But I play one on TV

It's not going to be vacuous it it?

"The President wants a constructive and civil debate on the need to fix the broken immigration system so that it meets America’s economic and security needs for the 21st century," a White House official said in a statement. "To do that we need to elevate the debate, and folks like these and those who met with him last week can play an important part in bringing this debate around the country, rising above the politics and false debates that too often dominate when the issue comes up, and really address why it matters economically and for other reasons in a constructive way."

There's nothing more tired then the "we need an amnesty" argument or the "immigration system is broken" variation. If you enforce the Federar immigration laws then there's no need for an amnesty. And if you have an amnesty then there's no point in the Federal laws as you've commuted the sentence of all those millions of criminals. However, given that we only pay lip service to enforcing the Federal law on these issues then the only 'broken' around is the Executive of the United States who refuses to do so. That's not simply Jughead Rex but includes The Cheerleader, Freud's Humidor, The Oilman, The Gipper and The Peanut. There's more I should think, but that's an unbroken chain of things as far back as I've cared to consider the matter. And I'm sketchy on the Peanut. Ignoring him that's a 21 year run of willful refusal to uphold the law as passed by Congress.

Impeachment? Revolution?

Well, it's not so simple. Congress has the authority and requirement to pass 'an uniform Rule of Nautralization' and after 1808 were allowed to prohibit States from migrating or importing whomsoever they saw fit. That is, only after 1808 was Congress allowed to say 'thou shalt not.' It never had the authority to say 'thou must.' Which is generally meaningless as it only takes a single State to allow the importation and residence of persons not banned for enough time as they may fall under the uniform Rule that Congress is supposed to have on the matter.

Thus if Congress doesn't prohibit the importation of Brazilians? California can go hog wild bringing them in on tour buses chartered by the DNC. That was true and remains true. That Amendment only moved one bit of that Uniform rule into a separate Constitutional measure outside the grasp of the States and Congress alike -- and that's birthright citizenship. This is not only the history untaught in civics classes paid for by tax dollars but damnably explicit in the very wording in the unammended Constitution itself. It was to be a 'Rule' not a 'Law.' It was a constant guideline that the States themselves were to follow to the letter and implement, not the Executive itself.

The limit of the Executive's interest in immigration law ends at ensuring that States aren't playing hookie with the requirements for the recordation and procedure. That's the beginning and end of it. If Congress bars Coolies and Missouri tells the feds to pound sand? Now the Executive has cause for action. If Congress doesn't bar Coolies and Missouri does? The Executive gets to pound sand.

Congress is allowed to dictate that States shall not import persons x, y, or z. And it is allowed to require that the States process persons x, y, or z that have met whatever qualifications it so stipulates to record the Naturalization of that individual. And once a Coolie performs that process in Nevada then there's not a thing under the sun that Missouri can say about it.

This is a staggeringly stupid construction, but it is and always has been the legal one. The current Federal laws on this regard are not broken; they are illegal and unjust in a completely different manner than people soundbite about. Congress has made it a rule of law that the rule of man shall prevail. That all persons are barred from importation unless they meet the qualifications. Quotas are fine here but it is the codification in law that the Executive may abstractly allow any random person to be admitted in variance to that as a result of the personal whim of the current Executive that is manifestly unjust and against the character of sound government. It is as well a further example of handing over law making power to the Executive. And in this case a lawmaking power that treads too close for casual comfort to a power Congress itself is barred from: The Bill of Attainder.
Where it's manifestly illegal is that Congress has disbarred the States from implementing the Rule themselves. This is not within Congressional powers to do. Congress may freely bar any race, noationality, or creed and may even put class or total quotas on things as they see fit. What they cannot do is force the Executive to implement what is a mandate put upon the States. Nor can they force the States to allow the importation of people that are not US Citizens. So no, it shouldn't per se be impeachment or revolution against the Federal government that Jughead Rex and his predecessors haven't been doing what they shouldn't be doing anyways. That particular prize belongs to each of the 50 State governments that are busily trying to pass the buck on the issue.

But for the rest with the Executive and Congress? Well, we currently reserve Federal political office as a matter of Social Justice. Because even the mentally handicapped need jobs. Just take Jughead's Hollywood invitations to speak on the issue of the importation of foreign citizens. Top listing was a chick born on US Territory because she presumably has a nigger in the woodpile. Or, in her case, an injun. S'right, she's qualified to direct the nation and inform the Executive of the United States of America, the most powerful man in the world, not because of her relevant qualifications for pursuing a career in which she is photographed after being dressed by others. But because she's a wise non-white character, or something.

This should end well.