The Presidential Pen

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

It appears that President Obama was indeed serious about his using executive power to enact policies he has decided are what he wants to do, without all of the messy details of Congress and the United States Constitution.

What is troubling above and beyond that reality is what he has chosen as his first action on that promise.

You may read it, in its entirety from the Federal Register here.

In quick and cursory summation, the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department now say that people considered to have provided "limited material support" to terrorists or terrorist groups are no longer automatically barred from the United States.

Here is the pertinent excerpt, with the emphasis that of the Madison Conservative:

Following consultations with the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State have determined that the grounds of inadmissibility at section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B), bar certain aliens who do not pose a national security or public safety risk from admission to the United States and from obtaining immigration benefits or other status. Accordingly, consistent with prior exercises of the exemption authority, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Attorney General, hereby conclude, as a matter of discretion in accordance with the authority granted by INA section 212(d)(3)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(3)(B)(i), as amended, as well as the foreign policy and national security interests deemed relevant in these consultations, that paragraphs 212(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(bb) and (dd) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(bb) and (dd), shall not apply with respect to an alien who provided limited material support to an organization described in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III), or to a member of such an organization, or to an individual described in section 212(a)(3)(B)((iv)(VI)(bb) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(iv)(VI)(bb),

There are many within the body politic, primarily on the republican right, who are hyperventilating on how the President, by taking this unilateral action, is somehow aiding and abetting the easy access to this nation by terrorists.

That could be understood as a valid interpretation, but it would be wrong.

Before proceeding with the analysis, it is important to consider the lessons of history.

To wit:

Almost 70 years ago, General George S. Paton employed former members of the Nazi party to aid in the management of Germany as it attempted to rebuild in the aftermath of the Second World War. His reasoning was that they understood their own country and its particular needs, and membership in the Nazi party was a requirement of the citizenry. He saw no difference between being a forced member of the Nazi party and an American being a registered Republican or Democrat. His reasoning cost him his command, and surely he had not fully thought out his remarks on the subject.

All that being duly noted, the issue here is an individuals personal history, and what the may or may not have done in their native land that could be properly interpreted as being the actions of one who is ‘Anti-American’, and part of an organization labeled by our government as a terrorist organization.

There is a fine line distinction here that must be addressed, but sadly the President, in his solipsistic arrogance, has chosen to ignore for whatever his intentions may be.

Each immigrant should be judged on their own merit within the framework of established norms and basic common sense

President Obama has actually made that option more difficult for all future immigrants by unilaterally taking this executive action.

The Congress will no doubt reflexively attempt to expand the lack of common sense in the immigration process and thus create more individuals here who linger in a grey legal state.

If this was to be his first action on using ‘his pen and his phone’, the nation would have been much better served if he had spoken of this issue at greater length and in depth during his State of the Union speech, making his case in such a way that the Congress would have passed appropriate language changing the law within the framework of the Constitution.

His heavy handed approach serves no ones best interest but his own political short sighted needs.

America and her citizenry deserve better and must demand it.