Immigration Executive Order -- All Smoke and Mirrors
The Demos' REAL "Immigration
Reform" Strategy
By Mark Alexander
"The
bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable
Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom
we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by
decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment." --George Washington (1783)
So, the Imperial President claims that,
because Republicans are not passing the immigration "reform"
legislation that best suits the Democratic Party's political agenda, he is
going to bypass Congress and issue an executive order (EO).
Don't
believe it.
Oh, Barack Obama is going to center
stage Thursday night to set up his EO play, and sign that diktat Friday in Las
Vegas -- a fitting venue for a gutless gamble by a "big hat, no
cattle" dude rancher. But what is the Demos' real strategy?
In leftist parlance, "immigration reform"
means providing a jackpot to illegal aliens -- giving them official status so
they can work and receive all associated taxpayer-subsidized services like
housing, schooling and medical care. Once integrated, the second step is to
provide a fast-track to citizenship. In other words, for Democrats, immigration
reform means, first and foremost, seeding a large constituency.
But is Obama really attempting to give
millions of illegal immigrants worker status?
In 2008, then President-elect Obama
declared, "I can guarantee that we will have, in the first year, an
immigration bill that I strongly support." In 2009 and 2010, Obama had the
benefit of Democrat Party control of both the House and Senate, however, his
congressional Demos never passed an amnesty bill and thus he did not sign one.
Why?
Because he and his fellow Democrats were
just pandering to Latinos; they had no intention of passing legislation to
provide worker permits for five to 10 million illegal immigrants.
Why?
Because another larger and more
critical Democrat voter constituency is composed of low-income Americans, whom
the Left baits with class warfare rhetoric centered on issues like "living
wages" and increasing the minimum wage - Blacks!
As my daughter, a university student working
toward a business degree, framed this issue, "Labor inflation results in
wage deflation." In other words, the Democrats really don't want to dump millions
of immigrant laborers, who are willing to take low wages, onto their
dependable American low-income constituency, because that will, in effect,
drive wages even lower. This is a fundamental supply-and-demand
equation.
Just before Democrats were shellacked during
the midterm "Republican wave," Obama borrowed a line from The Gipper
for a national campaign interview: "Ronald Reagan used to ask the
question, 'Are you better off than you were four years ago?' In this case, are
you better off than you were in six? And the answer is, the country is
definitely better off than we were when I came into office." But according
to BO, the problem is the American people "don't feel it," and he
insisted, "The reason they don't feel it is because incomes and wages are
not going up."
Of course, the reason for wage stagnation is
that Obama's economic "recovery" policies have been a colossal
failure. On top of that, the influx of cheap illegal immigrant labor
effectively caps any increase in wages for unskilled workers.
Democrats argue raising the minimum wage
will protect their low-wage constituents, but that is a fabrication. As the
Congressional Budget Office made clear, artificially increasing wages will
decrease employment.
The issue of immigrant labor undermining the
ability of low-income earners to achieve a "living wage" is nothing
new. A
primary reason Abraham Lincoln did not emancipate slaves at the onset of the
War Between the States is that the influx of black labor into northern markets
competing for jobs held by white laborers would have undermined Lincoln's
political support from the latter.
The great abolitionist Frederick Douglass
was so angry with Lincoln for delaying the liberation of some slaves that he
scarcely contacted him before 1863, noting that Lincoln was loyal only "to
the welfare of the white race." Apparently, more than a few Latino politicos
are equally disenchanted with Obama's failure to provide immigrant work
permits.
So
what of Obama's EO?
The Demo strategy is to craft that EO in
such a way that Republicans can successfully chip away at it, primarily by
defunding and de-authorizing key components of its implementation, as well as
by issuing legal challenges. Thus, Democrats will receive credit from both
their legal and illegal Latino constituencies for, ostensibly,
attempting to provide them with nine million Permanent Residency or Employment
Authorization cards. Then they can blame those
"obstructionist" Republicans for blocking them.
This week, Senate Democrats, in a letter to
Obama supporting his EO plan, made clear their intent to share in the political
fruits of this charade.
Obama, as we've often noted, is a master of
the BIG Lie, and, just like the litany of lies that he and his party used to
deceive Americans into supporting ObamaCare, they are also deceiving millions
of Americans into believing Democrats support both "living wages" and
"immigration reform."
Apparently, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) got it
right when he interrupted Obama's 2009 introduction of ObamaCare to a joint
session of Congress and the nation. "You lie! You lie!" Wilson memorably yelled.
Indeed, "lack of transparency" and
"the stupidity of the American voter," in the words of ObamaCare
architect Jonathan Gruber, are also applicable to Obama's low-wage and Latino
constituencies in regard to amnesty by EO. Of course, there is plenty of evidence that
Obama constituents are too
ignorant to know they're being duped -- after all, they elected him. Twice.
Not only do Democrats assume their
constituents are too stupid to understand Obama's amnesty EO subterfuge, but
Obama is willing to, once again, turn constitutional Rule of Law on end to
accomplish this deceit.
Last week, Obama declared his intent to
issue the immigration EO: "I indicated to Speaker Boehner several months
ago that if in fact Congress failed to act I would use all the lawful authority
that I possess to try to make the system work better."
Of course, "lawful authority" is
whatever Obama defines it to be at a given time. He was against unlawful executive orders
before he was for them.
On March 31, 2008, candidate Obama said,
"I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we are
facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more
power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And
that's
what I intend to reverse when I'm president of the United States of
America."
But having failed to pass immigration reform
in his first two years in office when he owned the House and Senate, and then
having lost control of the House in the 2010 midterm election, Obama repeatedly
pleaded in Latino forums that he had no power to implement the changes he'd
promised. Rebuffing calls that he legislate by executive order, Obama insisted,
"I am not a dictator. I'm the president. ... If in fact I could solve all
these problems without passing laws in Congress then I would do so. ... I'm not
the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are
passed."
Obama may not have implemented his
immigration policies by EO, but he certainly suspended enforcement of
immigration laws with an executive order.
But by 2014, with his singular centerpiece
legislation -- ObamaCare -- falling apart, and Democrats putting as much
distance between him and them as possible, Obama believed the only way his party could
stave off a resounding defeat in the midterm election was if he delivered
Latino votes.
He began the year promising, "Where
Congress isn't acting, I'll act on my own. ... I've got a pen ... and I can use
that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative
actions that move the ball forward." In other words, when Republicans
don't give Obama what he wants on immigration, he will pull an executive order
end run.
Obama has broadly demonstrated his
willingness to end-run our Constitution via EO, most notably his so-called
"climate change" policies and his repeated rewrites of ObamaCare.
Asked about his revised position to
implement amnesty by executive order, Obama regurgitated this spin: "Well,
actually, my position hasn't changed. When I was talking to the advocates,
their interest was in me, through executive action, duplicating the legislation
that was stalled in Congress. ... There are certain limits to what falls within
the realm of prosecutorial discretion in terms of how we apply existing
immigration laws."
Of course, that is just more constitutional
obfuscation. Despite his faux devotion to our Constitution, Obama has wantonly
violated his oath to "to Support and Defend" it.
Though Obama claims to be a "professor
of constitutional law," a genuine constitutional scholar, George
Washington University's Jonathan Turley, a self-acknowledged liberal Obama
supporter, has issued severe criticism of Obama's "über presidency,"
his abuse of executive orders and regulations to bypass Congress.
According to Turley, "When the
president went to Congress and said he would go it alone, it obviously raises a
concern. There's no license for going it alone in our system, and what he's
done, is very problematic. He's told agencies not to enforce some laws [and]
has effectively rewritten laws through active interpretation that I find very
problematic."
He continued:
"What's emerging is an imperial
presidency, an über presidency. ... When a president can govern alone,
he can become a government unto himself, which is precisely the danger that the
Framers sought to avoid in the establishment of our tripartite system of
government. ... Obama has repeatedly violated this [separation of powers] doctrine
in the circumvention of Congress in areas ranging from health care to
immigration law to environmental law. ... What we are witnessing today
is one of the greatest challenges to our constitutional system in the history of this
country. We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis with sweeping
implications for our system of government. ... We are now at the constitutional
tipping point for our system. ... No one in our system can 'go it alone' --
not Congress, not the courts, and not the president."
When asked by Fox News host Megyn Kelly how
he would respond "to those who say many presidents have issued executive
orders on immigration," Turley responded, "This would be
unprecedented, and I think it would be an unprecedented threat to the balance
of powers. ... I hope he does not get away with it."
Over on Obama's MSNBC network, even leftist
commentator Lawrence O'Donnell finds the prospect of Obama's executive amnesty
diktat daunting. He asked Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) about Obama's authority to
issue an EO giving work permits to millions of illegal immigrants: "No one
at the White House has been able to give me the legal justification for the
following component of the president's plan. ... Has the White House told you
-- what is the legal justification for the president to create a new category
of beneficiaries for work documents? How can that be done without legislation?"
Of course, Welch could not answer O'Donnell,
because there is no such authority.
Before the midterm election, Obama declared,
"Make no mistake, [my] policies are on the ballot.
Every single one of them." Make no mistake: The American people resoundingly
rejected his policies on November 4.
That notwithstanding, Obama has dismissed
the election results. Perhaps he believes his immigration EO artifice will
deliver enough Latino voters to Democrat candidates in 2016 to hold the
presidency and regain the Senate, and somehow that will restore his "Dear
Leader" status. After all, more than a million illegal
immigrants were unlawfully registered to vote in the midterm election,
particularly in states where Democrats have thwarted efforts to require voter
IDs.
The bottom line for Republicans is that they
need to drive home four points.
First, the "immigration reform" pledges
by Obama and his Democrats are disingenuous because they would undermine the
Left's entire "living wage" platform. But Democrats believe their
low-income and Latino constituencies are too stupid to understand this ruse.
Remember: "Labor inflation results in wage deflation."
Second, as Dr. Turley noted, Obama is willing to
trash the Constitution in order to advance his ruinous policies. Republicans
need to use his abject abuse of power and the threat it poses to Liberty as a
constitutional teachable moment.
Third, any debate about immigration is useless
unless it begins with a commitment to securing our borders first. As
Ronald Reagan declared, "A nation without borders is not a nation."
Likewise, it must address the issue of so-called "birthright citizenship,"
which
is a gross misinterpretation of our Constitution's 14th Amendment.
And
last, Republicans need to
embrace the fact that Liberty is colorblind. It's not a "white
thing." Essential Liberty is timeless. And because it transcends all
racial, ethnic, gender and class distinctions, it will appeal to all
freedom-loving people when properly presented.
Time to see what the incoming House and
Senate Republican majorities are made of!
