Continuing The DACA Overload

However they came to the United States, and irrespective of who's to blame, the 800,000 or so individuals now designated as “dreamers” are here illegally. They're called “dreamers” because it's a title that invites sympathy. Their defenders claim that they're honest, hard-working, tax-paying, loyal Americans who deserve our thanks and support, and who should be allowed to stay with a path to citizenship provided. There should be an amnesty, like the one afforded those who fled our country during the Vietnam War.

Whether or not that view is merited, the fact remains that they're here illegally. DACA doesn't change that. In a country that purports to accept the position that no man is above the law, somehow we are sympathetic to a violation of the Constitution by a President sworn to uphold that document. He has stated publicly “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will … preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” It says so in Article II, but the document does not give him the authority to decide what the law should be, nor that he may decree what he thinks it should be.

Among the reasons we declared our independence, and clearly written as the final justification in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, was that “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these states.” We rejected the idea that all power would reside in one individual, and we placed legislative responsibility elsewhere.

It states, at the beginning of Article I, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” All. Among the powers specifically assigned to Congress was to “establish an [sic] uniform Rule of Naturalization.” It was Congress's prerogative to decide issues of immigration, and it did so. And when pressed to ease restrictions on minors smuggled into the United States it did not do so. Whether the choice was a wise one or not, it was their choice, and the unilateral declaration of the President was a violation of his oath to defend the Constitution.

But he did it. And he secured the support of a sympathetic group – the “dreamers.” And their supporters. Still, however, notwithstanding the President's actions, they were not “dreamers” but illegal immigrants. However the costs of deportation (if we move in that direction) – politically, economically and in terms of our emotions and our appearance internationally – would be devastating. It would thus be almost impossible, for a variety of reasons, to do so. President Obama has won. Whatever the legality of his action, it will remain in place. Lawsuits to overturn President Trump's suspension of the amnesty, however attractive they may be politically and emotionally, don't alter the Constitution.

There will, however, have to be a clear expression by Congress of the law they favor. (And, perhaps, a reiteration of the Constitution's delineation of the functions and powers of the President and Congress.) It should be made clear that, from that time forward all illegal immigrants, however they reached our country, would be returned to their country of origin. No lengthy procedures will be required if they cannot prove their legal status and the date of their arrival or residence. As for those already here, in an attempt not to break up families, those under a specified age, whose parents are present, should be returned with them to the country of origin unless there is a justifiable fear of harm that might come to them – in which case we should discuss with their homeland's authorities why there is such a risk.

As for the remainder of the group, they should be quickly vetted for illegal activity apart from their immigration status. If such information is found, they should be tried for their alleged crimes and sent home after completion of any sentence if convicted. They should be treated as any suspect would be if he were a citizen. Those who are deemed to be possible criminals should be subject to the laws of the country in which they reside. And those who are simply living at the expense of taxpayers should do that in their countries of birth.

Those left after the initial screening should have a path to citizenship – not because they're entitled to it by law but because existing situations, even if their origin is questionable, are sometimes impossible to reverse. The path should be more difficult than that for those who have followed a legal course, but it should be available. Those who choose not to accept it should remove themselves to a place where they feel they would fit in better.

I offer these thoughts fully cognizant of the fact that I am supporting an action I consider completely illegal. It's my hope, however, that the President and Congress (and the courts for that matter) will revert to the roles set out for them in the document that they swore (or affirmed) they would uphold. Policies based on emotion but not supported by law may make us feel good about ourselves individually, but they weaken us as a nation.