Skip to comments.The Immigration Ploy (Thomas Sowell)
Posted on 06/18/2012 1:08:53 PM PDT by jazusamo
President Obama's latest political ploy granting new "rights" out of thin air, by Executive Order, to illegal immigrants who claim that they were brought into the country when they were children is all too typical of his short-run approach to the country's long-run problems.
Whatever the merits or demerits of the Obama immigration policy, his Executive Order is good only as long as he remains president, which may be only a matter of months after this year's election.
People cannot plan their lives on the basis of laws that can suddenly appear, and then suddenly disappear, in less than a year. To come forward today and claim the protection of the Obama Executive Order is to declare publicly and officially that your parents entered the country illegally. How that may be viewed by some later administration is anybody's guess.
Employers likewise cannot rely on policies that may be here today and gone tomorrow, whether these are temporary tax rates designed to look good at election time or temporary immigration policies that can backfire later if employers get accused of hiring illegal immigrants.
Why hire someone, and invest time and money in training them, if you may be forced to fire them before a year has passed?
Kicking the can down the road is one of the favorite exercises in Washington. But neither in the economy nor in their personal lives can people make plans and commitments on the basis of government policies that suddenly appear and suddenly disappear.
Like so many other Obama ploys, his immigration ploy is not meant to help the country, but to help Obama. This is all about getting the Hispanic vote this November.
The principle involved keeping children from being hurt by actions over which they had no control is one already advanced by Senator Marco Rubio, who may well end up as Governor Romney's vice-presidential running mate. The Obama Executive Order, which suddenly popped up like a rabbit out of a magician's hat, steals some of Senator Rubio's thunder, so it is clever politics.
But clever politics is what has gotten this country into so much trouble, not only as regards immigration but also as regards the economy and the dangerous international situation.
When the new, and perhaps short-lived, immigration policy is looked at in terms of how it can be administered, it makes even less sense. While this policy is rationalized in terms of children, those who invoke it are likely to do so as adults.
How do you check someone's claim that he was brought into the country illegally when he was a child? If Obama gets reelected, it is very unlikely that illegal immigrants will really have to prove anything. The administration can simply choose not to enforce that provision, as so many other immigration laws are unenforced in the Obama administration.
If Obama does not get reelected, then it may not matter anyway, when his Executive Order can be gone after he is gone.
Ultimately, it does not matter what immigration policy this country has, if it cannot control its own borders. Whoever wants to come, and who has the chutzpah, will come. And the fact that they come across the Mexican border does not mean that they are all Mexicans. They can just as easily be terrorists from the Middle East.
Only after the border is controlled can any immigration policy matter be seriously considered, and options weighed through the normal Constitutional process of Congressional hearings, debate and legislation, rather than by Presidential short-cuts.
Not only is border control fundamental, what is also fundamental is the principle that immigration policy does not exist to accommodate foreigners but to protect Americans and the American culture that has made this the world's richest, freest and most powerful nation for more than a century.
No nation can absorb unlimited numbers of people from another culture without jeopardizing its own culture. In the 19th and early 20th century, America could absorb millions of immigrants who came here to become Americans. But the situation is entirely different today, when group separatism, resentment and polarization are being promoted by both the education system and politicians.
I bet 'coyote' rates doubled overnight.
Thanks, jaz for the ping to another excellent Column by Dr Sowell. As always he hit the nail square on the head.
Another cogent commentary (on immigration) from Dr. Sowell.
Thanks for the ping jaz. Appreciate it. He’s so right on the mark again.
Meant to reply on the first thread, I too always look forward to his “Random Thoughts” columns, they're great.
Exactly, and what an asinine half-measure these "we won't enforce the law" things are. Same deal with claiming they won't pursue drug charges in states where marijuana is legal. It's not really legally binding. If some US attorney in East BF, wherever decides to charge on a valid law against this pronouncement, what are you going to say if you're the defendant? "B...b...but your boss said you weren't going to charge these cases!"? And his other point is exactly on target, too. Once the crime has been committed, it's been committed. If some future administration decides they're worth pursuing, you can't use this administration's position as a defense, so The Won's screwing everyone on BOTH sides of the issue. Smooth move, Ex-Lax! If there's a way to offend EVERYBODY, Zero'll find it.
Thanks! TS is the last word on how the left manipulates our Constitutional form of government.
In a study yet to be published, approximately 35% of Hispanics have retirement plans worth more than $25,000 and over 10% of Hispanics run their own businesses, so millions of Hispanics are members of the investor class and millions more own their own business.
And they employ illegal Spanish-speaking workers under the table. Why would they hire people with government work permits? Both political parties, by refusing to take substantive action against the illegal invasion, are unprincipled on this issue, but practically speaking, the unprincipled Republicans offer the better deal for legal Hispanic voters.
Well put, and he is screwing everyone on both sides but could care less, he’s only after the votes.
It’s pathetic a turkey like him could be elected in this country but way too many voters are looking for the free ride and begging to be conned.
Exactly! If the water main in your home broke and was flooding the house, you don't sit down and come up with a "comprehensive home protection plan". YOU SHUT OFF THE WATER FIRST!
I called it “THE DEAL OF THE DAY” it seems that Obummer has a new one every day depending on who is is meeting with at the time.
The wisdom of Dr. Sowell, always an eager read when you ping me. Thanks so much.
The Great One indeed.
What Obama did for illegals is NOTHING. Law abiding employers still wont hire them, & “coming out” now could get you deported next year.
Thank you, and a bump!
I have a question, insofar as legal liability is concerned. It would appear that Obama has decided not to enforce laws that were legally and formally placed on the books. Does he not become legally liable for any damages caused by his negligence to perform the duties of his office? In the past he could have said he was doing the best job he could in enforcing the immigration laws. Now, he has all but admitted he is not performing his legal responsibilities according to the constitution. It would seem to me that somebody who is hit by an illegal that has been released by INS (ICE) say, the illegal was operating under the influence. It would seem the president would become personally liable under current tort laws, given that had he performed his job, there was a good chance this accident wouldn’t have happened, but he is negligent at his job’s duties. Increasing the odds, exponentially, that DUI offenders will continue to hit innocent people. Is there any legal justification to sue him under these, or similar, circumstances?
You can’t sue the little bastard commie because blacks will burn cities. /sarc
More clear thinking and straightforward prose from the Doctor.
I don’t believe such a suit would be allowed by the judicial system to go forward.
To file a suit at all, in the first place, you need legal standing. There has to be a firm foundation proffered that you deserve your day in court against that defendant, or it gets tossed.
I don’t see how you tie Obama directly and specifically to an individual incident well enough to even get standing to sue.
You say, but for Obama not performing his executive duties, this illegal driving drunk and killing someone is less likely to have happened.
But in a lawsuit you really need precision, and I don’t think you get it with most such cases.
I think the courts would view such complaints as matters of policy differences (to be hashed out in general in our system of governance), agree or disagree with what Obama is trying to do, rather than the President being held liable for an incident because of his policy.
Obama may be deserving of a lawsuit but in some peoples views all presidents may have been negligent in their policies and it would open the door to thousands of suits.
The recourse on a turkey like Obama is in the House and Senate by impeachment and we know that isn't going to happen. The other is the peoples recourse at the ballot box and that's looking pretty good at this time.
The pleasure is mine, TOL. :-)