Obama Immigration Policy Halted by Federal Judge in Texas
By JULIA PRESTON
FEB. 17, 2015 - New York Times
A federal judge in Texas has
ordered a halt, at least temporarily, to President Obamafs executive actions on
immigration, siding with Texas and 25 other states that filed a lawsuit opposing
the initiatives.
In an order filed on Monday, the
judge, Andrew S. Hanen of Federal District Court in Brownsville, prohibited the
Obama administration from carrying out programs the president announced in
November that would offer protection from deportation and work permits to as
many as five million undocumented immigrants. The first of those programs was
scheduled to start receiving applications on Wednesday.
Judge Hanen, an outspoken critic of
the administration on immigration policy, found that the states had satisfied
the minimum legal requirements to bring their lawsuit. He said the Obama
administration had failed to comply with basic administrative procedures for
putting such a sweeping program into effect.
The administration argued that Mr.
Obama was well within long-established federal authority for a president to
decide how to enforce the immigration laws. But Texas and the other states said
the executive measures were an egregious case of government by fiat that would
impose huge new costs on their budgets.
In ordering the administration to
suspend the programs while he makes a final decision on the case, Judge Hanen
agreed with the states that the presidentfs policies had already been costly for
them.
gThe court finds that the
governmentfs failure to secure the border has exacerbated illegal immigration
into this country,h Judge Hanen wrote. gFurther, the record supports the finding
that this lack of enforcement, combined with the countryfs high rate of illegal
immigration, significantly drains the statesf resources.h
Ken Paxton, the attorney general
of Texas, which is leading the states bringing the lawsuit, hailed the judgefs
ruling as a gvictory for the rule of law in America and a crucial first step in
reining in President Obamafs lawlessness.h He said Mr. Obamafs actions were gan
affront to everyone pursuing a life of freedom and opportunity in America the
right way.h
Mr. Obama said he was using
executive powers to focus enforcement agents on deporting serious criminals and
those posing threats to national security. Three-year deportation deferrals and
work permits were offered for undocumented immigrants who have not committed
serious crimes, have been here at least five years and have children who are
American citizens or legal residents.
As part of the package, Homeland
Security Secretary Jeh Johnson also established new priorities, instructing
enforcement agents to concentrate on deporting the most dangerous criminals,
including terrorists and gang members, as well as migrants caught crossing the
border illegally.
Since the lawsuit was filed on
Dec. 3, the stark divisions over Mr. Obamafs sweeping actions have played out in
filings in the case. Three senators and 65 House members, all Republicans,
signed a legal
brief opposing the president that was filed by the American Center for Law
and Justice, a conservative legal action organization.
Joe Arpaio, the sheriff of
Maricopa County in Arizona, who is known for crackdowns on people living in the
country illegally, also filed a brief supporting the statesf lawsuit. In
December, a federal judge in Washington dismissed
a separate lawsuit by Sheriff Arpaio seeking to stop the presidentfs
actions.
On the other side, Washington and
11 other states as well as the District of Columbia weighed in supporting Mr.
Obama, arguing that they would benefit from the increased wages and taxes that
would result if illegal immigrant workers came out of the underground. The
mayors of 33 cities, including New York and Los Angeles, and the Conference of
Mayors also supported Mr. Obama.
gThe strong entrepreneurial spirit
of immigrants to the United States has significantly boosted local economies and
local labor markets,h the mayors wrote in their filing.
Some legal scholars said any order
by Judge Hanen to halt the presidentfs actions would be quickly suspended by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans.
gFederal supremacy with respect to
immigration matters makes the states a kind of interloper in disputes between
the president and Congress,h said Laurence H. Tribe, a professor of
constitutional law at Harvard. gThey donft have any right of their own.h
The statesf lawsuit quotes Mr.
Obama as saying many times in recent years that he did not have authority to
take actions as broad as those he ultimately took. Mr. Tribe said that argument
was not likely to pass muster with appeals court judges.
gAll of that is interesting
political rhetoric,h he said, gbut it has nothing to do with whether the states
have standing and nothing to do with the law.h
Judge Hanen, who was appointed in
2002 by President George W. Bush, has excoriated the Obama administrationfs
immigration policies in several unusually outspoken rulings. The president's
supporters have said that Texas officials, who are leading the statesf lawsuit,
were venue shopping when they chose to file in Brownsville.
But at a hearing on Jan. 15, Judge
Hanen said Brownsville, which sits on the border with Mexico, was an appropriate
venue for the suit because its residents see the impact of immigration every
day. gTalking to anyone in Brownsville about immigration is like talking to Noah
about the flood,h Judge Hanen said.
In a lengthy and colorful opinion
last August, Judge Hanen departed from the issue at hand to accuse the Obama
administration of adopting a deportation policy that gendangers Americah and was
gan open invitation to the most dangerous criminals in society.h
The case involved a Salvadoran
immigrant with a long criminal record whom Judge Hanen had earlier sent to
prison for five years. Instead of deporting the man after he served his
sentence, an immigration judge in Los Angeles ordered him released, a decision
Judge Hanen found gincredible.h Citing no specific evidence, he surmised that
the administration had adopted a broader policy of releasing such criminals.
While acknowledging that he had no
jurisdiction to alter policy, Judge Hanen said he relied on his gfirsthand,
in-the-trenches knowledge of the border situationh and gat least a measurable
level of common senseh to reach his conclusions about the case.
gThe court has never been opposed
to accommodating those who come to this country yearning to be free, but this
current policy only restricts the freedom of those who deserve it most while
giving complete freedom to criminals who deserve it least,h he wrote.
The mayor of Brownsville, Tony
Martinez, was among those who filed court papers supporting Mr. Obamafs actions.
gWe see a tremendous value in families staying together and being together,h Mr.
Martinez said on a conference call on Tuesday organized by the White House.
gEventually we hope to get all these folks out of the shadows,h he said.