Court Won’t Lift Ban On Obama Immigration Action

On Tuesday, a federal appeals court refused to lift a temporary hold on President Barack Obama’s executive action that would prevent as many as 5 million immigrants illegally living in the U.S. from being deported, according to the AP. The hold allows the deportations to continue.

The U.S. Justice Department had asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a Texas judge who agreed to temporarily block the president’s plan in February, after 26 states filed a lawsuit alleging Obama’s action was unconstitutional. However, on a two-one vote, a panel of the court denied it, writes the AP.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans made the decision that the executive action must be delayed until the lawsuit is resolved.

It wasn’t clear if the government would appeal, either to the full appeals court in New Orleans or to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The states suing to block the plan argue that Obama acted outside his authority and that the changes would force them to invest more in law enforcement, health care and education.

The White House has said the president acted within his powers to fix a “broken immigration system.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/27/us/fifth-circuit-court-of-appeals-rules-on-obama-immigration-plan.html?_r=0

Texas Judge Blocks The President’s Immigration Executive Order

MSNBC

A Texas Judge has blocked the president’s immigration order.

Does the president have the right to issue executive orders on immigration?

According to HowStuffWorks, “Executive orders have been used by every American president since George Washington to lead the nation through times of war, to respond to natural disasters and economic crises, to encourage or discourage regulation by federal agencies, to promote civil rights, or in the case of the Japanese internment camps, to revoke civil rights.”

According to the New Republic, Presidents Reagan and H.W. Bush took executive action on immigration.  Reagan and Bush made executive actions to stop the deportation of children and spouses of newly-legalized immigrants. In fact, Bush’s executive action was called the “family fairness” program.

USA Today claims the younger George W. Bush also “…issued a number of small-bore executive orders — to expedite citizenship for immigrants in the military, or to defer deportation for students affected by Hurricane Katrina…”

Talking Points Memo states that the president has ordered fewer executive orders than any president since prior to World War II.  TPM states it comes out to less than 0.1 for every day he’s been in office. “FDR, by comparison, was cranking out close to one per day as he faced the Great Depression and World War II.”  TPM does state that the simple totals “cannot account for the scope and tangible impact of individual executive orders or incorporate other elements of executive power,” which is understandable.

The question is:  what are the grounds for a lawsuit, impeachment, or the claims of lawlessness?

The only possibility is that the executive orders have possibly been too broad in scope.

According to the New York Times, “(m)ost of the major elements of the president’s plan are based on longstanding legal precedents that give the executive branch the right to exercise ‘prosecutorial discretion’ in how it enforces the laws. That was the basis of a 2012 decision to protect from deportation the so-called Dreamers, who came to the United States as young children. The new announcement will be based on a similar legal theory, officials said.” [The New York Times,11/13/14]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/presidents-most-executive-orders

http://people.howstuffworks.com/executive-order.htm

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/11/13/right-wing-media-wrong-about-the-legality-of-th/201553

GOP House Passes Bill Setting Up Possible Shutdown War Over Immigration

According to TPM, government shutdown wars are back with a vengeance.

House Republicans started up a possible new standoff on Wednesday with passage of legislation that overturns President Barack Obama’s executive actions on deportation relief for millions of undocumented immigrants.

The bill passed 236-191, with 10 Republicans voting against it and 2 Democrats supporting it.

The legislation passed on Wednesday is tied to the funding of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which expires on Feb. 28. According to TPM, the department will partially shut down if a bill isn’t enacted by then.

However, PoliticusUSA states that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) have toned down conservative expectations over the idea of a possible DHS shutdown.

Vox: Obama Is Unpopular. He’s Also Accomplished An Incredible Amount.

According to Vox, since November 26, the Obama administration put forward new anti-smog regulations that should prevent thousands of premature deaths and heart attacks every year.   Also, Obama’s appointees at the Federal Reserve implemented new rules curbing reckless borrowing by giant banks that will reduce profits and shareholder earnings but increase the safety of the financial system.   He also normalized relations with Cuba after decades and created a plan to protect millions of unauthorized immigrants from deportation.  Also, on Saturday, Democrats broke a congressional logjam and got many nominees confirmed.

Vox:  “It has been, in short, a very busy and extremely consequential lame-duck session. One whose significance is made all the more striking by the fact that it follows an electoral catastrophe for Obama’s party. And that is the Obama era in a microcosm.

“Democrats’ overwhelming electoral win in 2008 did not prove to be a ‘realigning’ election that handed the party enduring political dominance. Quite the opposite. But it did touch off a wave of domestic policymaking whose scale makes Obama a major historical figure in the way his two predecessors won’t be.”

Vox continues:  “It’s old hat at this point, but given the mixture of conservative rage and liberal disappointment that Obama generally inspires, it’s worth emphasizing that his first term offered legislation on a truly historic scale. The Affordable Care Act and related measures an expansion of the welfare state rivaled by only the New Deal and the Great Society.

“The tendency of today’s slow-as-molasses Congress to work via megabills means that consequential measures like new rules mandating calorie labeling at chain restaurants stand as mere provisions of Obamacare rather than counting as substantial measures on their own.”

Gridlock ‘Professional’: Cruz Attempts To Force Vote On President’s Executive Actions

According to the AP, Texas freshman Senator Ted Cruz upset several GOP colleagues with an attempt to force a vote on President Obama’s executive actions on immigration.

The move changed lawmakers’ weekend plans and gave Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) an opening to move forward on long-stalled Obama nominees.

One of Cruz’ Republican colleagues called the tactics a painful echo of last year’s 16-day partial government shutdown.  Another senator said it was a strategy without an end game.

Saturday, when Cruz got his vote on Obama’s immigration executive actions, he lost 74-22,  because even Republicans who agree with him on immigration repudiated his effort.  Soon afterwards, Congress cleared the spending bill.

“You should have an end goal in sight if you’re going to do these types of things and I don’t see an end goal other than irritating a lot of people,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga. – referring to last year’s shutdown showdown over Obama’s health care law by Cruz and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah – said it was a movie he had seen before and “wouldn’t have paid money to see it again.”

Added Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.: “I fail to see what conservative ends were achieved.”

Democrats opted not to criticize Cruz publicly, in an indication they thought that he was only hurting Republicans.

Cruz was unapologetic and said the sole purpose of his efforts was to secure a Senate vote to “stop President Obama’s amnesty” — his description of the president’s plan for work visas for an estimated 5 million immigrants living in the United States illegally.

“Both Democrats and Republicans will have the opportunity to show America whether they stand with a president who is defying the will of the voters or with the millions of Americans who want a safe and legal immigration system,” Cruz said in a speech to a crowded Senate chamber moments before the vote.

In a Facebook post, Cruz had blamed outgoing Majority Leader Harry Reid, arguing that Saturday’s round-the-clock votes on nominations was to prevent the vote he sought.

Republicans said Cruz’s move had the reverse effect of his campaign on immigration, ensuring a vote on the nominee for Customs and Immigration Enforcement who would carry out Obama’s executive actions.

Cruz, a Canadian-born Cuban-American with an Ivy League resume, created headlines in his first few months in the Senate with a fierce challenge to Chuck Hagel’s nomination to be defense secretary.

Last fall, it was Cruz and Lee who roiled the GOP and Washington with their push to starve Obama’s health overhaul of money, a drive that led to the partial shutdown.

Democrats weren’t surprised that the conservative duo struck again.

“They’re all about headlines. They’re trying to get attention for themselves. They’ve succeeded in doing that,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn.

Some claim that Cruz sent a shot across the bow at incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, suggesting the two should not be entirely trusted to keep their promise to challenge Obama’s immigration policy when the all-Republican Congress takes over in January.

“We will learn soon enough if those statements are genuine and sincere,” Cruz said Friday night.

Huff Post: Some Immigrants May Be Eligible For Social Security Under Executive Order, But Not For Welfare Or Food Stamps

According to the Huffington Post, the White House states that many immigrants in the United States illegally who apply for work permits under President Barack Obama’s new executive actions would be eligible for Social Security and Medicare benefits upon reaching retirement age.

Under Obama’s actions, immigrants who are spared deportation could obtain work permits and a Social Security number. As a result, they would pay into the Social Security system through payroll taxes.

No such “lawfully present” immigrant, however, would be immediately entitled to the benefits because like all Social Security and Medicare recipients they would have to work 10 years to become eligible for retirement payments and health care.

To remain qualified, either Congress or future administrations would have to extend Obama’s actions so that those immigrants would still be considered lawfully present in the country.

None of the immigrants who would be spared deportation under Obama’s executive actions would be able to receive federal assistance such as welfare or food stamps, or other income-based aid.

They also would not be eligible to purchase health insurance in federal exchanges set up by the new health care law and they would not be able to apply for tax credits that would lower the cost of their health insurance.

The issue of benefits for immigrants who are illegally in the United States is a particularly sensitive one for the Obama administration. As a result, the White House has made it clear that none of the nearly 5 million immigrants affected by Obama’s actions would be eligible for federal assistance.

The Obama administration first denied younger immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally as children access to health care exchanges and tax credits in 2012, especially disappointing immigrant advocates.

Is This President ‘Not Allowed’ To Make Executive Orders?

The idea that the president is not allowed to create executive orders seems absurd.

According to HowStuffWorks, “Executive orders have been used by every American president since George Washington to lead the nation through times of war, to respond to natural disasters and economic crises, to encourage or discourage regulation by federal agencies, to promote civil rights, or in the case of the Japanese internment camps, to revoke civil rights. Executive orders can also be used by governors to direct state agencies, often in response to emergencies, but also to promote the governor’s own regulatory and social policies.”

So apparently, executive orders have been used by every president since George Washington.

Well, has the President made “too many” executive orders?

According to the chart above, the President has issued fewer executive orders per year than any since prior to FDR.

According to Talking Points Memo, his overall number of  executive orders come out to “less than 0.1 for every day he’s been in office. FDR, by comparison, was cranking out close to one per day as he faced the Great Depression and World War II. The first half of the 20th century was the prime time for execution action, at least when measured by executive orders per day in office.”

TPM does state that the simple totals “cannot account for the scope and tangible impact of individual executive orders or incorporate other elements of executive power,” which is understandable.

Don’t Republicans need to prove that the President’s executive orders have been too broad in scope?  Shouldn’t they try to make that case?  What are they waiting for?

It is clear that every president since Washington has the authority to issue executive orders, and President Obama has issued far fewer than most other presidents in recent times.

One more question:  is the President allowed to issue executive orders on the subject of immigration?

As noted in a previous post, according to the New Republic, both Presidents Reagan and Bush took executive action on immigration (as Obama wants to). The Atlantic’s David Frum wrote about Reagan’s executive actions on immigration. “Reagan and Bush acted in conjunction with Congress and in furtherance of a congressional purpose,” Frum writes. “Nobody wanted to deport the still-illegal husband of a newly legalized wife.

“Reagan’s (relatively small) and Bush’s (rather larger) executive actions tidied up these anomalies.”

In other words, it would be unfair if Reagan and Bush deported children and spouses of newly-legalized immigrants. In fact, Bush’s executive action was called the “family fairness” program.

According to USA Today, the younger George W. Bush “…issued a number of small-bore executive orders — to expedite citizenship for immigrants in the military, or to defer deportation for students affected by Hurricane Katrina…”

So it seems pretty clear that every president is allowed to make executive actions and that Obama has made fewer than most presidents since World War II.  It is also clear that Reagan and both Bushes created executive actions on immigration policy.  So that must also be legal.

The question is:  what are the grounds for a lawsuit, impeachment, or the claims of lawlessness?

Republicans have not made their case for how executive orders on immigration – or other policies – are illegal.  This is especially true since Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush all made executive orders on immigration.

Obviously, the only thing left is that the President’s executive orders have possibly been too broad in scope.

However, according to the New York Times, “(m)ost of the major elements of the president’s plan are based on longstanding legal precedents that give the executive branch the right to exercise ‘prosecutorial discretion’ in how it enforces the laws. That was the basis of a 2012 decision to protect from deportation the so-called Dreamers, who came to the United States as young children. The new announcement will be based on a similar legal theory, officials said.” [The New York Times,11/13/14]

If so, then Republicans need to prove that his executive orders have been too large in scope.  Enough of the broad language about how he’s a “king” and an “emperor.”  Get to it and prove this point.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/presidents-most-executive-orders

http://people.howstuffworks.com/executive-order.htm

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/11/13/right-wing-media-wrong-about-the-legality-of-th/201553