I wrote the other day that if the Supreme Court validates Obama’s lawless amnesty decrees, much of immigration law will effectively be rendered null and void. I was referring to the many criteria for admission and exclusion, which Obama claims he can ignore at will.
Of course he’s already ignoring much of the law anyway, choosing not to enforce the law against virtually all illegal aliens under the pretext of “prosecutorial discretion.” (The Supreme Court case is about Obama’s attempt to go the next step and formally award them work permits and Social Security accounts.)
The Democratic candidates in last night’s debate suggested Obama was too strict on immigration, and tried to outdo each other in pledging to gut the law even further.
Underlying the pandering to Univision’s audience is a principle that needs to be exposed in the coming campaign. That is that the Democratic party now seems to formally view violation of the immigration law as a “secondary offense”. To illustrate: In some states, you can be cited for not wearing your seat belt, but you can’t be pulled over just for that. There needs to be some other, primary, offense — like speeding or whatnot — to justify the traffic stop, and then, if you’re also not wearing your seat belt, you can get an additional ticket for that.