House Speaker Paul Ryan called the procedural ruling by a deadlocked Supreme Court a vindication of the Republican view that the president abused his authority. “The decision by the Supreme Court is not an affirmation of either position”.
Advertisement
Mitchell said we don’t have the resources to round up all of the illegal immigrants who are here to work. The parents may take the children with them if they are returned to their home countries.
Obama said the ruling was “heartbreaking”.
Thursday’s 4-4 tie in the Supreme Court, blocking President Barack Obama’s plan to shield millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation, might affect Arizona’s Hispanic businesses, and in turn, its economy. They would not gain USA citizenship, but they would have the right to seek employment authorization and benefits provided by states, such as driver’s licenses.
Texas and 25 other states claimed that the plan conflicts with the existing immigration statutes, unilaterally granting legal status to individuals who are here unlawfully under existing immigration law; they also argue that the administration should have announced the new policy through a formal “notice-and-comment” rulemaking process.
A lower court’s decision striking down the 2014 order, which covered undocumented immigrants whose children were American citizens or were legal residents, stands now. The nine-word boilerplate sentence that constituted the entirety of the court’s decision simply means that this executive action can not be implemented. Not just by the court but by the president. The Administration expanded DACA and introduced DAPA in 2014 with further executive action.
Not all approve of Obama’s executive actions.
As in any 4-4 split, this vote does not create precedent for future cases.
The court’s action was welcomed.
In addition, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of The University of Texas in an affirmative action suit.
Much more remains undecided with regard to immigration. CBS46 Asked Leo what he thought of President Obama.
Now, the case will be sent back to the Texas court to determine whether and how to proceed. We are disappointed that this decision leaves millions of USA citizen children facing the potential deportation of their parents.
“Today’s decision keeps in place what we have maintained from the very start: One person, even a president, can not unilaterally change the law”, Texas attorney general Ken Paxton said.
This case involved the administration’s 2014 announcement that it meant to grant “deferred action” – essentially, temporary relief from the threat of deportation – to millions of people living in the United States without legal status. The government could fund legal orientation programs to ensure that those who are eligible can and do apply for relief such as DACA, which still exists despite the USA v. Texas decision.
Marian Magdalena Hernandez, an El Salvadorian immigrant.. This would help realize the USA commitment to worldwide humanitarian ideals.
Advertisement
“This ruling has a major impact on lives of millions of families who now are forced to remain in the shadows”, she said, during a Loud & Clear broadcast. It also indicates that immigration will continue to be a high priority in the upcoming Presidential and Congressional elections. Read the original article.
