Obama’s Immigration Actions Blocked by Federal Judge, What’s Next?
Executive Actions Rarer, Broader In Scope…
On Monday, US District Judge Andrew Hanen granted a request issued by 26 states to temporarily block President Obama‘s executive action on illegal immigration. Hanen’s decision allows a lawsuit which aims to permanently stopping the orders to continue through the court system. Obama’s first order, which would protect younger undocumented immigrants who were brought to the US illegally from deportation, was scheduled to begin Wednesday. The second major part, extending similar protection to parents of American citizens and permanent residents who have been in the country for an extended period, was not to begin until May 19.
Ever since Obama’s announcement of his executive order, libertarians have been split. While most of us are in favor of a more streamlined and transparent policy, we also detest unilateral action by the executive. Obama’s criticism of President Bush‘s executive overreach, in addition to his defense of civil liberties and anti-war sentiment, was one of the few areas where then-candidate Obama was able to elicit excitement and agreement from libertarians. However, Obama has broken his promises on all three areas, perhaps none more than through his use of executive orders.
Obama is on pace to issue roughly the same amount of executive orders as his predecessor. The good news is that Obama is also likely to average the lowest amount of executive orders per year since libertarian favorite Grover Cleveland (perhaps surprisingly, a feat also accomplished by President Bush). While these are positive developments, it seems that they do not align with how we have seen the power of the executive grow during the Bush and Obama Administrations.
It appears that while executive orders are becoming rarer, they are also becoming more broad in scope. For example, while the President has compared his immigration decree as similar to those issued by President Reagan and President George HW Bush, there is a distinct difference in that both of those executive orders were made following passages of bills by the Congress. Obama’s action was taken explicitly without the consent of Congress—and perhaps even because of it.
It is always important to consider the central principles that led to the founding of our republic. The Articles of Confederation were drafted directly in lieu of great fear among Americans of excessive executive power. Accordingly, there was no president, and the executive was granted almost no power whatsoever. Once this began to appear completely unfeasible, the Framers begrudgingly submitted to the idea of a President. While there were some (like the often-maligned Alexander Hamilton) who wished to create an office similar to the King of England, overwhelmingly, there was a desire to hinder the President’s authority. Thus, safeguards, such as vesting the right to declare war, as well as the ability to impeach the President, were placed into the hands of Congress.
While there may be plenty of agreement with Obama in the libertarian movement on the substance of his executive order, we must always equally weigh the procedural consequences as well. If we are to approve of an executive action simply because we approve of the effect that it might have, we cannot in good faith question the authority of the President to enact the opposite policy.
The day will come when a clearer and more succinct immigration policy is passed through the Congress, if only out of necessity. With Congress as incompetent as we know it to be, it can be hard to wait on the democratic-republican process to be completed. However, this is the beauty of how the American system functions (or at least how it is supposed to function): nothing happens overnight. Every policy is to be vetted thoroughly before it is made into law. The numerous hurdles to enacting legislation are not an oversight of the Constitution; they’re the very point of the document.