Don’t Sacrifice Rule of Law for a DACA Fix

As Congress ties itself in knots attempting to give amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, one critical issue appears conspicuously absent from the debate: the rule of law.

It is a topic that Republicans should know pretty well by now.

During President Obama’s two terms, Republicans routinely excoriated his administration for its casual relationship with the law, particularly in the area of immigration enforcement. “Lawlessness” is how many Republicans characterized Obama’s approach, particularly his unilateral executive action to institute the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, then a senator from Alabama, even compiled a list of what he described as the Obama’s Administration’s “non-enforcement” of federal immigration laws.

For years, fealty to the rule of law has formed the basis for Republican efforts to end sanctuary cities, take stronger enforcement actions against illegal immigrants who commit crimes, and raise opposition to amnesty on the grounds that it is fundamentally unfair to the legal immigrants who “wait their turn” and “follow the law.”

However, in contemplating a massive amnesty for upwards of 2 million people, Republicans are threatening to undo not just their political credibility, but also risk the future of our immigration policies and our ability, as a country, to maintain a just and stable public order.

That amnesty, as a policy, could pose such dangers is apparent when one considers the nature of the act itself. The central component of amnesty is a reward for lawbreaking. When a pathway to citizenship is added to the mix, as President Trump and some in Congress are proposing, lawbreaking is rewarded not only with legal status but with the privilege of having a say in running the country.

In other words, it is granting those who have just violated the law with the responsibility to support and defend those very same laws. The contradiction is obvious.

Granting amnesty of this kind has consequences, both philosophical and practical.

As a practical matter, amnesties simply don’t work as a disincentive to illegal immigration. Rather, it’s the opposite. The “one-time” amnesty of 1986, which backers sold as a “necessary part of an effective enforcement program,” clearly didn’t work, if the roughly 12.5 million illegal aliens now living in the United States are any indication.

Likewise, after President Obama announced the DACA program and weakened immigration enforcement, a surge of unaccompanied minors and families appeared at the U.S. border, falsely believing they could now stay in the country legally.

On a philosophical level, however, undermining the rule of law has consequences that resonate far beyond the realm of immigration. The Constitution designates Congress as the body that legislates, and the government turns on the equal and unbiased application of those laws. Congressional action to publicly reward those who violate the laws—and for no other reason than to convenience a political ideology—could very well shake the foundations of our social order.

Moreover, what does an amnesty say to the millions of immigrants waiting to come here legally? In most cases, these would-be immigrants have waited years in their home countries for our dysfunctional legal migration system to process their applications. In many cases, the government will deny requests for legal status—never mind citizenship—for seemingly arbitrary reasons.

Consider the case of my friend Chloe, who came to the United States from England in 2011. Chloe was granted legal status on an H1-B specialty employment visa to do international legal work for a small, D.C.-based nonprofit. When her visa term ended, she applied for permanent legal residence (not citizenship) to be able to continue to work in the United States.

Despite being a highly educated woman with two degrees and admittance to the rigorous and competitive New York State Bar, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services arbitrarily deemed her English law degree “insufficiently equivalent” to an American juris doctor and sent her packing.

Unlike the millions of illegal immigrants that Congress seeks to protect, Chloe complied with her deportation order, and departed the country within the court-ordered 10 days, leaving behind her friends, job, apartment, boyfriend, and her dog. She’s currently sitting in England, awaiting the outcome of her final appeal.

Republicans have claimed for years that Chloe is the type of immigrant they want to attract in a merit-based system: law-abiding, educated, fluent in English, and capable of significant contribution.

Despite her best efforts to comply with the law, Congress would rather give priority to illegal immigrants.

In deciding to grant amnesty, this is the real question that Congress must consider. A public policy that rewards lawbreakers makes the “rule of law” a meaningless phrase. Worse, it makes a mockery of the efforts of those struggling to comply with the rules.

Amnesty is more than just a political choice. Though Democrats claim amnesty merely allows illegal aliens to “seek a better life,” there is much more at stake than mere platitudes. As a policy, amnesty would create significant border security risks and significantly change the nature of our social order.

At the very least, the debate over amnesty should reflect these stakes.

About Rachel Bovard

Rachel Bovard is senior director of policy at the Conservative Partnership Institute and Senior Advisor to the Internet Accountability Project. Beginning in 2006, she served in both the House and Senate in various roles including as legislative director for Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and policy director for the Senate Steering Committee under the successive chairmanships of Senator Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) and Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah), where she advised Committee members on strategy related to floor procedure and policy matters. In the House, she worked as senior legislative assistant to Congressman Donald Manzullo (R-Il.), and Congressman Ted Poe (R-Texas). She is the former director of policy services for the Heritage Foundation. Follow her on Twitter at @RachelBovard.

Support Free & Independent Journalism Your support helps protect our independence so that American Greatness can keep delivering top-quality, independent journalism that's free to everyone. Every contribution, however big or small, helps secure our future. If you can, please consider a recurring monthly donation.

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

4 responses to “Don’t Sacrifice Rule of Law for a DACA Fix”

  1. The whole reason I voted for Trump was because he said he would restore the rule of law and drain the swamp.

    • Gℴℴgle offers to people of each age $98/h to work parttime on the laptop .. Labor for only few peroid of time in a day and spend greater time together with your own family … Any one can also do this job!!!last Tuesday I got a new Buick after I been earning $9002 this last four weeks .it’s definitly the extraordinary approach however you may no longer forgive yourself if you don’t learn this.!wg593c:➵➵➵ http://GoogleStarHomeBasedWork/make/$97/hourly ♥l♥♥n♥♥q♥c♥f♥♥♥n♥♥k♥♥♥f♥♥w♥♥d♥x♥d♥m♥i♥♥♥z♥o♥♥♥i♥a♥♥♥m♥♥♥h♥♥a♥♥♥l♥d♥♥♥d♥♥♥h:::::!kh633q:wkyu

  2. ‘Immigration’ is the defining domestic issue of our time. It has been lurking in the shadows, occasionally popping out into the spotlight for decades, but now it is front and center. A public figure’s position on immigration issues — especially amnesty — is going to define them.

    The most recent Trump proposal, on it’s face, appears to be a bad one. However, the ‘devil’, as it is often said, is in the ‘details’. The problem is that failure to respond to mass immigration (both legal and illegal) has created a ‘boots on the ground’ problem for this nation. Many millions of illegal aliens are already living in the US and there is no practical way of actively deporting them all. Illegal immigrants need to be encouraged to self-deport by removing all supports for their presence in the US. This is where eVerify shines as well as prosecuting all who operate ‘safe harbors’ for illegal aliens.

    With regard to legal immigration, instead of simply allowing the immigration machinery to continue to grind on with existing backlog of requests based upon ‘chain immigration’ policies, the entire system should be brought to a halt and merit-based immigration policies be used to adjudicate all existing requests. The citizens of the US do not owe prospective immigrants any guarantees of any kind and their claims need not — and should not — be ‘grandfathered’ in under any future legislation.

  3. Can anyone deny that flooding every White country in the world (and ONLY White countries) with tens of millions of non-Whites and forcing their assimilation into the White community is an act of genocide?
    Black countries will remain Black, and Asian countries will remain Asian.
    White countries are the ONLY countries to be affected by this.
    But, rather than genocide, the word that anti-Whites use to describe this program is “diversity.”
    Diversity means chasing down White flight.
    Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White.