As House Speaker John Boehner pursues a lawsuit against President Barack Obama, accusing him of an unconstitutional overreach of his executive authority, debate swirls around how much the president can unilaterally act to address the nation’s growing illegal immigration crisis.
In the past, Obama has said there was little in his power to implement amnesty or to protect illegals living here from deportation. Now, in a turnabout, he is considering broad actions through executive orders.
U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., a member of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship, perhaps best sums up the grave bipartisan congressional concern with such a radical move: “It would alter the constitutional framework in such a way that the founders would never have accepted. Plain law says if you’re in this country illegally, you’re subject to deportation, and you are unable to work lawfully in our country.”
Sessions is a Republican, yet several Democratic senators — most recently Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Mark Pryor of Arkansas— are also warning such presidential action is unwarranted, and that changes in immigration law must be enacted by Congress.
The president’s general idea, articulated in a trial balloon floated to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, would — in direct contravention of established American law — offer safe harbor to millions of illegal immigrants with “roots” in their communities and “family ties” to U.S. citizens.
One presidential option under consideration would expand the program that offers work permits and protection from deportation to young people brought to the U.S. illegally as children, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Another possible executive action would protect from deportation any illegal immigrants with children who are U.S. citizens. (According to the National Foundation for American policy, that segment alone accounts for about 4.4 million people.) Administration officials are also toying with a “parole in place” scheme, which has a different and fuzzy legal foundation but would direct the federal government to issue work permits to 11 million-plus illegal immigrants.
Unilaterally decreeing such actions would, of course, steer our ship of state into dangerous legal waters. Amnesty by executive order would be a violation of the oath of office that stipulates a president will faithfully enforce our nation’s laws. It would be a direct challenge to the clear constitutional powers of Congress to only make laws.
Pressure is being applied on the White House from congressional Republicans and a growing number of Democrats not to take such an astonishing and extreme route. On the other hand, issuing the proposed executive orders is being demanded by the highly vocal “open borders” lobby that raises money for politicians all across the country. By the way, Sessions is promoting legislation to counter any executive orders — an approach that ought to have bipartisan appeal. The bill says that if the president goes forward unilaterally with executive orders, he cannot use any taxpayer dollars to carry out unlawful amnesties or work authorizations. The congressional power of the purse would trump the president.
Of course, if the president had enforced current laws on the books, much of the illegal immigration problem would have been under control years ago. But since that didn’t happen, a big question now looms: What if Congress does not address the current border surge of Central American illegals or illegal immigration/border control in general? What exactly are the limits to what Obama would do? Since he is already considering an unprecedented, unlawful assertion of presidential power, why not just go ahead and grant amnesty to every illegal alien who sneaks into our country?
There will indeed be a constitutional crisis if the president moves forward, hoping he can get away with simply issuing edicts. No wonder public opinion polls reflect that a growing number of Americans feel the real crime is not at the border but with cowardly politicians, regardless of party, who would abandon their duty to uphold our rule of law and defend our national sovereignty.
Phil Kent is a member of the Georgia Immigration Enforcement Review Board.
