The Obama administration yesterday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to revive President Barack Obama’s executive action to protect millions of illegal immigrants from deportation, saying Republican-led states had no legal basis to challenge it.
Advertisement
Friday marks the one-year anniversary of President Obama’s announcement of his executive actions on immigration, which at their heart, are first steps towards common-sense reforms to an outdated immigration system.
But Chomba’s parents could still be expelled, even though she says they qualify for the most expansive of the executive actions Obama announced a year ago: the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program, which shields the undocumented parents of US citizens from deportation.
Legal papers filed with the Supreme Court Friday call for ‘immediate review’. If the Supreme Court accepts the case but doesn’t hear it this term, it might be too late for a decision to be handed down before the president leaves office. The appeals court reversed that decision last week, but only on Thursday did it officially grant the women permission to join in the expected Supreme Court appeal.
“Without work authorization”, Verrilli wrote of the people eligible for the program, “they are more likely to work for employers who will hire them illegally, often at below-market wages, thereby hurting American workers and giving unscrupulous employers an unfair advantage”. For instances, spouses of immigrants that have work permits can also find jobs in the US, foreign college students that study technology or science in the nation’s universities can stay and find a place to work in the USA, spouses and children of legal immigrants will no longer be deported to their countries while they seek legal status. A federal judge in Texas had temporarily blocked the program in February. The second phase would extend immunity to deportation to parents of US citizens and permanent residents.
Verrilli’s brief argues that federal law makes clear that immigration policy is set by the federal government, not the states.
John Scalise, the No. 3 Republican in the House of Representatives, said in a Twitter message that the court judgement was “a major triumph for the rule of law”.
A federal district court and then a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans, in a 2-to-1 decision, agreed with the states’ arguments. Together, the initiatives are estimated to provide a temporary haven for up to 5 million immigrants, including 79,000 in the Bay Area.
Advertisement
As a result of the lower court’s rulings, the Obama administration chose to take the issue to the highest US court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had ruled that the twenty-six states that sued would be able ultimately to show that the president lacked the authority to adopt the policy – a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
