In a season of partisan bickering and endless cheap shots, let’s clear the air. The issue of immigration is a moral issue, and both Republicans and Democrats can agree that the desperate plight of millions of illegal immigrants should not be taken hostage this November. Regardless of my political affiliation, I concede that had I been born into the slums of Mexico City or the oppression of Communist China, I would do everything in my power to get my family to the safe-haven of the United States of America. That is the honest truth and I will blame no person for doing the same.
That being said, where do we draw the line between freely accepting “your tired, your poor” and closing the door to immigration entirely? The answer is this: no such line has to be drawn. If we can streamline our own legal immigration system and “de-clutter” the bureaucratic mess that has left millions of immigrants in limbo, we can offer a traditional pathway to citizenship that will not compromise our economic and national security interests.
The Development, Relief and Education of Alien Minors (DREAM) Act would do just the opposite. Instead of trimming government overhead in order to simplify the pathway to citizenship, this legislation seeks to broaden U.S. immigration policy by granting amnesty to law-abiding individuals who entered the country prior to their sixteenth birthday (provided they go to college or serve in the military). The Act has failed repeatedly in Congress, but its lack of support has not stopped proponents of the legislation from circumnavigating the legislative process. Most notably, in response to increasing pressure from immigration groups, President Obama issued an executive order mirroring the tenants of the proposed DREAM Act. This order halts the deportation of young illegal immigrants who would qualify under the DREAM Act, and grants them a two-year deferral on deportation.
What is interesting is that both the DREAM Act and Obama’s executive order rely entirely upon a contentious 1985 Supreme Court case in which it was ruled that federal agencies have “prosecutorial discretion” when it comes to criminal cases. In other words, the law-enforcing arm of the federal government (the Executive Branch) has the freedom to enforce the laws on a per-case basis. The Obama Administration, on the other hand, has taken this precedent to mean that it can enforce on a “per-law” basis, and since U.S. immigration policy does not align with the President’s political interests, there is no reason to enforce it.
Am I arguing that we assign federal agents to the task of rounding up young immigrants? No. The fact of the matter is that far greater threats exist. However, I do believe that a law is a law, and that each should be applied uniformly. With respect to this debate, Congress should reform U.S. immigration policy across the board so as to provide a straightforward path to citizenship for all immigrants who call the United States of America home. The proposed DREAM Act and President Obama’s associated executive order do just the opposite, and pander to the slippery slope of executive usurpation of power and accommodation.
