What to watch for in the appeal of the Texas #immigration lawsuit to the 5th Circuit

Originally posted by America’s Voice

by David Leopold

In March, the 5th Circuit appeals court granted the Obama Administration’s request to fast-track its appeal of Judge Hanen’s preliminary injunction which temporary blocked implementation of DACA expansion and DAPA. The Administration and the plaintiff states agreed to a briefing schedule which requires that all written arguments be filed with the appeals court by the third week in May.

In the meantime, on April 17, the court of appeals will hear oral argument on the Obama Administration’s request that it stay (or temporarily postpone) the hold Judge Hanen placed on DACA expansion and DAPA when he issued his preliminary injunction on February 16.

Importantly, the April 17 hearing is not a hearing on the appeal of Judge Hanen’s preliminary injunction.  It is a hearing on the Obama Administration’s motion to stay (temporarily postpone) the injunction while the court of appeals considers the case.  In effect, what the Obama administration is asking is that the court of appeals stop Judge Hanen’s order from taking effect until it decides the entire case.  So the April 17 hearing is not the final hearing on the appeal.  If, for some reason, the court of appeals does not postpone the injunction that doesn’t mean the Obama Administration has lost the appeal.  It just means the court of appeals has decided to continue to let Judge Hanen’s temporary delay of DACA expansion and DAPA stay in place while they consider the case.

It’s confusing.  But the upshot is that while the April 17 hearing is very important, it’s hopefully just another step along the way to getting the GOP lawsuit thrown out of court—where it belongs.

The appeals court has not yet scheduled Oral argument on the appeal of the preliminary injunction itself. That should happen toward the end of May once the parties are finished briefing the case.

Given the fast track briefing schedule, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals could issue a decision on the Obama Administration’s full appeal sometime in June or July.  That means that regardless of whether or not the Court of Appeals temporarily lifts the injunction after the April 17 hearing, if the Obama Administration wins the appeal the delay to DAPA/DACA expansion could be no more than a few weeks.

Stay tuned.

A Summary of Today’s Orders Of The 5th Circuit Appeals Court in the Texas #immigration Case

Here is a summary of the orders issued today by the 5th Circuit Appeals Court in the Texas Immigration lawsuit:

  1. The Court granted the Obama Administration’s motion to expedite the appeal of Judge Hanen’s preliminary injunction;
  2. Texas (and the plaintiff states) and the Obama Administration agreed to a briefing schedule lasting until about the third week in May;
  3. On April 17, 2015 the Court of Appeals  will hear oral arguments on the Obama Administration’s motion to stay (lift) Judge Hanen’s preliminary injunction pending appeal. Each side will be allowed one (1) hour for argument (Note: it’s rare for a Court of Appeals panel to hear oral argument on a motion to stay.  These are usually decided on papers alone); and
  4. The states opposing the preliminary injunction–Washington, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’i, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont and of the District of Columbia–are granted leave to file amicus briefs in support of the Obama Administration’s appeal of the preliminary injunction.

Note: The Court has set oral argument on the motion to stay the injunction.  Oral argument on the appeal itself has not yet been scheduled. Presumably oral argument on the appeal will be set in the next few weeks.

The Fifth Circuit website indicates that the names of the judges hearing oral argument will not be posted until at least a week before the beginning of the court week.

Given the expedited briefing schedule, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals could issue a decision on the Obama Administration’s appeal of  Judge Hanen’s order sometime in June.  This means that regardless of whether the Court of Appeals temporarily stays (lifts) the injunction, if the Obama Administration wins the case the delay to DAPA/DACA expansion could be no more than a few weeks.

That’s good news.

DAPA Eligible Immigrants Will Not Be Deported and 3 Other Things You Need to Know About the GOP #Immigration Lawsuit

Originally posted on Huffington Post

By David Leopold

Since Judge Hanen issued his controversial midnight order blocking President Obama’s executive actions on immigration there has been a lot of speculation about what will happen next. Will the Court of Appeals quickly reverse the ruling? How long will it take for the case to wind its way through the appellate courts? Will the U.S. Supreme Court have to weigh in?

I’ve been answering questions like these on DAPAQuestions.org and will continue doing so, but there are three key questions that many people are asking today.

What does the Republican Lawsuit against expanding DACA and the new DAPA program mean for the 5 million immigrants that would qualify for these programs?

The Republican lawsuit against DACA expansion and DAPA was undoubtedly a bump in the road, but it is not the final word. The law is clear and DAPA/DACA expansion policies are legal, despite what Judge Hanen thinks. Until the Texas case is resolved on appeal, DREAMers and parents who were preparing to apply should continue to do so.

Importantly, applicants for the DACA program created in 2012 can and should continue to apply. The lawsuit does not affect them.

Applicants for DACA expansion (the changes announced in 2014) should continue to collect documents and other proof showing of arrival in the U.S. before the age of 16 and that they were in the U.S. on January 1, 2010.

DAPA applicants should collect all necessary proof that they’ve lived in the U.S. since before January 1, 2010 and, on November 20, 2014–the day President Obama announced his immigration executive actions–were the parent of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

And, of course, applicants should be prepared to pay the expected $465 application filing fee which includes the cost of criminal background checks.

Does the Republican lawsuit block all of President Obama’s immigration actions?

No! While the future of DAPA and DACA expansion could be tied up in the courts for the next few weeks or (maybe even months), Republicans cannot touch Obama’s immigration actions that are already being implemented.

Judge Hanen’s order does NOT affect the original, existing DACA program. Individuals who qualify for deferred action based on the criteria outlined in 2012 can and should continue to apply.

Judge Hanen’s order also has NO effect on the immigration enforcement priorities that President Obama laid out as part of his executive actions. These new priorities, which are detailed in a memorandum from Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, direct immigration agents to focus on the deportation of aliens who are national security threats, felons, criminal gang members, visa abusers and serious immigration violators.

This means that DREAMers and parents of U.S. citizens who meet the criteria for DACA expansion and DAPA generally should not be deported–even if they come into contact with ICE or CBP. They are only at risk if their deportation would service an “important federal interest” such as individuals who pose a threat to community safety.

Nobody has (or can) seriously question whether or not President Obama’s immigration enforcement priorities are legal. And they go beyond the confines of DACA and DAPA to prevent unjust deportation of other undocumented immigrants with roots and ties to the United States.

But how can we trust that these priorities are being implemented?

This is an important question given past experience with various iterations of “enforcement priorities” memos.

The good news is that so far ICE field offices seem to be following the new enforcement priorities. In Ohio, for example, ICE agents took it upon themselves to postpone the imminent removal of an undocumented mother of a U.S. citizen child after the policies were announced. While the woman still needs DAPA to get stability, at least her low priority removal status allows immigration enforcement agents to focus on dangerous criminals and national security risks. Vox’s Dara Lindreportedlast week that 1000 people have been released from immigration custody since DHS released its enforcement priorities in November.

Nevertheless, immigration advocates must remain vigilant. If a DREAMer, undocumented parent or long-term resident is apprehended, detained or facing removal, ICE officials should be notified immediately that the person is not an enforcement priority and should not be detained or removed. Ideally this should be done through a licensed attorney who is experienced with the deferred action process. If local officials appear to not be following priorities, attorneys should sound alarm bells to higher immigration agency authorities and immigration advocacy groups like America’s Voice Education Fund who can work to ensure that ICE agents closely follow the President’s smart enforcement priorities.

Obama Admin files emergency request to lift #immigration injunction; READ IT HERE–>

2015-02-23 Gov Motion for Stay

2015-02-23 Affidavit 1

2015-02-23 Proposed Order

2015-02-23 Affidavit 2

The Texas Lawsuit Challenging Obama’s Immigration Executive Actions Will Be Thrown Out — If the Judge Follows the Law

Originally posted in Huffington Post by David LeopoldUS-POLITICS-OBAMA-IMMIGRATION

Supporters of immigration reform are gearing up for what many expect to be bad news out of a federal court in Brownsville, Texas. Judge Andrew Hanen is about to decide whether or not to block the executive actions on deportations President Obama announced late last year. The actions, which have been challenged in federal court by the State of Texas and 25 other states, expand DACA — the deportation reprieve offered to undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children — and create DAPA, a temporary deportation reprieve for undocumented parents of U.S. citizens and lawful residents.

The conventional wisdom is that Judge Hanen will enjoin implementation of the executive actions, perhaps as early as this week. Observers cite to a 2013 opinion Judge Hanen wrote in U.S. v. Navara-Martinez, an unrelated criminal prosecution for alien smuggling. There Judge Hanen, using extremely harsh language, lamented what he described as “the apparent policy of the Department of Homeland Security of completing the criminal mission of individuals who are violating the border security of the U.S.” He went on to say the “Department of Homeland Security should enforce the laws of the United States — not break them.”

To many that sounds like a jurist itching to rule against Mr. Obama’s executive action on deportations. And it’s likely why the State of Texas filed the case in the Southern District of Texas where Judge Hanen presides. The 30 page lawsuit prominently citesNavara-Martinez in an obvious effort to remind the judge that he has already found that the Administration has colluded in a criminal conspiracy to violate the law.

But the conventional wisdom could be way off. In fact, there’s a strong chance that Judge Hanen will throw the case out — if he correctly follows the law.

Here’s why:

First, and perhaps most importantly, the State of Texas has filed a bogus complaint; it reads more like a factually inaccurate press release than a legal document. It fails to describe exactly how the plaintiff states are or will be concretely harmed by the temporary deportation reprieves; especially when the Administration has used all resources allocated to it annually by Congress to detain and deport undocumented immigrants — approximately 400,000 people a year — leading some to label President Obama the “deporter-in-chief.” Further, at least one federal court has dismissed a similar challenge to the President’s executive actions brought by Joe Arpaio, the infamous anti-immigrant sheriff of Maricopa County Arizona, concluding Arpaio lacked standing to sue. While the decision is not binding on Judge Hanen, its cogent analysis of the complex legal doctrine of standing certainly provides persuasive authority for the dismissal of the Texas lawsuit.

Second, there’s no question Judge Hanen is extremely frustrated with DHS’s policy of reuniting unaccompanied minors with their undocumented parents in the U.S. But his opinion in Navara-Martinez was just that, an opinion. While reasonable minds may differ as to the prudence of using a judicial forum to express such views, nothing Judge Hanen did exceeded the bounds of his authority as a federal judge. Indeed, he noted judges are not authorized to make policy. “This Court takes no position on the topic of immigration reform,” Judge Hanen wrote, “nor should one read this opinion as a commentary on that issue. That is a subject laced with controversy and is a matter of much political debate which is not the province of the judicial branch.”

Third, while Judge Hanen severely criticized what he termed the Administration’s “failure to enforce current United States law,” he did so in the context of an alien smuggling prosecution. Whether or not one agrees with the judge’s views, it’s clear he was neither criticizing the Administration’s civil immigration enforcement priorities nor questioning prosecutorial discretion in general, including deferred action on deportations. “This Court is not opposed to the concept of prosecutorial discretion,” wrote Hanen, “if that discretion is exercised with a sense of justice and common sense.” And it would seem — at least to me — that common sense immigration enforcement includes processes like DACA and DAPA which allow the Administration to focus limited resources on deporting dangerous felons, national security risks and recent border crossers rather than DREAMERS and mothers and fathers of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.

Judge Hanen, like all federal judges, has sworn to “faithfully and impartially discharge and perform” his duties under the Constitution. That is a serious oath which requires him to fairly apply the law — regardless of whether or not he personally agrees with the President’s executive actions on deportations. In the meantime many will take comfort in knowing that whatever Judge Hanen decides he will not likely have the last word. That’s all but certain to come from the appellate courts.

New Anti-Immigrant GOP Judiciary Committee Readies Itself for Loretta Lynch Hearing

From America’s Voice

Will Senate GOP Really Turn Critical Hearing on Attorney General Nominee into Anti-Immigrant Brawl?

Washington DC – In Congress and on the campaign trailRepublicans have been busy in the new year burnishing their anti-immigrant brand image.  In Washington, most of the anti-immigration action has taken place in the House of Representatives, where the GOP passed legislation straight from the top of the restrictionists’ wish list, including proposals that block the sensible and legal immigration actions announced by the President last November, end the DACA program for DREAMers, and maximize the deportation of all undocumented immigrants in America.

On the other side of the Capitol, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are preparing to turn the Attorney General confirmation hearings into yet another anti-immigration slugfest.  Rather than focusing on Loretta Lynch’s qualifications to serve as the next Attorney General for the United States, they are planning to spend much of their time criticizing President Obama’s actions on immigration.

Of course this should surprise no one, since the Republican side of the Senate Judiciary Committee is now stacked with hardliners who have promised to make immigration a dominant focus of the proceedings.

According to Lynn Tramonte, Deputy Director of America’s Voice, “It’s safe to say that Republicans in Congress are obsessed with immigration.  With all of the issues facing the nation today—terrorism, cybercrime, individual liberties, the role of law enforcement in communities, and so much more—Republicans’ decision to turn the Attorney General confirmation hearings into another anti-immigration press conference is just as irresponsible as it is reprehensible.”

It is difficult to predict which Republican Senator will express his anti-immigration obsession the most colorfully, and earn the most headlines.  There certainly are a lot of contenders on the Committee, such as:

“It seems that Republicans in Congress don’t feel they have sufficiently alienated voters who care about immigration reform.  They have to turn every occasion—no matter how important—into an opportunity to attack President Obama on immigration.  It’s a level of obsession that cries out for an intervention,” said Tramonte.

America’s Voice will be commenting on the hearings via Twitter; follow @AmericasVoice to stay informed.

Follow Frank Sharry and America’s Voice on twitter @FrankSharry and @AmericasVoice.

America’s Voice – Harnessing the power of American voices and American values to win common sense immigration reform 

www.americasvoice.org

Mayors de Blasio and Garcetti Announce Mayoral Coalition to File Amicus Brief in Support of President Obama’s Executive Action on Immigration Reform


From the City of New York, Mayor’s Office

January 23, 2015

 More than 30 mayors sign on in Texas vs. United States in defense of President Obama’s reform action

 WASHINGTON—Mayors Bill de Blasio of New York City and Eric Garcetti of Los Angeles announced today plans by more than 30 mayors to file an amicus brief in the Texas vs. United States lawsuit to support President Obama’s recent executive action on immigration reform. The brief opposes a lawsuit pending in Brownsville, TX brought by states seeking to block President Obama’s immigration reform efforts.

The two mayors led the effort to organize more than 30 cities, the National League of Cities, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors in filing a brief arguing that the public interest across the country is served clearly and overwhelmingly by implementing immigration reform by executive action. The brief also argues that blocking executive action with preliminary injunction will stall desperately needed changes to the federal government’s immigration policies. The cities represented by the amici mayors together account for approximately 28.2 million people, including 7.5 million immigrants.

“Our mission is urgent. Delaying implementation of the President’s executive action will further hurt our families, negatively impact our economies, and create unnecessary insecurity in our communities,” said Mayor Bill de Blasio. “Cities are where immigrants live, and cities are where the President’s executive action will be successfully executed. We are organized, and we will fight for the changes this nation needs and deserves, and fight those who oppose immigration reform, be it in the courtroom, in Congress, or in our communities. Our voices will be heard.”

“Our cities cannot afford delays to immigration reforms that will strengthen our economy and help families,” said Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, who established a Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs. “This isn’t a blue or red issue, but a human and economic one.”

This joint effort to offer the court the crucial perspective of American cities is an outcome of the December immigration summit hosted by Mayor Bill de Blasio at Gracie Mansion and the organizing efforts of the Cities United for Immigration Action (CUIA) coalition. By submitting this “friend of the court” brief, America’s mayors are making a strong statement in support of the President’s plan to grant administrative relief to over 4 million undocumented children and adults. The amicus brief will demonstrate to the Court that executive action will benefit cities by providing work authorization to millions, increasing local tax revenue, and stimulating local economies, facilitating the civic engagement of immigrants, keeping families together, and improving public safety by strengthening our neighborhoods and communities.

In December, 25 states led by Republican governors brought a lawsuit captioned Texas vs. United States in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Texas, seeking to halt the implementation of the President’s executive action. In response, a group of 12 states in January joined by the District of Columbia filed an amicus brief challenging the lawsuit by arguing that, contrary to the plaintiffs’ claims, the President’s immigration reform will in fact “further the public interest” of states and their residents, both immigrants and citizens. A group of 27 law enforcement leaders and other groups have also filed amicus briefs in support of the President’s executive action on immigration reform.

This is the first submission to the court from the city perspective.

“San Francisco is proud to file an Amicus Brief joining cities large and small from across the country and the U.S. Conference of Mayors to support our President’s bold action on immigration and create the change to help our residents succeed,” said San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee. “As the son of immigrant parents, this issue is very personal to me. Mayors must lead on this reform to provide all of our residents with hope, opportunities, and the services they deserve. We know our diversity drives our cities’ economies and makes us all stronger.”

“The President’s executive action on immigration is a step forward for America,” said Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker. “We need to support his efforts to address our broken immigration system.”

“Filing an Amicus Brief is our way of saying: Pittsburgh stands on the right side of history. The President’s action on immigration was an important first step towards progress—for the growth and prosperity of our nation. We must not go backwards,” said Pittsburgh Mayor William Peduto.

“The City of Dayton is proud to be a leader in welcoming people from diverse backgrounds to its community,” said Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley. “This order will strengthen our commitment to inclusion by allowing all residents to fully participate and help grow the economic vitality of the region. It is essential that all citizens feel safe and engaged in the place they call home.”

“This proposal is fair, economically beneficial for everyone, and the right thing to do,” said Madison Mayor Paul Soglin.

“Right now, our immigration system invites the best and brightest from all over the world to come and study at our top universities, including Washington University and St. Louis University, and then once they’ve gotten the training they need to build a new invention or create a new business, our system too often tells them to go back home so that other countries can reap the benefits, the new jobs, the new businesses, the new industries,” said St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay. “It’s evidence of the broken system we have today and why we must fight to fix it.”

The following Mayors have signed on to the amicus brief:

Mayor Bill de Blasio, New York, New York

Mayor Eric Garcetti, Los Angeles, California

Mayor Kasim Reed, Atlanta, Georgia

Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, Baltimore, Maryland

Mayor Byron Browm, Buffalo, New York

Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Chicago, Illinois

Mayor Steve Benjamin, Columbia, South Carolina

Mayor Nan Whaley, Dayton, Ohio

Mayor Michael Hancock, Denver, Colorado

Mayor Muriel Bowser, Washington, D.C.

Mayor Pedro Segarra, Hartford, Connecticut

Mayor Annise Parker, Houston, Texas

Mayor Steven Fulop, Jersey City, New Jersey

Mayor Paul Soglin, Madison, Wisconsin

Mayor Ras Baraka, Newark, New Jersey

Mayor Michael Nutter, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Mayor Bill Peduto, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Mayor Charles Hales, Portland, Oregon

Mayor John Dickert, Racine, Wisconsin

Mayor Tom Butt, Richmond, California

Mayor Lovely Warren, Rochester, New York

Mayor Ralph Becker, Salt Lake City, Utah

Mayor Ed Lee, San Francisco, California

Mayor Gary McCarthy, Schenectady, New York

Mayor Ed Murray, Seattle, Washington

Mayor Francis Slay, St. Louis, Missouri

Mayor Marilyn Strickland, Tacoma, Washington

Mayor Mike Spano, Yonkers, New York

The following mayors have expressed their support and will sign on to the brief, pending final local approvals:

Mayor Karen Majewski, Hamtramck, Michigan

Mayor Virg Bernero, Lansing, Michigan

Mayor Tom Barrett, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Mayor Betsy Hodges, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Mayor Greg Stanton, Phoenix, Arizona

 pressoffice@cityhall.nyc.gov

STATES’ LAWSUIT AGAINST EXECUTIVE ACTION HAD FIRST HEARING YESTERDAY; WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

Originally posted by America’s Voice

Yesterday, the case filed by 25 states suing President Obama over executive action received its first hearing with federal judge Andrew Hanen.  The defendant (the federal government) has requested until the end of January to file another brief, which means that Hanen’s ruling won’t come until at least February.  There are several things that might happen in his ruling:

  • Standing — this is the first thing that the plaintiff states must establish.  If they can’t demonstrate that they suffer a particular harm due to executive action (and they are claiming all sorts of harms), then they don’t have standing, and the case will be thrown out.
  • Injunction – the states have asked that the judge hand down preliminary injunction while the case is pending.  This would block executive action while the case winds through the legal system.  If the judge has ruled that the states have standing, Hanen can either 1) deny the motion for an injunction, thereby allowing executive action to begin being implemented, 2) grant an injunction, or 3) grant an injunction only in the 25 states that have sued.
  • Stay — if Hanen hands down an injunction, a higher court can issue a stay.  That would freeze Judge Hanen’s decision granting the injunction and once more allow executive action to proceed while the case winds through the courts.

Below, with an informal quick-take and more details is David Leopold, an immigration attorney, legal consultant to America’s Voice and past president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association:

Does Hanen first need to rule on standing, or can he rule on standing and the injunction at the same time?

Think of standing as the question of whether or not the plaintiffs have shown they have suffered a harm that he can rule on. In other words, I could not sue because someone broke a contract with you. You would have to sue. I would have no standing.

So the judge first needs to agree there is standing, e.g. that the plaintiffs have articulated some harm to them over which he has the authority to rule. If, like the judge in the Arpaio case, he concludes there is no standing, he could dismiss on that basis alone. If he concludes there is standing he then (in the same opinion) will likely rule on the injunction. He could conceivably agree there is standing, but deny the injunction, so the two are not necessarily mutually dependent. Bottom line, the 25 states must show they have standing to sue. If no there is standing, there will be no injunction and the case fails. That would be the best result. According to many observers however, it’s more likely, given the judge’s background, that he’ll agree there is standing and will grant the injunction.

If Hanen issues an injunction would it affect DACA and Morton memos as well as executive action, or just executive action (i.e. DACA expansion, DAPA, new priorities enforcement memos, etc)? 

First, this is a hypothetical question. Let’s remember, the immigration executive actions are solidly legal; they are based constitutional and statutory authority and are consistent with deportation reprieves implemented by presidents of both parties dating back to Eisenhower.

That said, this is a much more difficult question because it involves complicated jurisdictional questions. And I don’t believe scholars are of one view about the answer. The rules governing declaratory judgments give the court authority to declare the rights of parties. Whether or not a ruling declaring the president’s executive actions unlawful would immediately apply across the country is a matter of debate. What’s clear is that an adverse ruling declaring the immigration executive actions unconstitutional, if allowed to stand (which I believe is unlikely at best), would affect DAPA and DACA expansion nationally. It would not impact the Morton memos because those are agency policy directives which are not targeted by the suit, and their legality has not been challenged. Nor would it likely affect most of the immigration executive actions related to business immigration issues. I think an adverse ruling would also effect DACA because the complaint asks for a ruling on the “deferred action program.”

Would an adverse final decision (from SCOTUS) affect DACA and the Morton memos as well as executive action, or just executive action (i.e. DACA expansion, DAPA, new priorities enforcement memos, etc)? In the 25 states or nationwide? 

Again, hypothetically, an adverse SCOTUS ruling would likely affect the well-settled tradition of prosecutorial discretion in general—and throw the entire immigration enforcement system into disarray because it could impact all exercises of deferred action, and, therefore all enforcement decisions. In other words, it wouldn’t be clear how much authority the president has to grant exercised prosecutorial discretion in immigration matters, including deferred action. It would be a royal mess.

But this is outcome his highly unlikely. As recently as its decision in Arizona vs U.S. SCOTUS reaffirmed that “a principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials.” Moreover, as stated, for decades presidents of both parties have granted deportation reprieves to large classes of undocumented immigrants. According to the Immigration Policy Center perhaps the most striking historical parallel to today’s immigration challenges is the “Family Fairness” policy which led President George H.W. Bush to offer a blanket deferral to as many as 1.5 million spouses and children of immigrants who were legalizing, provided they met certain criteria.

If Hanen issues an injunction and it’s stayed, will DHS be able to continue implementation of the program nationwide?

This is exactly what I predict will happen. And DHS will be able to continue implementation of DAPA and DACA nationwide. At some point some court is going to have to correctly apply the law. My hope is that it will be Judge Hanen who has sworn to uphold the law. But if not, my guess is that it will be the 5th circuit court of appeals—not because they like DAPA or DACA or Obama—but because as a federal appellate court they must ensure the integrity of the judicial system. The 25 states clearly lack standing to bring this suit and that’s exactly what I think the ultimate ruling will turn on.

How much time could pass between the issuing of a preliminary injunction and having it stayed by another court? 

Going out on a limb here, but I believe it will be very short—a matter of hours, if that much. My guess is that in the event of an adverse ruling the government will immediately ask the judge to stay his own order granting the injunction pending appeal. He may or may not do that. If he doesn’t, the government will probably immediately appeal to the 5th circuit and request an emergency hearing. And if that doesn’t work, the government will likely ask SCOTUS to intervene.

Mike DeWine’s decision to join Texas #immigration lawsuit hurts #Ohio

Originally posted by the Cleveland Plain Dealer on Cleveland.com2014-12-19 DeWine

By David Leopold

Forty-one million dollars.

That’s a serious piece of change. And it’s the amount of tax revenue Ohioans stand to lose over the next five years if Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine has his way.

DeWine has slapped the name of the Great State of Ohio on a Texas lawsuit seeking to stop President Barack Obama’s immigration-related executive actions that will bring 5 million undocumented immigrants out of the shadows. The process, known as deferred action, will require unauthorized immigrants nationwide to register, undergo criminal background checks and pay taxes. Ohio stands to gain $41 million dollars in tax revenue to be paid by an estimated 82,000 undocumented Ohioans who’ll qualify for the program.

That’s real money; money that could relieve Ohio financial strains and be used to hire teachers, firefighters and police officers.

Why would DeWine, who has always had a pragmatic, fair-minded approach to immigration, sign onto a lawsuit that’s not only frivolous, but reads more like a factually challenged press release than a well-reasoned legal complaint?

DeWine says his “decision to join the lawsuit in Texas has nothing to do with immigration policy.” Rather, so he claims, “It has everything to do with preserving our Constitution’s separation of powers and combatting the current administration’s consistent efforts to expand presidential authority into the traditional powers of Congress to make and change federal laws.”

That some very serious-sounding stuff. The good news is none of it’s true.

In fact the president is following the letter of the law — and doing exactly what Congress has required of the administration.

Let me explain.

The Constitution requires the president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Congress, which passes those laws has directed Obama to prioritize which undocumented immigrants should be deported. But Congress has only given the president enough resources to remove a fraction of the estimated 11 million living in the shadows, about 400,000 people per year. And since he’s been president Obama has done exactly that — he’s deported nearly half a million people a year — earning him harsh rebuke from his supporters, some of who dubbed him “The Deporter-in-Chief.”

What DeWine (and the Texas lawsuit) conveniently fail to mention is that Obama’s immigration actions do not stop deportations or even slow them down. The Department of Homeland Security will continue to deport nearly a half million undocumented immigrants every year whether or not Obama offers a temporary reprieve to DREAMERs and parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.

Moreover — as DeWine undoubtedly knows — Obama’s immigration actions are nothing new. Presidents of both parties have used deferred action to postpone the deportation of large groups of undocumented immigrants, including abused women, hurricane victims and refugees.

So the question is not whether Obama’s immigration actions are legal (they are); it’s who of the 11 million should he go after first? Does it make sense to use limited immigration enforcement resources to focus on deporting dangerous felons, national security risks and recent border crossers? Or should the president concentrate on removing DREAMERS and mothers and fathers of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.

The answer seems obvious to anyone concerned with the safety of Ohio communities.

Unfortunately it appears to be less obvious to DeWine. He ought to explain to Ohioans whom he’d rather see deported: a drug dealer in Cleveland, a gang member in Columbus or an undocumented mother working in the nurseries of Painesville or changing linens at a hotel in Toledo?

Does DeWine really think he’s doing Ohio taxpayers a service by signing onto a lawsuit that purports to protect the Constitution yet, in effect, aims to obstruct a lawful process which will hold 5 million undocumented immigrants accountable to their communities by requiring them to register, undergo criminal background checks, and pay taxes?

Sound bites, slogans, and frivolous lawsuits aside, the reality is that the immigration action undertaken by the president is not only legal, it’s damn good public policy. It will keep our borders protected by focusing more enforcement resources on border security, it will make our communities safer by getting rid of dangerous criminals and security threats, and it will keep American families together.

As a former prosecutor and U.S. senator, DeWine must know in his heart that Obama’s immigration actions are unassailably legal. Sadly, he has chosen to put Republican Party politics before the citizens of Ohio.

Fortunately he does not have the last word — Ohioans do. And they should demand that Attorney General Mike DeWine put partisan politics aside, do what’s best for the people of Ohio and remove the name of our great state from the meritless lawsuit in Texas.

Do Republicans have grandparents too?

Originally posted on Neil Steinberg’s blog.

BY NEIL STEINBERG
This is my grandfather, Irwin Bramson. I don’t believe his picture has ever appeared in a newspaper before. He would be delighted to see it here.
My grandfather was not famous, or successful, beyond supporting his family, working in a factory in Cleveland that made machine parts. He eventually owned his own house, on Rossmoor Road in Cleveland Heights. He was very proud of that.
My grandfather was born on a farm in Bialystock Poland, in 1907 and was sent to this country because things were very bad there and he had a relative, a distant cousin in Cleveland who owned an automobile parts factory and would employ him. He left at 16 and never saw any of his family again; they were all murdered, man, woman and child by the Nazis and their henchmen.
When he got here, he no doubt faced the scorn of those who felt that America was being corrupted by racially inferior immigrants such as himself that all manner of subhumans and Jews, were poisoning American blood, that they were constitutionally different and would never fit in.
But he did fit in. He never went to college, but he met my grandmother, got married—they went to the Century of Progress Exposition in Chicago on their honeymoon in 1934. They had three daughters, my mother being the eldest. Had they been born in Poland, they all would have been murdered too.
All of my memories of him involve him sitting in a green Barcalounger, watching “The Price Is Right.” He smoked cigarettes and drank bourbon. He sucked Luden’s Cherry Cough drops for his throat—he would die of emphysema in 1981.
He taught me chess. He would give me a dollar if I won and a dollar if I lost. He took me to my first baseball game. There was nothing mean or difficult about him. He did not complain. He asked nothing of anybody. In fact, he rarely spoke. He was a simple man, and I loved him.
Everyone in the United States, unless they are a Native-American, has a person like my grandfather in their past, someone who came over here to escape hardship or horror and make a life. Whether it was 5 or 50 or 500 years ago, the story is the same. They came over and the country let them in.
My grandfather became a citizen, not because he was a genius, not because he was harder working or smarter or better than any Mexican fording the Rio Grande. But because he could back then. There was an Ellis Island and a system that worked. Today Ellis Island is a shrine to ideals that half the country doesn’t believe anymore, who adopt the cruel role of the Americans who harassed their own forebears.
I thought of my grandfather, after I watched Barack Obama’s brief speech Thursday night—lucky I have cable because none of the networks, the supposed mainstream media supposedly in his thrall, bothered to show it. He announced his changes to immigration policy, to allow undocumented immigrants who have been here longer than five years to “get right with the law,” register and not fear deportation.
Before Obama even spoke, the Republicans, who oppose everything the president has done, is doing, or will do, made a show of opposing this too, a rare trifecta blending economic myopia, longterm political suicide, and lack of basic human decency. Only time will tell if they respond by trying to impeach him, shut down the government or some new strategem. The only thing that they are certain not to do is pass the comprehensive immigration reform which, announcing his stopgap, Obama called for.
That this is the right thing, that it is long overdue, that it will help the United States economy, that to do otherwise is cold hypocrisy and a denial of their own family, an insult the memory of my grandfather and theirs and the millions like him, never wrinkles their brow.
My wife and I watched the speech.
“He looks tired, frustrated,” my wife said.
“He’s trying to talk sense to idiots,” I said.
I’m glad I saw the speech, because I was starting to think very little of Obama, just by osmosis, just by living in a country where he is so despised. I wish he had done this three months, six months, a year ago. Not doing so was the kind of small, mean political calculation that has hobbled his presidency. The Democrats got drubbed anyway.
But now I realize, the bottom line with Obama is: he did what he could do. He didn’t waste effort trying the impossible. Even his narrowed options were tough to manage.
The good news is, he’s already won.
As with gay marriage, the notion of no longer keeping millions who came to this country illegally in rightless limbo forever will seem an impossibility until suddenly it doesn’t and everybody wonders what took us so long to do the moral thing. Then the people who are castigating the president now will be hard to find. Cornered, they will shrug off their fanatical opposition to people just like their own grandparents with some easy rationalization. What really struck me about the president’s speech is he could speak the words at all, that he somehow found the stamina to present a cogent argument to rabid enemies who stopped listening long ago. There is a nobility to that.

%d bloggers like this: