Friday, November 21, 2014

Anyone who thinks the legal arguments behind Obama’s immigration order are radical hasn’t read them yet.

We are about to witness one of the great tsunamis of uninformed ranting and raving about President Obama's immigration directives. Here are the basic legal principles and an analysis by a former Solicitor General of the United States. - gwc

6 U.S. Code 202 Homeland Security
The Secretary, acting through the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security, shall be responsible for the following:

(5) Establishing national immigration enforcement policies and priorities.

Anyone who thinks the legal arguments behind Obama’s immigration order are radical hasn’t read them yet. Slate Magazine

by Walter Dellinger 
(Dellinger was Solicitor General of the United States in the Clinton Administration)
"The idea that the immigration plan just announced by President Obama is a lawless power grab is absurd. As the Justice Department legal analysis that was just released amply demonstrates, much of the advance criticism of the president’s action has been uninformed and unwarranted. The opinion is well-reasoned and at times even conservative. 
The president is not acting unilaterally, but pursuant to his statutory authority. Wide discretion over deportation priorities has long been conferred on the executive branch by Congress, and it is being exercised in this case consistent with policies such as family unification that have been endorsed by Congress. 
Even though the action is breathtaking in scope, there is nothing legally remarkable about what the administration is doing, or the legal analysis supporting it. The announced “deferred action” provides temporary administrative relief from deportation for aliens who are the parents of citizens, or the parents of lawful permanent residents. “Deferred action” is an exercise of discretion in which officials may temporarily defer the removal of an alien. 
The grant of deferred action in this case will remain in place for three years, is subject to renewal, and can be terminated at any time at the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security. As Eric Posner, who served in the Office of Legal Counsel under the first President Bush, notes, the president “is just doing what countless Congresses have wanted him to do”—setting priorities for deportation enforcement. 
 Let’s be clear about what the administration has not done in this opinion. No one has been granted “amnesty,” either literally or functionally. And no precedent has been set for this or any future president to act unilaterally in disregard of acts of Congress. On the contrary, the legal opinion rejects a second proposed exercise of discretion—deferring deportation of the parents of “Dreamers”—that Justice concluded cannot be said to carry out priorities established by Congress. "

'via Blog this'

No comments:

Post a Comment