DAPA
is the acronym for Deferred Action for
Parental Accountability, an amnesty program aka “executive action” announced by
President Obama on November 20, 2014 allowing parents of U.S. citizens and
lawful permanent residents who have been illegally in the country since before
January 1, 2010 to request deferred action from deportation. “Nadapa” in
Tagalog means “fell flat on its face.”
On December 16, 2014, Judge
Arthur J. Schwab, a U.S. district judge in Pennsylvania held that the program
was unconstitutional. In his Memorandum Opinion Judge Schwab said: “This
Executive Action ‘cross[es] the line,’ constitutes ‘legislation,’ and
effectively changes the United States’ immigration policy. The President may
only ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed . . .’ he may not take any
Executive Action that creates laws. U.S. Const., Art. II, Section 3.” United States of America v. Juarez-Escobar,
Criminal Case No. 14-0180, DC WD PA Doc. 32, filed 12/16/14. It appears that
Judge Schwab not only swabbed the amnesty program, he deep throated it.
As we have been telling our
radio listeners and writing in this publication and other publications, and as
every alien applying for citizenship knows or ought to know, there are three
branches of government—the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. The
executive executes the laws, the legislative makes the laws, and the judicial
interprets the laws. Granting amnesty is a legislative function. When President
Obama granted amnesty, he performed a legislative function. As Judge Schwab
said, he crossed the line.
Judge Schwab acknowledged
that presidents and certain members of their administrative agencies may
exercise “prosecutorial discretion” over certain criminal matters on a case by
case basis and that in the field of immigration it applies to a broad range of
discretionary enforcement decisions. President Obama invoked this discretion
when he announced his “Executive Action”. However, the Judge said, Mr. Obama’s
Executive Action goes beyond prosecutorial discretion because: “(a) it provides
for a systematic and rigid process by which a broad group of individuals will
be treated differently than others based upon arbitrary classifications, rather
than case by case examination; and (b) it allows undocumented immigrants, who
fall within these broad categories, to obtain substantive rights.”
The Juarez-Escobar case
involved an alien who was deported and reentered the U.S. illegally. In
determining the sentence, Judge Schwab asked the parties to file supplemental
briefing on how DAPA affected the defendant. The parties did not even raise
DAPA as an issue.
This is the first judicial
decision addressing DAPA. However, twenty four states, half of our country, led
by Texas, have filed suit challenging Mr. Obama’s immigration “executive
actions.” The 24 states are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho,
Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska,
North Carolina, South Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota,
Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
The Texas-led case was filed
in U.S. District Court in Brownsville, Texas. Texas v. United States of
America. The court is presided by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen, an
appointee of President George W. Bush.
The first case challenging Mr.
Obama’s “executive actions” was filed on the same day Mr. Obama announced them
by Arizona sheriff Arapaio in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. It will
be heard on December 22.
What now? The “executive
actions” have not been stopped by the courts. Consequently aliens who qualify
for the amnesty should immediately consult an attorney who has experience and
knows what to do in order to file the necessary applications with the
Department of Homeland Security.
Even though we have
questioned the propriety and legality of amnesty, we have used it for the
benefit of our clients. As we said in our previous column, a lawyer must use
every weapon in the legal arsenal to fight the government who is deporting the
lawyer’s clients, whether the lawyer likes the weapon or not.
(Atty. Tipon has a Master of Laws degree from Yale Law
School and a Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of the Philippines. He
specializes in immigration law and criminal defense. Office: 900 Fort Street,
Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96813. Tel. (808) 225-2645. E-Mail:
filamlaw@yahoo.com. Websites: www.MilitaryandCriminalLaw.com. He is from Laoag City and Magsingal,
Ilocos Sur. He served as an Immigration Officer. He is co-author of
“Immigration Law Service, 1st ed.,” an 8-volume practice guide for
immigration officers and lawyers. Listen to “The Tipon Report”, the wittiest,
interesting, and useful radio program in Hawaii on KNDI at 1270 AM dial every
Thursday at 7:30 a.m. This article is a general overview of the subject matter
discussed and is not intended as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship
is established between the writer and readers relying upon and/or acting
pursuant to this article.)
Comments
Post a Comment