For those looking to inform themselves on the difference between the Reagan and Obama executive orders on amnesty: thefederalist/2014/11/20/no-reagan-did-not-offer-an-amnesty-by-lawless-executive-order/ The primary difference is that Reagan was acting upon an amnesty for immigrants that was already passed by congress, but had the unintended result of separating illegal children from their newly legal parents. Reagan issued an executive order on a previously existing congressional motion to grant amnesty to the children in order to prevent ripping apart millions of migrant families. His executive order was within constitutional bounds because it was to correct a previously existing congressional bill. Obamas executive order, by contrast, circumvents congress altogether because there is no bill to act upon in the first place. Making an order above congress or without any sort of congressional process and approval is unconstitutional; thus making his order more similar to the decree of a monarch, whose authority would otherwise go unchallenged. I thoroughly support the idea of amnesty for immigrants, however I highly disagree with circumventing the constitution to make such changes. Doing so can only beg the question: Are you truly doing this for the good of the immigrants, or are you simply purchasing the loyalty and votes for an upcoming mass influx of foreigners in a way that paints you a hero for establishing a monarchist decision? The strategic implications for Obamas potential positioning in the future become tangible and scary all the while.
Posted on: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 21:54:27 +0000