President Obama’s executive order on illegal immigration breaks existing federal laws on immigration. So say the President of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agents and Officers Union and nine other agents. They have taken their case into the federal courts. They are suing the head of the Department of Homeland Security, who is enforcing the new executive order.
This will force the courts to decide if Obama’s unilateral decision to the defer removal of illegals under age 30 who have not been sent back is legal. The agents say they are being asked to break the existing immigration law.
Congress has not complained, so bureaucrats inside the enforcement agency are doing Congress’s work for it.
The plaintiffs claim that there are 1.6 million illegals who have just been granted the right to stay here.
If a President can revoke the enforcement of a federal law, then this will further the substitution of administrative law for legislative law. The goal of this substitution is to end the existing Constitutional division of powers between the executive and Congress.
The lawsuit alleges the following.
4. The Directive commands ICE officers to violate federal law, as detailed below, commands ICE officers to violate their oaths to uphold and support federal law, violates the Administrative Procedure Act, unconstitutionally usurps and encroaches upon the legislative powers of Congress, as defined in Article I of the United States Constitution, and violates the obligation of the executive branch to faithfully execute the law, as required by Article II, Section 3, of the United States Constitution.
5. Plaintiffs bring this civil action to seek injunctive relief preventing the implementation of this unlawful and unconstitutional Directive.
6. This lawsuit seeks to prevent law enforcement officer Plaintiffs from being forced to either violate federal law if they comply with the unlawful Directive or risk adverse employment action if they disobey the unlawful orders of the DHS Secretary. This lawsuit also seeks to preserve the balance of legislative and executive powers established by the United States Constitution. . . .
30. According to official estimates provided on August 16, 2012, by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, the number of aliens unlawfully present in the United States who qualify for the benefits offered by the Directive is estimated to be 1.76 million. . . .
31. According to the Department of Homeland Security, the number of aliens unlawfully present in the United States is estimated to be 11.5 million. . . .
36. Deferred action is not specifically authorized anywhere in federal law. Historically, deferred action has been utilized sparsely for small numbers of aliens in discrete distress pending statutory or foreign policy-mandated regulatory changes. No group of aliens has been granted deferred action in the past 15 years that approaches a fraction of the size of the class of aliens subject to the Directive. . . .
41. Plaintiffs have each sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the United States.
42. Plaintiffs believe that if they follow the Directive, they will be violating their oath of office, as well as violating several laws of the United States.
43. Plaintiffs reasonably fear, based upon official communications to them, their knowledge of communications to Plaintiff Doebler, Plaintiff Martin, and Plaintiff Crane from their superiors, past events, and public sources, that if they follow the requirements of federal law, contrary to the “Directive,” and arrest an alien or issue an alien an Notice to Appear (NTA) in removal proceedings, they will be disciplined or suffer other adverse employment consequences. . . .
46. On July 17, 2012, Plaintiff Samuel Martin, along with another immigration enforcement agent, picked up an illegal alien from the El Paso County Jail. While the agents were trying to place the alien in the vehicle, the alien attempted to escape, and resisted and assaulted Plaintiff Martin and his colleague. The agents regained custody of the alien and transported him to the El Paso Criminal Alien Program office for processing. Plaintiff Martin’s supervisors ordered him to release the alien without any charges being filed against the alien and ordered Plaintiff Martin not to issue an NTA. The agents who were present protested the release of the alien; but they were told “it was a management decision, based on the President’s new immigration policies.” No supervisor ever asked the agents if they were injured or if they needed assistance. It is the understanding of Plaintiff Martin, reflected in his signed statement concerning the incident, that his supervisors gave him these orders based on the Directive.