Obama's Immigration Executive Orders 2016

With the rise of foreign people permanently settling in America, the immigration policy has affected all aspects of society in terms of growth and development of economy, societal issues, and national security. As the immigration policy is a broad topic among senators, it needs to be prioritize for it to be better understood. In doing so will improve the immigration policy and grasp the significance of its impact in America.

The state of Texas found out that “no Mexican ancestry person had served on a jury in 25 years ("Hernandez v. Texas.").” Furthermore, the lawyers disputed that it was unfair that they were no Mexican Americans that can support the equal protection of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The trial court judge denied their motion after listening to their arguments. After listening to this case in the District Court, and the Texas Court of Appeals, this case was now going to be reviewed by the U.S Supreme Court, which was Gus Garcia’s plan. It was expensive to go to trial in the Supreme Court but since every Mexican wanted all these injustices abolished, they were raising money so the lawyers can take the case to Washington (Carlos M.

As he pointed in a statement released by the White House, “DACA is an unconstitutional exercise of authority; failure to enforce the laws in the past has put our nation at risk of crime, violence and terrorism.” (The New York Times) The controversy between legal status and who are considered citizens of the United States only demonstrates the flaws and complexity of the US constitution. Politicians have been taken advantage of the mistakes portrayed in the constitution as a way to manipulate laws and actions from a racist point view as we are

Texas has a reputation throughout history of differing views from the federal government in laws and politics pertaining to social, fiscal, and educational issues. On the whole, Texas operates as a largely conservative state. Because of this, policy-making is often right wing. With the institution of a Democratic, liberal president, the State’s dissent from the Federal government has only increased over certain issues. One hot topic of the 2012 Presidential election was immigration. With the major increase in immigration, it is no surprise that the issue was so emphasized. Between 2000 and 2011 there was a 30 percent

Executive order 13767, issued on January 25th, is a constitutional order because it is a current issue for the people that need be addressed sooner than congress could. It moves too, “Secure the southern border of the United States… by adequate personel so as to prevent illegal immigration, drug and human trafficking, and acts of terrorism” (“Border Security…”). This policy directly helps the American people and the national economy. People who are deported and then return as legal citizens are able to be taxed, providing more money for local government projects and improvements, and are also are able to receive their rights as citizens of the Country. Added security also will allow US citizens who live on the border to have less concern with drug trade from Mexico and

In 1995, a case went to the United States Supreme Court on the constitutionalism of an act passed by the United States Congress under the Commerce Clause. The respondent, Alfonso Lopez, Jr. had appealed his case up from his district court in San Antonio all the way to the Supreme Court. The process took almost three whole years. Lopez had been charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 that was passed by Congress through the Commerce Clause. Lopez’s lawyer argued that the Congress did not have any constitutional power through its Commerce Clause to pass the Gun-Free Schools Zones Act in 1990. The case was viewed and decided by nine Supreme Court justices. In the Supreme Court case, United States v. Lopez (1995), the Supreme Court justices held that Congress’s control over and through the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was unconstitutional. Their votes were 5 to 4. This was the first Supreme Court decision in over half a decade to limit the power of Congress.

However, in the case of President Trump and California’s governor and attorney general, Jerry Brown and Xavier Becerra, they are each other’s problem. In recent years, the United States has drawn away from dual federalism, a system in which state and national powers are neatly divided between the national and state governments (Greenberg, 2018, pg. 59). The national government has progressively gained more authority, turning the American government into a partial cooperative federalism. If the nation was a dual federalism, the state government of California would not have been challenged for its new policies on immigration. Along with President Trump, is the Department of Justice claiming that the new laws were unconstitutional and asked a judge to block them (Benner et al., 2018). This action made by the Department of Justice is an act of judicial review, a very powerful option that is allowed for the judicial branch to use. The Constitution also provided that presidents were allowed to occasionally “recommend … measures” to Congress without specifying, and the vague language was flexible enough to allow for the expansion of the power of the presidency (Greenberg, 2018, pg. 303). Having too much power in any area of the government is not what makes a government a

The U.S. has always being considered the land of opportunities. Back in my home country opportunities were very scarce, which led to my family immigrating to the U.S. for a better future. Having had firsthand experience in the immigration transition system, it has been captivating to hear in the news about the Executive Order Obama issued on November 20, 2014. Seeing families getting separated, violence raising in the Mexican border, and the increasing Latin population in the U.S. signaled the need for this Executive Order in immigrant communities. Even though the Constitution states that Congress has the duty of writing our Nation’s laws, President Obama declared an Executive Order on Immigration. It is believed to be a political boom for

Mexico was estimated up to 70% from those undocumented workers. (Reiff, 2013) In 2001, Bush and congress hoped to help Mexican immigration to U.S. by the legislation immigration reform but the reform had to hold on since the terrorist attacks in September 11, 2001. In 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives supported the Border Protection and the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act were passed by the Senates in 2006. However, both of these cannot be a law because their contents are a few differences and had conflicts with conference committee. (Nakamura, 2014) In 2009, Barack Obama restarted this comprehensive discussion of immigration reform. In the speech of November 20, 2014, U.S. president Obama stated the current immigration system is broken and summed up the necessary of the immigration reform such as new immigrant families were flout by others, business owners provided the less wages and benefits to undocumented immigrants and most of immigrants only wanted to earn the money, regardless of the responsibilities of living in the U.S., which caused them being apart from the others and society, staying in the dark shadows all the time. (Obama, November 2014) In case of the problem coming worses, President Obama began a series of executive actions to fix the system on immigration. This article introduces some key players in US politics and how their strategies to support

Case Summary: Many states wanted to adopt policies that would limit the lives of illegal immigrants. Arizona being the primary state vying for laws to punish unauthorized immigrants. On April 23, 2010 the governor of Arizona signed a law designed to “ ... identify, prosecute and deport illegal immigrants.” The United States seeking to stop the law before it was in effect, argued that the law was in conflict with the federal laws on illegal immigration. In the law signed by Arizona, given was four provisions, a condition in an agreement or law. The four provisions were (1) that being in Arizona without the proper legal documentation

States does not realize how their decisions affect lives. As reported by Steve Contorno of polititfact.com, the President says that his stance on immigration using executive orders has not changed. Mr. Contorno recounted a speech given by the President in November of 2014, where Mr. Obama announced

It is against the Constitution of the U.S.A as well as any laws whether state, federal and international that seeks to protect everyone and ensure that rights are equally distributed. However, this has been ironic of Texas’s

Evenwel versus Abbott court case was held on April 4, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court was challenged by the registered Texas voters, due to the reason that they think each district should have equal number of population. However the legislature suggested that eligible voters should be used. In other words, each district should have equal number of eligible voters. As a result, the justices have permitted the legislative districts by dominating total population instead of voting population.

The newly indicted President of the United States, Donald Trump had made an executive order to create an immigrant ban to prevent immigrants from entering and returning to the United States. Shortly after signed the order there was chaos due to Trumps lack of communication; Trump had signed the order as the official's were still discussing it. To continue, when the order was set Custom border control had received orders, however, they were quite unsure of what to do, more questions continue to raise about why trump had singed this order and why he was so quick to fulfill it. Officials of the Whitehouse had defended Trump's decision for the order and his reasoning for it.

The Supreme Court will announce their decision in June 2016 on the Obama’s administration proposal regarding immigration reform actions. If passed, the actions will allow millions of undocumented immigration to be eligible for work authorization. This will also effect the implementation of the Deferred Actions for Parents of Americans, Lawful Permanent Residents, and an expansion on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which affects teens and young adults raised in the U.S but born outside the country. If passed these actions will allow eligible participants to get temporary lawful presence and several other benefits. This is currently affecting 4.3 million immigrations who have been waiting at least a year to know what their fate is. There is a lot of controversy coming from the Republican party they claim that the president excessed his executive power in announcing these actions.