Omar Bennett
In November 2014, President Barack Obama's unilateral immigration action was blocked by a federal judge in the Southern District of Texas. Obama's Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) order, which granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, was deemed a violation of the Take Care Clause of Article II of the Constitution. The Take Care Clause states that the President is charged with taking care that the laws are faithfully executed. Obama's order, which gave illegal immigrants legal presence, work permits, and access to social welfare benefits, was seen as an abuse of executive action and a threat to the separation of powers established in the Constitution. The mass amnesty was criticized as an attempt to bypass Congress and create and enforce legislation unilaterally. The case, United States v. Texas, raised concerns about the constitutionality of Obama's actions and the potential overreach of executive power.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Date of amnesty | November 2014 |
| Number of states that sued the federal government | 26 |
| Number of states in the coalition | 25 or 26 |
| Court | Southern District of Texas |
| Judge | Federal judge |
| President Obama's statement | "I just took an action to change the law." |
| Number of illegal immigrants affected | 4.3 million |
| Clause violated | Take Care Clause |
| Law violated | Administrative Procedure Act, Immigration and Nationality Act |
| Other violations | Separation of powers, checks and balances |
| Obama Administration's deportation system | Prioritized speed over fairness, sacrificing individualized due process |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Obama's Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA)
On November 20, 2014, President Barack Obama announced Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), a planned US immigration policy. DAPA was intended to grant deferred action status to certain undocumented immigrants who had lived in the US since 2010 and had children who were either American citizens or lawful permanent residents. This would have provided temporary relief from deportation and eligibility for work authorization for these individuals.
DAPA was a presidential executive action, not a law passed by Congress. The program was challenged in court by Texas, which led a 26-state coalition arguing that President Obama's unilateral action violated the US Constitution and federal statutory law. The case, United States v. Texas, centred on the legality of President Obama's executive actions on immigration, including the expansion of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and DAPA. The Supreme Court considered the case in the spring of 2016, but it was ultimately blocked, and the Trump administration announced the rescission of the DAPA order in 2017.
The Migration Policy Institute estimated that about 3.7 million unauthorized immigrants in the US were potentially eligible for DAPA, with a significant concentration in just five counties: Los Angeles and Orange in California, Harris and Dallas in Texas, and Cook in Illinois. The program, when combined with DACA, would have delayed the deportation of about half of the 11 million undocumented people in the US. More than 10 million people in the US live in a household with at least one adult who would have been eligible for DAPA, with two-thirds of those adults having lived in the country for 10 years or more.
Proponents of DAPA argued that it would improve the welfare of communities at the city, county, and state levels. They pointed to research showing that children whose parents are at risk of deportation are more likely to suffer psychological harm, undermining their chances for educational and economic success. DAPA and DACA would also allow law enforcement officials to focus their attention on public safety risks while allowing non-citizens with significant family and community ties to the US to remain with their families.
Understanding Isomerism: Para, Meta, and Ortho Positions Explained
You may want to see also
Violation of the Take Care Clause
In November 2014, President Barack Obama's unilateral execution action on immigration was challenged in court by a 25- or 26-state coalition led by Texas. Obama's Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program aimed to give a class of 4.3 million illegal immigrants "legal presence" in the United States, along with the right to work and receive government benefits. This was seen as a substantive change in immigration policy and a violation of the Take Care Clause and federal statutory law.
The Take Care Clause, found in Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, states that the President "shall take care that the laws of the United States be duly and faithfully executed." This clause was added to the Constitution to ensure that the execution of the law was a duty rather than a power, and to prevent the President from asserting a dispensing or suspending power. By granting amnesty to illegal immigrants, Obama was effectively legalizing people who were in the country unlawfully, which some argued was a failure to faithfully execute immigration laws and a violation of the Take Care Clause.
Obama himself initially acknowledged that he did not have the authority to issue such an order without congressional action, but he later took unilateral action, stating, "I just took an action to change the law." This raised concerns about the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances established by the Framers.
The Supreme Court case United States v. Texas specifically addressed whether Obama's DAPA order violated the Take Care Clause. The Court's decision to include the Take Care Clause in the case ensured that the constitutional dimensions of the case would not be overshadowed by administrative law details. The outcome of this case set a precedent for how future Presidents could exercise their executive power.
Who Elects State Attorneys General and How Often?
You may want to see also
Abuse of executive action
In November 2014, President Barack Obama announced a unilateral immigration action, granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. This action was seen by many as an abuse of executive power and a violation of the US Constitution.
The Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) order gave around 4.3 million illegal immigrants "legal presence" in the US, as well as the right to work and access to various government benefits. This was a significant change in immigration policy, and one that many believed the President did not have the authority to implement without congressional action.
Texas led a 25-26 state coalition to challenge the legality of DAPA, arguing that it violated the Take Care Clause of Article II of the Constitution, which states that the President shall "take care that the laws of the United States be duly and faithfully executed." By legalizing people who are in the country unlawfully, Obama was not faithfully executing the immigration laws. This also violated the separation of powers, as Obama was unilaterally creating and enforcing legislation without the involvement of Congress.
In his State of the Union address, Obama had promised to take action where Congress wouldn't, stating that he had a "pen and a phone" to get things done. This raised concerns about the system of checks and balances established by the Framers, with some arguing that Obama was threatening to re-assert royal powers that the Framers had abolished.
The Supreme Court surprised observers by asking whether Obama's DAPA order violated the Take Care Clause, an aspect of constitutional law that is relatively unknown and unexplored. The Court's decision on this matter could have a significant impact on the future of executive power.
US Cabinet Members: Current Lineup and Leadership
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Unilateral amnesty
In November 2014, President Barack Obama announced a plan to grant amnesty to around 3.5 million illegal immigrants in the United States. This unilateral decision was met with opposition from some who believed it to be an abuse of presidential power and a violation of the US Constitution.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton led a 26-state coalition in challenging Obama's attempt to grant amnesty, stating that the President's action "trampled on the US Constitution" and violated the separation of powers by bypassing Congress. A federal judge in the Southern District of Texas blocked Obama's immigration action, agreeing that it represented a significant change in immigration policy and gave legal status, the right to work, and access to government benefits to a large class of illegal immigrants.
Obama's amnesty plan was part of the Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) program, which he presented as a way to change the law and address the complex issue of immigration. However, critics argued that it went beyond prosecutorial discretion and amounted to unilaterally creating and enforcing legislation. They also believed that such unilateral actions by the President would encourage more illegal immigration and undermine the integrity of the immigration system.
The Obama Administration's immigration policies included measures such as ending the Secure Communities program and replacing it with a less stringent screening program. They also stopped using US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers, which gave states and localities more discretion in enforcing immigration laws. These actions, coupled with the amnesty plan, led to concerns that the President was establishing open borders and making it more difficult to deport those who had overstayed their visas or recently crossed the border.
Compatibility of America's Founding Documents: Constitution and Independence
You may want to see also
Lack of due process
The United States has a long tradition of providing due process to individuals, including immigrants. This is a critical aspect of the judicial system, offering a moment of individuality and impartiality. However, the Obama administration has been criticized for prioritizing speed over fairness in the removal system, sacrificing individualized due process in the pursuit of record removal numbers.
The Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program, introduced by President Obama in November 2014, has been at the center of the debate surrounding due process for immigrants. DAPA aimed to provide "legal presence" to approximately 4.3 million illegal immigrants, primarily parents of children who are US citizens or lawful permanent residents. This legal status would grant them the right to work and access various governmental benefits.
Critics argue that the implementation of DAPA violated the principles of due process. Texas, leading a 26-state coalition, challenged the legality of DAPA, arguing that it was a unilateral change in immigration policy enacted without the required input from Congress. They asserted that President Obama's actions bypassed the people's duly elected representatives, undermining the system of checks and balances established by the Framers.
The lack of due process under the DAPA program was further highlighted by the manner in which removal proceedings were conducted. The Obama administration's deportation system relied heavily on nonjudicial removals, which are fast-track proceedings controlled by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In these cases, immigrants faced expedited removal without legal representation or the opportunity to appeal, raising concerns about the fairness of the process.
The controversy surrounding DAPA eventually reached the Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Texas. The Court asked the parties to address whether DAPA violated the "Take Care Clause" of Article II of the Constitution, which mandates the faithful execution of the laws by the President. The inclusion of the Take Care Clause in the case underscored the significance of ensuring due process and the rule of law in immigration matters.
Marbury v. Madison: Interpreting the US Constitution
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Many people believe that President Obama violated the constitution with his amnesty for immigrants. Obama's Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) order gave around 4 million illegal immigrants the right to stay and work in the US, as well as access to social welfare benefits. This was seen as a violation of the Take Care Clause of Article II of the Constitution, which states that the President must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed".
The Take Care Clause states that the President must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". In other words, the President has a duty to make sure that the laws of the United States are followed. By granting amnesty to illegal immigrants, Obama was seen as failing to uphold the immigration laws of the country.
Texas led a 26-state coalition to challenge the legality of DAPA, arguing that it violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). A federal judge in Texas blocked the order, stating that it was a substantive change in immigration policy and that Obama lacked the authority to impose unilateral amnesty.
Obama's amnesty order had a significant impact on the immigration system. It provided a pathway to legal status and access to benefits for millions of illegal immigrants. However, it also led to concerns about the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances established by the Constitution. The Senate discussed using various tools to defund, expose, or pass legislation to counter the order.
