On June 18, 2010, Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl told the audience at a North Tempe Tea Party town hall meeting that during a private, one-on-one meeting with President Obama in the Oval Office, the President told him, regarding securing the southern border with Mexico, “The problem is, . . . if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’” [Audible gasps were heard throughout the audience.] Sen. Kyl continued, “In other words, they’re holding it hostage. They don’t want to secure the border unless and until it is combined with ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’”
Sen. Kyl also said he reminded President Obama that the President and the Congress has an obligation, a duty, to secure the border.
Do I believe this? 110%. Given how Obama has behaved in office, this is right in character.
I'm not a lawyer, but isn't this - deliberately not doing your job of president - an impeachable offense?
ReplyDeleteIt's a clear violation of both US law and his Presidential Oath.And by no means the first one.
ReplyDeleteBut for Barack Obama to be impeached, there would have to be majority votes in both the House and Senate, and the Democrats would not impeach Obama even if he was caught shooting someone on the street.
Remember Mr. Bill? He was convicted for perjury and obstruction of justice and impeached by the House, which had a Republican majority.
The Senate, which had a Democrat majority refused to remove him, and he became the only convicted felon to finish a term in the White House.
It was so blatant that he was disbarred and the entire SCOTUS boycotted his last State of the Union speech, even the justices he appointed.That was a first in US history.
Remember this when you vote or work for candidates in November.
Regards,
Rob
While this is probably a violation of law, I think this kind of thing happens every day in Government and in the private sector for that matter. Essentially you give me this and I'll give you that.
ReplyDeleteWith that said I see a fundamental problem with any deal. "Ammnesty" is a big deal with the news media. "Border security" is not. Any deal we make with those wanting "amnesty" to give this in exchange for "border security" needs a way to enforce "border security." In other words, once we agree to amnesty, there is no incentive for the President or his team to secure the borders. Given the fact that this is not important to the news media or they don't want the borders secured, we have no way to enforce the border security provisions.
Now look at this the other way. If the President secures the border first in exchange for amnesty, amnesty has massive support in the news media and the business community. As such, they will have sufficient power to ensure that the other side follows through on granting amnesty.
To summarize before I agree to amnesty before the borders are secured, I'm going to need some way to ensure that the border security provision gets enforced. Given the nature of this President and his team, I don't think merely giving his word is good enough.
In fact I don't trust the word of either Republicans or Democrats but as explained earlier in the post those who support amnesty have plenty of resources at their disposal to ensure that particular provision gets enforced.