Sessions debunks Obama's entire immigration philosophy in a single paragraph

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) spars with Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) over over the impact the proposed immigration reforms will have on the domestic job market. (Photo: YouTube screenshot)

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) has long been the most vocal opponent of President Obama’s immigration policies in the United States Senate, even taking to task members of his own Party for backing immigration reforms that do not adhere to the rule of law.

Sessions has lambasted amnesty supporters from the Senate floor; written countless op-eds urging Republicans to stand up for American workers; appeared on national television and syndicated radio programs to make his case; and utilized just about every other platform imaginable to rally support for his immigration fight.

He has tended to use data, rather than anecdotes, to support his argument that the president’s immigration policies damage the U.S. economy.

But on Monday, Sessions took aim at the very heart of liberals’ irrational push for amnesty, penning a single paragraph that debunks the entire premise of the Obama Administration’s immigration argument.

But before we get to the paragraph, let’s recap a couple of phrases used by Administration officials in the past couple of years that are important to remember before reading what Sen. Sessions wrote this week.

1. Prosecutorial discretion — In Oct. of 2011, John Morton, then-director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), formally directed immigration officials to no longer simply enforce the country’s immigration laws the same for everyone. Instead, he told them to consider a range of factors when deciding whether or not to enforce the laws at all. Examples of factors that should be taken into consideration, Morton wrote in a memo, include “how long a person has lived in the U.S., whether he or she came to the U.S. as a young child and whether family members have served in the military. Community ties, such as spouses, parents or children who are U.S. citizens, should also be considered.” In short, immigration officials could apply — or not apply — immigration laws however and whenever they saw fit.

2. “No fault of their own” — In June of 2012, Janet Napolitano, then-Secretary of Homeland Security, told reporters that the Obama Administration’s official position was that “Young people brought to the U.S. (illegally) by no fault of their own” would no longer be deported. President Obama followed Napolitano’s statement with an executive order codifying the policy, which applied to illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. before they were 16 and are younger than 30.

3. “Civil right” — In April of 2013, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, the nation’s highest ranking law enforcement officer, referred to amnesty as a “civil right.”

On Monday, in an effort to explain how misguided the Obama Administration’s immigration policies have became, Sen. Sessions laid out a hypothetical scenario describing what it might be like if the U.S. government approached enforcement of its tax laws the same way it currently approaches enforcement of its immigration laws:

Imagine that the Administration announced it would no longer enforce any tax fraud violations in amounts under $1 million, as a matter of “prosecutorial discretion.” Would we not see a massive spike in tax fraud in amounts less than a million dollars? It would be a unilateral repeal of an entire section of the criminal code by the Executive Branch. Now further imagine the Administration expanding the policy to say that tax fraud — in any amount — will be permitted so long as the proceeds are transferred to a minor relative. After all, this minor, the Administration argues, received the money “through no fault of their own” and so it would be morally improper to apply the law in such cases — it would be a violation of their “civil rights.” Does anyone doubt this would lead to a total collapse of tax enforcement nationwide?

Sometimes a simple, well-constructed analogy can be more powerful than all of the data being used to support an argument combined.

It would be laughable to suggest the IRS approach the enforcement of tax law the way the Obama Administration is currently approaching immigration enforcement.

Jeff Session should be applauded for reminding the American people and our President that we are, as John Adams famously put it, “a nation of laws, not of men.”

RELATED: Here are the immigration-related headlines Sessions has made on Yellowhammer since the first of the year:

Follow Cliff on Twitter @Cliff_Sims