For a Republican Party trying to woo Hispanic voters, the timing of the U.S. Supreme Court’s review of the legality of President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration could not come at a more awkward time.
Advertisement
Texas and 25 other states sued the government, arguing that Obama acted outside of his executive authority and placed an unfair economic burden on states by forcing them to spend funds on services like printing identification cards for people who are barred from legally obtaining them.
“This is, in fact, part of President Obama’s right to enact prosecutorial discretion to say who can be deported or who should not be deported”, said Immigration Project Executive Director, Jasmine McGee.
The White House had sought the expedited review of lower court orders blocking the Obama plan, which kept the administration from issuing work permits to the immigrants and allowing them to receive some benefits from the federal government. The administration also argued that waiting for a lower court to hold a hearing on the merits “would indefinitely prolong the disruption of federal immigration policy and would continue to deprive millions of parents of us citizens and permanent residents of the opportunity for deferred action and work authorization”. An earlier program that is not being challenged, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, shields immigrants brought to the country illegally as children. State officials claim the immigration policy would force Texas to change its own laws for issuing drivers’ licenses for legal residents or potentially lose revenue.
The high court added a separate question on whether the president’s guidance violates a provision of U.S. Constitution that requires the president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”. And they are consistent with the actions taken by presidents of both parties, the laws passed by Congress, and the decisions of the Supreme Court.
“We have seen firsthand through our work how administrative relief positively impacts our community”, Rubio said in a statement.
Texas led a legal challenge to the initiative and was soon joined by more than two dozen other Republican-leaning states. At that point, it would face likely extension from a Democratic president or extinction from a Republican.
“[Tuesday’s] decision by the Supreme Court is exciting news for us because it means we should actually hear something this year”, said Frankie Rodriguez, the senior pastor at El Camino and an accredited immigration representative at Immigration Connection. The court will decide if parents with children born in the US can stay.
Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton has expressed support for Obama’s executive actions, but said that her policies would “go further”, including a path to citizenship.
The immigration issue has driven a wedge between Hispanics, a voting bloc with rising clout, and Republicans, many of whom take a hard line against illegal immigrants.
Advertisement
The ruling is due just months before the presidential election. It provides the last chance that the administration would have to implement the program, announced by Obama in 2014, before he leaves office next January.
