Obama Responds to Grim Jobs Situation by Bringing in More Workers

The nation’s job woes continue: 83 percent of graduating college seniors do not have a job yet. In technology fields, where corporate America prattles that there is a crisis worker shortage, 82 percent of graduates do not have a job.

Our president has responded to the grim job situation by using executive action to import even more foreign labor. This is the latest in a series of scams by various administrations to create guestworker programs through regulation. In this case, Obama will allow the spouses of H-1B visa holders to work.

There is no statutory authorization for H-1B spouses to work, but this is what the big money donors in Silicon Valley want. Why should we expect this president to start following our immigration laws when there is money to be made by selling regulations?

In fact, the day after making the announcement, Obama was off to Silicon Valley to collect his bribe money attend a fund-raiser.

You might be wondering: How Obama can get away with allowing in more foreign workers through regulation without any statutory authority? For Obama, it is a calculated gamble that those harmed will not be able clear three hurdles.

The first hurdle is money. Someone needs to bring a court challenge to the regulations when they are finalized. That could easily cost $200,000 or more. For big business executives, who can shell out $32,400 a plate for dinner with Obama or get paid over $58 million for 15 months of work that would be nothing. But that kind of money is difficult for average Americans to put together.

The second hurdle is something called the law of standing. The courts have developed a concept of standing that determines who is worthy to bring a case to them. Unfortunately, the federal courts have turned standing into a largely political doctrine. While the standing rules promulgated by the Supreme Court are simple in their statement, their collective application in the lower courts can best be described as random chaos. Standing allows a court to make a political judgment on the party bringing the action without making a legal judgment on the merits of his case. In other words, if you have a clear case but the court does not want you to win, the court will find a way to dismiss your case on standing.

The third hurdle is winning on the merits. For abusive government action, this is the easiest hurdle. However, there are no slam-dunks in the law.

Hopefully, these regulations will simply die through inaction. If not, American workers should band together for serial legal challenges.