Media Criticism, Political Commentary

The President Ignoring Immigration Law

42 Comments

Why conservatives should be happy with it:

…if I were offering advice to the Romney campaign (I’m on active duty so I can’t do that) I would tell them to respond to this presidential move by listing the laws that he intends to ignore as soon as he becomes president. Commenter Smart Dude says: “Call this ‘The Obama Rule’ and shove this right in the[ir] face. . . There have to be a thousand insane regulations that need not to be enforced. Start with the War on Coal and the shutting down of irrigation water to Western agriculture.” I’m sure that Romney could score many political points with this approach, particularly in the realms of spending and environmental restrictions. Additionally, there is much entertainment value in this approach, as American voters would have the fun of watching David Axelrod contort himself explaining why ignoring one set of laws is good while ignoring another set of laws is wrong.

I like it. I can certainly think of a project or two at NASA that I’d ignore congressional directives on.

42 thoughts on “The President Ignoring Immigration Law”

  1. “Why Conservatives should be happy with it:”
    Er…Except these illegal aliens will now be on a pathway to citizenship and will likely vote for exactly the kind of government that libertarians decry.
    This has always been the Achilles Heel of the libertarian case for open borders. This is why The Hoover Institute’s Richard Epstein famously said the difference between free movement of goods and people is that goods can’t vote.

  2. Except these illegal aliens will now be on a pathway to citizenship and will likely vote for exactly the kind of government that libertarians decry.

    Evidence? All the data I’ve seen suggests that Latino immigrants are predominantly Catholic, with conservative social values, are skeptical of government welfare programs, and value family and self-reliance.

    Perhaps it isn’t libertarianism they have a problem with, but “libertarian” candidates?

    This is why The Hoover Institute’s Richard Epstein famously said the difference between free movement of goods and people is that goods can’t vote.

    Looks like he forgot to explain that the Ron Paul, who is opposed to both immigration and trade.

    Of course, guest workers are not on a path to citizenship and can’t vote, either. So, why are “libertarians” opposed to guest worker programs?

    1. All the data I’ve seen suggests that Latino immigrants are predominantly Catholic, with conservative social values, are skeptical of government welfare programs, and value family and self-reliance.

      Is there a breakout of mojados and legal immigrants?

      1. Given the racist quotas put into place by Teddy, and the venial corruption and criminal incompetence of the INS, how could there be? By definition the people willing to wait twenty years and spend over twenty thousand american dollars are not the people with the drive to keep the country going. The Americans born in other places just hop the fence….

    2. Ed, Hispanics voted strongly for Obama in ’08 (to the point where the Great Panderer himself, John McCain, got sniffy with La Raza about the lack of support he recieved) and generally vote Democrat. They may be Catholic (or may not; anticlericalism also has deep roots in Mexico) but they’re also from a coercive, fairly socailist country and what the Dems sell is what they’re used to.

      As far as guest worker programs go, that’ll last only as long as it takes for a “Migrant’s Rights” organization to take a case to federal court claiming that someone who works, pays taxes, is eligable for governemtn benefits, and lives in America is a de facto citizen and must be accorded the same voting rights as any other citizen. “Guest worker” is kind of a dog-whistle for “mass stealth amnesty”.

  5. Considering who is advising Romney on space matters, Rand may regret what he wishes for.

    1. Neither Scott Pace or Mike Griffin would be so stupid as to advise Romney to not do Commercial Crew. So I’m not sure what it is I’m supposed to fear.

      1. There is always the chance that ATK and their ‘Liberty Rocket’ *gasp* could win Commercial Crew if Griffin was in charge Rand.

        1. I think ATK is likely to come out well in a Romney Administration if nothing else considering it is a large employer in Utah and I can do the math.

          So much for any new hydrocarbon booster unless SpaceX and Elon write the check for it.

          1. Which will make very little difference in the long run.

            If Mark were alive in the 1970’s, he would be obsessed with canceling government orders for the IBM 360 and predicting the imminent end of commercial computing. Completely unaware of what people are building in their garages.

  6. I think Obama’s move might help him carry Chiapas, Chihuahua, and Sonora, and might give him a commanding lead in Veracruz and Aguascalientes.

    1. Ah! So those are some of the other seven states I keep hearing about. It all makes sense now.

  7. This entire episode of the administration deciding on which laws it wants to honor is a pandoras box that may not be possible to close again…..

      1. Despite the precedent, I think it’s a bad idea. If there are laws on the books one chooses not to enforce, those laws shouldn’t be there in the first place. It undermines the rule of law when the person responsible for enforcement unilaterally decides which ones he will or won’t enforce. It’s the complete antithesis of the idea of a “government of laws and not men.”

      2. Even further back: try Andrew Jackson’s famous (and utterly despicable and shameful) defiance of the Supreme Court’s decision about the Cherokee removal.

  8. This is certainly not new regarding the justice dept. or the left in general in govt. Remember Shirley Sherrod? She became ‘enlightened.’ Which is to say before she wasn’t and since, others have carried on whether she did or not.

    When they pick and choose enforcement, you have the definition of tyranny.

    The goal should be to get all federal laws down to a couple of pieces of paper and let the states do the rest (following that example.)

    Voting with feet should mean going to another state; not leaving the country.

  9. When Romney and the RNC comes out with its counter to the DNC Bus folloling the Romney Campaign around, I just hope they have the balls to call it the New Choommobile!

  10. A prediction: On his last day in office, in either 2013 or 2017, President Obama will issue a pardon for immigration law violations by anyone who can produce documentation (rent receipt, whatever) showing they were in the USA on the day the pardon is signed. That will do several things: Puts the spotlight on the departing Obama, not the incoming President, for some period of time (anyone think Obama wouldn’t want that situation?); all liberals and most Hispanic groups will, for all time, hail Obama as the Greatest Emancipator Since Lincoln; create a huge headache for the new President (and many state governments) to figure out if the pardon is constitutional, and if so, how to suddenly accommodate millions who are now in the USA “legally” even though they are not citizens (and I think Obama would love to create a huge headache for Romney if Romney defeats Obama this year!); and, will create immense pressure to make all the now “legal” immigrants full, voting citizens (and guess which party they will be thankful to and likely to vote for?).

    In other words, creates adulation for Obama, which he craves, headaches for his (probably) Republican successor in either 2103 or 2017, and creates a potentially massive new Democratic Party-leaning group of voters nationwide. I hope I am wrong, but does anyone think the above scenario is impossible or improbable? Such a pardon will create a huge mess, but what will Obama care about that mess on Jan. 21, 2013 or 2017? (And the mess will really be huge, because without a sealed southern border, many, many more persons will come across rapidly, hoping to make or obtain forged documentation showing they were in the USA on the pardon activation date, or hoping for another pardon or an amnesty in the future.)

    1. He can only pardon for past crimes. The would still be illegally in the US from that day forward.

      1. I was thinking the same. It’d be a quick way to catch a bunch of them, I’d say.

        1. M Puckett and Karl Hallowell,
          I hope you are correct. I’ll be happy if my prediction is wrong, for whatever reason.

          Regards,
          BlueMoon

      2. You think if I were President, I could pardon you against any future murders you might commit after my term of office expires?

    2. One thing is certain. More illegals will now enter the country with the new policy. Which is a shame because we had a situation where many were self deporting.

      1. Oh, so there’s a silver lining to a crappy economy after all, eh? Looks like you owe Obama an apology… :p

  11. No conservative should ever be happy with a President that ignores the law. The entire point of having a Constitutional Republic is limited government with separation of powers. A President who does whatever he wants is a tyrant, regardless of whether his actions are benevolent or cruel.

  12. So how does this help conservatives again?

    Simplistically speaking, liberals believe that disobeying unjust laws is a virtue, while conservatives believe in rule of law even when they don’t like the laws. Also simplistically speaking, liberals believed that immigration laws are unjust but that environmental laws are just.

    So, Obama refuses to enforce immigration law, he is disobeying an “unjust” law (scores him points with liberals) but weakening rule of law (costs him points with conservatives). Since he’s got almost nothing left to lose with the conservatives, he comes out ahead. Romney hypothetically refuses to enforce laws re coal and water, he is disobeying a “just” law (scores no points with liberals) and also weakening rule of law (costs him points with conservatives). Romney loses. There is a fundamental asymmetry here, which means that the particular tactic in question works much better for liberals than for conservatives.

    Also, we don’t want to see this tactic used by anyone, of any political orientation. That way lies totalitarian dictatorship, where everything that matters is illegal by statute and the dictator gets to arbitrarily decide what things will be prohibited in practice.

    1. Simplistically speaking, liberals believe that disobeying unjust laws is a virtue, while conservatives believe in rule of law even when they don’t like the laws.

      If a law is unjust or wrong, it can be changed. After all, isn’t making law one of the biggest functions of government? It’s like the Constitution. If you don’t like it, amend it, don’t ignore it or claim that it’s a “living document.”

      There are certain principles we claim as a nation even when we fail to live up to them. One is equal justice under the law. The same laws are supposed to apply to the rich and poor, the powerful and weak equally (quit laughing). Another is the rule of law. Where the law is wrong, change it. Selectively choosing which laws will be enforced and which won’t (especially for crass political reasons) undermines the rule of law.

  13. I guess obeying the rules and jumping through all the hoops to come to America legally makes me a chump.

    1. Same for my wife and stepsons. What a bunch of suckers! They could’ve broken the law like all the cool kids. Instead, they obeyed the rules, paid their taxes and both stepsons served in the US military (one is a career Navy officer).

      Chumps!

  14. We are chumps. The principle should be less laws, enforced. The actuality is more laws, selectively enforced. This is not the rule of law it is the rule of tyrants.

    This corruption has thoroughly rotted our government and all it’s agencies from top to bottom. We allow it. We need to be ashamed. It’s not the children’s fault. It’s the adults. We have a republic only if we keep it. We haven’t.

    Romney will win because he’s not so different from Obama. He and his cronies will do to others the same as Obama. He may support different issues and short term may be better. But unless we deal with the real issue, putting rule of law and our republic back in place; none of the rest matters.

    Look at what Romney is doing to Rand Paul supporters. They have rules. It doesn’t matter what you think of Paul’s supporters; Romney’s supporters don’t follow those rules in shutting them out. Good for winning against Obama; back for our republic.

Comments are closed.