Will Republicans Lose on Immigration

Currently pending before the US Supreme Court is the case of United States v. Texas where Texas challenged the executive order by President Obama that would grant deferred prosecution to about 4.5 million undocumented (illegal) aliens in the United States and provide the means for them to work lawfully in the United States pending the eventual hearing of their immigration case (that could take up to 27 years by many estimates).

As summarized by the Supreme Court blog:

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-texas/

To provide a little background on the prior decisions by the federal district court and court of appeals I'll refer to the Wikipedia summary:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Texas#United_States_District_Court

Not a perfect summary but it's good enough to give a general understanding of the case so far.

What should be pointed out is that both the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Brownsville Division, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans did grant "standing" to Texas as the plaintiffs and that is under review by the US Supreme Court.

Additionally the case before the District Court and the Court of Appeals only focused on the procedural issues under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and declined to address the Constitutional issues under "Take Care Clause" of the Constitution, Article II, section 3 that the US Supreme Court has decided to address.

Of final importance is that the Fifth Circuit Court of appeals has limited jurisdiction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fifth_Circuit

So what's the risk many will ask. It really is quite obvious because we currently have a Supreme Court with only eight justices.

It's likely that the Supreme Court will split 4-4 in it's decision in which case the lower Appeals Court ruling stands but that decision only has jurisdiction in the noted locations. President Obama is fully authorized to implement his executive order throughout the rest of the United States which is not under the 5th District Court of Appeals juridiction. In short an "undocumented" (illegal) alien could go to Arizona or Colorado and apply for the deferred prosecution, obtaining the documentation including a work visa, and then return to the jurisdiction of the Fifth Curcuit Court of Appeals and not be subjected to the "stay" issued by the Court.

By the time other Federal Courts and Appeals Courts hear the case, if they grant standing which is questionable, those covered by the executive order will already be lawfully in the United States pending the eventual disposition of their immigration case. Basically without a full nine justice Supreme Court the Republicans risk losing on their opposition to Obama's executive order on deferred prosecution related to about 4.5 million "undocumented" (illegal) immigrants in the United States. It would be a fait accompli by President Obama if he chooses to take advantage of a 4-4 split decision by the US Supreme Court. There would be no decision on Constitutionality nor any restriction placed upon President Obama implementation of the executive order outside of the jurisdiction of the Fifth Court of Appeals. In fact the President could even go back to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in an attempt to lift the stay because of the the failure of the Supreme Court to render a decision on the case because of a 4-4 split.

Of course this could all be moot if the Supreme Court happens to rule by five or more justices agreeing that Texas doesn't have standing in the case as that is a very possible outcome. The "Standing" of Texas in the case has always been questionable.

 

Republicans have set themselves up to lose on the immigration issue because they have discarded all workable solutions
to the problem.

A few years ago, many Republicans were supporting a multi-pronged approach of a path to citizenship, stronger boarder protection and
trying to work out a compromise for the children of illegal immigrants who have never known any other country.

Now they are supporting the morons and their "build a hundred foot wall and round everybody up and ship them out" approach
that is a pie-in-the-sky waste of time and money.

The courts cannot solve this problem.

 

From what I understand, the lower court rulings will prevail since the current Supreme Court only has eight Justices.

 

Correct but as noted it only prevails in the very limited jurisdiction of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals because effectively a 4-4 decision is no decision by the Supreme Court.

What also happens is that the "stay" issued by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was to allow adjudication by the Supreme Courts, would arguablly have to be lifted because the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals cannot presume that all other Federal Court districts agree with it. The stay was only to allow Supreme Court adjudication and by not adjudicating the issue, due to a 4-4 split, arguably the grounds for the "stay" no longer exist.

Pragmatically what I see happening is that the eight remaining Supreme Court justices are going to acknowledge among themselves that a 4-4 split is inevitable and to avoid that they will seek an argeement to deny "standing" to Texas which invalidates the lawsuit and nullifies any Federal Court or Federal Appeals Court decision in the case. Denial of standing is a relatively common practice by the US Supreme Court to avoid having to deal with many issues. For example all of the "birther" lawsuits were dismissed based upon a "lack of standing" because the federal courts didn't want to issue a decision that expands the decision in the United States v Wong Kim Ark. The Wong Kim Ark decision only addressed statutory laws that denied recognition of natural born citizenship without addressing laws statutory laws that might attempt to grant natural born citizenship. The federal courts walked away from this issue by denying standing to the plaintiffs.

So I think the Supreme Court will deal with the case but it will do so by denying standing to Texas which nullifies the entire lawsuit and the lower court decisions. The Supreme Court would be far more likely to grant standing if it knew that it could adjudicate the case where a 4-4 split would not be the result.

 

There is one more option, they can refer it back to the Appeals court for clarification, basically punting until the next session. The SCOTUS would then take up the same case next term when the tie could be broken.

 

All of this proves my central point that the courts are indeed political and the jurists have decided political goals which if not apparently reachable leads them to delay until the political make up of the court allows them to win the majority.

 

About the only thing political about the case is that the US Supreme Court doesn't typically like to get involved in political disputes between different government entities if it can avoid it and often resorts to addressing "standing" as it's primary means of avoiding such disputes.

When I look at the Texas lawsuit the issue of "standing" is very questionable because Texas claims financial harm where the Texas legislature has the authority to eliminate any potential financial harm caused by the Obama executive order. Where the real politics are involved is in the selection of which federal district court is selected, and the appeals court above it, based upon the likelihood of "standing" being granted because without standing the case goes nowhere. The State of Texas selected the Brownsville federal court under the Fifth Circuit Court because of the likelihood of standing being granted which would allow the case to be heard and possibly lead to a favorable decision for the state. As I recall 26 other states have jumped on the Texas case bandwagon by submitting a writ of certiorari even though they are outside of the jurisdiction of the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals because they didn't believe that a case would be successful in their federal courts.

That's where the "politics" are involved and not in the Federal Courts or the Supreme Court per se.

 

Yes, that is correct and I forgot that option but there's a problem with it. If the Senate refuses to address the appointment of a new Supreme Court justice this year it would probably be 2017 before a new Supreme Court justice could be nominated and confirmed to office. As it stands right now I don't even know if a new justice could be confirmed to the court in time to hear this case if Republicans were even willing to address an appointment. It could happen but only if an expeditions confirmation process was employed and the Republican "obstructionist" stance on any Obama appointment, even if it was a moderate justice, seems to argue that won't happen.

This is only one of several cases where Republicans could lose because of the potential 4-4 split and in other cases the Appeals Courts have ruled against the "Republican" position and it is only specific to a single Appeals Court district. In those cases the Republicans simply lose but this case has much broader implications because if the Appeals Court decision is left unchanged by a 4-4- split then Obama is free to go ahead in implementing his executive order across the rest of the United States (which he actually could have done prior to now had he chosen to do so).

If Republicans really want to exercise their political power they should be demanding that Obama nominate a "moderate" justice that they could approve expeditiously to avoid losing numerous cases currently before the Supreme Court. That would be the logical move because the Republicans have no real assurances that next year they will have any political power related to appointments. If they lose five of their 24 "Republican" Senate seats (of the 34 being voted on) up for grabs in 2016 and/or if they lose the presidential race the Republicans will not increase their political power and could lose any political power in appointment of the Supreme Court justice. Their best political move it to get a moderate selection and expeditiously approve that selection.

 

The reason that the GOP was stopped from "a path to citizenship" is because most republicans were against it. We know that there would be no additional border security.

Build the wall, secure the border, prove that people who overstay their visa's are prosecuted. Then talk to us about "a path to citizenship".

 

I have been to many parts of our border with Mexico. There will not be a wall on that border, never. It would be far cheaper and better for us to take the money Trump wants to spend on this wall and invest it into Mexico itself and make Mexico a successful nation where people want to stay and have a good life rather than risk everything to come here.

 

Just stay tuned!

 

Tuned? How about disgusted with what has become of the GOP. I have lived long enough to see Archie Bunker become the darling of the right. I have no idea why conservatives hate Mexicans, it seems like they lost their right to call blacks names and now channel that dark energy to the poor folks who live here working hard doing the jobs no one wants to do and then we spit on them and their kids for having the nerve to be alive. Hate is a tough way to live a life, it wears on the soul.

 

You seem to have this fixed in your head pretty good, and I certainly agree. But to your question, will the Republicans win? Obviously not, if they decide to go with the eight judges as we suspect, to go along with your conclusions of the court by denying standing. Which begs my own question; are we dealing with amateurs here with this Republican party, or is this just the hate factor acting out that paralyzes them from being a functional part of government? Think about it, they are biting their own noses to spite their own faces, knowing they will lose the immigration battle for a long while at least, if they do not entertain the idea of another associate justice. Or am I missing something here? Why do a Kamikazee mission on immigration, when you are not sure that your desired candidate will be elected? If he isn't, then their one chance to get the immigration reform they want would have passed them by, by not entertaining another justice. What am I missing?

 

The ONLY solution is to build the wall. It will be a physical manifestation of our intent to be a sovereign nation and to stop the invasion of foreign nationals. A wall, unlike any other solution to border security cannot be overridden at the whim of a president. Obama has told the border patrol to stop enforcing the law, according to testimony before Congress by BP Union reps.

When we have stopped the invasion we can start expelling the lawbreakers still here.

We have to do this or America as a nation of free people living under our Constitution with limitations on government is over.

 

IF the majority of Americans WAKE THE HELL UP (register and vote)... the Republicans will lose on a LOT of things.

 

what invasion?

 

this often needs repeating, damn well said!

 

I don't know if I can answer your questions because I'm really not sure what the Republican Party is doing. They've had years in which to address immigration but have steadfastly refused to do so. While the Senate did pass an immigration reform bill when it was referred to the House it was never brought up for a vote by the Republican leadership in the House. I'm not even sure if it was referred to committee for consideration. As it exists our current immigration laws are pragmatically impossible to enforce because we can't afford to enforce the law as written so it has to be changed.

I can also note that while I do believe the Supreme Court may deny standing to Texas that's based more upon historical precedent in these types of cases. It may not happen and a 4-4 split may not occur. What can also happen is that, based upon a conservative interpretation of Article III, the Supreme Court will uphold Obama's actions as falling under the discretionary authority of the President. That being the case Obama's authority coming directly from the Constitution would over-ride the limitations imposed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (i.e. The Constitution is a higher level of law than statutory law).

Remember that President Obama actions were not challenged based upon the immigration laws because his executive order doesn't conflict with the immigration laws. The immigration law doesn't require deportation of undocumented (illegal) aliens but instead states they "may be subject to deportation" instead. It could easily be an 8-0 decision supporting Obama's executive order in which case the Republicans lose anyway because they refused to address immigration reform to begin with.

It's a tough call in any case but I simply don't see how the Republicans can win on the immigration issue. Blocking appointment of a Supreme Court justice certainly isn't helping their cause against immigration but it maybe a lost cause to begin with.

 

"FIXED FORTIFICATIONS ARE MONUMENTS TO THE STUPIDITY OF MAN" - George S Patton

The Republican proposed wall does not stop or reduce the undocumented (illegal) immigration problem because those wishing to enter the country can: 1) enter lawfully on a tourist visa and then simply over-stay their visa (millions already here had done that), or 2) go over, under, or though the wall often in less than one minute.

The testimony from a few BP union representatives does not establish "fact" but instead reflects allegation. From a legal standpoint it's actually hearsay that is inadmissible as testimony in a court of law.

Because of budget limitations it would take an estimated 27 years to just address the roughly 11 million undocumented (illegal) aliens in the United State and that doesn't account for any new undocumented (illegal) aliens entering the United States.

 

Yea, you're probably right. They view it as a lost cause, so what the heck. My guess is, it will be business as usual to try and hijack any proposals he tries to set forth, and since it is within their power, they'll simply stall with no, and hope the election swings their way.

 

The problem is that the election probably aren't going to "go their way" in November. The odds of the Republicans retaining control in the Senate, when 24 of the 34 seats being voted on are currently held by Republicans, is slim and the odds of them winning the Presidency, with the Democrats having a significant Electoral College advantage, is almost non-existant if Republicans nominate a non-establishment candidate. Basically the Republicans require all of the stars in the universe aligning for them to come out on top in November and that's not very likely to happen.

Not to dismiss the fact that Republican states are trying to "fix the election" with voting laws to disenfranchise blacks, Hispanics, millions of women, and the poor that typically vote for Democrats. Laws like Voter ID Laws have nothing to do with preventing non-citizens from voting because that's a voter regustration issue and instead are designed to prevent US citizens from voting. Everyone knows this and even some top Republicans have admitted it. These laws are exclusively about disenfranching American citizen voters that typically vote for Democrats. I don't think they'll succeed but Republicans sure as hell are trying their damnedest to rig the elections in their favor.

 

I want to do precisely that. If possible, we could make Mexico itself another US State and gain direct access to Mexican gas.(You think people are fighting over Syrian Gas? Mexico is one of the largest reserves in North America.) Gaining direct possession over those oil reserves would go a long way to sustaining cheaper prices. Being more involved in the Southern American territories would be to our advantage.

 

There are 11 battleground states this election cycle, anyone could win. Romney almost won with only 4 major battleground states.

 

I support the securing of our borders, however, I see that as a band-aid patch to the larger problem, not a solution. Build a wall if you want, they will just go around/under/over it. They will sail on rafts to other gulf states. If you actually want to fix the problem of illegal immigration, then you have to begin by removing ALL the incentives for them to illegally immigrate. That entails, mainly, just vigorously enforcing existing laws, and prosecuting them 100% of the time, and to the fullest extent. It also requires a repeal/reform of birthright citizenship.

 

Yes, if you've noticed I have been hammering the so called voter I.D. Fraud turned voter suppression laws topic relentlessly for the very reasons you just pointed out. Redistricting, multiple voter I.d. laws that are used to extend other suppression laws, disenfranchising voters who vote primarily Democrat is unprecedented. This is a huge worry for Democrats, as it should be. This is cheating on a scale that quite frankly, I'm not sure we have ever seen before? And there appears to be no shame by the Right, and doing what is "right" is a dirty word. So, I hate to admit it, but the Left is in for way more obstruction and corruption of the election this time around than anything of what we saw in 2012.This should not only be the Left's number one concern, but the activism to fight it, should be a number one priority.