As a federalist libertarian and constitutionalist, I can't find a lot of problems with pardoning illegals if the president finds the law unjust. The pardon was given to the executive as an unlimited check against both Congress and the courts: Congress could ban something, and the courts could find people guilty, but the executive could still free the person.

A pardon has a weakness: it forgives post facto, not pre facto. Mr. Obama cannot use them like an indulgence, saying "I pardon you for staying here". Since the act of staying illegally is a crime (or at least a deportable offense), the clock restarts the moment the pardon is signed.

Let's say I hate the income tax, and get elected. I can pardon all tax cheats immediately, but I can't then also pardon people who will cheat on next year's tax forms.

I would expect Illustrious Leader to issue an executive order banning enforcement of the immigration law to a certain set of people. Unlike the pardon, this sets a more dangerous precedent. It's one thing to say "I won't allow people to be criminals/incarcerated ", and quite another to say "we will ignore this validly-approved law". The latter harks back to Jackson and the Indian expulsions.

I am with Kentucky Packrat, I see nothing wrong with the President using his constitutionally enumerated power the way it was intended to be used.

What is more disturbing to me is the assumption that kicking millions of people, many of them small business owners, off the "island" will somehow be beneficial to them or us. It is not. It is a recipe for job loss, recession and economic decline.

We need to find ways to make immigrating here and working here easier not harder. Immigration benefits us even more than them and making it legal means they will fund their use of public benefits like schools and health care.

Like the "drug war" isolationism and anti-immigrantism is insanity.

Our fear of people who don't look like us is unseemly and unchristian as well as uneconomic.

Mark Sherman

Mark

You are exactly wrong in your accusation that anyone who opposes unlimited illegal immigration is anti-immigration. That is a duplicitous argument. Furthermore, amnesty for the millions of illegals in our country will only burden our social safety net costs even more, since so many of those illegals are barely literate workers who consume much more in social services than they produce.

The purpose of an amnesty like this is clear: generate several million more Obama voters before the 2012 election. A refusal to enforce the laws is something that the Administration can probably get away with, but it won't have the added benefit of creating a new class of voter grateful to the current Administration for citizenship. That most of this class are also natural Democrat voters--they are the 50% who pay no income tax--is just more reason for the amnesty.

Amnesty by executive fiat is a lawless approach--which is to be expected from our Chicago thug administration--that will require firm rebuttal from both the Congress and the Courts. The Administration does not have the authority to unilaterally change our immigration laws. But it does show the desperation of the thugs looking ahead to 2012.

Mark and kentucky,
We have laws. They specify how people enter the US. All other countries have the same laws. The element that is entering illegally are not people we want in this country. I have no problem with immigrants. With criminals I do.

If the president were to pardon the mass of individuals there will be a backlash like we have never seen. This jerk is already doing evertthing in the book to destroy the country. I think that this action would result in armed conflict. So, maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea.

Q; Would such an executive order amount to treason by President Obama?

A; Yes, yes it would.

Useful Idiot;Our fear of people who don't look like us is unseemly and unchristian as well as uneconomic.

American taxpayer; Your vomiting demo-rat talking points is unseemly and most un-Christian, and is most un-American. Just like yourself, "Mark Sherman".

Go back to KOS and report failure. Just like always...

Simple solution to this conundrum:

Close the border, execute the criminals, overthrow the despot !

To be opposed to amnesty because of conjectured benefits to Obama in 2012 is not a constitutional argument. In case anyone cares, I am not a "demo-rat" or any other name we lower ourselves to call the opposing party. I have life-long GOP credentials in the right wing of the party, though like Kentucky Packrat, I think that being constitutional outweighs party advantage.

Most of the people who have entered this country illegally because of impossibilities of the draconian system, the quotas, the red tape, and their flight from poverty or violence are the kind of people we want (or at least I want) in this country, David.

And call Mark what every names you like, Toaster802, and be as ungentlemanly as your upbringing allows in your description of his "talking points" but his argument is economically sound and has been proved against the Nativism that has fought every wave of immigration experienced in this country's history.

To take down your strawman, iconoclast, no one is favouring unlimited illegal immigration. There is a very big different between that and supporting amnesty for the possibly 20 million undocumented aliens in the US some of whom have lived here long enough to have children and grandchildren who are American citizens and some of whom have been here since they were small children and know no other country.

It is anti-immigration to refuse to consider that the biggest cause of illegal immigration is a system that is not workable and that does not want most of the people that want to come here, not because they are criminals or drug lords, but because they don't come fromt the right countries to give us the politically correct ethnic mix or have valued skills and abilities. We dont want "your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore."

Iconoclast, you make this most clear by calling them "barely literate workers who consume much more in social services than they produce". The fact is that their English literacy has not prevented them from becoming workers, willing to do whatever they can and whatever it takes (very often needed labor that American citizens won't do) to support their families. It is a fallacy that they consume more in social services than they take. They contribute both in GDP and buying goods and services far beyond anything they receive in social services - your recitation of Nativist propaganda notwithstanding.

Now ignore me or call me names insisting I belong to the other party, as you choose.

As a federalist libertarian and constitutionalist, I can't find a lot of problems with pardoning illegals if the president finds the law unjust.

You're not much of a constitutionalist. The constitution does not confer on the President the power to make immigration policy. And pardoning several million illegal aliens is setting immigration policy.

If this idea was constitutional, don't you think Bush would have dine it long ago?

You're also not much of a federalist if you want to see Obama overriding laws made by the states.

Which leaves me doubting that you're any sort of libertarian either.

What is more disturbing to me is the assumption that kicking millions of people, many of them small business owners, off the "island" will somehow be beneficial to them or us.

Yeah, I'm sure that "many" illegal aliens also just happen to be small business owners! No doubt employing millions of Americans ....

It is a fallacy that they consume more in social services than they take.

Stop your endless drivel. It is a fact that the majority of Americans consume more in services than they pay in taxes. The massive and never-ending federal deficits are a tip-off that's hard to miss.

Only those in the upper two income quintiles pay their own way or better in America. Unless, like Kentucky Packrat, you think than many illegals are small business owners, they're not in the upper two income quintiles.

We dont want "your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore."

We don't believe that 21st century Americas immigration policy ought to be set by a crappy 19th century socialist poet, that's for sure.

Most of the people who have entered this country illegally because of impossibilities of the draconian system, the quotas, the red tape, and their flight from poverty or violence are the kind of people we want (or at least I want) in this country, David.

How many would you like, Sol? I'm sure Arizona could provide for you as many new friends as you'd like.

In general the Constitution charges the president to see that the laws of the land are effectively upheld. This is essentially the role of the Executive branch, not to make law, not to rule on its fidelity to the Constitution, but to see that the laws are carried out. The pardon power is not the ability to make law, but, to allow the President to pardon those deserving. Its only check is precedence and the character of the president wielding it. Precedence in that is has historically been applied to individual cases, most commonly to single individuals, and most commonly to those already convicted of a felony level crime or crimes, who, after a substantial period of years, have submitted to a rigorous application process administered by the Department of Justice which produces a complete report on the case and the person to be pardoned that serves as a guide for the president in making his decisions.

It is the contravention of this process by Bill Clinton, who not only, in many significant cases, did not follow it, and who--The Marc Rich case, for example--pardoned actual fugitives from justice, ignoring entirely the objections of the DOJ, including the FBI, that raised a substantial outcry and that was, to that point, the most egregious example of lawless behavior by a president related to the pardon power. Of course, Bill Clinton's other serial crimes are well known.

It is one other historic use of the pardon that I fear our most lawless president will cite as grounds for granting, by executive order, a blanket amnesty. I refer to Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon on the grounds of ending America's long national nightmare. At the time, it was quite controversial, but with the passage of years and cooling of tempers, it is generally considered to be a wise exercise of power, despite the fact that Nixon had not yet been charged with a particular crime.

Might not Obama cite our "long national immigration nightmare," and grant a blanket pardon? Trifles like the law and Constitution have surely not slowed him before. Does he have such power? Not under the Constitution, but again, the Constitution means nothing to one determined to radically transform America into his vision of a worker's paradise. But, you say, surely the courts would intervene. Of course, but have they not recently overturned his six month drilling ban? And has not Obama's lunatic Interior Secretary sworn to reinstate it? Has not Obama's EPA, unable to get what it wants through the legislative process, declared carbon dioxide--one of the gasses absolutely necessary for life itself--pollution? Again, the law means nothing to Obama. This is exactly the kind of tyrannical scheme that he and his drooling followers would love.

So once more, the only check on the pardon power is precedence and the character of the president. Obama cares nothing for precedence, the law or the Constitution. As to character...well, we know the answer to that only too well. He'll do it.

Personally, I hope he does it.

I think its' only a matter of time before the idiots in Congress pass some sort of amnesty anyway. I'd rather The One do it now and take the massive political hit before 2012. It will make that much easier to get rid of him.

flenster: Unless, like Kentucky Packrat, you think than many illegals are small business owners, they're not in the upper two income quintiles.
I have never said anything like this.

I am strongly opposed to the current immigration system since it allows the development of an abused underclass. Employers may abuse workers at will outside of normal checks and balances, and an entire system for bringing illegals in now allows in Islamic terrorists and drugs. Rich Republicans and Democrats want slave labor, and Democrats want slave voters.

I believe that the Army should be stationed at the entire Mexican border, and given authorization to apprehend and defend themselves as needed. Anyone crossing it illegally should be treated as an enemy combatant until shown otherwise. Mexican army and uniformed police units crossing the border should be held in POW camps. Armed coyotes and non-Mexican aliens should be treated as spies to the fullest extent of the law. Unarmed Mexican border crossers should be given food and water, and then immediately repatriated at the nearest Mexican border city (even give them a bus ticket home). Until we do something like this, we cannot "fix" the immigration issue.

I was focused on one item: an Obama pardon. An Obama pardon has a precedent: Carter's pardon of Vietnam draft doggers who went to Canada. It doesn't matter what I think of Mr. Carter's logic or Mr. Obama's, the founders did not check the ability of the Executive to pardon. Mr. Clinton ignored tradition in his pardons, but tradition is not the law. I would hate to see an abuse of this magnitude ruin a recognized and proper check against government power.

Now, Mr. Obama does not have the power to let these people stay by Executive Order, nor can he "pardon them into citizenship". This won't stop him from trying, IMHO.

I was focused on one item: an Obama pardon. An Obama pardon has a precedent: Carter's pardon of Vietnam draft doggers who went to Canada.

The Vietnam draft doggers who went to Canada were Americans. Unlike the millions of foreign nationals who Obama proposes to pardon.

Which of their many crimes will they should be pardoned for? All of them?

I am strongly opposed to the current immigration system since it allows the development of an abused underclass.

Sorry, but that's by far the least of its problems. Allowing the state to replace "we the people" with a different people it finds more congenial invalidates the entire premise of the United States.

The President has the power to grant pardons for crimes, post facto. He does NOT have the authority to grant visas or citizenship, powers reserved to Congress.

"To take down your strawman, iconoclast, no one is favouring unlimited illegal immigration. There is a very big different between that and supporting amnesty for the possibly 20 million undocumented aliens in the US some of whom have lived here long enough to have children and grandchildren who are American citizens and some of whom have been here since they were small children and know no other country."

Puh-leeeeez. Amnesty, and you bloody well know it, has the effect of erecting bi big flashing neon "COME ON IN! signj on the border, just like the misguided '86 amnesty did.

"some of whom have lived here long enough to have children and grandchildren who are American citizens and some of whom have been here since they were small children and know no other country."

Boo-hoo-hoo. And if they "know no other country", they're sure happy to parade Mexican flags and talk about the Reconquista.

"Most of the people who have entered this country illegally because of impossibilities of the draconian system, the quotas, the red tape, and their flight from poverty or violence are the kind of people we want (or at least I want) in this country"

You WANT the country flooded with illiterate, unskilled rabble? You think "flight from poverty" is a legitimate excuse for admission?

"people that want to come here, not because they are criminals or drug lords, but because they don't come fromt the right countries to give us the politically correct ethnic mix or have valued skills and abilities"

Exactly right. "Valued skills and abilities" should be the *only* criterion for immigration (and screw PC 'ethnic mix').

This is not the 19th century, when the country was having a labor shortage and wanted huge numbers of "huddled masses" to work in our burgeoning factories or farm our empty lands. This is the 21st century wherein we have a burdensome surplus of unemployable poor, and we can't absorb any more.

A dear English friend of mine with a university degree and a very successful career as a hotelier gave up on getting a US residency visa after eight years of trying. Our "English" quota is backed up for over a decade, so that we can make way for uneducated Somalis and Guatemalans etc with no useful skills of any sort. This makes sense? This somehow benefits the crippling unemployment among African-Americans and other unskilled folks already here?

flenser: Which of their many crimes will they should be pardoned for? All of them?

None. I haven't made my point clear. I don't believe that Mr. Obama should pardon illegals living in the US now. (I tend towards "bus/fly most of them home NOW".) I just believe he has the legitimate power to do so until forced to resign, be impeached and convicted, or loses an election (or term limits out).

Several states have rolled their power of pardon back so tightly that its easier to get the judges to reconsider the case than to get a pardon. I think that's wrong; I would rather see "bad" pardons given first.

some of whom have lived here long enough to have children and grandchildren who are American citizens and some of whom have been here since they were small children and know no other country.

The children and grandchildren are citizens. They can stay as per the 14th Amendment. Anyone else? Not so much. And I would be surprised if anyone managed to have grandchildren while still missing the misguided Reagan amnesty.

Most of the people who have entered this country illegally because of impossibilities of the draconian system, the quotas, the red tape, and their flight from poverty or violence are the kind of people we want (or at least I want) in this country

Then it is good we are highly unlikely to get what you want for immigration into this country.

btw, moby sockpuppets are rather unlikely to be conservative Republicans.

flenser, I see that you are not one given to thoughtful comment or congenial discourse. You have yet to perfect the ad hominem attack, but you're getting there. I see you've been practicing over on my blog as well.

Bohemond, The President does have the power to grant visas and citizenship. In fact, only the President has the power to do so. These are acts of the executive branch. Congress has never granted a single visa or certificate of naturalization

Using the one example of the 1986 legislation to describe the effects of any amnesty legislation is not an opened and closed argument. The best course of action would be to examine which aspects of the 1986 legislation led to undesired results and craft new legislation designed to prevent those results.

I'm not sure if you are proposing that we appropriate the necessary deficit financing to round up 20 million people and push them back over the border (or the border beyond that, or the one beyond that, or wherever they came from) - an impossible logistical feat other than in the minds of those who say "send them back where they came from" - or rather that we leave them in the shadows, catch a few here and there, and break up the occasional family (boo-hoo-hoo, they're not Americans, so it doesn't really matter, their not real American families).

Many illegal immigrants are apolitical, though just like any other people those with political views have a variety of them. There are some who are parading and may raise the spectre of 1846 and all that, daring to challenge the idea that we stole half of Mexico fair and square. If they don't like it, they just need to ask a few Indians what we do to people who object. It is far easier to lump all illegal immigrants in with those parading with Mexican flags. They are, after all, illegal immigrants, so they don't deserve to be differentiated. To differentiate amongst them in any way is to undermine the basic idea that they need to be treated like objects rather than people. Once you start treating them like people, you are on the slippery road to liberalism. You end up with icky words like "compassion" that only liberals and George W. like.

You're right, Bohemond, the flight from poverty, violence, disease, all those nasty things is no reason to let them in. People should just bloody well die where they are. There are just rabble after all. Unless they have valued skills and abilities, of course.

We don't have a burdensome surplus of unemployable poor because this is the 21st century. We have it because of government mismanagement of the economy. Of course you can only have mismanagement because you have an attempt at management in the first place. I'll leave you to do the math. We would have lots of empty lands, except that one-third of them are owned by the government. We would have factories and expanding service industries. We would even have jobs for African-Americans, who you define as unskilled folks.

Having worked as a lawyer in the inner city (perhaps an odd job for a Republican, you will say) I have not met an unemployed African-American, [insert adjective here]-American or just plain American American, who has not had a job because of uneducated Somalis, Guatemalans, or Et Ceteras. The factors in the creating the unemployable poor are manifold, but neither Somalis and Guatemalans - or dare I say Mexicans - factor into it in any measurable way.

I agree that it is wrong that the British quota (Northern Ireland excepted, by the way) is backed up. I think there should be no British quota at all. But then I think there should be no quota whatsoever. We may have flipped the policy of the Immigration Act of 1917, the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 and the Immigration Act of 1924, where we only wanted people who came from where we or our ancestors came from and tried to keep out all the others (barring Asians altogether), but quotas are quotas. As a true conservative, I am opposed to quotas.

I'm not sure if you are proposing that we appropriate the necessary deficit financing to round up 20 million people and push them back over the border

Typical bullshit strawman that has been discredited for years. Simply refusing to (1) provide social service benefits, (2) requiring companies to us eVerify, and (3) ending all federal funds to so-called "sanctuary cities" would go far to ending this invasion of illegals. Which is, btw, estimated to be around 10 million now.

The President does have the power to grant visas and citizenship. In fact, only the President has the power to do so.

Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the United States Constitution expressly gives the United States Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. Title 8 of the US Code is written by Congress, not the Executive.

I hope your gave better advice elsewhere, "counselor".

iconoclast, I see you favour the family break-up model rather than the Duncan Hunter "remove their citizenship ex post facto and send them to a country where they have never lived" model. Thank you for that clairification. And you are right, it could well be that everyone in the country undocumented in 1986 took advantage of the Reagan amnesty and therefore no illegal immigrants currently in the US have citizen grandchildren.

I am unfamiliar with the term "moby sockpuppet" so I am unable to comment on how you think it applies to me. I am, however, a conservative Republican, regardless of how unlikely you find that to be. I suppose you will find Reagan with his amnesty not a conservative, or GWB who favored amnesty not a conservative, or Rick Perry who says the Arizona model will not work for Texas not a conservative. I guess those of us who favor a free market economy rather than a government imposed, mandated and quota-based labor market are some sort of squishy liberals to you. So I don't know if I'm a moby sockpuppet, but I guess if that's the same as a Reagan sockpuppet I suppose that's okay. I'd say we ought to do to other as we would have them do to us if the shoe was on the other foot, but then you'd just call me a "Jesus sockpuppet" and we all know the Golden Rule is no way to run a government.

flenser, I see that you are not one given to thoughtful comment or congenial discourse. You have yet to perfect the ad hominem attack, but you're getting there.

Well, I'll do my best to learn from you, Oh Wise One.

The President does have the power to grant visas and citizenship. In fact, only the President has the power to do so. These are acts of the executive branch. Congress has never granted a single visa or certificate of naturalization

Ah, you're a comedian. Why didn't you make that clear to begin with?

I'm not sure if you are proposing that we appropriate the necessary deficit financing to round up 20 million people and push them back over the border

Five years ago that could have been called a straw-man argument. At this point the straw is rapidly decomposing though. We don't need to "round up" anyone. We simply need to stop employing illegals or giving them government benefits, and they'll leave. I'm 100% certain that you've been told that before. The fact that you continue to just make crap up does not speak well for you alleged Christianity.

Having worked as a lawyer in the inner city (perhaps an odd job for a Republican, you will say)

I might say it, if I thought you were a Republican.

the flight from poverty, violence, disease, all those nasty things is no reason to let them in.

There are six billion people in the world living in what is, by American standards, "poverty, violence, disease". Do you propose to allow all six billion in? If not, does that not mean that you're a heartless swine? Thing of those poor suffering people man!

I think there should be no British quota at all. But then I think there should be no quota whatsoever. We may have flipped the policy of the Immigration Act of 1917, the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 and the Immigration Act of 1924, where we only wanted people who came from where we or our ancestors came from and tried to keep out all the others (barring Asians altogether), but quotas are quotas. As a true conservative, I am opposed to quotas.

Of course you are. Because all "true conservatives" believe in eradicating Americans existing ethnic, racial and culture balance and transforming the country into an annex of Latin America. I'm sure Burke himself would have approved of your project.

PS - like most lefty lawyers, you are far too long-winded.

Kentucky Packrat.

I have never said anything like this.

Yes, you did. I even quoted you saying it.

"What is more disturbing to me is the assumption that kicking millions of people, many of them small business owners, off the "island" will somehow be beneficial to them or us."

The people in question are the illegal aliens, and according to you
"many" of them are "small business owners".

I am unfamiliar with the term "moby sockpuppet" so I am unable to comment on how you think it applies to me. I am, however, a conservative Republican, regardless of how unlikely you find that to be.

Odd how a person who is unfamiliar with the term "moby sockpuppet" yet responds to the change by repeating the claim of being a "conservative Republican", rather than by saying e.g. "I'm not fat!"

Here is a tip for you to take with you back to troll camp - people who are actually conservative Republicans don't need to constantly tell people of it. Their expressing conservative Republican positions is sufficient. On the other hand, posters who show up and begin repeatedly insisting to everyone that "I'm a life-long conservative Republican" might as well give themselves a "Moby" screen name.

I won't bother explaining "Moby" to you since it's blindingly obvious that you know exactly what the term means.

iconoclast, I see you favour the family break-up model rather than the Duncan Hunter "remove their citizenship ex post facto and send them to a country where they have never lived" model.

No more family breakup than what happens when someone breaks the law and goes to jail breaks up a family. Should single mothers who are lawbreakers be allowed to avoid penalties for their actions? Of course not. This is a disingenuous argument intended to circumvent thoughtful discussion and resort to cheap television morality. I wasn't aware that I suggested denying any legal citizen their citizenship, so thank you for attempting to smear my argument with that red herring.

Any further comment on the legality of Obama deciding by executive fiat that those 10+ million illegals are now citizens or on the path to citizenship? I thought not. Obama hasn't the authority to do this. He could attempt to release all illegals currently being held in detention or under deport orders, but he does not have the authority to change US Code with a stroke of his pen.

Asserting, with little evidence, that the millions of new voters created from illegals would not be grateful to Obama as well as more likely to vote for a free lunch party like the Democrats is laughable.

Your inability to google terminology you claim to not understand is touching.

Regardless of what Reagan thought at the time, the continued provision of social services, refusal to require eVerify, and failure by the government to pursue illegals has shown that the policy was soft-hearted and unworkable.

Illegal aliens are costing the USA federally and locally billions each year in social services, medical services, wage depression, lost taxes, and enabling violent criminal activity. Illegal aliens represent by some estimates more than 15% of the population in federal prisons. State and local prisons in some areas are even higher.

The solution to this is not another amnesty--particularly the anti-democratic one suggested here that the current Administration is considering. The solution is to secure the border, eliminate underground economic opportunities, strongly encourage states and municipalities to assist in identifying illegals, and remove free social/medical services that is so readily used by illegals. If policies similar to these were truly adopted, then we would see the number of illegal aliens drop as they returned to their homelands.

iconoclast,

We have never even mass transported 10 million people, even if we deny them due process and therefore do not have to detain them during their journey through a legal process, which I can only imagine you would be more than happy to do. However, perhaps your three-step process will have them all fleeing for the border.

Thank you for that lesson in the legislative process. I'd have never understood it! It's fortunate that I wasn't referring to the legislative process at all. Yes, Congress has to the power to establish naturalization rules, and immigration rules, for that matter. They have exercised that power a number of times to attempt to engineer the desired social effect, whether in trying to make sure most everyone came here from northwestern Europe and certainly not from Asia, or in deciding we have too many new Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Teutonic arrivals. The application of these rules and other delegated rule-making powers are left to the Exeecutive. That is the very nature of the Executive branch.

I would give the same "advice" to anyone. I suppose that since you disagree with me on a matter of public policy, you make your point more effective by putting my profession in quotation marks. The lack of decency and courtesy in the comboxes of this blog is most disappointing. It appears that the tactic is simply to bully away any differeing opinion.

I didn't smear your argument with anything. I simply noted that of the two principal models proposed and openly discussed in the marketplace of ideas, you have chosen one over the other. There are those (e.g., Rep. Duncan Hunter, Jr.) who consider it a valid option to deport citizen children along with their undocumented parents. It is a valid argument that it is more important to keep families together.

The other model is not like when someone goes to jail. To separate children most likely from both parents indefinitely, and possibily permanently under IIRIRA, is not the same as daddy doing some time in the big house. This model requires a more extensive intervention by social services, foster care for the remainder of childhood and adolescence, and the social consequences of millions of parentless children.

No doubt (based on my experience so far on this blog) you will just get angry, refer to me by some liberal perjorative and say (without any demostrated basis in fact) that I'm all wrong.

What was the purpose of your rhetorical question: Any further comment on the legality of Obama deciding by executive fiat that those 10+ million illegals are now citizens or on the path to citizenship? [I'm just going to imagine that I've been transported to a blog of where people people speak (or write, as the case may be) to each other in a way that fosters understanding, proper debate, and civilized discussion and pretend that your rude rhetorical reply didn't happen.] Why, yes, iconoclast I do have further comment. Thank you for asking... I do not think that Obama has the power to make them citizens. I can see no way of interpreting any consitutional provision that way. I think Obama has the power to pardon those who have committed a crime. There are millions of people who have entered the United States illegally, for whatever reason. That is their crime. Not being in the United States, but entering it. If they are absolved of having entered illegally, then they are no longer in the US illegally. (They might still have to live outside Arizona - I need to re-read SB1070 as passed.) This does not make them citizens. Those are my further comments at this time, open to debate and discussion, and further revision on my part.

I did not say that millions of new voters would not be grateful to Obama, if he somehow made them into new voters. However, he cannot make them into new voters. Only citizens can vote. For further information, see above. The position of a lot of Republicans in Congress has the potential to backfire dramatically on the Republican Party because when these millions do become citizens, or even when their children who are citizens consider how their parents were treated, you are right that they will gravitate toward the Democratic Party.

As for terminology I claim I do not understand, perhaps a little explanation is in order. First of all, I do not claim things I don't mean. Second, I am who I say I am and believe what I say I believe. I am therefore not a "sockpuppet". You need only read my blog to see. (Please don't leave any nasty ad hominems like flenser did, but feel free to comment in a civil fashion.) I googled "moby sockpuppet" to see if this had some sort of special meaning. I got nothing. I googled "moby" and all I got were references to the musician Richard Hall who uses this name and the novel "Moby Dick" by Herman Melville. I have never listened to the former, and sadly to my cultural detriment have never read the latter, though I have it on some authorty that it is a very good book. (I don't expect you to take my word for it of course, because you haven't done so with anything else I've said. In fact I'm sorry I've mentioned it, because as a result you may never read it.)

Now that you point it out, I suppose what makes Reagan and me liberals is that we are soft-hearted. No place for that in this world. True conservatives obviously say, "If we can't throw them out, we'll starve them out. We'll make it worse than where they came from." Good luck with that. I've done mission work in the places they come from and you are going to have to do better than that. A good conservative like NY Redneck (see above), wants to execute them. Kentucky Packrat says that non-Mexican aliens should be executed ("treated like spies to the fullest extent of the law"), but that Mexicans should be treated as enemy combatants. They can be shot, too. And then there's squishy soft-hearted liberals like me and Reagan. Why, neither of deserve to be called Republicans! By having different views on immigration, we clearly haven't passed the litmus test.

flenser,

Here I thought that a troll was someone who just uses rude and abusive language to post inflammatory or off-topic messages.

I didn't realise that it is anyone who disagrees with you.

I learn something new every day.

No doubt (based on my experience so far on this blog) you will just get angry, refer to me by some liberal perjorative and say (without any demostrated basis in fact) that I'm all wrong

It's not difficult to notice the several instances in this thread where you said things which were wrong, and where this was pointed out to you. For example, your claim that "It is a fallacy that they consume more in social services than they take" is itself a fallacy. This was pointed out to you, and you characteristically just ignored it. I suppose your writing your lengthy screeds does not permit much time for reading other peoples words.

Here I thought that a troll was someone who just uses rude and abusive language to post inflammatory or off-topic messages.

Then I guess we can add that to the list of topics on which you don't know what you are talking about. Trolls come in all sorts flavors. Here's one attempt to catalog them.

http://www.theadminzone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19881

I am who I say I am and believe what I say I believe.

If you believe what you say you believe then you are no conservative i.e. you are not what you say you are.

I suppose what makes Reagan and me liberals is that we are soft-hearted.

Reagan did not share your open-borders position. He signed one amnesty, which was supposed to be the last amnesty, as part of a deal which was supposed to secure the borders. He did not believe, as you do, that anybody who wants to come to America should be able to do so. Stop promoting these liberal policy positions and people will stop remarking that you're a liberal.

I learn something new every day.

If only that were true. Closed minded little bigots like you have great trouble in ever learning anything new.

flenser,

Let's please refrain from personal attacks. There is plenty enough room for polite disagreements over policy. You may not agree with Sol, but he is being polite.

flenster: Yes, you did. I even quoted you saying it.

"What is more disturbing to me is the assumption that kicking millions of people, many of them small business owners, off the "island" will somehow be beneficial to them or us."

The people in question are the illegal aliens, and according to you "many" of them are "small business owners".

Posted by: flenser at June 24, 2010 02:40 PM

No, maddog said this on June 23, 2010 12:54 PM above. I'd post a link, but it looks like there aren't links to individual posts. (Yankee, any chance you could ask for that? :) ) Search for that timestamp on this page, and you'll see it.

Sol:

Kentucky Packrat says that non-Mexican aliens should be executed ("treated like spies to the fullest extent of the law"), but that Mexicans should be treated as enemy combatants.

I was going to say executed on the spot for non-Mexican border-crossers, but it seems that international law now requires that combatants out of uniform have to have a trial first. I have no sympathy for the polleros; they will smuggle anyone or anything for a buck, and kill anyone in their way (even their customers). IMHO, execution would fit the crime.

There is significant worry in Arizona over the high number of Muslim prayer rugs being found abandoned along the coyote routes. The speculation among LEOs there is towards manpower for Mumbai-style attacks on populated centers.

We are being invaded. The elite in Mexico are driving their undesirables over our border using economic pressure. The coyotes who bring Mexicans over don't mind bringing drugs, guns, or other nationalities over.

Any other country being invaded would respond militarily. We should too. Close the border and capture those crossing them. Punish those who we need to punish as hard as possible. The "innocents", we feed and ship home.

Kentucky Packrat,

I am leaving for an overnight camping trip with my son, but I will respond tomorrow.

No, maddog said this on June 23, 2010 12:54 PM above.

You're right, my apologies.

I'm really pissed off at some of the comments I see. I don't know where to begin. First the President does have all kinds of Executive authority PROVIDING he adheres to the oath of office he took. I'm a cop. Police officers, soldiers, Congress, and our Chief Executive all take oaths to defend the Constitution. I have the power to arrest but I certainly can't violate someone's Constitutional rights while doing so. I can't arrest anyone simply because I can. If I follow the logic of the legal argument the President can knowingly allow foreign spies, terrorists, or subversives into our Country? No way. He can't or HE is violating his oath of office... which he is not empowered to do. That's why they make us all take it. We are all beholden to the Constitution and the law and not to individuals. Nixon thought different and paid the price.

The second thing I've noticed is that logistics in applying the law is suddenly taking the forefront of the law itself. Just because it's hard to enforce a law does not lessen it one iota. People violating our borders, especially during war time have to be dealt with. Boo Hoo if it's difficult. Children born in this country are automatically citizens? Really? Where in the Constitution does it say that? I missed it. So foreign diplomats that have children here are citizens? No they're not. The same applies to Americans in foreign lands.

Finally, when did we start compromising our laws out of convenience? I think I'll stop paying my taxes, they're inconvenient for me to pay. Maybe I'll leave my son alone in a hot car while I'm at work because it's inconvenient for me to bring him inside. I have a friend that wants to own a machine gun. I told him that he has to get a bunch of permits from the local, state, and Federal government but if it's inconvenient for him then maybe he shouldn't bother. Oh, and I've been a cop for 35 years and I've gone to a lot of calls that I really didn't want to go to. From now on I won't. It will be more convenient for me to violate my oath of office, my job, my duties, and my commitment rather than actually put my ass on the line doing my job. You can't use some miniscule rule or regulation as an excuse to violate your duties in general. That's what the President is about to do. We're arguing about how many angels sit on the head of a pin without recognizing that our President is violating his oath of office and his duty. He can't do it. A soldier is mandated to follow orders... unless it is an unlawful order that violates his oath. He won't be able to point to a sentence in his manual as his defense because of the oath he took.

Kentucky Packrat,

I was going to say executed on the spot for non-Mexican border-crossers, but it seems that international law now requires that combatants out of uniform have to have a trial first. I have no sympathy for the polleros; they will smuggle anyone or anything for a buck, and kill anyone in their way (even their customers). IMHO, execution would fit the crime.

I'm not sure why you would view a Guatemalan or Nicaraguan as a combatant to be executed on the spot. One of the things I find disturbing about the attitude of a lot of people is that they decry the immigrants for being law-breakers by entering the country undocumented and they complain about Obama and ICE not enforcing the law, while at the same time they are perfectly willing to circumvent the legal system in this country in dealing with the immigrants. Seems to me you shouldn't complain about lawlessness, if you only have lawless responses.

It might surprise you that there are long-standing international agreements on how combatants in uniform have to be treated as well. However, the big problem is in assigning combatant status, uniformed or otherwise, to anyone crossing a border. I realize that the government has played fast and loose with this concept since the invasion of Afghanistan (but we don't mind conservatives playing fast and loose with thing about which we agree), but there would need to be a military conflict with a putative government. There are no organization breaching the border who claim to be a government at war with the United States.

As for the polleros, as desirable as you may find it, the rule of law does not allow for summary execution based on specualtion regarding what someone might be willing to do in any given circumstance. In some states, it does allow for execution for some crimes which might be committed by polleros, after a trial and same protections we afford any person accused of a capital crime. Otherwise, we are no better than the polleros.

There is significant worry in Arizona over the high number of Muslim prayer rugs being found abandoned along the coyote routes. The speculation among LEOs there is towards manpower for Mumbai-style attacks on populated centers.

I expect to be heavily flamed for saying this, but I have googled and googled and I have yet to find anything other than hearsay. In one case there is even hearsay from a Congressman - Tom Tancredo told CBS News "We've found copies of the Koran, we have found prayer rugs, we have found a lot of stuff written in Arabic, so it's not just people from Mexico coming across that border." But like all the other quotes and sources, there doesn't seem to be anything that can actually be confirmed. As to the number of rugs alleged to have been found, the biggest number I've seen is three.

I'm not saying that there aren't Muslims of various nationalities who are coming across the Mexican border. As long ago as 2002 there was the case of 200 Lebanese and though Lebanon is slightly more Muslim than Christian, it is reasonable to assume that at least some of these Lebanese were Muslims and there was some speculation that some of the Muslims were Hezbollah sympathizers. There have been indictments just last month of smuggling Somalis across the border.

There is already plenty of manpower for Mumbai-style attacks. There is no need to smuggle anyone across the border.

However, the whole issue is a red herring in the matter of what to do with illegal immigrants, the majority of whom are Mexican, currently living in the United States, some of whom have been living here a long time and none of whom are known to have any connection to radical Islamists. It is only used to connect the real issue with something that more people can readily identify as evil.

We are being invaded. The elite in Mexico are driving their undesirables over our border using economic pressure. The coyotes who bring Mexicans over don't mind bringing drugs, guns, or other nationalities over.

We are only being invaded in a metaphorical sense. A large number of people are seeking to live in the United States. They are not seeking to overthrow the government of the United States. With the exception of a few who have been politicized by certain radical elements, they are not seeking to have any part of the United States either annexed by Mexico or seceded as a separate country. There are often mass migrations in other parts of the world due to economic or other reasons. I know it doesn't fit well with American isolationism and we think that we are above such things or should at least have more control of them.

You are correct about the coyotes, except that the gun traffic is mostly southward. It is American guns that are sought by Mexican drug lords.

Any other country being invaded would respond militarily. We should too. Close the border and capture those crossing them. Punish those who we need to punish as hard as possible. The "innocents", we feed and ship home.

Countries experiencing the reception of mass migration have responded in different ways. Of course the US has precedent in dealing with the matter of mass migration. Just ask the Cherokees, Seminoles, Choctaws, Chickasaw, Creeks, Sauks, Shawnees, etc. They were illegally in the United States as well. Not immigrants, exactly...

Dave B:

I'm really pissed off at some of the comments I see.

I'm guessing those are mine, since I'm not toeing the party line.

First the President does have all kinds of Executive authority PROVIDING he adheres to the oath of office he took. I'm a cop. Police officers, soldiers, Congress, and our Chief Executive all take oaths to defend the Constitution. I have the power to arrest but I certainly can't violate someone's Constitutional rights while doing so.

Yet a lot of the commenters seem quite happy to do that in the case of illegal immigrants. Due process for citizens only.

I can't arrest anyone simply because I can. If I follow the logic of the legal argument the President can knowingly allow foreign spies, terrorists, or subversives into our Country? No way. He can't or HE is violating his oath of office... which he is not empowered to do.

You haven't followed the logic of the legal argument. Neither the President personally, nor anyone operating under his executive authority is knowingly allowing any of the categories of people you list into the country. Spies by their very nature are not known. There are all sorts of bans on suspected terrorists. Anyone who goes through immigration control has to sign a declaration that they do not and have not supported the overthrow of the US government. The President and those acting under his authority only knowingly allow people into the US through immigration control at ports of entry. They do not knowingly allow any category of people who enter the US without documentation and immigration clearance. That there is speculation - or even suspicion - that are people in those nefarious categories who are amongst those who break the law and avoid detection is not allowing them into the country. The President of the United States has an obligation to defend the Constitituion, not an obligation to expend every possible resource to stop illegal immigration. If that were the case, then every president has failed to defend the Constitution, because there has always been illegal immigration and there has never been sufficient resources expended to stop it (if such a thing were possible). A particular situation or a particularly high number of illegal immigrants does not somehow invoke a Constitutional obligation. It is either there and always acted upon or it is not there.

The second thing I've noticed is that logistics in applying the law is suddenly taking the forefront of the law itself. Just because it's hard to enforce a law does not lessen it one iota.

As a cop of 35 years, have you always stopped every person who you have seen exceeding the speed limit? After all, if the law is the law, even if you aren't assigned to work traffic, and you see someone exceeding the speed limit, you have an obligation to stop and cite them. And not if they are going 10 mph over or 20 mph over. The limit is the limit. Over the limit is breaking the law. The difficulty or logistics in enforcing it does not lessen it one iota. (That being said, I have used various terms for cops who do stop everyone who is 1 mph over the limit. None of the terms is nice. Some are not printable in polite company. Sorry if you are offended.)

People violating our borders, especially during war time have to be dealt with.

Two problems here. One, this isn't a time of war. There is not a single war currently declared by the Congress of the United States. That's the law. Congress declares war. That the President has sent US forces into action in various places in the world does not a war make. As a law enforcement officer sworn to defend the Consitution and the laws of he US and your state, surely you agree that the law is the law.

Second, people violating our borders are dealt with when caught. They may not always be dealt with in the way you would like, but I'm sure you realize that it is for those with the appropriate jurisdiction to determine that.

Children born in this country are automatically citizens? Really? Where in the Constitution does it say that? I missed it.

That would be the Fourteenth Amendment. Don't worry, as a former criminal defense attorney I can assure you there are lots of cops who have missed the Fourteenth Amendment. In case you think the language of the Fourteenth is a bit vague, this exact issue was decided in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). You will be aware that Supreme Court decides what the Constitution says. We may not like it a lot of the time, but that's the way it works.

So foreign diplomats that have children here are citizens? No they're not.

Correct. I refer you to the Won Kim Ark decision, supra. The SCOTUS noted that the children of American Indians were also excluded. In 1924, Congress decided to change that. Congress can change the law regarding the children of citizen of another country at any time, making any distinction with regard to the legal status of those parents. Rep. Nathan Deal introduced H.R. 1868 in April last year which would have done that exact thing, but it died in committee.

The same applies to Americans in foreign lands.

This varies from country to country. It does not apply to Americans in Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Barbados. Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Lesotho, Malaysia, Mexico, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, and Venezuela. I cannot say this is a comprehesive list of countries where children born to Americans other than diplomats are automatically granted citizenship. I can say, however, that Chile will grant citizenship to the children of foreign diplomats upon request.

Finally, when did we start compromising our laws out of convenience?

We do it all the time, and have done so not just since the the Constitution was ratified, but in every nation since the beginning of recorded law. Even if you have arrested every offender and charged them with every offense committed, surely you have dealt with a prosecutor who has used discretion to decline to prosecute because it wasn't convenient to use prosecutorial or judicial time or money to attempt to get a conviction, even if a conviction was the likely result.

I think I'll stop paying my taxes, they're inconvenient for me to pay.

Depending on your situation, you may find that the IRS is willing to compromise your obligation or even not pursue you, if it is not cost effective to do so.

Maybe I'll leave my son alone in a hot car while I'm at work because it's inconvenient for me to bring him inside.

Being a cop, I would think that it would not only be inconvenient, but also impractical, if not prohibitive, for you to bring him inside your place of employment. I would suggest arranging childcare. Though I have to say that extrapolating your minimum age from being a cop for 35 years, I'm impressed that you have children young enough to be endangered by being left alone in a hot car. Be fruitful and multiply, I say.

I have a friend that wants to own a machine gun. I told him that he has to get a bunch of permits from the local, state, and Federal government but if it's inconvenient for him then maybe he shouldn't bother.

Or he could move out of a city that imposes gun control above and beyond the state and federal governments. I know I wouldn't be inclined to live in such a place. That would take away one layer of regulation.

Oh, and I've been a cop for 35 years and I've gone to a lot of calls that I really didn't want to go to. From now on I won't. It will be more convenient for me to violate my oath of office, my job, my duties, and my commitment rather than actually put my ass on the line doing my job.

I think your problem would be with your boss rather than the Constitution. You don't go to every call because you are Consitutionally compelled to do so. If your chief/sheriff/commissioner/whatever says you are only to take certain types of calls, that's what you do.

You can't use some miniscule rule or regulation as an excuse to violate your duties in general. That's what the President is about to do.

No, the President is interpreting his powers under the Constitution, no clause of which I would characterize as a miniscule rule or regulation.

We're arguing about how many angels sit on the head of a pin without recognizing that our President is violating his oath of office and his duty. He can't do it.

It is not a failure to defend the Constitution to interpret it in a certain way or to act upon one of its provisions in a certain way with which other people (notably people who do not occupy the federal bench, which has the sole jurisdiction to contradict the President's interpretation of his role) don't like or approve.

A soldier is mandated to follow orders... unless it is an unlawful order that violates his oath. He won't be able to point to a sentence in his manual as his defense because of the oath he took.

Correct. He is under the authority of the President of the United States. If the President sends him to stop people coming across the Mexican border, that is what he does. If the President does not send him (or any of his colleagues) to do so, he and they do not do so.

Just so we're clear, the President is not a soldier and he does not follow orders. He gives orders and otherwise uses the powers delegated to him as he interprets them in light of decisions of the Supreme Court and the advice of the Attorney General or other such counsel as he may choose to employ in any particular capacity.

Even though we may disagree on this issue, there are probably a lot of other issues where neither of us like what the President has done or how he has interpreted his Constitutional powers. We have two options: either find someone with standing to bring a suit in federal court or choose somebody different in 2012. The first is pretty difficult to do. I'm going with the second.

As so many have so eloquently stated, the President does NOT have the Constitutional authority by law or precedent to give amnesty to millions of individuals at one time.

And as others have said, I believe the only reason he is considering this is because those who have been gifted with citizenship will vote as a block for a Democrat. That is the only way to stop massive Democratic losses that are looming around the next election cycle.

Ramon,

The Constitutional issue aside, granting amnesty is not the same thing as granting citizenship. The former is simply forgiving a crime. The latter is conferring a civic status. The former is within the exclusive province of the Executive power of pardon. The latter is for the Executive to administer in accordance with statutes passed by Congress.

The President cannot (nor has he proposed to) grant millions of people citizenship by fiat. There will be no massive block of millions of new citizens beholden to Obama in either 2010 or 2012.

There will be significant Democratic losses in 2010. The Republican Party needs to assess its position when the dust clears in November and have two years with its act solidly together to soundly defeat Obama.

You know mr. Prez Barack Obama give amnesty now via E.O. you will save america billion of dollars Do not go to congress or Rep. for only 60 votes there will be to much emotion if you go other way Executive order is the right way You are a lawyer and scholar the law is right there use it Good job mr.Prez