Thursday, June 23, 2016

Republican Campaign Blocks DACA at the Supreme Court

Supreme Court unable to block the Republican campaign to tear apart Mexican families. - DACA.
New York Times.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday announced that it had deadlocked in a case challenging President Obama’s immigration plan, a sharp blow to an ambitious program that Mr. Obama had hoped would become one of his central legacies. As a result, as many as five million undocumented immigrants will not be shielded from deportation or allowed to legally work in the United States.

The 4-4 deadlock, which left in place an appeals court ruling blocking the plan, amplified the already contentious election-year debate over the nation’s immigration policy and presidential power.

Ed. note. This campaign to block DACA was organized by the states controlled by Republicans, the suite was brought by Republican Attorney Generals. This blocking of DACA is Republican policy- not only Trump,

The case, United States v. Texas, No. 15-674, concerned an executive action by the president to allow as many as five million unauthorized immigrants who are the parents of citizens or of lawful permanent residents to apply for a program that would spare them from deportation and provide them with work permits. The program was called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA


The lawsuit, U.S. v. Texas, had been brought by 26 red states led by Texas. They objected to Obama administration’s 2014 executive actions that could have shielded millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation. The states argued that the actions violated regulatory protocol, statute and the Constitution. The executive action in question was Department of Homeland Security memo that expanded the “DACA” program -- which grants deportation relief to certain undocumented immigrants brought to the country as minors-- and that created the program known as “DAPA,” which shields from deportation the undocumented parents of citizens and residents with legal status.
A conservative judge in Texas blocked the programs just before they were set to go into effect in 2015. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld his injunction, and the Obama administration appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which heard it in April.
Legal observers were surprised initially when the district court judge, Judge Andrew Hanen, placed a nationwide injunction on the program, an injunction that was upheld by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Going forward, it is unclear whether the injunction will continue to apply nationwide or if the administration will seek to implement the program outside the 5th Circuit. When the Supreme Court is split on an issue, no national precedent is set.

Mr. Obama has said he took action in 2014 after years of frustration with Republicans in Congress who had repeatedly refused to support bipartisan Senate legislation to update immigration laws. A coalition of 26 states, led by Texas, promptly challenged the plan, accusing the president of ignoring administrative procedures for changing rules and of abusing the power of his office by circumventing Congress.Photo

Immigration supporters after the Supreme Court issued a 4-4 ruling on Thursday, letting a lower court’s ruling against President Obama’s immigration policy stand. CreditAndrew Gombert/European Pressphoto Agency

“Today’s decision keeps in place what we have maintained from the very start: one person, even a president, cannot unilaterally change the law,” Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general, said in a statement after the ruling. “This is a major setback to President Obama’s attempts to expand executive power, and a victory for those who believe in the separation of powers and the rule of law.”

Ed note:
Over 40% of all undocumented, including DACA applicants, live in families with U.S. Citizens.
If you are an immigrant from Europe- no need for concern. 
If you are an immigrant from Mexico, the Philippines, or China- No need to apply :As a consequence of the national  quota system.

No comments: