WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Tuesday night rejected an Arizona sheriff’s lawsuit seeking to halt President Barack Obama’s plan to spare nearly five million people from deportation.
Refusing to rule on the merits of the case, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell said the role of courts is not to engage in policymaking that is better left to the political branches of government.
The case brought by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio “raises important questions regarding the impact of illegal immigration on this nation, but the questions amount to generalized grievances which are not proper for the judiciary to address,” Howell wrote.
Mr. Ramos asked why the president deported some two million people if he “always had the legal authority to stop deportations.” He said to Mr. Obama’s face that he had”destroyed many families,”and added that activists called him “the deporter-in-chief’.”
Mr. Ramos then insisted that “you could’ve stopped deportations.”
The president responded:
That is not true Listen, here’s the fact of the matter. Jorge, here’s the fact of the matter. As president of the United States, I’m always responsible for problems that aren’t solved right away. I regret millions of people who didn’t get health insurance before I passed health insurance, and before I implemented it. I regret the fact that there are kids who should’ve been going to college during my presidency, but because we didn’t get to them fast enough, they gave up on college… .
Did you ever hear of threats to impeach these presidents over their #ExecutiveActions?
Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II
On November 20, minutes after President Barack Obama delivered a speech explaining his executive action on immigration reform that would protect millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) took to Fox News and called on tea partiers everywhere to come to Washington to protest.
Bachmann, the head of the House tea party caucus who is retiring from Congress in weeks, implored the audience to help her fight the “amnesty.” She urged them to “melt the phone lines” to congressional lawmakers. And she declared she would be leading a protest on Capitol Hill. “I’m calling on your viewers to come to DC on Wednesday, December 3, at high noon on the west steps of the Capitol,” she proclaimed. “We need to have a rally, and we need to go visit our senators and visit our congressman, because nothing frightens a congressman like the whites of his constituents’ eyes…We need the viewers to come and help us.”
Apparently the Tea Party Express decided that it wasn’t a good use of resources, and a whopping 40 or so came out for what was downgraded to a “Press Conference”. Perhaps the tide is changing and the RWNJs have managed to burn themselves out.l
You know, the more I mull over the Republican complaint about how immigration reform is being implemented, the more I sympathize with them. Public policy, especially on big, hot button issues like immigration shouldn’t be made by one person. One person doesn’t represent the will of the people, no matter what position he holds. Congress does, and the will of Congress should be paramount in policymaking.
Her parents, Marie and Jean Maxime Bourdeau, fled Haiti in the 1970s after Jean Maxime had been threatened by the Tonton Macoutes, the brutal police force of Francois Duvalier, the late dictator. According to Mother Jones, the immigration law in place at the time offered the possibility of her parents gaining citizenship if they had a child born in the United States. The law was set to expire in January 1976. On December 6, 1975, Love was born in a Brooklyn hospital.
“My parents have always told me I was a miracle and our family’s ticket to America,” Love told the Deseret News in a 2011 interview.
Although Love claims that her parents came here legally, there are several discrepancies that arise in her story. Her parents entered on tourist visas, which are typically granted for up to six months at the discretion of the immigration officer. This implies that Love’s parents overstayed their visas, became undocumented, and when Love was born, they were able to apply for legal status. If that were the case, then Mia Love is what Republicans pejoratively refer to as an “anchor baby.”
As near as I can tell, both liberal and conservative legal scholars—as opposed to TV talking heads and other professional rabble-rousers—agree that Obama has the authority to reshape immigration enforcement in nearly any way he wants to. Here are answers to five key questions about the legality of the immigration plan Obama announced tonight:
The United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787. Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the Constitution expressly gives the United States Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.
Pursuant to this power, Congress in 1790 passed the first naturalization law for the United States, the Naturalization Act of 1790. The law enabled those who had resided in the country for two years and had kept their current state of residence for a year to apply for citizenship. However it restricted naturalization to “free white persons” of “good moral character”.
The Naturalization Act of 1795 increased the residency requirement to five years residence and added a requirement to give a three years notice of intention to apply for citizenship, and the Naturalization Act of 1798 further increased the residency requirement to 14 years and required five years notice of intent to apply for citizenship.
I saw Barbara Boxer’s tweet below this morning, and found some historical precedent that supports presidential discretion in immigration matters, collected by the American Immigration Council.
Funny, Republicans never complained when Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. took executive action to stop deportations.— Sen. Barbara Boxer (@SenatorBoxer) November 7, 2014
“…as immigration legal scholar Hiroshi Motomura has noted, the president has broad executive authority to shape the enforcement and implementation of immigration laws, including exercising prosecutorial discretion to defer deportations and streamline certain adjudications. In fact, history books reveal that President Obama’s action follows a long line of presidents who relied on their executive branch authority to address immigration challenges.”
Large-scale actions: In addition to Family Fairness, other large-scale actions include paroles of up to 600,000 Cubans in the 1960s and over 300,000 Southeast Asians in the 1970s, President Carter’s suspension of deportations for over 250,000 visa-holders, and President Reagan’s deferral of deportations for up to 200,000 Nicaraguans.
Family-based actions: Other actions to protect families include the suspended deportations of families of visa-holders (Carter), parole of foreign-born orphans (Eisenhower, Obama), deferred action to widows of U.S. citizens and their children (Obama), and parole-in-place to families of military members (Obama).
Actions while legislation was pending: Other actions taken while legislation was pending include parole of Cuban asylum seekers fleeing Castro (Nixon, Kennedy, Johnson), deferred action to battered immigrants whom the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) would protect (Clinton), parole of orphans (Eisenhower), and DACA (Obama).
39 examples of executive grants of temporary immigration relief, 1956-present:
Here’s the fundamental paradox among immigration reformers. For the most part, the people who follow policy closely enough to feel most betrayed by President Obama are also the people who follow politics closely enough to understand how important it is that Republicans not control Congress. That’s true of advocates and organizers outside DC as well.
So, for example, in Colorado — the one 2014 Senate race in a state with a large Latino population — the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition is simultaneously organizing civil disobedience against Sen. Michael Bennet, who isn’t up for re-election this year, and trying to mobilize thousands of Latino voters to turn out for Sen. Mark Udall, who is.