Ronald Reagan and Immigration: The AP Distortion

quote:

---

The Left’s storyline tries to tell Americans this, as expressed succinctly in the AP story:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Two presidents have acted unilaterally on immigration — and both were Republican. Ronald Reagan and his successor George H.W. Bush extended amnesty to family members who were not covered by the last major overhaul of immigration law in 1986. Neither faced the political uproar widely anticipated if and when President Barack Obama uses his executive authority to protect millions of immigrants from deportation

---

quote:

---

Here’s the sleight of hand, and the not very clever one at that. For this explanation we turn to two people who know exactly what they are talking about. First, Fox News legal beagle-in-chief Judge Andrew Napolitano. And the second, Jonathan Turley, the law professor from George Washington University who is not only a liberal but, as reported here in Politico has been hired by House Republicans to oversee the lawsuit to be filed by Republicans against President Obama for “executive overreach.”
Judge Napolitano explains the difference to Megyn Kelly. In one word? The difference between what Reagan and Bush did and what Obama intends to do is the word “statute.”

---

quote:

---

As everyone knows, in 1986 President Reagan signed into law the Simpson-Mazzoli bill, known officially as The Immigration and Control Act. We’ll come back to that at a later time - the law did not work as Reagan intended (hint: No border security as promised). But for immediate purposes it is important to know that in signing the bill Reagan’s presidential signature made the bill a law - a statute. Presidents cannot pass laws unilaterally. That’s the job of the Congress per the Constitution, as every American school child is suppose to learn early on. What presidents can do - must do if a bill is to become law - is sign the bill. That’s what Reagan did.

---

quote:

---

Presidents also have the job of interpreting the statute they are sworn to uphold. So sworn by the presidential oath in which they “do solemnly swear” to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States …” and “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

What is the difference between Reagan and Obama? Reagan’s action was in accordance with the law - the statute. The very law that he had signed after - say again after - it was passed by Congress. What President Obama is about to do is unilaterally write the law - as if he were writing or re-writing a statute - all by himself. As Judge Napolitano says:

When he suspends deportations, and when he imposes his own conditions on those suspensions, he’s effectively re-writing the law. And that violates his oath to enforce and uphold the law as it’s been written. The American people, the Congress and the courts need to know that we have a president who will enforce the law. When he says ‘I will not enforce the law because I don’t like it or I’m impatient’, that doesn’t wash under the Constitution.

---

quote:

---

The Judge goes on to say quite pointedly and specifically what is the Reagan/Obama difference:

Every president since Dwight D. Eisenhower has suspended some deportations. President Reagan did it to 100,000 families. He did it on the basis of the 1986 statute enacted by the Congress. President George H.W.Bush did it for 1.5 million people, only about 350,000 took advantage of it, and it was based on his interpretation of the statute. President Obama does not re-interpret a statute. He takes a statute and says ‘I’m going to disregard it. I’m going to give you a better one. I’m going to set down a set of standards that I would have written had I been the law maker.’ He’s not the law maker, he’s the law enforcer.’

---

quote:

---

Fox host Kelly, also a lawyer, asked the Judge: “At what point does he cross the clear line from discretion to completely ignoring his executive obligations to enforce the law?” Judge Napolitano correctly answers:

“When he grossly abuses his discretion, and when the effect of his discretion is to suspend a statute or to have the opposite effect of what the statute commands, that is a gross abuse. He will be playing with constitutional fire if he does this.”

This was further emphasized by liberal law professor Turley, who underlined the basic principle at stake:

What the President is suggesting is tearing at the very fabric of the Constitution. We have a separation of powers that gives us balance. And that doesn’t protect the branches. It’s not there to protect the executive branch or legislative branch. It’s to protect liberty. It’s to keep any branch from assuming so much control that they become a threat to liberty. The American people have to force this issue…

---