The separation of powers is not the only significant constitutional matter at stake in the debate about President Obama’s decision to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. In contention as well are the contours of representative government itself.
Shikha Dalmia and Reihan Salam debate the politics and economics of immigration reform.
Covering a story about society and culture? Here’s the latest from AEI’s Society and Culture experts.
The left does not want to acknowledge a fundamental conflict between two of its favorite ideological goals — more immigration and reduced income equality.
Will the approximately five million undocumented immigrants covered by the President’s action be eligible to receive welfare benefits? And if so, how much will those benefits cost?
President Obama’s real immigration goal is twofold: Cement Latinos into the Democratic coalition and force Republicans to overreact.
Obama is not acting to help illegal immigrants. He is acting to provoke the GOP.
President Obama’s unilateral action on immigration policy has drawn a withering response from Republicans as well as Democrats. Some question the legality of the Obama’s action while others fear that it might create a precedent for future presidents.
While some are hailing Obama’s executive order as a necessary action in a stalled political system, others are calling it a drastic overreach beyond the scope of presidential power.
By allowing as many as 5 million illegal aliens into the United States for the remainder of his term, Obama is violating the Constitution and Congress, and the courts must respond.
One of the pillars of our constitutional form of government is a separation of powers, vesting in Congress the power to legislate and in the Presidency the duty to faithfully execute the law. However, by executive fiat this past Thursday, President Obama obliterated that pillar and circumvented safeguards that provide order to our republic.