Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

U. Texas-Austin student group seeks to intervene in case which held Obama DREAM policy illegal

U. Texas-Austin student group seeks to intervene in case which held Obama DREAM policy illegal

Case is now in remedy phase, as Court previously ruled Obama’s DREAM policy was illegal

On April 25 we wrote about a federal court case which held Obama’s DREAM policy unlawful, but reserved decision on whether to issue an injunction,Federal Court finds Obama DREAM policy illegal, but may not require actual deportations:

There are many news reports about the preliminary decision issued by Judge Reed O’Connor in the Northern District of Texas in a lawsuit brought by ICE agents challenging the Obama administration’s administrative DREAM provisions which direct Homeland Security not to commence removal proceedings as to people who meet the criteria.

A copy of the decision is embedded at the bottom of this post. Copies of the Amended Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction are at the links.

The news accounts tend to overstate the breadth of the opinion. The ruling related only to the initiation of removal proceedings, and would not require any particular prosecutorial diligence once initiated, since that issue was not before the Court. Thus, assuming the Judge finalizes the ruling, the Obama administration would be required to commence removal proceedings, but absent further challenges, could allow Obama to delay actual deportations.

The Judge reserved decision on the issue of whether injunctive relief was the proper remedy, and requested further briefing.

Since that time, both the plaintiffs and the government have submitted supplemental briefs arguing for and against, respectively, the issuance of an injunction prohibiting the Obama administration from further implementing the policy.

Two private groups have sought to intervene in the case on the side of the government.

The U. Texas-Austin student group University Leadership Institute is devoted to supporting “DREAM” policies allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the country, get in-state tuition, and defer deportation.  ULI also seeks changes in the law to support these goals:

ULI has received extensive training from experienced political consultants on effective communication and messaging.  Our thorough knowledge and new training on messaging and communication has permitted us to more effectively reach out to different communities, including religious groups, businesses, students, activists, and politicians.  Our newly formatted messages have proven to be more effective with the mainstream public and have also allowed us to form coalitions with unlikely allies.

The ULI not only seeks to submit a brief supporting the government position, it and certain individual students who have benefitted from the DREAM policy seek to become defendants in the case, which would allow them a broader participation, as they argue in their Motion to Intervene:

Both the Proposed Individual and Organizational Defendant-Intervenors have a unique interest in the subject matter of this litigation that supports their intervention, or in the alternative, their participation in this case as amici curiae. First, if the DHS Memorandum is enjoined, Proposed Individual Defendant-Intervenors Reséndiz and Canizalez, and members of ULI, will either lose deferred action status or they will be not be able to renew their deferred action status…. They will also likely lose their employment  authorization under the DHS Memo….

An injunction would also significantly impact the Proposed Organizational Defendant-Intervenor, which will be forced to expend additional resources educating members about the effect of the injunction on their applications for deferred action, and whose members’ ability to achieve higher education and civic participation will be greatly impaired if an injunction is entered.

The National Immigrant Justice Center, by contrast, seeks only permission to file an amicus brief.

Many of NIJC’s clients are eligible for asylum, temporary protected status, protection under the Violence Against Women Act, or protection as a victim of human trafficking and other specified offenses. The Court’s tentative interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) would affect  the availability of these forms of relief.

According to the court docket, the parties have until June 26 to respond to the motions to intervene, so a decision on whether to issue an injunction is not likely to come until at least July.

Obama Non-Deportation Policy Case — Crane v Napolitano – Motion to Intervene University Leadership Initiati…

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

Read the lists of plaintiffs.

See all those Hispanic names? Now tell me “Hispanics” are in favor of open borders.

They are NOT, despite what we are constantly told. Some certainly are, but a great many are not.

Remember: Texas was fought for by a Seguin, not just a Houston.

Exactly, Rags. The Tejanos fought alongside Bowie, Travis, and Crockett.

I’m of Mexican descent and still have family in Mexico. My mother was born there.

Mexico is ruled by corruption. We should encourage revolution there, not give the Mexi govt a pass in dealing with the mess they created.

Another interesting fact about the Alamo: “Texian defenders, 13 were native-born Texians, with 11 of these 13 being of Mexican descent.”

    Valerie in reply to ASR. | May 25, 2013 at 4:26 pm

    ‘Bout damn time some actual people of Mexican descent were heard from, rather than people who assume they can speak on behalf of total strangers.

    The people who want to come here as citizens come here legally, submit applications, and pay taxes. The people who come here just to work will do so illegally, if they have to. People who come here just to work SHOULD have legal status, like they used to. That status should be “guest worker.” We have had a guest worker program in the past, in response to illegal immigration, and it worked. We should still have one, because it would be good for everybody.

    It is in our best interest, and that of Mexico (and our other neighbors to the south) to also let those guest workers go home easily. When they’re done with their work, they can go home with some money, and maybe some new attitudes. Mexico’s culture of corruption, for example, might not flourish so easily if a few million Mexicans took their money and their votes home

    Ragspierre in reply to ASR. | May 25, 2013 at 6:15 pm

    People from every part of Europe and Mexico fought to free Texas from the dictatorial rule of Santa Anna.

    The yearning for freedom is not a ethnic or racial matter. It exists in all people, I think, as an innate hunger.

Juba Doobai! | May 25, 2013 at 5:35 pm

Here is no moral reason for the USA to support the corruption of the Mexican government and society by educating and employing illegal Mexicans. Deport them and let them press for change in their own countries.

I have no obligation to bring people “out of teh shadows” who PUT themselves in the shadows.

There IS a pathway to citizenship. It should be made less stupid and constricted, but it exists and should be used.

You START by returning to your nation of origin. You get in line.

It proceeds from there.

Bruno Lesky | May 25, 2013 at 10:17 pm

Alongside immigration, there is also the signal issue of separation of powers, and Obama administration disregard thereof in the DREAM act (other examples abound). Judge O’Connor found that “…DHS cannot implement measures that are incompatible with Congressional intent.”

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend