President Obama is determined to render the Constitution a dead letter and rule by executive fiat. Think of how he repeatedly, and illegally, has changed the law underpinning ObamaCare in response to unflattering prevailing winds.
But now, his proclivity for constitutional insolence has reached a new and dangerous low that threatens national security: His administration is dictating changes to a law that will make immigration possible for those who provided “limited material support” to terrorists.
Exemptions to the Immigration and Nationality Act, published in the Federal Register by the departments of Homeland Security and State, supposedly apply only if refugees and those seeking asylum are found to pose no threat to the United States. But that determination can be based solely on an applicant's word, says Jessica Vaughan, a former State Department official who now serves as policy studies director at the Center for Immigration Studies.
The administration is “disregarding yet another law written by Congress” and is “replacing it with (its) own guidelines,” she tells The Daily Caller. The freelanced rules “are sure to be exploited by those seeking to game our generous refugee admissions program,” she warns. Or worse. Ms. Vaughan reminds that the Tsarnaev brothers of Boston Marathon bombing fame “were originally admitted for political asylum.”
Whether it's the Immigration and Nationality Act or ObamaCare, no president has the authority to arbitrarily change laws passed by Congress. That Barack Obama continually does is contemptible — if not impeachable.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.