Senators Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) are promoting the Bar Removal of Individuals who Dream and Grow our Economy, or the BRIDGE Act. The proposed legislation would protect deportation reprieves and at least 740,000 young immigrants who received work permits as low priority removal candidates with no criminal record, under the Obama administration, allowing DACA recipients to keep those benefits for three additional years. Senators Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) are also supporting the bill. It is unclear how much support the bill will have in the Republican-controlled Senate.
Many welcomed the introduction of the bill, noting that the United States has invested in educating young immigrants who were brought here as children, and three-quarters of a million of them have come forward to pursue higher education and become tax-paying members of society.
The young immigrants who qualify for Obama’s deferred action initiative are often referred to as DREAMers because they constitute most of the individuals who meet the requirements of the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, a legislative proposal that has so far failed to pass Congress.
The post Bipartisan bill introduced to protect DACA recipients first appeared on SEONewsWire.net.]]>The Court ruled that “…The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court..” With these 9 words, the Court split 4 to 4, and without a 9th and deciding Justice, permitted an injunction against implementing these programs imposed by a Texas District Court and upheld by the Fifth Circuit to stand.
As background, in November, 2014, and arising out frustration with Congressional inaction on comprehensive immigration legislation, President Obama and his Administration created two executive actions programs: Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Permanent Residents (“DAPA”) and an expanded program for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”), an earlier executive action program to benefit certain children who accompanied their parents into the United States at an early age. The programs if implemented would shield certain parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents from removal, and certain young people from removal based on enforcement priorities, and would expand who could qualify for DACA. Texas and 25 other states sued the federal government alleging overreach of the powers of the executive branch in taking these steps.
There has been no trial on the merits, only appeals on the propriety of the injunction decision itself up to the Supreme Court. The case now goes back to the District Court to be tried. Procedurally, the Administration could request a rehearing before the full Court. Whether it does so remains to be seen.
The post Supreme Courts Lets Injunction Against DAPA and Expanded DACA Stand first appeared on SEONewsWire.net.]]>The CRS report points out that states and localities often have an interest in how the federal government enforces immigration law regarding undocumented immigrants. On the one hand, some cities have implemented policies to limit cooperation with federal enforcement efforts. On the other, states with large populations of undocumented immigrants have sued the federal government, unsuccessfully, seeking stronger enforcement measures through local law.
More recently, states have challenged the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative of the Obama Administration and a similar program, known as DAPA, for undocumented immigrants who are parents of certain lawful permanent residents or of U.S. citizen children. In this litigation, Texas v. United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the programs violate the Administrative Procedure Act. The U.S. Supreme Court granted the federal government’s request for certiorari on January 19, 2016, and the high court indicated that when it considers the case later in the year, it will also consider the plaintiffs’ claims that DACA and DAPA violate the Take Care clause of the Constitution.
The CRS report concluded by stating that even if the decisions of the lower courts withstand appeal, the ability of states to challenge alleged “failures” of the federal government to enforce immigration laws is limited.
The post CRS issues report on state action on enforcement of immigration law first appeared on SEONewsWire.net.]]>The most infamous of the lawsuits against Obama was the case Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio filed, ostensibly seeking to force the Administration to obey the Constitution. Although the court agreed the case did raise important questions relating to how illegal immigration affected the nation, those questions were not for the court to address.
U.S. District Judge Howell indicated the role of the courts is not to participate in policymaking, leaving that to the legislative and executive branches of government. That aside, a significant number of scholars, along with the Department of Justice (DOJ), have stated on many occasions that Obama’s executive actions are both legal and lawful. In court, Arpaio’s attorney suggested the President’s executive actions were not merely policy, but rather the creation of new law, which is forbidden under the Constitution.
What is baffling about the legal challenges is that neither of the president’s actions – the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or the executive directive on immigration – grant legal status to people who do not have it or create a new law. The actions endeavor to refocus immigration enforcement on those posing a threat to public safety by deferring deportation. In theory, but evidently not in reality, the deferral programs should provide the White House with the time and the motivation to achieve more substantial immigration reform.
DOJ attorney Kathleen Hartnett weighed in on the court case, suggesting it seemed to raise a political dispute and not a legal claim that the courts could address. Despite Arpaio’s loss and the nationwide force of opinion not being on his side, he plans to appeal the decision. Polls still clearly indicate high support for immigration reform.
According to political pundits the chances that the other class action lawsuit launched by attorney generals and governors in 24 red states will go down in flames are also good, for similar reasons as cited in the Arpaio case. The court has taken under consideration the fact that executive directives are not new rules, but rather orders to enforce existing ones.
Also crucial to a decision for the defendant is that the plaintiffs are suggesting the tidal wave of children coming across the border is the result of Obama’s executive directives – an extremely hard allegation to prove, given that executive directives are often based on conflicting information. Again, these matters are typically considered to be policy decisions, not legislative ones.
The post Immigration Reform Lawsuit Against Federal Government Rejected first appeared on SEONewsWire.net.]]>Rabinowitz & Rabinowitz, PC. is an immigration law firm in Dallas Texas representing individuals and family members in lawful permanent resident and U.S. Citizenship cases. To learn more visit http://www.rabinowitzrabinowitz.com.
The post President Takes Executive Action on Immigration first appeared on SEONewsWire.net.]]>