Writing in the Arena, James Pinkerton compared the this week's lower court ruling on the Arizona immigration enforcement law to, well, I'll let him tell it:
Smart lawyers and judges get together to short-circuit the political process. Having thwarted public opinion, the legal elites high-five each other for their cleverness. Where have we seen this before? Oh yes, I remember: Roe v. Wade.
That seemed overblown to me. Immigration is an issue that is fraught with a lot more moral ambiguity than abortion. Americans view abortion as either wrong or not wrong, on a sliding scale. Their view of the morality of abortion affects how they think of the law.
Immigration is a different story. Sorting through various polls, we can see that the American people seem to want a better legal immigration system, real enforcement of immigration law to disincentivize illegal immigration, and better mechanisms in place to Americanize newcomers. They don't want any sort of amnesty for current illegals until the federal government can prove it has control of immigrant in-flows.
Therefore, I thought, though Americans -- especially Arizonans -- will be annoyed with the lower court ruling, they won't treat it in quite the same way as a Supreme Court ruling that made abortion-on-demand the law of the land in all 50 states.
That still makes sense to me, except that the Obama administration, following in the footsteps of the Bush administration, seems hell bent on antagonizing a clear majority of voters over this issue. Robert VerBruggen reports on the Corner:
According to an internal U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services memo going the rounds of Capitol Hill and obtained by National Review, the agency is considering ways in which it could enact “meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action” — that is, without the consent of the American people through a vote in Congress.
“This memorandum offers administrative relief options to . . . reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization,” it reads.
Also: “In the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place, deferred action and the issuance of Notices to Appear (NTA), and adopting significant process improvements.”
That's sure to go over like a lead balloon come November.
--------------------------------------------
Follow the RCP Blog on Twitter.
Become a fan of RCP on Facebook.
--------------------------------------------
