The Obama Administration again waited for a Friday afternoon to announce a major new policy change — repeating its practice of timing important announcements to reduce media and public attention. The latest change is obviously controversial. The Administration will no longer deport illegal aliens under 30 who came to this country as children — effectively negating part of the federal law. It raises some troubling questions, again, about President Obama assertion of executive power. While liberals again celebrate the unilateral action, they ignore that danger that the next president may also simply chose to ignore whole areas of the federal law and criminal code in areas ranging from the environment to employment discrimination. It is one more brick in the wall of the Imperial Presidency constructed under Barack Obama — a wall that may prove difficult to dismantle for citizens in the future.
Presidents are given extreme deference in decisions on the enforcement of federal laws. It would be difficult for anyone to challenge this policy for that reason. However, that does not mean that this is a good practice — regardless of the merits of specific policy. It is also hard to ignore the obvious political play for Hispanic votes in key swing states. Obama waited for years to take this action and did so with polls showing that Hispanics will likely select the next president. Even some of the more liberal columnists and reporters are acknowledging that this change appears driven by politics.
Obama officials do not deny that they are circumventing Congress. In a recent interview, senior Obama adviser David Plouff told CNN “if congress would act, we would be happy to sign the DREAM Act tomorrow.” Since it has not done so, the White House is going to accomplish the same objection unilaterally.
This is different from past presidents who have not made deportation a priority in their policies. Despite the criticism of Obama, he is certainly no less aggressive on deportation than his predecessors. Indeed, he may be more aggressive in terms of numbers. Presidents like George W. Bush clearly did not push for deportation based solely on illegal status. The Administration, however, was forced to admit this long-suspected policy in court in fighting the Arizona law — stating that it did conflict with federal policy because the Administration did not want mass deportations.
This is different. Here the Administration is implementing a categorical policy not to enforce federal law, which dictates deportation for illegal immigrations regardless of their age. Congress has refused to pass such laws and this is an obvious effort to circumvent Congress — something of a signature for this Administration. Liberals were outraged by Bush’s use of signing statements as a circumvention of Congress. Yet, when Obama broke his promise and started using signing statements, liberals were again silent. Now, he has gone further and (rather than advancing a restrictive interpretation) he has announced that he will simply not enforce the law.
The change could also create a new conflict with states passing tough immigration laws. We are awaiting the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Arizona case where the Administration may lose some ground. The announcement on Friday could be an effort to preempt the decision. If the Administration had already decided to stop deportations, it would look bad to come after the decision and appear to be circumventing both the judicial and legislative branches.
This is part of a pattern for the Administration. For example, the Administration has announced that it will ignore two federal statutes that bar betting across state lines. That effectively legalized Internet gambling. While his Administration claims that it has no choice but to enforce other laws like marijuana enforcement and for years, both DOMA and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell laws, it has not hesitated to declare other laws as unenforceable as a matter of policy. Ultimately, it took the same approach to DOMA — after years of defending it. DOMA is striking in that the Administration still refuses to accept that sexual orientation should be treated like race or gender as a category of discrimination. If it did, the refusal to defend DOMA would have been more clearly based on a view that it is unconstitutional. Instead, the Administration made general claims of states rights (that do not apply to areas like medical marijuana it seems) and even more vague references to privacy and equal protection.
What is left is a conflicted approach to enforcement based on the president’s changing views — in the latest case a change that seems motivated in large part by political advantage.
Liberals and civil libertarians were united on such questions in denouncing the circumvention of Congress by Bush. However, once again, there appears to be a blindness to the dangers of this practice when it comes to Obama. What will happen if a President Romney simply declares that he is not going to enforce environmental law or conflict laws or other parts of the federal code? Is the difference going to be simply that he is not Obama? Liberals are losing not just their credibility but principles in these controversies. Our system is based on a careful balancing of power that forces disparate factional groups to reach agreements in the legislative process. That is what brings the stability to our system.
This latest controversy is not about young illegal immigrants. There are strong policy arguments in favor of this change. However, those arguments need to be made in Congress. This should also not be an “after-the-fact” debate following a change late on a Friday where the president simply grants the equivalent of amnesty for hundreds of thousands of people. Polls show a sharply divided population with a majority favoring tougher immigration laws. We have a political system designed to address such divisive issues. It does not always work the way presidents demand. Indeed, the Democrats previously used filibusters and other techniques to block the Bush Administration and how the Republicans are doing the same thing. However, that is the point. Presidents should not be able to simply make federal laws discretionary to their whim or will. This may be a worthy end but it is the wrong means in a system based on shared powers of government.
Source: Politico
without commercials!!!!!
I don’t recall the prime time speeches interrupting the tubes where Obama explained the importance of the Dream Act and demanded action.
—————
and I don’t remember a decent debate since the League of Women voters were usurped…..but I am finding new places to find less corrupted news….
@rafflaw
“You missed it anon. The DREAM Act was big news when it was going through Congress and being stopped by filibuster.”
Could be, but even then, or for many issues, I just don’t see Obama out in front of the issues, explaining to the public their importance and why they need to demand more from their Congresscritters.
I don’t recall the prime time speeches interrupting the tubes where Obama explained the importance of the Dream Act and demanded action.
Jill
Relying on US history alone, please name all “dictators” that Americans have hoped would be installed to govern our country. By “Americans” I mean some number of over 500,000 – not 300 political bloggers.
After 8 years of Bush I could see how desperate people on the left were for a savior. I also wrote warning about that on this blog. People talked of Obama as our “Bodhisattva president” as a religious leader, an image Brand Obama cultivated and continues to press successfully with his followers.~Jill
———————————
Jill you really are a black and white thinker…no pun intended. To mke a statement like “Cults are on the left and dictatorships have been established by leftists.” is bizarro supremo….there is not a solution to be had that is implementable in 1 fell swoop….in fact that sort of behaviour is what got us into this mess in the first place. The wild pendulum swings from Dem to Rep to Dem to Rep w/ea spending half their time dismantling and remolding what the previous party did is retarded and dare I repeat…schizoid at best. In our Democracy around a Republic there is much to fault but the dismantling of the constitutionally based laws and implementation of corporate cock swaddling is a two party endeavor that has victimized everybody. Obamas ticket was very obviously chosen because he was hoping (audaciously) to return some class and implement a return to sane and decent bi-partisanship action in Washington and the Country, …..he is now getting to show some stuff because he has been forced to acknowledge that that was a tad too difficult for those currently occupying the hallowed halls….
You missed it anon. The DREAM Act was big news when it was going through Congress and being stopped by filibuster.
Let us look at the cause and who has responsibility for this cause of the great immigration from Mexico.
Could it be the USA which established sweat shop trade agreements which drew Mexicans to the Mexican side of the border in search of jobs; and which taught them that a better life lay only inches away. (How thick IS the border?)
Having baited them here, and used them as the cheapest labor on the black market, can we then send them back
when their labor becomes surperfluous for the moment?
I don’t think so.
The manipulations of the moment have less value to discuss than the root causes and effects, and what it says about us.
Woosty, yep.
has anyone else noticed that muppet master is a bot?
Now let me get this straight because in my humble opinion there exists an ongoing deficiency of logic here. More than a few ongoing commenters here, myself definitely included, believe that our government is little more than an oligarchy that is a mixed bag of Corporate America, the M.I. Complex and inherited wealth. Perhaps some may agree with me that the evidence shows that the oligarchy is not homogenous in policy and in outlook. The Koch Bros. are not as one with Warren Buffett, etc. Our political process, though in the thrall of monied interests reflects this division. One side wants to destroy the safety net, put Americans of Color, women and LGBT people under servitude, or prison and create a Christian-led America. The other side, though no less corporate, feels those particular steps are unnecessary.
So if that’s the current reality, how much power does the Presidency have and how much can it wield? If it has no power that the President is irrelevant and why disparage him if it’s his “Masters” who are running the show? On the other hand if it is possible for the President to wield some few powers and he does it in a good cause, why not approve? Remember if you believe we are an Oligarchy-run country, then the Constitution is realistically meaningless and until that can be changed, anything that could possibly help the various people in need, or under attack is a blessing. For those who don’t believe we are living under an oligarchy then it is perfectly reasonable to call the President to task. However, for the others isn’t the President except for minor things that may keeps many people’s lives from descending further down the tubes. Try as one might, one can’t have it both ways if theirs is a dystopian perspective.
“Nevertheless, it’s hard to overstate the impact of this decision on those eligible. At least for the time being, they will no longer have to fear exile from the only place they’ve ever really lived. Arguably, Obama could have done this earlier—but by doing it now, the president sharply defines a fundamental difference between him and Romney. If Romney wins, and he sticks to his stated position on immigration, the DREAMers will have to leave.” Adam Serwer, Mother Jones
@rafflaw
You might be right, which is why I wrote, “but perhaps before making a unilateral decision not to defend the law as it is…”
I haven’t followed this issue closely, so I am very likely wrong, but I don’t recall hearing of Obama’s tour around the nation for a week or a month demanding Congress act and giving reasons why.
anon,
you are fooling yourself if you think anyone, even with a bully pulpit can convince the Republicans in the House and Senate to let Democracy control and not partisan politics. They have made their mandate very clear. The Citizens United case provided the free and secret corporate and even foreign money to obstruct the country and to prevent a more robust recovery of the economy.
Jill,
Just who on the left was trying to make Obama a Savior? I would like to see names and evidence of your claim.
@SwarthmoreMom,
You’re an idiot if you think Arpaio’s officers should not have arrested that six year old.
Little girl, traveling without parent or guardian, no one claims responsibility for her, but apparently you think it was wrong for Arpaio to arrest her and place her with responsible authorities.
“It was part of a human-smuggling investigation that we’ve been investigating throughout the Valley,” Hegstrom said.
The whereabouts of the girl’s parents or other caretakers is unknown. All of the people traveling with her claimed to know nothing about the girl.
“Where was she going? What are they going to do with her? We’re trying to get to the bottom of this right now,” Sheriff Joe Arpaio said.
@rafflaw,
I like (most of) the policy the President and the Dream Act support, but perhaps before making a unilateral decision not to defend the law as it is, the President had other options, including using the power of his bully pulpit and jawboning to decry Republican intransigence.
Done right it could have been an effective political speech as well as a way to break through the Republican logjam.
A minion spreading the word as usual.