Guest Post by Mara Zebest

The House voted to defund Obama’s DREAM policy. Keep in mind that the policy was implemented illegally via executive order. Executive orders are not to be used to implement law. One can only hope that sanity will continue to prevail on the illegal executive orders meant to bypass the laws of this constitutional republic.

Any immigration laws should also be defeated under this political environment.

What motivation would an illegal have to become a citizen? Why would an illegal jump through the hoops of legality when they can benefit from collecting all taxpayer-funded benefits without paying taxes themselves? What motivation would there be to assimilate and understand the constitution and the concepts of individual responsibility when they are allowed to vote (illegally and fraudulently) for those Democratic representatives that support the policies that fill pockets of the criminally inclined with money—money earned off the backs of the hard-working law-abiding citizens?

TRENDING: FOX News Panel Melts Down After Newt Gingrich Correctly Calls Out Lawless Soros-Funded District Attorneys (VIDEO)

National Review reports the following:

The House of Representatives voted 224–201 Thursday morning to deny funding for the Obama administration’s controversial Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy. The policy, which was implemented via executive order in June 2012, effectively assumes the enactment of the DREAM Act, legislation that has failed to pass Congress on multiple occassions, and has raised concerns about executive overreach:

Republicans have argued that these orders amount to the selective enforcement of U.S. immigration laws that discourages enforcement against children who were brought to the United States illegally, or illegal immigrant adults who are not in any legal trouble. Many Republicans have dubbed Obama’s orders as “administrative amnesty.”

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) sponsored the amendment to the 2014 Department of Homeland Security spending bill, and called for its passage in late Wednesday debate by saying Obama’s orders — also known as the Morton memos — violate the Constitution.

“The point here is … the President does not have the authority to waive immigration law, nor does he have the authority to create it out of thin air, and he’s done both with these Morton memos in this respect,” King said.

A group of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers are challenging the policy in federal court, which I wrote about last week:

ICE agents are currently suing the administration, arguing that the new policy “violates the obligation of the executive branch to faithfully execute the law,” which states that if immigration officers determine that an individual who has been arrested is in the country illegally, that individual “shall be detained” and processed for deportation. The Obama administration, however, is arguing that the word “shall,” in this instance, actually means “may.” DHS is simply exercising its “prosecutorial discretion,” the administration contends, with respect to immigration law enforcement.

Agents claim that the new policy is routinely abused: Illegal immigrants arrested on criminal charges will simply declare themselves eligible for “deferred action” protection, and agents are forced to release them without charge; they must take the detainees at their word, in accordance with new administration policy. Agents are threatened with disciplinary action if they object. One of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit was assaulted by an illegal immigrant in the course of arresting the immigrant on a domestic-violence charge. When the agent attempted to initiate deportation proceedings, ICE officials intervened and ordered the immigrant to be released without charge. The decision was “based on the President’s new immigration policies,” according to court documents.

The judge handling the case has already indicated that he is likely to rule against the administration.

Read more here.