The Supreme Court on Monday seemed sharply divided during an extended argument over a challenge to President Barack Obama’s plan that would shield millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation and allow them to work in the country legally.
Advertisement
“The entire future of these families are going to be decided on one strike of a pen”, said Guadalupe Magdaleno, who supports the executive action.
Mr. Obama had repeatedly denied he had that kind of power, then after the 2014 election, when Congress refused to act on his policies, the president claimed a do-over and said he did have the power. The detailed list of congressional powers in Article I of the Constitution does not include any general power to restrict migration.
President Obama issued an executive action on immigration that would grant a pathway to citizenship for low-risk undocumented immigrants.
“When I got DACA I was just so thankful and so amazed”, said Lopez.
“I came here because this was very important for me, for my family and for more than 5 million families”, Reboyoso said afterward in Spanish, through an interpreter. The Supreme Court’s ruling could affect an estimated 3,000 students and 48,000 parents in the state.
Marly Arevalo, 21, has been outside the Supreme Court many times. Most of those immigrants are the parents of children who are American citizens.
“A lot of people who want to make progress and want to make a difference with in the country are not going to get that opportunity”, said Mercado.
Twenty-six states joined Texas in a suit against the policies, alleging the president overstepped his authority by signing the executive orders into law.
“How is it possible to lawfully work in the United States without lawfully being in the United States?”
The states challenging Obama’s immigration plan say he has repeatedly taken unilateral and unlawful action to sidestep Congress on gun control, gay rights, the minimum wage, contraception, and climate change.
Her own parents, she said ruefully, wouldn’t qualify for the deferred deportation.
“The justices seemed closely engaged throughout the entire argument”, Saenz says in a statement.
Immigration has been a contentious topic and the rhetoric surrounding immigration policy hasn’t always been positive.
“It’s about keeping the courts out of policy and keeping the states from meddling in federal policy, the kinds of arguments that the Obama administration is making”.
Advertisement
If the Supreme court splits 4-4 on the case, a injunction against the DAPA program would remain in place but would not set a national precedent.
