Question of the day: If Obama can unilaterally delay ObamaCare’s employer mandate, why wouldn’t he delay new border security measures too?
An excellent question from Conn Carroll, especially in light of the news from CBO this morning that the Corker/Hoeven “border surge” will supposedly reduce illegal immigration by one-third to one-half. (The original Gang of Eight bill would have reduced it by just one-quarter.) That conclusion depends on a lot of assumptions, but the core assumption is that Obama will in fact enforce the new law as it’s written. Will he? He now refuses to enforce a key provision of his own signature legislation because it’s politically inconvenient for his party to do so. Come 2016, if Democrats are in trouble and desperate for Latino turnout, why wouldn’t he “delay” some of the Gang of Eight’s border provisions? Don’t forget, he’s taken unilateral action on immigration in the name of winning elections before.
I hasten to add that this is not the first administrationto ignore the dictates of our immigration system, which is only "broken" if not enforcing the law counts as a legislative defect. But even without citing something like the Obamacare delay as evidence, it is fair to ask: If they don't take the current law seriously, why should we believe they will take any new law seriously?
Of course I've started to say that about a lot of things in Washington lately -- getting a little cynical in my old age. Well, more cynical. I've spent much of my adult life arguing about whether this or that legislative proposal or new bill is legal and/or constitutional. That's become sort of a pointless exercise. It's probably time to accept the fact that thoe people in Washington do whatever the hell they want to. Worrying about the propriety of it is for the common folk.