Morality vs. US Constitution

Dividing our country is the only option Obama has left to win the next election.

Over the course of the last 2 years, both here in Wisconsin and on the national scene, we have been treated to numerous concepts that have pitted one group of people against another all in the name of securing votes.  For instance, the occupy movement is attempting divide the 1% against the 99% based on personal income.  The Democratic Party attempted (both locally and nationally) to create a divide between Republican candidates and women.  Those opponents to Voter ID bills have insisted that supporting such bills is akin to having literacy tests at the voting booths.  Now we have a President using power not invested in the Executive Branch that creates a divide between the US Constitution and your morality.

Last week the President announced that he is side stepping Congress, the will of the people and granting amnesty to a certain population of illegal immigrants.  Taking his ideas from the unsuccessful Dream Act, the administration will no longer be deporting people who:

  • Came to the United States under the age of 16.
  • Have continuously resided in the United States for at least five years preceding the date of the memorandum and are present in the United States on the date of the memorandum.
  • Are currently in school, have graduated from high school, have obtained a general education development certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States.
  • Have not been convicted of a felony offence, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise poses a threat to national security or public safety.
  • Are not above the age of 30.

In doing this he has created a divide between those that feel the US is morally responsible for caring people who live in this country illegally and those who demand a President who respects the constitution and want lasting immigration reform.

Many on both sides of the aisle understand that deportation of 800k of immigrants (as most assume exist within this age group) is impractical and something in the style of the Dream Act is a good starting point.  However, it has been cut short because it does little to stop the influx of new illegal immigrants.  This is where the President is attempting to insert a battle over your morality into the equation.

The age group and lifestyles of the people listed in the Presidents Executive Order are younger individuals.  There are dynamics at play within this age group that could have a broader effect on amnesty.  You could have children attending school while living with their parents, who presumably would be over the age of 30, you have people with in the normal age of child bearing and a group may have little history and highly mobile.  All of which can easily lead to more then the expected 800k currently residing in the US being granted visas.  Why?  Lets look at some examples that have been used in the past.

First case, let’s assume we have an illegal immigrant in high school that live with their presumably illegal parents, who wants to toss parents out of the country while the child is left behind.  This would also draw into play any siblings that fail to meet this criteria, can we justifiably deport them also?  Second case, our illegal immigrant is now out of high school or college and has a job, in that time he or she has married and had kids.  Of course the children born here belong here legally, but does the other parent or children that may not have been born in the US.  Can we break up that family?  Third, every Mexican with a dream of coming to the US now knows what must be accomplished or better yet, he knows what must be said to have been accomplished.   What is the price for falsified school and/or employment records?

While the idea of solving our immigration problem becomes tantalizing, the President is using what he feels is your morality as a way to buy the votes of the Hispanics.  He knows when one of these immigration scenarios makes the 24hr news cycle, those wishing to protect our country by the implementation of common sense immigration will be pitted against those asking were the morality is in sending someone back to Mexico.  They will ask: “Don’t all people have the right to a better life?”, “How can you separate this family?”,  “Are you some kind of racist?”.  All the while completely ignoring the breach of constitution that is this Executive Order.  Obama said as much:

In an interview with Univision television earlier this year, President   Obama said that he can’t just “waive away the laws that Congress put in place” and that “the president doesn’t have the authority to simply ignore Congress and say, ‘We’re not going to enforce the laws that you’ve passed.”’

So here is the new divide as created by the President, Democrats and the left in the America.  They will exploit the problem of immigration, promising a solution they cannot uphold and subverting the will of the people in order to secure votes from Hispanics.  Those mindful of the constitution will be told of the immorality and inhumanity of their position.  Not unlike the false accusations of wealth creation in America, Republican hatred of women and those who are called racists for wanting to secure our voting process; US citizens expecting true immigration reform will be demonized.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Dirk Gutzmiller June 25, 2012 at 05:45 AM
@Greg - Slavery. Once again, cheap labor imported by private companies and individuals. Then tossed into the refuse pile. .
Dirk Gutzmiller June 25, 2012 at 05:48 AM
Greg - Good thing you were born in this Country. By your own standards, you would be forced to be an illegal alien to get into America..
Bren June 25, 2012 at 07:02 AM
Jim Sensenbrenner also blamed businesses for hiring illegals. The teeth were pulled out of the legislation that fined businesses heavily for being found using illegal workers during the Reagan administration (according to JS). Now it's a "cost of business" he said. I asked him about the Bush administration's suspension of the prevailing wage laws in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina, and giving contracts to out of state businesses instead of local companies to help the area rebuild. Those out of state contractors subcontracted, and the employees of many of the subcontractors were illegal workers brought in primarily from Central America. Many of them stayed, creating a Hispanic population in the region that hadn't been there before. Sensenbrenner asserted that he was on record as not being in agreement with GWB on this issue. So 8 years ago there was dissent between the radical wing of the GOP (Bush) and the traditional conservatives (Sensenbrenner). Mr. Hoffa, it seems that hiring illegals is tied to greed. We cannot punish greed for this course of action without doing the same for Wall Street, can we? That would be hypocritical. There are millions of illegal aliens in this country. Barack Obama has been deporting far more of them than George W. Bush has, but I believe JS's estimate in 2005 was 20 million illegals in the U.S. What is the logical, best solution to this issue?
Bren June 25, 2012 at 07:12 AM
I remember hearing about a study some years back about how many Americans would fail the immigration test. It was surprisingly high. Immigration is important for our country, and I respect the people of other nations who follow their dream of American citizenship legally. As a teenager I was given the assignment of processing all of the paperwork for a relative by marriage who seeking their U.S. green card. Later, that experience came in handy when I actually worked with an immigration consulting firm. It's important to follow the rules carefully in filing papers in a timely manner, and the U.S. Government is on the whole very willing to work with immigrants who have not committed crimes in the U.S. or their home country and provide information as and when required, even if a visa has expired.
Eric June 25, 2012 at 05:25 PM
J.B., agree with your analysis, the administration is just campaigning to secure support from its various constituencies. But that after all, is an essence of democracy. Granted we were lead to believe this president would be above such cynical things, but we've also heard the president is a very competitive person. So while the president's political behavior may be disappointing to some, it should hardly be surprising. Regarding the two layers to the immigration question: 1) Moral: Should the child be held accountable for the sins of the parents? 2) Legality: a. Enforce immigration laws at the borders b. Eliminate incentives to break immigration law: prosecute employers who knowingly employ illegal immigrants, address the misuse of the constitutional amendment intended to insure the citizenship of former slaves (NOT citizenship for the children of foreign nationals born on US soil), penalize those who have entered this country illegally The easy legal answer appears to be that the sins of the parents should be revisited on the children, but some will argue lax government enforcement of the borders and employment laws would appear to make our government complicit, and by extension all of us. Politically I don't like what the president just did, but it’s understandable, predictable. Regarding minor illegal immigrants, as you point out, it is a complicated policy issue, but morally, when do we require children to pay for their parent's sins?


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »