Week 1: Trump found in violation of Constitution

It’s all over the news, so I won’t go into the details.

The heroes are the attorneys for the ACLU.   So, I’m sending them a contribution right now.

ACLU

One Syrian women was reportedly about to be sent back to her home country when the ruling came down—and was promptly taken off the flight by Customs and Border Protection agents.

The stay is temporary.    There will be a court hearing to determine if the Executive Order is legal.   The Judge ordered the government to turn over all names of people facing deportation under the Order.

Will the Department comply with furnishing these documents?

GO ACLU!

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

Immigration – Trump’s Plan

immigration

 

Donald Trump plans to remove 2 to 3 million illegal immigrants in 2017.   Obama deported approximately  400,000 per year, or about 2.5  million between 2009 and 2015.  Bush deported approximately 2 million immigrants during the 8 years he was President.

It all seems very unrealistic to be deporting 10 times more immigrants than last year.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-donald-trump-deport-immigrants-60-minutes-20161113-story.html

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

 

Supreme Court Immigration Case

Messy.  Immigration policy is always messy.  This case is messy.  Obama’s order did not legalize anyone, but deferred deportation for a small fraction of immigrants here illegally.  It is estimated that it applied to 400,000 of the 11 million illegal immigrants.  The question is whether President Obama has this authority.  The Obama administration is on the defensive because the Texas court says he doesn’t have this authority and this caused a temporary halt to the program.   A future president could rescind this order.

Illegal immigrants who qualify get the all important green card, with alien registration numbers,  just like permanent residents.   So, opponents of the order argue that this simply promotes illegal immigration to this country.  However, new arrivals or anyone coming after 2010 are excluded from this order.   Many will not qualify because of a lack of documentation showing that they were here in 2010.

The outcome could go 4-4,  5-3 or even 6-2,  with Roberts and Kennedy joining with the liberals.  But, many observers seem to go for the 4-4 verdict, which is a win for the states suing the government and an  end Obama’s executive action.

The case will be decided in June.   The best analysis of the issues comes from scotusblog.com as follows:

Scotusblog.com

Obama’s executive order included the words “lawfully present”  for people here illegally.   It was argued by the Solicitor General  the executive order might work equally well without these 2 words.   But, attorneys supporting Texas, insisted the order allowed people to be lawfully present, whether it was explicitly stated or by the rights created by the order.

I guess the SC has  the option of striking down the entire order because it is simple contradiction of the legal status of these immigrants, and beyond the authority of the President to change.

But, the executive branch has the obligation to carry out the laws passed by Congress- not enact laws to their own liking.  So, this is the basis for Justice Kennedy’s comment that the executive order turns  policy making upside-down. This comment coming from Justice Kennedy gives experts the feeling of a 4-4 decision with Justice Kennedy siding with conservatives.  Thus, the argument that Obama’s executive order runs counter to the wishes of Congress is strong.

Another problem is whether Texas can show grounds for bringing the lawsuit, based on the financial harm of having to provide driver licences to all the “legally present”  immigrants.  There was extensive discussion on this point.  Texas has a law in place permitting driver licences to those in the  “deferred status” category, so they would be financially burden unless they changed their laws in which case they could not sue the government.   Chief Justice Roberts aptly called this a Catch-22.

Transcript of Oral Arguments

Liberals seemed more receptive to the argument that the realities of the immigration policy,  11 million illegal immigrants, and funds  be sufficient to deport a fraction  of these immigrants, so prioritization is within the right of the executive branch.  The Solicitor General Donald Verrilli opened with this observation, but Justice Sotomayor brought it up again during questioning.

The case will likely be a critical one, as this order is seen as an expansion of the authority of the president particularly among Republicans.  It is seen as a pragmatic solution to a Congress deadlocked on immigration reform among Democrats.   An Executive Order is not a law, but a temporary measure- but once immigrants get their deferred status, I honestly can’t see any future president wanting to rescind this order.

Stay tuned,

Dave

 

 

Supreme Court to hear immigration case

Our immigration system is broken, and I know how to fix it.  Boy, if that isn’t the most worn out political cliche heard every election.

President Obama attempted to make one fix, called deferred deportation,  through the use of an executive order.  The lower courts in Texas said he had exceeded his authority.  Since President Obama and the Justice Department did not agree with the ruling, they appealed to the Supreme Court.  They have agreed to hear the case.

The Supreme Court could have declined to hear the case, in which case, the program would be dead.  So, it is a victory in a way, because they may rule in favor of the deferred deportation program.  Oral arguments will likely be in April, with a decision in late June, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The president can  not change a person’s status from illegal to legal.  The immigration laws are set by Congress.  And this is where the mess begins, because Republicans and Democrats have voiced very different agendas in regards to immigration.  But Obama and the Department of Justice felt that as long as the executive order made temporary changes to the way the law was being implemented, then the order was legal.  The next president can end the program for sure, but it will be extremely unpopular,  after granting deferred deportation to millions of people.  It will be like they came out of hiding, just to get caught again.

There are a number of legal issues before the court.  The authority to deport someone is with the INS, hence the executive branch has discretion to a certain extent.  But the lawsuits against the program argue that this should be done on a case by case basis, rather than a blanket deferment of a select group of illegals.  Another issue is whether the executive order is really a INS rule, in which case there is a lengthy process of hearings required as part of the rule making procedures.  An argument in favor of the executive order is that Congress did not budget enough money for the deportation of approximately 11 million illegals, so it forces the INS into selective enforcement.

The internet is filled with articles on deferred deportation.  For this reason, I have not included any links in this blog.

Supreme Court observers expect a close decision.   Liberals on the Court may see the executive order as a workable solution to a conflicting mess (lots of laws requiring deportation, little money to do it) made by Congress, while conservatives may see Obama as doing an end run around Congress.

The case belongs in the Supreme Court.  Exactly how much authority the executive branch of our government has, is a constitutional question, not to be answered by Congress, nor political candidates,   nor the media,  but in our highest court.

Stay tuned,

Dave