January 22, 2018

While Senator Schumer claims that he fights for the middle class, how exactly does the middle class benefit from giving legal status to 800,000 to 3 million illegal's who were first given a temporary amnesty under President Obama via an unlawful executive order known as DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals)? While some of the individual cases are compelling, we must always consider how it benefits America.

Granting a pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients will only lead to additional illegal immigration. Without ending chain migration which allows those who become citizens to sponsor their immediate family members as well as their  extended family members, the ultimate amnesty will be far more impactful on importing more low skill workers. It is without question that more black and Hispanic Americans will be displaced for jobs than their white counterparts. By allowing DACA applicants to have up to two misdemeanor convictions, America will be importing a higher percentage of a undesirable class of immigrants who will go on to commit more crimes.

Its important to understand how we got here in the first place. Then President Obama back in 2010 stated quite clearly that he did not have the power to grant any type of legal status and any change in the status of those here illegaly must come through the legislative process. “[T]here are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship.  And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” July 1, 2010.

The President again made his point clear, “I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” October 25, 2010.

If there was any doubt as to President Obama's understanding of the constitution, his knowledge as to the limits in executive power and that he is obligated to work with congress, the following quote sums it up well, “I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books …. Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that's not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written.” July 25, 2011. The President was quoted over twenty two times on this issue, however he did a 180 degree turn in 2012 and unilaterally changed the law by executive fiat. He called his executive action deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA), allowing “eligible individuals who do not present a risk to national security or public safety … to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization.”  He was quoted several times thereafter acknowledging he was not a king, however his actions were that of an arrogant king which Americans rejected as there form of goverment more than two hundred years ago.

Emboldened by his overreach, President Obama announced a new program in November 2014 called Deffered Action for Parent's of Americans or DAPA. This new executvie action which allowed deferred action for deportation to approximately five million illegal aliens who resided in the United States since 2010 and who had children who were American citizens or lawful residents.  The directive also granted three year renewal work permits similiar to the DACA action. Fortunately several states filed suit in December 2014 to block the unlawful amnesty. In United States vs. Texas, District Court Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued a prelimninary injunction blocking the implementation of the program. On appeal, the 5th Circuit Appeals Court affirmed the preliminary injunction. The Obama administration then appealed to the US Supreme Court which ruled 4-4 due to the death of Justice Scalia. The 4-4 ruling affirmed the decision of the appeals court which blocked the program.  

As the DACA program was no different from the DAPA program, the state of Texas and several states gave the Trump administration until September 2017 to either end the program or they would file suit in federal court. As the Trump administration agreed that the program would be found unlawful, President Trump announced that the program would end in six months by March 2018 which would give congress six months to come up with a legislative and constitutional solution. In one last gasp, a California District Court Judge, William Alsup issued a preliminary injunction and ruled that the program must remain in force and that the administration must continue to issue renewals of work permits. Based on the Judge's totally disregard of the prior ruling, the Trump Administration has appealed directly to the US Supreme Court which has agreed to expedite the case. Thus it is highly unlikely that a 5-4 Supreme court majority will uphold the Judge's preliminary injunction.   

The reports that President Trump rejected a plan by a bi-partisan group of Senators to resolve the issue of the DACA recipients was totally false. The so called plan was just another pig with lipstick. There was no offer to actually fund the border wall only provide an authorization which was previously passed in 2006. The key word is appropriation which means that actually money is allocated. The plan had no provision to end chain migration which would just continue the problem of importing high levels of low skilled workers and their families. The plan did not address E-Verify which would ensure that those who are hired are legally present, it only shifted the visa lottery to provide green cards to other programs and it did not call for changes in federal law to resolve the problem of unaccompanied minors who continue to cross the border.