Washington, D.C. — Late last night, a district court in Texas ruled that the president’s November 20, 2014, U.S. Department of Homeland Security directives on immigration were unconstitutional. In response, Center for American Progress Vice President of Immigration Policy Marshall Fitz released this statement:
This ruling is nothing more than judicial activism by an extremist judge who has criticized this administration’s immigration policy in the past. This legal challenge, as well Republicans’ attempts to repeal executive action, are all part of a fear-mongering campaign from those on the right to sow confusion among the people who might benefit. Opponents of immigration know that once these actions go into effect, they will be a broad success and are using every tool they have to try and stop them in an effort to put millions of people back in the crosshairs for deportation. Considering the ample legal and historical precedents for the president’s actions—not to mention the broad economic, fiscal, and national security benefits—I am confident that this decision will be overturned upon appeal, making this decision only a temporary setback.
BREAKING: Republican Judge Halts Key Prong Of President Obama’s New Immigration Policy, by Ian Millhiser (CAPAF)
5 Facts You Need to Know About Legal Challenges to Executive Action on Immigration, by Silva Mathema & Philip E. Wolgin (CAP)
The Economic and Fiscal Benefits of Deferred Action, by Patrick Oakford & Philip E. Wolgin (CAP)
The Facts on Immigration Today
To speak to an expert on this topic, please contact Tanya S. Arditi at email@example.com.