“With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations [of immigrants brought here illegally as children] through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed.” — President Obama, March 28, 2011.
Those laws remain on the books. They have not changed. Yet Obama last week suspended these very deportations — granting infinitely renewable “deferred action” with attendant work permits — thereby unilaterally rewriting the law. And doing precisely what he himself admits he is barred from doing.
Obama had tried to change the law. In late 2010, he asked Congress to pass the DREAM Act, which offered a path to citizenship for hundreds of thousands of young illegal immigrants. Congress refused.
When subsequently pressed by Hispanic groups to simply implement the law by executive action, Obama explained that it would be illegal. “Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. … But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”
That was then. Now he’s gone and done it anyway. It’s obvious why. The election approaches and his margin is slipping. He needs a big Hispanic vote and this is the perfect pander. After all, who will call him on it? A supine press? Congressional Democrats? Nothing like an upcoming election to temper their Bush 43-era zeal for defending Congress’ exclusive Article I power to legislate.
With a single Homeland Security Department memo, the immigration laws no longer apply to 800,000 people. By what justification? Prosecutorial discretion, says Janet Napolitano.
This is utter nonsense. Prosecutorial discretion is the application on a case-by-case basis of considerations of extreme and extenuating circumstances. No one is going to deport, say, a 29-year-old illegal immigrant whose parents had just died in some ghastly accident and who is the sole support for a disabled younger sister and ailing granny. That’s what prosecutorial discretion is for. The Napolitano memo is nothing of the sort. It’s the unilateral creation of a new category of persons — a class of 800,000 — who, regardless of individual circumstance, are hereby exempt from current law so long as they meet certain biographic criteria.
This is not discretion. This is a fundamental rewriting of the law.
Imagine: A Republican president submits to Congress a bill abolishing the capital gains tax. Congress rejects it. The president then orders the IRS to stop collecting capital gains taxes, and declares that anyone refusing to pay them will suffer no fine, no penalty, no sanction whatsoever. (Analogy first suggested by law professor John Yoo.)
It would be a scandal, a constitutional crisis, a cause for impeachment. Why? Because unlike, for example, war powers, this is not an area of perpetual executive-legislative territorial contention. Nor is cap-gains, like the judicial status of unlawful enemy combatants, an area where the law is silent or ambiguous. Capital gains is straightforward tax law. Just as Obama’s bombshell amnesty-by-fiat is a subversion of straightforward immigration law.
It is shameful that Congressional Democrats should be applauding such a brazen end-run. Of course it’s smart politics. It divides Republicans, rallies the Hispanic vote and pre-empts Marco Rubio’s attempt to hammer out an acceptable legislative compromise. Very clever. But, by Obama’s own admission, it is naked lawlessness.
As for policy, I sympathize with the obvious humanitarian motives of the DREAM Act. But two important considerations are overlooked in concentrating exclusively on the DREAM Act poster child, the straight-A valedictorian who rescues kittens from trees.
First, offering potential illegal immigrants the prospect that, if they can successfully hide long enough, their children will one day freely enjoy the bounties of American life creates a huge incentive for yet more illegal immigration.
Second, the case for compassion and fairness is hardly as clear-cut as advertised. What about those who languish for years in godforsaken countries awaiting legal admission to America? Their scrupulousness about the law could easily cost their children the American future that illegal immigrants will have secured for theirs.
But whatever our honest and honorable disagreements about the policy, what holds us together is a shared allegiance to our constitutional order.
That’s the fundamental issue here. As Obama himself argued in rejecting the executive action he has now undertaken, “America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the president, am obligated to enforce the law. I don’t have a choice about it.”
Except, apparently, when violating that solemn obligation serves his re-election needs.
Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for The Washington Post. Readers may contact him at letters@charleskrauthammer.com.
When you have to lie in order to prove your point, you probably don’t have that great of a point. Obama didn’t change the law here, so stop lying about it.
There is only so much we can do in terms of illegal immigration. We only have so much time, energy and money to spend on illegal immigration. So why not use those resources in the smartest manner and prioritize which aspects of the problem to tackle first?
Is a student who came here without intent really priority number one? Please, get real.
As usual you will try to cloud the issue. No one lied. No one said he changed the law, he simply suspended enforcement. This president will do anything; legal or otherwise to retain power.
I didn’t lie. “thereby unilaterally rewriting the law.” But anyway.
So the spending of our capital shouldn’t be prioritized?
The question here in not whether the government should prioritize deportations by class or not. That decision is left to our law makers under the Constitution, not the President who has not been given the authority to issue blanket waivers to suspend deportations. The decision to waive deportations to an estimated 800,000 illegal immigrants is not a case-by-case decision. It’s a blanket waiver. The President just like any other citizen must follow the law. He is not entitled to pick and choose those laws he wants to abide with and those he doesn’t want to abide with. Shame on him for doing so. Regrettably I predict he will get away with this blatant abuse of power on account of people who are willing to support any means to justify an end.
What a way to get re-elected! This demonstrates once again that the presidency is all about Obama. Again, shame, shame on him.
PS: I can understand someone being a supporter of a president on account of his agenda. I can’t understand however why anybody would want to support a blatant illegal action, whether by one’s own mother, brother, sister, pastor, or president. The least you should do in this case is simply not say anything or admit the President’s action is unacceptable.
He is applying the law. He made a determination on what which cases were priority as there is limited capital. If you think that a student who had no intent to break the law is just as much of a priority as let’s say someone who commits a violent crime, then say so. You don’t have to add all this fancy and untrue stuff to dress it up.
The president is entitled to set priorities, but only within the confines of the law. What’s so hard about that to understand? My my! I doubt very much if the last president in power had taken this action you would have supported it.
I disagree with you. I see him as being within the law.
What illegal actions do you need to see the President take before you cease seeing “him as being within the law”? It’s a black and white issue. The President may suspend deportation on individual cases, circumstances warranting, but he MAY NOT do so on an entire class of people without the expressed authority of Congress. That’s what the law says. Now why do you believe the President may violate the laws of the land he swore to uphold? Simply stating that you “see him as being within the law” is not a valid argument.
Look, I know you like the President because he supports issues that are dear to you. I can understand that. You need to realize however this President is human; like all Presidents he makes mistakes. Now why won’t you admit he made a mistake when it’s clear his executive order is illegal? Or, at least give me a valid argument.
I disagree with the President on many things, so I think it’s unfair for you to suggest that I’m not being principled in this.
It’s my view that there is such limited capital to be spent on immigration and deporting students is a waste of time, money and energy. Every instance of that means letting a bigger fish go. There can never been 100% enforcement. I see this a lot like police officers not stopping people going only 5 mph over the speed limit. You don’t think that’s valid?
The problem is not a lack of resources. It’s a matter of will. My friends in the Border Patrol and ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) are telling me their hands are being tied to prevent them from enforcing the laws. This is not a new phenomenon. The lack of enforcement efforts in his instance is not due to a lack of resources even though that is what the Obama Administration is using as an excuse.
Also, the President’s executive order does not apply to students per se. It applies to immigrants under 30 years of age brought here in the U.S. illegally before age 16. Most of those apprehended (encountered by law enforcement officials) are not minors.
Lastly, the President has had over three and one half years to resolve this issue with Congress. He could have passed a resolution in the first 2 years in office as president with a veto proof Congress on his side, yet he didn’t. Nor until recently did he ever make any attempt. No, there is no excuse for his illegal action, which constitutes an impeachable offense.
I disagree with you severely as to resources. Border patrol isn’t unlimited and courts are opperating on a shoe string.
I used students as an example. It’s still a matter of priority and I think it is smart to tackle what’s dire first.
And I’m honestly not very sympathetic to the notion that the President’s current detractors just wanted him to do something, anything, before this. He tried and it was blocked (in 2010, contrary to your claim of “nor until recently”). If action was that important to Republicans, as they are claiming it to be, then they would have worked within the confines of the situation and come to a mutual conclusion. They behaved as the party of no and so nothing was done. The President is now working within his own confines and getting something done. You might not like it, but he’s doing exactly what you are saying he should be doing: something.
The “impeachable offense” thing is silly and it’s hyperbole. It’s pure politics and it’s not productive.
Sounds to me like you are making up stuff. As a former government employee “in the know” I know what you are telling me is not accurate. The President who swore to uphold the law and the Constitution is in violation. The resources are indeed there to enforce the laws on the books. What the administration has done and continues to do is to lay down impediments to enforcement to make any action nearly impossible and expensive to complete. Unlike you I know with certainty what I am talking about. I won’t go any further since you’ll defend the President’s ill policy no matter what.
It’s clear that Obama lied and it’s clear he has decided not to uphold a law passed by Congress. Mr. Krauthammer made that point and never did accuse Obama of changing the law as you suggest. Perhaps it is you who is doing the lying?? Typical extreme left jabber, call the writer a liar even when he isn’t and deflect and lie yourself to put the matter to rest.
The author says Obama changed the law in the first paragraph. “thereby unilaterally rewriting the law.”
The writer did lie and you are lying right now. You’re accusing me of the exact behavior you’re engaging in. That’s hypocrisy. Read the article before you start trying to slam people.
Look, everyone knows only Congress can enact legislation at the federal level. So what the columnist obviously means is that the president effectively rewrote the law illegally. In other words, his executive action, although illegal, has the same effect as a law passed by Congress.
I had no problem understanding what the columnist is getting at. I don’t know why a smart fellow like you should either.
For this one act alone, President Obama deserves to lose the November election.
I was startled too when he became the first President in history to issue an executive order.
He was the first to order an ‘unconstitutional’ one.
Says you.
Says Obama, actually. Just like the Obamacare mandate, our self-titled “Constitutional law professor” President originally stated that this was unconstitutional.
The extra-Constitutional nature of what Obama did is the issue. “Laws by decree” seems to be the new “law of the land”.
These Democrats seem to favor some dictatorship. Another example of their attitude was a recent Nancy Pelosi statement that “I think he should [declare the debt ceiling unconstitutional],” Pelosi said, though she wouldn’t predict Obama’s move.”
Of course she ignores the fact that the Constitution gives that sole power to Congress.
Scary bunch we have in DC.
All you Dems that favor the new “law by decree” mentality remember your advocacy when a Republican President takes office.
“These Democrats seem to favor some dictatorship.” Such incredible baloney!
When George W. Bush was violating the Constitution, where were the Republicans? Most of them were busy defending his violations of the Bill of Rights.
We’ve just passed the 40th anniversary of the Watergate break-in, covered-up (and probably planned) by a Republican president — a talented yet deeply flawed man who tried to usurp our entire electoral process, and claimed that “if the president does it, it’s not illegal.”
We all tend to give the guy in our own party (Republican or Democrat) a break and defend him when he bends or breaks the law. We all tend to distrust the guy in the other party (Democrat or Republican), whateve he does.
If a Republican in the White House issued an executive order changing the way we deal with unauthorized immigrants, you would be defending the guy, even if he said a year or two earlier that he couldn’t do it.
“For this act alone, President Obama deserves to lose the November election.”
What an incredibly vile and mind-blowingly absurd thing to say. Acts like this one are exactly why any voter who understands and cares at all about justice, morality or human decency will support Obama over Romney this November.
My mother was an illegal, brought here as a child by her father. Never new she was not a US citizen until immigration came knocking at her door after my sister was born way back in the 1950’s. She was almost deported, would have destroyed our family. I applauded this action by Obama , not the child’s fault. My mother was naturalized, was and is an upstanding citizen. Takes her civic duties very seriously and made great contributions to our society doing volunteer work in the schools and was a successful business women when she was younger here in Maine, providing jobs for a few hundred people.
Nobody in this country wants to kick out kids who were brought here illegally. However, we also do not want to pay for the health care, housing, food, education, etc. of those who come here illegally. It is bad enough that we have to pay for American losers and bums. Most illegals don’t come to America looking for a job, most come to America for the same reason welfare queens come to Maine: because we give stuff away. We could have open borders if we stopped giving entitlements to everyone simply because they are in America.
How many more laws will he break before someone holds him accountable? This man will do anything to get what he wants and everyone just obliges him. Heck, he got a Nobel Peace Prize simply by being elected president. Are you people blind or just ignorant?
The answer to your question is “both”.
Obama knows no boundaries in his drive for power. What group will he pander to next. If he could buy the election by selling out this country he would not hesitate. He’d sell national secrets for votes; vile and corrupt.
That’s complete bullsh*t and you know it.
EXCELLENT STORY!
I’m not a republican, but I will be voting for one this election, and pray to God he will get our immigration laws enforced. I’m sick of obama pandering to these people who have NO RIGHT to be in this country. The illegal aliens who don’t have our jobs, are using this country as a welfare country with their anchor babies, (illegal alien children). Why should illegal aliens be entitled to a DREAM Act? They are in this country ILLEGALLY no matter how they got here. It’s time to get these illegal aliens back to their own country where they belong. They DO NOT belong here!
Illegal immigration is a cancer, it has to be eradicated not tolerated.
Let’s hope the Smpreme Court holds up the Arizona SB-1070 law and it spreads to all 50 states.
You’re not a republican and yet you know all their talking points and buzzwords.
Charlie’s Monday morning wash. Listening to him and watching him on Goebbels Fox is way beyond the reach of an antacid. His rant is consistent. For three and a half years – almost four – target Obama. It’s Rupert the Fox and the Koch Tea Party dictum.