Immigration has been a difficult subject in the United States for a long time. Even before 1776 there were endless questions of how to protect borders. Just ask the Native Americans.Over the past few hundred years we’ve had various laws designed to limit immigration of a variety of people. Among them: Chinese, Southern Europeans, Russians, low-skilled immigrants, Filipinos, and communists. Then, in 1965 Congress did away with quotas based on national origin, leaving us with the system we have today, which emphasizes skills and family relationships.Of course that wasn’t the end of the immigration discussion in the United States, which is why the issue is in the news again today.The President, without approval from Congress, has unilaterally taken the following actions:--Revised interpretation of a law so that people who were in the United States illegally, and then left the U.S., and then used fraudulent documents to re-enter the U.S. would still be covered under the law, even though the law requires them to have never left the U.S.--Eased the rules for illegal immigrants who are seeking asylum so that they will not be deported if they have a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country, instead of proof of a clear probability of persecution.--Relaxed the deadline for when employers must verify identification documents for new employees to three days after hiring, instead of within 24 hours, as stated by law.--Issued rules that expansively interpret a law’s description of “perishable commodities” to include tobacco and Christmas trees to cover additional workers, beyond the intended limits of the law’s authors.--Issued new rules that permit illegal immigrants to remain in the United States if they have a spouse or child who is otherwise safe from deportation.Just to review, the President (whose Constitutional responsibility is to execute laws) unilaterally reinterpreted these laws from what Congress (whose Constitutional responsibility is to make laws) intended.Now, before you get caught up in the fury that’s all over the news today in which one Senator warns that the President is “provoking a Constitutional crisis” and that his action is “unconstitutional and illegal,” while another Senator threatens that people upset by the new rules might revert to “violence” and “anarchy,” there’s something you should know.All of the steps above were taken by Ronald Reagan.But wait a minute, if the President changed the enforcement of laws without approval of Congress why wasn’t he impeached? Why didn’t the country fall apart? Why wasn’t there a Constitutional crisis?Because the steps that President Reagan took in 1987, and the steps that President Obama is announcing tonight, are perfectly within the powers of the President of the United States.The Washington Post has an interesting tidbit about how the President has the power to limit deportations under the idea known as prosecutorial discretion. Basically, it means law enforcement officers choose which laws to enforce and how often to enforce them. Similar to how a police officer doesn’t get in trouble for not giving a ticket to every single car breaking the speed limit.The Lawfare blog examines the statute and finds that it doesn’t actually say the President MUST deport anyone.So if a previous President (the darling of so many Tea Party conservatives who are now up in arms no less!) took similar actions, and the current President is backed by sound legal theory, and, perhaps, the actual text of the relevant law, why are so many elected officials and their constituents raising such a ruckus?The sad truth is that it’s just easier.It’s easier to cry out, “He thinks he’s king!” than to point to the fact that he has the authority to do what he’s doing.It’s easier to warn of “violence” and “anarchy” than to sit down at the table and hammer out legislation that would supersede anything the President could do.It’s easier to wrap yourself in your supposedly superior love of the Constitution than to make difficult decisions that might be unpopular with some of the people who voted for you, but that are ultimately good for the country as a whole.It's easier to fire up uninformed voters by telling them the President is threatening our country, than to explain what you would do differently.Unfortunately, many of the people governing the country, and many of the people whose main civic duty is holding those people responsible, repeatedly do the things that are easy instead of doing the things that are difficult.NOTE: The above examples of President Reagan's actions were taken from news reports in the New York Times published on the following dates in 1987: October 9, July 9, May 1, April 6 and October 22.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++There's one easy thing you can do. Like my Facebook page, Brett Baker Writes. Please.
Want an e-mail every time I write something new? Type your email address in the box and click the "create subscription" button. I'm not going to send you a bunch of junk, and you can ditch me any time you want.