August 9, 2013
Joe Newby
examiner.com

It's being called "Plan B," and according to a report posted Thursday at the National Journal, is not supposed to be spoken of publicly. "Plan B" basically says that if Congress can't -- or won't -- enact amnesty through a "comprehensive" immigration plan like the one recently passed by the Senate and supported by Republican Senator John McCain, President Obama should act unilaterally, bypassing Congress to give immigration lobbyists what they want.

"There are groups that are for immigration reform no matter what. Then there are groups like us, grassroots.... We have the other track," Adelina Nicholls, the executive director of the Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights, told the National Journal. "The other track is Barack Obama."

"Many advocates have been discussing Plan B quietly for months, but they have kept a disciplined public message solely focused on supporting a comprehensive immigration bill in Congress," Fawn Johnson wrote at the National Journal.

The policy Nicholls refers to is one enacted by Obama in 2012 that unilaterally granted temporary legal status to illegal immigrants under the age of 30 who can prove they were brought to the United States before their 16th birthday.

The Washington Times said that over 99 percent of those who applied under that program were approved for legal status by the administration. The high approval rate, however, is raising concerns over fraud.

Those advocating amnesty for illegal immigrants say if Obama can unilaterally grant amnesty to some, he should be able to grant it to all with a stroke of the pen. The president has shown time and again he is more than willing to push the envelope of his executive authority, bypassing Congress on a number of issues.

"And the amnesty advocates are right," the Washington Examiner said, providing such an action is legal.

But there's the rub.

Conn Carroll reported that "Obama’s June 2012 amnesty program is illegal."

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor said in July the program was illegal, ruling that border agents did not have the right to challenge the president because they are his employees, Carroll added.

"In its previous Order, the Court found that Congress’s use of the word ‘shall’ in Section 1225(b)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act imposes a mandatory obligation on immigration officers to initiate removal proceedings against aliens they encounter who are not ‘clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted,’” Judge O’Connor wrote. “Therefore, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Department of Homeland Security has implemented a program contrary to congressional mandate.”

But that isn't stopping advocates for full amnesty, who, the Journal said, are in Washington this week with an activist coalition called CAMBIO, working on the next set of talking points.

"We're saying, 'What if? What are the next steps? If we come to a crossroads, what are the next strategies, the next talking points?'" Lizette Escobedo, communications and development director for the Latino group Mi Familia Vota, said. "Our groups on the ground are seeing this as a new challenge. And when you get a new challenge, you just need to turn up the heat."

http://www.examiner.com/article/repo...eclare-amnesty