Obama's Release Of Illegal Aliens--Why?

RELEASE OF 36,000 CRIMINAL ILLEGALS IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE?

Murderers, rapists, kidnappers, drug dealers turned loose by DHS

Published: 12 hours ago

• 
• Text smaller
• Text bigger

     1.8K

The reported release last year of more than 36,000 criminal illegal aliens is part of a larger annual trend of thousands of such releases since 2009, according to the authors of a book documenting the case for impeaching President Obama.

The Obama administration’s release of the criminals, in numbers larger than what is publicly known, has generating crime waves and serves as a clear and present danger to the public, argue New York Times bestselling authors Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott in their book “Impeachable Offenses: The Case to Remove Barack Obama from Office.”

On Monday, a Center for Immigration Studies report found that in 2013 the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, or ICE, released violent criminals, including murderers, rapists, kidnappers and drug dealers.

The offenders were among the 36,007 criminal illegal aliens released last year who committed 87,818 crimes, including 15,635 for driving while intoxicated.

Get “Impeachable Offenses: The Case to Remove Barack Obama from Office,” autographed, at WND’s Superstore, at a special price just today.

The statistics shows ICE released illegals jailed for 9,187 dangerous drug infractions, 426 sexual assault convictions, 303 kidnapping convictions, 193 homicide convictions, 1,317 domestic violence convictions and 1,075 aggravated assault convictions.

Last year, it was widely reported ICE, a section of the Department of Homeland Security, freed from prison 622 criminal immigrants, including 32 with multiple felony convictions.

The Obama administration initially blamed the controversial move on the budget sequester cuts.

However, the releases were just the tip of the iceberg, documented Klein and Elliott in “Impeachable Offenses,” which was published last August.

The authors cited ICE documents that state more than 8,000 criminal illegal aliens were released between fiscal years 2009 and May 2011 alone.

A full chapter in the book documents other ways Obama circumvented Congress to enact immigration reform, possibly violating the U.S. Constitution and committing potentially impeachable acts.

ICE statistics show the agency released 3,847 convicted criminal aliens in 2009, 3,882 in 2010 and 1,012 through part of 2011.

A 2011 audit by the DHS inspector general further found 809 recidivist Level 1 illegal immigrant criminals eligible for deportation were released from California and Texas jails in 2009.

ICE defines Level 1 as the “most egregious criminal aliens, who pose a significant public safety risk.”

Offenses include homicide, kidnapping, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, threats, extortion, sex offenses, cruelty toward family, resisting an officer, illegal weapon possession, hit and run, and drug offenses accompanied by sentences of more than a year.

Why were the criminal illegals released? The audit blamed the actions on “agent ‘staffing challenges,’” such as vacancies and “increasing workload levels.”

In most cases, the criminal illegals were automatically released after ICE failed to file the required “detainer” paperwork within 48 hours of the apprehension. The notice declares ICE’s intent to begin removal proceedings against the criminal illegal.

The government previously quietly conceded that released criminal illegals are responsible for new crime waves, report Klein and Elliott in the book.

An August 2012 Congressional Research Service report stated the “decision not to deport some arrested illegal immigrants enabled a crime wave.”

While no specific victims were publicly identified, the CRS reported illegal immigrants released from custody between 2008 and mid-2011 were “charged with 16,226 subsequent crimes, including 19 murders, 142 sex crimes and thousands of drunk-driving offenses, drug-crimes and felonies.”

“Impeachable Offenses” further documents ICE catch-and-release efforts in which large numbers of illegals, including criminals, are rounded up but only a tiny number are charged with crimes.

At the end of September 2011, for example, ICE arrested 2,900 illegal immigrants with criminal records coming from all 50 states and four territories.

All had at least one criminal conviction, and “at least 1,282 had been convicted of multiple charges, and more than 1,600 had felony convictions including manslaughter, attempted murder, kidnapping, armed robbery, drug trafficking, child abuse, sexual crimes against minors, and aggravated assault.”

More than 25 percent of those caught were immigration fugitives. Another 386 had re-entered the U.S. illegally after being removed “multiple times.”

However, only 146 of those arrested during the 2011 sweeps were turned over for prosecution. Of the total arrested, 42 were identified as gang members.

Book fuels national debate

MSNBC reported Klein and Elliott’s “Impeachable Offenses” fueled the national conversation to impeach Obama, while BuzzFeed.com reported the book “ushers in the Obama impeachment movement.”

The book lays out the blueprint for impeaching Obama, alleging high crimes, misdemeanors, bribery and other offenses committed against the U.S. Constitution and the limitations on the executive office.

The Daily Mail of London has called the “Impeachable Offenses” “explosive,” reporting the book contains a “systematic connect-the-dots exercise that the president’s defenders will find troublesome.”

“Consider this work to be the articles of impeachment against Barack Obama,” stated Klein.

“Every American, whether conservative or liberal, Democrat, Republican or independent, should be concerned about the nearly limitless seizure of power, the abuses of authority, the cronyism, corruption, lies and cover-ups documented in this news-making book,” Klein said.

The authors stress the book is not a collection of generalized gripes concerning Obama and his administration. Rather, it is a well-documented indictment based on major alleged violations.

Among the offenses enumerated in the book:

• Obamacare not only is unconstitutional but illegally bypasses Congress, infringes on states’ rights and marking an unprecedented and unauthorized expansion of IRS power.
• Sidestepping Congress, Obama already has granted largely unreported de facto amnesty to millions of illegal aliens using illicit interagency directives and executive orders.
• The Obama administration recklessly endangered the public by releasing from prison criminal illegal aliens at a rate far beyond what is publicly known.
• The president’s personal role in the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi attack, with new evidence regarding what was transpiring at the U.S. mission prior to the assault – arguably impeachable activities in and of themselves.
• Illicit edicts on gun control in addition to the deadly “Fast and Furious” gun-running operation intended, the book shows, to collect fraudulent gun data.
• From “fusion centers” to data mining to drones to alarming Department of Homeland Security power grabs, how U.S. citizens are fast arriving at the stage of living under a virtual surveillance regime.
• New evidence of rank corruption, cronyism and impeachable offenses related to Obama’s first-term “green” funding adventures.
• The illegality of leading a U.S.-NATO military campaign without congressional approval.
• Obama has weakened America both domestically and abroad by emboldening enemies, tacitly supporting a Muslim Brotherhood revolution, spurning allies and minimizing the threat of Islamic fundamentalism. The White House is hitting back, calling the book’s impeachment effort “foolhardy.”

President Has No Power, No Authority To Change The ObamaCrapCare Law. If He Insists, He Has Done An Illegal Act, A Userping Of Congressional Power. Is That A "High Crime And Misdemeanor?"

IN THE ARENA

The Obamacare ‘Fix’ Is Illegal

By EUGENE KONTOROVICH

 

November 22, 2013

The fix is not in.

One week later, states are still wrestling with whether to implement Barack Obama’s answer to the wave of dropped plans that greeted the launch of his signature health care initiative. The president’s “fix,” announced last Thursday in a somber news conference, allows insurance companies to renew policies that do not meet the minimum care standards of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which go into effect on Jan. 1.

So far, only 13 states have said they will cooperate with the administration’s initiative, however, and some have refused. The debate has turned mostly on questions of actuarial policy. But the bigger problem states must consider is that the fix itself is unconstitutional. And even if the president did have the authority to take such action, state compliance with it would still break the law.

First, the fix exceeds the president’s discretion in implementing the law and amounts to legislation from the White House. The president has no constitutional authority to rewrite or unbundle statutes, especially in ways that impose new obligations on people, as the fix does.

But the Obama administration claims an “inherent authority to exercise discretion” in enforcing laws by not enforcing key parts of the ACA at all for one year. And how does argument that hold up? Not very well. Certainly, the chief executive has some discretion to decide how strongly to apply a law, and the timing of enforcement. However, complete non-enforcement of multiple statutes without any argument that they are unconstitutional certainly tests the limits of that discretion.

It is hard to think of anything more like broad policy than the central provisions of what has been called the most significant piece of legislation in a generation. Moreover, Congress is actively working on similar measures, but with differences the president considers objectionable. This further demonstrates the primarily legislative nature of the fix.The difference between executive discretion and rewriting a law can be blurry, but the latter can generally be characterized as involving broad policy, while the former involves particular circumstances that arise in the administration of a law. (To put it differently, enforcement discretion goes to how a law is implemented, not if.)

Indeed, far from mere “non-enforcement,” the fix imposes entirely novel requirements on insurers. Insurers have to make a variety of disclaimers and statements against interest to benefit from the non-enforcement. This is not a requirement found in the Affordable Care Act or its attendant regulations. The new requirements for insurers are highly detailed, showing this is thus not simply a delay, but substantive new regulation, adopted by dictate.

The second constitutional infirmity relates not to Congress, but the states. Unlike prior exercises of presidential enforcement discretion, the fix depends on states violating federal law. That is because it does not change the law on the books. Rather, the feds are simply signaling that they will not enforce certain provisions for some time.

But many parts of Obamacare do have to be applied by states, the traditional front lines of insurance regulation. States, however, lack “enforcement discretion” when it comes to ignoring federal law, even when the president thinks it would be a good idea. As the president has often reminded us, the ACA is “the law of the land,” and remains so after the fix.

The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause makes federal law—not presidential policies— binding on the states. So what’s a state insurance commissioner to do? Federal law requires health plans to have a mandatory level of “minimum coverage.” Thus it is not clear how a state insurance commissioner can authorize a plan that violates federal law. Such action would create a direct conflict between state action and federal law—and the latter automatically wins (even without the broad view of preemption of state laws that the administration has championed in immigration cases).

And the fix might violate state laws as well. Most states have passed “conforming legislation” that imports the ACA regulations into state law, so they can be enforced by state officials. But again, state governors—let alone state insurance commissioners—do not necessarily have the broad “enforcement discretion” over state law that Obama claims over federal law. Such sweeping non-enforcement might even be illegal under some states’ constitutional and administrative principles.

The incorporation of the ACA into state law also opens more possibilities for judicial challenge. While the Constitution limits standing to challenge non-enforcement in federal courts, state courts do not operate under these limits, and can potentially hear cases that would not make it into federal court.

President Obama’s fix, of course, only “encourages” states to go along with his plan, as the letter to state insurance commissioners puts it. The administration is only “encouraging” states to disobey federal law, in other words. This is something new. Even the radical and discredited states rights’ “doctrine of nullification” only allows states to ignore federal laws that they consider unconstitutional, not simply politically inconvenient.

Eugene Kontorovich is professor at Northwestern University School of Law, where he teaches constitutional law.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/the-obamacare-fix-is-illegal-100254.html#ixzz2lPJz1VZ3