Federal Appeals Court Lets Injunctions Against Expanded DACA And DAPA Stand – A Far Cry From Reagan’s Amnesty
President Obama’s new executive actions, that expand DACA and implement DAPA, will remain on hold, for now. Yesterday, a 3 judge panel of the United States Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit left in place an injunction stopping the executive actions from taking effect. The vote was 2-1. The appeals court found that the states had sufficient legal grounds to challenge the executive actions, and the administration failed to show that it would be harmed if the stay remained in place. A request to lift they stay as to states that had not challenged the act, such as California, was also denied. The state of Texas argued that they would be harmed by complying with the executive actions in that it would cost them a significant sum of money to issue driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants.
An appeal is still pending before the Fifth Circuit, which is set to be argued the week of July 6. It’s important to understand that the ruling yesterday only decided whether the executive actions could go into effect while their constitutionality is battled out in the courts. For now, they will not go into effect. That’s all that was decided, though the stay is certainly a blow to the administration’s legal team. 26 states oppose the proposed executive actions, while 14 along with the District of Columbia filed papers in support of the administrations. California is one the states supporting the administration’s position.
It’s worth noting, in my opinion, that both proposed executive actions don’t provide any legal status to undocumented people. If they apply and it’s granted, they’re simply given the authorization to work, which they generally do anyway, and the promise that they won’t be deported unless they commit a crime. They can’t file papers for their family, become citizens, obtain a social security number, vote for the president, or enjoy any of the other benefits a lawful permanent resident does.
My point is that the benefits are fairly trivial, compared to what’s been offered in the past. In 1986, Ronald Reagan signed a sweeping immigration reform bill into effect that was sold as a tough crackdown on illegal immigration. However, the bill made any immigrants who had entered the United States before 1982 eligible for amnesty. Wisely, they called it “legalization,” not amnesty. 2.9 million people because lawful permanent residents this way. Who knows how many were eligible but failed to come forward due to fear or lack of access to legal resources. Reagan truly did believe that the United States was open to anyone who wanted to be here, and I’m no big fan of President Reagan. “I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally,” Ronald Reagan said in 1984.
How far the debate has shifted to the right since then. Now, the borders are closed. Who are we to close the doors behind us?
