Immigration Vote Was About the Law

Statement

When the Federal Convention gathered at Independence Hall in 1787, the great minds of a generation engaged in discussions that resulted in a compromise we now know as the Constitution of the United States. That document has guided "We the People" through disagreements for over 200 years. Central to that success is Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, which states the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," and Article I, Section 1, which states that, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States."

That debate about the separation of powers is as relevant today as ever due to President Obama's actions on immigration -- actions even he repeatedly admitted were outside his authority. This month, I weighed in on the debate by supporting amendments to the Homeland Security appropriations bill that defunded the president's overreaching actions and declared they should have no legal effect because they violated the separation of powers as defined in the Constitution.

Opinion Editor Jon Alexander's recent column in the Times-News criticized my vote as an attack on children and even went so far as to suggest it was counter to my previous statements on immigration. I disagree with this assertion and appreciate the opportunity to explain why. This vote was about protecting the powers granted to the legislative branch against an ever growing executive branch that has been inappropriately expanding its reach for decades.

I also respectfully disagree with Alexander's assertion that the separation of powers issue is a "bogus" excuse for voting in support of the amendments. I can't support the president creating temporary actions outside the legal framework that provide vast uncertainty in our immigration process. However, if the issue is about fixing the problem through comprehensive immigration reform in a legal and permanent way, then the Times-News and I stand on similar ground.

I understand that many people are frustrated with the inability of Congress to pass meaningful immigration reform to this point. Frankly, I share their concerns and hope that Congress will lead the way with a permanent solution. However, the President's actions on this issue are a dangerous precedent, and it isn't the first time he has acted outside his authority to unilaterally change the law. From changing Obamacare where he sees fit to using the EPA to expand federal jurisdiction over water, the President's use of Executive actions to do that which should only be done through Congress should be concerning to everyone. It makes me believe that these efforts are more of a political tactic then an attempt to solve the problem.

Immigration reform is a difficult and complex issue that won't be resolved without courage in Congress and a commitment among all parties to find a reasonable compromise. Compromise is not a dirty word. While our nation stands deeply divided on this issue, we almost all agree that improving upon the status quo shouldn't be that difficult. I join many of my Republican and Democrat colleagues who believe any immigration package must lead with strong border security measures. I also recognize that we need to overhaul our guest worker programs and address the issue of legal status for those who are working and living in our local communities. The President's actions have only served to undermine the legislative process and create more uncertainty, potentially derailing reform. What this country needs is a comprehensive, permanent, and most importantly, legal solution.

Source