Monday, May 11, 2015

The DHS Under Obama: As Lawless As He Is

DHS broke judge’s order, approved amnesty applications despite injunction

"President Obama’s lawyers admitted to a federal judge late Thursday that they had broken the court’s injunction halting the administration’s new deportation amnesty, issuing thousands of work permits even after Judge Andrew S. Hanen had ordered the program stopped.

The stunning admission, filed just before midnight in Texas, where the case is being heard, is the latest misstep for the administration’s lawyers, who are facing possible sanctions by Judge Hanen for their continued problems in arguing the case.

The Justice Department lawyers said Homeland Security, which is the defendant in the case, told them Wednesday that an immigration agency had approved about 2,000 applications for three-year work permits, which was part of Mr. Obama’s new amnesty, even after Judge Hanen issued his Feb. 16 injunction halting the entire program.

Top Obama officials, including Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, had repeatedly assured Congress they had fully halted the program and were complying with the order.

“The government sincerely regrets these circumstances and is taking immediate steps to remedy these erroneous three-year terms,” the administration lawyers said."
Leftists are laws unto themselves; they apologize when caught, but they can't be trusted without close oversight because they have no moral compunction about breaking laws.


Steven Satak said...

I served in the Navy for 22 years.

I never failed to run into people in each of my commands who quoted "It's better to ask forgiveness than ask permission".

Meaning 'I'll let the folks in charge decide if I did the right thing AFTER I have done what I want'.

The important thing was that they did what they wanted, of course, but that sort of thing looks very 'take-charge' and 'decisive' to people in charge (who are halfway inclined towards that themselves).

I always thought these people were self-centered a-holes.

The chain of command, responsibility, accountablity? That was for others. They were ALL exceptions to the rules. And sure enough, a lot of them could eventually be found in the Chief's Mess and the Wardroom.

There's something about bureaucracy, military or civilian, that rewards that kind of behavior. I thank God I lacked the ambition and the networking skills to go any further than I did in the Navy - there's no telling how big an a-hole I would have become.

Robert Coble said...

"If it's a good idea, go ahead and do it. It's much easier to apologize than it is to get permission."

Commodore Grace Hopper, USN

I have a somewhat different take on that quote. I worked for the U.S. Navy in Civil Service from 1979-1996, when I retired. I saw it as meaning that the career bureaucrats (both military and civilian) would rather obstruct and delay granting permission to do what needed to be done, rather than making any decisions requiring responsibility.

I always took the responsibility for my decisions and actions in order to make progress on my projects. I'll give you one example, out of too many to relate here.

When I was responsible for the SNAP-II porting project (from old 1960s Harris superminicomputers using dedicated 24x80 dumb terminals to HP and Sun tactical Unix servers using PCs as the wrokstations, I was directed by the Washington D.C. Program Manager that I would emulate the dumb terminals EXACTLY, rather than utilize the mouse and GUI on the PCs. His justification was that it would take too much training time to transition the sailors on board ships to using GUIs. My argument (over-ridden by him) was that the sailors were already using PCs and GUIs, so the training issue was moot. I had my technical staff do both capabilities simultaneously. When I demonstrated the two interfaces side-by-side, the users groups decided unanimously to go with the GUIs rather than the old dumb terminal emulation. I took a lot of "heat" from management for my decision, but was "forgiven" for not following directions.

Was I a self-centered asshole? No, but I certainly got accused of that a lot by other managers who wanted authority but not responsibility.

When I completed the SNAP-II porting project, I did not ask for (and did not receive) any kind of promotion, pay raise, or even a letter of commendation, but my technical team personnel did, so that was good enough for me. I requested another "crunch mode" project to lead - and was shelved in a different department on the staff of someone who didn't even acknowledge that I existed.

Would I do that kind of thing again? In a heartbeat! I was never interested in climbing the management ladder; I simply wanted to do interesting technical stuff and lead brilliant technical people doing it.

I retired at age 48 because I saw that not only was I never going to advance in management, but I also was not going to get any more interesting technical projects to lead.

I went on to become one of Unisys Corp.'s Y2K experts, and a senior database designer.

Steven Satak said...

You'd be an exception, then. I did not mean to suggest you were an 'a-hole' just because you've had successful forays into doing things your way. If I read your comment correctly, you paid in spades for your choice, by getting pigeon-holed as 'not a team player'. In other words, you were NOT forgiven.

That it was worth it to you is plain to see. That you went on to thrive in other environments is laudable.

But it doesn't change the impression of arrogance I got from folks who presumably walked the walk and enforced it on others, only to chuck the whole thing whenever it suited them.

You're right, that bureaucratic snafu would have bollixed up the works - I was actually working with SNAP-II on my ship and recall the Honeywell computer that ran the twenty or so dumb terminals. And you made the correct choice for yourself and for the sailors and for the taxpayers.

But the idea that adhering to your bosses' orders is only for times when you agree with him is an attitude I find foreign to myself, as a former sailor and member of the military itself. I never obeyed orders that were going to put someone at risk without a great deal of protest. But once I'd had my say, it was on with the business at hand. I was in an environment where it was taken for granted you might have to don an ensemble and advance the firehose into a burning mainspace. Yes, the fire team might die down there. But the whole crew would be swimming in the drink - or worse - if we didn't.

I think the difference is that in my line of work, at my level, there was less tolerance of 'mavericks'. Even if they turned out to be right, insubordination was a thing. Making your boss look foolish was even worse.

The 'mavericks' at the DHS are the product of such thinking. They did what they wanted when they wanted.