Monday, April 25, 2016

IMMIGRATION - At the U.S. Supreme Court

"Supreme Court weighs scope of Presidential power in immigration case" PBS NewsHour 4/18/2016

A simplified view:  This case is about weather the President's policy (deferral, NOT a ban) falls under that of an executive manager.  IMO unless there is SPECIFIC language in the immigration law banning deferrals, any President can make deferrals.   aka deferrals are NOT CHANGES to the law.


SUMMARY:  The Supreme Court heard arguments in a challenge to President Obama’s actions that would defer deportations of many undocumented immigrants.  Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal joins Hari Sreenivasan to take a closer look at the case and the implications of a potentially split court.

HARI SREENIVASAN (NewsHour):  There was just one case on the docket today for this shorthanded Supreme Court.  But that case happened to be one of the biggest of the term, a dispute over immigration and the scope of presidential power.

The arguments inside the court drew hundreds of pro-immigration demonstrators outside, chanting, “Yes, we can” in Spanish.  They were there supporting the President’s program known as DAPA, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans.  It shields some four million people from deportation.

LUIS ORTEGA, Son of Undocumented Immigrant:  My dad travels all over the state of Texas.  And every time he goes out, we live in the fear that he’s going to be deported.  And families shouldn’t live like this.

HARI SREENIVASAN:  Congressional supporters also turned out to defend the President’s acting without congressional approval.

REP. LUIS GUTIERREZ (D), Illinois:  The President of the United States has taken actions that were clearly established today in the court that Ronald Reagan took, that George Bush took.

REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D), California:  It was made abundantly clear that the ability of the President to grant deferred action is of long standing and based in statute and regulation.  To deny that at this point would be an extraordinary departure from law and history.

HARI SREENIVASAN:  But Texas and 25 two other states have mounted the legal challenge to DAPA.  They argue the President did overstep his constitutional authority.

KEN PAXTON, Attorney General, Texas:  If we allow a President, whether it’s this President, or a future President; no matter what their political persuasion or their party, to make changes in the law without congressional approval, then we will end up with a perverted Constitution.

No comments: