Posted on 06/22/2016 2:17:04 PM PDT by Elderberry
The high court will determine if Obama's DAPA -- Deferred Action for Parents of Americans -- is Constitutional.
AUSTIN, TX -- The U.S. Supreme Court this week could rule on a far-reaching immigration-related case that would allow the parents of immigrant children to stay in the country legally.
United States v. Texas, the pending U.S. Supreme Court case hinges on the constitutionality of an Obama administration initiative -- Deferred Action for Parents of Americans -- known by its acronym DAPA. The program was unveiled by Obama in November 2014 as an executive action, in a move to grant deferred action to undocumented immigrants who are parents of U.S.-born children.
DAPA would’ve allowed immigrant parents legal status and protection to apply for sanctioned work permits. With about 1.68 million undocumented immigrants in Texas -- some 11 million nationally -- the case has broad implications.
Divisive Texas Cases Loom Large in Supreme Court Decisions
But conservatives in the GOP-led state government filed suit to prevent DAPA’s passage, leading a 26-state coalition to stop its implementation. By February, DAPA opponents scored their first victory: The granting of a preliminary injunction that effectively halted its passage. The favorable ruling for GOP opponents was granted by U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen, a Republican appointee with a history of anti-immigration rulings.
A week after the ruling, on Feb. 23, the U.S. government asked the court to lift the injunction as it filed an appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Hanen denied the request. In the New Orleans appeals court, the Obama administration’s motion for a stay was denied.
A request to allow DAPA to implemented at the other states except Texas while the case was being appealed also was denied. Ultimately, the proposed executive action was found to run counter to the Administrative Procedure Act and Immigration and Nationality Act -- both antithetical to DAPA passage, appeals judges wrote in their opinion.
In November 2015, the U.S. Justice Department announced it would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse that decision. As the case meandered its way to the nation’s highest court, several dynamics have changed that could potentially inform a ruling.
Foremost: The death of conservative justice Antonin Scalia, which means the case will be in the hands of eight jurists that could lead to a divided court. In such as case, the ruling of the Fifth Circuit would be affirmed.
Up until Texas opposition, the specter of DAPA had buoyed the hopes of millions of immigrants -- many of whom living in the shadows of society. In the state’s capital, immigration advocates regularly stage rallies in support of immigration reform, including one coinciding with St. Valentine’s Day during which immigrants delivered to the governor’s mansion gates an oversize simulation to of a greeting card but representing a broken heart.
Virginia Segura and her husband had looked forward to applying for DAPA until Texas stepped in. Now, her future -- and that of her family -- hangs in the balance. "We have a 4-year-old son, and he needs to be with me and his father always," she said at the February rally. "My son was born in this country. He has a right to be with his parents.”
Baby Segura can go back to Mexico with his parents, very simple solution.
We have got to end this automatic citizenship to babies dropped in the US by people who are here illegally. And who stick the local citizens with the bill for the kid’s delivery. Does any other country on the planet do that? It makes no sense, but it’s taken advantage of by these illegals.
This sob story also failed to mention that the U.S. attorneys from the DOJ lied to the court about their implementation of the act despite the court ordered hold, and his ordering the entire DOJ legal team (lawyers across the country) to have to take ethics courses to prevent future lying to the court.
Thank you.
By reading this, many FReepers could learn about the legal issues & procedures, and also about how to post a coherent, well-argued opinion properly.
Nope.
Broken record time for me. SCOTUS (or at least the left half) is hopelessly politicized. They render decisions based on ideology and agenda and not the law or the Constitution.
As long as it’s an even split there will be no sense coming out of SCOTUS.
Now we will learn if there is any point to having a Congress.
BigEars thinks all you need is a pen, a phone and the Court system
Precisely!
DAPA aka the “get pregnant and walk across the border” EO.
I miss Scalia so much.
“The little tyke can come on back when he reaches 21.”
The Constitutional language which allows is open to another interpretation, IMO. I don’t think the founders meant for this to be as it is.
Exactly why SCOTUS justices need term limits. Say... 20 years?
Ignorant people, who are also arrogant and criminally bent have a technique that seems to work every time, illegal though it may be.
It's called changing the subject midpoint through a plausible argument.
Yes, the little bastards may be arguably citizens ( a whole different subject) but that's not the key to their fallacious argument.
It is also reasonable for the illegal adults to argue that the little bastards have a "right" to be with its parents, historically a non argument.
But at that point the illegal's argument goes off the rails, Because there are two ways that goal can be achieved : The minor "American" bastards can go back to Mexico and remain with their parents (or wherever,) until they reach a majority and then return to the U.S. or...
They can request to remain in the United states, but that option is not theirs to make. It is made according to the immigration laws of the United States.
The third option is seldom taken : Leave the minor children with a CLOSE relative who is legally in the United states. Except that frustrates the original intent of their argument, which is to skirt the laws of the host country.
If they can be given conditional residence until the child reaches a majority, which would then expire, AND also conditioned on no right to welfare or public assistance of any kind.
I think most Americans would have no serious opposition to that.
But we all know THAT'S not going likely to happen.
I’m generally not a proponent of term limits but regarding SCOTUS I think you have a point.
Before we know it, there will be a rumor spread through all of the countries south of our southern border stating that Gringos are stealing their children.
...and Gringas.
You are my new best friend. Thank you for analyzing as though the laws still matter; you give me hope that perhaps we are not at the end of the Republic.
Nope.
Broken record time for me. SCOTUS (or at least the left half) is hopelessly politicized. They render decisions based on ideology and agenda and not the law or the Constitution.
As long as it’s an even split there will be no sense coming out of SCOTUS.
How is this not "good news"? The lower court was affirmed. This is a defeat for Obama and Illegals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.