President Obama’s initiative to temporarily restructure the nation’s failed immigration policy through an executive order was brought down on Nov. 9 in the federal appeals court. The court declared Obama had exceeded his constitutional powers. Attempting to circumvent the stalemate in Washington, the President swore his vested power to regulate and enforce would be used in determining how many and in what ways current illegal immigrants would be allowed to stay.
The appeals court ruled that Obama did not only dictate new law regarding citizenship and the benefits that accompany it, but violated the central purpose of an executive action in accordance with enforcing immigration policy.
Structured to bring nearly 5 million immigrants out of illegal status, the executive action would grant undocumented parents the security of remaining eligible to apply for 3-year work, permits according to The Washington Post. Frustrated with the failure of political expedience, the Obama administration sought to provide resolution to an immigration crisis which is thought by some to be hindering potential economic growth.
To provide inclusion for illegal families that already pay taxes on the income they work hard to earn would be ideal to strengthen their capacity to contribute to the economy. Economic growth not being the only rationale, Obama believes American values are compromised when a country’s laws subjugate and a group of law-abiding people. the President also believes not resolving the partisan issue holds momentous implications for economic security and social harmony.
Aside from the aversion of the appeals court, Obama received backlash from the Texas Governor Greg Abbott amongst others who would be affected by the change in immigration policy. Affronted by Obama’s abridgement of constitutional powers, Abbott explained “The president’s job is to enforce the immigration laws, not rewrite them,” according to The New York Times.
In addition to Texas, 25 other states collectively sued Obama’s move for executive action claiming to be rendered to injury as a result of it. If undocumented parents were to be temporarily granted amnesty, then all the Border States in which these illegals reside would have to issue licenses. The accusation of injury gives all these states legitimate standing in batting down Obama’s policy initiative in the Supreme Court.
Human Rights and Latino immigrant activists have resolutely advocated for Obama’s pro-active executive action initiative. Alarmed by some as a great infringement of an individual’s rights, there is great impetus to correct America’s history of subjugation and prevent the resurrection of anti-immigrant policies – some of which still exist. Obama’s efforts to temporarily grant semi-citizenship to undocumented parents as he did with undocumented children back in 2012 are aimed to maintain invariably a measure of economic and social stability. The lawsuit will be added to the Supreme Court docket by January 2016 and battled out over the summer, according to The Los Angeles Times.
Editor’s Note: Information from The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times was used in this report.