impact may go against the perception of the favorites of the news media at large. An example would be the lack of coverage over the Stolen Valor decision of the Supreme Court. Another is the current, or total, results from the Obama Stimulus. Yet another would be the impact on foreclosures from the economic decision(s) of President Obama. Or the repayment of the Government takeover of GM and Chrysler. The list goes on.

ICE new immigration proposal - Sept 9, 2010


If the media were to seriously investigate the impact of the decisions of the current President, rather than rush to focus on the latest announcement affecting the re-election effort, they might have asked the following questions that Rep. Lamar Smith, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committe asked of the US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE): [Rep. Lamar Smith's question in bold]

  • When does this policy go into effect? – An obvious question that neither President Obama nor Secretary Napolitano have yet to address publicly or in memos.
  • Who will be conducting reviews to determine eligible aliens? What is the standard for the review? – Who and what, critical questions that compel answers and yet are unknown.
  • What type of documents are acceptable? – To prevent forgery and abuse it would be expected that highly secure and provable docuaments should be used, but the President places no emphasis or even glancing attention to this.
  • Are aliens who become fugitives after being ordered removed eligible for defferment under this policy? – Who does this actually affect, and if they are confirmed as a criminal that must be deported does this override the legal requirements already in place?
  • When an applicant is deemed ineligible for amnesty under this policy will the applicant be detained and put into deportation proceedings? – What is to be done with those that this policy does not cover and are found by Government authorities?
  • Will there be an appeal process for those deemed ineligible? Id so what is the process? – Do the illegal aliens get a second bite at the apple?
  • How is “convicted” and “significant misdemeanor” defined by this policy? – Does a J-walking ticket count, or intoxicated in public, or DUI, or a host of other violations? Do they count in combination?

    The list of questions goes on and on. Each is a valid question, never asked of President Obama, nor Secretary Napolitano. Each, while they remain unanswered, removes clarity of action and diminishes the abillity to have a “strong and sensible” enforcement of the policy or existing law.

    Thus are the problems with unilateral actions made for the benefit of a singular entity. There is too much that is unknown, and far too much room for abuse.

  • What if this policy does not take affect until after the presidential election, thus misleading proponents of such amnesty laws to vote for a candidate on the assumtion that it is in effect now?
  • What if policy never clarifies if an appeal is possible, and therefore illegal aliens are selected for appeal on a basis of ability to speak without an accent, or color of skin, or the ease of pronouncing their name?
  • What if, an illegal alien with DUI’s is given amnesty and then gets another DUI that results in the injury or death of even 1 person/child?
  • What if, a student is given amnesty but thier family and/or friends do not qualify?
  • What is the impact to the legal system if, due to the lack of clarity, tens of thousands of legal cases are filed, bogging down the court system even more?

    Do proponents of the amnesty policy agree with all the above outcomes? Do the American people agree?

    Yes, the few minites it took for President Obama to announce the amnesty policy for criminal aliens likely boosted his ratings and election prospects with those in favor of such a law. It has made for a great soundbite for Liberals, and was probaly welcomed in San Fransisco and similar sanctuary cities. But the reality only complicates an immigration policy that is filled with grey, slanted by politics, and can be universally said to be inadequate to the needs and desire of the nation.

    Political elections count on the fact that neither news media, nor the public at large, will stop to pay attention to the details. But those details always come back to the forefront, and arguably never for the benefit of anyone involved.

    ***Only your support allows us to provide event coverage; interviews with politicians; coverage of local, State, and national elections; and political commentary. Visit Alchemy at World of VASS, by a gift or 2 – there is something for everyone. We thank you for all your viewership and support.***

    Rating 4.00 out of 5

    Related posts:

    1. Commentary on the SCOTUS Arizona immigration decision
    2. Mexico and President Obama agree, Arizona Immigration Law is bad
    3. About the immigration protests – 5.1.2007.1
    4. Illegal aliens? Where? Nevermind.
    5. Back to immigration reform

    Comments

    Twitter Users
    Enter your personal information in the form or sign in with your Twitter account by clicking the button below.

    Twitter Tweet This

    « | Home | »