Senate Blocks Bill That Would Have Curbed the Flow of Syrian Refugees
A Republican refugee bill that passed the House in November is likely dead for the year after it was blocked on January 20th by the Senate. The bill would have limited the number of Syrian and Iraqi refugees allowed to enter this country in order to prevent the entry of potential terrorists.
After its passage in the House, President Obama had warned that he would veto the bill if it ever reached his desk.
Supporters of the bill from both parties worry that by blocking it, those in opposition are making it harder to keep Americans safe. They believe that our refugee system can be exploited by people wishing to do us harm. Moreover, they questioned the Obama administration’s ability to properly screen the thousands of individuals set to arrive from Syria and Iraq. Some noted the wisdom in pausing Obama’s current refugee program in order to ensure that we are appropriately and effectively managing security screenings.
Those who opposed the bill warned that passing a bill like this could increase the feeling in the Middle East that the U.S. has turned on Muslim Arabs. Moreover, they generally embrace the need to provide a safe haven for refugees fleeing war-ravaged countries. They also argue that the refugee program has a solid track record when it comes to screening for security risks.
Because of the degree to which the issue of refugees has featured so prominently on the presidential campaign trail, the bill became heavily politicized with both Democrats and Republicans accusing each other of trying to further broader political agendas.
The bill would have required the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence to sign off on refugees from Iraq and Syria, or on any refugee who has visited either country in the last five years, certifying that each person is not a security threat.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/20/politics/syrian-refugees-senate-vote-2016/index.html
Supreme Court Will Hear DAPA Case
A much anticipated decision from the Supreme Court has finally arrived. On January 19th the court announced that it will hear the case against the President’s proposed Deferred Action program for parents of citizens and permanent residents. After many months of frustration for the Obama administration, this decision has brought a resurgence of hope as officials and undocumented immigrants alike set their sights on the possibility of success.
The case in question began fourteen months ago, when Obama ordered the creation of a program that would allow as many as five million illegal immigrants to live and work in the U.S. for three years without fear of deportation. The program, known as DAPA, targets the parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.
The executive action came after years of Congressional stalemates on immigration reform. After repeated frustration and failure, President Obama decided to take matters into his own hands.
But his goals have remained unfulfilled. Shortly after he announced his plans in November 2014, a coalition of 26 states, led by the attorney general in Texas, filed a lawsuit accusing the President of abusing power by circumventing Congress and ignoring federal procedures.
In February, a federal district judge at a court in Brownsville, Texas, issued a judicial order to freeze the program until the legality of it had been decided. The government appealed the decision but it was upheld on November 9th in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans.
The fate of the program now lies with the Supreme Court. If the court rules in favor of President Obama, the White House said it will move quickly to enroll immigrants in the DAPA program before the next president takes office. So far, Democratic presidential candidates have said that if elected, they will continue the program. But Republican candidates have maintained that should they be elected, they will dismantle it.
At this point, the Obama administration fears that the program could remain frozen for the duration of the current presidential term. As such, the administration has asked the court to reach a decision quickly. The court has agreed and has said that deliberation will begin in April with a decision expected by the end of June.
The court has broadened the scope of the case and has asked each party to address an additional question: Does the administration’s plan violate the constitutional command that the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed?”
Disclaimer: This newsletter is provided as a public service and not intended to establish an attorney client relationship. Any reliance on information contained herein is taken at your own risk.