The Obama Administration is granting backdoor amnesty to illegal aliens via a memorandum, similar to a mandate from a king. The proof is in a leaked U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Memorandum called “Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration Reform.” In the memo, the USCIS is directed to substitute “judgement” for the the laws of the United States. It then goes on to define what that “judgement” should be.
The Obama administration claims the right to refuse enforcement of the law and the right to usurp the authority of Congress because Congress has failed to act on immigration reform. Meanwhile, the DOJ is suing states because they are acting to enforce the immigration law which Obama refuses to obey, even though SCOTUS has upheld states’ rights in these matters.
In the memo, USCIS is directed to use discretion when illegals are ordered to appear, consider family unity, extend grace periods, consider deferment of deportation if it’s not in the public interest, and to consider “extreme hardship” in cases of deportation. The memo excludes those convicted of felonies, but not misdemeanors.
What illegal won’t fit into one of these categories? In fact, are all terrorists and drug dealers who come across the border convicted felons? I doubt it.
The following is the summary of the memo, and you can click the link to read the entire memorandum.
In the absence of Comprehensive immigration Reform, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place deferred action and the issuance of Notices to Appear (NTA), and adopting signifIcant process improvements.
To promote family unity, USCIS could reinterpret two 1990 General Counsel Opinions regarding the ability of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) applicants who entered the United Slates (U.S.) without inspection to adjust or change status. This would enable thousands of individuals in TPS status to become lawful permanent residents. Similarly. where non·TPS applicants have been deemed inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(AXi) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“the Act”) for having enlered without inspection, USCIS could grant “parole·in· place” (PIP) in the exercise of discretion to create II basis for adjustment in the U.S.
To foster economic growth. USCIS could work more aggressively with the Department of Commerce (DOC) to complement important economic initiatives such as Invest in America. By establishing a working group with the DOC, USCIS should consider creative ways to make the- EB-5 program more accessible to foreign investors and to administer it.
For workers in the U.S. whose occupations require frequent travel, or who are seeking permanent residence, USCIS could also build on a regulation issued by the former INS that, among other things, relieved Hand L non-immigrants with pending adjustment applications from having to secure advance parole before departing the U.S. Expanding this “dual intent” concept to cover other long-term non-immigrants, including F. O. TN, P, and E visa holders would enable the workers to maintain valid nonimmigrant status and travel overseas without advance parole while thcir Adjustment applications are pending. They would also be allowed to maintain their nonimmigrant status if USCJS denies their adjustment applications. The agency could also consider extending employment authorization to the dependent spouses of certain skilled workers. For example, USCIS could allow employment authorization for H-4 dependent spouses of H- IB principals where the principals are also applicants for lawful permanent residence.
Finally, the agency should afford workers admitted to the U.S . in nonimmigrant status a reasonable period of time to conclude their affairs and depart after expiration of their authorized period of performance, training. or vocational activity. The current IO-day “grace period” is insufficient. USCIS could amend its regulations to permit longer periods ranging from 45 to 90 depending on employment category and overall time spent working in the U.S.
Where no relief appears available based on an applicant’s employment and or family circumstances, but removal is not in the public interest, SCIS could grant deferred action. This would permit individuals for whom relief may become available in the future to live and work in the U.S. without fear of removal. A corollary to this exercise of agency discretion is for USCIS to issue Notices to Appear (NTAs) strategically, rather than across the board. If relief is potentially available in removal, USCIS should consider issuing an NTA. On the other hand, where no relief exists in removal for an applicant without any significant negative immigration or criminal history, users could avoid using its limited resources to issue an NTA.
Finally, for applicants who have requested relief from USCIS, whether in-country or abroad. and whose applications require a waiver of inadmissibility, USCIS could issue guidance or a regulation lessening the “extreme hardship” standard. This would encourage many more
spouses, sons and daughters of U.S. citizens and lawful pennanent residents to seek relief without fear of removal. It would also increase the likelihood that such relief would be granted. Read more: Eagle Forum: Memo on Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Obama wants the Hispanic vote and is granting blanket amnesty to get it. Personally, I don’t see this as such a winning argument with Hispanics who came here legally. It’s essentially an open border policy and we, as a result, are a country without borders.
Everyone (especially immigrants who earned the right to come here legally) should be concerned about this because Obama is refusing to enforce the laws of the United States. We are a nation of laws and the balance of powers does not give the President the right to refuse to enforce the laws of the United States and assume the lawmaking powers allocated to Congress because he does not agree with them.
Under the Constitution of the United States, the main role of the executive branch is to enforce the nation’s laws. The Executive Branch also leads the country’s relations with foreign nations, commands the armed forces, and participates in the lawmaking process.
The Executive Branch does not have the right to legislate. The President can participate in the lawmaking process via the state of the union clause, recommendations clause, and veto power. In other words, the President can participate through recommendations and veto power not by making or changing the law, that right is reserved for Congress. Congress is the primary lawmaking power.
Obama is legislating through Executive Orders, memos, and agency regulations.
Without the memo, it has been clear that this would be the case. One case in point is Obama’s recent enactment of the DREAM Act despite it having been voted down by Congress for more than a decade.
“This is outright lawlessness on part of the administration. Whatever the politics of this, we do have a constitution and under it the legislator, the Congress, enacts the laws and the executive doesn’t make them up,” Pulitzer Prize winning writer, Charles Krauthammer, said on “Special Report.”
“The DREAM Act was rejected by Congress, it is now being enacted by the executive despite the expressed will of the Congress. That is lawless. It may not be an explicit executive order, it is an implicit one,” said Krauthammer.
Of course the memo now makes it an explicit one and Krauthammer’s remarks came before the memo was leaked.
Janet Napolitano hinted on the new lawless policy in a recent a letter to Senate Democrats stating that it would “enhance public safety” by focusing deportation efforts on those “who pose a threat.”
The DHS and DOJ plan to review every deportation case and consider 19 factors when using prosecutorial discretion, including whether they came over as a young child. Of course their families will have to stay as well. This is Obama’s DREAM Act.
The Obama administration went much further than the DREAM Act –
…Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, wrote on the White House blog that the review would “clear out low-priority cases on a case-by-case basis and make more room to deport people who have been convicted of crimes or pose a security risk” — while ensuring the low-priority cases are kept “out of the deportation pipeline in the first place.”
Describing groups of people similar to those targeted in the DREAM Act, she said the low-priority list would include “individuals such as young people who were brought to this country as small children, and who know no other home,” as well as “individuals such as military veterans and the spouses of active-duty military personnel (that was always the case).” Read here: Blanket amnesty for votes.
Charles Krauthammer on Special Report