Debate over President’s executive action on immigration policy at the American Enterprise Institute. From left to right Gary Schmitt, Ross Douthat, William Galston. (Ashley Gilmore/MNS)
WASHINGTON—How far can a president go without the consent of Congress?
President Barack Obama’s recent action to ease restrictions on undocumented immigrants’ who have children living the United States was the hot topic Monday at the American Enterprise Institute. The president issued on executive order to extend protection through renewable three-year work permits to approximately 5 million undocumented immigrants, almost half of the total undocumented immigrant population in the United States. The president left some people scratching their heads, not on the content of his decision but on his authority to do so (view speech here: bit.ly/1vvFObl ).
Ross Douthat of The New York Times and William Galston of Brookings Institution discussed the constitutionally of using executive action to set immigration policy.
Douthat stated his disagreement with the action saying, “I think it is very clear what the president has done is constitutionally inappropriate.” Douthat said the president’s decision is distinct from precedent set by previous presidents.
• Size: Obama’s decision affects an immense number of the undocumented population. In past uses of executive orders similar to this one
• Agreement Level: The topic of immigration is highly controversial in Congress and among Americans.
• Political Intention: Douthat claimed that the president’s intention with this decision was to gain political leverage in Congress.
Galston disagreed on the basis of consistency in the Obama administration on the understanding and practice of executive authority related to immigration policy.
• Consistency: The Obama administration is consistent with its understanding of executive order. The administration is also consistent with the government’s constitutional understanding of the role of the executive branch in immigration policy.
• Government structure: Because the separation of powers isn’t mapped neatly with the division of duties. it is an invitation for struggle between different branches of government. If one branch presents a strong action or lack of action on a serious issue another branch will respond.
“ I don’t think it is constitutionally inappropriate for the president to challenge Congress…” Galston said that expanding executive power can be checked by Congress.
