amnesty

President Barack Obama’s immigration deputies released 30,862 foreign criminals into the United States’ cities and neighborhoods, according to a federal document.

The document also showed that Obama repatriated less than 1 percent of the 12 million illegals living in the United States during the 12 months up to October 2014.

Officials also repatriated only 8,805 of the roughly 180,000 unskilled Central American migrants who flooded across the border since 2011, according to the “Fiscal Year 2014 ICE Enforcement and Removal Operation Report.”

“Immigration enforcement has been destroyed by this President,” Sen. Jeff Sessions said in a Dec. 5 statement.

Americans “must understand the situation can be remedied: if the public elects officeholders who will demand enforcement—at the worksite, the welfare office, and all ports of entry—the lawlessness can swiftly be ended,” he said.

During fiscal 2014, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement repatriated 315,943 people.

But two-thirds were foreigners caught at the border, and 86,923 were resident illegals caught in major criminal activity.

The great thing about Obama’s TelePrompter is that when he stops reading from it, he slips up and tells the truth.

Daniel Halper:

The White House has argued that President Obama’s executive amnesty order last week was made well within the existing law. But in remarks in Chicago tonight, President Obama went off script and admitted that in fact he unilaterally made changes to the law.

President Obama made the admission after getting heckled for several minutes by immigration protesters.

The only Americans who can legitimately object to immigration are native Indian-Americans, President Barack Obama told his Chicago audience Nov. 24, as he made an impassioned ideological plea for endless immigration, cultural diversity and a big government to manage the resulting multicultural society.

“There have been periods where the folks who were already here suddenly say, ‘Well, I don’t want those folks,’ even though the only people who have the right to say that are some Native Americans,” Obama said, rhetorically dismissing the right of 300 million actual Americans to decide who can live in their homeland.

Americans should not favor other Americans over foreigners, Obama demanded. “Sometimes we get attached to our particular tribe, our particular race, our particular religion, and then we start treating other folks differently… that, sometimes, has been a bottleneck to how we think about immigration,” he said in the face of many polls showing rising opposition to his immigration agenda.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has concluded that House Appropriations Committee chairman Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY) is wrong, and that Congress can in fact block funding for President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty order.

“In light of Congress’s constitutional power over the purse, the Supreme Court has recognized that ‘Congress may always circumscribe agency discretion to allocate resources by putting restrictions in the operative statutes,’” the CRS, a legislative authority on Capitol Hill, wrote in a report sent to incoming Senate Budget Committee chairman Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL). “Where Congress has done so, ‘an agency is not free simply to disregard statutory responsibilities.’ Therefore, if a statute were enacted which prohibited appropriated funds from being used for some specified purposes, then the relevant funds would be unavailable to be obligated or expended for those purposes.”

Sessions’ team provided the CRS report—which is not made public unless members of Congress who request such reports decide to make them so—exclusively to Breitbart News. 

Rogers, last week, argued that Congress could not block funding for Obama’s executive amnesty because the agency that will be printing the work authorization and other documents for illegal aliens—U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)—operates primarily on fees it collects rather than from tax revenue collected by the federal government.

In 2010 Congress declined to enact the DREAM Act, which would have bestowed lawful resident status on illegal aliens who had arrived in this country as minors.¹ In September 2011, when pressured by illegal alien advocates to implement the DREAM Act "on his own," President Obama responded: "I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true."² In June 2012, the president did what nine months before he had insisted he could not do, unilaterally instituting the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program ("DACA"), under which illegal alien "Dreamers" can request a two-year deferral of any action to remove them, along with employment authorization documents.³To date, over 600,000 illegal aliens have been accepted into the program.⁴

In 2013 Congress again declined to enact an immigration bill supported by the president, a so-called "comprehensive immigration reform" that would have given legal status to more than 11 million illegal aliens, including the Dreamers. In November of that year, in response to an illegal alien's insistence that the president had the power to issue an executive order stopping deportations, President Obama responded: "Actually, I don't. ... if in fact I could solve all these problems without passing laws through Congress, then I would do so. But we're also a nation of laws."⁵ On November 19, 2014, the president did what a year before he insisted he hadn't the power to do, allowing approximately 4 million illegal aliens who are the parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents to request a three-year deferral of removal, along with employment authorization documents.⁶ He also extended the stay of DACA beneficiaries by three years and expanded the number of illegal aliens eligible for DACA by about 200,000.

As explained in this report, (1) the president's deferred-action program involves three separate legal steps, (2) each of the three steps is plainly illegal, and (3) the three steps, taken together, amount to an unconstitutional usurpation of Congress's exclusive constitutional authority to formulate immigration policy.

President Obama has unilaterally granted executive amnesty to purportedly five million illegal aliens via Royal Decree.45,46 Fortunately, our Constitutional Republic does not consist of a dictatorial monarchy. Such a decree would be a treasonous act in that it would subvert Constitutional intent and separation of powers as established by the Founding Fathers.

While open borders Republican elites may yap and holler about an amnesty decree,12 they covertly condone it, as it would remove the burden from their shoulders of having to grant amnesty via Congressional action - which is opposed by the vast majority of their constituents (meaning the American people, not rich corporate donors).

As Gibbons stated in Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:

The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may often assume the appearance, and produce the effects, of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy."

Obama's actions range from deliberate non-enforcement of immigration laws, to DACA via executive fiat, to promising to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. These are not the actions of a weak and distracted administration. Indeed, they are deliberate, calculated actions based on an explicit agenda of "fundamentally transforming the United States."

The result of executive amnesty will be millions upon millions of "immigrants" who are a net drain on the American tax base and who take jobs that over 18 million unemployed Americans would willingly take - at fair wages. And who vote Democratic - that is, for Obama's political party and its agenda.20,21

The amnesty of 1986 was clearly stated by Congress to be a "one time only" amnesty. Yet including the 1986 amnesty, Congress has passed a total of seven amnesties for illegal aliens. We know that amnesties overtly promote even more illegal immigration. It will become never-ending in the aftermath of an executive amnesty.

Amnesties which have originated in Congress and have been signed into law are legal and Constitutional. Amnesties via royal decree with the explicit objective of transforming the United States are not defensible according to Congressional intent.

The case for impeachment

The biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that's what I intend to reverse when I'm President of the United States of America.

– Senator Barack Obama, March 31, 2008 (Townhall in Lancaster, PA, March 31, 2008.)

The undocumented immigrants granted amnesty by President Barack Obama’s executive orders will likely cost taxpayers $2 trillion, according to Heritage Foundation poverty  expert Robert Rector. 

“The net cost — which is total benefits minus total benefits paid in — of the amnesty recipients I estimate will be around $2 trillion over the course of their lifetime,” Rector explained in an interview with Breitbart News Monday. He added that the calculation is based on the assumption that 4 million undocumented immigrants will participate and they will live, on average, 50 years. 

According to Rector — who has published extensively on welfare, poverty, and immigration — the cost has two components: The first is the potential to access Social Security and Medicare, given amnestied undocumented immigrants’ ability to obtain work permits and Social Security Numbers.

“What [Obama] is doing is he is putting these 4 million people — who on average have a 10th grade education — into the Social Security and Medicare programs,” Rector said. He used much of the same methodology he incorporated in his May 2013 study on the cost of amnesty to reach his conclusions. 

With the expected earnings for an individual with that level of education, he explained that the amnestied immigrants will take vastly more out than they will contribute to those programs. 

“Given their expected earnings, from someone that has a 10th grade education, they will draw about three dollars worth of benefits out of those programs over their lifetimes for every dollar they put into them. But the overall cost in outlays will be around a trillion dollars for those programs alone,” Rector explained.