No announcement yet.

Article: Response to lawsuit by 17 states challenging Obama's Nov. 20 initiative. By Allen C. Ladd


  • Article: Response to lawsuit by 17 states challenging Obama's Nov. 20 initiative. By Allen C. Ladd

    Response to lawsuit by 17 states challenging Obama's Nov. 20 initiative


    In my adopted state of South Carolina, our Attorney General, Mr. Alan Wilson, has attacked the recent action taken by President Obama, to “alter United States immigration law by unilateral executive order,” as he put it. The president’s act, in introducing the “DAPA” program (Deferred Action for Parental Accountability) and in expanding the current “DACA” (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals”) program, has prompted a lawsuit filed by 17 states, led by Texas, and including South Carolina. While I have great respect for our state’s attorney general, I wish to contribute my views, as a lawyer with experience in the field of immigration law. Specifically, I hope to address the concerns of the plaintiff states who question the president’s authority on this issue.


    On November 20th, President Barack Obama issued an executive order, to expand the protection of what is termed ”Deferred Action” to a pool of several million potential undocumented aliens. This act, and the program, is in line with an established immigration enforcement policy known, generically, as “prosecutorial discretion.” Mr. Wilson’s view, however, is that Mr. Obama is attempting to “alter or rewrite” the nation’s immigration laws and is therefore exceeding his constitutional authority.

    How, exactly, has the president upset this hornet’s nest?

    • First, his critics say he has unilaterally attempted to legislate immigration laws – a function reserved to the Congress – with an aim to “give amnesty to four million illegal immigrants.”

    • Second, Mr. Wilson and others claim that he has ignored the administrative rulemaking process required for making changes to existing regulations of Federal agencies – in this case by requiring those agencies to “award legal benefits, including federal work permits and Social Security, to individuals who are openly violating our laws.”

    In short, Mr. Wilson claims the president is acting without authority, in two respects. First, that Mr. Obama is usurping Congress’s power to legislate; and second, that he is sidestepping the executive branch’s formal administrative rulemaking process.

    The President’s Constitutional Authority – to Enforce the Immigration Laws

    In response, it seems that the proponents of the lawsuit are laboring under a misapprehension. In truth, the Congress has already given the president and the executive branch the power to enforce the nation’s immigration laws, and this authority is tempered by a policy of “prosecutorial discretion.”

    To put the results of this enforcement authority in real numbers, the president has already deported nearly as many individuals as may benefit from his recent executive order – with about 3.6 million deportations to date. This is a level which exceeds figures from any previous administration. For our purposes, it is also significant because it has been accomplished through the lawful exercise of the president’s powers to enforce the immigration laws. This authority is solidly grounded in federal statute, and it is the basis for the president’s executive order.

    In short, the president is acting well within the authority given to him by Congress.

    • Under the Separation of Powers doctrine in our nation’s Constitution, Congress has been given the authority to pass legislation -- notably the McCarran-Walter Act, also known as the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (the INA).

    • The INA has been amended from time to time over the past 60 years, but only rarely has it been used for true “amnesty” purposes – the 1986 “Legalization” amendments signed by President Reagan being the notable exception.

    • Within the INA, Congress has authorized the executive branch – the attorney general, and a federal agency, now known as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – to administer and, relevant for DAPA purposes – to enforce the country’s immigration laws.

    • DHS, in turn, periodically issues regulations, or rules, to codify or formalize its guidelines, with memorandums and manuals for further instruction for its officers and agents.

    • DHS was created in March 2003 when the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) was dismantled, in response to the perceived need for heightened security measures following the September 2001 World Trade Center tragedy.

    “Prosecutorial Discretion” and its Benevolent Feature, “Deferred Action”

    As mentioned above, the Obama administration has chalked up an impressive enforcement record over the past six years, with record numbers of annual deportations. As the number of individuals in the deportation “pipeline” has swelled, the Homeland Security agency has set common-sense guidelines for prioritizing the cases it wishes to prosecute, in the exercise of its discretion. DHS may make temporary, case-by-case, determinations, to low-prioritize others, and in some circumstances, the agency may offer temporary “employment authorization.” This process – known as “prosecutorial discretion” – stems from the executive branch’s enforcement authority in the INA, which Congress has created and altered over time. In the most favorable of these cases – that is, when employment authorization is permitted -- we are speaking of a special variety of prosecutorial discretion, called “Deferred Action.”

    Deferred Action is an administrative measure of relief that derives from the enforcement authority of DHS – that is, to prosecute individuals present in violation of the law. The DHS agency charged with enforcement is known as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). With the reorganization of the immigration authority, guidance on the matters of prosecutorial discretion and Deferred Action has continued by memorandums; for example, former INS Commissioner Doris Meissner in 2000 and, most recently, by DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, on November 20th of this year.

    In cases where ICE deems it appropriate to offer Deferred Action to an individual (or, as here, a group of potentially several million), it will offer certain temporary benefits, such as employment authorization documents (“EAD cards”). Contrary to Mr. Wilson’s claim that DAPA-based Deferred Action will illegally bypass the administrative rulemaking process and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), eligibility for employment authorization by recipients of Deferred Action, generally, has long been settled, and it was done through the very process required by the APA.

    Two points, concerning EAD cards:

    • There is typically a user’s fee of several hundred dollars for EAD cards.

    • Approval for “employment authorization” also means the individual may apply for a Social Security number, and begin paying into that system.

    Positive Economic Impact of Deferred Action

    Why are the 17 states raising a challenge at this point in time? The Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program has enjoyed over two years of success. Since August of 2012, approximately 600,000 foreign-born young adults (roughly aged 16 to 31) have successfully registered for DACA. These individuals are able to attend college (I know of one individual in medical school), to work for a fair wage and contribute to the Social Security system, and to apply for driver’s licenses. In short, thanks to DACA, they have seized the opportunity to contribute to society and support their families and communities.

    Nonetheless, Mr. Wilson warns that “the economic impact of the president’s actions could have a catastrophic impact on our taxpayers, who will be forced to pick up the tab for the cost of law enforcement, health care and education for millions of people who are in our country illegally.” I must respectfully disagree. Recall that a key feature of Deferred Action is access to legal employment. These new members of the job force will thereby offer a benefit, not a burden, to society by paying taxes and paying for goods and services, supporting their families, and otherwise acting as responsible individuals.

    The Attorney General claims that the Obama proposal, unless defeated in the courts, will cause education costs to go up. In truth, those costs will not rise. Why? For two reasons:

    • All children present in the United States, regardless of immigration status, are already entitled to a free public education – right up to graduation from high school. This is a ruling of the Supreme Court, Plyler v. Doe (1982), dating from the days of the Reagan administration. It may be interesting to note that the losing party in that case was the State of Texas, the lead plaintiff in the present action.

    • Beneficiaries of DACA and DAPA Deferred Action will be eligible to enroll in many states’ institutions of higher education and pay fair tuition rates. Upon graduation, they will be qualified to work in good-paying skilled-worker and professional positions, and contribute their fair share of taxes. This is a win-win situation for everyone, isn’t it?

    Is Deferred Action Consistent with the “Rule of Law”?

    Are there limits to Deferred Action? Is it really “amnesty,” as its critics claim? Secretary Johnson’s memorandum makes it clear that it is no “path to citizenship.” Instead, “it is granted on a case-by-case basis, and it may be terminated at any time at the agency's discretion.” Again, quoting the memorandum, it “does not confer any form of legal status in this country, much less citizenship; it simply means that, for a specified period of time, an individual is permitted to be lawfully present in the United States.” In spite of all this, Attorney General Wilson has chosen the word “amnesty” – which actually means a complete pardon or forgiveness – and this is, unfortunately, misleading.

    Mr. Wilson takes pains to stress that the lawsuit “is unrelated to the issue of immigration” and that “[i]t is simply intended to uphold and defend the rule of law.” His column fails to explain satisfactorily how “prosecutorial discretion” is contrary to the “rule of law.”

    This begs the question, what is the “rule of law”? To have any real meaning in our society, the “rule of law” must go beyond blind adherence to the “black letter” of the law. It must be, instead, the respectful and healthy commitment to the spirit of the law. Thus, it is our obligation as a society to urge change when this is necessary for the greater good. It may bear recalling that our Constitution has been amended nearly thirty times in its 225-year history – and yet it is still our nation’s gold standard. And that, in 1965, the immigration laws were amended by Congress, to allow fairer standards for immigration from Asia. This permitted many new immigrants to come from India to our shores, such as the families of two respected state governors – Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, and Nikki Haley, of South Carolina. Ironically, Ms. Haley supports Attorney General Wilson’s filing of the lawsuit.

    The Road Ahead

    Given our current legal framework, Deferred Action is a powerful, and entirely legal, resource at the president’s disposal. But what of change? It is time, I think, for each of us to search our conscience and, if so inspired, to tell our representatives in Washington that we want to see this great country break free of the current stalemate and paralysis caused by senseless partisan division. Don’t we deserve better? Do we want better, for our children, and for future generations?

    The Congress must resume a dialog on immigration reform, if we are to be competitive in the global markets, and respected as a player on the world’s stage. We would do well to remember Lady Liberty, lifting her lighted lamp in the famous poem, welcoming those who yearn to breathe free – and let our better natures guide us to live by that standard.

    Thank you.

    Yours truly,

    Allen C. Ladd, Attorney

    Reprinted with permission

    About The Author

    Allen C. Ladd

    Allen C. Ladd Allen Ladd practices immigration law in Greenville, South Carolina. He is a graduate of the University of Virginia and Albany Law School of Union University. He was admitted to practice in NY (inactive) and TX, GA, SC (all active); 4th and 11th Circuits. Allen has been an AILA member since 1990 and serves in liaison capacities in several chapters.

    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.

    • Guest's Avatar
      Guest commented
      Editing a comment
      Immigration myths that divert us from a realistic approach for immigration reform.

      The U.S. should and can revise its immigration laws. We have a long history a country of immigrants and a promising future, too. But the first step toward that promising future is to set aside the immigration myths that divert us from a realistic approach for immigration reform.
      (1) One myth is that migrant are attracted to the United States by generous public benefits. In reality, immigrant are less likely than natives to use public services. for example, the 12 millions undocumented immigrants in the U.S. (who account for approximately one-third of all immigrants in the U.S.) simply are not eligible for most federal public benefits. Even under recently legislation (Obama Care).
      (2) Another myth is that an increase in immigration leads to an increase in the crime rate: This simply is not true. In fact, native born men (age 18-39) are five times more likely to be incarcerated than are foreign born men. The problem of crime in the United States is not caused or even aggravated by immigrants regardless of their legal status.
      (3) Another immigration myth is that most immigrant intend to settle permanently in the United States.
      Historically, Mexico- U.S. migration has been circular. Before the Immigration laws were changed in 1997, many immigrants would come to the U.S. to work and return to their country of origin. They sought work opportunities here not a permanent home. That pattern of circular migration changes when Congress passed laws to bar immigrants from reentering the U. S. for a number of years if they had been here with out permission and left.
      The bottom line: America's immigration system is broken. It must be reformed so that immigration is legal, safe and orderly and so that it reflects the needs of American families, businesses and national security.

      Best regards,


      Mary Miranda Hugues
      Degree in Law and Political Science in Panama
      Immigrant in the USA since 2004.
      Senior Paralegal (Immigration Field since 2009 until present)
    Posting comments is disabled.





There are no tags yet.

Latest Articles


  • Article: Birthright Citizenship Is Not A Legal Assumption; It
    Last week on Fox News, Tucker Carlson said,
    08-21-2018, 01:24 PM
  • Blogging: Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation.. By Roger Algase
    Trump's "National Security" Abuses: First, Muslim Ban; Next, Security Clearance Revocation. Trashing Immigrant Rights Endangers Freedom of All Americans.

    CNN reports on August 21 that 175 former US officials have denounced Donald Trump for revoking the security clearance of former CIA director John Brennan for speaking out in opposition to Trump.

    Presidential use of "national security"
    08-21-2018, 12:54 PM
  • Article: The EB-5 Immigration Program and the Investors Process By H. Ronald Klasko

    If you are having difficulty viewing this document please click here.

    08-20-2018, 08:15 AM
  • Article: Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence By Karolina Walters
    Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence by Karolina Walters The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that represents the nation’s immigration judges, is challenging the government’s decision to remove an immigration judge from a well-known case and replace him with a judge who immediately ordered the immigrant in the case deported. NAIJ’s grievance addresses the treatment of one immigration judge, but its resolution will have implications for judicial independence throughout the entire immigration court system. The grievance was filed on behalf of Philadelphia-based immigration judge Steven A. Morley, who was presiding over the case of Mr. Reynaldo Castro-Tum. Castro-Tum’s case rose to national importance earlier this year when Attorney General Jeff Sessions chose to refer the case to himself to reconsider the Board of Immigration Appeals’ previous decision in the case. In reconsidering the decision, Sessions effectively eliminated judges’ use of administrative closure, a docket management tool. Sessions sent Castro-Tum’s case back to Judge Morley, noting that the immigration court order Castro-Tum removed if he did not appear at his next hearing. Castro-Tum did not appear at the next hearing. However, Judge Morley continued the case to resolve whether Castro-Tum received adequate notice of the hearing. Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given notice of proceedings and an opportunity to be heard by a judge. But before the next hearing could take place, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) replaced Judge Morley with an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who ordered Castro-Tum removed when he did not appear at court again. In their grievance, NAIJ asserts that the decision to remove Judge Morley from Castro-Tum’s case and reassign many other cases from his docket resulted in unacceptable interference with judicial independence. The grievance specifically claims that EOIR’s actions violate immigration judges’ authority under the regulations to exerci...
    08-17-2018, 11:12 AM
  • Article: Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico By Sophia Genovese
    Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico by Sophia Genovese The Trump Administration is seeking to create and implement a safe third country agreement with Mexico . Under this agreement, asylum seekers arriving at the US border who have travelled through Mexico would be denied the ability to file their asylum claims in the US. Such an agreement would trample on the rights of asylum-seekers, violating both international and US asylum law. In particular, the US would be violating the international principle of non-refoulement , which provides that no State “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened,” where Mexico has a proven track record of being anything but safe for asylum seekers . The US has also codified Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention into Section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which provides that it will not return an asylum seeker to his or her country of origin, but may, at the determination of the Attorney General, remove the asylum seeker to a “safe third country… where the [asylum seeker] would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.” Although Mexican officials have not yet indicated whether they would sign a safe third country agreement with the US, asylum advocates should proactively seek to prevent such a devastating policy with a country that lacks adequate asylum protections. As reported by Human Rights First and Amnesty International , 75 percent of asylum seekers apprehended and detained by the National Institute of Migration (INM), the Mexican immigration enforcement agency, were not informed of their right to seek asylum. Even if asylum seekers are able to make their claims, only 30% of the asylum proceedings are ever concluded , and even fewer are granted, leaving many bona fide asylum seekers stranded without a resolution. The treatment of unaccompanied minors’ asylum claims in Mexico are even more dismal. Of the 35,000 minors apprehended by the INM in the first half of 2016, only 138 were able to apply for asylum , of which only 77 were granted protection. Beyond the failing asylum system in Mexico, asylum seekers are also in extreme danger of kidnapping, murder, rape, trafficking, and other crimes by INM officers and civilians. A safe third country agreement with Mexico would violate the United States’ international obligations under the 1967 Optional Protocol to the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, which adopts by incorporation the obligations outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the US is not a signatory. Take the example of an asylum-seeker, Mrs. H, who is fleeing politically-motivated violence in Honduras. Her husband, Mr. H, was a vocal political activist who opposed the National Party and members of the Honduran government. Mr. H began to receive death threats due to his political beliefs and reported such threats to the authorities. The authorities, however, di...
    08-16-2018, 02:32 PM
  • Article: Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence By Eugene Goldstein, Esq.

    Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence


    On August 9, 2018 USCIS published a “Policy Memorandum” restricting the 20-year-old calculation of Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1, J-1 and M-1 entrants (and their derivative families).

    USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

    08-15-2018, 12:57 PM