Injunction on Immigration Reform to Remain In Force

Law Firm Newswire



Miami, FL (Law Firm Newswire) May 22, 2015 – In March 2015, the federal government hastily filed an emergency motion to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit asking to remove an injunction issued in February 2015 in Brownsville, Texas.

The request to uphold the initial injunction brought many Attorneys General out of the woodwork from across the United States. Represented in the briefs filed with the Texas court to uphold the injunction were: New Mexico, California, Hawaii, Vermont, Rhode Island, Maryland, Iowa, Connecticut, Delaware, Washington, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, and the District of Columbia.

“The injunction against Obama’s executive actions on immigration reform was requested by 26 states to put a stay on those actions until the matter is heard in court,” explains Larry S. Rifkin, a noted Miami immigration attorney. “The injunction, upheld April 7, 2015, by the same judge that issued it, Judge Andrew Hanen, blocks implementation of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and stops expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).”

In simple terms, the administration did not issue its immigration policy, represented by an executive action, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, and over 11 million undocumented immigrants get to pay the price.

The main point of argument by the states submitting briefs was that “a single State cannot dictate national immigration policy, yet that is what the district court allowed here.” In addition, the states claim that the executive actions were an unconstitutional overreach of presidential discretionary power. Despite the president’s best intentions to get immigration reform on the road to resolution, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen declined to lift the injunction.

“It seems that many are missing the point of rationality inherently present in Obama’s executive actions,” says Rifkin. “Immigration reform is about humanity and about human rights, not the rule of law, although it does, by necessity, involve the law. Obama’s executive actions could be viewed as a humanitarian act and yet the rebellion incited by such apparent compassion has resulted in barring the very thing that needs to be done to move immigration reform forward.”

Millions watching an argument about procedure rather than the actual issues at hand are not mere observers, but voters and obstructive politicians would be best advised to remember that, now and for the future. Their re-election depends on actually bringing into law the functional immigration reform that the vast majority of the American electorate favors.