“Yes He Can, on Immigration,” by the New York Times Editorial Board, dated 4/5/14, reaches for a new low in its campaign for amnesty for illegal aliens. The endless sob stories about pitiful, deserving illegal aliens by NYT reporter Julia Preston and others having failed to move the public to demand, or Congress to enact the pending mass amnesty bill, the Times now turns to Obama. Ratcheting up the pressure from Hispanic groups demanding an end to deportations “breaking up families” [of lawbreaking foreigners], the Times opines that if President Obama “means what he says” about immigration “…he is going to have to do something about it – soon and on his own.”

The editorial proceeds to repeat the name-calling, half-truths, sentimental appeals, and questionable legal opinions that have become the weapons of the alienist forces. “Neo-nativist Republicans…have blocked a worthy bipartisan bill [the Gang of Eight Amnesty/Immigration Increase Bill].” “The Obama administration is deporting people at a faster pace than has taken place under any other president [a gaming of statistics by the administration to create the illusion of enforcement of immigration law to try to help pass the amnesty bill, that Obama and his Sec. of DHS have since admitted were not accurate].”                                           

The Times contends that Obama’s unilateral decision to “defer” deportations of so-called Dreamers, “young people who would have qualified for legal status under the stalled Dream Act” was “…made on firm legal ground.”

Finally the shoe drops: “But millions of other unauthorized immigrants are just as vulnerable and no less worthy.” So the Times tells Obama that all the millions of illegals that would receive amnesty if the House would only pass the Senate amnesty bill “…should not be in danger of deportation.”

The editorial concludes with a sentence combining pressure, petulant frustration, and most significantly, an appeal to Obama’s vanity and ego: “It’s hard to know when he will finally stir himself to do something big and consequential.”

The Times is finally right about something. It would be “big and consequential” if a president would declare that when Congress [entrusted by our Constitution with the law-making power] refuses to pass a law he wants, he can decide to act as if it is the law. Looked at another way, given that deportation is the means of enforcing immigration law, if Obama agrees to issue the “No Deportations” edict sought by the Times and the open borders movement, he will have taken unto himself the power to refuse to enforce the nation’s immigration laws – laws that are not only the duly-enacted law of the land, but laws every country must have to remain a sovereign nation.

“The President…shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…” U.S. Constitution, Art. III, Sect.3

Will the day of Obama’s mass amnesty edict be the day our Republic dies? Or will it be after a few more decades of uncontrolled immigration when a polyglot rabble place a crown upon the head of a future Obama?

Posted 4/6/14 by Andrew Lewis

NYT Editorial: hp&rref=opinion&_r=




Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here