Federal Appeals Court: DACA Recipients Are ‘Illegal Aliens’
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals(DACA) recipients are illegal aliens subject to deportation.
The Immigration Reform Law Institute filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, Estrada v. Becker, and argued that the Obama administration’s policy did not give DACA recipients lawful presence in the United States.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with this argument.
In its decision, the court described DACA recipients as “inadmissible and thus removable.” The court said that the Obama administration’s policy instead “reprieved” DACA recipients from immediate deportation and “encouraged” immigration authorities to “exercise prosecutorial discretion and focus on higher-priority cases,” such as criminals.
“On many fronts, open borders legal groups have been using DACA recipients to try to blur the distinctions between citizen and noncitizen and between legal aliens and illegal aliens,” said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of IRLI, in a press release.
“In blurring those distinctions, they blur the very border of our country, and begin rubbing out the notion that the United States is fully a sovereign nation,” Wilcox said. “Today’s decision is a major check on that effort, and I expect it will reverberate across the national legal landscape.”
The case involved several DACA recipients who sued Georgia’s higher-education system under the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The students said Georgia would not allow them to attend the state’s colleges and universities because they are not “lawfully present” in the country. The students were eligible for admission to the colleges on all other grounds except their immigration status.
The plaintiffs argued that federal law defined their status as “lawfully present,” which would override Georgia’s state law. They added that Georgia admits to its universities other lawfully present non-citizens, such as refugees.
The Eleventh Circuit ruled that their status as lawfully present has to come from the Immigration and Nationality Act, not from an executive order signed by Obama.
The court also struck down their claim that Georgia violated the Equal Protection Clause. The court said Georgia’s decision not to admit illegal aliens is “rationally related to a legitimate state interest” and therefore permissible.
The Eleventh Circuit’s decision did not rule on the constitutionality of DACA, which faces a precarious future.
President Donald Trump tried to end the program after taking office, but courts pushed back against him. Last year, the liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that he could not end the program.
Conversely, Trump also weighed extending the DACA residents’ reprieve for a time during negotiations over the funding of the southern border wall; however, Democrats scoffed at the idea.
On Wednesday, an illegal alien “Dreamer” testified before the House Judiciary Committee and stated that DACA is unconstitutional, the Washington Examiner reported.
“I believe what former President Obama did was the right thing to do but the wrong way to do it, which is why I believe DACA is unconstitutional and why President Trump has every right to get rid of it,” Hilario Yanez, a Mexican immigrant, said. “The best way then and today is action by Congress.”
Meanwhile, House GOP members led by Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., recently introduced a bill that would prohibit leftist “sanctuary” states like California from offering in-state tuition benefits to illegals as out-of-state U.S. citizens continued to see their tuition costs skyrocket.
Tags
Who is online
72 visitors
“On many fronts, open borders legal groups have been using DACA recipients to try to blur the distinctions between citizen and noncitizen and between legal aliens and illegal aliens,” said Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of IRLI, in a press release.
“In blurring those distinctions, they blur the very border of our country, and begin rubbing out the notion that the United States is fully a sovereign nation, ” Wilcox said. “Today’s decision is a major check on that effort, and I expect it will reverberate across the national legal landscape.
On Wednesday, an illegal alien “Dreamer” testified before the House Judiciary Committee and stated that DACA is unconstitutional, the Washington Examiner reported .
“I believe what former President Obama did was the right thing to do but the wrong way to do it, which is why I believe DACA is unconstitutional and why President Trump has every right to get rid of it,” Hilario Yanez, a Mexican immigrant, said. “The best way then and today is action by Congress.”
Amen 1st.
One of the funniest things I remember Obama saying was that he KNEW his EO was unconstitutional - that he didn't have the authority to issue such a writ. BUT, the Dems in Congress didn't care because he was their savior.
It's gonna be interesting to see what happens in this case - will it be appealed or not?
Responding in October 2010 to demands that he implement immigration reforms unilaterally, Obama declared, "I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself ." In March 2011, he said that with " respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case ." In May 2011, he acknowledged that he couldn't " just bypass Congress and change the (immigration) law myself. ... That's not how a democracy works."
Yet in 2012, he did it anyway . He put DACA in place to provide pseudo-legal status to illegal aliens brought to the U.S. as minors, including as teenagers. He promised them that they wouldn't be deported and provided them with work authorizations and access to Social Security and other government benefits.
And he did this despite the fact that the i mmigration laws passed by Congress do not give the president the ability to do this . Indeed, Congress specifically rejected bills to provide such benefits.
Seems straightforward enough. Unless you're a refugee surrendering to authorities, how can you be lawfully present in a country you entered illegally? Hard to believe this was a serious debate.
Executive Orders often lead to this type of debate. Executive Orders are Presidents bypassing Congress, so quite often the courts need to get involved.
I agree with this decision and with Yanez's comments.
Makes sense to me.
Curious as to how SCOTUS is going to rule on the DACA challenge?
But will congress get off their ass and fix the immigration laws? I doubt they will find the time to do so as they will be so busy dealing with fear mongering and party politics...
Snuffy - there is nothing in the law that needs to be fixed - both of them are "hammers on the head of the nail". The 2 laws that are considered as the Immigration laws have addressed the immigration issues and the courts have ruled in the government's favor the vast majority of times.
What is needed to be "repaired" is Congress's total lack of partisanship at ensuring the existing laws are enforced through not enacting funding or offering any modicum of support to the affected agencies to ensure compliance.