Reagan's Amnesty vs. Obama's Amnesty

In 1986, Ronald Reagan passed a sweeping Congressional amnesty bill. Rather than being an Act of Congress, Obama's amnesty mandate completely bypassed congress, and was therefore not legal. Personally, I'm pro amnesty for good families who abide by the law. But amnesty should be, and has always been, an act of congress. 

One argument that is often made by Democrats to justify Obama's use of executive action here is that Bush and Reagan used executive action to pass their own amnesty. Yet there are major flaws in this argument. As one article points out, "These Reagan and Bush 41 executive actions were obviously different than what Obama is doing now. They were trying to implement a complicated amnesty that Congress had already passed. Congress’ action was a form of immigration relief that obviously fit within our constitutional system. Moreover, Congress left a gap when it came to immediate family members, including minor children, of individuals who qualified for the amnesty. Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 forbore from deporting people in that select group."

Gridlock isn't unique to Obama. Every president has to deal with being blocked, some more than others. Actually, many of Obama's bills have been passed, especially in his first two years when Democrats controlled the house and senate. Checks and balances are actually a strength of our system - not a weakness, as Obama seems to suggest. 

When I went to China, I had to pay a lot of money for a Visa and go through customs. I've seen friends fined and even deported for not following specific customs regulations in China  This isn't unique to America, and we shouldn't be so quick to assume that all immigration law is based in racism. 

What are your thoughts?