Issue: H.R. 5759 Preventing Executive Overreach on Immigration Act of 2014.
Result: Passed in House, 219 to 197, 3 voted present, 15 not voting. Democrats scored.
From the Congressional Research Service Summary:
Get the latest news and updates from Freedom First Society.
Prohibits the executive branch of the government from:
- exempting or deferring from removal, by executive order, regulation, or any other means, categories of aliens considered under the immigration laws to be unlawfully present in the United States;
- treating such aliens as if they were lawfully present or had a lawful immigration status; or
- treating them other than as unauthorized aliens.
States that such prohibition shall not apply:
- to the extent prohibited by the Constitution;
- upon the request of federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies for purposes of maintaining aliens in the United States to be tried for crimes or to be trial witnesses; or
- for humanitarian purposes where the aliens are at imminent risk of serious bodily harm or death.
Background: On November 20, 2014, President Obama announced that he would act dictatorially to “fix” America’s “broken immigration system” — because Congress hadn’t done so.
The President’s plan, such as issuing work permits to undocumented workers without supporting legislation from Congress, immediately drew fire from GOP leaders, who termed it a “brazen power grab.” It was. However, the real danger lies in what the public was not being told.
Not surprisingly, leaders of both parties, as well as the Establishment media, ignored the real source of our immigration problem — the subversive agenda of an Insider Conspiracy. And no solution is possible unless it addresses that reality.
The President spoke of progress in enforcing our borders, but both parties refuse to mention the Establishment-supported open borders agenda, exemplified in the Wall Street Journal’s editorial for July 2, 2001, entitled “Open NAFTA Borders? Why Not?” In that editorial, the late Robert L. Bartley wrote: “Indeed, during the immigration debate of 1984 we suggested an ultimate goal to guide passing policies — a constitutional amendment: ‘There shall be open borders.’”
Bartley, the editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal from 1972 to 2002, posed as a conservative free-market Republican and used the Journal to promote internationalism (NAFTA, WTO, the IMF and World Bank) to its mostly conservative readership. Bartley joined the CFR in 1979 and showed up on the membership roles of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission.
Party leaders also refuse to explain why government has failed to enforce our borders or why previous “reform” legislation, in particular the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, simply made matters worse.
How About Five Years From Now?
For decades, politicians promoting immigration “reform” have sought to reassure voters with talk about getting tough on illegal immigration — “from this day forward.” And Obama was no exception. But Americans should not be fooled again.
In describing his offer to free millions of illegal immigrants temporarily from the threat of deportation, such as those who had been in the country illegally for more than five years, President Obama emphasized: “This deal does not apply to anyone who has come to this country recently. It does not apply to anyone who might come to America illegally in the future. It does not grant citizenship, or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive — only Congress can do that.”
Analysis: In the wake of President Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders that changed U.S. immigration policy, the GOP-led House introduced legislation to nullify the president’s action. Of course, everyone knew the Senate would ignore this legislation and that it would never even make it to the president’s desk. But as with so many roll calls the primary purpose was to allow House members to go on record as objecting to the president’s action.
Accordingly, we do not score the House GOP for their easy posturing “yea” votes, but we give credit to the three Democrats who broke with their party’s leadership and stood for the Constitution.
We have assigned (good vote) to the Yeas and (bad vote) to the Nays. (P = voted present; ? = not voting; blank = not listed on roll call.)