In a previous article, I focused on South Carolina Representative Trey Gowdy calling out executive director of the National Immigration Law Center Marielena Hincapie for her comments indicating that the House hearing regarding Obama’s executive amnesty was racist. While that section of the questioning was widely covered, what followed was quite telling regarding just how bad of an understanding of the law the administration has and how bad of an understanding immigration activists like Ms. Hincapie have.
Following his correction of Hincapie’s assumption of racism, Gowdy asked her, “What are the limits of prosecutorial discretion?”
“Among the limits of prosecutorial discretion is that the president must comply with existing statutes, such as the appropriations… so the president can’t simply stop deporting everybody, and, in fact, what they’ve done here is listed new priorities…” she began to explain before Gowdy interrupted with a follow up question.
“So he can’t stop deporting everybody,” Gowdy reasoned and then thought out led, “Well, what are the limits… so as long as he deports one person, then that’s a proper exercise of the prosecutorial discretion?”
Hincapie said that would not be a proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion. She then began to attempt to talk about appropriations before Gowdy called her back to a constitutional doctrine of prosecutorial discretion.
The South Carolina congressman then pointed out that is you “marry” the prosecutorial discretion doctrine up with the pardon clause, it means “you don’t have to enforce it and if they do break it, you can pardon them for it.”
Hincapie still failed to answer the question.
“Your answer is much more complex than my question,” he said. He then posed his question to her once more.
“The limits are the president must enforce the laws based on statute,” she said.
“I thought he just announced he wasn’t going to do that,” Gowdy responded. “He was carving out categories and exceptions… and not on a case-by-case basis, but entire categories.”
Hincapie attempted to cover for Obama by saying that he would enforce the law, but for specific individuals, “he is creating a program, by which individuals can come forward, if they meet certain criteria and they will be held accountable to apply, pay a fee, pass a criminal background check…”
In other words, these people won’t be “held accountable.” They’ll receive a shakedown. Under the law, they are already declared “criminals.” The government just wants the money (fee).
Gowdy rightly exposed the charade by asking rhetorically, “But that’s not the current law, right?”
“That is what is possible under deferred action and that is what he (Obama) has developed,” Hincapie responded.
Gowdy then focused on “non-serious criminals” with regards to background checks. He pointed out that the White House is concerned about “serious” criminals who are illegal aliens.
Ms. Hincapie said that misdemeanors such as shoplifting would not be considered a “serious” crime, and yet, there are other misdemeanors that would be considered “serious.”
When asked about domestic violence, Hincapie said that she believed domestic violence was considered to be a serious crime. However, Gowdy said that it was not considered as such under the comprehensive Senate bill. In fact, Gowdy said that an illegal alien could have up to three convictions of domestic violent (not charges, convictions) and still remain on a path to citizenship. Obviously, the question should be raised as to why the person was not deported upon the first charge if the law is to be followed.
He then followed up with a question about deporting with a conviction of driving while under the influence. As you can see in this Google search, there are plenty of people who have not been deported despite DUI convictions, including Obama’s uncle. Hincapie stated that she believed DUI was considered a “serious” crime, even though it is a misdemeanor.
Gowdy then wanted to know where he could go to verify Ms. Hincapie’s claims. He said that the White House talking points spoke of gang members, but he was not aware of any federal law that prohibited a person from being a part of a gang.
Gowdy then pointed out the while Hincapie’s concerned that the reach over gang members might capture too many, his concern was that it wouldn’t catch the “right people.”
When asked how gang members would be assessed, Hincapie said that there were gang databases that could be utilized.
“So if you’re in a gang database, will you be deported?” asked Gowdy.
“We don’t have enough information from the administration yet,” Hincapie said.
However, Gowdy, holding up a list of the White House talking points said that the Obama administration had said that gang members would be deported.
“But the talking points are not sufficient,” said Hincapie. “They (The Obama administration and Homeland Security) will be issuing guidelines with respect to how they will administer the program.”
As you can see, Obama’s policy with regard to illegal aliens is neither lawful nor constitutional. He is merely in this for a shakedown and to allow those who have broken immigration laws to remain unchecked because he thinks that immigration laws don’t make any sense (Translation: I don’t want to do my job. I just want to play golf and spend your money and watch America disintegrate under my watch.).
This brief hearing demonstrates that Obama is not upholding his oath of office under the US Constitution which is:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
As a result, not only is Obama as illegal as illegal aliens (and I, for one, believe he is an illegal alien), but his actions demonstrate that he is simply encouraging lawlessness in the United States.