• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Backdoor Amnesty - Abusing the Constitution and Presidential Authority

    When President Obama was inaugurated, he swore an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  Article II, Section 3 directs the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”  Unfortunately, in what has become an all too common occurrence in this administration, Obama is once again bending that oath to the breaking point by specifically not taking care that immigration laws passed by Congress are faithfully executed.

    The Department of Homeland Security announced on Thursday that it would halt all deportation proceedings against illegal immigrants who are attending school, have family in the military or are primarily responsible for other family members’ care, and allow them to apply for work permits.  Apparently, the only illegal aliens that the Obama administration will detain and deport are those who have committed additional serious criminal offenses in the United States – the fact that they committed a crime under federal law by entering the United States illegally (8 U.S.C. § 1325) is apparently of no concern to this administration.

    It is no coincidence that the factors that DHS says it will now consider are the very same provisions that were in the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors or DREAM Act that was proposed by Senator Dick Durbin.  This bill failed to pass Congress because of principled opposition from senators like Jeff Sessions, who pointed out that this bill was so filled with loopholes that it would send illegal immigrants the message that the U.S. has “given up on enforcement of our immigration laws.”  The DREAM Act really stood for “Deviously Replacing Enforcement with Amnesty” and that is the policy that has now been implemented by President Obama and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano.

    But this is also another example of the contempt that the President has for the separation of powers embedded in our Constitution.  Obama is functionally implementing the provisions of the DREAM Act by executive fiat despite the fact that the Act did not pass Congress and is not supported by the American people.  His assigned duty under the Constitution is to enforce the laws passed by Congress – not to act as a super legislator who implements his own laws when a particular bill he supports fails to pass in Congress.  More than a flagrant abuse of the doctrine of “prosecutorial discretion,’ it amounts to lawlessness.

    It is also not an isolated incident.  For example, it was revealed several months ago that the White House is considering issuing an executive order that would implement the same campaign finance disclosure provisions against government contractors contained in the DISCLOSE Act, another bill that failed to pass the Senate.  With this White House, it seems the answer is always: heads I win, tails you lose.

    What is most shocking about this action is that when the President spoke to the National Council of La Raza in July, he said that he could not go around Congress and implement immigration “reform” or grant an amnesty because “that’s not how our democracy functions.”   Yet three weeks later that is essentially what he had done.

    The President has an obligation to enforce the immigration laws passed by Congress.  He does not have the authority to ignore a comprehensive federal law that he knows is constitutional.  In fact, this new policy not only ignores the law, it puts the federal government in the position of helping individuals violate federal law and avoid the sanctions that Congress provided.  The President has no authority to provide a general amnesty – yet he (and his administration) act as if they are the law.

    This new policy strikes at a fundamental underpinning of our nation – the rule of law.  It rewards illegality and lawbreakers, encourages even more aliens to enter the United States illegally, and comes at a time when President Obama has started his reelection campaign with such a low approval rating, that it is essential that he get a substantial majority of the Hispanic vote to serve a second term.  It is another shameful instance of putting politics before the law.

    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    51 Responses to Backdoor Amnesty - Abusing the Constitution and Presidential Authority

    1. Michael Hyde says:

      When President Obama was inaugurated, he swore an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  Article II, Section 3 directs the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”  Unfortunately, in what has become an all too common occurrence in this administration, Obama is once again bending that oath to the breaking point by specifically not taking care that immigration laws passed by Congress are faithfully executed.

      • Rosemarytearoom says:

        It's time Congress and TEA PARTY research the possibility and process for initiating an impeachment process that will continue after 2012 elections. He will not be elected. Forget what professional pundits say about what needs to happen for Obama to be reelected. Obama's record and crimes in office will prevent his reelection. However, Obama, Eric Holder, Janet napolotana, Corrupt members of Congress and George Soros must be held accountable. America is a nation of laws. No one is above the law. The impeachment process (Constitutional) requires the House of Representatives to bring charges (Proscecutor) the Senate serves as the Jury. Chief Justice (Roberts) is the judge. The House could begin the process, they do not have the votes ((67) for a conviction, thus it would only be recorded in history as an impeachment. Without a conviction, no punishment (Remember Bill Clinton?). But research should begin as to proving to the gangstas, they are not above the law. Keep the faith and the conversation going.

      • agonystes says:

        Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives the president the power to "grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States." In the last quarter of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first, categorical amnesty typically involved issues surrounding the Vietnam War (1946–1975, American involvement 1964–1975) or illegal immigration.

    2. Heather says:

      Based on this man's continuing pattern of behavior, it's time to ask: Impeachment, anyone?

      • James Thomas says:

        You took the words out of my mouth. Add to these examples his refusal to apply the law against the New Black Panthers and his unilateral decision not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. It is shameful that not one Republican in Congress calls out this president for his repeated disregard for the laws of the land.

      • Bilone says:

        You're right. If this man can't understand the word "illegal" maybe the other "i" word (Impeachment) will get his attention.

      • Voice O. Reason says:

        Yep…but I bet everyone is afraid to do anything because even disagreeing with this President gets you labeled a racist. Hey, Congress, grow some you know what. Enforcing the Constitution isn't racist. It shouldn't be even the least bit controversial.

        • Doug H says:

          Maybe it's high time people called the situation exactly what it is. If he calls you racist, call him liar. It is my belief that one of the biggest racists in the United States is setting in some place other than at his work desk, where he should be right now. He is incompetent, cruel, and an empty suit with no understanding of world affairs, economics, the Constitution, or respect for the American people or the limits of his office. He surrounds himself with unworthy people and refuses to listen to the American people. He is a blight on the history of this nation. And I believe he wants to revive the hate that existed in the 60's so that the enemies of American can attack and clean our clock. It is my prayer that if he declares martial law, the American military will take him prisoner and allow the vice president the room to settle things down and — hopefully — restore peace and respect among our citizens. This president uses his office and Air Force One like a candy store. He must be called to account. We don't need a Constitutional Convention; we need a reaffirmation that the Constitution means what it says.

      • Where is the backbone of our supposedly conservative Republican Senators? Impeachment has to start in the Senate, according to the Constitution. What are they waiting for? Christmas?!

    3. Mike Cappy says:

      Can President Obama abolish our immigration law?
      Will congress stand for this? In the narrow view prosecuting criminal aliens seems like a good idea but to let all non criminal aliens remain in the US means we no longer have any immigration law. It is to otherwise say it is permissible to be in this country in direct violation our standing laws as long as you don’t have a criminal past. President Oboma and his wife have said on several occasions that our Constitution is an out dated document and it is clear he executing this view with this new unapproved immigration policy.

      Everyone should call their representatives and ask if they have agreed to this policy.

      • Dwight O'Dell says:

        I don't think he can abolish the Constitution Mike, but I'm sure Presidink Obama will try to bent the law enough to get his way. I have to agree with Rush Limbaugh, that everything Obama says : "Has an expiration date"!! I would also like to point out that Ronald Reagan tried amnesty 20+ yrs. ago, it didn't work then and it won't work now!! Lastly if their in this country, they've already broken our laws by being here illegally, which makes them criminals, which means they are to be deported. Those in the military are not here illegally, more than likely, and would have to be looked at on a case by case basis.

    4. GRBW says:


    5. This article fails to clarify that the new policy changes will only affect those who are already in deportation proceedings, roughly 300,000. In a world of limited resources, it is important to live within your means and reduce unnecessary spending. By going after those who pose a real threat, we are making sure we are using our limited resources wisely.

      • Esther says:

        You missed the main point. It doesn't matter if it's 300,000 or 1,000. Obama is not a king. He cannot circumvent the consitution and implement what is basically the tenets of the dream act.

      • aebe says:

        Hello.Do you also believe the rest of the world should have a right to vote in American elections ? Why not demand that other countries,
        those now protesting any enforcement of American law,observe our laws ? Why not impose massive penalties upon those nations,
        sufficient enough to make up for our limited resources ?
        A land without borders is merely a state of anarchy.Could be kinda dangerous,right ? And those limited resources could make it difficult
        for the law to protect you.

        Validate your 2nd Amendment Rights.
        You know that the government will not.

      • rt9278 says:

        HAAAA!!! So this is a cost and resource saving measure?! After spending like a drunken sailor for 2 and a half years, this is where he draws the line??? You have got to be completely naive to really think that isn't anything more than an attempt to get hispanic votes by excusing their illegal behavior. This is not a fiscal decision, it is political.

      • Mark says:

        Just wondering, are you ready to defend the administrations use of our limited resources in other areas?

      • You miss the point. Nobody is saying, "Go out and hunt down every illegal and deport them." Of course, we don't have the resources to do that. The change that Obama made is WHEN an illegal comes to the attention of the Federal government, instead of automatically deporting them, we ONLY do that when they've committed some other serious crime. It costs practically nothing more to issue a deportation order than it does to turn them loose. If our Federal government is really that broke, we could have a telethon and get people to contribute to deporting illegals. They'd get plenty of funds. The point is, this administration wouldn't want to do it under ANY circumstances. They're counting on those future Democratic voters!

    6. jgass says:

      Get these people out of office yesterday. We don't need these illegals here. WE THE LEGAL CITIZENS OF THE USA NEED JOBS. NOT JOBS CREATED TO KEEP PEOPLE POOR NOR JOBS TO LET THE ILLEGALS STAY!!!!!!!!

    7. ZOO says:

      Practically every working illegal alien in America is using a stolen or fabricated Social Security number to get hired. They openly admit this when filing tax returns (for refunds of course), using a Federal Taxpayer I.D. number (FTIN) on the front, and a different number (false) on the W2(s) attached. This has gone on for years, under Bush and now Obama. Why have the IRS and various state tax authorities played right along? This is I.D. theft right in the governments' face! The "no criminal record" that Obama is using for criteria must be referring to the IRS. It makes no difference WHO is in the oval office or congress. They are ALL criminals and the all want illegal aliens backing up in everyone's toilet.

    8. Bobbie says:

      Impeach! He fails his duty to protect this country and us!! He forces us to pay the expenses resulting from his intentional neglect to enforce the law. He imposes financial burdens of all costs along the way to his intentional neglect on the law abiding. He encourages illegal immigration by holding them unaccountable to themselves.

      How priceless a beggar! How much more is he going to get away with? Impeach!

    9. Bobbie says:

      he expects ALL from some and NOTHING from his "special interests." which should also be impeachable.

    10. tishiejean says:

      We know the issue. Now please inform us of the remedy.

    11. RUreallySurprised says:

      It seems SOMEONE, nudge-nudge, who was a Constitutional Lawyer, wink-wink, learned only how to devise backdoor policies and subvert our American basis of law. This should not surprise the voters, because even I knew he would do this 3 years ago! The worst part? All the lemmings just standing by watching it happen.

    12. IllinoisMinuteman says:

      May I be the first here to say; It is time to impeach this tyrant! The list of "High crimes and misdemeanors" is growing, and is quite large. This has to be the last. With so many Americans not working, or living in tent cities, or just giving up looking for work, we THE People need a president to look for a solution.
      If I wanted a black president that had no clue how to run a country, I would vote for Tiger Woods. At least he would be good at golf.
      The obama impeachment must be swift and sure, and must remove him from office if we are to have any hope to save our country.

    13. Dam Ba says:

      I have been scanning the blogs around the country and believe me, even on the Washington Post and the LA Times, the people are mad as hell about this. And, there are processes going on behind the scenes that will explode this matter once everyone gets back from vacation. This will be Obama's Waterloo, and well-deserved. We don't need a Post America president.

    14. Allisio Rex says:

      Excellent article. This decision will have to be challenged in Federal Courts,probably the Supreme Court without any delay. Congress also will have to look into the possibility of impeaching Obama and removing him from his, never deserved, highest office and with him remove all his appointed anti-American gang.

    15. Allisio Rex says:

      Excellent article. This decision will have to be challenged in Federal Courts,probably the Supreme Court without any delay. Congress also will have to look into the possibility of impeaching Obama and removing him from his, never deserved, highest office and with him remove all his appointed anti-American gang.

    16. President Obama has no authority in immigration decision-Congress has the power under the US Constitution When is Congress going to stop President Obams in this back door deal in immigration. Its strickly political to illegal immiogration We have laws against illegal immigration. Rule of Law/Not the Rule of men Another special interests group he wants
      http://www.wastewatchersinc.org http://www.judgenap.com

    17. Stirling says:

      Most people should of known this was going to be the game plan (after the 2010 elections). This administration is just doing the end arround congress as they have done on any issue that the people will not support if given all the truth. Case in point: Going to the UN before congress for the Lybia war. The rule of law only suits this administration if it works for their agenda.

    18. West Texan says:

      The Obama camp gives new meaning to the term fiat. It's hard to believe this guy was a constitutional scholar. He doesn't get the basics.

    19. prado4587 says:

      Fine and jail anyone who demands and consumes a good and service produced by an illegal alien and/or increase the number of immigration visas for the workers that come/stay here illegally to produce the goods and services that Americans demand and consume.

    20. Nobody Important says:

      I got a call today from a close family member who says that Obama has granted blanket amnesty to any non-citizen for all crimes. I asked “So, you’re saying, if a non-citizen robs a bank or commits murder, that that person cannot be convicted because they are not a citizen?” The answer was “Yes, Obama and the Supreme Court have gone against the constitution and made it impossible to convict any non-US-citizen of any crime, they can do whatever they want. This is so they will all vote for him.” I asked “Then why hasn’t the Russian mafia killed all of the police in the US?” The answer was “The Arabians are going to do that, they’re going to kill a third of the US population in order to take over with their socialist agenda.” This broke my heart (not that it matters to anybody else) because I love this person.

      This person is a senior citizen, but is intelligent and typically well-meaning. Still, she gets a lot of news from sources that bandy this word “amnesty” around a lot (and “traitor” and “terrorist”). This article stops short of saying this “blanket amnesty” extends to all crimes, but it’s pretty much in line with the rest of her comments. I’m curious, how many people think that she is right?

    21. guest says:

      In light of the illegal acts we have seen condoned I think it's obvious that this president is beyond the ability to impeach. We are not turning into a "European-style Socialist country" but a Soviet Russian-style one. Look – in our new super majority congress we already have a politburo! It seems to me that the next action is to impeach those who are responsible for Obama remaining in office – namely, the senate. Vote every single senator who supports this dictator out of office the next time you are at the polls. His thugs will get stronger and stronger until this country becomes unrecognizable.

    22. Andrew says:

      What gets me is rather than trying to come up with a LEGAL solution to the immigration issue liberals constantly say just ignore the fact they have and are continuting to break laws entering into this country illigally and then working and not paying their fair share of taxes like legal citizans and residents.

    23. Dennis says:

      Time to inpeach Obama,Fire Gietner,Ben Bernanki the close the fed's.Holder needs to go as well.Replace the old guards in congress.Dingy Harry and Nasty Nancy need to go.Replace Baehner and McConnel as leader's of the house's.Clean house.

    24. It's time to light up the phones of our Congressmen- why do we have a Congress-when we have a King?

    25. Mike, Wichita Falls says:

      I believe impeachment is a legitimate course of action but not one the democrat-controlled Senate will ever entertain. Remember that not even one democrat in the Senate voted to repeal Obamacare or to bend the curve on spending via CCB despite the toxicity of these issues to the American people. The solution to a President would does not faithfully execute the laws of the land and a Senate who is blind and deaf to the will of the American people is simply to change their occupants.

    26. Dwana Townsend says:

      This isn't the first time he didn't follow the rule of law. What about the Lybian conflict? He has yet to go before congress to gain their approval of the use of our military, and from the looks of it we will continue to have involvement for some time to come!! He totally ignored The Enumerated Powers clause under our constitution. When are we going to start demanding the enforcement of our Constitutuion? Will Eric Holder be held accountable for the ATF mess? When are we going to start holding our representatives and highest officials to higher standards and accountability?

    27. Redduke says:

      Yawn. More than one half of the Senate is in the hands of Obama. More than one half of the House is either in the hands of Obama or part of the Republican establishment that would love to just go along with Obama while they wait their turn at the trough. That leaves about a third of the House that even cares about the Constitution and many of those are trying to figure out how to play the balancing act required to stay in power. There will be no impeachment, there will be no investigation and there will be no change unless The majority of America wants it changed. The next opportunity is the next election.

    28. RennyG says:

      Hey, there is nothing unusual about "back door" operations, it is normal now days. Not only that, with the 2+trillion additional spending money someone gave him he is going to continue to buy voting blocks and we will have him for another four years. So hang on!!! We had our chance to stop him this last debt increase vote and folded!!! They are concerned about their political jobs or used the excuse that "it's better for the country!!" Don't worry about the country, it has survived WARS, we should be able to survive this guy!

    29. RennyG says:

      I have a question in terms of getting rid of some of our leaders. If a state can have recalls for elected officials, can the same apply to the federal government. If so, what are we waiting for, time is running out!!!!

    30. robinked says:

      I unfortunately agree that congress if too gutless to start impeachment proceedings…we'll see, i also agree that peeps need to get out the VOTE!!!

      they're illegal…DEPORT THEM!!!

    31. Wrip says:

      Globalization is making this a non-issue. The U.N. is a bigger threat than illegals, it will make borders irrelevant.

    32. agonystes says:

      “The President has no authority to provide a general amnesty”

      Where did you get that one?

      Gale Encyclopedia of US History: Amnesty:

      “Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives the president the power to “grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States.” In the last quarter of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first, categorical amnesty typically involved issues surrounding the Vietnam War (1946–1975, American involvement 1964–1975) or illegal immigration.”

      Just because you write an article, doesn’t mean people don’t know how to use Google to fact check statements. Or maybe you just haven’t read the US Constitution and its amendments.

    33. Corky W. says:

      DEAR FOUNDRY, why would you not put my comment in? I used no bad words. I did not say anything wrong. I simply had a comment about what is going on. You've done this to me before too.
      I said, IF we ship the Criminals back they will simply return if we do not SEAL our borders.

    34. Sodak says:

      Fastest way to resolve the issue is to stop the direct money transfers back to the illegal homeland – wherever that may be; confiscate the money transfers and turn it over to the Fed. The illegals would discover quickly that the loud sucking sound of the Fed and their money would encourage citizenship quickly – or a return to their original home.

    35. SpecialKinNJ says:

      The $64 question is "Do we need any illegals at all?", the logical answer to which, of course, is "No"–whether in spring, summer, winter or fall. And drawing fine distinctions as between legal and criminal behavior, for folks who're clearly illegally here, only serves to muddy already murky water, and add fog to a cloudy atmosphere,

    36. Stephen says:

      This is what pisses me off the most: There should be consequences for not enforcing laws and oaths of office (such as protecting the Constitution of the US), just as there is for breaking these laws, etc. But mayors, governors, and the president can all just ignore what they don't want to enforce with no consequences whatsoever! Until we make this happen, we will continue to have to endure the actions of trash that we stupidly elect to public office.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.