DACA's downfall means Constitution still matters
by DC Larson
It is no shock that President Donald Trump's decision to end DACA and give Congress six months to craft and pass suitable replacement legislation that respects our national sovereignty has prompted much controversy. There are, unfortunately, persons without productive lives who are certain to remonstrate against absolutely anything and everything issuing from the Trump Administration.
That given, it's simply a matter of common sense to disregard their
choreographed -- and, sometimes, George Soros-bankrolled -- sidewalk uproars. (When advocates of illegal immigration deride legal citizenship as being merely "a couple of papers," they illustrate that they neither comprehend documentary symbolism nor feel oblige to respect democratic law. Not attitudes any reasonable person would desire to import and indulge.)
In our governmental system, making and passing laws is the business of Congress, not of the executive branch. But, former President Barack Obama (having failed to find sufficient Congressional acquiescence for his 'transformational' skullduggery) dashed off DACA as a sort of autocratic royal proclamation -- the Constitution's explicitly established division of responsibilities between government bodies being of no apparent significance to him.
Trump's cancelling of the unconstitutional DACA, then, represents a welcome return to legal propriety and democratic good health.
For those hostile to Trump's action, several questions now call out for consideration.
Hypothetical one: Five years ago, Roy stole a blue car, in Philadelphia. Today, he is still driving it. Because five years have passed, is the car now legitimately Roy's, or does it remain stolen property?
Persons advocating that legal citizenship be accorded illegal immigrants sometimes argue that such has become their rightful due, as illegals may have not only lived for years in the U.S., but also contributed to the economy through the payment of taxes and in other ways.
They further insist that illegals brought into this country when they were children are without culpability, and know no other life, no other country.
Comes, then, another question.
Hypothetical two: After having stolen the blue, Philadelphia car, Roy gives it to Pete. Pete is aware that Roy had originally stolen the car. It is the only car Pete has ever had. And, over the course of several years of driving it and enjoying its benefits, Pete spent considerable cash on gas, oil, and general mechanical upkeep.
Do those factors make the car no longer the product of criminality, and somehow Pete's rightful property? Should the original, law-abiding owner of the blue, Philadelphia car simply absorb the loss, and effectively grant Roy and Pete amnesty from applicable laws and prosecution?
Would doing so be moral and ethical? Are laws and private property now to be dismissed as invalid concepts?
Doesn't a country have a sovereign right to maintain citizenship and immigration standards?
During the Obama presidency, the rancid fancy that laws should be either abided by or disregarded as befits individual circumstance or whim gained currency. By rightly crumpling Obama's unconstitutional DACA and casting it to the ground, President Trump acted in the best interests of American law, authority, and sovereignty.
end
by DC Larson
It is no shock that President Donald Trump's decision to end DACA and give Congress six months to craft and pass suitable replacement legislation that respects our national sovereignty has prompted much controversy. There are, unfortunately, persons without productive lives who are certain to remonstrate against absolutely anything and everything issuing from the Trump Administration.
That given, it's simply a matter of common sense to disregard their
choreographed -- and, sometimes, George Soros-bankrolled -- sidewalk uproars. (When advocates of illegal immigration deride legal citizenship as being merely "a couple of papers," they illustrate that they neither comprehend documentary symbolism nor feel oblige to respect democratic law. Not attitudes any reasonable person would desire to import and indulge.)
In our governmental system, making and passing laws is the business of Congress, not of the executive branch. But, former President Barack Obama (having failed to find sufficient Congressional acquiescence for his 'transformational' skullduggery) dashed off DACA as a sort of autocratic royal proclamation -- the Constitution's explicitly established division of responsibilities between government bodies being of no apparent significance to him.
Trump's cancelling of the unconstitutional DACA, then, represents a welcome return to legal propriety and democratic good health.
For those hostile to Trump's action, several questions now call out for consideration.
Hypothetical one: Five years ago, Roy stole a blue car, in Philadelphia. Today, he is still driving it. Because five years have passed, is the car now legitimately Roy's, or does it remain stolen property?
Persons advocating that legal citizenship be accorded illegal immigrants sometimes argue that such has become their rightful due, as illegals may have not only lived for years in the U.S., but also contributed to the economy through the payment of taxes and in other ways.
They further insist that illegals brought into this country when they were children are without culpability, and know no other life, no other country.
Comes, then, another question.
Hypothetical two: After having stolen the blue, Philadelphia car, Roy gives it to Pete. Pete is aware that Roy had originally stolen the car. It is the only car Pete has ever had. And, over the course of several years of driving it and enjoying its benefits, Pete spent considerable cash on gas, oil, and general mechanical upkeep.
Do those factors make the car no longer the product of criminality, and somehow Pete's rightful property? Should the original, law-abiding owner of the blue, Philadelphia car simply absorb the loss, and effectively grant Roy and Pete amnesty from applicable laws and prosecution?
Would doing so be moral and ethical? Are laws and private property now to be dismissed as invalid concepts?
Doesn't a country have a sovereign right to maintain citizenship and immigration standards?
During the Obama presidency, the rancid fancy that laws should be either abided by or disregarded as befits individual circumstance or whim gained currency. By rightly crumpling Obama's unconstitutional DACA and casting it to the ground, President Trump acted in the best interests of American law, authority, and sovereignty.
end
posted by DC Larson at
September 05, 2017
1 Comments:
Very good point, so often forgotten: That congress is the legislative branch, not the WH. And people should remember that a *policy* is not a *law* but, at best, an opinion about operations.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home