A Bay Area Reader Asks Why, Specifically, Is Obama’s Administrative Amnesty Unconstitutional?
Print Friendly and PDF

Re: Washington Watcher’s Look On The Bright Side—We Dodged A Bullet When Romney Passed Over Rubio For VP

From: John E. Jones [Email him]

Calling President Obama's deferrals unconstitutional misinforms the reader. 

The immigration statutes are larded with provisions granting discretion to the Attorney General; the two year DREAM act deferrals are an administrative exercise of discretion authorized by existing law, especially given the well established principle that the executive, in immigration matters, exercises authority akin to the foreign affairs power, an area almost immune to judicial review. 

While bandying about the charge of unconstitutionality may avoid the need to tell the reader all this, one would hope VDare.com readers would receive better.

All that being said, I favor reverting to our pre 1965 immigration scheme.

James Fulford writes: We'll ask Washington Watcher to write on this, but on the  constitutional question, it’s clear that while the Executive Branch has a lot of discretion, Obama’s Administrative Amnesty has gone beyond that.

The Treason Lobby has been trying to pass this DREAM Act amnesty since 2001, and they’ve always failed. The American people have rejected amnesty for the DREAMers.

Obama’s decision to do it anyway is a breach of the Separation of Powers, and ought to create a constitutional crisis, if there was anyone in the House of Senate with any nerve.

A  shorter  answer is that Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states that the "United States will defend each state from invasion", and that's what Obama isn't doing—as Jan Brewer could tell you.

Print Friendly and PDF