Más Información
The American newspaper The New York Times said that the justices should reject the arguments in the suit of 26 Republican-led states against President Obama’s November 2014 executive actions to protect millions of immigrants from deportation and described it as one of the most flagrant examples in recent memory of a naked political dispute masquerading as a legal one.
“Once again, the prospect of a 4-to-4 split on the court threatens to spur widespread legal chaos by effectively giving these 26 states the power to set national immigration policy. But it need not come to that. If the justices follow their own precedent as well as longstanding practice, they should reject the plaintiffs’ absurd claim,” the newspaper said in an editorial.
On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in United States v. Texas case.
The newspaper added that “Obama’s challenged action, taken after years of waiting in vain for Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform, is a sensible response to the issue of the more than 11 million undocumented immigrants living, working and raising families in the United States. This is both smart politics and humane policy, and it falls well within Mr. Obama’s authority.”
The New York Times recalled in its editorial that “Presidents from Dwight Eisenhower to George W. Bush often wielded such power — which includes deciding whom to deport, and when — with virtually no opposition. And Mr. Obama has deported 2.5 million undocumented immigrants, more than any president in history. But Republican governors and state officials are infuriated with his 2014 executive action, claiming it violates immigration law and is an unconstitutional overreach of his authority.”
According to the newspaper "the president’s actions did not change anyone’s legal status; it just allowed certain undocumented immigrants to temporarily seek work without the constant fear of being torn from their children and families. Besides, the states have no standing to bring the suit in the first place because, despite their contorted claims, they will suffer no demonstrable harm. If the states are allowed to prevail in this case, states conceivably could sue over almost any federal policy decision they oppose."
It added that the case, “which has never been more than a highly politicized anti-immigrant crusade wrapped in legal briefs, gives him and the court a clear opportunity to reaffirm that principle and leave fights like these to the political process.”
