Editorial: Obama imposes immigration reform, but at a high cost
As part of our coverage of President Barack Obama's executive actions last week on illegal immigration, we published reaction from the suburban delegation in Congress.
Most of that reaction was predictable.
Democrats were unanimously supportive. Rep. Bill Foster of Naperville, for instance: "We have ignored our broken immigration system for too long, and I am pleased that the president is taking action to improve our immigration system and provide temporary relief for some families."
Republicans were unanimously opposed. Representatives Peter Roskam of Wheaton and Randy Hultgren of Plano got together, in fact, to issue a joint statement: "President Obama's plan to ignore the Constitution and circumvent Congress is a lawless move that will ultimately do much more harm than good."
On the issue of immigration reform itself, we tend to sympathize more with the Foster view than with the Roskam-Hultgren outrage.
There's no question that the immigration system is broken. Beyond that, practically speaking, it's not realistic to think that the government was suddenly going to start deporting millions of our neighbors - particularly those who obeyed our laws after they arrived.
To those, like Roskam and Hultgren, who suggest Obama is running amok, we offer a couple of thoughts. Yes, the relentless expansion of presidential power merits attention, but let's not single Obama out; both parties have been part of expanding it once they claim the White House.
To put things in at least some perspective, let's remember that President Gerald Ford offered conditional amnesty to Vietnam draft dodgers without consulting Congress, and his successor President Jimmy Carter granted blanket pardons to them to fulfill a campaign promise on his first day in office. No one labeled either of them dictators.
All that said, we're disappointed that rather than choosing a new opportunity for collaboration, the president inexplicably chose confrontation instead. Immigration reform is an issue that offers the common ground that Obama, the candidate, used to speak so lovingly of pursuing. With Republicans soon to be in control of both the House and Senate, Obama had a chance to reach out in a spirit of compromise. Instead, he chose to throw down the gauntlet and then sanctimoniously accuse the other party of partisanship.
Of all the observations by our delegation in Congress, Sen. Mark Kirk of Highland Park offered the one that sums up our sentiments best:
"By driving over Congress and handling this issue the partisan way, the president has dimmed his ability of getting the votes he wanted for a bipartisan solution that includes border security."
Well said, Senator. Well said.