By Ian Smith
Friday, January 27, 2017
In 1973, John Lennon and Yoko Ono held a press conference
to publicize the former Beatle’s ongoing deportation battle with the
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) under the Nixon administration.
The two used the occasion to announce the founding of “deferred action,” the
controversial form of administrative relief from deportation that purportedly
undergirds the Obama-legacy DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals)
program. (Interestingly, William F. Buckley Jr. petitioned in Lennon’s favor at
Ono’s request, according to WFB’s son, Christopher Buckley, an intervention
that may have helped persuade the Nixon administration to allow Lennon to stay.)
With DACA currently the subject of a coordinated nationwide media campaign by
open-borders activists, it is more important than ever to understand the
lawless use of deferred-action programs by the previous administration.
Allowing DACA and its abuse of deferred action to continue could make Lennon’s
“cosmic” concept come true, turning the American nation from one ruled by law
to one ruled by nutty Nutopians.
Obama created the DACA amnesty program in reaction to a
supposed “gridlock” in Congress over the DREAM (Development, Relief, and
Education for Alien Minors) Act, the mass-amnesty bill for illegal aliens under
30 that has been rejected no less than 24 times since 2001, when it was
introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch. DACA closely copied the central elements and
criteria of the insipidly titled bill, from its sentimental focus on “children”
to its requirement that applicants have a high-school-equivalency diploma.
Trying to find a legal justification where none existed
in the U.S. Code, Obama premised DACA’s “temporary” relief from deportation on
the executive’s ability to prosecute only a few offenders, given the
government’s “limited resources.” This authority, so-called prosecutorial
discretion, refers to the priorities criminal prosecutors sometimes must adopt
when they cannot try every criminal act brought to their attention by police.
Federal prosecutors decline to prosecute only in limited circumstances and —
crucially — only on a case-by-case basis. By contrast, Obama’s DACA program
doles out amnesty in blanket fashion to applicants broadly fitting the rejected
DREAM Act’s criteria.
John Lennon was disqualified for permanent-resident
status (rendering him removable) for his 1968 British conviction for possession
of cannabis resin. As John related in his affidavit, his arguments for
receiving deferred action were particular and convincing. His wife, Yoko, had
been a 25-year legal permanent resident in the U.S., and the two had moved
stateside from the U.K. to search for Yoko’s daughter after she was abducted by
Yoko’s first husband. A forced return or a separation from John would have
disrupted that effort and risked the health of Yoko, who was pregnant at the
time of the proceedings. In addition, Lennon had significant business interests
and contacts in the U.S. that, if disrupted, would have harmed his music
career.
Such a close factual determination was necessarily absent
from DACA. The nearly 1 million applicants fitting its broad criteria could of
course petition on their own and did not have to be in removal proceedings,
where such case-by-case determinations are properly made.
Also important is that prosecutorial priorities are not
usually announced by prosecutors
beforehand. As liberal law professor (and immigration attorney) Peter Margulies
writes, the decision to exercise discretion in dealing with wrongdoers
necessarily must be done “in the dark,” not out in the open (as in a nationwide
memo in the DACA amnesty). To announce such an intent creates “moral hazard” —
the increase in law-breaking that arises when the perpetrator knows the
wrongdoing will be consequence-free.
Lennon’s case was precedential in large part owing to the
government’s normal lack of transparency inherent in its discretion-based
decisions. For the first time, the INS was forced to publicly admit that a
deferred-action policy existed, one that it had been refusing to apply in his
case for political reasons supposedly going all the way up to Nixon.
Congress has since dramatically curbed the discretion the
INS was purporting to hold at the time of the Lennon removal litigation. A
number of provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act now describe in
detail when removal relief can be granted. For instance, refugees, asylum
seekers, and domestic-abuse victims can seek such relief. And in cases of
“extreme hardship,” even illegal aliens can be provided relief. The secretary
of the Department of Homeland Security also has the authority to “parole”
illegal aliens into the country for “urgent humanitarian reasons,” but only if
an individualized case-by-case, fact-based inquiry is conducted. All of this
points to Obama’s purported authority to grant amnesty to whomever he wants as
being unlawful.
Undergirding the argument of pro-DACA, no-borders
activists is always mere poetics, not closely considered policy. But policy
based on poetics necessarily fails to examine the effects of its consequences
on everyone who is affected, such as American citizens in immigrant-heavy job
markets. These post-national globalists simply cannot appreciate that
independent nation-states as organizational units have actually been widely
successful in preserving communities and elevating the lives of working people.
Without borders, these benefits will be trampled. Whether we stick to civic
nationalism or wait passively for the catastrophic consequences of our baser
Nutopian urges is now up to we the people.
No comments:
Post a Comment