In the wake of President Obama’s announcement that his administration would suspend deportation of certain younger immigrants who came to this country as children, Fox News and a phalanx of Republican lawmakers rushed to characterize the plan as a violation of the law and a breach of the constitutional separation of powers. Never mind the fact that the immigrants affected by this initiative never broke any law, and that their immigration status would be technically unchanged, the panicked martinets of virtue on the right are aghast at what they perceive as an immoral grant of amnesty.
One notable exception to this is the CEO of News Corp, Rupert Murdoch. Along with fellow captains of commerce, Klaus Kleinfeld of Alcoa and Philippe Dauman of Viacom, Murdoch released a statement applauding the President’s action:
“We hope this prompts Congress to reach agreement on common-sense immigration policies that reflect American labor market needs and American values. Young people who had no choice over coming to this country, have grown up here and now want to become productive members of our society should not be treated like criminals.”
Yep, Rupert Murdoch said that. What’s interesting is that Murdoch’s statement stands in stark contrast to what some of his own employees at Fox News are saying on the subject. This has set off a battle over deportation, but it’s more of battle between Fox News with it’s boss, than with President Obama.
Sarah Palin: Our president still doesn’t understand the three branches of government. He thinks he can usurp the Congressional branch of our government and dictate and mandate a policy like this.
Charles Krauthammer: Beyond the pandering, beyond the politics, beyond the process is simple constitutional decency. This is out-and-out lawlessness.
Monica Crowley: It’s such a naked politically pandering move […] a breathtaking power grab by the president.
And the Republican parade of circular kneejerkers predictably piled on with hyperbolic accusations of political opportunism and illegality, beginning with the President’s GOP opponent who falsely describes the policy as an executive order.
Mitt Romney: I think the action that the president took today makes it more difficult to reach [a] long term solution because an executive order is of course just a short term matter.
Steve King (R-IA): Americans should be outraged that President Obama is planning to usurp the Constitutional authority of the United States Congress and grant amnesty by edict to 1 million illegal aliens.
Allen West (R-FL): Is this one of those backdoor opportunities to allow people in the next five months to get the opportunity to vote? Will we see Janet Napolitano and the President come out with a new edict that says since we allow these people to be here legally, we’re now going to allow them to vote? How far down the rabbit hole will it go?
Marco Rubio (R-FL): By once again ignoring the Constitution and going around Congress, this short term policy will make it harder to find a balanced and responsible long term one.
Dan Coats (R-IN): The administration’s unilateral decision today to give amnesty to certain illegal immigrants is not the answer.
Chuck Grassley (R-IA): The President’s action is an affront to the process of representative government by circumventing Congress and with a directive he may not have the authority to execute.
Lamar Smith (R-TX): President Obama and his administration once again have put partisan politics and illegal immigrants ahead of the rule of law and the American people.
Lindsey Graham (R-SC): President Obama’s attempt to go around Congress and the American people is at best unwise and possibly illegal.
By condemning the President in this manner, all of these stalwart, conservative politicians and pundits are also condemning their primary media benefactor, Rupert Murdoch, who supports Obama’s decision. It would be fun to ask Murdoch for his response to the charge that he advocates the unconstitutional usurpation of tyrannical powers on behalf of foreign criminals invading the country to steal our jobs. Especially when some of those making the charge work for him.
What’s worse is that the charges flying wildly from conservative ranks are wholly erroneous and irresponsible. There can be no constitutional infraction of law when there is no change in law whatsoever. The President is merely exercising the same sort prosecutorial discretion that is practiced everyday by the Justice Department and attorney generals in every state. And the charge that this policy is a path to amnesty or citizenship ignores the fact that there is no change at all in the legal status of those affected. Leading the way in delusional diatribes, as usual, is Allen West, who manages to squeeze a voter fraud conspiracy out of this issue.
Some of the President’s critics are decrying the policy shift as “political.” The problem with that complaint is that anything the President does between now and election day could be characterized as political. If he were to commit military resources to the Syrian rebels, whose need is dire, Republicans would denounce it as politically timed. The same criticism would emerge were he to greenlight the KeystoneXL pipeline, an action favored by the GOP. It literally wouldn’t matter what the issue is, the right would attack it as politics.
The truth is that the charge of politicization is itself political. It is the last resort of a critic who is unable to make any substantive criticism. And, in the end, what’s really wrong with political decision making? Isn’t it just the execution of policy that pleases a constituency? And isn’t it the role of public servants to produce the results that the public wants?
Let’s face it, this is just another example of President Obama being unable to do anything that will satisfy his critics. By taking affirmative steps on an important matter, Obama is accused of being political. Were he not to take such steps he would be accused of neglecting the duties of his office. In effect, the right is insisting that no president do anything of significance during an election year. Of course, if that were to occur that president would be maligned for being more interested in campaigning than governing. Lose/lose.
For the past three and a half years the Republicans have demonstrated their preference for legislative stalemate rather than risk the President achieving something positive for the nation and getting credit for doing so. They are putting their own electoral welfare and lust for power above that of the country, and that, more than anything else, is political.
