Predictably, the Republicans are howling that the president has ripped up the Constitution and appointed himself emperor because he is announcing a new executive policy on kids who would have been covered under the DREAM Act.
WASHINGTON— Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano today announced that effective immediately, certain young people who were brought to the United States as young children, do not present a risk to national security or public safety, and meet several key criteria will be considered for relief from removal from the country or from entering into removal proceedings. Those who demonstrate that they meet the criteria will be eligible to receive deferred action for a period of two years, subject to renewal, and will be eligible to apply for work authorization…
…DHS continues to focus its enforcement resources on the removal of individuals who pose a national security or public safety risk, including immigrants convicted of crimes, violent criminals, felons, and repeat immigration law offenders. Today’s action further enhances the Department’s ability to focus on these priority removals.
Under this directive, individuals who demonstrate that they meet the following criteria will be eligible for an exercise of discretion, specifically deferred action, on a case-by-case basis:
1.) Came to the United States under the age of sixteen;
2.) Have continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and are present in the United States on the date of this memorandum;
3.) Are currently in school, have graduated from high school, have obtained a general education development certificate, or are honorably discharged veterans of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States;
4.) Have not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety;
5.) Are not above the age of thirty.
Only those individuals who can prove through verifiable documentation that they meet these criteria will be eligible for deferred action.
They’re yelling about the Constitution because they’re scared both to embrace the policy or to oppose it on the merits.
All the same, they seem to be right.
Do we only pretend to care about the constitution?
I agree with you, however we have put up with shredding the Constitution on the 4th amendment which is more egregious in my mind. Stephen Stralka down below has a Constitutional rationale that I can live with. I’ve long been in favor of an “amnesty” that amounts to a class action plea bargain wherein the illegal immigrant pleads guilty, pays a fine and gets a green card unless they have been involved in illegal activity other than border violation. It’s like the Middle Ages law that allowed an escaped serf to stay in a town if he had lived there one year.
Regarding Dream Act kids, I often wonder at people who were indignant about Iran arresting American border violators but seem to want to crucify those brought here illegally as minors.
The executive branch “executes” the laws. It has considerable latitude to prioritize enforcement (or non-enforcement) of federal law. I don’t see any immediately apparent constitutional issue.
I was told by obots that “executive or cabinet level action is clearly impossible and that we elected a president and not a king, stupidhead.”
But then I was also told by firebaggers and the professional left that “Obama is a pussy and a coward and he gets off on deporting immigrants and Hispanics are so depressed about the situation.”
So now I don’t know who to believe!
Congratulations to the administration for exercising its full capabilities, and I wish they had a more amenable congress to work with them.
A good move. The right move.
But it’s still totally inadequate. I appreciate this band-aid, but we need comprehensive immigration reform.
This isn’t a knock on Obama. He’s doing what he can, both with the politics and the policy, but the Party of No is doing its best to make sure nothing happens. Same old story.
But that doesn’t make the system any more sustainable.
The Constitution does give the President the power to “grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States.” I don’t have any problem with him claiming he’s acting under that authority.
Seems like a good move. I hope it does some good for the folks caught in the ridiculous immigration/employment tangle.
I have a problem with criteria 3) and 5).
I would add “or are gainfully employed” to 3). Not everyone has an academic bent and I would guess that many of these youths are employed as gardeners or concrete workers. They are just as entitled to consideration as college students. They entered with no fault of their own and just want to live as peaceful gainfully employed Americans.
As for 5) do we really want to depart people over 30 that entered the USA as children? This literally says someone who was brought here at age 5 and has lived here for 50 years will be deported. To my mind that is a greater injustice than deporting a 19 year old college student.
The constitutional argument is ridiculous. There are many more laws on the books that never get implemented or enforced for a variety of reasons. The Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, are two examples, as are the many state laws which prohibit adultery or even, in the case of Minnesota in a law which the legislature failed to erase in 2010, prohibits any woman (but not men) from having sex outside of marriage period. Executives make judgement calls every day on what to enforce and what not to, and this decision by Obama has been long overdue.