index

In a nationally televised address on Thursday night, President Obama issued his long anticipated executive action on immigration.

In his televised address the president laid out three areas to be part of his executive action, first would be to add additional resources to stem the flow of illegal entry into the United States.

The second aspect of his executive action would to make it easier for high-skilled immigrants to stay in this country, as many business leaders had wanted as part of any comprehensive immigration reform.

By far the most controversial aspect of the president’s executive action is how to deal with millions of undocumented immigrants. The president then stated, “If you’ve been in America for more than five years; if you have children who are American citizens or legal residents; if you register, pass a criminal background check, and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes — you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily without fear of deportation. You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. That’s what this deal is.”

The president continued to state, “Now, let’s be clear about what it isn’t. This deal does not apply to anyone who has come to this country recently. It does not apply to anyone who might come to America illegally in the future. It does not grant citizenship, or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive -– only Congress can do that. All we’re saying is we’re not going to deport you.”

At this point it doesn’t matter where you sit on the immigration debate the question is does the president have the constitutional authority to issue such a wide executive action?

In LA Times editorial on Thursday, the process by which Obama achieved them is troubling on several fronts. We dislike the ease with which he shifted from saying he lacked the authority to act — to acting anyway. While most presidents use their executive powers from time to time — and Obama has done so to raise the minimum wage for federal contract workers and to protect federal employees from gender discrimination, among other things — his immigration plan is of a breadth and scale that may push the boundaries further than they’ve been pushed before. Liberals who approve of the president’s action should remember what they thought when George W. Bush claimed executive authority to act without congressional approval; they were not pleased by what they perceived as an end run around the rule of law.

Questions still remains as the LA Times noted, the president’s actions will theoretically allow millions of immigrants here illegally to come out of the shadows. But executive actions are easily reversible. What will happen after Obama leaves office in January 2017? For that matter, will immigrants today be willing to participate? Those who do so will be telling the government “Here I am,” acting on faith that the next president won’t reverse course and use the deferral applications as a round-up list for deportations.

The executive action by the president is only a short term fix, and really does nothing to fix the long term problem of the dysfunctional U.S. immigration system.

Many may favor what the president did on Thursday, but remember at some point a Republican will occupy the White House.  What happens when a Republican president decides to issue an executive order on abolishing the Affordable Care Act or doing away with the collection of capital gains all without congressional approval?

A precedent has been started and it could have dire constitutional implications as future U.S. president may exercise executive actions on issues.

One only has to read the constitution where it states in article one, section one, all legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

This debate is not over and will only be settled by the U.S., Supreme Court.