# Rubio won't back his own immigration bill **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 5, 2013, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242 "2013-06-05T21:24:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2013, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/241 "2013-06-22T01:11:40Z")
Gigo, thanks for the clarification. The major media was only reporting the border security requirements early on. If the other two key areas are also taken care of, I see no further reason to oppose the bill. BrainGlutton, we are a nation of laws, are we not? If we don’t want to deport anyone who is not a criminal, then it’s very easy to pass such a law. That immigration reform bill would require only one page. Instead of being a nation of laws, we have a man who decided on his own that he would no longer deport illegals who hadn’t committed crimes. A decision, BTW, which a lower court has struck down after ICE officials sued. Now of course executives have prosecutorial discretion and have to decide where finite resources go. But if Immigration already has detained people here illegally and is beginning deportation procedures, the President does not have the authority to force ICE to stop and let them go. That’s not pleading scarce resources, that’s actively squelching enforcement of the laws Congress passed. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2013, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/242 "2013-06-22T01:23:22Z")
We are also a nation that does not take seriously the ones that get it wrong often, and then continue going like if nothing has taken place. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2013, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/243 "2013-06-22T01:35:57Z")
> [@](#): > > …that’s actively squelching enforcement of the laws Congress passed. Well, gosh, that sounds like an impeachable offense! This is the opportunity the Republicans have been waiting for, they must be in a pell-mell rush to file the papers! However, once again, the liberal media is keeping it all hushed up… ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2013, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/244 "2013-06-22T03:33:42Z")
Not impeachable, although it is a violation of his oath of office. All it takes is to go to court, which is what ICE employees are doing. It will also establish a useful precedent that the President cannot just unilaterally halt enforcement of our nation’s laws. Something which you would agree with, I’m sure, given Republican Presidents’ laxity enforcing business regulations. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2013, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/245 "2013-06-22T03:57:07Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Not impeachable, although it is a violation of his oath of office. All it takes is to go to court, which is what ICE employees are doing. It will also establish a useful precedent that the President cannot just unilaterally halt enforcement of our nation’s laws. Something which you would agree with, I’m sure, given Republican Presidents’ laxity enforcing business regulations. As pointed before, and by experts no less, it is a case that is not very likely to succeed. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2013, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/246 "2013-06-22T04:22:34Z")
It already has. A higher court would actually have to overturn the lower court decision. As a matter of fact, the administration is already considering retreat. They offered to discuss the issue in collective bargaining and then tried to get the case thrown out on the basis that it was being decided outside of the court system. But either way, the administration is going to have to resume deportations. The law is the law. If you are here illegally, and you get caught, you get deported. The administration cannot force ICE agents to release illegals. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2013, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/247 "2013-06-22T04:27:05Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It already has. A higher court would actually have to overturn the lower court decision. As a matter of fact, the administration is already considering retreat. They offered to discuss the issue in collective bargaining and then tried to get the case thrown out on the basis that it was being decided outside of the court system. IIUC this is nonsense, if it already had then there should had been a court injunction. You are again reaching for the crackpot tax evader play book. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2013, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/248 "2013-06-22T04:34:51Z")
But the judge is ready to issue an injunction. The administration faces a huge defeat here and is desperately trying to settle this out of court now. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2013, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/249 "2013-06-22T04:54:19Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > But the judge is ready to issue an injunction. The administration faces a huge defeat here and is desperately trying to settle this out of court now. Not what I read, and indeed you were wrong when you claimed “it already has” the injunction was not there yet and it may go the other way. And there is even reports that an injunction will not mean what you think it will. IIUC even getting an injunction does not change much, the Court noted that the case presented only the issue of commencing removal proceedings, and that the issue of following up on those proceedings was not before the Court And then: > **[Why Kobach’s Lawsuit Against Deferred Action is Unlikely to Stand Up in Court](https://immigrationimpact.com/2012/08/24/why-kobachs-lawsuit-against-deferred-action-is-unlikely-to-stand-up-in-court/)** > > Kris Kobach’s official job title is Kansas Secretary of State. But he is better known for drafting—and being hired to defend in court—state and local immigration laws designed to make undocumented residents “self-deport.” His two most notorious... > [@](#): > > To begin with, even if Kobach’s arguments were correct (which they’re not), it’s unlikely that any court would reach them in the first place. Why? Under the Constitution, federal courts lack “jurisdiction” (i.e. authority) to resolve internal disputes within the other branches of government. The reason is obvious: if government employees could sue their superiors over legal disagreements, they could—quite literally—make a federal case over any difference of opinion. ICE agents hauling the head of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) into court is like a law clerk suing a judge for writing a decision with which she disagrees—or Kobach’s own subordinates in Kansas seeking an injunction requiring him to perform his actual job as Kansas Secretary of State. It’s just not how the legal system works. > > Jurisdictional questions aside, Kobach’s argument relies on a reading of federal law that no administration, Democratic or Republican, has ever followed. His primary assertion is that an obscure provision enacted in 1996 requires the government to initiate removal proceedings against any immigrant who entered the country illegally—without exception. In truth, as the Supreme Court said in the Arizona case, the President has “broad discretion” to enforce the immigration laws as he sees fit, including determinations of “whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all.” And even if Kobach’s reading of the statute was correct (which it’s not), his argument would not apply to immigrants who entered legally and overstayed their visas—as many DREAMers did. Hence the point that this is reaching for ideas seen in tax evaders, but it is beginning to look a lot like the birthers. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2013, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/250 "2013-06-22T04:57:11Z")
And again, it appears the liberal media is hiding the story of Obama’s crushing defeat. Maybe a cite would be in order, all the ones I find are rather old. Judge is just about to rule, you say? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2013, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/251 "2013-06-22T06:43:09Z")
So your argument, GIGO, is that the President can ignore any laws he doesn’t like, and that this power is absolute. So what is Congress for, again? Or is your issue that only ICE can’t sue, but Congressmen can? BTW, Republican Presidents would find this precedent VERY useful. Imagine, they didn’t even have to pretend to enforce environmental laws, they can just say, “All right, no more enforcement!” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2013, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/252 "2013-06-22T07:35:02Z")
If they do, I expect you to march right down here and give them a good scolding for their hypocrisy! Still having some trouble finding a reliable source for that “judge is just about to hand down the injunction” thingy. Most everything I see is months old, but you sound like it was really imminent. Maybe you can clear that up for me, what with the facts right at your fingertips. A cite for sore eyes, to be sure… ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2013, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/253 "2013-06-22T09:29:36Z")
Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano does not have the authority to refuse to enforce laws that require illegal immigrants to face deportation, according to the federal judge hearing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement union’s lawsuit against DHS. “The court finds that DHS does not have discretion to refuse to initiate removal proceedings [when the law requires it],” U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor said today, per Business Week. O’Connor asked DHS and the ICE union to offer additional arguments before he makes a final ruling on the legality of President Obama’s “deferred action on childhood arrivals” (DACA) program, which invoked prosecutorial discretion as a means of allowing people to stay in the country if they would have qualified for amnesty under the DREAM Act, which never passed through Congress. Read more: [http://nation.foxnews.com/janet-napolitano/2013/04/24/judge-janet-napolitano-you-have-deport-illegal-immigrants#ixzz2Ww4cTufV](http://nation.foxnews.com/janet-napolitano/2013/04/24/judge-janet-napolitano-you-have-deport-illegal-immigrants#ixzz2Ww4cTufV) So the judge ruled against the administration. But he withheld the injunction for the time being, while this last legal issue was worked out: The judge did not issue an injunction because the government raised a new issue very late in the case. The administration claimed that, since the ICE agents are career employees, their claims are “employment-related” and can only be brought through the civil service merit system. The judge requested additional briefing on this issue by May 6. Read more: [Could a Texas judge derail Obama's DREAM Act amnesty plans? | Fox News](http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/05/06/could-texas-judge-derail-obama-dream-act-amnesty-plans/#ixzz2Ww53VrjX) So the administration lost, but are trying to avoid an injunction on a technicality. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2013, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/254 "2013-06-22T14:06:25Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > So the administration lost, but are trying to avoid an injunction on a technicality. Nope, what you have there is the law, that “technicality” is just FOX news and others just finding excuses for their groupies on why the spin they applied to this court issue is not panning out as they told you. [QUOTE=QI] _Stephen Fry_ I may institute a new rule, Alan, that . . . Just to . . . to . . . That anybody who starts off any piece of information with the words “apparently, comma” may well lose ten points. \* Alan Davies\* Well, I only say “apparently” because I heard it on Fox News. _Stephen_ Yeah, that’s why . . . That’s not good enough for us. [/QUOTE] _QI - Season 1 Episode 5_ That question mark that they put in a news bit is the equivalent of “the next bit of news will contain spin” As Stephen Fry could tell you, FOX is indeed what I identify as a pre-poisoned well of information, it is part of the bubble of information that while it is comforting to many on the right, eventually these incomplete reports that omit a key fact accumulate to give us not only posters on the internet that get “burned” in front of others, but even right wing politicians that get toasty, IMHO it was also the same poisoned wells of information (that includes even more extreme sources of information) that gave us many republicans getting caught with racist propaganda. You see, they then eventually think that the bubble they get their information from is “common knowledge” for all; no, the only thing that causes is that even Republican leaders become fools on national television. As I suspected, if there is an indictment coming it will be only partially useful or the judge will drop it. And then her decision can be appealed, meaning that by the time this is resolved the immigration act will be already signed by the president, of course there is always the chance that it could be defeated by the ones that in reality are using the enforcement mantra as a cover for what their \*\*real \*\*agenda is. If, and it is getting less likely IMHO, the not affected by this immigration bill is defeated, the defeat will likely come from the extreme right; and as pointed many times before, Republicans have another thing coming from the Hispanic community if that happens. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2013, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/255 "2013-06-22T16:56:58Z")
It appears I have fallen for one of the older tricks in the book, the deftly worded ambiguity. > [@](#): > > …But the judge is ready to issue an injunction… does not necessarily mean that such an injunction is imminent. True, in the common parlance the immediacy of the action is strongly implied, as in “I’m ready to haul off and bop you one!”. But borrowing the zircon-encrusted parsing tweezers, we see that the implication can be shrugged off, with a judicious application of big, brown, innocent eyes. It is true that the judge is in a position where such a thing could be handed down at any moment. Of course, this is true whenever the judge parks his/her fanny in the appropriate chair. And, having delivered previous rulings, it is certainly plausible such a thing might be in the offing. Or not. **adaher** , if I put as much spin on a Frisbee as you put on a post, it would most likely disintegrate in mid-air. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2013, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/256 "2013-06-22T17:03:41Z")
And is there another option? Perhaps the judge is withholding the injunction to see which way the legislature moves. Such a change might render the proceedings moot, yes? TG!, IANAL, but by my last count there are at least six self-admitted attorneys on the Board, so maybe that might be clarified. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2013, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/257 "2013-06-23T04:12:38Z")
The merits of the case result in an injunction. The government is pushing a standing issue to try to get it thrown out. It’s kinda like the facts vs. law things. If the law is on your side, argue the law. If not, argue standing. Arguing standing is the action of an administration that knows they can’t actually do what they did. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2013, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/258 "2013-06-23T04:52:00Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The merits of the case result in an injunction. The government is pushing a standing issue to try to get it thrown out. > > It’s kinda like the facts vs. law things. If the law is on your side, argue the law. If not, argue standing. Arguing standing is the action of an administration that knows they can’t actually do what they did. As pointed before, repeating the magical trash from your sources will not make it real, in the real world what you have been pushing here is indeed coming from the lala land of Birthers and Tax evaders. > **[NRO Adds Struggling Anti-DREAMer Lawsuit To Its Immigration Reform Opposition](https://www.mediamatters.org/national-review/nro-adds-struggling-anti-dreamer-lawsuit-its-immigration-reform-opposition)** > [@](#): > > If for no other reason than the fact that the anti-immigrant activism practiced by NumbersUSA and Kobach has become toxic for a Republican Party trying to fix its overwhelming unpopularity with voters of color, the GOP’s noticeable aversion to this challenge is unsurprising. However, in seeking to justify the automatic deportation of these non-criminal undocumented immigrants, NRO also fails to recognize the other reason Kobach is not getting much support. > > Contrary to NRO’s presentation, the lawsuit is seriously struggling. > > Although NRO quotes the rote language that accompanies preliminary injunctions granted for claims that pass the minimum legal threshold for a likelihood of success, it fails to explain the significance of the recent opinion that declined to grant the injunction. Similar to his previous order (unmentioned by NRO), Judge O’Connor is still unsure if this case belongs in court. > > As predicted by multiple legal experts, the previous order threw out most of the ICE agents’ claims because government employees generally lack standing to overturn their superiors’ policy decisions in court. Intra-governmental disputes such as this one are considered non-justiciable for the common sense reason that if employees could pursue their grievances with agency heads in this fashion, decision-making could grind to a halt every time a subordinate was convinced he knew better than the boss. > > In the most recent order, Judge O’Connor did raise the prospect that if he decides against precedent that the case belongs in federal court, he might grant the request to temporarily enjoin the deferred action policy on the grounds that 1996 immigration law amendments appear to require ICE agents to at least begin removal proceedings against DREAMers they encounter. But in a Yale Law Journal article, immigration law expert David A. Martin strenuously disputed this proposed statutory interpretation, based on his “extensive involvement as General Counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service [the previous incarnation of ICE] in the 1996 consideration of legislative amendments and administrative implementation.” > > Now a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, Martin returned to immigration enforcement at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2009 through 2010, where he again saw firsthand how the federal government exercises its ample and frequent prosecutorial discretion. Based on both his knowledge of the legislative history and actual implementation of the 1996 amendments, Martin argues that Congress did not intend to reverse standard immigration practice by prohibiting discretion in favor of automatic deportation. Such an erroneous reading of the statute would make illegal much of the long-standing discretion ICE agents have always exercised for all immigrant groups, not just DREAMers. As explained by Martin, “[n]o sensible law enforcement agency operates the way Kobach advocates.” > [@](#): > > In sum, with every order of the judge, this lawsuit becomes weaker and less relevant to the real world of immigration policy. For example, under the strained statutory interpretation being considered by the judge, immigration experts point out that if it survives appeal it still might not affect the substantial number of DREAMers who arrived in the county through official ports of entry and then overstayed. > > More importantly, however, is the judge’s concurrence with immigration experts that if what’s left of the lawsuit prevails, it still won’t neccesarily lead to the deportation of DREAMers. As explained by the American Immigration Council, “even by ‘winning’ the lawsuit, the only thing Kobach would accomplish would be allowing ICE agents to issue pieces of paper of little practical significance.” > > NRO may be successfully giving its contributor’s legal challenge attention it is not receiving elsewhere, but it is a peculiar way to register its anti-immigrant bona fides. NRO can surely find easier ways to express its opposition to both immigration reform and undocumented students and veterans who crossed our borders as children than continuing to mislead about this anti-DREAMer lawsuit. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2013, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/259 "2013-06-23T05:58:18Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The merits of the case result in an injunction. The government is pushing a standing issue to try to get it thrown out. > > It’s kinda like the facts vs. law things. If the law is on your side, argue the law. If not, argue standing. Arguing standing is the action of an administration that knows they can’t actually do what they did. Wait so, to you the law matters, but not when it comes to standing, which you think should be ignored? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2013, 10:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242/260 "2013-06-23T10:12:09Z")
I don’t think standing should be ignored, just observing that standing tends to come into play when the government knows it acted outside the law. The administration’s argument is, “Yeah, what we did is illegal, but no one has standing to sue us.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rubio-wont-back-his-own-immigration-bill/660242.md?page=14)