With a decision that will keep about 800,000 people from deportation in the next two years, President Obama announced Friday, illegal immigrants who came to the United States with their parents will be able to stay in the country.

His policy on the matter is controversial to those concerned about the president’s potential overreach on the issue and those who believe the United States must limit illegal immigration.

Critics argue the president’s actions override the Constitution. But there is little evidence that supports the argument that the United States should limit the immigration of children who hardly had any say in the decision of whether or not to enter the country.

Those who still want to deport and harshly deal with illegal immigrant children seem to forget that the children had little say in whether or not to immigrate. The United States has historically opened its borders to those seeking refuge or asylum. The chance of citizenship is a way to balance the high odds of being born into poverty, especially because we cannot control where we are born, who our parents are or our economic conditions.

Critics of Obama’s plans include many in the Republican Party who have historically opposed offering benefits to children of illegal immigrants. Obama’s position is directly opposite, though. In his speech Friday, he said these immigrants were Americans but were not recognized on paper. “We are a better nation than one that expels innocent young kids,” he said.

Illegal immigrants pay into social security and pay other taxes that are expected of American citizens. Their contributions to the country often amount to the same as those of citizens. Denying citizenship to or deporting those who came with their parents illegally is unjust.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) stated, “This huge policy shift has horrible consequences for unemployed Americans looking for jobs and violates President Obama’s oath to uphold the laws of this land.” Smith tries to tie this policy to a loss of job availability, but evidence does not point to an increase in illegal immigrant employment causing direct decrease in employment of the native-born population.

Smith and other Republicans believe the move by Obama is politically driven. “President Obama and his administration once again have put partisan politics and illegal immigrants ahead of the rule of law and the American people,” Smith said.

Going forward, Republicans must determine their official stance on immigration. There is no one clear position. Mitt Romney argued for “self-deportation” in a GOP debate. Others like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) have favored expanding rights of illegal immigrant children. He said, “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.”

Fellow Republican Romney said “With regards to these kids who were brought in by their parents through no fault of their own, there needs to be a long-term solution so they know what their status is.”

A long-term solution is necessary. For that to happen, Congress must act. Obama has used his power to direct immigration authorities to prioritize the deportation of any illegal immigrant who poses a threat.

He has not violated the Constitution. It is within his power to direct other executive branch agencies. He made a similar directive with the Defense of Marriage Act when he told the Justice Department not to prosecute violators of the Act.

Rubio supports measures in the DREAM act that have been avoided by most Republicans in Congress. The interesting divide among prominent members of the Republican Party suggests immigration may become a larger issue as the election continues.

Harmen Rockler is a senior newspaper journalism and political science major. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at horockle@syr.edu.

Published on June 18, 2012 at 2:04 pm