by Christopher Paslay
Obama himself–not Congress or the people–will decide which students should be held responsible for the crimes of their parents.
America is the land of the free and the home of the brave. It has also been home to slave masters, segregationists, and illegal aliens who’ve crossed the border or over-stayed their visas. These sinners and rule breakers have given birth to children–some in the United States, some on foreign soil. Many of these children are now students in American schools. Which should be granted amnesty and which deserve a penalty?
This is a decision best left up to the president–at least in the mind of Barack Obama.
Let’s start with granting amnesty to America’s undocumented residents. President Obama’s recent executive decision to override Congress and implement parts of the DREAM Act–granting immunity to an estimated 800,000 illegal aliens residing in the United States–is a case of the president deciding that certain students should not be held responsible for the crimes of their parents. In other words, youths brought to America illegally by their parents shouldn’t be forced to leave the country.
President Obama stated this in his June 15th speech on immigration policy:
Put yourself in their shoes. Imagine you’ve done everything right your entire life, studied hard, worked hard, maybe even graduated at the top of your class, only to suddenly face the threat of deportation to a country that you know nothing about, with a language that you may not even speak.
That’s what gave rise to the DREAM Act. It says that if your parents brought you here as a child, you’ve been here for five years and you’re willing to go to college or serve in our military, you can one day earn your citizenship. . . .
(The DREAM Act does make a lot of sense and has received some bipartisan support . . . a version of it was actually introduced by George W. Bush . . . unless of course you are one of the thousands of legal immigrants following the law and patiently waiting your turn to become a citizen.)
On the other hand, President Obama’s support of Affirmative Action–a policy that uses skin color to decide which students get into which schools and receive preferential treatment–is a case of the president deciding that certain students should be held responsible for their ancestors’ past crimes.
Jason Kissner, associate professor of Criminology at California State University, Fresno, said it best:
Why should today’s White youth be held accountable, via affirmative action measures, for Jim Crow laws? Why should they be accountable, via affirmative action measures, for the enslavement perpetrated not by their parents but by people who acted several generations ago?
How about today’s Asian youth? Why on God’s green earth are they forced to limp around with the lead ball of affirmative action lashed to their ankles?
And what, exactly, is the justification for extending affirmative action to Hispanics anyway?
Also, has anyone inquired whether the beneficiaries of Mr. Obama’s immigration pronouncement are now lawfully entitled (which, given Mr. Obama’s proclivities, is admittedly not the same as asking whether they will in fact receive) dispensations such as affirmative action small business loans?
Can anyone at all explain how it makes sense to distribute government benefits, on the basis of “innocence,” to those whom all parties admit are unlawfully here and then discriminate–in spite of innocence–against those whom all parties must admit are lawfully here?
The most interesting part of this all is that President Obama himself–not Congress, not the people–gets to decide who gets amnesty and who gets a penalty. Despite the fact that Congress shot down the DREAM Act, the president recently used an executive order to implement portions of it anyway. Many Americans believe that this was an overreach of presidential power. In fact, President Obama thought so himself.
In March of 2011, the president clearly stated that he could not stop deportations of undocumented students through an executive order when he addressed a town hall forum hosted by the spanish speaking network Univision.
With respect to the notion that I could suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed and I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know we have three branches of government. Congresses passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws and then the judiciary has to interpret the law. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system, that for me through simply an executive order ignore those mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.
Last month, the president ignored his own best judgement, overrode Congress and gave amnesty to nearly one million unlawful aliens anyway.
As for the hard working American students being penalized for their ancestor’s sins via affirmative action? The president has offered no such amnesty to these children.
Apparently, these students and their parents will have to hope that President Obama wakes up on the right side of the bed one day and changes his mind.
Chalk and Talk 
This post leaves me a little confused as to whether you agree that children of illegal immigrants should be punished for circumstances out of their control. Children brought here illegally can be deported to a country they have no ties to – no educational ties, no family, no friends, etc. Often, that country they are being sent “back” to is dangerous and poor (the reason their parents brought them here in the first place.) It’s quite a stretch to tie this debate in with affirmative action.
WHAT ARE THE PRIMARY COMPONENTS OF A WRITTEN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM?Problem identification, Self-Analysis and Action-Oriented Programs. Under Executive Order 11246, contractors ($50K in contracts/50 employees) are required to identify barriers to equal employment opportunity and eliminate them through action-oriented programs. Where there are fewer women or minorities than would be reasonably expected, the employer has to establish goals.ARE GOALS INTENDED TO ACHIEVE PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION OR EQUAL RESULTS?Not at all. Numerical goals do not create guarantees for specific groups or preferences, nor are they designed to achieve proportional representation or equal results.DOES AFFIRMATIVE ACTION UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11246 REQUIRE EMPLOYERS TO HIRE OR PROMOTE WOMEN OR MINORITIES ON THE BASIS OF RACE OR SEX?Absolutely not. No requirement exists that any specific position be filled by a person of a particular race, gender or ethnicity. By casting a wider net and recruiting a diverse pool of qualified individuals, an affirmative action employer eliminates preferences and levels the playing field for all. The essence of affirmative action is opportunity.DOES AFFIRMATIVE ACTION UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 11246 CONFLICT WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF MERIT?No. In seeking to achieve its goals, an employer is never required to hire a person who does not have the qualifications needed to perform the job successfully. Affirmative action prevents discrimination; it does not cause it.SHOULD GOALS BE TREATED AS A CEILING OR A FLOOR?Neither. The Executive Order does not require that contractors treat goals as either a ceiling or a floor for the employment of particular groups.WHAT IS THE STANDARD FOR COMPLIANCE UNDER THE EXECUTIVE ORDER?The standard is and has always been “good faith effort.”ISN’T AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ONLY A RACE ISSUE?No. Affirmative Action Programs benefit women, persons with disabilities and veterans as well.
Silver Price,
Affirmative Action DOES DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF RACE, and the policy DOES PROMOTE PEOPLE LESS QUALIFIED. These facts have already been proven in the courts. In 2003, SCOTUS ruled that the University of Michigan’s Affirmative Action admission policies for undergraduates violated students’ rights. The ruling stated:
“We granted certiorari in this case to decide whether “the University of Michigan’s use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violate[s] the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d), or 42 U.S.C. § 1981.” Brief for Petitioners i. Because we find that the manner in which the University considers the race of applicants in its undergraduate admissions guidelines violates these constitutional and statutory provisions, we reverse that portion of the District Court’s decision upholding the guidelines.”
Translation: because the University of Michigan, under Affirmative Action, was using race to admit minority students into their school over more qualified whites, they were found to have violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The same thing was happening at its law school.
In 2006, Michigan voters approved a ban on Affirmative Action at the state’s public colleges and in government contracting. Why? Because its citizens believed that admissions into universities should be solely based on merit—not skin color. They felt the same way about the awarding of government contracts.
ANY PROGRAM THAT USES RACE IN ANY WAY TO AWARD ADMISSION TO A SCHOOL OR TO GIVE OUT A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT IS A VIOLATION OF A PERSON’S CIVIL RIGHTS. PERIOD.
Christopher Paslay