President Obama’s controversial executive actions on immigration were challenged in the Supreme Court on Monday.
Advertisement
“Under your argument, could the president grant deferred removal to every… unlawfully present alien in the United States right now?” “With his vote to support an amicus brief against DACA and DAPA, John Mica’s Trump-inspired attack makes clear to Latino and immigrant communities in Florida that he is willing to tear families apart”. A lower court ruling has stopped implementation of the actions that could affect more than 4 million undocumented immigrants.
“It’s inhumane, the way people who are undocumented can be taken advantage of”, Garcia said.
The federal district court that first heard the case ruled in favor of the states, enjoining President Obama’s executive actions as unconstitutional.
If Obama’s executive order isn’t shut down, a lot of undocumented immigrants will stay in the U.S. via work permits. “That’s just upside down”. The highest court will now decide whether the President’s deferred action initiatives announced in November 2014, known as expanded DACA and DAPA, move forward.
The states, joined by congressional Republicans, argue that Obama doesn’t have the power to effectively change immigration law. “If the court thinks it’s a problem and wants to put a red pencil through it, it’s totally fine”, he said.
The most fundamental reason why Obama’s policy is legal is one that has not been raised in the litigation over it: The immigration laws whose enforcement it restricts are themselves unconstitutional.
But Camargo said if that happens, they will look to a new president who will support their cause.
The court still has only eight justices after the death of Antonin Scalia.
As the U.S. Supreme Court considers a challenge to President Barack Obama’s immigration programs, there are many people in Arizona who are paying close attention to the decision.
“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”. This issue was heavily discussed in the arguments.
But a broad ruling on the scope of presidential power seems unlikely to emerge from a short-handed court. “Everyone has the right to say their opinion, but until they live through my shoes what I’ve gone through then they can have a say”, said Diana Ramirez. White House and Justice Department officials have defended Obama’s approach as legal and valuable. Obama tried to do something on his own – use his executive authority to defer deportation of parents of children who are American citizens – and the rift grew deeper.
Advertisement
“We are here to tell them this is our home and we are not going anywhere”, said Cristina Jimenez, director of United We Dream, a group that advocates for immigrant families.
