Page 8 n THE ASIAN REPORTER
U.S.A.
April 18, 2016
Obama’s power over immigration drives Supreme Court dispute
By Mark Sherman
The Associated Press
ASHINGTON —
The raging poli-
tical fight over
immigration comes to the
Supreme Court April 18 in
a dispute that could affect
millions of people who are
in the United States
illegally.
The court is weighing the
fate of Obama administra-
tion programs that could
shield roughly 4 million
people from deportation
and grant them the legal
right to hold a job.
Among them is Teresa
Garcia of suburban Seattle,
who has spent 14 years in
the United States illegally
after staying beyond the
expiration of her tourist
visa in 2002.
She’s already gotten
much of what she wanted
when she chose not to
return to her native
Mexico. Her two sons are
benefitting from an earlier
effort that applies to people
who were brought here
illegally as children. Gar-
cia’s 11-year-old daughter
is an American citizen.
“That’s why I come, for
the opportunity for the
children and because it is
much safer here,” the
45-year-old Garcia said in
an interview with The
Associated Press.
Now, she would like the
same for herself and her
husband,
a
trained
accountant who works
construction jobs. Neither
can work legally.
“To have a Social
Security number, that
means for me to have a
better future. When I say
better future, we are
struggling with the little
amount of money my
husband is getting for the
whole family. It makes for
stress every day. We
struggle
to
pay
for
everything,” Garcia said.
The
programs
an-
nounced by President
Barack Obama in Novem-
ber 2014 would apply to
parents whose children are
citizens or are living in the
country legally. Eligibility
also would be expanded for
the president’s 2012 effort
that helped Garcia’s sons.
More than 700,000 people
have taken advantage of
that
earlier
program,
Deferred Action for Child-
hood Arrivals (DACA). The
new program for parents
and the expanded program
for children could reach as
many as 4 million people,
according to the nonparti-
san
Migration
Policy
Institute.
Texas and 25 other
states sued to block the
new initiatives soon after
they were announced, and
lower courts have ruled in
their favor. The programs
have never taken effect.
The states, joined by
congressional Republicans,
W
argue that Obama doesn’t
have
the
power
to
effectively change immi-
gration law. When he
announced the measures
17 months ago, Obama said
he was acting under his
own authority because
congress had failed to
overhaul the immigration
system. The Senate had
passed legislation on a
bipartisan vote, but House
Republicans refused to put
the matter to a vote.
“Fundamentally,
we
don’t think the president
has the statutory or consti-
tutional authority to issue
these executive actions,”
said
Texas
attorney
general Ken Paxton.
House Republicans told
the court that Obama is
claiming the power “to
decree that millions of
SUPREME COURT HEARINGS. Teresa Garcia, right, helps her
daughter, Alondra Miranda, age 11, get ready for school at their home
in Federal Way, Washington, south of Seattle. Garcia, who has spent 14
years in the United States illegally after staying beyond the expiration of
her tourist visa in 2002, is one of millions who could be affected when the
political fight over immigration comes to the U.S. Supreme Court and the
court weighs the fate of Obama administration programs that could shield
roughly 4 million people from deportation and grant them the legal right
to hold a job. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)
individuals may live, work,
and receive benefits in this
country
even
though
federal statutes plainly
prohibit them from doing
so.”
The administration and
immigration advocates say
the immigration orders are
neither unprecedented nor
even unusual. Rather, they
say, Obama’s programs
build on past efforts by
Democratic and Republi-
can administrations to use
discretion
in
deciding
whom to deport.
The court’s last major
immigration decision, the
2012 case Arizona v. U.S.,
lends some support to this
view.
“A principal feature of
the removal system is the
broad discretion exercised
by immigration officials.
Federal officials, as an
initial matter, must decide
whether it makes sense to
pursue removal at all,”
wrote Justice Anthony
Kennedy. “Discretion in
the enforcement of immi-
gration law embraces im-
mediate human concerns.
Unauthorized
workers
trying to support their
families,
for
example,
likely pose less danger than
alien smugglers or aliens
who commit a serious
crime.”
The administration and
its supporters said the
challenged programs do
not offer blanket protec-
tion, but depend on case-
Continued on page 9