It appears that California Attorney General, Xavier Becerra is, once again, failing to uphold the oath of his office to protect and defend the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of California …
CALIFORNIA OATH OF OFFICE
“I, ___________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.
“And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows:
_____ (If no affiliations, write in the words “No Exceptions”) _____ and that during such time as I hold the office of _____ (name of office) _____
I will not advocate nor become a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means.”
<Source: California Legislature>
Acting more like a foreign agent of Mexico or an advocate for illegal aliens, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has filed a brief with the United States Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of former President Barack Obama’s DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) which has no basis in the United States Constitution or in current law. Even Obama questioned the legality of the imposition of the DACA program.
|Responding in October 2010 to demands that he implement immigration reforms unilaterally, Obama declared, "I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself." In March 2011, he said that with "respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case." In May 2011, he acknowledged that he couldn't "just bypass Congress and change the (immigration) law myself. ... That's not how a democracy works."
Yet in 2012, he did it anyway. He put DACA in place to provide pseudo-legal status to illegal aliens brought to the U.S. as minors, including as teenagers. He promised them that they wouldn't be deported and provided them with work authorizations and access to Social Security and other government benefits.
And he did this despite the fact that the immigration laws passed by Congress do not give the president the ability to do this. Indeed, Congress specifically rejected bills to provide such benefits. <Source>
Now comes Becerra to the Supreme Court and identifying illegal aliens as “young Americans.” To the progressive socialist democrats who believe 26-year-olds are still children and can be granted insurance coverage on their parent’s health insurance policies, I guess being 30 and illegal qualifies you as a “young American.” [DACA AGE REQUIREMENT: Were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012. <Source: USCIS>]
The fight to keep the government from terminating all or part of the unconstitutional and illegal DACA program by denying a hearing on the matter before the United States Supreme Court …
Without the injunction, thousands of DACA recipients would lose their work authorization and deferred action status in March 2018 (id. at 65a)—and thousands more the next month, and each succeeding month, until nearly three-quarters of a million young Americans would be shunted back into the shadows of our society.
As the district court found (ibid.), this would profoundly damage the individual plaintiffs, the States and the other entity plaintiffs, our communities, our educational institutions, our businesses, and the entire Nation. <Source: U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security v. Regents of the Univ. of Calif., No. 17-1003, on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. Supreme Court>
Perhaps it would disincentivize illegal aliens from dragging their children across the border … or even worse as we have seen over the past eight years, sending unaccompanied minors across the border where it is somehow hoped that they will be able to bring their parents across to, according to the progressive socialist democrats, “unify” the family.
Perhaps it would free up millions of low-cost/low-skill jobs for entry-level Americans, reduce the traffic on our freeways, and reduce the price pressure on housing. And, without these illegal aliens, we would have less illiteracy, poverty, disease, crime, and not need the Central Valley high-speed railroad to nowhere except farming communities.
Bottom line …
Who is Attorney General Xavier Becerra protecting? Legal, law-abiding Americans and Californians or Mexicans? And why is he using the state’s scarce legal resources to fight for multi-generational gang members to remain in the country?
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius