Diary

a refugee by any other name...

Obama and his entourage have a pattern of bastardizing the definitions of words, twisting them to suit the objective du jour.  Just a few months ago a federal judge declared that the federal government was not authorized to issue subsidies to people who acquired their health care plans through a federal exchange.  That ruling was made because — that is what the law says!  Moreover, recordings have emerged showing Jonathan Gruber, one of the law’s key designers, explaining just that in the time leading up to the passage of the law.  You may recall that the original purpose of that language was to encourage people to demand that their state governments set up their own health care exchanges.  Nevertheless, Mr. Gruber, and other Obama hacks involved in driving socialized medicine down the throats of an unwilling nation had no difficulty saying that reference to state exchanges in the law amounted to nothing more than a typo, and that it was always the intention of Obamacare’s architects that all enrollees, including those who signed up on the federal exchange, should be eligible for subsidies.  Because most states opposed the law, and only 16 states developed their own healthcare exchanges, it became necessary for team-Obama to find some way to make the reference to “state exchanges” mean something else, lest most of those who do sign up for healthcare are unsubsidized.

If the definition of a word is inconvenient, just insist that in a specific context it means something else and trust that the electorate will respond by yawning, rolling over, and going back to sleep.

Well, we’re about to enter that legislative haunted house known as the “lame duck,” and in preparation for that, Obama and his team have been floating another possibility for executive amnesty, and this one will require a brand new definition of  “social group” as it applies to refugees and asylees (those seeking asylum).   Under the law, status as an asylee or a refugee is established when one is persecuted because of race, religion, nationality, or membership in a “social group.”  We’ve recently seen a number of examples of such groups – Iraqi Kurds, for example.  Now, in a pathetic attempt to validate Obama’s previous executive amnesty program (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA), this administration is positioning itself to define “children” as a social group.   Never have people of any age been defined as a “social group” within the context of this law.

“So what?” you ask…well, this action is even more contemptuous to the rule of law, and even more potentially confounding to securing our borders, than the disastrous DACA.  If children constitute a “social group” under the law, then why can’t people of any age group?  Or gender?  Or parental status?  In other words, if this is permitted to go forward, literally anyone who is not an American citizen could be absorbed into the definition of refugee or asylee at the whim of the executive branch, and current immigration law as legitimately passed by congress (though enforced in piecemeal fashion) would immediately become obsolete.

I hate lame-duck sessions.  I work for a living and try to have a life, and keeping an eye on the ruling class in Washington is especially exhausting when many of them have nothing left to fear from the electorate.  Obama is in that role now, and if the senate does indeed go to Republicans, it’s certain that he’ll accelerate his efforts to legislate via executive decree – and he’ll not likely shy away from overt redefinitions to further his amnesty agenda, regardless of the magnitude of public opposition.

If the senate does go Republican, perhaps congress will be able to enact something like Cruz/Blackburn and stand against this effort, because, in Obama-land, words mean what he says they do – and definitions may evolve even more quickly than his views on marriage.