I'll repeat what I said in an earlier thread (I decided to start a new thread on this because the earlier discussion was taking place in a thread about a completely different topic)Federal appeals court sides with Texas against Obama on immigration
Washington (CNN)A federal appeals court on Tuesday denied a request from Justice Department lawyers to allow President Barack Obama's controversial immigration actions to go into effect pending appeal.
The decision is a victory for Texas and 25 other states that are challenging the Obama administration's actions, which were blocked by a District Court judge in February. Tuesday's decision means that while the issue is appealed, eligible undocumented immigrants will be unable to apply for the programs aimed at easing deportation threats.
"Because the government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its appeal of the injunction, we deny the motion for stay and the request to narrow the scope of the injunction," according to the 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
At issue is the implementation of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and the expansion of the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), a program that permits teenagers and young adults who were born outside of the United States, but raised in the country, to apply for protection from deportation and for employment authorizations.
Brandi Hoffine, a White House spokeswoman, said the judges in the Fifth Circuit "chose to misinterpret the facts and the law" in their ruling denying the request for a stay.
"President Obama's immigration executive actions are fully consistent with the law," Hoffine said. "The President's actions were designed to bring greater accountability to our broken immigration system, grow the economy, and keep our communities safe."
The White House said Justice Department lawyers are evaluating the ruling and considering next steps.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton praised the ruling, calling it a "victory for those committed to preserving the rule of law in America."
"Telling illegal aliens that they are now lawfully present in this country, and awarding them valuable government benefits, is a drastic change in immigration policy," he said in a statement. "The President's attempt to do this by himself, without a law passed by Congress and without any input from the states, is a remarkable violation of the U.S Constitution and laws."
Pro-immigration reform groups said they were disappointed by the ruling, but not willing to throw in the towel.
"The immigration actions will help our economy, our community and our families. Each day this injunction remains in place we all suffer the consequences," said Karen Tumlin of the National Immigration Law Center.
Stephen Yale-Loehr, a Cornell University Law School prof, downplayed the significance of Tuesday's decision.
"The court of appeals merely held that the district court did not err when it held that Texas had standing to sue," he said. "The true test will be on the merits of the case. That could be a few years down the road, after a trial."
And Elizabeth Wydra, of the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center, who filed a brief on behalf of bipartisan group of former members of Congress, notes the administration could decide the issue is important enough to go straight to the Supreme Court just to get the programs unblocked pending appeal.
"Given the strong public interest in getting DAPA off the ground as soon as possible, the administration will almost certainly go straight to the Supreme Court," she said. "It will file this request with Justice (Antonin) Scalia, the justice assigned to the Fifth Circuit, but he will very likely refer the matter to the entire Court for all of the justices to consider."
Lord Jim wrote:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again...
We should have a comprehensive immigration bill...
It's both the right thing to do ethically, and the smart thing to do politically...
But if the members of the United States Congress choose to have their collective heads up their collective asses, and choose not to change the existing law, that is their prerogative; it is up to the voters in their respective districts and states to hold them accountable...
Not The President Of The United States... The President does not get to create new law simply because he is frustrated by inaction on the part of the Congress...
A lot of folks don't seem to understand how this "prosecutorial discretion" argument ( should the Administration prevail before the Supreme Court; which I think is a coin toss...) has implications far beyond the immigration question...
What if a future Republican President, unable to get the tax cuts he wanted through the Congress, were to declare that he would direct the Justice Department to use "prosecutorial discretion" to no longer pursue businesses that didn't pay corporate taxes, or individuals who didn't pay capital gains taxes?
How would Liberal Democrats on Capitol Hill react to that? (The words, "scream bloody murder" come to mind...)
I think there's a very good chance that Obama has been too cute by half in trying to shoe horn this program under "prosecutorial discretion"...
If instead he had set it up under the President's Pardon Powers, (like Gerald Ford's amnesty program for the draft dodgers who ran off to Canada) he would have been on much stronger Constitutional footing, and there could not have been any serious court challenge...(The Court has been pretty clear in repeated decisions that the President's power to grant pardons and clemencies is absolute; even if made conditional...)
But of course if he had done that, he would have had to admit that this is an amnesty program...
He wanted to have an amnesty program without admitting that it was an a amnesty program, and that has put him in a bit of a Constitutional box...
