On Tuesday, 22 U.S. mayors issued a statement supporting Barack Obama's executive actions on immigration, in response to U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen’s temporary order blocking the actions:

Despite this temporary delay, we are confident the President's executive actions will be upheld and enforced as the law of the land, benefiting millions of families and spurring much needed economic growth nationwide. We are undeterred and will continue this campaign to fully integrate all our citizens, and keep our cities centers of vitality, creativity, and the engine of small business growth. These reforms will be implemented, and we look forward to ensuring all eligible persons will be brought out of the shadows and granted their full rights under the President's lawful executive actions.

Below are three objections to the most egregious statements in this brief yet error-ridden proclamation (there are certainly more.)

1)  The president has no power to make “the law of the land,” by executive order or any other means. Congress, as the legislative branch of government, is the only entity delineated by the U.S. Constitution to make law. The president can either sign (or veto) bills passed by Congress, and is then charged with seeing that those enacted laws are enforced.  Under no article in the Constitution is power granted to the president to suspend law or create new laws.

2)  Would any of these 22 financial wizards care to explain how you “spur much needed economic growth” by allowing (at least) 5 million additional people to collect welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, tax refunds, college tuition, etc.? As witnessed by the current financial crisis that her own city is currently mired in, I would suggest that at least one of the signatories, Syracuse Mayor Stephanie Minor, has absolutely no idea how this executive action would do so.

3)  How exactly did you determine that those to be granted amnesty by this unconstitutional action are “our citizens”? From my obviously nativist, anti-immigration perspective, they are currently in this country illegally and by law, not citizens nor “eligible” to be granted any rights.

As the list of these 22 misguided mayors from the first article referenced above did not stipulate their party affiliation, I did a little research and discovered that every last one of them is a Democrat. No big surprise there. However, when paired with information from a wsj.com article regarding the U.S. cities that offered to house illegal immigrant minors this past summer, it certainly calls into question the real motivation of the 22 signatories.  In it the author states: “Most places that have been receptive to the (illegal immigrant) minors already have sizable immigrant populations and are led by Democrats.”

Pardon my cynicism, but could it be that these Democratic mayors, by putting their names to this preposterous document, are not actually advocating for those in the “shadows,” but are instead just angling for the federal funds that would come their way to house these “citizens” if and when Obama’s executive action becomes “the law of the land”? This despite knowing the negative impact taking in all these immigrants would have on the legal residents of their respective cities?

Knowing the economic condition of many Democratic-controlled cities, this is a very real, albeit disingenuous, possibility.