A judges decision filed today, finally identifies the core of the immigration issue, no separation of power by the White House.
Judge Schwab, a Bush appointee is calling into question the moral imperative that Barack Obama is using to render an amnesty program giving refugee relief for a number of illegals from 4 million to upwards of 11 million.
On November 20, 2014, President Obama announced an Executive Action on immigration, which will affect approximately four million undocumented immigrants who are unlawfully present in the United States of America. This Executive Action raises concerns about the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches of government. This core constitutional issue necessitates judicial review to ensure that executive power is governed by and answerable to the law such that “the sword that executeth the law is in it, and not above it.” Laurence Tribe, American Constitutional Law, 630 (3ed.-Vol. 1) (2000), quoting James Harrington, The Commonwealth of Oceana 25 (J.G.A. Pocock ed. 1992)(originally published 1656).
The Judge went on to include in his decision:
Had Defendant been arrested in a “sanctuary state” or a “sanctuary city,” local law enforcement likely would not have reported him to Homeland Security. If Defendant had not been reported to Homeland Security, he would likely not have been indicted for one count of re- entry of a removed alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Further, neither a federal indictment nor deportation proceedings were inevitable, even after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), a division of Homeland Security, became involved.
In 2013, ICE personnel declined to bring charges against thousands of undocumented immigrants who had previous criminal convictions.3 Therefore, Defendant possibly would not be facing sentencing and/or deportation if he had been arrested under the same circu mstances, but in another city/state or if different ICE personnel had reviewed his case. 1. Does the Executive Action announced by President Obama on November 20, 2014, apply to this Defendant? A. If yes, please provide the factual basis and legal reasoning. B. If no, please provide the factual basis and legal reasoning. 2. Are there any constitutional and/or statutory considerations that this Court needs to address as to this Defendant? If so, what are those constitutional and/or statutory considerations, and how should the Court resolve these issues? Doc. No. 26. The Court also invited any interested amicus to submit briefs by the same date. Id. Any party could file a response thereto on or before noon on December 11, 2014. Id. The Government, in its four (4) page response thereto, contended that the Executive Action is inapplicable to criminal prosecutions under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), and argued that the Executive Action solely relates to civil immigration enforcement status. Doc. No. 30. Defense Counsel indicated that, as to this Defendant, the Executive Action “created an additional avenue of deferred action that will be available for undocumented parents of United States citizen[s] or permanent resident children.”4 Doc. No. 31, 3. In addition, Defense Counsel noted that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) “has announced that certain citizens of Honduras living in the United States are eligible to extend their Temporary Protected Status (TPS) so as to protect them from turmoil facing the citizens of that nation.” Id. at 5.
Additionally from the Judge: B. Substance of the Executive Action On November 20, 2014, President Obama addressed the Nation in a televised speech, during which he outlined an Executive Action on immigration. Text of Speech: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/20/remarks-president-address-nation- immigration. President Obama stated that the immigration system is “broken,” in part because some “play by the rules [but] watch others flout the rules.” President Obama outlined that he had taken actions to secure the borders and worked with Congress in a failed attempt to reach a legislative solution. However, he stated that lack of substantive legislation necessitated that his 8 Case 2:14-cr-00180-AJS Document 32 Filed 12/16/14 Page 9 of 38 administration take the following actions “that will help make our immigration system more fair and more just”: First, we’ll build on our progress at the border with additional resources for our law enforcement personnel so that they can stem the flow of illegal crossings, and speed the return of those who do cross over. Second, I’ll make it easier and faster for high-skilled immigrants, graduates, and entrepreneurs to stay and contribute to our economy, as so many business leaders have proposed. Third, we’ll take steps to deal responsibility with the millions of undocumented immigrants who already live in our country. As to this third action, which may affect Defendant, President Obama stated that he would prioritize deportations on “actual threats to our security.” The President also announced the following “deal”: If you’ve been in America for more than five years; if you have children who are American citizens or legal residents; if you register, pass a criminal background check, and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes — you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily without fear of deportation. You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. That’s what this deal is. Thus, in essence, the President’s November 20, 2014 Executive Action announced two different “enforcement” policies: (1) a policy that expanded the granting of deferred action status to certain categories of undocumented immigrants; and, (2) a policy that updated the removal/deportation priorities for certain categories of undocumented immigrants. We are likely at step one of the legal showdown between Judge’s and the White House over immigration and the authority of Barack Obama.
