Martha Roby: Obama’s amnesty actions struck down
The U.S. Supreme Court has dealt the final blow to President Barack Obama’s executive orders on immigration. As you may remember, President Obama attempted to bypass Congress in November 2014 and grant de facto amnesty to as many as five million illegal immigrants. A number of states, including Alabama, challenged the executive amnesty plans in federal court on the grounds that they violated the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers. Although there are not currently 9 serving justices, an equally divided Supreme Court affirms the ruling of the court below. By upholding lower courts’ rulings against the Administration, the Supreme Court has effectively blocked the President’s orders from being implemented and affirmed that they were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court’s decision represents an important victory for the separation of powers, a fundamental principle of our Constitution meant to preserve self-governance. The framers strategically divided governing authorities among the three branches and set up a system of checks and balances to ensure no one branch became too powerful. Article I of the Constitution gives Congress, not the President, authority to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Our laws have legitimacy because they are passed by representatives elected by and accountable to the people. That legitimacy has been undermined by expansions of executive authority over the past few decades. I believe this decision sends a strong message to President Obama and to future presidents that constitutional order and the rule of law must be followed. However, this issue isn’t going away. Our illegal immigration problem is very real. The President’s amnesty orders only exacerbated that problem by inviting even more illegal immigrants to cross the border and by poisoning any chance Congress could make progress toward meaningful solutions on this issue while he was in office. They were also unfair to legal immigrants who played by the rules and to the working Americans whose wages are undercut by reckless immigration policy. Amnesty won’t solve our immigration problems. We have to secure the border and enact better polices that discourage illegal entry, punish lawbreakers and promote America’s economic interests. In the wake of this ruling, our work to strengthen the United States immigration laws should continue right away. Hopefully our next president will be more willing to work with Congress in that regard. Thanks to this Supreme Court ruling, they won’t be able to go around Congress and unilaterally enact their own policies. That’s important for the preservation of our constitutional republic, no matter who the next president is. ••• Martha Roby represents Alabama’s 2nd Congressional District. She lives in Montgomery, Alabama, with her husband, Riley and their two children.
AG
Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange attended the U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments Monday morning in the federal lawsuit against the Obama administration’s executive amnesty order. The case, known as United States v. Texas, calls into question President Barack Obama’s actions aimed at allowing millions of undocumented immigrants to apply for government programs that could make them eligible for work authorization and associated benefits. “Today marked a major milestone in the States’ effort to stop the cavalier and unconstitutional actions of the Obama administration in exceeding its legal authority over Congress and the States,” said Attorney General Strange. Alabama is part of the 26-state coalition led by Texas suing the federal government to block the implementation of President Obama’s unconstitutional executive action legalizing the status of over four million illegal aliens. “This lawsuit, backed by a majority of U.S. states, is about more than the federal government’s attempt to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens,” further observed Attorney General Strange. “This lawsuit is about the President’s illegal attempt to change federal law in order to achieve what he was unable to do when Congress voted down his amnesty legislation.” Strange continued, “Through his executive action, the President made dramatic changes that extend legal benefits to people who are openly violating the law, without so much as the notice and opportunity for comment that is required for changes in the federal rule-making process. These actions are unconstitutional and illegal, and will severely impact the States with increased costs for law enforcement, health care and education.” Based on questions asked during the 90-minute oral argument, the case essentially tests the limits of presidential powers. “Two lower federal courts have agreed with our position that the President’s executive order harms the States, and in November the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted our request for an injunction pending the hearing of this case before the U.S. Supreme Court. I believe the High Court must consider the impact of the majority of States opposing this illegal executive order and I am hopeful it will be ruled unconstitutional,” Strange concluded. The 26 states suing the Obama administration over its executive amnesty plan include Texas, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin. A ruling on the matter is expected from the justices by the end of June.
