Two days ago, I posted on how if immigration law allows those three sisters who faced deportation to remain for a year, then those who favor rule of law should be satisfied. After all, if it is rule of law they want, and this is within rule of law, then why not be happy?
I confess, though, to wondering whether the law does, indeed, allow for the three sisters to stay. If it doesn't, then I do not favor what happened. I wonder how the law is set up. Does it simply give ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) authority to deport, leaving it to the agency to come up with its own rules, exemptions and exceptions?
Or does the law say all people who overstay their visas will be deported, period?
The legislative branch should legislate, not the executive. I sometimes wonder if the Obama Administration operates too much by executive decree. I don't know that, but wonder, and wish I had time to look into it.
I don't know that Obama is any more at fault than past or aspiring presidents, though. Seems I remember hearing of Romney planning to curb Obamacare the day he takes office, returning the maximum power possible to the states.
Romney would do that by executive decree. I wonder how an act passed by Congress can be set aside, even in part, unless Congress or the Supreme Court is the power setting it aside.
No comments:
Post a Comment