Here’s Chuck Grassley’s Real Problem With the Use of Executive Authority on Immigration

Barack Obama’s not George W. Bush.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) speaks to members of the press at the Senate Daily Press Gallery June 27, 2013 at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC.
National Journal
Lucia Graves
See more stories about...
Lucia Graves
May 7, 2014, 9:09 a.m.

Yes­ter­day, when the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion un­veiled a num­ber of pro­pos­als that would re­lax re­stric­tions on for­eign work­ers and their spouses, Chuck Grass­ley was all verklempt.

“The Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion claims it wants im­mig­ra­tion re­form, but they can’t wait for Con­gress. They act on their own,” Grass­ley, a top Re­pub­lic­an on the Sen­ate Ju­di­ciary Com­mit­tee, said on the Sen­ate floor, ac­cord­ing to his pre­pared re­marks. “What’s next? Will the pres­id­ent uni­lat­er­ally leg­al­ize the un­doc­u­mented pop­u­la­tion be­cause he can’t have his way with Con­gress?”

Grass­ley’s feel­ing that the pres­id­ent is over­step­ping his powers in re­vamp­ing im­mig­ra­tion policy via ex­ec­ut­ive ac­tion is something of a change of heart. Back in June of 2008, when Pres­id­ent George W. Bush used an ex­ec­ut­ive or­der to re­quire fed­er­al con­tract­ors to par­ti­cip­ate in the Home­land Se­cur­ity De­part­ment’s E-Veri­fy sys­tem, Grass­ley was all for it.

Ap­pear­ing on CNN’s Lou Dobbs To­night sev­er­al days after the an­nounce­ment in 2008, Grass­ley voiced his sup­port for Bush’s ac­tion, say­ing, “It’s so im­port­ant that the pres­id­ent do that,” since Grass­ley would have put something sim­il­ar in le­gis­la­tion of his own if the pres­id­ent hadn’t. “It’s quite a vic­tory to get it done by ex­ec­ut­ive,” Grass­ley said at the time.

Grass­ley de­serves points for ideo­lo­gic­al con­sist­ency on im­mig­ra­tion, and his of­fice ar­gues that the situ­ation was dif­fer­ent — that there was clear au­thor­ity in the law for every em­ploy­er to use E-Veri­fy, in­clud­ing the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment. “Pres­id­ent Obama’s ex­ec­ut­ive or­ders, on pro­sec­utori­al dis­cre­tion for H-1Bs for ex­ample, fall, in Sen­at­or Grass­ley’s opin­ion, out­side the con­stric­tions of ex­ist­ing law,” his spokes­wo­man, Beth Lev­ine, wrote in an email. “Sen­at­or Grass­ley wishes the pres­id­ent would use his ex­ec­ut­ive au­thor­ity to be­ne­fit Amer­ic­an work­ers, in­stead of work­ing to their det­ri­ment.” Bush, the lo­gic goes, was merely re­quir­ing what the law already au­thor­ized.

The up­shot though, was that Bush took a law Con­gress es­tab­lished as a vol­un­tary sys­tem in 1996 and greatly ex­pan­ded the pro­gram’s reach, af­fect­ing at least sev­er­al hun­dred thou­sand work­ers a year na­tion­wide, ac­cord­ing to The New York Times‘ es­tim­ates. The real dif­fer­ence then, was that Obama’s pro­pos­al uses ex­ec­ut­ive au­thor­ity to make life a little easi­er for for­eign work­ers, and Bush was us­ing it to do something Grass­ley agrees with. It would be­hoove Grass­ley to just say so.

What We're Following See More »
More People Watched Trump’s Acceptance Speech
1 days ago

Hillary Clinton hopes that television ratings for the candidates' acceptance speeches at their respective conventions aren't foreshadowing of similar results at the polls in November. Preliminary results from the networks and cable channels show that 34.9 million people tuned in for Donald Trump's acceptance speech while 33.3 million watched Clinton accept the Democratic nomination. However, it is still possible that the numbers are closer than these ratings suggest: the numbers don't include ratings from PBS or CSPAN, which tend to attract more Democratic viewers.