Obama’s Overreaching Military-Related Amnesty

Center for Immigration Studies, January 8, 2014

A new report from the Center for Immigration Studies examines the administration’s most recent exemption of a category of illegal aliens from immigration enforcement. This latest category, created by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in a November memo, directs immigration officials to grant de facto amnesty, or parole-in-place, to the illegal alien children, spouses, and parents of active military servicemen, reservists, and those who have previously served in the U.S. military.

“The president now routinely disregards the legislative process, preferring executive action as the means of expanding his amnesty agenda.  But this broad amnesty, which according to some advocates could allow tens of thousands of illegal aliens to apply for green cards and citizenship, has far-reaching implications, including security risks and fraud,” states Dan Cadman, a research fellow at the Center and author of the report.

The amnestying of a whole class of aliens without the consent of Congress violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which states that parole may only be granted “on a case-by-case basis”. The administration’s action also violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which requires federal agencies to publish policy changes such as this in the Federal Register so the public may review and comment.

View the full report at: http://cis.org/USCIS-Parole-in-Place-Policy

The broad policy extends beyond its claimed objective of relieving the stress that deployed G.I.s might experience from their family members’ immigration status. The amnesty applies even to relatives of a service member who received a less-than-honorable discharge or a reservist who has only served for two weeks or has never served in a hostile theatre of operation. The memo could have limited the application of the policy, but the administration chose to draft an overreaching amnesty rather than adhere to the law of case-by-case application for parole.

Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Pro_Whitey

    I don’t care what it costs, our military should be open only to natural-born citizens, at least when there’s no need of conscription.

    • Extropico

      Same rule should apply for the border patrol!

      • GeneticsareDestiny

        I’ve heard that Hispanics often get preferential treatment in the border patrol because they speak Spanish and can thus communicate with the illegal aliens.

        I wonder how many thousands or tens of thousands of illegals have been caught and then released by Hispanic border patrol agents out of a feeling of racial solidarity.

  • MekongDelta69

    Our dictator would amnesty a Martian if it meant he and his leftist regime would get more votes.

  • IstvanIN

    Foreign troops are more likely to defend a foreigner usurper. I long for the day all our

    Nicolae and Elan Ceaușescus are tried and convicted.

    • Homo_Occidentalis

      There’s no need to worry about a fifth column. Bolshevik communism has already conquered America by subversion. The usurper in chief is about as foreign as it gets. The foreign occupation troops are only needed to intimidate whites. Welcome to Amerika.

  • Spartacus

    Good for Obama ! After all, there’s still plenty of White babies that haven’t been raped by diversity yet !

  • bigone4u

    King Obongo legalizes more parasites. The host is dying, the parasites are bleeding it dry. Long live King Obongo!

  • Luca

    The next generation of hijackers will use ill conceived programs like this one to legally infiltrate our country and undermine it further. We will soon have whole towns and sections of cities full of Maj. Nidal Hasan types whom the press will lovingly call Home-grown terrorists.

    When is someone going to curtail this tyrant?

    Lock and load and be prepared.

  • Marc Zuckurburg

    Overreaching amnesty?

    That’s like saying “too much fun”

    Does not compute.

    Make my immigration reform comprehensive, please!

  • IstvanIN

    Isn’t there something Congress can do legislatively to end Executive Orders? Or does it have to be a constitutional amendment? Surely the founders didn’t intend for the president to pick and choose which laws are enforced and to make proclomations by the hundreds completely by passing Congress. When did the US pass its “enabling act”?

    • GeneticsareDestiny

      Congress can’t do anything to stop him from making executive orders, as far as I know, but executive orders are subject to judicial review and can be struck down. And no president is supposed to give executive orders that either create new laws (which is under the jurisdiction of the legislative branch) or break existing laws.

      Of course, seeing as how many, if not most, of the judges in America are liberal, they won’t do anything, despite the fact that Obama is clearly breaking existing laws put in place by our elected legislative branch.

  • Extropico

    Article IV, Section iv requires Obongo to preserve a republican form of government. When the Feds represent foreigners against the will of the democracy, that is properly termed treason.

    • IstvanIN

      Who actually enforces the constitution?

      • Extropico

        All 3 branches of government play a part in it. And so do the citizens per the 10th Amendment.

        As far as the fulsome executive amnesty, which is patently illegal, there are 3 major options available legally to combat Obama’s conduct.

        First, a declaratory adjudication with a restraining order could be sought from an applicable federal court, preferably the Supreme Court.

        Second, Congress can pass a new clarifying law with 2/3 majority to override any imperial veto. Impeachment proceedings could be started whenever Congress decides. The problem here is that Congress is probably not comprised of a 2/3 majority of loyal natural born citizens opposed to amnesty.

        Third, the citizens can take action to remove their Congressmen or alter the Constitution itself.

        • IstvanIN

          As with the controversy with Obama’s citizenship, which the courts ruled real citizens had no standing (bad wording as I can not remember exactly how it was worded by the courts), who would the Supreme’s allow to get a restraining order against the president? I would venture no one would have standing.

          • Extropico

            Yes, it would be extraordinarily unusual for the Supreme Court to accept a request for a declaratory judgment against the president. They would want to feel politically protected and would want to know why Congress couldn’t simply take option 2 from above via a supermajority law or by impeachment and conviction proceedings.

        • LeGrandDerangement

          Not gonna happen, too many future Republican voters, dontcha know.

      • tickyul

        Nowadays……….mostly no one!

  • Hunter Morrow

    It is so bizarre that people respect the military.

    they drill to shoot White citzens. The military already violates posse comitatus

    routinely. They spy on you. They steal trillions from us.

    • IstvanIN

      Please do not confuse our soldiers with the top leadership of the military.

      • Romulus

        Yes. This effing administration has already disposed of approx
        13 of our generals. Goes right along with the commie takeover.

      • Hunter Morrow

        I was one and I am not confused.

  • mobilebay

    We are in a unique situation in this nation. Until the last few administrations, we had leaders who lived up to the oaths they took to “protect and defend” our county. Then evil crept in and now citizens are second class while foreign lawbreakers are aided and abetted. Our elected officials are in a frenzy of bringing in every third world inhabitant they can find, luring foreign STEM graduates here, allowing in every refugee or asyum seeker with an excuse and the ever-present visa overstayers. It’s simple – big business needs cheap labor, our government supplies that labor, then big business repays the traitors with nice “contributions.” We are the losers. I never thought I’d live to see this day, but I have.

    • mikebowen55

      I wouldn’t say the ‘last few’ as the treason at the top has been going
      on for some time now. The reason you are noticing it now though is that
      it has advanced and has become much more overt.

  • Truth Teller

    Children and spouses is reasonable. But parents? We can expect a flood of old people flooding in to use the senior services and medicare. The immigrants will get all the senior housing of course. The Americans who worked and contributed to social security and medicare for 45 years will get lesser senior benefits than the immigrants who contributed nothing.
    Also expect the standard Asian scam of using fraudulent birth certificates, passports and other ID claiming that 50 year olds are actually 65 and thus eligible for SSI, $250 a month senior housing, medicare, free bus passes etc.
    I expect a flood of Asian enlistments because of this new immigration policy.

  • Truth Teller

    I expect a lot of green card money for the path to citizenship marriages as a result of this policy. The young soldiers can make a lot of money this way. But the kids should be sure to get the full amount up front before the actual marriage.

  • scutum

    If any of you have studied the history of Rome this is what started the barbarian invasions.
    Various germanic tribes were invited in and settled within the empire as “allies” ( foederati). They received subsidies and in return supplied troops. The Germanization of the empire progressed through the barbarization of the Roman army. When the Germanic tribes within the empire became uncontrollable the Roman’s invited in the Huns as a counter weight to control them. That is why the “Last Roman” Flavius Aetius, who defeated defeating Attila in the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains did not finish the huns off. He wanted to continue to use them as a counter weight to the Germanic tribes within the empire. We all know how well this worked out for the Romans. We should re-institue the draft, this would alleviate the need to recruit illegal aliens into the ranks, and serve as barrier to the DC elites declaring war on whoever happens to thwart their globalist agenda.

    • Actually the barbarians did not want to destroy Rome [at least initially], they sought admission to the Roman Empire. It thus came about that a large part of the Roman Army consisted of Germans (called Goths, at the time) and traditional Romans were no longer so involved with major decisions of Empire.

      Reading about the late Empire it comes to mind how many people in top positions simply put their own power and advancement over the good of Rome. Flavius Aetius, is mentioned (wikipaedia) as having a major battle against other Roman generals which he lost. Imagine if Roman generals only fought against Rome’s enemies and not each other — the Empire might not have been critically weakened.

      So it is in our time. We have a Commander in Chief who clearly places the priorities of Africa and of foreigners above those of the country that he’s leading.

    • We should not reinstitute the draft. We should arrest and try our treasonous leaders and their enablers using all the force of our superior numbers and overwhelming firepower against them. They are pushing our backs to the wall and forcibly enlisting more cannon fodder for their armies is not the answer.