“And, who decides if it is unlawful? Again, not the Executive Branch. And, not at the point of a gun.”
I’m confused. Can our lawyers/Constitutional profs explain something to me? If one president has enough power to create a law through executive order, why couldn’t another president have enough power to rescind it? Wouldn’t their powers of executive orders be the same?
Do you remember President Obama’s 2014 executive order expanding the deferred action programs? Key elements of that expansion, namely granting deferred action to parents of those protected under DACA, were preliminary enjoined by a federal judge in a lawsuit filed by Texas and 25 other states. The litigation challenges the constitutionality and implementation of the expansion proposed under that executive order. The 5th Circuit refused to lift the injunction and the executive actions are stayed pending resolution.
So executive actions affecting priorities for deportation can be and have been blocked. I haven’t looked at the case and so I won’t comment on the constitutional challenges themselves.
But as an aside I am not sure this new administration will want to change much as far as deportation of those already within our borders. I have read repeatedly that President Obama has deported more people than any other President in history – 2.5 million in the last 6 years to be specific. He focused on those with criminal records and those that posed a threat to national security or public safety. I believe that is exactly what the incoming administration campaigned on.
That specific population has pretty much been the “priority” since 9/11 and since we still have real issues with terrorism I don’t think that will change.
Yes. Executive orders can be rescinded by a subsequent president.
Yes, that makes perfect sense. I am contending that executive orders are not quite so simple as they are being made out to be. They are subject to judicial challenge - which can really put the brakes on – and they have to be funded. It’s not as simple as waving a wand – unless of course both sides of the aisle are in agreement. And how often does that happen?
The universities have chosen not to comply with immigration law should have no complaints when their research grants, student loans, and hospital funding is eliminated. This entire mess was created by the past two presidents who did not enforce existing law.
No major research university can survive the loss of research funding. If it goes that far, which I doubt, the university will cave almost immediately.
The following is a statement from the president’s office of a state flagship university whose president is also a constitution law professor:
"It has been and will continue to be our practice to protect undocumented students to the maximum extent that federal law permits.
Federal law does not require the University to track undocumented students.
In fact, the University does not collect or maintain any records regarding whether students are undocumented immigrants.
Furthermore, the University takes student privacy interests very seriously and does not disclose private information about students in violation of federal law protecting that information without appropriate legal process, such as a subpoena. Certain other constitutional rights also apply to all individuals residing in the United States, including protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment."
Strangely enough, I have to agree with @hebegebe on this. Things are not likely escalate to the point where Columbia University is in danger of losing research money for refusing to turn over the names and whereabouts of DACA students absent a warrant or subpoena because:
And since the federal government already has the list of those who applied for DACA status with names, addresses and other information.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/11/will-trump-use-immigrant-dreams-against-them.html
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
When the discussion gets to arguing past court cases, the valid question that was posed on p.1 turns into both debate and politics. Closing.