The White House questioned the decision of a federal judge
in Texas, who
temporarily blocked the Obama administration’s executive actions on
immigration. The judge, responding to a suit filed by 26 Republican-run states,
did not rule on the legality of immigration orders but said there was sufficient
merit to the challenge to warrant a suspension while the case goes forward,
according to Washington Post.
Jeh C. Johnson, the Homeland Security secretary, vowed to appeal the
court ruling, which said that the president had not followed proper
legal procedures in instituting his program. But Mr. Johnson said the
department would comply with it by suspending plans to begin accepting
applications from an expanded group of illegal immigrants on Wednesday.
No law gave the administration the power ‘to give 4.3
million removable aliens what the Department of Homeland Security itself labels
as ‘legal presence,’ the judge said in a memorandum opinion. ‘In fact
the law mandates that these illegally-present individuals be removed.’
The Department of Homeland Security ‘has adopted a new rule
that substantially changes both the status and employability of millions.’
The Obama orders would offer a legal reprieve to the
undocumented parents of US citizens and permanent residents who have resided in
the country for at least five years. This would remove the constant threat
of deportation. Many could also receive work permits.
They would also expand the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals (DACA) program that allows certain young people who arrived in the United States
illegally as children to apply for two-year work permits and exemptions from
deportation.
Some 4 million to 5 million undocumented immigrants were
said to be potentially eligible to benefit from the executive actions.
The immediate impact appeared likely to at least delay the
application process, which was to begin today, for some undocumented immigrants
wishing to take advantage of the new policies, ten Post noted.
The judge was appointed by George W. Bush and has been outspoken against
the administration’s immigration policies in other cases recently.
Statement by the Press Secretary on State of Texas v. United
States of America
The Supreme Court and Congress have made clear that the
federal government can set priorities in enforcing our immigration laws—which
is exactly what the President did when he announced commonsense policies to
help fix our broken immigration system. Those policies are consistent with the
laws passed by Congress and decisions of the Supreme Court, as well as five
decades of precedent by presidents of both parties who have used their
authority to set priorities in enforcing our immigration laws.
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. Top law enforcement
officials, along with state and local leaders across the country, have
emphasized that these policies will also benefit the economy and help keep
communities safe. 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.
Statement by Secretary Jeh C. Johnson Concerning the District Court’s Ruling Concerning DAPA and DACA
I strongly disagree with Judge Hanen’s decision to temporarily enjoin
implementation of Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful
Permanent Residents (DAPA) and expanded Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals (DACA). The Department of Justice will appeal that temporary
injunction; in the meantime, we recognize we must comply with it.
Accordingly, the Department of Homeland Security will not begin
accepting requests for the expansion of DACA tomorrow, February 18, as
originally planned. Until further notice, we will also suspend the plan
to accept requests for DAPA.
The Department of Justice, legal scholars, immigration experts and
even other courts have said that our actions are well within our legal
authority. Our actions will also benefit the economy and promote law
enforcement. We fully expect to ultimately prevail in the courts, and we
will be prepared to implement DAPA and expanded DACA once we do.
It is important to emphasize what the District Court’s order does not affect.
The Court’s order does not affect the existing DACA. Individuals may
continue to come forward and request initial grant of DACA or renewal of
DACA pursuant to the guidelines established in 2012.
Nor does the Court’s order affect this Department’s ability to set
and implement enforcement priorities. The priorities established in my
November 20, 2014 memorandum entitled “Policies for the Apprehension,
Detention and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants†remain in full force
and effect. Pursuant to those enforcement priorities, we continue to
prioritize public safety, national security, and border security. I am
pleased that an increasing percentage of removals each year are of those
convicted of crimes. I am also pleased that, due in large part to our
investments in and prioritization of border security, apprehensions at
the southern border – a large indicator of total attempts to cross the
border illegally -- are now at the lowest levels in years.
