Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Obama’s Lawless Amnesty Foiled Again
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected the Obama administration’s request that it be allowed to go forward with its scheme to amnesty several million illegal aliens without Congress’s permission.
Twenty-six states, led by Texas, sued to stop the president’s plans, which he announced in November, to issue work permits, Social Security numbers, driver’s licenses, and more to illegal immigrants who have U.S.-citizen or permanent-resident children.
In February, District Judge Andrew Hanen issued an injunction preventing the administration from going ahead with the amnesty until the issue had been fully adjudicated and it is that injunction which was kept in place by today’s Circuit Court ruling. The Justice Department could appeal this decision to the Supreme Court, though it hasn’t yet announced whether it will do so.
This ruling (unless it’s overturned by the Supreme Court) means that if the underlying lawsuit about the legality of Obama’s edicts goes Texas’s way, it won’t be a moot point. In other words, if millions of illegal aliens had been issued work permits, Social Security numbers, etc., the likelihood those would be taken away if the program is eventually ruled illegal is pretty small.
Because the underlying case about the program’s legality will also go through multiple appeals, it’s entirely possible there won’t be a final decision before January 20, 2017. That means two things: Opponents of Obama’s lawless edicts may only have to run out the clock to stop them, assuming a Republican is elected next November. And second, Hillary is going to make this a major theme of her campaign, which was already clear from her statement a few weeks ago that she’d go even farther than Obama in issuing unilateral amnesty decrees. No doubt she made the assertion to shore up her left flank, but it could come back to haunt her if a skillful Republican candidate can use it as yet one more example of her contempt for law.
I know — “skillful Republican candidate” may be an oxymoron.
Published in General, Law
It doesn’t take a skillful Republican candidate. All it takes is someone who is listening to the American people rather than listening only to his campaign contributors and consultants. Hardly rocket science.
But the worst thing an eventual GOP candidate could do is frame the matter of this executive action overreach to Constitutional principles. That’s the kind of “Debate Club BS” that only appeals to a small segment of the electorate and is easily logic-chopped.
The right and easy way to frame the argument is within an overall program that REDUCES legal immigration from the one million plus per year amounts we’ve suffered through since 1965.
That’s a ticket the majority of Americans want to punch.
“If you don’t want to transform America, why do you support high levels of legal immigration?”
“Please tell us what is wrong with America’s citizens that we have to import a million non-Americans every year?”
“Do you favor increasing, maintaining or reducing the current number of one million legal immigrants every year? If you say maintaining or increasing, then for how much longer?”
“If you say you favor immigration because your grandfather was an immigrant, are you also a Democrat because he was one?”
Thanks for the update, Mr. Krikorian–good news, for once. Do you think this is likelier to persuade the GOP contenders & Congress to do more or less of what their electorate wants on immigration policy–something they have rather avoided & neglected?
I’m afraid it may just enable them to keep avoiding & neglecting the issue — they’ll say it’s in the hands of the courts, so let’s talk about something else please!
I could not agree more with Freesmith. This is a winning argument for Republicans, but only if they argue the merits, or lack of, of unrestricted immigration. Normal Americans are not interested in procedural or technical arguments, but the agree on the substance of our arguments.
I share your fears. Glad to know someone is keeping up to date with the onslaught. Again, thanks.
Do you think the states can do something, while in court, to make this a national issue? Texas is not an early-primary state, unfortunately. Do you have any suggestions for what might be done–including on Ricochet–to get contenders for the nomination to give serious answers?
I agree that Republican (and Democratic) candidates need to argue the substance of their positions (assuming they even know what their own positions are at any given moment). But lawlessness is its own freestanding issue, not merely a technical or procedural matter. This administration’s conduct has demonstrated a pattern of disregard for democratic governance that threatens the very concept of self-government. The caesarism issue is no substitute for substantive comment on immigration. as much as GOP politicians might want it to be. But if it’s ignored then we’ve implicitly accepted new rules of the game, in effect amending the Constitution (for the worse) without going through the required steps.
This is the key question — can we get the presidential candidates to actually say what they want, especially on legal immigration? Both the public and the media need to ask for concrete numbers and categories regarding immigration: How many people should the federal immigration program admit? How should they be selected? Is the current level of ~1 million per year too high, too low, just right? Why? Which categories of relatives should get special family-based immigration rights and which ones should only be admitted if they can qualify in some other way? These are pretty basic questions and it’s scandalous that we go election after election without getting concrete answers.
Indeed. I do not believe the American electorate knows the basic facts of immigration policy nor the basic questions to ask. But it seems very few people will have to deal with that, especially conservatives–then again, there are others who talk about the immigration crisis as what it is, not the romanced by the gov’t story…, like Mr. Kaus…
Do you expect that immigration will be prominent in the GOP debates? Do you think there is any publication or candidate who is going to try to make it an issue, put it on the agenda?
Mark Krikorian:
Here’s precisely what we want Republican presidential candidates to say – “Today, America needs fewer immigrants.”
Let the debate begin from that premise.
Titus Techera:
The Republican base has to insist, loudly and forcefully, that immigration must be a major issue in the quest for the nomination. These are the months to do it, when a plethora of hopefuls is scouring diners, backyard barbecues and VFW halls for a few votes.
One way to do that is to reject all boilerplate responses and weasel word answers. “Enforce current laws.” “Secure the borders.” “More money for enforcement.” “Build the dang fence!” These are the ways in which Republicans throw slop to the base while they cater to the Adelsons of the world.
It’s the way they avoid talking about the one thing they don’t want to discuss – NUMBERS.
Pin them down. Make them talk about numbers. Make them answer the questions I posed in my initial comment above.
For instance, Rubio has walked away from his own Senate bill; but that bill DOUBLED legal immigration. Has Rubio changed his mind on that number, or does he believe that the bill was just not presented correctly: i.e., should have had border security first?
I want to know. My vote will be determined by the answer.
Furthermore, organizations like Mark Krikorian’s and others which are strongly against continued high levels of immigration have to start organizing in Iowa and New Hampshire right now. The goal must be to have an informed cadre of GOP primary voters both spreading the word about the perils of one million plus levels of immigration and prepared to confront the candidates everywhere they go.
For fifty years we conservatives have been waiting for our politicians to make immigration an issue in their campaigns. History shows they’d rather not. We have to do it ourselves.
Let’s do it.
I was thinking about that. Mr. Long has recently talked about doing something with Ricochet in the early primary states. Maybe we can persuade them to put immigration on the agenda.
I agree. I do not need these men to agree with us–but I need them to pledge there will be no amnesty of any kind during their time in office.
Confront them with the truth about crimes committed by illegal aliens & the way criminals are not deported. So long as immigration is about poor people wanting to make it in the earthly paradise, they’re sitting pretty. I agree untold billions would rather have it better, possibly in America. But that’s not the point here–it’s not their decision. Start with forcing the immigration crowd to defend the horrifying crimes.
Titus, your proposed argument won’t work. It is easily trumped. One might as well confront liberals with the crimes of the poor in order to change welfare policies. Before you can say Jack Robinson you’re the one confronted by the poor pitiful single mom struggling to raise her potential honor students – all she needs is a little help and then they’ll all be good taxpayers too! Same with immigration: Lawrence Kudlow will lay the “brainiacs” on you, Andy Grove will be cited ad nauseum and you’ll have Emma Lazarus stuffed up your keester.
Numbers, man, numbers. Most Americans do not know, because they haven’t been told, how many foreigners are brought into the US legally every year. Most Americans don’t know, because they haven’t been told, that we now have the largest foreign-born contingent of our population in our history and that the percentage is rising. Most Americans don’t know, because they haven’t been told, that the growth of the US population over the last 30 years is due strictly to immigration.
Tell them.
I was ready to fight up until I heard the dread name of Emma Lazarus. That’s just unbearable–unbeatable, I meant.
As for the crimes of the poor–c’mere, I have good news for you: It’s been decades of people paying for & voting for tough policing, even though it means policing the poor. Not a lot of trust fund kids committing thousands of murders a year between the lot of them…
I’m with you here. But I think the main work has got to be about smoking guns. People will not turn against immigration until you show them the damage. Numbers in the abstract will not do it… Look at my goddess of war post–there’s one who will shout the ugly truths past the people who preach deafness–the Ricochet podcast will host the goddess herself next week. Can’t hardly wait-