War criminal John Yoo hyperventilates about Obama's immigration reform:
President Obama’s claim that he can refuse to deport 800,000 aliens here in the country illegally illustrates the unprecedented stretching of the Constitution and the rule of law. He is laying claim to presidential power that goes even beyond that claimed by the Bush administration, in which I served. There is a world of difference in refusing to enforce laws that violate the Constitution (Bush) and refusing to enforce laws because of disagreements over policy (Obama).
Jennifer Rubin piles on, absurdly claiming that
This is a much bigger deal than immigration. It is bigger than one election. It is about whether we’re going to have the rule of law or the rule of Obama, and whether Congress can be bypassed whenever the president doesn’t get what he wants.
Meanwhile, back on Earth:
For decades the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), followed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), has used deferred action to provide limited relief to foreign nationals who do not qualify for other immigration benefits that are typically available to individuals in exigent circumstances.
Upon creation of the DHS in 2003, the power to grant deferred action was formally delegated to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), as well as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
The PDF is here. More to the point:
The Bush Administration Formally Delegated The Power To Grant Deferred Action To DHS Agencies In 2003.
And those with deferred action can work in the meantime. There's nothing lawless about this – just a spectacular political coup, which the Romneyites are trying to spin away. But remember what they're actually trying to do: to change the subject from what Obama did, and to deter questions asking if Romney would repeal it.
Romney must be forced to answer that question by the press.
Or are they going to live by Palin rules again?