Type to search

White House To Appeal Ruling Blocking Obama’s Immigrant Protections

Politics Tribune News Service

White House To Appeal Ruling Blocking Obama’s Immigrant Protections

Share

By Molly Hennessy-Fiske, Kathleen Hennessey and Michael Muskal, Los Angeles Times (TNS)

The Obama administration on Tuesday said it would appeal a move by a federal judge in Texas that temporarily stopped the president’s executive actions on immigration, an anticipated judicial roadblock that was greeted with partisan reactions.

In a decision released late Monday night, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen put on hold Obama’s executive action to protect between 4 million and 5 million immigrants in the U.S. illegally from deportation. The first of the actions, expanding a program that protects young immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children, was set to launch on Wednesday.

In a statement released early Tuesday morning, the White House said Obama’s November actions are within the president’s legal authority. The White House argued that the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress have said federal officials can establish priorities in enforcing immigration laws.

“The district court’s decision wrongly prevents these lawful, commonsense policies from taking effect and the Department of Justice has indicated that it will appeal that decision,” the statement said.

The White House would turn to the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. There was not yet an indication when the White House would act and the timing could be complicated by Mardi Gras in New Orleans and snow in Washington.

Hanen issued a preliminary injunction blocking the federal programs from going into effect. He did not rule on the merits of the case brought by a coalition of 26 states, led by Texas.

In a memorandum accompanying the order, Hanen wrote that the suit should go forward. Without a preliminary injunction, he said, the states would “suffer irreparable harm in this case.”

“The genie would be impossible to put back into the bottle,” he wrote, adding that he agreed that legalizing the presence of millions of people is a “virtually irreversible” action.

The government of Mexico on Tuesday said it regretted the court decision.

Mexican nationals make up the largest single group of immigrants who crossed the border illegally. The Mexican government, however, has been careful not to appear to be interfering in U.S. immigration policy.

“We reiterate that these programs mean just migratory relief for millions of families and could make possible contributions by Mexican migrants to the U.S. economy and society,” the Mexican Foreign Relations Ministry said in a statement.

“The Foreign Ministry calls on the Mexican community to remain informed about the development of the judicial-review process through official sources,” the statement added, cautioning Mexican nationals against possible fraudulent efforts by unscrupulous immigration brokers.

But most of the reaction to the court’s action was along partisan lines.

“The Texas court decision reached last night is a major turning point in the fight to stop Obama’s lawless amnesty,” said Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), a conservative who has been fighting the Obama administration on immigration. “This is a major victory for the rule of law; the District Court’s ruling states that President Obama must now stop implementing these policies in ‘any and all aspects.’ Last summer we saw a humanitarian crisis on our southern border that was a direct consequence of Obama’s previous amnesty. Republicans are now standing together to try to ensure that it never happens again.”

Congress, which is on recess this week, has been stymied in dealing with legislation that links a repeal of Obama’s actions to the funding for the Department of Homeland Security. Republicans in the House passed legislation linking the issues, but the bill has been blocked in the Senate where Democrats have called for a clean funding bill and a separate debate on immigration.
Speaker John A. Boehner (R-OH) indicated that in the House the GOP would continue pushing for a bill linking immigration and funding.

“The president said 22 times he did not have the authority to take the very action on immigration he eventually did, so it is no surprise that at least one court has agreed,” Boehner said in a prepared statement. “We will continue to follow the case as it moves through the legal process. Hopefully, Senate Democrats who claim to oppose this executive overreach will now let the Senate begin debate on a bill to fund the Homeland Security Department.”

Groups that represent undocumented immigrants condemned the Texas ruling and said it would only delay what they consider to be important actions by the Obama administration to deal with the complex issues of immigration reform.

“We disagree with the court’s decision and believe a higher court will reaffirm the legitimacy of administrative relief, siding with countless legal scholars that the president was well within his authority to act,” said Janet Murguia, president and chief executive of the National Council of La Raza, a leading advocacy group.

Obama’s executive actions “are among the only commonsense solutions on immigration that have emerged in the last two decades. Detractors of these programs may try to paint this as a fight with the president, but make no mistake: Attempts to dismantle these programs are attacks on American families. They are attacks on U.S. citizen spouses and children who are seeing their families torn apart because some of our lawmakers refuse to do what is necessary to fix our immigration system,” Murguia said.

Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott tweeted praise for the judge’s order late Monday, saying it “stops the president’s overreach in its tracks.”

“We live in a nation governed by a system of checks and balances, and the president’s attempt to bypass the will of the American people was successfully checked today,” Abbott wrote.
The White House, in a statement from Press Secretary Josh Earnest, said “the Department of Justice, legal scholars, immigration experts, and the district court in Washington, D.C., have determined that the president’s actions are well within his legal authority.”

The ruling “prevents these lawful, commonsense policies from taking effect,” the statement said.

The judge’s order bars federal immigration officials from implementing “any and all aspects” of the program that Obama announced in November.

After the White House and the GOP couldn’t reach agreement on comprehensive immigration reform, Obama announced that he would act on his own and used his executive authority to defer deportation for about 4.7 million immigrants illegally in the United States.

DAPA includes more than 4 million people who have lived in the United States for at least five years and are the parents of U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents.

Obama also expanded DACA, which allows young people brought into the United States as children to apply for deportation deferrals and work permits.

The 26 states promptly sued, arguing that Obama had overstepped his constitutional authority by acting without congressional approval.

The administration has argued that Obama acted within his constitutional powers, a position supported by four lawyers who formerly served as general counsel to the immigration agency. The administration also argues that the states lack legal authority, known as standing, to challenge the immigration order in court.

“This injunction makes it clear that the president is not a law unto himself, and must work with our elected leaders in Congress and satisfy the courts in a fashion our Founding Fathers envisioned,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement late Monday.

Don Reay, executive director of the Texas Border Sheriff’s Coalition, called it “a very good decision.”

“This is something that should be handled legislatively — it’s too big of an issue for one person to dictate it,” Reay said, adding that he hopes the decision will “make Congress realize they need to start doing something — they need to work together. Maybe this will precipitate something, not further the chasm.”

The president has been supported by about a dozen states, led by Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson. Groups representing cities — including Los Angeles New York, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia — have filed friend-of-the-court briefs supporting Obama.

(Staff writer Tracy Wilkinson in Mexico City contributed to this report.)

Photo: U.S. President Barack Obama speaks during a meeting with a group of young undocumented immigrants in the Oval Office of the White House on Feb. 4, 2015 in Washington, D.C. The five immigrants, known as “dreamers,” who meet with the president have received protections from deportation under a program Obama implemented in 2012. (Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press/TNS)

Tags:

52 Comments

  1. Frank's Inatra February 18, 2015

    Obama is totally delusional.

    Reply
    1. jmprint February 24, 2015

      And you are totally a scum bag. A least there is medicine for being delusional. Maybe you inherited stupid from your KKK family.

      Reply
  2. kG February 18, 2015

    My faith has been restored in judiciary in this country. I am proud to live in a country where the law can stop the emperor from imposing his will to shield law breakers illegals and rule by decree. Hopefully this ruling will stop this unconstitutional amnesty and give this country a chance to have a real debate about amnesty for over 12 million illegals and how the best secure the border in the upcoming election. We ,as a country need to have a choice of either voting for an open borders ,all illegals are welcome, we will pay for their education ,food and shelter or legal merit based immigration with secure and sovereign borders. A clear choice between a liberal ,socialist Democrat or a free market conservative. We can proceed after the election but hopefully this criminal in the White House will not get to impose his will of instantly creating 12 million Democrat voters and disregarding the constitution.
    Watch Obama has already made the legal case against amnesty on u tube!

    Reply
    1. Grannysmovin February 18, 2015

      Temporary injunction. It was no accident that the suit was filed by former Texas AG Abbott in that district in Texas, since this judge is a Conservative Judge appointed by Bush. He did not rule his action unlawful or unconstitutional, he did however put forth his personal opinion of this along with his legal opinion. All judges need to leave their personal political and religious ideology at the door and use only the law, constitution and common sense in their deliberations. This will probably wind up before the Supreme Court. If he is such a criminal than why oh why have you not had him arrested, brought before the courts, tried and convicted? The House GOP could have ended this almost 2 years ago by a) passing the bi-partisan immigration bill passed by the Senate or b) using it to write their own bi-partisan bill. If they did their job, the President would not have used Executive Orders to temporarily delaying deportation of a selected group of non-citizens.

      Reply
      1. kG February 18, 2015

        Let’s hope temporary means the two years this criminal has left in the office. Then we will settle this at the election. The liberals can run on open borders,amnesty and food,clothes ,shelter,free education ,an instant tax refund of twenty four thousand dollars for each of these Obama citizens. Will see what the country decides. Untill then this case will be tied down in courts.
        This great American and true patriot judge did call this illegal amnesty an executive overreach but the legality of this amnesty was not before him. The case before him was whether the states who are suing the Federal government had a standing to sue the criminal in the White House ,which he did. He also very wisely put a stop on any further action by pointing out several violations of procedure by the Obama gang,thus stalling the case further. He knows that time is a crucial element in this criminal concepiracy to give these illegals through the system as soon as this gang can. Because as the judge pointed out ,once the toothpaste is out ,it’s too late to put it back. Something the criminal in the White House is counting on.
        This guy has to be the sharpest mind in the world. He sees beyond the garbage of Obama’s double talk!

        Reply
        1. Grannysmovin February 18, 2015

          First – since you have documented proof of his criminal acts than charge him, have him arrested brought to trail,convicted by your evidence and sentenced.

          This judge is not a great American he is a a normal conservative judge that was shopped by Abbott. In a memorandum accompanying the order, Hanen wrote that the suit should go forward. Without a
          preliminary injunction, he said, the states would “suffer irreparable harm in this case.” The Department of Justice, many legal scholars, immigration experts, and the district court in Washington, D.C., have determined that the president’s actions are well within his legal authority. So onward and upward to the court of appeals.
          US immigration law, as currently written, grants this discretion to executive officials to take such “deferred action.” Presidents Kennedy, Reagan,
          George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush all used their executive authority to defer immigration enforcement against a class of non-citizens. Did this Judge feel the same when the above Presidents issue executive order on immigration.
          If this man is the sharpest mind in the world that explains why the world is such a mess. Did his hatred of Obama enter into his ruling?

          Reply
          1. kG February 18, 2015

            Not all criminals are unfortunately prosecuted in this country but I will give you a dictionary difination of a crime”an action or instance that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or harms the people or the state through action that is prohibited by the state” when Obama put his hand on the bible and swore to protect and uphold the laws ,the constitution and protect the country from enemies ….his amnesty for ten million is not enforcing the laws of the law, his action is harming other American and injurious to the public welfare. Further more laws are made by Congress and signed by the president. He can Deffer action to prosecute but he can’t issue work visas,driver licenses ,and give public welfare,schooling and other benefits to these illegals. That is against passed laws. He can not rewrite laws! Get it dummy?
            Other presidents actions were in regards to a bill already passed by the Senate! Get it dummy?
            The judge is greatness is that he ruled on a hazy and little known procedural point based his case,the inform act,now Obama is going to find a precedent for that little known clause and there ain’t known which means the case will bogged down for a while. By then hopefully we will have elected a conservative and Obama’s scheme is moot!

            Reply
          2. Grannysmovin February 18, 2015

            Do you really think because someone has a different point of view than you, they don’t know definitions of words? Do you also tell fish stories? Obama E.O, will impact approximately 4 to 5 million not ten million. “In 1986, Congress and Reagan enacted a sweeping overhaul that gave legal status to up to 3 million immigrants without authorization to be in the country, if they had come to the U.S. before 1982. Spouses and children who could not meet that test did not qualify, which incited protests that the new law was breaking up families. Early efforts in Congress to amend the law to cover family members failed. In 1987, Reagan’s Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner announced that minor children of parents granted amnesty by the law would get protection from deportation.” http://www.businessinsider.com/reagan-and-bush-made-immigration-executive-orders-2014-11#ixzz3SA5BTMfG
            Gee seems this action was without Congress and against passed laws. When a poster resorts to calling people names as you did, you are not interested in exchanging points of view but rather than you are close minded and don’t even consider other points of view. Almost 2 years ago the Senate passed a bi-partisan Immigration Reform Bill and the House refused to bring it to the floor. History does repeat itself.
            Good night.

            Reply
          3. kG February 19, 2015

            There you go again…you kept asking me why he is a criminal ,I just told you why by giving you the difination. The key words you are not understanding in the 1987 law passed is Congress Passed ! Congress had passed the law and Reagan singed it .you see ,that is how Laws are made in this country. The president works,twists ,black mails ,yells ,or pleads with the American people to force congress to agree to his agenda with the opposition then the bill is written and the president sings it into law. He is Not a king ,an emperor ,or a dictator. He doesn’t get to make or re write already passed laws. Get it ? He is welcome to bring the entire central and South America here if he can get a majority to vote for it.
            Reagan made a terrible mistake. From four million to twenty millions now. Those who don’t learn from history …..

            Reply
          4. Grannysmovin February 19, 2015

            Reagan altered the law without Congress and just 3 years after they had reformed immigration. So what you are saying is a Republican President can rewrite or interpret a law without Congress. “1990. In February, President George H.W. Bush, acting through the Immigration and Naturalization Service, established a “family fairness” in which family members living with a legalizing immigrant and who were in the U.S. before passage of the 1986 law were granted protection from deportation and authorized to seek employment. Congress did not take action until October of that year (after Bush’s E.O) to make it permanent. Obama’s is temporary and can easily be done by Congress doing its job, which it has refused to do for 6 years. God your fish story keeps growing.

            Reply
          5. jmprint February 24, 2015

            I think we need to use our resource to get you better educated. Some of these children of immigrant parents can spell and write better then you.

            Reply
          6. paulyz February 19, 2015

            Actually Granny you are admitting that we had a one-time Amnesty in 1986. Guess what, that is still our Law, so anyone that entered Illegally AFTER 1986, needs to be deported. If we had yet another Amnesty, within a few years, people like you would be demanding “another” Amnesty for the

            Reply
          7. Grannysmovin February 19, 2015

            What about Bush’s Executive Order of 1990 and Obama’s DACA in 2012? Everyone agrees there is a broken Immigration Program, the Senate in June 2013 passes, 68-32, a huge immigration overhaul bill and the House refused to vote on it or develop there own. Why won’t Congress Pass a bill fixing the broken immigration laws. They can rewrite the laws removing anything ambiguous so no future President can use Executive Action on immigration.

            Reply
          8. paulyz February 19, 2015

            The problem still remains, any Amnesty will be just that, Amnesty. We already have many Laws on the books that are violated, just as any new so-called “comprehensive” reform will be. Americans do NOT believe this new one will be any different, & rightly so. Obama had almost 7 years to really secure the border & enforce E-verify, but he, as well as the Democrats actually opposed this. Past Congresses did as well. If they really want immigration reform, they had decades to prove it by enforcing the Laws, but politics trumps that everytime.

            Reply
        2. jmprint February 24, 2015

          No I think they will probably run on common sense, something the tea party lacks.

          Reply
    2. jmprint February 24, 2015

      This country has had more then 2 decades to do what all of a sudden you deem necessary. Again this children have no fault, stop letting your greedy, selfish, black heart get in they way.

      Reply
  3. James Bowen February 18, 2015

    This is good news. Let’s hope it is sustained.

    Reply
    1. johninPCFL February 18, 2015

      Sure. Parents of millions of American citizens deported. Well, at least the kids can go on welfare…

      Reply
      1. James Bowen February 18, 2015

        The kids can go with their parents and re-enter upon their 18th birthday. No families are forcibly separated, the decision of whether or not the kids go rests with the parents since they are their legal guardians.

        Reply
        1. johninPCFL February 18, 2015

          Yea, but you guys know all those lazy good-for-nothings will just leave their American citizen kids here. You know they’re already on welfare, so it wont change a thing, right? They’ll just be sleeping in a nice new bed and getting their free education and heathcare from a new family.
          Why don’t you just admit that some will be hurt, but that’s the price of your paranoia?

          Reply
          1. James Bowen February 18, 2015

            There may very well be adverse consequences for them. They broke the law, a law that exists to protect the livelihoods of American citizens. These laws need to be enforced if we are to preserve any semblance of a quality of live for future generations of Americans. However, forcible separation of families is not one of those adverse consequences. If their children stay here, that is a decision that they, not the authorities, made.

            Reply
          2. johninPCFL February 19, 2015

            The kids born in America broke the law? Which law did they break? That they weren’t born right-wing enough for you?

            Reply
          3. paulyz February 19, 2015

            The law that says they were born to Illegal parents that are Citizens of another Country.

            Reply
          4. johninPCFL February 20, 2015

            But they’re Americans. Do we toss American citizens out now just to satisfy your paranoia? How about forcing the teabaggers to pass comprehensive immigration reform instead?

            Reply
          5. James Bowen February 20, 2015

            If citizen children go with their deported illegal parents, they may re-enter legally upon their 18th birthday.

            Also, the opposition to giving illegals amnesty and expanding legal immigration is far, far broader than the Tea Party (which, by the way, largely ended in November 2010). There is almost no public support whatsoever for legalization and expansion. That is the reason why that Senate bill did go to the House in the last Congress. Congress got slammed by their constituents for passing it, and House members said no way to their leaders who really wanted to pass it.

            Reply
          6. jmprint February 24, 2015

            What part of being born in the US, makes you a US citizen do you not understand?

            Reply
          7. James Bowen February 20, 2015

            I never said they broke the law. I said their parents did. Being that their parents are their legal guardians, the normal course of action would be for their kids to go with them back to wherever the parents came from. That is a way better deal than the children of U.S. citizens get when their parents are sent to prison for non-violent crimes.

            Reply
        2. jmprint February 24, 2015

          Dictatorship, doesn’t have any room in America, Putin likes your kind.

          Reply
          1. James Bowen February 24, 2015

            This is not a dictatorship I am talking about.

            By the way, Putin is a very effective leader. While I don’t approve of all of his methods, our leaders could learn a thing or two from him.

            Reply
      2. kG February 18, 2015

        These illegals knowingly had babies in this country so they can stay and game the system. most of these anchor babies are fluent in Spanish. They can go back and adjust to their parents homeland. Many millions of immegrants do it all around the world. The kids adjust. Perhaps they can go back and use the free education provided by tax payers in America to good use in their own countries by developing Latin America so they future generations won’t have to move here illegally.

        Reply
        1. johninPCFL February 19, 2015

          Anchor babies can “go back”? They’re American citizens. They’re already home.

          Reply
          1. kG February 19, 2015

            I never said that. I am just saying if the parents leave they can easily adopt to their parents country? Plus good liberals like you can adopt many of them and spare the rest of us the expense!

            Reply
          2. johninPCFL February 19, 2015

            Nah. I’ll just let ’em stay with me and register for welfare. That way you can still pay for them instead of their parents working and doing it.

            Reply
          3. paulyz February 19, 2015

            Pay for all 12 Million of them johnny boy? Sorry, the rest of us will be forced to pay for them, leaving little left for our own families.

            Reply
          4. johninPCFL February 20, 2015

            Too bad. Tell the teabaggers to commit to comprehensive immigration reform and save us all the trouble.

            Reply
          5. jmprint February 24, 2015

            They will help themselves and the economy, stop being so paranoid.

            Reply
          6. jmprint February 24, 2015

            I help pay for your SSI check don’t I.

            Reply
          7. paulyz February 19, 2015

            Their Illegal parents can go back then, even though our 14th. Amendment was never for babies of illegals, it was meant for the freed slaves. Illegal parents are responsible for their own children, not Americans.

            Reply
          8. johninPCFL February 19, 2015

            How about their American children? Do we exile our own citizens to satiate your paranoia?

            Reply
          9. paulyz February 19, 2015

            So you don’t believe parents are responsible for their children? Besides, Illegals are Citizens of another Country, the US doesn’t have the right to keep Citizens from other Countries here.

            Reply
          10. johninPCFL February 20, 2015

            So now we’re ejecting American citizens? Great. Maybe the natives can rise up and toss the rest of the Europeans out.

            Reply
          11. jmprint February 24, 2015

            Trust me, I wish some would and take KG with them.

            Reply
          12. jmprint February 24, 2015

            The Lord says we should help all, are you not a Christian.

            Reply
        2. jmprint February 24, 2015

          Cry, cry, cry, why don’t you go back to the country that your ancestors came from, you can adjust. Such hate for the latin people, so superior hmmmm.

          Reply
      3. paulyz February 19, 2015

        Most of them & their Illegal parents are already on welfare, or at least using OUR American benefits. These Illegal parents sure wern’t concerned about any of this when they selfishly snuck into our Country.

        Reply
        1. jmprint February 24, 2015

          Oh Paul please, selfishly! Who is more selfish people trying to better there life or people trying to hold them back?

          Reply
  4. Ann Deez February 19, 2015

    Obama’s basically a lazy-man’s Karl Marx.

    Reply
    1. jmprint February 24, 2015

      Ann Deez, and you know this because…

      Reply
  5. paulyz February 19, 2015

    Our Constitution, this Judge, & Obama himself, who is a Constitutional lawyer, ALL state that Obama’s Executive Amnesty is ILLEGAL. You Illegals & Liberals don’t care about our Laws when it concerns your selfish interests….

    Reply
    1. johninPCFL February 19, 2015

      Yeah, it is as legal as when Reagan did it and as legal as when GHWBush did it. The judge didn’t say it was illegal, just that the SCOTUS needed to weigh in since they’d agreed to hear a case.
      The Gipper and Poppy Bush BOTH used executive orders to halt deportations as a way of forcing Congress to act.
      “1990. In February, President George H.W. Bush, acting through the Immigration and Naturalization Service, established a “family fairness” in which family members living with a legalizing immigrant and who were in the U.S. before passage of the 1986 law were granted protection from deportation and authorized to seek employment. “

      Reply
      1. paulyz February 19, 2015

        Read your own comment. If the bi-partisan “one-time” Amnesty was the Law, that meant all the people in the US Illegally BEFORE 1986, were included in that Amnesty. Had the enforcement provisions been implemented instead of ignored, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. So why do you want “another” Amnesty when we still have the 1986 Law? This new Amnesty won’t have the enforcement provisions implemented either, leading people like you to be screaming about all the poor Illegals living in the shadows, that snuck in after this new Amnesty. Without a fully secure border & mandatary E-verify, this will keep happening, just a farce for politics.

        Reply
        1. johninPCFL February 20, 2015

          Just another attempt to force the teabaggers in Congress to act. Pass comprehensive immigration reform and this problem (but not your paranoia) completely disappears.

          Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.