I JUST READ THIS ON ONE OF THE POSTS ON HERE: Which brings us back to that pesky “rule of law” business. There is no reason the people of the United States, acting through their elected representatives in the legislature, could not waive immigration law and throw the borders completely open, or waive immigration law for everyone currently residing on U.S. soil. (Obama’s amnesty will be more arbitrary than that, at least on paper, at first.) There is also no reason Congress could not essentially seal the borders, set stiffer rules for deportation (say, as stiff as Mexico’s) and reduce legal immigration to nearly zero. Both of those possibilities must be equally acceptable under the fabric of constitutional self-government, provided the rule of law is obeyed, and the proper legislative procedure is followed. Both of those outcomes are equally unacceptable as an expression of imperial executive fiat. Would anyone currently defending Obama’s amnesty agenda support the precisely equivalent exercise of “executive discretion” to aggressively deport more people, in defiance of the law? The answer to that question tells you everything you need to know about the “principles” of amnesty supporters, whose only real principle is that they don’t believe the existing citizens of the United States should have anything to say about who accesses our job market, social programs, and political systems. And once that right is stripped from American citizens, what other powers will they retain for long?
Posted on: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 04:54:30 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015