Link - http://www.latintimes.com/obama-immigration-2015-sheriff-joe-arpaios-lawsuit-dismissed-court-citing-unsupported-335464
Date - 8/17/2015
Summary - President Obama announced an Executive Order on immigration in November of 2014. His 2012 Order dealt with DACA, deferred action on children, in which the INS would not deport children brought illegally before the age of 18. The 2014 Order dealt with DAPA, deferred action on parents, in which parents who entered illegally, but whose children are citizens, would not be deported. A notoriously conservative and outspoken sheriff from Phoenix, Joe Arapaio, brought a suit against Obama by claiming DAPA would lead to an increase in crime. The D.C. District Court of Appeals dismissed the suit, claiming that Arapaio does not have standing in the case, which means he cannot prove injury. Arapaio's lawyer hopes the U.S. Supreme Court will agree, though the next step is the 5th Circuit Court in New Orleans. Interestingly, the 5th Circuit is currently deciding a case brought by Texas against Obama for DAPA. The Texas suit has been granted standing and a federal court issued a ruling in February against Obama's plan. Texas reasoning was based on the claim immigrants will cost more money for public services, such as driver's licenses. While the 5th Circuit has not rendered its final ruling, it did rule in May against lifting the hold on DAPA, arguing "public interest favors maintenance of the injunction" against DAPA.
Question(s) - Was Obama within his constitutional powers in implementing an action that is widely popular? Why did Obama pass this executive order (what does cartoon say)?
By the way, here is a funny video on the
According to the cartoon, Obama passed this executive order largely to appeal to the Latino vote. While the Republican party seems divided on their strategy surrounding the Latino vote, Obama moved to secure the Democrats' good standing in the hearts and minds of the Latino population. His move, if it stands up to judicial review, will probably result in a better 2016 campaign for the Latino vote for the Democrats, even if there's a Rubio or Cruz on the Republican ticket.
ReplyDeleteThe cartoon implies that Obama wants to appeal to the Latino population by passing the executive order. However, it also implies that he was willing to bend the rules to pass this order. While Obama is willing to take any measure to secure the Latino vote, Romney is much more careless and could easily destroy any chances of securing the Latino vote for himself or other republicans.
ReplyDeleteObama, according to the source, wanted to go against the Republicans view on not allowing for the Latino vote. He made sure that the public knew Democrats are for the Latino vote, which, in the long run, would help the Democrats in the 2016 presidential election.
ReplyDeleteWhile some may say that Obama's actions were unconstitutional, by passing this executive order, Obama strengthened the Democrat's position with Latino communities around the U.S. The cartoon is saying that Obama didn't follow the rules and used this executive order to gain the "candy" (votes) of the Latino community (represented by the pinata).
ReplyDeleteObama seems to be stretching the Constitution. It was very popular, but to live in the country and receive all the benefits, you do need to be a citizen. Since it is a popular vote, he chose to go through with the proposition and if it was that "unconstitutional" then republicans would have a stronger case than it would "case more crime" or "cost Americans more money". The Cartoon implies that Obama is the executive and the republicans are just looking for more excuses to ruin Obama.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the article, Obama was in his constitutional powers, especially since it was widely popular. Obama passed the executive order to go for the Democrats and allow the Latino's to vote. The cartoon resembles the power struggle in order to gain the action implemented by Obama is their favor.
ReplyDeleteWhile Obama likely wanted to secure the Latino vote for Democrats through his executive action, he may end up losing them. DAcA would end up costing the state of Texas money to issue driver's licenses and work permits to all illegal people included in the bill. 2/3 Circuit Court judges found this to be a valid reason why DACA should not be upheld as an executive order. Similarly, it is not an unknown thing that Texas reaaally hates immigration, and many of their politicians don't care if their lack of popularity costs them a national election, as long as they get their own biases approved through politics.
ReplyDeleteWill Texas shift politically someday soon?
DeleteThe cartoon shows how Obama is only passing the act to appeal and get the latino vote. However, I agree that "Arpaio doesn’t have standing in the case", because he does not have any way of proving his allegations. This shows that while Obama may have only made the law to get the vote, it will be hard to prove it as unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteThere is no specific place in the Constitution that gives the President power to execute executive orders, but it does not say they are unconstitutional either. Presidents typically can pass executive orders as long as the executive order has support in the Constitution. Obama's actions were ruled constitutional because in the 2012 case "Arizona vs. US" the Supreme Court recognized executive discretion over immigration cases as an inherent constitutional power.
ReplyDeleteGood research.
DeleteThis cartoon shows that Obama was using his power to gain the Latino/ Democratic vote. The cartoon also implies that he is only passing the act to attain the Latino vote, but I believe that Arpaio is just making a bigger deal out of something that is not an issue; Obamas actions were not unconstitutional. The cartoon illustrates how difficult it was to get iniative on the action.
ReplyDeleteWhen reviewing Obama's executive order in light of the Constitution, he was within his constitutional powers in the sense that the order was delivered to promote the general welfare of the people. Although he may have made the decision to improve the general welfare, Obama's decision was also politically motivated. By granting to citizenship to previously illegal Hispanic and Latino immigrants, he has essentially won over their votes and support.
ReplyDeleteObama changed the policies of immigration for the purpose of gaining the Latino vote. He wants to appeal to the people affected most by the immigration restrictions and in the process gain their support. The constitution does not give the President any direct powers to enforce these policies, but it also does not prohibit them. Arpaio is seen to not have any standing in the case and therefore it will be hard to prove that these rules are unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteObama was within his constitutional power when implementing the executive action because it was widely supported and faced almost no opposition. Many people including Sheriff Arpaio of Arizona wanted Obama's executive order on immigration to be declared unconstitutional because he felt it did not represent the interests of the American people. However the supreme court did not strike it down and let immigration policies change.
ReplyDeleteSupreme Court has not been asked to take the case yet- at least the real one from Texas that is still night New Orleans Circuit Court. By the time it does Obama will be on his way out of office. DAPA will likely die in the courts - next president &Congress might deal with it in 2017
DeleteObama was within his constitutional power when implementing the executive action because it was widely supported and faced almost no opposition. Many people including Sheriff Arpaio of Arizona wanted Obama's executive order on immigration to be declared unconstitutional because he felt it did not represent the interests of the American people. However the supreme court did not strike it down and let immigration policies change.
ReplyDeleteObama was within his constitutional rights. The issue is widely popular and needed to be addressed. However, he seems to be making it easier for Latino immigrants to become citizens now. All they have to do is have a child that is a legal US citizen and then they're guaranteed all the rights of being a US citizen and cannot be deported. This executive action also sparked the issue of anchor babies in the US.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, Obama acted within his granted constitutional rights. And addressing this pressing and popular issue was critical in Obama's presidency. But even by appealing to the Latino population by chartering this system/process, there are national consequences to the idea of "anchor babies." Having studied AP Environmental Science last year, I am well educated on the risks and negative outcomes of overpopulation, which has already become a critical problem in not only the US, but globally as well. The US will experience an immediate influx of immigrants due to the more attainable requirements. However, Latino birthrates in America are bound to double (at the minimum) the number of immigrants. This is not working toward coping with and solving our overpopulated world.
DeleteOverpopulation & depletion of resources is a monumental issue. In fact, it's so big that even if DACA & DAPA caused significant immigration growth (they haven't so far), the effect is minimal compared to what current citizens cause. An influx of Mexicans (that aren't coming) is nothing compared to the output of Texans and most Californians (the temperate & crowded Bay Area is the exception to the rule of ridiculous consumption by Americans). I do like your thoughts about environmental science being important- go tell China, Exxon & the U.S. Congress. :)
DeleteObama passed the act in order to secure the latino votes towards the democratic party, but this introduces many other new issues that make it easier to abuse the system. Anchor babies, babies whose immigrant parents give birth to them in the United States just so that the parents will not be deported. Obama's decision to undermine the existing laws with the Executive Order has thus contributed to the problem of immigration, not improved it.
ReplyDeleteThe cartoon implies that Barack Obama passed the executive order to appeal to the Latino voters in the upcoming election. This issue is making the republicans look bad in the minds of the Latino voters, so they will probably vote Democrat. Although he may be stretching his constitutional rights a little bit by implementing this order, it will be hard to prove that Obama's are unconstitutional because the order is so popular and he isn't specifically doing something he can't.
ReplyDeleteThe cartoon illustrates that Obama is solely using his executive vote to secure the Latino vote. However, I believe that there is no way that Arpaio can prove his allegations against Obama. This demonstrates that although there are many accusations against Obama it will be extremely hard to prove that Obama is outside his constitutional rights.
ReplyDeleteObama should not be accused for the DACA because of the fact that he is doing the right thing in making the country more accepting of minorities and less racist as a whole. Arapaio says that this law will lead to an increase in crime because he thinks that Obama is just doing it to get the Latino vote. No matter what Obama's viewpoint is, the DACA uniting all people in the country.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the cartoon, Obama was not in his constitutional power in implementing DACA, as it states that he is saying "rules are for losers." The cartoon is showing that Obama is protecting and appealing to the Latino/a vote by preventing Mitt Romney, who represents Republicans against immigration, from destroying the Latino vote.
ReplyDeleteObama passed a controversial act that some believe he solely did to secure the Latino vote. I believe this to be false and I believe he passed it because he is genuinely not racist and fights for fair treatment of all. Obama cannot be criticized for stretching the constitution because he is doing something that is justifiable.
ReplyDeleteIgnorance is not defeated by name calling. How do we deal with uninformed people - the guy at the Trump rally, Trump himself?
ReplyDelete