Mrs. Clinton defended a path to citizenship for those 11 million [illegal aliens], and promised as president to take executive—more broadly than Mr. Obama has—to defer [their] deportations. . . . Mrs. Clinton vowed “as president I will do everything possible under the law to go even further.” . . . Those are stirring words, but Mrs. Clinton has set no timetable for action and given herself clear exists if things get sticky. “Under the law” is one collusion point, as we see from the way hostile governors, attorneys general and a testy judge in Texas have managed to stall Mr. Obama’s modest, and patently legal, action to defer deportations. Hillary Clinton Takes the Lead on Immigration, The New York Times, editorial, 5/7/15.
Fact Check: The New York Times, ever a defender of illegal aliens, thinks it’s “stirring” that Hillary Clinton wants to go even further than Obama in ignoring the Constitution and acting like a dictator. Contrary to the Times’ claim, there is nothing “modest” about Obama’s highhanded actions, which ignore Congress, and propose to give legal status to as many as six million of the 11 million illegal aliens now living in the U.S. Clinton proposes to go “even further,” presumably from what the Times said, to legalize them all.
Contrary to the Times’ claim, the Obama’s legalization scheme is patently illegal, something he himself once conceded. To rationalize his present stance, he now claims that it is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion. This legal principle allows law enforcement to set priorities of enforcement, but it never gives the right to place whole categories of people off-limits to enforcement. Further, the Obama edicts simply repeal the law against the hiring of illegal aliens by offering them work permits. Making law is what Congress is supposed to do, not the president.
Currently, Fifth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit is weighing the legality of Obama’s edicts, specifically the extension of his DACA edict, and the much broader DAPA edict. Most interestingly the Cato Institute has submitted an amicus brief to the court to advise it legal principles. Cato, a libertarian think tank, is pro-amnesty and basically for open borders, yet even Cato can’t tolerate the blatant lawlessness of Obama’s actions.
It described this brief by stating, “Our message is simple: the implausible defense of the president’s unilateral executive action requires a level of legal sophistry that puts Humpty Dumpty to shame. As Justice Robert H. Jackson recognized six decades ago in the seminal case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co v. Sawyer (the ‘Steel Seizure Case’), presidential lawmaking that lacks congressional support ‘must be scrutinized with caution.’ Such scrutiny will reveal that, even though Congress has previously authorized deportation deferrals and accompanying work permits, DAPA amounts to a deliberate effort to bypass Congress and conflicts with five decades of congressional immigration policy.”
The New York Times describes people who support our country’s rule of law as “hostile” and “testy.” More accurate terms would be honorable and patriotic.