The rhetoric, partisanship and obstructionism is producing a vile and evil anti-Obama agenda that seems to harness bigotry, and I am concerned about the President of the United States and his welfare considering a recent Christian American Patriots Militia leader who says: "We now have authority to shoot Obama."

That said, here is an opinion below that sort of brings more light into the immigration debate that is helpful to independent, women and Hispanic voters: 

The Question Is Not “Can The President Stop ALL Deportations”…The Question Is “What Will Happen If He Does?”

By Alex Mones

 

The letter from the law professors stating PresObama can stop deportations of 11mill immigrants raises more questions than it gives answers. The power to stop deportation is there. The President (POTUS) does have the power to stop deportations; HOWEVER, it is a very LIMITED power, thus it cannot be used to stop ALL deportations or stop prosecution of the 11million undocumented immigrants in this country. The letter signed by the law professors stating POTUS can use these "magical" powers doesn’t tell the full story. The letter doesn’t tell you the repercussion POTUS will face from Congress and the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS).

Each branch of our Government has its checks and balances to prevent abuse by any one branch. Not only that, but the letter does not state how such move will risk the lives of 11million immigrants. Here is what they failed to present:

-Deferred Action:

This action generally is used to put a stay on the deportation proceedings or prevent an individual even from being placed in a deportation proceeding and it makes them eligible for employment authorizations. Enforcement of this action is squarely within POTUS' executive powers. In 2009 widows and children of US citizens benefited from it (a specific group of undocumented immigrants). However, as DHS explains "Deferred action is generally an act of prosecutorial discretion to suspend removal proceedings against a PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL or GROUP of INDIVIDUALS (eg: in this case is widows & their children) for a specific timeframe; it cannot resolve an individual’s underlying immigration status."

If POTUS decided to use Deferred Action for ALL 11 million of immigrants, can you explain to me how you make 11 million fit into the category of "group of individuals" similar to the specific group of widows and children of US citizens? Millions of undocumented immigrants have relatives who are not closely related; many don’t fit the Dreamer qualification. How do you deal with those millions of immigrants? Are you willing to discriminate against those groups?

-Parole-in-Place:

Under Federal statutes, the Attorney General may in his discretion parole into the US temporarily, on CASE-BY-CASE basis, any alien applying for admission to the US. Parole permits noncitizens to remain lawfully in the US. In the past PresCarter granted this order to allow Cubans into the US. PresClinton did the same for Cubans, and PresObama did the same for Haitians orphans who were in the process of being adopted in the US. PresObama also used this power for close relatives of US Citizens in the military.

A case cited by the small group of law professors is Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. This case is about the EPA regulation allowing STATES (not POTUS) to treat all pollution-emitting devices within same industrial grouping as though they were encased within a single group was based on permissible construction of term "statutory source" in the Clean Air Act Amendments. Stretching this case to compare to immigration reform, how do you make 11 million immigrants FROM DIFFERENT COUNTRIES fit into "a single group," based on the construction of our IMMIGRATION LAWS?...obviously not the Clean Air Act.

-Deferred Enforced Departure (DED)/TPS:

This is closely related to deferred action. TPS now largely supersedes the use of DED in practice. DED/TPS is granted ONLY to nationals of a foreign country that is experiencing armed conflict, a natural disaster, or some other "extraordinary" condition that makes it unsafe. Almost every POTUS has granted DED/TPS to at least one GROUP of noncitizens. PresBush granted it to Salvadorans because of the armed conflict in their country. PresObama granted DED to Liberians who were forced to flee their country as a result of armed conflict. As the conflict in this country ended so did TPS. Due to compelling foreign policy reasons, due to the armed conflict, DED was extended to those Liberians presently residing in the US under existing DED.

How exactly do 11 million from Latin America, Europe, etc fit into this SPECIFIC category of countries experiencing armed conflict, natural disaster, or some other extraordinary condition? Last time I checked we were not in a World War and the 11 million immigrants did not come from those countries in turmoil.

-Supreme Court (SCOTUS) powers to interfere with the executive powers:

The article presented by Victor Narro, Projector Director at UCLA Labor Center made the same claims as the letter of this small group of law professors. In his article he claims that the courts have recognized, and implicitly approved, the existence of this executive power and its enforcement. However, he is very vague about what the SCOTUS actually decided.
The Heckler v Chaney (1985) case is cited by a "letter" circulating the internet signed by a really small group of law professors in 2012. The problem is that this letter does not give you the full story of this case. The Heckler case is about prison inmates suing the FDA to take action under the FFDCAct. The issue in this case was about the reviewability by SCOTUS of the (action or) inaction of an executive agency when mandated by a Federal Statute.

In Heckler, SCOTUS said that the executive agency's decision (to act or) NOT to institute proceedings WILL be reviewed by SCOTUS. One of the exceptions to SCOTUS review is an agency's refusal to institute investigative or enforcement proceedings, UNLESS Congress has indicated otherwise. Congress did not set agencies free to disregard legislative direction in the statutory scheme that the agency administers. Finally, SCOTUS left up to CONGRESS, not the courts, the decision as to whether an agency's refusal to institute proceedings should be judicially reviewable.

So, SCOTUS would easily review POTUS abuse of his executive powers and overturn his actions putting at risk the lives of 11million immigrants and the passing of CIR. In a concurring opinion by Justice Marshall, it was said that SCOTUS will review failures of an agency to act (eg: stay all deportations, etc) with an appropriate deference to an agency's legitimate need to set policy through the allocation of scarce budgetary and enforcement resources. In order for POTUS pass the review by SCOTUS, it would have demonstrated that DHS does not have the money or the man power to continue with the deportations. Finally, keep in mind that Congress is the one that sets the budget for DHS and sets the quota of deportation it must meet in order to receive funding from Congress.

-WashPost: How CIR failed over and over again because of the GOP

-PolitiFACT: Killing the bill, or making it better? (2007 Senator Obama's vote)

-NYTimes: CIR bill declared dead on arrival by GOP (2009)

-PolitiFACT: The truth about Pres Obama's "promise" of CIR (2008)

-TheHill: GOP opposes CIR (2010)

-ThinkProgress: GOP derail Immigration Reform (2009) 

-TheHuffPost: GOP's Immigration Reform Blockade

-TheHill: Election 2014 and the GOP opposition to Immigration Reform

-Reuters: Republican controlled Congress keeps detention quota

-PolitiFact: Can the President Stop ALL deportations?

-Politifact: Marco Rubio fears Obama can legalize ALL undocumented immigrants

-The Letter from the Professors here.