Federal judge halts Obama’s executive actions on immigration

— Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed

“President Obama’s executive overreach on immigration poses a clear and present danger to our Constitution, and I am pleased that the president’s actions have been temporarily halted so that the states’ lawsuit can move forward. By acting unilaterally to rewrite our nation’s immigration laws, President Obama has disregarded the will of the American people and violated the Constitution.”

— U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican

“At this time, the Latin American Association will continue to play an important role in informing the community about the executive order, including the temporary injunction and the administration’s request for a stay of that injunction. We are optimistic that this will just be a temporary delay in the implementation of the executive order.”

— Jeffrey Tapia, executive director of the Latin American Association

A federal judge in Texas has sided with Georgia and 25 other states by temporarily halting President Barack Obama’s plans to shield up to 5 million immigrants from deportation.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen’s decision could delay the implementation of Obama’s plans for months and potentially be contested all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, legal experts said. The Obama administration confirmed Tuesday that it would delay accepting applications from immigrants seeking relief under the president’s programs while it appeals the judge’s order.

Hanen — a George W. Bush appointee — issued his decision late Monday, just two days before the federal government was to begin accepting applications from some immigrants for one of the programs. An estimated 170,000 immigrants living in Georgia meet the parameters set by the government for relief, according to the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington-based think tank that evaluates migration policies.

Georgia and the other states are suing to block the president’s actions, saying they are unconstitutional. Hanen did not rule on the constitutionality of Obama’s plans. Instead, he cited technical grounds for issuing his injunction, saying the federal government had failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires notices about proposed rule changes and opportunities for public comment.

Congressional Republicans also responded to Obama’s actions by trying to tie funding for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to a repeal of the president’s programs. So far, Senate Democrats have blocked that legislation.

States’ standing in suit upheld

The judge also ruled the states have standing in the case because they would incur substantial costs issuing driver’s licenses to immigrants receiving work permits through Obama’s executive actions.

“Many states ultimately bear the brunt of illegal immigration,” Hanen wrote in his decision, adding: “It is far preferable to have the legality of these actions determined before the fates of over four million individuals are decided. An injunction is the only way to accomplish that goal.”

The White House issued a statement Tuesday confirming that the U.S. Justice Department would appeal.

“Top law enforcement officials, along with state and local leaders across the country, have emphasized that these policies will also benefit the economy and help keep communities safe,” the White House said. “The district court’s decision wrongly prevents these lawful, commonsense policies from taking effect.”

A spokesman for Gov. Nathan Deal referred questions to Attorney General Sam Olens. Olens’ office issued a statement about the judge’s ruling Tuesday, saying he was encouraged that the judge “recognized the serious rule of law concerns introduced by President Obama’s unilateral actions.”

Unilateral action followed House roadblock

Two years ago, bipartisan immigration legislation stalled in the Republican-led U.S. House. Citing inaction by Congress, Obama announced in November that he was acting unilaterally to overhaul parts of the nation’s immigration system. In his ruling Monday, Hanen halted the centerpiece of Obama’s plan, which involves suspending the threat of deportation for immigrants who don’t have legal status but do have children who are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. Hanen also temporarily suspended the expansion of a similar relief program — called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA — for immigrants who were illegally brought to the U.S. as children.

Jaime Rangel, a Mexican native living in Dalton, is one of 19,883 immigrants living in Georgia who have been accepted into that program. DACA, he said, has made it possible for him to get a Georgia driver’s license and a federal work permit, find a job as a forklift operator at a carpet mill and study finance at Dalton State College. He credited Obama with trying to keep immigrant families together.

“This is just temporary relief so they won’t get deported and so we won’t separate families,” Rangel said. “That is the moral thing Obama is trying to do.”

Conservative groups praised the judge’s decision Tuesday.

“We commend Judge Hanen for his ruling, which restores the rule of law to America’s immigration system, and we thank the 26 attorneys general for bringing the case,” Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, said in a prepared statement Tuesday. “The ruling also points out the lawless, overreaching nature of President Obama’s actions.”

Prospects of appeal debated

Carolina Antonini, a local immigration attorney who teaches at Georgia State University, said she responded to many calls and emails Tuesday morning from nervous clients worried about the court decision.

“Unfortunately, it will have a chilling effect on people who would have otherwise come to seek assistance with the programs at this point,” said Antonini, who is predicting the Obama administration will prevail with its appeal. “Because the general public is not going to understand this is merely an injunction and it is not a reversal of the policy, people are going to be even more afraid to come forward. But I think that will also die off when the next legal steps come.”

Some immigrants without legal status are worried what the government would do with their personal information if the programs are canceled, Antonini said. Still, she is urging her clients to continue gathering their documents so they can be ready to apply for relief.

Stephen Yale-Loehr, a New York-based immigration attorney who teaches immigration law at Cornell Law School, also predicted the Obama administration will succeed with its appeal.

“But there may be several months before that happens,” he said. “In the meantime, we are going to have utter chaos and confusion. I think this points out more than ever that we need Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform so that there wouldn’t be this confusion in the courts.”

Jan Ting, who served as an assistant commissioner with the former U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, offered a different view. He called the president’s actions “unconstitutional and unprecedented” and predicted the case could go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“This is such a high-profile, high-stakes case that I would imagine that whatever party loses at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on the injunction issue would not hesitate to go to the Supreme Court and see what the justices think,” said Ting, a professor of immigration law at Temple University and a board member with the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates admitting fewer immigrants.