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
Hey Mike Spindell, I had some neighbors from Turkey who wanted our roses because they used them for cooking. I let them have all the roses they wanted — they grew over our brick house like weeds — but I don’t know if it was soup or not. I think it might have been some kind of candy.
The President has the power to pardon and as we saw with Nixon and others, the President can pardon before the fact. Given that why not just see this as a blanket pardon, with some strings. Now also I must say that marijuana possession is against Federal, as well as may State laws. Were I President I would pardon before and after the fact, anyone prosecuted and/or convicted for marijuana possession and use under Federal Statutes. In the process I would proudly be ignoring laws on the books. Now of course I’m not a lawyer, merely a long time political activist, who is tired of the bad guys being allowed to run rampant while the good guys remain purists. You must remember though, that I believe that there was a coup in the 60’s and the premises about our Constitutional system became moot.
The bringing a knife to the gunfight analogy is actually much worse. Many of us are using wooden clubs against Panzer Tanks. I would like to know where in the Constitution it was envisaged that major players in the political process, wouldn’t even abide by it and what Constitutional remedy exists for that short of violence? I don’t need to be lectured about the crap this Country has done since 9/11, were it not for my bad heart rearing its’ head as I flunked the final test (blood pressure) in my Selective Service physical, I might have been sent to Viet Nam, where the horrible excesses committed in Iraq/Afghanistan, bad as they are, pale in comparison. I certainly don’t need a history lesson from some who think that this lack of Constitutional government is something new.
You give me Bradley Manning Jill and I’ll raise with Kent State, COINTELPRO, Napalming Southeast Asian Jungles, carpet bombing Cambodia and the deaths of JFK, RFK and MLK. Some people think life began when they were born and to me that constitutes blindness. The course of human political affairs has sadly always been a brutal one with the forces of money and power usually having the upper hand. And yes there are some of us who are committed to evening up the game, but at the same time ensuring a minimum of collateral damage. To the perfect purist collateral damage such as women’s rights, racism, destruction of the middle class, poverty and Theocracy, is worth their effort to keep themselves above the fray.
“God save us from the idealists of the world, they get everyone else’s backs broken” – James Garner’s character in “The Americanization of Emily”.
“An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it makes a better soup.”
― Bertrand Russell
Good comment above from Gilberto.
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlyonaShow
Bob,
I understand your viewpoint, but we will have to agree to disagree. Even Prof. Turley suggested that it is not a violation of the law. “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. ”
My comment about the filibusters was inserted to correct what I saw as an incorrect statement about Congress, not as a reason to support the decision to not prosecute young immigrants who were brought here by their parents.
The worst part of what is happening in our nation is the willingness of Obama supporters to lie both to themselves and others about what is being done.
————————
Jill disagree.
You imagine much if you think people are lying to themselves in addition to being lied to….
Jill,
You’ll get no argument from me, Christ, I’m still waiting for Mespo to tell me why I can’t get a posse of sharp shooters together and go hunting for our most “dangerous neighbors,” i.e. the ones that prey on children every hour of every day of the year. After all, that is the logical extension of HIS reasoning.
Rafflaw,
You’re kidding yourself.
Go back to law school and imagine yourself giving the following answer
rafflaw: “[Because] Congress didn’t just refuse to cooperate, they have undemocratically blocked the DREAM act and countless other pieces of legislation, [the president is justified in bypassing congress entirely by ignoring the law.]”
Or this:
rafflaw: “Secondly, I consider his decision to be within the prosecutorial discretion every [administration] has utilized. While I don’t always agree with the use of that discretion, I believe it is valid and legitimate.”
Really? Did you catch this part of the article above?
Turley: “Here the Administration is implementing a categorical policy not to enforce federal law, which dictates deportation for illegal immigrations regardless of their age.
Not for nothing, but
Since when can prosecutorial discretion be used to violate the Equal Protection Clause??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyler_v._Boles
Violation of the law is never excused simply because “your guy” happened to do it.
Here’s the problem. There is a pattern of lawlessness by this administration. For example, it is mandatory under our law that torture be prosecuted as a war crime. Both Dick and George openly admitted to torture. There is no investigation of this admission.
Likewise, prosecution is mandatory for financial criminals. Instead of prosecution these individuals have been put in charge on US economic policy from which they have profited handsomely.
Bradley Manning is gay. He was openly declared guilty by the president who also had his administration casting aspersions on Manning’s character by virtue of his being a homosexual. He is being illegally imprisoned and has been tortured by the “pro-gay” president.
Libya was declared a non-war, war and regime change implemented. This is currently being planned for in Syria. These are not legal actions. Iran has been attacked via cyber warfare and regime change is being openly planned for. This is no more legal than what Bush did to Iraq and which Obama continues there.
The use of kill lists for drones and indefinite detention ought to speak for themselves.
The heart of the matter is rule of fiat verses rule of law. The worst part of what is happening in our nation is the willingness of Obama supporters to lie both to themselves and others about what is being done. This lawlessness might benefit some people, for example it is currently benefiting people who will donate and vote for Obama. However, this same lawlessness will harm many people. (Unless you think dead people and their families as well as people who are being tortured should be grateful for their treatment because it was by a Democrat!)
Here some people are gaining a real benefit. But the truth is there are legal ways to give more people a real benefit and it is legal ways that should be used. Further, while some are gaining a benefit by lawlessness many others are harmed. If you want to help and avoid harm, then doing things according to the law instead of fiat is ALWAYS the way to go.
Everything changed on 9/11. It all changed again when Obama was elected. Now we don’t ask questions or look too closely at what is going on.
———————-
speak fo ryourself.
Unfortunately, the misbehaviors by the Bush have put our entire Country at risk to the rest of the World. Congress is broken. What Obama did was small time and absolutely humane compared to an unprovoked aggression against a Country the relative size of a mosquito….a move that apparently was encouraged by his oil industry buds and who knows who else….and just think, the whole thig could have been avoided if SCOTUS had not had their little hankerin and turned a deaf ear to the voting public….
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/22/axelrod-tea-party-reign-of-terror-blocked-immigration-reform/
Rafflaw,
Checks and balances. Learned it in grade school.
Bob,
I understand what you are saying, but Congress didn’t just refuse to cooperate, they have undemocratically blocked the DREAM act and countless other pieces of legislation. Secondly, I consider his decision to be within the prosecutorial discretion every adminstration has utilized. While I don’t always agree with the use of that discretion, I believe it is valid and legitimate.
If Bush had done the same thing for immigrants, i would have applauded him for the same thing. The tea party with its anti-immigrant fervor is alive and well on this blog.
Bob,
The rules have changed since Bush. Obama is a good guy. That’s why he can refuse to prosecute Bush and Cheney for war crimes–it really just doesn’t fit his policy and Congress might not like it either!!! I’m personally fine with everything such a great guy does. War with Libya? Cluster bombs and drones for civilians with nations we haven’t even declared war against? No prosecution of financial criminals? Sure that shit is against the law and all but Obama has such a great dog and did you know he has an organic garden at the WH?
Everything changed on 9/11. It all changed again when Obama was elected. Now we don’t ask questions or look too closely at what is going on.
“The rules have changed since Bush. Obama is a good guy. That’s why he can refuse to prosecute Bush and Cheney for war crimes”
Jill,
Irony is not your forte. What is though is the firm belief that you are one of the few that is not brainwashed and that those who disagree with you are ignorant. You repeat yourself, time and again, with information that we all know already. Many people here, including me, have made it clear that we have specific reasons for voting for Obama. No one here has told you that if you don’t that you are a stupid, brainwashed “Obamabot”, which is the term you use for people who feel as I do. You are an elitist Jill in the worst sense of the word.
Geve the Prez a little slack, he’s doing the best a moderate Republican can do. The other two branches and the opposition would have us all in brown shirts and whistling like the Hitler Jugend, even the ladies would have mustaches. Sieg Willard….!
Rafflaw,
The fact that congress refused to cooperate with Obama does not change the fact that Obama is WAY out of line.
Presidents are not authorized to declare which laws they will not enforce unless they can show that their oath to the constitution constrains them to do so because they believe the law to be unconstitutional. Under no circumstances are presidents authorized to declare they will ignore laws because they simply do not fit within their policy or political aims.
That’s what Bush did with his signing statements and that’s what Obama did here.
Jack,
Do you have difficulty distinguishing between “prosecutorial”, “persecutorial”, and “executorial”? Ask Napolitano the same question.
Prosecutorial is the same as executorial in my mind.
So is the purpose of lawyers to bar justice to all?
I won’t repeat all the jokes you must have heard, I don’t know them as we never frequented the same bars, sorry places of education. But I could create many anyway.