American Elephants

The Law? Nevermind! We Will Create Waivers. by The Elephant's Child

In its quest to implement stealth amnesty, the Obama administration is working behind the scenes to stop the deportation of certain illegal immigrants by granting them “unlawful presence waivers.” Don’t you love the names liberals dream up to hide, confuse, and disguise what they are actually doing.

Their aim is always more Democrat voters at the polls. But they want to disguise that by something that demonstrates how nice Democrats are. Here is how it would work., according to a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announcement posted in the Federal Register, the daily journal of the U.S. government.  The agency will grant “unlawful presence waivers” to illegal aliens who can prove they have a relative who is a U.S. citizen.

According to the law, such aliens must return to their native country, and request a waiver of inadmissibility in an existing overseas immigrant visa process.  In other words, they have to enter the U.S. legally as thousands of foreigners do on a yearly basis. Aside from the obvious security issues, changing the rules in this case is rewarding bad behavior.  It makes no sense.

According to DHS, the system often causes U.S. citizens to be separated for extended periods from their immediate relations.  They didn’t quite say “ripped from the arms of their loved ones.” The proposed changes, first announced in January, will significantly reduce the length of time U.S. Citizens are separated from their loved ones while required to remain outside the United States during the current visa processing system.

DHS also claims that relaxing this rule will “create efficiencies for both the government and most applicants.” What makes this more “efficient” is unknown.

This is obviously a part of the Obama Administration’s plan to go around Congress and accomplish what Congress would not pass, by regulation and rule changes. Obama has things he wants to accomplish and he does not see why he should be constrained by annoyances like the separation of powers, or an understanding that the three branches of government are equal branches.

The Department of Homeland Security only takes action against a “small portion” of foreigners who overstay their visa —like the 9/11 terrorists—em  and allows hundreds of thousands to enter the U.S. without proper authorization from them under a provision that already relaxes scrutiny for 36 countries with whom we have special visa waiver agreements.

It’s as if nothing was learned from the 9/11 attacks nor from terrorist attacks in other countries. Most visitors comply with the rules, but an estimated 2% don’t, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO). But that 2% translates into 364,000 travelers. Only half the countries that have visa waiver agreements with the U.S. are fully compliant. Last year a federal audit reveals that nearly half of the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal immigrants actually entered the U.S. legally but never left after their visa expired.

It is my impression that many liberals, secure in comfortable lives, do not take terrorism seriously. And once we got Osama bin Laden, wasn’t that the end of it? It is on the left that you find disarmament, gun control, peace studies, and efforts to slash military spending. In their Utopia, after redistribution of income when everybody is more equal, there won’t be any more wars and we don’t need all those armaments. If we just get rid of all our weapons, won’t everyone else follow our lead?

The Homeland Department has a lot to answer for, since they’re not doing Security any more.

4 Comments so far
Leave a comment

“Liberals” have a monopoly on weasel words? That’s news to me. While the Obama Administration coined “Kinetic military action” for warfare, we have the Bush (“W”) Administration to thank for “Enhanced interrogation techniques” for torture and a whole lot of other euphemisms. Nixon was a master at coining them. And numerous administrations have used the term “collateral damage” to rationalize, in essence, the view that “It is acceptable to us that thousands of innocent civilians may get in the way of our bombs and artillery and will die and have their homes and cities destroyed. Sorry about that.”


Comment by Subsidy Eye

Sorry, you’re way off. What do you call interrogation techniques that are NOT torture? Torture was specifically banned in the Bush Administration. Waterboarding is not torture. Or are you not a swimmer and have never gotten a nose full? Three of the worst terrorists were waterboarded, to great effect. More journalists were waterboarded than any of our prisoners. And all of our military pilots are waterboarded routinely. Collateral damage is neither a rationalization nor weasel words.It is an apt description. Perhaps you have heard the term “War is hell”—it is pretty much impossible to avoid killing civilians, but we try. Obviously you have never been in the service. And spare me the tiresome anti-war pap.

And yes, Liberals regularly use weasel words to disguise what they are doing, and cover up what they have done. It is an important part of the liberal method. That’s why they all use the same words at the same time, and are so careful in the names they give to their projects. The Democrats health care plan was carefully named the Affordable Care And Patient Protection Act. It is a plan specifically designed to put all Americans in single payer government-run health care eventually. It is not “affordable” but vastly more expensive than existing care, and there is no patient protection. Liberals goal is power, and that fact must be disguised.


Comment by The Elephant's Child

I am not way off. You are being highly selective. And your likening of waterboarding to a swimmer getting a noseful would be laughable if it wasn’t so breathtakingly naive. Do you speak from personal experience? Here is a first-hand description of it:

According to numerous first-hand reports, it is like drowning, not merely like having a brief noseful of water.

And, by the way, one of your Party’s former presidential candidates, a hero who himself was subject to torture, was steadfastly opposed to waterboarding:

Oh, excuse me. He was a rino, so I guess his views don’t count.

I am not denying that “liberals” — by which I assume you mean politicians affiliated with the Democratic Party — use weasel words and euphemisms. What I am pointing out is that so do Republicans. The Bush II Administration was particularly fond of attaching words like “Patriot” to their legislation — as if to say: “If you disagree with this, you must be a traitor.” Good one, that.

I cannot imagine any truthful person older than 15 years old who has watched the evening news or read a newspaper on occasion honestly disagreeing with proposition that politicians of both parties are equally prone to call a spade a trapezoidal digging instrument. For cripes sake, just do a google search of “Bush euphemisms” or “Nixon euphemisms”. You’ll be spoiled for choice.


Comment by Subsidy Eye

You are dumb and I am glad that not too many people read your articles.


Comment by Jason

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: