Written by Armando Chapelliquen   

The news is rapidly spreading about the Obama Administration’s decision to alter its Immigration strategy. Specifically, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will no longer focus its energy on deporting young illegal immigrants (those under age 30 who came to this country before age 16, have been here 5 years, and are working, in school, or serving in the military). Rather, the DHS will focus more of its resources on criminal actions committed by illegal immigrants.

Let’s be clear here: everyone realizes that this is not solely a “humanitarian moment” as Sen. Durbin (D-Ill.) has claimed. It’s the same slithering beast that has come to be wrongfully known as “politics”. That being said, it seems important to provide some hard truths to the high aspirations of Latino supporters as well as to the GOP critics, whose statements alone warrant more careful attention.

Interestingly enough, the divide comes from two GOP VP hopefuls. On the one hand, there is Sen. Steve King of Iowa saying that this measure “signifies to potential illegal aliens that border agents will turn a blind eye”. On the other hand, you have the more moderate response from Latino VP-hopeful Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida.

“Today’s announcement will be welcome news for many of these kids desperate for an answer, but it is a short-term answer to a long-term problem,” said the Cuban American Senator. “And 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.”

There is a lot to unpack from both of these statements, as well as Obama’s own sincerity in this newest action. However, it is first necessary to establish a simple fact. Many Americans, including many within the coveted Latino electorate, believe that President Obama has done little to address the immigration problem, either by supporting the DREAM Act or securing the border. The Arizona immigration law and the weakly answered attacks by Republicans have not helped rectify this depiction (After all, if you were President Obama, would you really wish to alienate one of the communities that sealed your victory in 2008?). The truth is, Obama’s immigration policy has lead to higher deportation rates than under President George W. Bush. Simply put, the rhetoric of Obama “not doing anything” about the immigration problem in a way that appeases conservatives is completely false.

So how does this latest policy decision factor in to the larger administrative stance? Quite frankly, it doesn’t. Anyone who has actually looked at the numbers of deportations and backtracking by the administration on the issue of immigration see that this is a move meant to put Republicans on the defensive and potentially divide the party. By that measure, early responses seem to indicate that it worked.

However, what about President Obama’s blatant ignoring of the Constitution, specifically the separation of powers? The funny thing about the Constitution is that it only gets invoked by the party not in power. Plenty of Democrats and progressives slammed Bush for the Patriot Act and the illegality of the Iraq War, but that is neither here nor there. The point is, Obama did not issue this policy order via legally binding law or executive order. It is simply a re-orientation of DHS resources. This is good and bad news for those happy about the administration’s decision. It is good news because it provides a temporary window of opportunity. However, it is also bad news because it provides a temporary window of opportunity. This policy is no replacement for law passed through the appropriate channels. Furthermore, the hands of Congress are far from tied. If Congress as a whole is as outraged at this maneuver by the President, it can be easily rectified: either impeach DHS officials who follow this directive, impeach the President of the United States for allegedly breaking the Constitution, or pass a bill that explicitly forbids the enactment of this policy. When President Obama vetoes the bill (as he obviously would), override the veto with a 2/3 supermajority. Have at it.

It is strange how many critics are crying bloody murder on the President for circumventing the Constitution when there was just as significant of a policy directive being performed by the President of the United States announced in the past few days, namely the power to decide on names for a Presidential Kill List. Instead of invocations of the constitutional negligence by the GOP, we get treated to frustration with there being a leak in the first place.

The fact of the matter is that the politicians on both sides are picking which battles to play up. The immigration redirection by the Obama administration may result in some temporary opportunities for young illegal immigrants but it does not solve the immigration problem. Additionally, it does not change the fact that Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than his predecessors. As for the constitutionality issue, Congress has avenues to remedy any Presidential foul play. Whether they do so or not will be largely determined by how the public reacts. If the power to kill any person, including citizens, without due process is not enough to rouse a massive campaign to restrict presidential authority, I am not sure this issue will.

Armando Chapelliquen is a recent graduate of Moravian College, where he graduated summa cum laude and received Honors in Political Science and Philosophy for his undergraduate thesis, "Huntington, Impact, and Occupy: The Makings of a New Global Paradigm". His current work revolves heavily around running UnSilentMajority.Org, a site committed to bringing new voices and perspectives to the larger political discourse in the United States and around the world.