Amnesty by executive fiat - Dreaming away the intent of Congress

On June 15, 2012, President Obama presumptuously declared that most illegal aliens younger than age 31 will not be deported to their home countries. (See the White House statement.) His point in doing so was to implement by executive fiat the amnesty that the DREAM Act would have accomplished had it been passed by Congress (where it was soundly defeated by the Senate in 2010). The President simply paid "no nevermind" to the authority granted by the Constitution solely to Congress to enact law.

To further rub our nose in it, the President fully intends for these "young people who work so hard" to displace young Americans in the workforce while our economy is on the rocks and 20 million Americans are unemployed.

How will this directive in any manner whatsoever deter illegal immigration? If Obama was so concerned about the well-being of poor helpless children who were dragged into our country by their illegal alien parents, he would have issued this directive on his first day in office. He didn't. Rather, he waited until the most opportune time during an intensifying election cycle.

The Pres must be given credit for shrewd timing on his edict, for it is anticipated that the Supreme Court will shortly issue a ruling on the Arizona immigration law - and it is quite likely that the Arizona law will be fully upheld. What better way to upstage the Supreme Court than by telling several million future Democratic voters that he wants them in the country? What better way to garner campaign donations from the open borders mob - and from the businesses who profit from cheap labor?

In his closing remarks, Obama incredulously stated, "We have always drawn strength from being a nation of immigrants, as well as a nation of laws, and that’s going to continue."

Nothing could be farther from the truth. I'm not an immigrant, and I bet most readers aren't either. Immigrants constitute but a fraction of our country's teeming population of 313 million. And I would contend that a President who overtly preempts the authority of Congress has little regard for the laws of the land.

Indeed, in a March, 2011 Univision statement (watch the Obama video), Obama affirmed:

"With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed... Congresses passes the law, the executive branch's job is to enforce and implement those laws, and the judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system - that for me to simply through executive order ignore those Congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President."

It is strikingly clear that not only was Obama's executive amnesty a violation of Constitutional principles, but that he knew it and had even gone on record saying so: the President simply can not stop deportations via executive order. His unconstitutional pandering to the well-funded yammering open borders mob comes at the expense of American youth who can barely find even summer employment.

So where is Romney on this? Observedly in the ozone. He may well have lost the election by wimping out with a benign quip that …" an executive order is, of course, a short term matter and can be reversed by subsequent presidents." Romney could have said that circumventing Congress was a violation of the Constitution - and indeed an impeachable offense. But of course, that would have alienated his supporting GOP-aligned big business interests who demand an unending supply of cheap, foreign labor.

With his lack of backbone at this crucial juncture, Romney has exposed the essence of a "don't rock the boat" action plan on illegal immigration. Which is nearly as bad as Obama's blatant "no nevermind."