Speech #1130123833

In the case of Texas v. United Statessound similar?the Fifth Circuit in 1997 dismissed a lawsuit by then Governor George W. Bush arguing that the Federal Governments failure to enforce our immigration laws violated Article I. Section 8. Clause 4 of the Constitutionthe Naturalization Clause. The Fifth Circuit also rejected Texass argument that the Federal Government had breached a nondiscretionary duty to control immigration under the Immigration and Nationality Act. In rejecting the Naturalization Clause argument. the Fifth Circuit wrote that "A judicial action presents a nonjusticiable political question not amenable to judicial resolution where there is . . . a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it." In this case. the Court stated plainly that "We are not aware of and have difficulty conceiving of any judicially discoverable standards for determining whether immigration control efforts by Congress are constitutionally adequate." Of course the President lawsuit challenges the enforcement actions of the President. not of Congress. but the broader point is the same. In rejecting the statutory claim brought by Texas. the Court cited the Administrative Procedure Act and Heckler v. Chaneythe Supreme Courts leading case on the nonreviewability of agency decisions not to take enforcement actionsfor the proposition that "An agencys decision not to take enforcement actions is unreviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act because a court has no workable standard against which to judge the agencys exercise of discretion." At a time when illegal border crossings was at its peakil.5 million returns each year in 1996 and 1997the Court stated: "We reject outofhand the States contention that the federal defendants alleged systemic failure to control immigration is so extreme as to constitute a reviewable abdication of duty. The State does not contend that federal defendants are doing nothing to enforce the immigration laws or that they have consciously decided to abdicate their enforcement responsibilities. Real or perceived inadequate enforcement of immigration laws does not constitute a reviewable abdication of duty." During this Presidents tenure. well over 2 million people have been formally removed from this country. Prosecutions for illegal entry and reentry after removal have increased exponentially. And even if 5 million people come forward and receive temporary protection from removal through DACA and the new Deferred Action for Parental Accountability program. there will still be well over 6 million undocumented immigrants who have received no such protection. With funds to deport no more than 400.000 people each year I assure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the President is in no danger of "doing nothing to enforce the immigration laws" and that he had not "consciously decided to abdicate [his] enforcement responsibilities." The argument that the President has declared that he will no longer enforce our immigration laws is offensive to the 34.000 peopleincluding thousands of women and childrenwho are sitting in detention centers today waiting for their day in court. It is also frivolous. The lawsuit filed yesterday will fail and this bill never will become law. Rather. the Presidents actions will soon take effect and will bring a small measure of sanity to our broken immigration system.