SCOTUS' Immigration Executive Action Case: Rubio Maintains Stance Opposing DAPA, DACA
The Supreme Court announced it will review President Barack Obama's 2014 immigration executive actions, but not all presidential candidates are thrilled with the news.
In November 2014, Obama announced the expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) guidelines and the creation of the Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) program. With DAPA and DACA's expanded rules, nearly 4.9 million eligible undocumented immigrants, currently living in the U.S., would be temporarily avoid deportation and have three-year permits to stay in the country. Twenty-six states, led by Texas, have sued the Obama administration to halt the programs. After losing battles in the lower courts, the Obama administration petitioned the Supreme Court, or SCOTUS, for a review. On Jan. 19, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, has been consistent in his platform of opposing Obama's executive actions. He reiterated his stance to eliminate DACA and DAPA in a tweet after the court's decision to hear the case.
I'm confident SCOTUS will agree Obama executive orders are unconstitutional. Regardless, as president, I will end them.
— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) January 19, 2016
Rubio previously said Obama has been "ignoring, suspending, rewriting and violating" immigration laws as seen with the executive action.
In a statement, the former secretary of state kept her pledge in supporting Obama's executive actions.
"President Obama's executive actions on immigration are an exercise of long-standing executive authority, and the Supreme Court should uphold them. The stakes for families couldn't be higher. As President, I will implement DAPA and DACA, expand on these efforts to provide relief to more families, and continue to fight for comprehensive immigration reform."
Fellow Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said he's "delighted" with the Supreme Court's decision to hear the case. Sanders said Obama acted appropriately in taking action to grant protections for Dreamers and the parents of U.S.-born or legally present children.
"I am confident the president has the legal authority to take this bold action," said Sanders in a statement. "Clearly the best form of action is for Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform to put undocumented people on a path toward citizenship. But if Congress fails to act, as president I would uphold and expand the president's action."
Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley applauded the court's decision. O'Malley, statement, also hit at Clinton and Sanders for their respective immigration records.
"There is a cost to the political dysfunction in Washington," said O'Malley. "Look no further than the millions of New Americans whose futures are uncertain and whose families are at risk of being torn apart. They deserve to know why Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders helped defeat comprehensive immigration reform in 2007 in Congress."
O'Malley added that the current U.S. immigration system is "inhumane and inconsistent" with its values. He also said not one immigrant should risk deportation comprehensive immigration reform legislation is passed.
"That's why I've promised to fully enact, protect, and expand these critical programs to cover millions more New Americans," he continued. "I am the only candidate who has gotten results on immigration reform, and I will not rest until we see real reform to bring our neighbors out of the shadows and stop tearing families apart."
Although the Supreme Court made the announcement on Tuesday, it will not render a verdict until June.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who has helped lead the lawsuit first initiated by former attorney general Greg Abbott -- who now serves as governor for the Lone Star State, said the Supreme Court's announcement is not an indication that it will favor Obama's executive actions.
"In deciding to hear this case, the Supreme Court recognizes the importance of the separation of powers. As federal courts have already ruled three times, there are limits to the President's authority, and those limits enacted by Congress were exceeded when the President unilaterally sought to grant 'lawful presence' to more than 4 million unauthorized aliens who are in this country unlawfully," said Paxton.
The states joining Texas in the lawsuit are Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
For the latest updates, follow Latin Post's Politics Editor Michael Oleaga on Twitter: @EditorMikeO or contact via email: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Subscribe to Latin Post!
Sign up for our free newsletter for the Latest coverage!