Obama’s Immigration Policy: Rhetoric v. Reality Re Deporting Criminals

Here’s what Obama had to say in his recent “executive actions” address announcing his setting aside current immigration legislation in favor of his own substitutions:

Undocumented workers broke our immigration laws, and I believe that they must be held accountable — especially those who may be dangerous. That’s why, over the past six years, deportations of criminals are up 80 percent. And that’s why we’re going to keep focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security. Felons, not families. Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a mother who’s working hard to provide for her kids. We’ll prioritize, just like law enforcement does every day.

He promised, in short, to continue to “focus on deporting criminals,” but to “prioritize.” Fine. So what are his actual priorities? The Department of Homeland Security recently announced the administration’s Policies for the Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants, which listed three categories of priorities. Among the offenses that failed to make Priority 1 were the following:

  1. aliens convicted of a “significant misdemeanor,” which for these purposes is an offense of domestic violence ;1 sexual abuse or exploitation;
    burglary ; un lawful possession or use of a firearm; drug distribution or trafficking; or driving under the influence; or if not an offense listed above, one for which the individual was sentenced to time in custody of 90 days or more (the sentence must involve time to be served in custody, and does not include a suspended sentence)

As Byron York of the Washington Examiner concluded, “An illegal immigrant could spend up to a year in prison for a violent crime and still not be a top removal priority for the Obama administration.”

 

 

Ezra Klein Prompts Another Odd Thought

No sooner did I post some odd thoughts on Obamacare (here) than Ezra Klein prompts another one. He begins an article praising Jonathan Gruber for truth-telling by stating that the MIT economist is “under fire for saying the law passed in part because its unpopular elements were obscured.”

Obscured? OBSCURED? Is Klein not a native English speaker? The law’s unpopular elements were not obscured. They were intentionally misrepresented. To say they were obscured is like saying President Obama obscured the facts when he promised that if people liked their health plans if they liked their doctor, etc. He didn’t obscure; he flat-out and repeatedly lied.

Also note Klein’s responsibility obscuring passive voice: were obscured.

Klein’s verbal malpractice is both a complement and a compliment to Obama’s and Gruber’s political malpractice.

UPDATE

Perhaps I’m too harsh on the Great Prevaricator. After all, Politico has just reminded us that “the president has acknowledged that some of his own statements about the law were ill-advised, in particular his repeated promises that if Americans liked their health care plans they could keep them.”

Ill-advised? Can’t you almost see it now? Little Barry Obama bravely saying to his mother (his father being absent), “Mother, I cannot make an ill-advised statement.” He was probably already thinking of his affirmative action addition to Mt. Rushmore.

Some Odd Thoughts On Obamacare

I’ve been struck lately about how odd it is that the ongoing brouhaha over the recent revelations — not mind you, by the mainstream media — of Prof. Gruber’s serial, seemingly uncontrollable truth-telling threatens to do more damage to Obamacare than the president’s serial, calculated lies. Gruber, as James Taranto has pointed out, has to […]

Stanford Attempts To Close A Gender Gap In Law School Grades

What is it with Stanford? Or me? This is the second time in as many days (the first is here) that I find myself looking skeptically at “diversity” or gap-closing behavior at my undergraduate and graduate (last three years of each) alma mater. In any event, again on Minding The Campus I ask, “Should We Erase The ‘Gender […]

If This Presidential Action Without Congressional Authorization Is Illegal …

… why not that presidential action as well? One of my Senators, Tim Kaine (R, Va), said on Wednesday that the president’s military actions against ISIS are “without legal authority” because they lack Congressional authorization. I wonder if that means Sen. Kaine will regard the president’s impending unilateral, unauthorized rewrite of the nation’s immigration law […]

And Speaking Of Inactivity …

… as I did immediately below. It’s been over six years now since Obama has been delivered to us. Has “the rise of the oceans [begun] to slow” yet?

When Is Inaction Action And Action Inaction?

Whenever either suits the president’s purposes. Have you noticed the fundamental inconsistency between the president’s justifications for Obamacare and “executive actions” on immigration? With the former, he argues that inactivity — refusing to buy the insurance he allows on the market — is really activity that the government can punish or tax (is there a difference?). With the latter, he […]

When Is A Lie Not A Lie?

USA TODAY & Stanford Wage War On The “Tech Diversity Gap …”

“Executive Action” On Immigration: “A Constitutional Abomination”

Head’s Up!

The “Bloc Vote”: The More Things Change …

Are You SURE You Want A Republican Wave?

Forget Ebola, Get Flu Shot? Not In Charlottesville

Not Quite Holistic

Academic Leaders Oppose Governmental Regulation … Of Themselves

Security Gap