President Obama has in recent times made immigration executive orders, which have raised concerns from various circles. In one of his speeches, the president announced a sequential series of actual executive orders that will work to protect over five million undocumented immigrants within the country. The persons have under previous law faced the regulations that required them to be deported back to their origin homeland. He cited that his actions reflected the spirit of former leaders in his position, both Republican and Democratic presidents that have served before him. His primary aim of implementing this orders across the United States is to make the country`s immigration system more incorporating and thus more just and fair (In Miller, 47). The immigrants in United States, who were not documented, had in previous times faced challenges that have made their existence within the country very difficult. They could not enjoy many privileges that were reserved for citizens and documented immigrants. The immigrants will under the new policies stipulated within the executive orders be able to receive much-needed work documents. The plan will extensively include all persons who are not U.S. citizens but have children who are legal citizens and other immigrants. A key concern arises to the treatment given to “Dreamers” (people who were brought into the country while young through illegal means). This group of immigrants did not receive protection from the executive orders given by the president, and they thus still face the wrath of deportation.
The following are the details stipulated within the executive action plan provided by the president. He announced that his actions on cracking down illegal immigrants within the nation had to be adjusted in a way that does not target families. It should lay emphasis on the felons operating within the country, by requiring the undocumented persons to undergo a criminal background check (In Miller, 49). They would then pay taxes that will allow them to stay in the U.S. for a temporary time, without fear of uncertain deportation (Anderson, 47). The initiatives that have raised hot debates include expanding the size of the population that is suitable for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. This program would involve all persons of any particular age who entered the country before attaining 16 years. The program would benefit them through work authorization extension from the two-year period to a three-year period.
Executive orders by the president further required that parents of lawfully permanent U.S. citizens who were residents, to request for work authorization for three years and deferred actions. The condition is underlying this group of beneficiaries of the orders had to have lived in the country continuously since beginning of 2010. They had to pass the background checks subsequently as provided by the law.
The president, through the orders, stipulated that the provisional waivers had to be expanded to accommodate the unlawful presence of spouses and children of lawful permanent residents.
The program would involve various government agencies participating in the immigration control and regulation. It had an aim of improving, modernizing, and further clarifying immigrants` visa programs in a bid to increase economic growth and job opportunities.
The final proposition in the contested executive orders was that the government would embark on an extensive citizenship education. This program would work on creating public awareness that will extend to all lawful residents. The campaign will provide an option to use credit cards by the naturalization applicants.
A study of the history of immigration cases shows different actions taken by the governing bodies. The presidents of those times would be central to the decisions, but they all took different approaches. Eight years after the 9/11 attack on U.S., the military had launched major offensives against eminent terrorist attacks (Vialet, 23). Immigrants were playing a big role in the revolutionary war and were thus making a significant contribution to United States. The immigrants have been serving on a voluntary basis within the country`s military, thus providing strategic support. The then administration followed legislative protocol to grant the immigrants serving the military an advantage in the naturalization process. Congress has been continually involved in amendments that relate to the army enlistment and naturalization rules (Vialet, 41). The rules provide benefits to the families thus encourage the immigrants to join the Armed forces. The then president did not give executive orders but followed the legislative procedure.
The Congress has been involved in serious debates concerning immigration reforms that take into account lessons from the past. The “Jordan Commission” in the 1990`s issued recommendations that reflected the thinking at that time (Anderson, 62). Recommendations given by this commission did not provide any guidance on means of resolving immigration crisis within the country. The report focused on the way of controlling the unauthorized immigrants through enforcing stringent measures. Congress would work on prevention through deterrence strategy. This resolve thus followed legislative actions.
The debate arises when various stakeholders raise concerns about whether the Obama had any power to make the executive order on changes to the current immigration rules. There are those who support his actions while the others view the actions as a violation of the will of American people. Both sides present information to support their arguments in this case. Basing their argument on legislative procedures in history, conservatives claim that his actions were unilateral. Republican lawmakers have more so claimed that he did not have the power to call for such measures without consulting for actions within Congress (Abshire, 27).They have advanced claims of partisan politics and propose that the president should have worked with representatives elected by the people. The people arguing against the executive actions of the president have argued that severe laws require much consideration from all parties. Those who claim that the actions were unconstitutional show that Obama`s action was reckless in forging a plan that will change immigration laws while ignoring the people`s will.
In the president`s defense, other parties have argued the executive orders as constitutional and within the powers given to the president by country`s constitution. Obama has the legal authority to call for such orders that affect the lives of Americans. The actions of the president fall within the clear legal and constitutional authority of president`s office (Cooper, 32).Previous presidents that have administered regulations on this sensitive issue beginning from the time of Eisenhower. The pattern has thus established a well precedent set that lays the ground for actions by Obama. Almost all presidents in modern times have imposed executive orders regarding immigration, and this gives the president a very firm ground on the legal base (Cooper, 63).Many leaders in the past have, however, made many executive orders that are geared towards changing how the administration handles immigration issues. They issued orders that would alter the then rules without having to follow legislative procedures. History shows that those cases were not disputed since they were within the powers bestowed on the president.
In a matter relating to constitutional logic, the executive branch of the government must have some form of warrant, either constitutional or statutory, for all its actions. The source of all authority is within the constitution. The American constitution dictates that the Congress may delegate measures of its power to an official within the executive branch. The Congress has a say on most of the actions that the President can undertake. There are, however, cases where the president has to consult with the Congress before making changes to a rule of law. Courts can review such cases if the aggrieved party convinces the court on their standings. The country`s law seeks to provide all branches with enough freedom to do their work, but still ensure that rights of all individuals are protected. The courts can thus determine the constitutionality of any actions taken by the president (Thurber, 81).Courts will follow the constitution to determine whether the nature of dealings by the executive branch falls under its mandate. The court will check out the records followed in administrative proceedings while bearing in account the expertise of the branch. They will act on the principle of separation of powers to determine who should make what decisions regarding constitutional changes. A ruling in such a case may go against the president if they exercise powers that oblige other branches. The ruling falls under the absent statutory authorization that indicates what powers the Constitution has vested in other branches thus restricting redress from the president.
Works Cited
Abshire, D. M., R. D. Nurnberger, and Georgetown University. The Growing power of Congress. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, 1981. Print.
Anderson, S. Immigration. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood, 2010. Print.
Cooper, P. J. By order of the President: The use and abuse of executive direct action. N.p., 2014. Print.
In Miller, D. A. Immigration. N.p., 2014. Print.
Thurber, J. A. Rivals for power: Presidential-congressional relations. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009. Print.
Vialet, J. C., and Library of Congress. A brief history of U.S. immigration policy. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 1991. Print.
