Why is Obama talking to Mexico about immigration problems? The answer may surprise you.

19 share

Summary statement:  We now know that Obama cannot do what he wants to do with executive orders,  his threats to aside.   

 Question

Let’s start with immigrant fact #1:  the young people crossing the border,  today,  do not qualify to remain in the US under Obama’s Dream Act,  having the force of law via an executive order.  That order was time-stamped to end in late 2011.

Fact #2 : Nor, do they qualify for “deferred deportation” under the same executive order.   

As a result of these facts,  we have this news item coming out of the Washington Examiner: 

President Obama told his Mexican counterpart in a phone call Thursday that immigrants crossing into the U.S. illegally won’t qualify for legalized status or deferred deportation, including children.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/19/obama-tells-mexico-illegal-immigrant-children-wont/#ixzz35B5sz700 

Why this change of direction?  How is it that Obama’s threat to use his pen and phone to circumvent congress,  not the solution to the current problem?  Why aren’t these young people covered under his executive ordered “Dream Act?” 

Why did Obama’s executive ordering,  fail in this case? 

Answer

While I do not know all of the ins and outs of executive orders and their use,  I believe the “time-stamp” (as I call it) was used by Obama to escape the complaint that he was legislating new law.  With a start/stop date,  Obama can argue that his was not legislating,  that his order only offered a temporary solution to a problem that was critically needed in terms immediacy and scope. 

Too date,  as a conservative editor who,  admittedly,  opposes H Obama’s Marxist/collectivist policies (not all of his policies are “collectivist,” btw),  I have found very little evidence that Obama has or can “legislate” a law that is comprehensive and permanent.  If for no other reason,  he cannot create cash flow for such legislation outside of the monies already allocated for other federal programs and agencies.   In other words,  he can only steal from Peter to pay Paul;  he cannot steal from the federal reserve to pay Paul. 

Think about it:  he has been threatening the legislative use of executive order,  since the second year of his presidency,  but with nothing to show for this threat.  Why the failure?  Because he does not have such power  -  he does not legislate because he cannot legislate. 

We should not dismiss the fact that he wants to use his presidential powers in a dictatorial way.  He wants to rule the nation,  not serve as its president in the traditional and accepted sense.  But he wants what he cannot have,  and in his effort to rule,  he has caused the Democrat Party serious – if not irreparable – harm.  

While his conversation with the Mexican president may demonstrate a change in direction,  the probability is far greater that we are looking at more “smoke and mirrors,”  from this rogue president.  In his time in the spot-light,  he has shown no tendency to back off he personal agenda for the country  -  whatever that might include. 

What is safe to say,  at this point,  is that the children will continue to come to this country,  that his open-borders policies as to enforcement and amnesty will continue,  as well.  Understand that Obama has shown no concern for the survival of Establishment Democrats.  We make a huge mistake in thinking that his angst is limited to the GOP or the Tea Party types.  His willingness to prosecute even those in the Compliant Media who seem to be modestly critical, on occasion,  is added evidence that his personal agenda is more important than his party-politic.  He is not a Democrat.  He is a revolutionary. 

As you stand in the shadow of his past deeds, and, actually listen to his agenda as defined by his wife (immediately below),  you will know of his anarchist/revolutionary commitment to a degree that is undeniable: 

 May of 2008:   MICHELLE OBAMA, speaking Puerto Rico: "Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices; we are going to have to change our conversation; we're going to have to change our traditions, our history; we're going to have to move into a different place as a nation."

Seriously,  who but a rogue revolutionary talks this way?  You simply cannot find a similar presidential “mission statement” written into our national history.  He is the first,  and, we hope,  the last.  It is a mistake to roll Hillary into the mind set.  While she is more one world than we would care for,  she is not of the revolutionary mindset of the Obamas.  But I will not argue this point,  here.    

Back to our theme:  What flies in the face of Obama’s “anarchistic to new order strategy,”   is the two term limit to his presidency.  I do not believe he has the time to tear down traditional America and reconstitute this nation to his liking. 

I believe that – if he had in mind,  a national popularity rating that would give me more time – that possibility  (more time as president by whatever means) is gone. 

In the end,  his chief accomplishment will be the confusion and structural mess he leaves in his wake.