State and city leaders file a joint legal brief
LEADERS from more than 70 cities and counties nationwide joined a legal brief filed Monday, April 6, asking the US District Court in Brownsville, Texas to allow President Barack Obama’s immigration reform programs to move forward.
“Continuing to delay implementation of the President’s executive action on immigration hurts our economy and puts families at risk,” said New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, who spearheaded the effort with Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti as part of Cities United for Immigration Action.
“Cities are where immigrants live, and cities are where the president’s executive action will be successfully implemented,” De Blasio continued, in a public statement. “Our cities are united, and we will fight for the immigration reform this nation needs and deserves—whether in the courtroom, in Congress, or in our communities. Make no mistake about it: our voices will be heard.”
Obama’s executive plan to expand deferred action for eligible undocumented immigrants—around 5 million who, under new and expanded programs, may be able to stay and work temporarily in the US—announced last November has been stalled in the courts since February, after a federal judge in Texas issued a preliminary injunction while considering a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the order.
Twenty-six states, led by Texas, filed the lawsuit, arguing the relief programs would cause harm and violate the Constitution. Some Republican members of Congress and governors have supported the suit.
But 14 states and the District of Columbia, including some led by Republicans, filed an amicus brief arguing that the immigration programs, including the expansion of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and its supplement for eligible parents, Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA), should be allowed to move forward.
“While amici recognize that others hold a different view about the Executive Action, it cannot be disputed that undocumented immigrants live in, work in, and form part of local communities and neighborhoods across this country—and have done so for some time. The Executive Action recognizes a reality that amici have long known: communities are safer, economically stronger, and better places to live when undocumented immigrants who have substantial and longstanding ties to their communities and who pose no threat to public safety are able to come out of the shadows, engage more fully in civil society, better contribute to the economic growth of their communities, and interact with government officials without fear,” the legal brief reads.
“The Executive Action is a practical and much-needed exercise of enforcement discretion that will allow those who qualify under expanded DACA and DAPA to participate more fully and safely in their cities, counties, and communities.”
Garcetti and de Blasio spearheaded a similar brief in January and received about 30 signatures. The latest brief is backed by mayors, county executives, and governments from 73 cities and counties in 27 states, homes to around 43 million people in total. The National League of Cities and the US Conference of Mayors have also joined the brief.
Controversially, some of the cities signing onto the brief are in states that have joined the Texas judge’s lawsuit against the President’s executive actions. Houston, the most populous city in Texas, is also part of the cities’ and counties’ brief, as well as the state capital of Austin. Cities and counties in Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Arizona, Ohio, Indiana, Arkansas, Florida, Wisconsin and Utah have also signed on, despite their states suing over the immigration actions.
The brief argues that Obama’s plans for reform would be good for public safety and the economy, would help immigrants better integrate into American society, and would keep families together. The delay in implementing Obama’s orders, the brief says, “harms their cities and counties and all residents thereof by forestalling the critical benefits of that action.”
“These benefits are real, and they will accrue day by day.”
Appeals court sides with Obama, immigration reform
On Tuesday, April 7, a federal appeal’s court ruling upheld the dismissal of the lawsuit over Obama’s executive actions. A three-judge panel of the highly-conservative 5th Circuit US Court of Appeals unanimously voted that several immigration agents and the state of Mississippi lacked legal standing to sue over Obama’s 2012 DACA program, because “evidence that the agents or the state would be harmed by the effort was too speculative.”
“Neither Mississippi nor the Agents have alleged a sufficiently concrete and particularized injury that would give Plaintiffs standing to challenge DACA,” Judge W. Eugene Davis wrote in an opinion joined by Judges Carolyn King and Priscilla Owen.
The ruling could help the Obama administration fight a more significant suit that has resulted in a second wave of immigration orders being halted nationwide.
The preliminary injunction by Texas District Court Judge Andrew Hanen not only affects programs designed to help undocumented immigrant children and their families, but also bars the Department of Homeland Security from moving forward with a plan to extend those same benefits and deferment to the parents of US citizens or legal permanent residents.
Legal experts scouring the 5th Circuit’s ruling on Tuesday focused in particular on its treatment of Mississippi’s challenge to the original DACA program, aimed at Dreamers living lawfully in the States.
“The district court held that Mississippi’s alleged fiscal injury was purely speculative because there was no concrete evidence that Mississippi’s costs had increased or will increase as a result of DACA,” Judge Davis wrote. “Based on the record before the district court, we agree. Mississippi submitted no evidence that any DACA eligible immigrants resided in the state. Nor did Mississippi produce evidence of costs it would incur if some DACA-approved immigrants came to the state.”
The only evidence of damages, the judges noted, was a 2006 study showing social service costs and other state expenditures in Mississippi that had increased over $25 million a year due to the immigration programs generally, not specific to DACA. The ruling also notes that focusing deportation efforts might relieve some burdens on the state.
“It could be that the reallocation of DHS assets is resulting in the removal of immigrants that impose a greater financial burden on the state,” Davis wrote.
Rulings of one three-judge panel on legal issues are binding on other panels of the appeals court, including one expected to hear arguments on the Obama administration’s request to stay Hanen’s injunction, against a second wave of planned immigration actions.
However, the panel assigned to that case could conclude that the facts are different, because Texas and other states presented different evidence of the costs they would incur if Obama’s expanded immigration action went into effect. The main evidence was that issuing driver’s licenses to those granted deferred action would increase state expenses, because the charge for licenses does not cover all related expenses.
Other states have argued the deferred-action programs and associated work permits would have a net positive financial effect on state covers.
In his order late Tuesday, Judge Hanen said the government hasn’t “shown any credible reason for why this Directive necessitates immediate implementation.”
Justice Department attorneys have meanwhile argued that keeping the temporary hold harms “the interests of the public and of third parties who will be deprived of significant law enforcement and humanitarian benefits of prompt implementation” of the immigration policies.
Hanen wrote that while the federal government had been “misleading” on its implementation of the past DACA program, he would not immediately apply sanctions against the government, saying to do so would not be “in the interests of justice or in the best interest of this country” because the issue was of national importance and will affect millions.
“The parties’ arguments should be decided on their relative merits according to the law, not clouded by outside allegations that may or may not bear on the ultimate issues in this lawsuit,” he said.
Hanen also told the government it has until April 21 to file to the court and plaintiffs detailed information about its March advisory about the three-year reprieves granted to 108,000 immigrants.
The order also asks the government to produce “any and all drafts” of the advisory, including information on when each draft was written, edited, or revised.
The appeals court was scheduled to hear arguments about lifting Hanen’s injunction on April 17.
(With reports from Huffington Post and Politico)
(www.asianjournal.com)
(LA MIDWEEK April 8-10, 2015 Sec. A pg.1)
