Overreach by proponents of amnesty undercut Obama's Supreme Court argument

Daily Signal:
New Pro-Amnesty Lawsuit Undermines Obama’s Case for His Amnesty Executive Order


One of the key arguments of the government in that case is that DAPA is “presumptively unreviewable prosecutorial discretion because ‘lawful presence’ is not a status and is not something that the alien can legally enforce.”

Recently, however, an activist group sued the state of Georgia claiming that the federal constitution mandates that illegal alien DAPA beneficiaries receive in-state tuition.

The lawsuit claims that the DAPA memos have preemptive force: that is, that pursuant to the Supremacy Clause in Article IV of the Constitution, states cannot interfere with DAPA, which represents “federal immigration law” rather than the abdication or violation of federal immigration law. It also claims that denial of in-state tuition for illegal aliens given amnesty under DAPA violates their Equal Protection rights, because there is no “valid justification” to treat lawful permanent residents differently from illegal aliens in the DAPA program.

Set aside the absurdity of these claims. More important is the fact that the lawsuit itself is a strategic mistake because it undermines the administration’s legal position justifying DAPA in the first place.
The administration's argument is suspect on other grounds, but this really undercuts their own rationale for why the amnesty order does not violate the constitution.  I think the Obama administration argument and the claims of the activists are both specious rationales for ignoring the law.


Popular posts from this blog

Democrats worried about 2018 elections

Obama's hidden corruption that enriched his friends

Illinois in worst financial shape, Texas in best shape