Sorry, John, we are going to have to disagree on this one.
Today Las Vegas newspaper columnist John L. Smith chided Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt for joining with 25 other states to challenge in federal court Obama’s executive fiat blocking deportation of millions of illegal immigrants.
Smith basically called the move a sop to Laxalt’s conservative benefactors and suggested Laxalt is on the wrong side of history, because immigration reform is inevitable. It probably is, but it still should be done in the right way, through legislation, not the president scratching through existing law with the stroke of his pen.
Laxalt said at the time he joined the litigation, “Our immigration system is broken and clearly needs to be fixed. But just as clearly, the solution is not for the president to act unilaterally disregarding the U.S. Constitution and laws. The solution must be a permanent, legal result that includes, not ignores, the other branches of government and their constitutional roles. Anything less is a false hope undermining the rule of law that injures millions of people in America, including many in Nevada.”
Of this argument, Smith commented, “Perhaps it’s just a coincidence that it fits snugly into a conservative agenda.” Never mind that Obama’s actions fit snugly into the liberal agenda.
Smith’s column notes that on Tuesday union members picketed outside the Sawyer building, where the attorney general has an office, and unfurled a banner reading: “Laxalt destroys families.” I don’t think Laxalt enticed any of those families to come into the country illegally and risk having family members lawfully deported.
The suit joined by Laxalt challenges Obama’s November executive order that would allow the parents of children brought into the country illegally to remain in the country, get green cards and Social Security cards. This executive order is piled on top of the one Obama issued in 2012 saying those children could remain in this country, despite being here in violation of the rule of law.
The federal lawsuit joined by Laxalt points out that the DREAM Act that would have allowed those children to stay was introduced in March 2009. After that Obama said on at least eight occasions he could not himself impose such amnesty. “I am president, I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself. …” he said. “I can’t just make the laws up by myself.”
In June 2012, he announced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
In November, Obama unilaterally waived deportations for the parents, candidly admitting, “I just took an action to change the law,” even though his own Justice Department advised “the proposed deferred action program for parents of DACA recipients would not be permissible.”
Smith quoted one protester at the anti-Laxalt rally as saying, “Many families come to this country seeking a better life. We believe that we deserve a voice. And we’re going to make it heard.”
And there are many families on long waiting lists trying to enter the country legally, under the rule of law.
In his ruling, Judge Andrew Hanen states that “ the states cannot protect themselves from the costs inflicted by the Government when 4.3 million individuals are granted legal presence with the resulting ability to compel state action. The irony of this position cannot be fully appreciated unless it is contrasted with the DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents) Directive. The DAPA Directive unilaterally allows individuals removable by law to legally remain in the United States based upon a classification that is not established by any federal law. It is this very lack of law about which the States complain. The Government claims that it can act without a supporting law, but the States cannot.”
The day after the Texas judge’s injunction was issued, Laxalt commented, “Yesterday’s carefully considered, 123-page decision represents a great initial victory for the rule of law and our constitutional system. I am encouraged by the federal court’s thorough analysis of this executive action. This injunction will halt the executive action and allow for the judiciary to carefully evaluate the legality of President Obama’s unilateral act. As I’ve always insisted, this lawsuit is ultimately about the rule of law, not immigration, and the need for all branches of our government, including the president, to faithfully follow the law.”
First, the illegal immigrants ignored the law. Now they want to ignore the Constitution. Whatever gets them what they want.
Granting all of them amnesty might be the right thing to do, as Obama likes to say, but it is the wrong way to do it.