You want to stop amnesty? I have two words: November fourth.

Getty Images

Just yesterday we reported on the decision of the Department of Justice Board of Immigration Appeals who declared that Guatemalan women could claim spousal abuse and gain asylum in the United States based upon a very broad categorical definition. We all know the progressive socialists who control the Democrat Party are all for open borders and reject the sense of American sovereignty. As well, the radical Hispanic immigration groups want an amnesty for the millions of illegals in America.

Well, President Obama drew another “red line” before he departed for his Martha’s Vineyard vacation — and some folks are calling him on it.

As reported by The Hill, “President Obama is facing heavy pressure from both sides of the immigration fight, as he nears a self-imposed deadline for likely changes to his deportation policy. Immigration reform advocates, including many Democrats on Capitol Hill, argue that Obama has both the legal authority and a moral obligation to use his executive pen to halt deportations for millions of immigrants living in the country illegally.”

Advertisement - story continues below

I have to disagree with that premise. Obama is the president of the United States and his legal authority is defined in the U.S. Constitution and his moral authority as given from the consent of the governed is to uphold the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution and to protect the American people.

Obama does not have the exclusive executive power of any pen to halt deportations, as he is prohibited by the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 from dealing in any matters on naturalization. Of course, abiding by the rule of law has never stopped Obama — or meant anything to progressive socialists.

Critics of the aforementioned approach, including most Republicans, say the administration overstepped its powers, when it enacted — by executive order — the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) in 2012, which allows certain immigrants who came to the United States illegally as children to stay in the country and work. This is indeed a violation of the Constitutional statement referenced above.

As The Hill reports, “legal scholars promoting broad changes to Obama’s deportation policy on Tuesday set out what they said was the legal basis for new executive action, including an expansion of the DACA to cover thousands — perhaps millions — more illegal immigrants. Stephen Legomsky, former chief counsel of at the Homeland Security Department’s Citizenship and Immigration Services branch, said “there’s no serious legal question” about Obama’s authority to use deferred action as a method of prioritizing resources.”

“When Congress knowingly gives DHS only enough resources to go after a tiny percentage of the undocumented population, then obviously Congress intended for the administration to formulate priorities. It has no choice,” Legomsky, now a professor at Washington University School of Law, said Tuesday. “That’s what deferred action does. It prioritizes finite resources.”

A-ha! So there you have the loophole the progressive socialists will use — due to resource constraints, illegal alien deportations must be delayed, or even halted. And it will be done for an unspecified period. And while we’re operating under this resource constraint and re-prioritize, these illegals will be granted cards that allow them to stay — and work, legally — which will further depress wages in America and explode the entitlements spending, all to the detriment of hardworking American middle income families whom Obama claims he so loves!

But it doesn’t just end there with the progressive justification. “Discretion, the president’s ability to make decisions based on enforcement priorities, is all over the immigration statute. In fact, you wouldn’t be able to enforce the immigration statute without the ability to decide what are our priorities,” David Leopold, former head of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said Tuesday. “There’s really no legal argument, no reasonable legal argument, against it.”

Ladies and gents, these are just progressive socialist code words for Obama to institute selective executive discretion in upholding the laws of the land based upon his subjective assessment of priority of resources. Folks, these rascals don’t even hide their disdain for the rule of law — they openly advise you on how they will circumvent its execution and enforcement. This Mr. Leopold has basically stated there is no legal argument for supporting the U.S. Constitution in lieu of executive discretionary authority.

And how do Republicans respond? Just rhetoric. According to The Hill, “Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said this week that expanding the DACA would be “a security nightmare” putting the country at an increased risk of terrorist attacks; Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said the DACA has already done enough damage by creating “chaos” at the southern border, where tens of thousands of unaccompanied migrant kids have flocked this summer; and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) sent a letter to Obama Tuesday warning that any further unilateral action would kill the possibility of a bipartisan immigration reform deal emerging from Congress next year.”

And how do Democrats respond? Obtuse belligerence. “Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.), Congress’s most vocal advocate for comprehensive immigration reform, is confident enough that the administration will go big that he gathered Wednesday in Chicago with Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D) and a group of between 40 and 50 civic leaders to build a working group tasked with managing whatever changes are coming. “We want to get as many as we can out of the vicious cycle of deportation,” Gutiérrez told MSNBC Monday. “We’re getting ready.”

The big question is, how will the American people respond? My friends, the only way we will stop these progressive socialists is with our response on November 4th.

New BOMBSHELL about O'Reilly's accuser could change everything

New BOMBSHELL about O'Reilly's accuser could change everything

Hillary's latest complaint may be COMPLETELY made up

Hillary's latest complaint may be COMPLETELY made up