How about that? Somebody’s read the constitution!
Texas and six other states (Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, and West Virginia) are suing the federal government to end once and for all Barack Obama’s “temporary” Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which supplanted congressional powers to protects illegal aliens who came to the country as children.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton had threatened legal action for the past year if the DACA program didn’t come to a halt, not because he hates immigrants as the liberals will undoubtedly claim, but because Obama’s order ignored the separation of powers as outlined in the U.S. Constitution
In announcing the suit today, Paxton said:
Last September, President Trump sided with the rule of law. He agreed to phase out DACA after I led a coalition requesting his administration do so or face a court challenge. Since then, three activist federal judges have blocked the federal government from cancelling DACA. That means that unelected federal judges are forcing the Trump administration to leave an unlawful program in place indefinitely as legal challenges drag on.
The multi-state coalition lawsuit we filed today is about the rule of law, not the wisdom of any particular immigration policy. The Constitution guarantees the American people the right to set their own immigration policies through their representatives in Congress. The federal executive branch lacks the power to unilaterally grant unlawfully present aliens lawful presence and work authorization.
Left intact, DACA sets a dangerous precedent by giving the executive branch sweeping authority to ignore the laws enacted by Congress and change our nation’s immigration laws to suit a president’s own policy preferences. The danger DACA poses goes far beyond its consequences for our immigration system. It invites future presidents to ignore the law, ignore the will of the people, and set their own policies on the Second Amendment, privacy rights, drug laws, or any of the other important issues debated in Congress.
President Trump has a duty under the Constitution to take care that the law be faithfully executed. Activist judges should not stand in the way of the president fulfilling his constitutional duty. DACA encourages lawlessness within the federal government and at our borders. Legally, DACA is similar to the executive amnesty program known as DAPA. The courts blocked DAPA after I led another state coalition challenging its constitutionality all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Our coalition is confident that ultimately, through our federal lawsuit, DACA will meet the same fate as DAPA.
In the lawsuit, the seven states are not asking for the so-called dreamers be deported.
Recently a federal judge in Washington joined other district Judges in calling the Trump administration’s action toward wind down the program, which they called “arbitrary and capricious.” The judge gave the Trump administration 90 days to make a new case.
The Texas-led lawsuit is not an attempt to litigate the judges’ decisions regarding the Trump administration but to get a ruling declaring Obama’s executive action unconstitutional.
Paxton’s lawsuit joins a host of DACA litigations that is not expected to be resolved until the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in.
Cross posted at The Lid