Federal Court Refuses To Lift Hold On Obama's Immigration Executive Action

[zuluweta 250]

From the Justia link - http://tinyurl.com/om94acd

Opinion Summary

Plaintiffs, twenty-six states, filed suit challenging the government's Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program (“DAPA”) as violative of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. 553, and the Take Care Clause of the Constitution. The district court temporarily enjoined the implementation program and the government appealed, moving for a stay of the injunction. The court concluded that the government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the states lack standing. In this case, at least one state - Texas - is likely to satisfy all three requirements of Article III standing. Further, the government has not made a strong showing that the interests that the states seek to protect fall outside the zone of interests of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1252; that judicial review is precluded in this case; that DAPA does not require notice and comment; and that the remaining factors also favor the states. Accordingly, the court denied the motion for stay and the request to narrow the scope of the injunction.

OK, so I'm confused as to how Obama won the DACA court case but looks set to lose this DAPA one. Significantly, the state of Texas has Article III standing in this ruling whereas the court where Obama won with the DACA case seemed to say that the federal government has plenary power when it comes to immigration enforcement and/or prosecutorial discretion, states be damned.

[Sousuke 1,214]

I agree that E verify and punitive fines are about the only way to go. Most actions related to "rounding up" illegal immigrants are unconstitutional.

The only way to get E verify done is at the state level in a grassroots sort of way. Lobby groups will payoff most politicians, so it has to be done by petition / proposition.

About the only allies I can think of would labor unions.

Start with states like AZ, TX, NM and grow from there.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Sousuke

[Boiler 43,430]

Labour Unions are more interest in politics than there members, those days were a long way away.

[GandD 5,966]

Labour Unions are more interest in politics than there members, those days were a long way away.

#truth

[VOL 425]

Odd

I have been to Mexico many times and never considered going there a fate worth than death.

I have been probably 20 plus trips there, Heck we even would go down the during High School and party...

[Boiler 43,430]

Did you feel you were enduring a fate worse than death?

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Have not been there, or Baltimore, or Waco or East LA.

What do those places have to do with Mexico?

"Fate worse than death" ? Most of the illegals in fact all the illegals I know are from Mexico. I wasn't aware living in Mexico was a fate worse than death.

Some of the guys I know maintain a family in USA and also have a family back in Mexico and they send money home for the wife and kid to support them.

Are any of them from Juarez?

[blahblahblog 36]

OK, so I'm confused as to how Obama won the DACA court case but looks set to lose this DAPA one. Significantly, the state of Texas has Article III standing in this ruling whereas the court where Obama won with the DACA case seemed to say that the federal government has plenary power when it comes to immigration enforcement and/or prosecutorial discretion, states be damned.

It's been a while since I read it, but going from memory here. The argument that led to the dismissal of the previous DACA lawsuit (Crane v Napolitano) was, indeed standing, so they didn't rule on whether the government has plenary power. It just ruled that (a) Mississipi's damage was from illegal immigration not from DACA and (2) the DHS employees' should defer to executive powers decisions ("breaking the oath" isn't a damage). Mississipi would have had standing if it wasn't for the fact that the damages claimed were speculative and wouldn't be prevented by removing DACA.

Texas et al claimed damages related directly from implementation of DACA (now we have to provide drivers' license which is normally subisdized by the state). They also aren't seriously challenging the selective enforcement and immunity from deportation, since prosecutorial discretion is a well established executive privilege. They are putting their chips in challenging the emission of EADs and Advanced Paroles, which is the only thing that the court enjoined. I'll read this decision.

[VOL 425]

Did you feel you were enduring a fate worse than death?

Couple of times I drank the water and got Montezumas Revenge, It wiped my bung hole so much it was raw. I have learned to eat Lomitol like candy and to be careful of liquids I intake especially from ice

What do those places have to do with Mexico?

Are any of them from Juarez?

Most are from the country and not city. A lot of border towns got a little crazy a few years ago due to the Zetas drug cartels, I understand it has calmed down now.

[zuluweta 250]

It's been a while since I read it, but going from memory here. The argument that led to the dismissal of the previous DACA lawsuit (Crane v Napolitano) was, indeed standing, so they didn't rule on whether the government has plenary power. It just ruled that (a) Mississipi's damage was from illegal immigration not from DACA and (2) the DHS employees' should defer to executive powers decisions ("breaking the oath" isn't a damage). Mississipi would have had standing if it wasn't for the fact that the damages claimed were speculative and wouldn't be prevented by removing DACA.

Texas et al claimed damages related directly from implementation of DACA (now we have to provide drivers' license which is normally subisdized by the state). They also aren't seriously challenging the selective enforcement and immunity from deportation, since prosecutorial discretion is a well established executive privilege. They are putting their chips in challenging the emission of EADs and Advanced Paroles, which is the only thing that the court enjoined. I'll read this decision.

OK, thanks for the clarification that in the DACA case, the state of MS was not able to show standing based on speculative damages, whereas in the DAPA case, the state of TX had article III standing by showing actual damages.

I also agree that the executive branch is entitled to prosecutorial discretion, but this discretion, as the district court judge in the DAPA case wrote, does not mean that the undocumented immigrants are entitled to EADs and APs. Just because they are not being deported by the feds does not mean they are also entitled to work authorization and advance parole.

DACA/DAPA are very similar to TPS (temporary protected status) though, so if Obama does not prevail in the DAPA case, it would be interesting to see what will happen to individuals with TPS.

[blahblahblog 36]

OK, thanks for the clarification that in the DACA case, the state of MS was not able to show standing based on speculative damages, whereas in the DAPA case, the state of TX had article III standing by showing actual damages.

I also agree that the executive branch is entitled to prosecutorial discretion, but this discretion, as the district court judge in the DAPA case wrote, does not mean that the undocumented immigrants are entitled to EADs and APs. Just because they are not being deported by the feds does not mean they are also entitled to work authorization and advance parole.

DACA/DAPA are very similar to TPS (temporary protected status) though, so if Obama does not prevail in the DAPA case, it would be interesting to see what will happen to individuals with TPS.

I doubt that TPS will be altered in any way. Even if the ruling comes down on prohibiting any benefit (which I doubt), one would have to sue TPS statutes. But I honestly think that the case will be won by Texas et al because of the APA rule making issue, and the question of executive power won't be decided here. I'm also guessing that some immigration law will come out of congress this year and the whole deferred action mess will have better legal grounds.

[Operator 1,925]

OK, thanks for the clarification that in the DACA case, the state of MS was not able to show standing based on speculative damages, whereas in the DAPA case, the state of TX had article III standing by showing actual damages.

I also agree that the executive branch is entitled to prosecutorial discretion, but this discretion, as the district court judge in the DAPA case wrote, does not mean that the undocumented immigrants are entitled to EADs and APs. Just because they are not being deported by the feds does not mean they are also entitled to work authorization and advance parole.

DACA/DAPA are very similar to TPS (temporary protected status) though, so if Obama does not prevail in the DAPA case, it would be interesting to see what will happen to individuals with TPS.

I doubt that TPS will be altered in any way. Even if the ruling comes down on prohibiting any benefit (which I doubt), one would have to sue TPS statutes. But I honestly think that the case will be won by Texas et al because of the APA rule making issue, and the question of executive power won't be decided here. I'm also guessing that some immigration law will come out of congress this year and the whole deferred action mess will have better legal grounds.

I'm sorry but this forum only has room for racism, liberal vs. conservative vitriol and hate mongering. For your own benefit, this well thought out discussion should be conducted in a more suitable forum not this cesspool.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

The dude's running out of golf tees and blame-a-roo post it notes. A legacy of insults and lost hope has got to be worth something at the pawn shop.

[zuluweta 250]

I doubt that TPS will be altered in any way. Even if the ruling comes down on prohibiting any benefit (which I doubt), one would have to sue TPS statutes. But I honestly think that the case will be won by Texas et al because of the APA rule making issue, and the question of executive power won't be decided here. I'm also guessing that some immigration law will come out of congress this year and the whole deferred action mess will have better legal grounds.

Do you have a link to the TPS statutes? I thought TPS was an executive branch discretionary action?

[blahblahblog 36]

Sorry, I haven't seen updates to this topic and missed your question. Yes TPS is executive discretion, but it has basis on INA allowing immigration benefits for humanitarian reason. But when I said sue the statutes, I meant the executive order. I can't imagine anyone being able to argue they have standing to sue TPS.