Democrats are extremely flexible on the rule of law and separation of powers, depending on who is president

In Bill Clinton's 1995 State of the Union address, he said:

[I]llegal aliens are creating big problems for us, and we're going to put a lot more border patrol people to support us, and we're not going to have people able to work by coming in illegally, and we're going to cut off their welfare benefits, and we're going to deport people in record numbers.

 Clinton was cheered, not called a xenophobe and racist.

My guess is that Democrats agreed when President Obama said 22 times he couldn't rewrite immigration law on his own.  Yet in June 2012, Obama issued the executive order on DACA, doing exactly what he said he wouldn't be allowed to do.  Democrats and the media were very supportive of his violation of his oath, the Constitution, and separation of powers. 

No one should believe anyone who says he believes in the rule of law and constitutional separation of powers if he supports sanctuary cities and what Obama did with DACA.

Every Democrat who supports DACA should be asked if he favors "family reunification," bringing the parents and other siblings into the USA.  If he does, he obviously favors blanket amnesty and chain immigration and should admit it.  If he actually favors keeping families together, he should support sending all family members back to where they legally reside.  No one should ever be rewarded for willingly violating our laws, or the lawlessness will never end. 

President Obama left a nice long welcoming letter to President Trump talking about the importance of democracy, American leadership in the world, the rule of law, and separation of powers.  I thought it was a parody from The Onion because Obama showed throughout eight years that he believed none of that.  He believed in leading from behind.  He continually ignored the rule of law on immigration.  On Obamacare, if Congress didn't appropriate money, he just stole it from some other source, and he gave special benefits to Congress and staff as if taxpayer money were his to do with as he wanted. 

President Obama unilaterally changed the rules on Cuban refugees on his way out in January 2017.  The U.S. no longer accepts them if they make it to our shores.  Was it compassionate for Obama to send the women and children back to the tyrants when they were only trying to make a better life for their families?  There were outrage and protests when Trump wanted to vet Syrian and other refugees more thoroughly, but there was hardly a squeak when Obama sent these Cuban refugees back.  Why were Democrats, reporters, immigrant advocates, and CEOs who were so loud about Trump so silent on Obama and Cuba?

Selective compassion and outrage are not compassion at all, any more than selective enforcement of laws means equal justice for all.  Selective separation of powers does not make you a believer in the Constitution.

President Trump decides to follow the rule of law and enforce the immigration laws Congress passed, and he is called a xenophobe and a racist and is accused of not caring about families.  It is very compassionate to follow the rule of law and to adhere to separation of powers.  Our country became the greatest, most powerful country in the world because of the rule of law and the three coequal branches of government.  We have been very welcoming to legal immigrants. 

For the last eight years we have had a president who has usurped power for himself whenever he wanted, and we have had the Justice Department, Congress, and reporters look the other way since they agreed with his agenda.  There is absolutely nothing progressive or passionate about giving people who entered the country illegally preference as to enforcing laws over those who came here legally, those who were born here, and those who have waited patiently in line to come here legally.  The founding fathers did not want a king. 

I doubt that if President Trump felt that Congress wasn't cooperating with him on Obamacare repeal and tax reform and he changed them on his own, the media would be as supportive of him as they were of Obama when he abused his powers. 

On a side note, my senator, Durbin, is very subjective about when he cares about the rule of law and abuse of presidential power depending on who is president.  That means he doesn't really care.  When Durbin first ran, he was staunchly pro-life, but in order to move up the Democrat ranks, he became staunchly pro-abortion, including partial-birth abortion.  He is obviously very flexible, depending on whatever it takes to move up the ladder in the Democratic Party.  He should not be accused of having a core set of beliefs.