I’ve heard from several news outlets that President Obama’s executive order concerning illegal aliens is unconstitutional. Granted, these sources are folks like Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs, and Marco Rubio, but still, they seemed to have a case. They’ve been citing Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution which grants Congress the authority to “…establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Open and shut case, right?
Yeah, not so much.
Obama’s executive order calls for a moratorium on the deportation of young illegals who fit certain qualifications: No major criminal offenses, have been in the U.S. for at least five contiguous years, graduated from a U.S. high school, or served in the military. In other words, the folks that have been here for a while and been good non-citizens can get a work permit and stay while we figure out what we’re going to do.
What it is not is amnesty. It’s not citizenship. It’s not even a path to citizenship. It is, to put it bluntly, not “naturalization.” It is vastly less generous to illegals than the amnesty program signed into law by Ronald Reagan or proposed by George W. Bush. Those bills went through Congress, as is proper, because they were genuine acts of naturalization. Obama’s executive order is not.
In the end, I’m not at all certain that Obama’s order is a good one. The stated reason is that we have limited resources to handle deportation and they would be better spent deporting people who are causing problems rather than focusing on people who are contributing. I suspect that there’s more political calculation in there than is being spoken aloud, but then, that’s a pretty safe bet with anything a politician says.
So why the big stink? Why the willful lies about Obama “shredding the Constitution?” I can’t answer that; I’m not a mind reader. I will say this, though: It doesn’t really matter what President Obama says or does; there is a certain group of people that will accuse him of villainy not because of what he does but because of who he is. And, oddly enough, I’m not using that as a code for “racism.” I think that, in today’s twisted environment, the fact that he has the scarlet “D” next to his party affiliation is much more damning in the eyes of these monumentally dishonest pundits.