How to Control Immigration
The Washington Time says, "Homeland Security: No one home at the top; mounting vacancies to affect immigration laws". The Times goes on to say that Homeland Security is the largest US government agency, with an annual budget of $59 billion. There are 240,000 employees. Four of the top jobs have been vacant since late last year, and one position — inspector general — has been vacant for 2 years. There are now 14 vacancies in key positions, not counting John Morton, Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, who leaves at the end of this month, and Secretary Janet A. Napolitano, who departs in September.
Why is this?
The answer is simple.
Congress passes bills but for the bills to become law, the President must sign. If the bill seems to have popular public support, the President is pretty much compelled to sign in spite of his personal feelings. The new law is then placed in the hands of one of the existing government agencies for enforcement. However, the President is administrator of all government departments, and in spite of his signature on a law, he has the option of indirectly not enforcing the law by denying nominations to leadership positions. Left without leadership, the existing agency employees are uncertain concerning their future with any subsequent leader, who may be appointed. They then do little of any significance, in order to not jeopardize their positions.
In the case of Homeland Security, Pres. Obama is concerned primarily with the immigration aspects. Since he was raised in various foreign countries, he has no innate allegiance to America. He believes in worldwide government, without country boundaries, and therefore no control on the movement of people from one area of the world to another.
As Congress passes an immigration bill, it will contain some controls on immigration, in spite of all Democratic efforts to not include controls. The public is generally favorable to immigration control, and Pres. Obama will be forced to sign the bill into law. However, he then has the option of not enforcing the law by denying leadership in the controlling Department of Homeland Security. He has been preparing for this eventuality by avoiding nomination of individuals to key Homeland Security positions.
Why is this?
The answer is simple.
Congress passes bills but for the bills to become law, the President must sign. If the bill seems to have popular public support, the President is pretty much compelled to sign in spite of his personal feelings. The new law is then placed in the hands of one of the existing government agencies for enforcement. However, the President is administrator of all government departments, and in spite of his signature on a law, he has the option of indirectly not enforcing the law by denying nominations to leadership positions. Left without leadership, the existing agency employees are uncertain concerning their future with any subsequent leader, who may be appointed. They then do little of any significance, in order to not jeopardize their positions.
In the case of Homeland Security, Pres. Obama is concerned primarily with the immigration aspects. Since he was raised in various foreign countries, he has no innate allegiance to America. He believes in worldwide government, without country boundaries, and therefore no control on the movement of people from one area of the world to another.
As Congress passes an immigration bill, it will contain some controls on immigration, in spite of all Democratic efforts to not include controls. The public is generally favorable to immigration control, and Pres. Obama will be forced to sign the bill into law. However, he then has the option of not enforcing the law by denying leadership in the controlling Department of Homeland Security. He has been preparing for this eventuality by avoiding nomination of individuals to key Homeland Security positions.
No comments:
Post a Comment