A Legal Precedent for Executive Amnesty?

2329886714_0bfdbfbe73C-SPAN recently aired footage of the 11th annual Immigration Law and Policy Conference held every year at the Georgetown University Law Center just off Capitol Hill. The confab’s always a “who’s who” of the open-borders, anti-sovereignty movement, from the immigration lawyers lobby to Hispanic chauvinist groups, and past keynote speakers have included such border insecurity-stalwarts as Chuck Schumer and John McCain.

This year’s big panel was on the “legal precedents” supporting President Obama’s forthcoming amnesty, led by Marc Rosenblum of the Migration Policy Institute, a pro-open borders, Carnegie-funded outfit. Rosenblum helped craft the 2007 McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill and he’s advised Obama on immigration policy in the past. In other forums, he’s also described America as a “nation of nations,” presumably because he thinks the country should no longer be an actual nation unified by language, culture and history.

Norm Ornstein, resident leftist at the American Enterprise Institute and Rosenblum’s fellow panelist, was more open about his views on transforming America. When speaking about the GOP’s voter base (“old white men”), Ornstein informed the audience that “older white men are a group you cannot trust.” Although this is normal discourse for the contemporary Left, it should still be a red alert for those who resist balkanizing the nation – watch the video from 01:06:30; send your complaints to Georgetown University, AEI, and the SPLC.

Rosenblum’s pro-amnesty presentation was essentially a lecture to attendees (majority law students) on why we should ignore the immigration laws on our books should. He proceeded to “justify” Obama’s forthcoming amnesty by pointing out five previous “executive actions on immigration” going back to the 1960s, which gave some degree of discretion to federal agencies in the management of deportations. To people who actually know immigration law, however, Rosenblum’s presentation was close to fraudulent.

Left out of his powerpoint was that of the five executive actions picked, four were illegitimate power-grabs by federal agencies which were later restricted or completely culled by Congress and the other wasn’t even an executive program at all, but one implemented by Congress. Each are addressed below. Rosenblum’s list actually turns out to be very useful for pro-borders advocates, as it shows a historical pattern of Congress pushing back against programs created out of thin air by the executive.

As Rosenblum first notes, the executive has in the past exercised so-called “parole authority” as a sort of mass refugee program for whole groups of illegals, like after Castro’s takeover of Cuba in 1960 when thousands of Cubans illegally residing in the US were granted permission to stay. But as was recalled in a recent court filing by the Immigration Reform Law Institute, the INS’s use of group parole had been in violation of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, which grants parole only in isolated, case-by-case situations. In the words of the court of appeals for the second circuit, Congress therefore clamped down on the practice in 1980 with the Refugee Act and again in 1996 with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) due to a “concern that parole … was being used by the executive to circumvent congressionally established immigration policy.”

Other programs justifying amnesty described by Rosenblum have followed a similar pattern. The still-current “Temporary Protected Status” (TPS) program, started in 1990, is basically a temporary refugee program that can apply to certain national groups when their country of origin becomes ravaged by war or suffers a natural disaster. But TPS was implemented by Congress, not the executive. In fact, Congress passed TPS in order to restrain the executive which had for years practiced a similar program on its own (through a program called “extended voluntary departure,” which Rosenblum also covered). Congress reacted by creating an “exclusive remedy” in the area of deportation-relief based on nationality, which was intended to tether by statute the executive’s potentially boundless application of deportation relief.

Another program Rosenblum uses, “deferred enforced departure,” merely sought to revive what the executive had been doing before TPS. The courts have described this program as essentially the same as TPS, although Obama extended deportation relief under the program to a group of Liberians living illegally in the US in 2011.

Finally, there’s “deferred action,” Rosenblum’s final justification for Obama’s unilateral amnesty. This program was an attempt by the executive to delegate to itself the authority to grant relief based on humanitarian reasons or reasons of convenience. Congress once again took back this authority with the 1996 passage of IIRIRA, and although DHS admitted in 2000 that the statute expunged deferred action, Obama cited it as an authority in 2012 when he unilaterally implemented the “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” program, which has twice been held unconstitutional in federal court and which was based on a bill (the DREAM Act) that was rejected 24 times in Congress.

Executive discretion for group-deportation relief has always been followed by Congress either rolling it back or regulating it under legislation according to Congress’s terms. That tension is now higher than it’s ever been.

Much of the motivation behind the executive actions Rosenblum lays out was probably explained as a natural power-grab from bureaucrats simply looking to expand their authority. But the motivation for amnesty today appears to be far more sinister. People like Obama, Rosenblum and Ornstein want to balkanize the nation, presumably out of distrust of “old white men.” And so serious is their drive toward this end, they’ll even ignore the letter and spirit of the law to get there.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • dwayne roberson

    Republicans need to expose this horrific plot like Harry Truman got on the train.

  • Hard Little Machine

    I imagine that what would happen is that states would start passing laws barring employment to anyone granted Federal amnesty under that executive action, the DoJ would push it all the way to the Supreme Court and if the Federal government wins its case it would be ignored by the states anyway, precipitating a Constitutional crisis not seen since 1861.

  • swemson

    A president, assuming he was legally qualified to be president, and not an impostor / criminal like Obama, does have the right to grant pardons to people convicted of crimes.

    Amnesty, within the context being discussed here, is not exactly the same thing, although the terms, (pardons & amnesty) are clearly similar in some ways.

    My question is whether or not all of the illegal] immigrants currently in the USA, fit the definition of one eligible for amnesty.

    Definitions I found for the term “amnesty” online just now include:

    “a general pardon for offenses, especially political offenses, against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction.”

    “a blanket abolition of an offense by the government, with the legal result that those charged or convicted have the charge or conviction wiped out.”

    “The action of a government by which all persons or certain groups of persons who have committed a criminal offense—usually of a political nature that threatens the sovereignty of the government (such as Sedition or treason)—are granted Immunity”

    Does the typical “undocumented worker” therefore qualify for amnesty, under the true legal definition of the term? If not, then Obama, who is not the Pharaoh or God-King he thinks he is, therefore have any legal authority to grant these people “amnesty”? I think not.

    Firstly, we have no idea the actual number of these people here, making it reasonable to assume that since large numbers of them have never been charged with the commission of a crime, that they cannot have been convicted of said crime, and don’t qualify under that portion of the definition of one theoretically eligible for amnesty. If we’re not certain, legally, whether or not a crime has yet been committed in some cases, the individuals involved cannot be granted amnesty as it would be tantamount to being granted a “before the fact” pardon for the commission of crime.

    Even Obama (I hope) understands that he can’t grant someone a blanket permission to commit a crime, especial if that individual is not a US Citizen and therefore not subject to his jurisdiction. It would be like the the president giving out “Get Out of Jail Free” cards, in order to induce people to give him their political support, This would be especially true of allegedly “illegal aliens” who have none of the rights or protections of American citizens.

    The nature of the alleged crime, (sneaking into our country in search of economic opportunities” also disqualifies the intended beneficiaries of Obama’s intended largesse, as that also fails to fit the definition of amnesty being use for people suspected of “political offenses against the government, that threaten its sovereignty”

    In any event, a president, even an illegitimate one like Obama, cannot commit an act that qualifies as a high crime or misdemeanor that poses a clear and present danger to the health safety and welfare of the American people. That of course would stop our self anointed sun-god, however it might be fund to watch him try to do so, if it led directly to a serious effort to impeach the POS and to prosecute him and consequently incarcerate him for this and his many other traitorous acts against our country…

    Of course that raises another question in and of itself: Can Obama be considered to be a “traitor” to America, if there’s no evidence of him being even a “naturalized” American citizen, let alone one who was “naturally born”

    That might make him an enemy combatant, just like the de-facto terrorist that he in fact appears to be. At that point, a hanging in the public square might be the only proper solution.

    Well I can dream can’t I?

    fs

  • Scar

    Thank you for further exposing the truth about Obama’s pending action, Mr. Smith. Regarding Comrade Rosenblum, I suppose it’s perfectly normal for one liar to be an advisor to an habitual liar like Obama.

  • physicsnut

    the Times reaction is to blabber about demographic shifts, deny any semblance of a revolution, and then go on about “white privilege” and ‘critical race theory’.
    gee – almost as weird as Amy Goodman – who pumps up Oliver Stone and blabbers about how Truman was the bad guy and Stalin was the good guy, and everything in the world would be just grand if only we had elected Henry Wallace !!!
    AlterNet says the election was determined by Fear and Paranoia, and that they have The Ultimate Guide to what Women Really Want ! and that the GOP is just Old and White.
    Did I say that these people are delusional ?
    An idea — we can talk about demographics after we kick out all the illegals in this country.

  • GSR

    The United States government, run by both parties, needs to simply enforce existing laws pertaining to immigration (and the borders). They have proven they are unwilling to do so. Unlimited/unrestricted immigration can destroy a country. No country in the world allows this but one – the USA.

  • A Disqus User

    Mass foreign race immigration did not happen “with mutual consent”.

    It was FORCED.

    No White country was EVER given a vote on whether it wanted to become multiracial.

    Foreign race Assimilation is FORCED in EVERY & ONLY White countries
    in employment, law, education, housing, healthcare, sports, policing
    etc.

    An “all-White” anything is illegal in White countries.
Combine mass
    immigration and FORCED assimilation and you have a clear policy of White
    geNOcide.

    Anti-racist is a >code< for Anti-White.

  • DaveGinOly

    Sounds like the Hegelian Dialectic at work.

    Agenda – More liberal immigration laws and a more porous border
    Manufactured problem – Create an immigration/border crisis by extra-constitutional executive action (or inaction, in the case of failure to enforce current laws)
    Reaction (or Solution) – Congressional response to control (but not necessarily abolish) the acts of the executive
    Result – More liberal immigration laws and a more porous border

  • USARetired

    Detrimental actions to the sovereignty of this Nation should be considered treason!

  • http://www.executivesunlimited.com/ jessecaitl

    Yea, there is a precedent for it.