By
now, almost everyone has heard that Federal District Judge Andrew Hanen entered a temporary injunction blocking portions
of President Obama’s immigration actions from going into effect. Specifically, an amplified version of Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), originally announced in June 2012, and a
similar program, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent
Residents (DAPA) are currently on hold.
It
is important to note that the 2012 version of DACA has not been affected by
Judge Hanen’s order.
The
Obama Administration appealed the temporary injunction earlier this month. The appeal was filed with the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals based in New Orleans, LA.
This week, Fifth Circuit responded, setting arguments for Friday, April 17, 2015.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Building in New Orleans, LA - Courtesy of Waggonner& Ball Architects
Each
side will be allowed one hour to present arguments regarding why the injunction
should or should not be lifted.
Hopefully, the Fifth Circuit will enter a decision on the injunction within
a few weeks of the arguments.
The
April 17th hearing was part of a court order granting the Obama
Administration’s request to expedite the appeal of Judge Hanen’s injunction. The administration asked Judge Hanen to lift
the injunction himself; however, to this point, the judge has taken no actions
except to call Department of Justice attorneys into his courtroom and threaten
sanctions on the pretext they misled him about the implementation of DAPA and
DACA.
In
support of the injunction are 26 states, led by Texas, that filed a lawsuit alleging
the programs are a constitutional overreach on the part of the president. They argue that allowing the programs to move
forward will cause them irreversible economic harm. This despite the overwhelming majority of economists believing the actions will be
an economic boom.
You
might ask, what is the economic harm the states fear so much? This is where it gets good. Apparently, they are afraid of printing
driver’s licenses for DAPA and DACA recipients. They argue that because the state subsidizes
the cost of making driver’s licenses, and the fee paid by driver’s license
applicants will not be enough to cover the costs, the states will incur onerous
financial costs in creating them.
Of
course, the states fail to contrast the cost of printing driver’s licenses with
the benefit of having thousands of drivers who previously did not have licenses
licensed. More importantly, financial
harm such as the cost of driver’s licenses is the quintessential reparable
harm. If the states are worried about
losing money on driver’s licenses, the solution is simple: raise the price of
driver’s licenses or refuse to issue them to DAPA recipients.
But
that really does not matter, because in the end, this really is not about
arriving at a solution as much as it is a political game. A game being played with real people’s lives
hanging in the balance.
NathanR. Bogart is an
immigration attorney at Petty &Associates, P.C. He works out of the
firm's Dallas and Amarillo offices and focuses his
practice on removal defense, asylum, and citizenship.
