Immigration Dispute Has Constitutional Undertones

5:00 am August 29, 2011, by Bob Barr

Differences between the administrations of Barack Obama and George W. Bush on economic policies are profound. However, when it comes to ignoring constitutional provisions mandating separation of powers, the two presidents are more alike than distinct. This phenomenon can be seen clearly in the latest maneuver by President Obama to implement a more lenient immigration policy; one in direct violation of current federal deportation law.

Dealing with illegal immigration always has been a thorny problem for presidents and members of Congress. Republicans generally favor a more restrictive policy; their Democratic counterparts a more lenient approach. This ideological gulf has stymied immigration reform legislation for years.

Facing a difficult reelection climate, and frustrated by the inability of his party to move immigration reform legislation through the Congress, Obama has decided to simply ignore existing federal law requiring deportation of illegal aliens in custody. He has decreed that hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who would otherwise be subject to mandatory deportation, will be permitted to stay in the United States; including many illegals currently enrolled in schools.

Critics of this new policy call it what it is really is – backdoor amnesty.

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, notes that what President Obama has done is implement a major component of his agenda – and one that may very well boost his support among Latino voters — through executive fiat. Spakovsky wrote in a recent Heritage blog, “[i]t is no coincidence that the factors that DHS [Department of Homeland Security] says it will now consider are the very same provisions that were in the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors or DREAM Act that was proposed by Senator Dick Durbin.â€