Is What Obama Doing on Immigration So Different From Reagan and Bush? Yes- VERY Different!

For decades, the political realities surrounding immigration reform have been undeniably daunting. From our earliest moments as a nation, we have had a complicated history with immigrants. Whether discussing our history as a nation of immigrants or addressing those immigrants that were captured and enslaved to the anti-immigrant sentiment during the heydays of Ellis Island, we have had difficulty with this topic.

 Still, we face a much more clear-cut issue today: do we have a right to enforce immigration laws? The answer for citizens of every other country on the planet is a most-decided and unequivocal “yes!”

However, politicians have augmented the problem considerably over the last few decades. Democrats have increasingly relied on illegal immigrants to boost Democrat votes and Republicans have tried to remain out of the fray and appear centrist on the issue of illegal immigration. Now, we have a full-scale crisis on our hands and we are days away from a dictator issuing amnesty on his own.

To defend the imminent despotic edict from Emperor Obama, Democrats have attempted to shift the focus and have claimed that Obama is just following the path trodden by George H.W. Bush and conservative icon President Ronald Reagan.

But is this really the same thing?

Not even close…

Stephanie Kane of Fox News recently wrote of the imminent lawlessness to come via Obama’s trusty “pen and phone. She stated, 

“[A] review of steps taken by former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush — whose executive actions Democrats have cited as precedent — shows they only used their power to expand laws recently passed by Congress, not to impose new laws.

By contrast, what Obama is expected to do would go far beyond his predecessors’ actions. And Obama’s expected executive actions would not be rooted in any recently passed law. 

In 1986, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) which allowed illegal immigrants to stay in the country on a temporary basis if they had been here since 1 before 1982 and had demonstrated “good moral character” and paid a fee for their crime. However, the provision excluded children and spouses of these illegal immigrants if they did not meet the aforementioned criteria.

In 1987, Congress tried to pass legislation that would legalize these families who had not met the criteria. It did not pass.

However, President Reagan did grant a deportation reprieve for children under 18 years of age who were living in a household where the parents received amnesty. Obviously, this was designed so as to not send tons of unaccompanied children back across the border without their parents.

Kane reminds, “This, too, was limited, as a child living in a two-parent household where one parent was not eligible also was not eligible. Spouses were not eligible either. Reagan’s executive action expanded the number of eligible people only nominally.”

The issue did not go away and President George H.W. Bush relented and granted amnesty to those who had applied and received the legalization under the IRCA. This was later upheld by Congress who passed a law codifying the same measure and raising the age of “children” affected by this policy to 21.

What Obama intends to do, however, is not even remotely related to these comparatively-humble presidential actions. Obama has already offered a deportation reprieve for millions of illegals and his executive edict is expected to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants who came to this country in violation of our laws- including those who came to this country illegally as children and their parents.

Obama has maintained that this step is necessary since Congress has not passed immigration reform legislation. However, Obama’s apparent dissatisfaction with the legislative bodies does not mean he may rule as a king when Congress does not legislate to his liking.

President Obama does have an option; he may resign and at the next available opportunity, attempt to reclaim his position as Senator and then his opinion on legislative gridlock will be warranted. Until such a time, however, he should stand by and only use his pen to sign bills passed into law by the legitimate governing body.

Further, even if we accept that both Reagan and Bush the elder overstepped their bounds in adjusting the enforcement of immigration statutes, this does not grant Obama authority to step even further beyond the confines of the Constitution.

So, no; sorry, Democrats, there is no legal precedent for Obama’s tyranny. 

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/11/19/is-what-obama-doing-on-immigration-so-different-from-reagan-and-bush-yes-very-different/?utm_source=Newsletter+11%2F19%2F14+4pm+&utm_campaign=Newsletter+11%2F19%2F14+4pm&utm_medium=email