By Douglas V. Gibbs
For Democrats, immigration is a losing issue. They have placed their lust for power ahead of truth, America’s best interests, the voices of the voters, and reality itself. The Democrats seem to be compelled to stand against what’s best for America and continuously scream for open borders and no deportation while blindly losing grasp of the difference between those who cross the border illegally, and immigrants who followed the proper protocols.
The word “immigrant” has become synonymous for anyone and everyone who comes into the country – legally, or illegally; law-abiding, or not; any and all criminal aliens, terrorists and international spies. They’re all simply “immigrants” in the eyes of the Democrats.
Donald J. Trump was thrust into the presidency due to his strong stance on immigration back in 2015. His famous line about building a great, big, beautiful wall was the promise that caught my Mexican-born and American-naturalized wife’s attention and had her turn to me in 2015 and say, “That’s my guy.” Democrats lost that election largely due to Trump’s promise to execute immigration laws, and then they doubled down on their immigration stance during Biden’s presidency. Now, they’ve tripled down and are calling for abolishing ICE, ending even the deportations of criminal aliens, and have decided even the use of violence against federal immigration personnel is a reasonable way to handle things.
Democrats don’t seem to understand that immigration is one of those policies that is sinking their ship. President Biden faced a 64.8% disapproval on his immigration policies. Since then, the Democrats have stormed ICE facilities, had margaritas with a criminal alien deported to El Salvador, and have tried to injure and kill immigration officers with their vehicles, fists, and guns. Top Democrats have screamed into the microphone about how racist Trump’s immigration policies are, casting themselves as political martyrs and promising to open the borders if ever they return to power.
The Democrats do not wish to enforce immigration law. They are globalist Marxists who desire the worldwide removal of national borders and any national sovereignty. They believe in an imaginary Lennonesque world where we are this great big brotherhood of man, and if we would only get to know each other we’d all live in peace picking daisies and skipping down the communist road together. Reality, however, disagrees.
This is why when Pennsylvania Democratic congressional candidate Dr. Ala Stanford was asked who should enforce immigration laws if Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was abolished, she didn’t know how to answer. She knew it would be political suicide if she said that there should be no enforcement whatsoever. That’s the answer the Democrats are telling us, however. If they abolish ICE, if they abolish Border Patrol, and if they create an America with an open border while letting anyone who makes their way into this country vote so that they can stay in power forever, there will be absolutely no immigration enforcement.
Stanford’s response to the question was, “It’s a good question, and you can pause because I just want to think about it for a minute.” She had no immediate answer. She knew she couldn’t admit the truth, but at the same time it would go against her party’s narrative if she named an agency, any agency, as being allowed to enforce immigration law, and she’d be gone faster than Eric Swalwell.
The Democrats have dug themselves into a hole. They pushed to defund the police, and now that they backed off from it publicly (trust me, they still want to replace police officers with social workers – it’s the Marxist thing to do) they have also been pushing the sanctuary policy talking point that local authorities must not enforce immigration, nor even cooperate with federal authorities regarding immigration in any way. That means no coordination. No communication. If an illegal alien is picked up on a DUI stop, and they discover that the driver is an illegal alien, the Democrats don’t want the state or local police to even pick up the phone to tell any federal agency that they have a federal fugitive in custody.
So, that means immigration law must be only enforced by the federal government, which is the constitutional answer – but they want to abolish ICE and abolish Border Patrol. So then, who does indeed enforce immigration law? The answer is clear. Nobody.
Stanford realized she could not say, “nobody.”
When the interviewer told Stanford that a pause in the interview was not possible, Stanford said that the authority to enforce immigration law should shift away from the White House. “Not the executive branch,” Stanford said. “So, not the president. So, it belongs with Congress.”
Stanford went on to criticize the Trump administration, accusing the president of enforcing immigration laws for political reasons rather than public safety.
“It belongs with Congress because the executive branch, and specifically the president, is self-serving and many of the decisions that he is making is not about the American people, is not about our safety,” Stanford said.
The interviewer pressed, following up by noting that immigration laws and border enforcement would still exist even if ICE were dismantled, again asking who would handle enforcement.
“But who should be on the ground enforcing?” Mayk asked. “I mean there are immigration laws absolutely in this country and a border. If it’s not ICE, if you’ve abolished ICE, who handles it?”
Stanford said any new system would need to be built after ICE is dismantled.
“So you can’t — once you abolish, you have to rebuild,” she said. “We’re at a point where you can’t reform something that is a paramilitary organization that is taking human life.”
She then went on to explain you couldn’t even use the ICE name. The term has become so negative. Stanford argued the United States should combine border security with humanitarian assistance for migrants. You know, the same idea behind the defund the police movement – get rid of enforcement and replace it with social workers.
Stanford is in line with communism, as are the Democrats. In Cleon Skousen’s list of 45 communist goals to destroy America, number 32 to is, “Support any social movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture. Education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health, etc. The beginning of number 38 is, “Transfer some powers of arrest from the police to social agencies.”
Meanwhile, as long as the executive branch is not in the hands of the Democrats, they wish it to be neutralized. Once they are back in power, the President will then take on a more dictatorial role, bypassing Congress if necessary – reminiscent of Barack Obama’s comment, “I have a pen and a phone.”
The basis of the argument also flies in the face of what the Constitution is all about. Polybius, an ancient Greek philosopher, observed how the Roman Republic assigned different functions to different bodies. Montesquieu later articulated this more systematically as “separation of powers” in The Spirit of the Laws. The Founding Fathers understood the importance of this concept, assigning legislative powers to the Congress (Article I, Section 1), and executive powers to the President (Article II, Section 1). What that means is the power of being lawmakers and lawgivers resides in different branches – on purpose.
Despite Stanford’s plea, Congress may not constitutionally execute the laws, and believing they should is ignorant of a crucial understanding of proper constitutional structure. The Framers of the Constitution specifically designed the system to prevent tyranny by distributing the powers of government in different directions ensuring that those who write the laws are not the same people who enforce them – you know, like a king.
This is critical to understand. To give immigration enforcement to Congress is to centralize that power completely with no checks and balances. That’s what kings do. That’s what tyrannies do. While accusing Trump of operating like a king, the Democrats are advocating that Congress (under their control, ultimately) must be given king-like powers.
The separation of one branch creating immigration law, and the other executing immigration law is a part of the system of checks and balances in our system. Congress can pass laws, but can’t execute them. The President can execute and enforce laws, but cannot write them unilaterally.
This is why the Democrats are sunk on their immigration narrative. Their aim is to either violate the very Constitution they claim President Trump is violating, or do away with any governance over immigration at all which is suicidal for a country and even most Democratic voters would not support.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
