Let's look at this decision by President Trump to rescind the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

To begin with, the program was as illegal as the aliens covered under it.  In June 2012, President Obama decided to usurp the Constitution and the lawmaking powers of our legislative branch of government.  The fact that Obama didn't have the authority to simply waive the laws on immigration didn't seem to mean much to him or to his Democrat abettors.  The following year, in an attempt to defund DACA, the House of Representatives voted 224-201 to cut off the money supply.  However, since the program is almost entirely funded by its own application fees rather than congressional appropriations, the vote had no effect.  It makes the cynic in me wonder if the vote was taken as a symbolic gesture of defiance.

To be eligible, an illegal alien must have entered the United States before his 16th birthday and prior to June 2007; be currently in school, a high school graduate, or be honorably discharged from the military; be under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012; and not have been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three other misdemeanors or otherwise pose a threat to national security.  The program does not provide lawful status or a path to citizenship, nor does it provide eligibility for federal welfare or student aid.  A fee of $495 must be paid to apply for DACA, and applicants must reapply every two years.

On September 5, President Trump, through his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, ordered an end to the controversial action taken by his predecessor, saying he doesn't like to punish children, most of whom are now adults, for the actions of their parents.  But he added that "we must also recognize that we are a nation of opportunity because we are a nation of laws."  The action takes effect in six months, a period of time in which the President expects Congress to do its job by changing it or allowing the termination to occur.  Trump, who had referred to the issue as a personal dilemma for him, ultimately decided to follow the law until the legislature does the job assigned to it by the Founding Fathers.  "Only by the reliable enforcement of immigration law can we produce safe communities, a robust middle class, and economic fairness for all Americans," Trump said, calling the DACA program an "amnesty-first approach."

How can you disagree with an action that seems not only reasonable, but mandatory for our elected officials to be more concerned about fairness for American families, taxpayers, and working men and women before considering what's fair to illegal immigrants?  This heart-over-head philosophy regarding immigration has weakened our national sovereignty, eliminated jobs for our citizens, imported increased levels of drugs and crime onto our streets, and made a mockery of our laws.  Nevertheless, the usual suspects will be screaming racism on every news program, and rabble-rousing demagogues will organize street protests that will be anything but peaceful.  The left-wing hate-Trump fake news media will show videos of sobbing mothers carrying small children while holding signs proclaiming the "injustice" of it all.

Meanwhile, the guy who's responsible for creating this imbroglio says he plans to speak out against the canceling of the program.  So the guy who abused his authority by issuing an executive order, which is contrary to his power under federal law, now says he's going to continue supporting his illegal action, even while it's being corrected by those who actually obey the law.

My question is, why hasn't Obama been charged with a crime for his illegal act?  I'm not saying he should have been perp-walked out of the White House in handcuffs, but he should have been brought before a congressional committee to explain his illicit behavior.  It's bad enough that we see a president deciding to rule by fiat, but when his lawless acts are met by a mere slap on the wrist from the House and Senate, it makes it clear to everyone that some people are above the law.

Constitutional scholars and some of the top elected officials in the country have said Obama didn't have the authority to do what he did.  Average people from coast to coast have been asking how he can get away with it.  If you get stopped for speeding and get a ticket, you'd better pay it, or you'll be dragged into court on a warrant.

Do our laws apply only to the little people?  This is not a frivolous question.  This goes to the foundation of who we are as a civilized country, protected by laws and by those who enforce them.  Yet who enforces the law when it's broken by the chief executive, who, according to the Constitution, is the chief law enforcement officer in the land?  Isn't there anyone in a position of leadership with the courage to demand that action be taken against the former rabble-rouser in chief?