Obama Administration Asks Supreme Court to Save Immigration Plan

21 Nov 2015 | Author: | No comments yet »

Obama Administration Asks Supreme Court to Reinstate Immigration Policy.

The executive action plan has been stalled by a New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that maintained a lower court’s decision to halt the implementation of the plan. WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration appealed to the Supreme Court Friday to rescue its plans to shield from deportation millions of immigrants who are in the country illegally. Moving quickly to put the issue before the justices in time for a decision while President Barack Obama is still in office, the administration called for the court’s immediate review of its plan to protect and give work permits to as many as 5 million immigrants. Verrilli Jr. urged the court to take prompt action to reverse an “unprecedented and momentous” appeals court ruling last week that blocked President Obama’s plan to let more than four million undocumented immigrants legally live and work in the United States. “If left undisturbed,” Mr.

The rally, and similar gatherings across the country, marked the first anniversary of Obama’s announcement that he would take executive action to defer deportations for qualified parents of U.S.-born children and for certain younger undocumented immigrants. Verrilli wrote, “that ruling will allow states to frustrate the federal government’s enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws.” The case, United States v. The legal challenge to the action was made by 26 Republican-governed states, led by Texas, which say Obama has overstepped his powers by working around Congress. The White House also said it would expand a 2012 program — DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) — benefiting undocumented young immigrants who had been brought to the U.S. as children.

Texas and 25 other mostly Republican-led states have argued the administration disregarded regulatory procedures in developing the program, called the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents. Obama has said previously he was spurred to use his executive power to act on immigration after Congress failed to pass any significant immigration reform bills. If the court agrees to hear and decide the case by late June, and if the justices side with the administration, that would leave roughly seven months in Obama’s presidency to implement his plans.

The administration contends that, as in other law-enforcement matters, it has discretion to prioritize some deportations over others, and that the program would allow federal agencies to focus their efforts on aliens more likely to threaten public safety. The Department of Homeland Security, which enforces many immigration laws, says it lacks the resources to deport the millions of illegal immigrants presently within the U.S. “More than 11 million removable aliens are estimated to live in the U.S. To mark it, immigrant and Latino groups planned to vent their frustration with the appeals court’s ruling in marches and rallies at more than two dozen places around the country, including Phoenix; Raleigh, N.C.; and Miami.

They would be eligible for legal status that would allow them to get full driver’s licenses, work permits and other benefits not available to undocumented immigrants. Texas maintains the administration’s plan places burdens on it, for example, by forcing it to issue drivers licenses to aliens who would have a temporary reprieve. The judge said DHS should have followed the “notice and comment” process used for most regulations, in which an agency proposes a rule, the public and interested parties can file their opinions and recommendations regarding the proposal, and the agency then issues a final rule.

A day after the House overwhelmingly backed onerous hurdles for Syrian refugees, White House officials said President Barack Obama’s intention to veto the bill hadn’t wavered, even though it passed with a veto-proof majority — including 47 members of his own party. John Cornyn, R-Texas, renewed criticisms after the Obama administration’s latest appeal. “The President clearly acted outside the law when he went around Congress to unilaterally change our nation’s immigration laws, and I’m confident the State of Texas will ultimately prevail in this case,” he said in a statement. Feinstein and Flake hope to force anyone who has been in Iraq or Syria in the past five years to go through the traditional visa process, including an in-person interview, fingerprinting and tamper-proof passport security. Smith, writing for the majority, said the states had standing to challenge the program, citing a 2007 Supreme Court decision that said Massachusetts and other states were entitled to sue the Environmental Protection Agency over its refusal to regulate motor vehicle emissions contributing to climate change. Feinstein has said she plans to introduce the bill after Thanksgiving, calling the visa waiver program “the soft underbelly of our national security policies.” Obama’s newfound focus on visa changes marked an effort to subdue momentum for the refugee bill following the White House’s failed lobbying effort in the House.

Some Democrats briefed on the refugee screening process by Obama’s chief of staff and Homeland Security secretary emerged far from impressed, leading to Thursday’s 289-137 vote to undermine the president’s program. But that program has been plunged into uncertainty following the Paris attacks that killed 129 and stoked deep fears across the West about terrorism being exported from Syria, where the long-raging civil war has fueled the Islamic Stage group’s rise. Defenders of the House bill, including some Democrats, have described its changes as fairly modest: mandatory FBI background checks and individual sign-offs by top U.S. officials.

But they also took aim at Republican presidential candidates. “Immigrant-bashing and hate-mongering is not going to get them elected in 2016,” said Jaime Contreras, vice president of the Service Employees International Union affiliate 32BJ SEIU. He found that notice and comment were required because the program was categorical notwithstanding the administration’s assertion that it required case-by-case determinations.

About 231,000 people were deported in the federal fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, according to internal government documents obtained by The Associated Press. In dissent, Judge Carolyn Dineen King said the majority’s decision to reach and rule on that issue was at odds with “prudence and judicial economy.” “It bars,” Mr. But Marielena Hincapie, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, said immigration agents in parts of the country continue to undertake deportation proceedings against people who would be protected by Obama’s plan. Verrilli wrote, “approximately four million parents — who have lived in this country for years, would pass a background check, are not priorities for removal, and have a son or daughter who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident — from requesting deferred action under” the program “and receiving authorization to work lawfully.” “This case warrants immediate review,” he wrote. “The court of appeals’ judgment enjoins nationwide a federal policy of great importance to federal law enforcement, to many States, and to millions of families with longstanding and close connections with this country.”

Twitter-news
Our partners
Follow us
Contact us
Our contacts

About this site