Woodall Reacts To Obama Administration’s Unilateral Implementation Of DREAM Act.

Even tough the DREAM Act has failed to pass Congress a number of times, the Obama Administration today announced it would implement key parts of the program.

The politically charged decision comes as Obama faces a tough reelection fight against Republican Mitt Romney, and Hispanic voters in swing states will play a crucial role in the contest.

The change in policy could allow as many as 800,000 immigrants who came to the United States illegally not only to remain in the country without fear of being deported, but to work legally, according to a senior administration official speaking to reporters Friday.

Read the Department of Homeland Security press release in English or if you prefer, Spanish.

Reaction from Georgia Congressman Rob Woodall came in the form of a press release:

“America is a beacon of freedom in the world and it is no wonder that hundreds of thousands of people each year apply to complete the legal and proper steps to become citizens or permanent residents of this amazing land. After all, who wouldn’t want to raise their family in the land of opportunity and under the rule of law? Unfortunately, President Obama’s decision to cease the deportation of potentially millions of illegal immigrants and instead grant them legal work permits—while millions of legal U.S. residents remain unemployed and unable to find work—undermines both the rule of law and the economic opportunity that is America.”

“As of 2011, more than 13.7 million U.S. citizens were unemployed, and today our national unemployment levels remain disappointingly high at 8.2 percent. How can the President and his Administration offer the few American jobs that are available to those who have come to America illegally rather than those U.S. citizens who have always paid their taxes and played by the rules?”

“With today’s decree, President Obama demonstrates the same contempt for America’s laws that those who enter illegally do. He is undermining the balance of power laid out by the U.S. Constitution, going far beyond his power within the Executive Branch and advancing his election-year politics at the expense of the American economy and the American people’s trust.”

“I am tremendously proud of America’s history as a nation of immigrants, and I am committed to continuing and improving the legal avenues that allow another generation of legal immigrants to become U.S. citizens. But, as every new American citizen knows, we are a nation of laws, and the U.S. Constitution extends lawmaking power to Congress and Congress alone. This executive power grab—whether proposed by President Obama, President Romney, or President Reagan—is an unconstitutional act, and I will fight it with every tool at my disposal.”


  1. View from Brookhaven says:

    “This executive power grab—whether proposed by President Obama, President Romney, or President Reagan—is an unconstitutional act, and I will fight it with every tool at my disposal.”

    “TO THE PILE!”

    • SallyForth says:

      Can we spell a-m-n-e-s-t-y? All illegals under 30 is far bigger than just the Latinos, to which everybody keeps referring. We have scads of people in our country illegally from all over the world in addition to Latinos – e.g., huge numbers of people from the African continent have blended into our African-American communities and nobody knows the difference until they start talking in foreign languages. Same deal with many Orientals, Middle-Easterners, and Europeans for that matter. Remember those 2010 census questionnaires that were printed in about 19 different languages?!

      And today’s action does nothing to stop the current brain drain of Ph.D.’s we train in our colleges, hand them a degree and then send to other countries to compete with us. That segment of legal immigration is where we should be focusing, instead of giving amnesty to the segment that will be more likely to climb aboard our welfare, medicaid, food stamp, education, etc. boat of public assistance programs. Oh, and don’t forget that some of them will take away jobs from unskilled or blue-collar Americans.

      Our whole immigration system is messed up due to the last 2-3 decades of totally ignoring U.S. immigration laws and the maximum number of immigrants our country can assimilate each year in a sane and sensible manner. For the President to worsen the illegals problem by administrative action is a profound disappointment.

      • Blake says:

        This isn’t an amnesty. It’s a temporary reprieve for kids who came here illegally when they were under 16, have been here for at least 5 years and have spot-clean records. It’s an exercise of prosecutorial discretion that can be reversed at any time, by this administration or any subsequent one. So, just to emphasize the point, has nothing to do with “all illegals under 30”; it’s a much narrower segment than that.

        The rest of your comment reads to me like standard anti-immigrant boilerplate. Something I like about Peach Pundit is how specific many of the comments are, getting the details right. You don’t.

  2. CobbGOPer says:

    Not to be off-topic, but was the site down most of the day? I haven’t been able to access since this morning… WTH?

  3. rrrrr says:

    I have issued my own decree today; the occupier of the Whitehouse will no longer receive the respect due the office.

    Since I’m not in Washington DC, I can’t look him in the face and then TURN my back on him, as he has done to so many of us – so this will have to suffice.

    The burning question on my mind is what does the new” illegal but able to work” permit look like? Since the BIGGEST fight has been about illegal’s NOT having to carry any proof – how is this going to work?

    Mr. Obama if you didn’t like E Verify, you should have spoken though legislation in the Senate at the very least…

    And I wonder what the DHS will do next when the Supreme Court throws out Obama-care all or in part?

    Will you now allow your daughters to date these “permit holders”?

    DHS the new Brown Shirts?

    • jbgotcha says:

      Lord have mercy! Most people haven’t given Obama the respect due the office since day 1. Namely McConnell, Boehner, Jan Brewer, and most of the GOP and some of the Democrats. Count yourself lucky to be among them. It’s truly something to be proud of!

  4. ricstewart says:

    Obama has deported more immigrants (and a few citizens) than any other president, has failed to keep his promises on immigration, and now he wants to forget his complete lack of action for the past three and a half years.
    Sadly, a large segment of voters will forget about it and will believe that this policy makes up for his broken promises.

  5. John Konop says:

    Bottom line this is bait which the hard right will eat that will help Obama. The polls all show how independents support the Dream Act. Also this will fire-up the Latino community. Smart political move by Obama if the GOP cannot control the……………

    • jm says:

      Amen. If you are against the president’s act, then you were probably already not going to vote for him. If you weren’t sure, this could put you and a lot of other people in Obama’s column. And if you were already in his column, you aren’t likely to shift away just because of this issue.
      It’s the same with the gay marriage announcement – not going to gain any hard right support, not going to lose the hard left, but the independants, centrists, gays, and some others who were ubcertain will have a reason to shift his way.
      Romney is stuck pandering to the hard right or afraid that if agrees with Obama, out come the etch-a-sketches.

  6. Bill Dawers says:

    I know a couple of young adults who were brought here illegally as small children. They speak fluent English, would like nothing better than to have legal status in the United States, and are unquestionably good people. If the DREAM act cannot move forward, I’m thrilled to see Obama take this step, which is apparently similar in effect to what Marco Rubio has supported. As an executive order, it can obviously be revoked by another president — and this will force Romney to say clearly whether he would revoke it or not. In his initial statement, he did not clearly say what he would do, but he pledged in part: “If I’m president, we’ll do our very best to have that kind of long-term solution that provides certainty and clarity for the people who come into this country through no fault of their own by virtue of the action of their parents.” Sounds like support for some version of the DREAM act to me . . .

    Btw, the Republican Attorney General of Utah has come out in support of Obama’s action today: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/utahs-gop-attorney-general-obama-immigration-move-totally-within-his-power/2012/06/15/gJQAcwWUfV_blog.html

    • jm says:

      Romney’s stuck not saying anything, thats going to bite him. Obama tried a more permanent solution – Federal law through Congress. Got blocked. Romney proposes the same “long-term solution”? Just proves the Dems point – Republicans in Congress can’t be seen agreeing with the president on any matter more substantive than the color of the sky, and even then “well, its a bit more cerulean than blue, I’d say.”

  7. seekingtounderstand says:

    So whoever wants to bring their children here now will receive amenesty and ability to work.
    With the gates this open what parent wouldn’t want to get here ASAP from all over the world.
    Guess we need more for the ponzi scheme which is our government.

    • I Miss the 90s says:

      Wow, you must really hate these people if you are going to such lengths to pretend this is amnesty. You should probably educate yourself about the measure rather than simply listening to Fox or Rush.

      • seekingtounderstand says:

        Actually the hater is clearly President Obama who seems to not care about the suffering of the out of work American Citizen of all races. Today they where reminded that they do not matter to our president as he has just declared a tidal wave of new people willing to come here and take jobs at third world wages………………at the same time they will need additional welfare support just to live.
        Kicking America when she is down seems to be his idea of showing his hatred.

        • Blake says:

          Totally off-base. The parents who brought their under-16-year-old kids here get nothing, and the kids don’t get amnesty. They get a two-year renewable reprieve that can be waived at any time, by any President. Why don’t you just scream “They took urr jerrbs” and get it over with.

          • CobbGOPer says:

            “The parents who brought their under-16-year-old kids here get nothing…”

            Why don’t they deport them? Seriously asking; if the kids aren’t going to get deported (by discretion), what happens to their parents, who are still illegal and of course don’t qualify under the program (too old)?

              • CobbGOPer says:

                What happens when people start screaming about some 10-year old who gets to stay and go to school while his illegal parents get booted back to wherever? It’s unfeasible; which means the parents of a lot of these kids are going to stay as well, which means the number will be higher than 800,000…

                • Calypso says:

                  New ‘anchor babies’ except they’re ‘anchor teens’ and ‘anchor young adults’ now.

                • Blake says:

                  Are you not paying attention? From The Hill story Buzz linked to in the original post:

                  “According to the Department of Homeland Security, the policy change will apply to those who came to the United States before they were 16 and who are younger than 30 if they have lived here for five years, have no criminal history, graduated from a U.S. high school or served in the military.”

                  Also, you clearly have no knowledge of how current immigration law is enforced. Illegal parents get booted back to wherever all the time, even if they have minor *citizen* children, let alone illegal adult children who would be affected by this new order.

    • SallyForth says:

      This whole thing flies in the face of all that our founding fathers did – there is nothing in anything they said that even hints they ever intended for anything like this to happen!

  8. I Miss the 90s says:

    This is a great policy. I am proud that the President is standing up to the bigotry of the modern right-wing and GOP at large. We hand out citizenship to kids that have done nothing except being accidentally born within in the political jurisdiction of the US. Plenty of young men and women residing here have worked hard, pledged allegiance to the flag, and identify as Americans but because of hatred and bigotry they have been accused of being criminals by the right-wing.

    President Obama and his supporters are truly correct when they say that the modern GOP would reject Reagan. When asked, I already tell people I am an Eisenhower Republican…by which I mean I am a liberal democrat. With the GOP and its conservative base moving closer to the fascist fringe it is only a matter of time before Reagan would be labeled a communist by morons like Allen West.

    • John Konop says:

      The issue is not just about bigotry. Undocumented people have hurt blue collar wages in industries like meat houses, construction……. And the promotion of illegal immigration combined with trade agreements that promote slave labor conditions has resulted in falling wages for working class people for the last 30 years.

      I do see the hypocrisy on all sides on this issue. The truth is both parties took a blind eye approach to the issue in favor of providing cheap labor for all. Many did not realize this logic was a race to the bottom for the middle class. The opposite concept Henry Ford promoted, which was workers making enough money to buy his products. And the problem is even worse via 70 percent of our economy based on spending in a service based economy over production based economy.

      I do realize the children of immigrants here illegally are in the cross fire. And sending back kids who have grown-up here would be cruel for many reasons one being their survival in places like Mexico.

      Calling this a great solution is bridge to far me. Until we deal with trade and immigration on a macro, we will see the squeeze on working class people continue even as jobs are created.

      • Dave Bearse says:

        Deporting adults that arrived as children and have lived most of their lives here as good citizens to the extent they’ve been permitted to do so is ridiculous, but don’t try to argue that with many moral values conservatives. Those illegals don’t have the standing of a zygote.

        I don’t know anyone calling it a great solution, even though Hannity, Limbaugh and the GOP mainstream extremists no doubt found someone that says its so. Indeed the Dream Act or something like it is the easiest part of the solution. It’s valid to argue it should be an element of comprehensive reform.

        Like a budget where any increase in taxes are off the table, anything that is amnesty is off the table. The GOP base can’t even tolerate a discussion. Newt’s attempt to start dialogue was buried within a week. Newt’s attempt didn’t even merit a post here.

        • seekingtounderstand says:

          How many millions more will come for jobs? If we do not have some sort of immigration controls then that is a declaration of war on American citizens as it destroys them.

          Hence the common sense conclusion President Obama wants America to fail.
          There is no other logical conclusion.

      • jm says:

        Interesting that you left out agriculture – not chicken agriculture, I’m talking about toiling in the sn, picking onions, cotton, peanuts and other GA crops. How many millions of dollars did farmers lose this year when the immigrants, legal and illegal, got scared away? These immigrants are the only ones that were willing to bring these crops to market.
        I agree with you on Henry Ford analogy about wages. But agriculture’s different. The pay is better the harder you work, the more bushels you pick.
        As for the economics of the DREAM Act and Obama’s recent executive order, I think that we will see an economic benefit. Take a hard working Mexican, either in a field or a college classroom. They do pay some taxes, even though they do duck a few taxes, and we pay for their education and emergency care. Its a big hit for state and local govts. So it starts out on the downside. But now take a kid and give him an education and now you’ve empowered him (or her!) for a better job and a better life. They pay way more in taxes as they get a better wage and life. More in wage taxes, more in sales taxes as they buy more and better (more expensive) stuff, more in property taxes as they move out of apartments and into homes, and then into better homes. Pretty soon the scale tips the other way – they start to pay their fair share, way more so than the guys we’ve locked up or the kids who’ve lived here all their lives and can’t read on a 6th grade level, and can’t find a decent job and refuses to work in the fields because the sun is too hot and the work’s too hard.
        We’ve come full circle.

        • John Konop says:

          You do realize that we are paying the social service cost ie schools, medical……if a worker does not earn enough to pay taxes overtime to pay for the above? The strategy for the last 30 years has been via our trade and immigration policy to lower wage cost to help with inflation. The result is we have killed the middle class, wages fell faster than any inflation gain, economy is 70 percent based on spending over production, tax revenue issues and mounting debt.

          Agriculture is the same as any industry. By subsidizing the labor cost via social services we are only creating a bigger problem by not dealing with the true cost. Since the federal immigration laws are broken dealing with temporary immigrant labor the problem is now been put on steroids.

          We should have laws that make it easier for agriculture to use temporary immigrant labor, but we cannot afford to have tax payers pay for the social service cost as a subsidy. Also permanent immigration should be based on getting the best and the brightest, it should not be a tool to drive down wages as Chaves once said.

  9. I Miss the 90s says:

    Oh, and lets not forget…this executive order only applies to people that were (past tense) brought to the US as children.

    The reasonable folks out there will understand that children really do not have much of a say in were they reside. They are dependent upon their parents.

    • SallyForth says:

      Let’s not forget that nothing prevents this from being used in the future perfect tense, like “seeking” describes above.

  10. seenbetrdayz says:

    I suppose it won’t be long before a president just does whatever he wants, and Congress is just there for sh*ts and giggles. And the judicial branch might as well be scrapped so we can give the president a raise, considering he’ll be deciding everything.

  11. James Fannin says:

    This move by President Obama is neither principled nor bold.  The administration became aware that Senators Rubio, Kyl and Hutchison had crafted legislation that would provide these young people with visa status but no path to citizenship, no opportunity for chain migration and obviously no vote.  The White House called these kids in for a meeting to build opposition to the Republican plan and were shocked to learn that the young people supported the plan as it gave them some certainty about their future.  Then last week, Red State and others came out attacking the Republican plan and with Rubio, Hutchison and Kyl being attacked by the far right, the White House knew they had a problem and Romney and Republicans were about to appear “reasonable” and insulated from Democratic vilification on Hispanic issues.  Obama swiftly ran to the front of the passing parade and pretended to be the drum major leading it.   The Obama fawning press fell for it but apparently not the Dream Act kids or thankfully, the Romney campaign.  Both recognized legislation is required and although once again the President was playing fast and loose with our laws and the Constitution, this does not solve the problem and makes it less likely legislation will be considered and passed.

    • Blake says:

      Since when is exercising prosecutorial discretion “playing fast and loose with our laws and the Constitution”? It is exactly within our laws and Constitution. If you don’t like it, then the law needs to be changed. Obama has shredded the Constitution just as badly as Bush and Clinton, but not here.

      And I don’t know how it could make it any less likely that legislation would be considered and passed, considering any pro-immigrant legislation would never have passed the House and would never have gotten 60 votes in the Senate.

      • James Fannin says:

        Last year the President said he could not do this because he didn’t have the legal authority to do so. He was right. Choosing not to prosecute an entire class of law breakers isn’t prosecutoral discretion, it is ignoring our laws and ignoring the Constitutional role of the Congress to enact laws. He was right when he said he did not have the authority last year. The only thing that has changed since then is his poll numbers.

        • Blake says:

          I think he was wrong then. There’s plenty of past precedent, in the area of immigration specifically, to back up his current position.

      • seenbetrdayz says:

        What is the point of Congress if the president can just bypass it because there aren’t enough votes to get what he wants?

        I understand that Obama is not the first to use executive orders in such a fashion, but we are on course in this country to render the other two branches of government completely neutered and irrelevant to the process of governing.

        • Blake says:

          As a general point, I completely agree; that’s why I invoked Bush and Clinton along with Obama in the shredding of the Constitution, thinking particularly of the abrogation of the right and duty of Congress to declare war (though of course that gradual process of abrogation goes all the way back to Truman). In this case, though, from what I’ve read his current position is pretty solid. Doesn’t hurt, I’m sure, from his POV, that it completely screws the Republicans. 😉

  12. Ed says:

    ” President Obama’s decision to cease the deportation of potentially millions of illegal immigrants and instead grant them legal work permits—while millions of legal U.S. residents remain unemployed and unable to find work—undermines both the rule of law and the economic opportunity that is America.”


    If Americans will lose out en masse in the employment race to immigrants then Americans need to adapt to the market forces at work.

Comments are closed.