In 2014, President Obama announced broad executive action to change the way the United States deals with illegal immigrants.. The action contained various clauses, but the most controversial were the ones involving the deferment of deportation for an estimated 4 million illegal immigrants. Responses to this executive action varied, with some in favor, and others vehemently opposed. This action raises both moral and legal questions regarding the responsibilities of the president and the limits of executive power, however I argue that it is impossible to definitively determine whether or not the action was justified because there are many equally legitimate yet opposing arguments both for and against President Obama’s executive action.
One moral …show more content…
While there is much debate regarding the legality of his actions, there is no question that with this action the president’s intent is to follow his conscience. The executive action specifically targets the illegal parents of citizens or green-card holders for deferred deportation in an unsubtle attempt to keep families together. Removed from his presidential obligation, there are few who would question the morality of this decision. However, if the president’s primary duty is to uphold the law, do his executive responsibilities take priority over his personal moral obligations? here are certainly some who would say that moral concerns override legal obligation, and undoubtedly some who would say the opposite. Unfortunately, moral questions are largely a matter of opinion and perspective, and two people can and do have wildly different opinions, neither of which can be unilaterally dismissed as illegitimate.
Naturally, there is also the question of whether or not President Obama’s executive action was even legal. As the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court functions as the ultimate arbiter of legality. Once the Supreme Court rules, the matter is considered settled. However, it would be naive to imagine the Supreme Court as an entirely objective body. The court consists of nine people, each with their own biases and ideologies, the makeup of which …show more content…
In a nation as proud of its democracy as the United States, the opinion of the people is arguably the most significant. By that logic, popular support for a president’s actions retroactively justifies them. A couple of months after President Obama announced his action both the The National Review and The Hill released polls on the subject. The National Review’s article was entitled “Poll: Large Majority of Americans Oppose Obama’s Immigration Actions”, which contrasts with The Hill’s article “Poll: Majority backs Obama on immigration”. I am not a statistician, but I’m fairly certain that the majority of Americans cannot oppose Obama’s immigration actions, and also back Obama’s immigration actions. And because I am not a statistician, I also cannot assess the validity of these polls. I am certain that at least one, and probably both of them is faulty in some way. These conflicting polls represent the difficulty in assessing the popular opinion regarding any political action. Although it is seemingly straightforward, even divining the will of the people creates ambiguity, and makes deciding whether or not the president overstepped a matter of choosing which piece of presumably biased media to accept and which to
One moral …show more content…
While there is much debate regarding the legality of his actions, there is no question that with this action the president’s intent is to follow his conscience. The executive action specifically targets the illegal parents of citizens or green-card holders for deferred deportation in an unsubtle attempt to keep families together. Removed from his presidential obligation, there are few who would question the morality of this decision. However, if the president’s primary duty is to uphold the law, do his executive responsibilities take priority over his personal moral obligations? here are certainly some who would say that moral concerns override legal obligation, and undoubtedly some who would say the opposite. Unfortunately, moral questions are largely a matter of opinion and perspective, and two people can and do have wildly different opinions, neither of which can be unilaterally dismissed as illegitimate.
Naturally, there is also the question of whether or not President Obama’s executive action was even legal. As the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court functions as the ultimate arbiter of legality. Once the Supreme Court rules, the matter is considered settled. However, it would be naive to imagine the Supreme Court as an entirely objective body. The court consists of nine people, each with their own biases and ideologies, the makeup of which …show more content…
In a nation as proud of its democracy as the United States, the opinion of the people is arguably the most significant. By that logic, popular support for a president’s actions retroactively justifies them. A couple of months after President Obama announced his action both the The National Review and The Hill released polls on the subject. The National Review’s article was entitled “Poll: Large Majority of Americans Oppose Obama’s Immigration Actions”, which contrasts with The Hill’s article “Poll: Majority backs Obama on immigration”. I am not a statistician, but I’m fairly certain that the majority of Americans cannot oppose Obama’s immigration actions, and also back Obama’s immigration actions. And because I am not a statistician, I also cannot assess the validity of these polls. I am certain that at least one, and probably both of them is faulty in some way. These conflicting polls represent the difficulty in assessing the popular opinion regarding any political action. Although it is seemingly straightforward, even divining the will of the people creates ambiguity, and makes deciding whether or not the president overstepped a matter of choosing which piece of presumably biased media to accept and which to