Harry Reid Calls on Obama to Delay Executive Amnesty

Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr +

Reid_and_Obama_3.30.09No, that’s not a misprint.

Less than 24 hours after Fox News reported that a leaked White House 10-point executive amnesty plan is set to be unveiled next Friday, the out-going Senate Majority Leader urged the president to hold-off at least until Congress has come up with a plan to fund the federal government beyond Dec. 11.

Let’s be clear, Harry Reid, who arbitrarily changed Senate rules during the eight years he has presided over the body, is not taking a principled stand here. Like everything Reid does from the moment he rolls out of bed in the morning, his motives are political.

Here are some of the political considerations that may be motivating Reid’s request for a delay in the president’s announcement of executive amnesty:

Harry Reid looks out for Harry Reid. While it is true that in the next election cycle there are more vulnerable Blue State incumbent Republicans who will be on the ballot, giving the Democrats a chance to retake seats, there are also some vulnerable Democrats up for re-election. One of those happens to be a guy named Harry Reid. Reid barely hung on to his seat in 2010 and he cannot count on the Republicans nominating a weak opponent as they did four years ago.

Other Democrats may not want to have to defend an unpopular rogue lame duck president. Every Democratic member of the Senate voted for the Gang of Eight amnesty bill in 2013. The most vulnerable of those – Mark Pryor, Mark Udall, Mark Begich, Kay Hagan – are packing up their offices and may soon be joined by Mary Landrieu. Senators in safer Democratic states may get a pass from voters for having voted for an unpopular amnesty bill. Being forced to defend a president making a blatant end-run around the constitution to force amnesty down the throats of the American people in quite another matter. Harry Reid, who is not that popular himself, could well be getting pressure from his caucus to send a message to the White House.

This time a government shutdown could backfire on Democrats. Political brinkmanship that results in government shutdowns is never popular with the voters. The past two times a budget impasse has resulted in a shutdown, the Republicans have borne the brunt of the blame. This time could be very different. If Republicans send the president a spending bill that includes explicit language defunding an unconstitutional executive amnesty and the he vetoes it, the public will hold him and his party accountable. Holding the entire country hostage to an unlegislated illegal alien amnesty will not play well anywhere in the country.

Make no mistake – if Harry Reid thought for one minute that subverting the interests of the American people and the Constitution would be politically advantageous, he would not hesitate. The fact that Reid is asking the White House to hold-off ought to be seen as a clear indication that they will have the support of the American people in a defunding showdown with the president.

Share.

About Author

avatar

Ira joined the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) in 1986 with experience as a journalist, professor of journalism, special assistant to Gov. Richard Lamm (Colorado), and press secretary of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. His columns have appeared in National Review, LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, and more. He is an experienced TV and radio commentator.

18 Comments

  1. avatar

    How can anyone who disrespects the country’s laws be a good citizen? That includes the law breakers in the white house and department of justice.

  2. avatar

    I agree with the column until the word “unconstitutional” was used in reference to the President’s use of Executive Orders to implement “amnesty”. As distasteful as it is, it is NOT unconstitutional. He does have the power to do what he is doing, and it makes your argument weaker by continuing to use that statement.

    • avatar

      No he does not have the authority to change or make laws that is for congress to do. He is to enforce law not make it.

  3. avatar

    The Republicans and the American people should fight this amnesty-crap tooth and nail. Obama’s “amnesty decree” is as illegal as the invaders it protects. If B.O. is allowed to change this law, there will be no stopping the tyrant. ANY law he disagrees with, he will ignore or change to his liking. The voice of the people will be silenced, our votes will mean nothing. Congress of course is to blame also. They have emboldened Obama by their silence on his previous over-reaching of power. They no longer work for the citizens of this country, but for the Chamber of Commerce, special-interest groups like La Raza, and corporate-bigshots. It’s damn well time Americans sent a wake-up call to Washington, because apparently the B.O. regime and the Rino’s didn’t get the message on Nov. 4th.! NO AMNESTY! ENFORCE CURRENT LAWS! SECURE THE BORDER! E-VERIFY FOR EVERY EMPLOYER! DEPORT! DEPORT! DEPORT!

    • avatar

      You are right on. The question is, how do we get the general public interested enough to hold congress to the mandate they were given?

  4. avatar

    It is a political game but who gives a crap for a good cause at the end of the day. Any person that is not atheist should find certain things that actually is important, afterall we all are humans.

    Bush sr. signed the law that approves 55,000 lottery green card visas every year from around the world. The program is still ongoing.
    https://www.dvlottery.state.gov/
    Why does this make sense? Why pick random people around the world to immigrate while people already here are fighting hard to stay. Illegals shouldn’t be here in the first place but they are, they have US citizen children etc. Things are complicated for them. Thats where we ask God are we humans? Should we pardon? From 1990 to 2014, almost 2.5 millions have been picked randomly around the globe, who has no prior ties to US whatsoever, to join US community. Why no one says anything about that?

    Dreamers is another issue. This is a no brainer. Will you not save the sinking ship full of 1000 passengers because you know 250 of them are bad guys? Common.

    Democrats are no better. Just play around with the emotions. Use the real, inner heart feelings of real human beings like you to play political game.

    All in all. No one gives a crap. The fight between two bulls determines what happens to the calf. Could go either way. But then again, since God “is” there, it should work out well and that means Republicans will eventually lose.

    I think most anti-immigrants are scared, low-esteemed people who are scared that they can’t compete with so called third world persons.

    Hallelujah

    • avatar

      Is it “anti-immigrant” to say we have a major water crisis in this country, particularly in California, and the last thing we need is more people we have to provide water and other services for?

    • avatar

      “I think most anti-immigrants are scared, low-esteemed people who are scared that they can’t compete with so called third world persons.”
      …And I think that most Americans are against this amnesty and high immigration rates in general, because they LOVE their country, LOVE their language, and LOVE their culture, and will not stand by to see any of them watered down or destroyed.
      The God I remember reading about left matters of state to the state and admonished His followers to obey the laws of whatever state they were in.
      I can only hope that the tide of revulsion building toward illegal aliens picks you up and sweeps you out of the country in the first wave of mass deportations.
      That would be a Hallelujah moment, indeed!

      • avatar

        Would you care to answer my question? This country is out of water in many places, particularly in California. Why would we want to add more people?

        • avatar

          That is actually the MOST reasonable arguement I found so far in this matter. It isn’t anti-immigrant to worry about core basic needs. But Leeland, the issue is about those who are already here. They are already drinking water. Since, they cannot be mass deported, the issue is whether or not to give them legal status. They are and will be drinking water regardless.

    • avatar

      They Do NOT have citizen children. To be born a citizen here your parents must be under US laws. Since the parents are here illegally they have rejected our laws and their children aren’t citizens. Read your Constitution.

      • avatar

        I highly doubt that the authors of the 14th amendment meant for people to become citizens by their parents illegal act. That amendment was passed right after the Civil War to guarantee citizenship to freed blacks. And the phrase “under the jurisdiction of” the US government is incompatible with being here with neither the knowledge or approval of the government. It’s the same reason that children of an invading army are specifically declared not to be citizens.

      • avatar

        See that’s the problem. Why would you tell others to read the constitution before reading yourself. And people like you whines about defending not the constitution but your constitution. LOL

    • avatar

      I’m certainly relieved to find in your post your assurance that God is a Democrat. I was losing that faith after the midterm elections. Perhaps He was taking a nap is all.

      • avatar

        God isn’t democrat. God isn’t republican either.Democrats are no better either. Republicans are worst. Midterm election is nothing DeeBee. American citizens are calves as well but different from undocumented calves. I would say more vulnerable because apparently US citizens are ALWAYS manipulated by politicians. No doubt having republicans isn’t going to change US into the eternal heaven and will be replaced by democrats in another cycle. You got something new to say instead? That actually makes sense?