It was early 2018 and Democrats as well as liberal advocates were in a panic.
They were terrified that the illegal Obama decree granting legal status and working permits to illegal immigrants brought here as children was about to expire. Given that the new president, Donald Trump, was not going to extend his predecessor’s executive order, the two million young people impacted were going to lose their resident status and once again face deportation.
They were desperate for a deal.
The illegal immigration lobby, to which Democrats cater, were demanding it. It placed Trump and the Republicans in a very commanding position. "Here is the deal," they said.
"If you want legality for these 800,000 to 2 million people, you will have to compromise and finally vote for a wall, E-Verify implementation, ending chain migration, the immigration lottery, and sanctuary cities."
Trump could have held out for all of it, but in a bizarre case of negotiating against himself (rather counterintuitive for someone who holds himself out as a great negotiator), he unilaterally threw into the mix a compromise on the compromise, which seemed like something the Democrats could not refuse.
In exchange for funding of the wall, the other Republican demands would be off the table, and not only would the DACA youth get legal status, but they would actually get citizenship, something Republican strategists believed to be electoral suicide.
Moreover, Trump offered to provide such status not just for the 800,000 Obama targeted, but for the entire 2 million.
It was a slam dunk for Democrats. They got what they wanted. No E-Verify.
They get to keep the sanctuary cities and chain migration. So how could they say no to this deal? Especially as the clock was ticking and about to relegate all the DACA youth into illegal status once again?
Well something big happened between the offer of this deal and signing on the bottom line.
To the rescue of the illegal immigration lobby came a single judge, William Alsup, from a San Francisco-based U.S. District Court. Remarkably, this lone judge placed an injunction on the president’s plans to let the illegal Obama edict sunset, and, instead, ruled that the blatantly unconstitutional order would be able to stay in effect until which time a definitive decision was made by the courts.
Given that this matter will eventually make its way up to the Supreme Court, it would take years before a final disposition was entered.
Game, set, and match for the Democrats! All the pressure was off.
There was no longer any need to compromise with Trump and the Republicans. We don’t need your stinkin’ wall, we’ve got a federal judge in our pocket and those DACA illegal aliens will be here for years as this winds its way through the judicial maze. Democrats were able to keep illegal alien youth in the country without having to compromise on anything.
What’s further galling about this matter is that Obama himself stated on 24 different occasions that he had no authority to effectuate such a policy without an act of Congress.
In essence, this single judge refused to allow an obviously illegal decree to sunset and enjoined an obviously legal directive from the current president from taking effect.
Perhaps the biggest insult to those advocating enforcement of our immigration laws occurred when the Supreme Court refused to hear an immediate appeal on this awful decision.
Instead, they said the case would have to schlep through the appellate courts and then work its way up to the Supreme Court, thereby ensuring that Obama’s self described illegal act would stay in effect for years to come.
Months earlier, we saw a single judge invalidate the president‘s travel ban order, the legality of which was later confirmed by the Supreme Court. And, just last month, another lone judge put a hold the president's authority to stop aliens from entering our country illegally for the purpose of seeking asylum.
Our nation simply can no longer afford to allow a process whereby one lawyer in a robe should be able to undo an election.
So here is the fix: Any case seeking to limit presidential authority must be brought directly to the Appellate Division, where three judges, not one, preside. And, as suggested in this column in the past, any decision by said Appeals Court limiting presidential power would have to immediately be taken up by the Supreme Court within thirty days of application.
The curtailing of presidential power is serious stuff. When abused, it has the makings of little by little subverting the will of the people. It's time we prevent a single judge from imposing their ideological world view on 325,000,000 other Americans.
Steve Levy, former New York state assemblyman, Suffolk County executive, and candidate for governor, is now a distinguished political pundit. Levy's commentary has been published in such media outlets as Washington Times, Washington Examiner, New York Post, Albany Times, Long Island Business News, and City & State Magazine. He hosted “The Steve Levy Radio Show" on Long Island News Radio, and is a frequent guest on high profile television and radio outlets. Few on the political scene possess Levy’s diverse background. He’s been both a legislator and executive, and served on both the state and local levels — as both a Democrat and Republican. Levy published Bias in the Media, an analysis of his own experience, after switching parties, with the media's leftward slant. Levy is currently Executive Director of the Center for Cost Effective Government, a fiscally conservative think tank. He is also President of Common Sense Strategies, a political consulting firm. To learn more about his past work and upcoming appearances, visit www.stevelevy.info. To read more of his reports — Click Here Now.
© 2021 Newsmax. All rights reserved.