Votes for Loretta Lynch and Funding Amnesty are Indefensible

By: Daniel Horowitz

January 29th, 2015


Members of Congress are entitled to disagree on strategy or policy. But nobody has the right to override our Constitution. This president has remade our immigration laws without the consent of Congress and is misusing taxpayer funds to reorient the immigration-related agencies for implementation of his amnesty. At the same time he is asking the Senate to confirm his pick for Attorney General – the chief law enforcement officer of the land – someone who fully supports his unlawful action. As such, any vote to fund DHS without defunding amnesty and any floor or committee vote to confirm Loretta Lynch is indefensible from a legal perspective.



Just how unconstitutional is Obama’s act? Not only has he unilaterally suspended all deportations, including those of violent criminals released from jail, he has created his own legislation to positively confer work rights and legal benefits on those illegals who register under his program – all created through the abuse of taxpayer funding via DHS.

But it gets worse. AP is reporting that Obama is now demanding Customs and Border Protection agents actively seek out illegal immigrants and help them obtain eligibility for his unconstitutional program:

Zitat

---

The Obama administration has ordered immigration agents to ask immigrants they encounter living in the country illegally whether they might qualify under President Barack Obama's plans to avoid deporting them, according to internal training materials obtained by The Associated Press. Agents also have been told to review government files to identify any jailed immigrants they might be able to release under the program. The directives from the Homeland Security Department mark an unusual change for U.S. immigration enforcement, placing the obligation on the government for identifying immigrants who might qualify for lenient treatment. Previously, it was the responsibility of immigrants or their lawyers to assert that they might qualify under rules that could keep them out of jail and inside the United States. It's akin to the Internal Revenue Service calling taxpayers to recommend they should have used certain exemptions or deductions.

---

Yet, appallingly, when asked by senators whether Obama’s acts were legal by some of the strongest amnesty opponents – including Senators Sessions, Vitter, Lee and Cruz – Loretta Lynch vouched for every aspect of the edict. Worse, when questioned by Senator Sessions as to whether illegals have a right to work in the United States, she affirmed that everyone – “regardless of how they came here” – should be working. With this comment, Lynch revealed a long-held subtle view held by liberals – that all 7 billion people in the world have a civil right to immigrate here, under all and any circumstance, and enjoy the benefits of citizenship.


It is clear as day that this radical view, which runs counter to our laws [8 U.S. Code § 1324a], automatically disqualifies her from the job of chief law enforcement officer. No degree of accolades from the likes of Senators Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham and Orrin Hatch about her personality or career can compensate for this disregard of our most foundational laws governing the sovereignty of this nation. It is simply indefensible to vote to confirm Lynch in committee or on the floor. It is further indefensible to ever fund one penny of this unlawful act.

GOP senators should follow the lead of Judiciary members; Senator Vitter, one of the first to come out stating he would not vote for Lynch’s nomination, and Senator Cruz, who took it all the way to McConnell yesterday calling for him to block Lynch’s vote. Sadly, McConnell’s office has already made it clear he will not block a vote on Lynch or do anything meaningful to foster opposition to her confirmation.

[E, RALA]

f

My email to Mr. Cornyn (at least I don't have to encourage Ted Cruz to do the right thing!)

Mr. Cornyn, as my representative in the Senate, I write to urge you to reject the confirmation of Loretta Lynch. The top law enforcement officer in the nation should, at a minimum, have a philosophy that supports the laws of the land, not disregards them as Ms. Lynch has already made clear in her confirmation hearings.