President’s Executive Order prompts response from Gabriela Saucedo Mercer, Candidate for Congress

| June 16 2012

Congressional candidate Gabriela Saucedo Mercer of Tucson, Arizona delivered a statement on Friday regarding President Obama’s executive order granting immunity to 800,000 young people living in the United States illegally. The immunity would apply to those brought to this country before age sixteen, who are under the age of thirty with ‘proof’ they have been in the United States for five consecutive years, attended school, served this nation in the military and have no criminal background.

“While I do not object to the principles involved, I object to the methodology the Obama administration is using to implement their plan by circumventing the United States Congress,” said Saucedo Mercer, who came to the U.S. legally and became a citizen in 1991.

Gabriela Saucedo Mercer (www.saucedomercer.com) is a Republican running in CD-3, a congressional seat currently held by Democrat Raul Grijalva. Grijalva also released a statement thanking the president for providing ‘…a sensible solution’.

The announcement by President Obama was given on a day when congress was not in session. By using an executive order, the president bypassed the normal legislative process as noted by Gabriela Saucedo Mercer. Even Obama stated last year that he could not change immigration policy ‘unilaterally’. It appears in an election year, he felt he could.

Ultimately, the American people are witnessing the federal government’s selective enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws. While we are being ‘assured’ those granted immunity will not have legal status or public benefits, those receiving immunity will have work permits which leads one to wonder if they will then be eligible to become voters. Such a move could influence election outcomes in key swing states such as Colorado, Florida and New Mexico. It could also affect local elections with Arizona’s  Congressional District 3 being at the center of key issues surrounding border security and illegal immigration.

As American citizens are struggling to find gainful employment and battling the ever dwindling dollar, an unconscionable hardship has just been placed upon the American taxpayer and the economy. Note that Obama also mentioned his executive order was not a ‘permanent fix’ meaning that at some point, there will be one. There will have to be. When providing work permits, not only does it invite more individuals to compete for jobs in an already struggling economy, it means new taxpayers will be paying into a system they also want to participate in as voters.

Immigrant’s rights groups represent the voices of those in the U.S. illegally; the U.S. Congress represents the voices of  American citizens, and Americans, though generous and sympathetic, have continuously rejected Amnesty and The Dream Act – and for good reasons. The Obama administration put the interests of those here illegally over law-abiding legal citizens who will be forced to pay for Obama’s massive wealth redistribution plan to illegals. Despite what Janet Napolitano (Department of Homeland Security Secretary) and Obama tell you, the American taxpayer has already paid for the public benefits enjoyed by those here illegally. Taxpayers have been forced to pay for free education and healthcare for years. It was not a mere coincidence that Obama announced his executive abuse of power on the 30th anniversary of Plyler vs. Doe which permitted children of illegals to receive a ‘free’ education in American public schools.

Many of the immigrant groups, though welcoming the President’s plan, have already indicated it does not go far enough. Considering the Obama administration is listening to non-citizen advocates over your voice through your congressional representative, expect more such acts to follow – UNLESS congress will actually become forceful in stopping this administration. It is up to you to contact your representative today in order to see action from the U. S. Congress.

It is clear the road to amnesty has indeed been paved, but it has been done through exploitation; not representation.

0 comments