The supreme Court did nothing to halt President Obama’s illegal amnesty push. The program would have shielded as many as five million illegal aliens from deportation while allowing them to legally work in the U.S.
The case, United States v. Texas, No. 15-674, concerned a 2014 executive action by the president to allow as many as five million illegal’s who are the parents of citizens or of lawful permanent residents to apply for a program that would keep them from deportation and give them work permits. Texas Governor Greg Abbott called Obama’s action “an unauthorized abuse of presidential power that trampled the Constitution.”
In February 2015, Judge Andrew S. Hanen of the Federal District Court in Brownsville, Texas entered a preliminary injunction shutting down the program. The government appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans affirmed the injunction.
In their briefs, Texas claimed that the president ‘had wide authority over immigration matters’, telling the justices that “the executive does have enforcement discretion to forbear from removing aliens on an individual basis.” Their problem, they argued, was with what they called a blanket grant of “lawful presence” to millions of illegals entitling them unfunded benefits.
But since the supreme Court split its opinion, the lower court opinion stands, which ought to mean the States have control over the enforcement immigration laws — specifically deportations. This would also mean the States are the only entities authorized to enforce the federally established Rules of Uniformed Naturalization.
This is all contingent on their operating constitutionally, which unfortunately, they don’t. And if the federal government operated constitutionally there would be no “exceptions” to the Uniformed Rules of Naturalization.
The solution is so simple: follow the U.S. Constitution word for word and quit trying to interpret it, forcing it to fit some agenda, as it is not a play-thing.