By Richard F. LaMountain
Last summer, the Obama administration began to employ "prosecutorial discretion" to suspend action against most of 300,000 illegal immigrants slated for deportation.
Today, that appears but the opening salvo in a series of moves, as per commentator W. James Antle III, to effectively "stop enforcing the law against whole categories" of illegal immigrants "and to use necessary administrative leeway to effect policy changes that lack support in Congress."
Early in the new year, the Los Angeles Times' Anna Gorman reported, "President Barack Obama proposed a new rule ... that would allow certain illegal immigrants with U.S. citizen spouses or parents to stay here while they apply for hardship waivers, the first step for many before they can submit applications for legal residency." The rule, The Oregonian said, "likely will affect tens of thousands -- perhaps more than 100,000 -- illegal residents. ... The administration hopes to change the rule later this year after taking public comments."
If enacted, the rule will be no mere administrative tweak. It will ease, profoundly, the consequences many foreigners pay for stealing into our nation.
Federal law dictates that an illegal immigrant must leave the country before seeking return as a legal resident. An illegal immigrant who has been in the United States between six months and a year cannot return for three years; one here a year or more cannot return for 10.
But the U.S. Department of Homeland Security may grant a waiver to an illegal immigrant who establishes that such long separation would impose "extreme hardship" on immediate family members who are U.S. citizens or legal residents -- so long as he or she applies for that waiver from abroad. The new rule would change this. It would allow an illegal immigrant "whose sole inadmissibility ground is unlawful presence," in DHS' words, to seek the waiver while still here. This would shorten the absence of many from months or years to weeks.
If enacted, what will the rule mean -- for government by the people, the rule of law and the very families it purports to help?
First: By easing burdens Congress has imposed on illegal immigrants, the rule will undermine Americans' clearly stated opposition to illegal entry -- and the broader principle of representative government.
Second: The rule will tell illegal immigrants, "If you evade detection long enough to set down roots here, you can seek exemption from portions of the law that inconvenience you." This will mock our laws' integrity.
Third: The rule will weaken the families it intends to benefit. For better or worse, families derive many of their values -- and behavioral examples -- from their government. What incentive will someone have to obey laws when his or her government exonerates, in effect, the lawbreaking of a parent, spouse or sibling?
"The purpose of immigration laws and policies," writes author Thomas Sowell, "is to serve the national interest of this country." That interest suffers when our leaders manipulate the administration of those laws and policies so as to lessen their impact on those who break them.
Oregonians should contact the White House and their congressional representatives and voice their opposition to the new immigration rule.
Richard F. LaMountain, a former assistant editor of Conservative Digest magazine, serves as vice president of Oregonians for Immigration Reform (oregonir.org). He lives in Cedar Mill.