Immigration Tag

Earlier this week a federal court in Texas issued a temporary injunctive order preventing implementation of Obama's immigration executive action. Following the order, the Obama Administration made it appear as though they were prepared to put their agenda on hold and take the fight over executive power to the courts. I say "appear" because, in spite of the injunction, DHS is still making moves to award multi-million dollar contracts to the firms tasked with handling the processing of millions of illegal immigrants' requests for amnesty. An anonymous source has described the deal as being rushed through at a "full throttle pace," and a Request for Proposal filed by the USCIS details how the agency expects to pull off its latest bait-and-switch. Judicial Watch has the details:

The RFP estimates that the population of potential requesters for the president’s deferred action will be “approximately four million people” and that USCIS anticipates the initial filing of “approximately five to six million forms” related to the amnesty order which also covers the illegal immigrant parents of U.S. citizens and lawful residents. The work is to begin in mid-March, the document reveals, and the contractor will operate out of a new center in Arlington, Virginia because there is no current facility with available space or staff to accommodate the “additional volume of work.” The center will be dedicated to processing deferred action for illegal immigrant parents of citizens, employment authorization and correspondence management. The pricing spreadsheets are astounding and list tens of thousands of work hours—for tasks such as program management, file operations and maintenance as well as Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) scanning—that will undoubtedly end up costing American taxpayers enormous sums. The contractor that lands this monstrous government deal must also be able to respond on short notice to growth in volume due to urgent events and requirements. “The growth is more than normal overtime and cannot be completed with overtime,” the government documents state.

You gotta love The Imperial City -- everyone is an obstructionist and no one is ever responsible. In this particular tale of drama and woe, the previous Congress passed appropriations bills lasting one fiscal year for every major government entity save the Department of Homeland Security. The idea being that once the newly elected Republican majorities took their seats in January, they'd have a strategic advantage in pushing reforms and curbing President Obama's executive immigration overreach as conditions for continued agency funding. Currently, DHS is only funded through the end of February. The House passed an appropriations bill that was heavy on the enforcement (well done, House Republicans). Senate Democrats keep filibustering the House Bill so the Senate hasn't even had a chance to duke it out. Back at the House, Speaker Boehner told Senate Democrats to "get off their asses" and stop obstructing (there's that magic word again) the bill the House passed. All the while, Senate Democrats continue to cry "unfair!" Meanwhile, down in Texas, a judge was all, "yeah, no Obama." Meaning that the fit the Senate Democrats are pitching is over an Executive Order that cannot be legally implemented. Or as Senator Sessions put it, "Congress cannot fund the very action which dissolves its own powers." And DHS is tweeting on their own behalf:

Without a budget, nearly 60,000 dedicated @CustomsBorder employees wouldn’t get a paycheck. #FundDHS http://t.co/JQkIu6dHWk

— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) February 12, 2015

Which brings us to now.

President Obama's executive amnesty is now in the hands of the courts. Earlier this week we reported that a federal court had sided with a 26 state coalition against Obama's plans for sweeping immigration reform. The court issued a temporary injunctive order barring the President from implementing his immigration executive action---and almost immediately upon hearing the news, we set up a 5th Circuit watch, waiting for the Administration to file a stay on the ruling. It never happened. More from the AP:

"We're not going to disregard this federal court ruling," Obama said, but he added that administration officials would continue to prepare to roll out the program. "I think the law is on our side and history is on our side," he said. On Capitol Hill, the Homeland Security Department stood 10 days away from losing funding, but Hanen's ruling made a compromise on that dispute look more distant than ever. Republicans are blocking funding for the agency unless Democrats agree to cancel Obama's immigration orders, and they seized on the ruling as validation for their position. "Congress must reassert its waning power. We must re-establish the constitutional principle that the people's representatives control the purse," said Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, a leading immigration hardliner. Yet Senate Democrats, who have been blocking a House-passed bill that would fund the department but also undo Obama's actions, said the ruling from Hanen did nothing to budge them. "Democrats remain united in our belief that funding for the Department of Homeland Security should not be used as a ransom by Republicans, period," said Chuck Schumer of New York.

In a decision which is to have a profound impact on both the immigration debate and the currently stalled funding of the Department of Homeland Security, a federal court judge in Texas has issued a Temporary Restraining Injunctive Order preventing implementation of Obama's Immigration executive action. The Order and 123-page Opinion are embedded in full below. From a political perspective, if Obama is enjoined from enforcing his immigration executive action, how can Congress fund an illegal act? Or if it were funded, thereby relieving the current continuing resolution stalemate, Obama could not enforce it. Either way, this may provide Congress a way out of the jam just days before the funding deadline. What this allows Republicans to do, is pass a 30 day spending bill without any limitations on the argument that the immigration plan cannot be acted upon anyway, and wait and see how the courts rule. IF the courts refuse to put the injunction on hold, or if the courts uphold the injunction on the merits, then there is no need to worry about defunding the executive action. If an appeals court reverses, then the Republican leadership can say that it has already been upheld as lawful so there is no legal basis for the claim it is unconstitutional. This could be a victory at least to get over the current impasse, although it may not be a long term solution. The case involves 26 states (originally 17) led by Texas. Here is part of the TRO:

The United States of America, its departments, agencies, officers, agents and employees and Jeh Johnson, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; R. Gil Kerlikowske, Commissioner of United States Customs and Border Protection; Ronald D. Vitiello, Deputy Chief of United States Border Patrol, United States Customs and Border Protection; Thomas S. Winkowski, Acting Director of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Leon Rodriguez, Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services are hereby enjoined from implementing any and all aspects or phases of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents ("DAP A") program as set out in the Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson's memorandum dated November 20, 2014 ("DAPA memorandum"), pending a final resolution of the merits of this case or until a further order of this Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit or the United States Supreme Court.

The Court frames the issue in the case as follows:

The ultimate question before the Court is: Do the laws of the United States, including the Constitution, give the Secretary of Homeland Security the power to take the action at issue in this case? [Opinion, at 4]

It took the court over 100 pages to get to the answer: No.

Earlier this month, twelve states joined forces to file an amicus curiae in support of President Obama's immigration executive overreach. Now, a group of mayors are organizing their own campaign to support the president's executive overreach. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Los Angeles's Eric Garcetti are leading a group of more than 30 big city mayors, the National League of Cities, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, who plan to file a similar amicus brief on behalf of the president. Like the states supporting the president via amici in Texas v. United States, the mayoral amicus brief states that, "public interest across the country is served clearly and overwhelmingly by implementing immigration reform by executive action," according to a statement released from de Blasio's office. “Our mission is urgent. Delaying implementation of the President’s executive action will further hurt our families, negatively impact our economies, and create unnecessary insecurity in our communities,” said Mayor Bill de Blasio. “Cities are where immigrants live, and cities are where the President’s executive action will be successfully executed. We are organized, and we will fight for the changes this nation needs and deserves, and fight those who oppose immigration reform, be it in the courtroom, in Congress, or in our communities. Our voices will be heard.” Participating mayors include those from Atlanta, Baltimore, Buffalo, Chicago, Denver, Newark, Philadelphia, and Houston. Houston's Annise Parker is the only Texas mayor currently supporting the initiative.

Congress now under Republican control is working on immigration reforms one bill at a time. Their latest endeavor is the Secure Our Borders First Act. The bill was released from the House Homeland Security Committee this week and has sister legislation being considered in the Senate. Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas is the Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. Some reports indicate the bill actually removes border fencing. We reached out to Chairman McCaul's office who indicated reports of fence removal were, "simply wrong." Further, we read the bill and also found no indication of fence removal. So what does the border security bill do about fencing? The bill does not require the building of a wall or fence along the entirety of America's southern border. Rather, it mixed security measures depending on the location. The southern border (for the purposes of implementing security) have been divvied up into multiple sectors. Security in each sector vary depending on severity of threat and include areal surveillance, tower watch, manned patrols, and other tactics. The bill requires regular assessment of each sector in order to shift tactics as needed.

The House Homeland Security Committee passed the Secure Our Borders First Act of 2015 yesterday. The Act will be introduced in the House today. "This is probably the strongest border security bill ever presented to the Congress," Homeland Security Committee Chairman, Rep. Michael McCaul, told Fox News yesterday. The bill's stated purpose is, "to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to gain and maintain operational control of the international borders of the United States." The Homeland Security Committee released the following to promote the bill: "It's the fundamental responsibility of the government to ensure the territory of this nation is secure against any illicit entry and concealed threats, and on that account the government has failed consistently. Despite billions of dollars and decades of policy debates, the border is not secure," McCaul said in a statement.

Holding DHS Accountable

Facing numerous roadblocks to thwarting President Obama's executive immigration overreach by tightening the purse strings, the Secure Our Borders First Act seems to have found a way to force accountability, at least on the border. The bill seeks to hold the Department of Homeland Security accountable by imposing penalties for noncompliance.