It is never too late to be what you might have been.
George Eliot
The New Immigration Kerfuffle:
Another Obama Abuse of Power
I am an economic liberal (not to be confused with Democratic policies: economic liberals oppose virtually all government intervention and emphasize property rights). I have been a strong proponent of legal immigration reform. I have opposed state initiatives to preempt the exclusive constitutionally-provided responsibility for federal enforcement. I'm unhappy that the entire discussion has been skewed by undocumented Latino issues. I was even a reluctant supporter of the DREAM act.
I do not want to go through the 2007 immigration battle again. When I hear codewords being circulated like "illegal aliens" or "amnesty", it turns me off. Let's make one thing clear: the DREAM act failed to pass. The administration has no moral authority for a backdoor approach to create policy. This is clearly unconstitutional. I don't care how much disingenuous reasoning they try to advance: e.g., our new policy saves money, we have a backlog of cases, etc. You cannot arbitrarily "fix" procedures established by Congress, trying to suggest that you've been authorized to pick and choose, in a manner consistent with parochial political objectives, violations of the law to prosecute. It's an unambiguous violation of the rule of law. I have discussed in previous posts how the Obama Administration has played procedural games to artificially bump up its deportation numbers. The idea that an unauthorized family is exempt from deportation if they simply manage to have a baby while in the country is a glaring example of moral hazard and an unconscionable double standard. The opposition presupposes a false scenario: the status quo is in "crisis mode" and alternative reform is "impossible" (
If the Obama Administration has LEGITIMATE reforms to streamline the immigration process, let them take the issue of reforming the process, e.g., streamline appeal processes which are merely procedural delay procedures, not substantive in nature, expand the number of judges to handle cases, etc.
Obama as President is like having a snake oil salesman in the White House 24x7. He predictably dismisses substantive objections, makes straw man and ad hominem arguments of the opposition, and plays sophistic polemical word games; he's the incarnation of the worst of the legal profession--slick-talking hucksters whom hide all sorts of salient items in dubious fine print: they put lipstick on the pig they're selling and sell the lipstick. Pay no attention to what a pathological liar says: pay attention to what he does. The Obama Administration can manipulate statistics all they want: the proof is in the pudding. John Morton has been signaling exactly the kinds of policies being discussed since his appointment; Obama during the 2007 immigration debate was looking to complicate and extend appeal processes, not streamline them; there's been no crackdown on sanctuary cities. The very fact that they are publicizing these enforcement guidelines basically encourages foreigners to ignore US immigration policies: just keep your nose clean with local laws, have a baby, and we'll look the other way. They are not enforcing laws: they are de facto making law by refusing to enforce law. That's plainly unconstitutional. This is NOT exercising discretion, a pragmatic notion, on a case-by-case basis. This is a knowing perversion of discretion masking a policy coincidentally consistent with Obama's partisan objectives.
This is a transparent effort to rationalize an unauthorized workaround. just in time for the 2012 elections for Latinos. The Congress should investigate Obama's part in this conversation, and if the Obama Administration refuses to back out of its unauthorized breach of authority, I recommend looking at articles of impeachment.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Bread, "Mother Freedom"
