Vox’s Ezra Klein gives it the old college try in giving arguments for and against “Obamnesty”
(Vox) For: The president clearly has the power
At this point, fairly few people, even on the right, are arguing that Obama doesn’t have the power to exempt broad classes of people from deportation. President George H.W. Bush granted about 1.4 million unauthorized immigrants a blanket deferral from deportation — that was about 40 percent of America’s unauthorized population, a number similar to what Obama is considering now. And it’s not just Bush: a variety of other presidents have used this power in a variety of other ways.
Except, they were doing it under Congressional authorization based on the 1980’s amnesty, not making it up out of whole cloth. As Jazz Shaw points out, what Obama is looking to do is tell law enforcement to no longer enforce actual law. “This is an executive order to officers of the law to stand down from their duty entirely and ignore criminals who they may – in at least some cases – be able to find and prosecute.” Furthermore, where does Obama get the statutory authority to give pay raises?
Against: The president might have the power — but that doesn’t mean he should use it
“The executive branch is effectively acting in direct defiance of the electoral process,” writes Ross Douthat. “This is where the administration has entered extraordinarily brazen territory.”
Of course, Klein finds that thinking “fuzzy”.
For: It’s sensible and humane
The backdrop to this debate is 11 million unauthorized immigrants live in the United States right now. They work, raise families, pay taxes, start businesses, contribute to their communities — and live under constant, unrelenting fear of deportation.
They commit crimes, they steal social security numbers and identities, ruining countless lives, deflate wages, oh, and how does one start a business without the proper documentation? As far as humane, what about our legal citizens?
Against: The constant, unrelenting fear of deportation is the point
Yes, it is. Obviously, Klein is not happy with the view that criminals should be concerned about being caught.
For: Congress is broken, and that means the president must do more
Whether Congress is broken or not, a separate debate, they are the lawmakers. Otherwise, we might as well be a dictatorship, where the whims of 1 person are forced upon 300+ million citizens.
Against: This could turn paralysis into crisis
This is really what Obama wants. Mr. Nobel Peace Prize prefers strife, conflict, and hyper-partisanship. Along with things being his way or the highway.
We’re either a nation of law, or a nation of whim.
