Speech #1140002360

But I do want to put this in perspective. and it will take a little time. There is a strong legal and historical precedent to support the extensionwe are just talking about deferred action hereto a broad category of people who have strong equities to our country. The Immigration and Nationality Act and the judicial precedent make clear that the Executive maintains broad discretion to determine how immigration laws are to be enforced. Such discretion extends to decisions regarding whether to defer enforcement against entire categories of people. whether such categories are defined by nationality or some other common characteristic that makes them particularly deserving of an act of administrative grace. This legal authority has existed since the INA. the Immigration and Nationality Act. was first enacted in 1952 and has been exercised in various ways and under various names over the past 62 years. Based upon the administrations expansive prosecutorial discretion authority. the President could extend deferred action to persons who would qualify for registered provisional immigration status under S. 744. which passed the U.S. Senate on June 27. 2013. by a vote of 6832. The President could similarly establish a separate deferred action for persons deemed essential for agriculture in recognition of the fact that our countrys agriculture industry and millions of jobs that rely upon it are largely dependent on the labor of unauthorized workers as for the parents of young people who have already received deferred action under DACA. When Congress first passed the INA. the Immigration and Nationality Act. in 1952. it charged the Attorney General with the administration and enforcement of immigration laws and authorized the Attorney General to "perform such other acts as he deems necessary for carrying out his authority under the provisions of this act." Courts have relied upon this delegation of authority to support the principle that the act "commits enforcement of the INA to the Attorney Generals discretion." With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. DHS. in the Homeland Security Act of 2002. which many of us were here for. Congress further entrusted the newly created Secretary of Homeland Security with the responsibility of "establishing national immigration enforcement policies and priorities." In doing so. Congress acknowledged the inherent authority of enforcement agencies to decide whom to investigate. detain. charge. and prosecute under the law. The Supreme Court "has recognized on several occasions over many years that an agencys decision not to prosecute or enforce. whether through criminal or civil process. is a decision generally committed to an agencys absolute discretion." That is the Courts decision. If you want me to read the further authorities on that I will. but in the interest of brevity. courts consistently have applied this principle in the immigration context. and. in particular. to grants of deferred action and extended voluntary departure. In Arizona v. United States. the Supreme Court relied upon the broad discretion exercised by Federal immigration officials. including "whether it makes sense to pursue removal of all." to strike down almost all of Arizonas sweeping antiimmigration law. Because Arizonas law could result in "unnecessary harassment of some aliens"-that is their termfor example. a veteran. a college student. or someone assisting with a criminal investigation whom Federal officials determine should not be removed. the law "violates the principle that the removal process is entrusted at the discretion of the Federal Government." The idea that immigration enforcement efforts should be focused on highpriority targets has not always been controversial. Guidance pertaining to the use of prosecutorial discretion in the immigration context has been issued at least as far back as 1976. Under President George W. Bush. in recent memory. the Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE. reaffirmed prosecutorial discretion guidance issued during the Clinton administration and reiterated the responsibility of ICE agents and officers to use discretion in identifying and responding to meritorious healthrelated cases and caregiver issues. Indeed. 15 years ago. Democratic and Republican Members of Congress joined together on a letter to thenAttorney General Janet Reno urging her to issue guidelines that would provide specific instructions to agency personnel in order to alleviate some of the hardship caused by our immigration laws. Democrats and Republicans signed it. and the letter accepted the premise that "the principle of prosecutorial discretion is well -established" and asked the INS to explain why it would pursue removal cases that would result in unjustifiable hardship rather than prioritizing enforcement efforts against more serious cases. Although the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. DACA. program announced 2 years ago provides the most recent example of temporary relief from removal being offered to a substantial class of persons. it is the "Family Fairness" program adopted by President Ronald Reagan and President George Herbert Walker Bush that proves to be the strongest precedent for building upon DACA and offering deferred action to a larger class of persons who meet certain criteria. This is very interesting. my colleagues. because in 1986. Congress passed and President Reagan signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. IRCA. The law provided a path to legal status for millions of undocumented immigrants but provided no relief to the children and spouses of such persons who were not themselves able to meet the requirements for legalization. Indeed. when the Senate Judiciary Committee reported the bill to the floor. it wrote: It is the intent of the committee that the families of legalized aliens will obtain no special petitioning right by virtue of the legalization. They will be required to "wait in line" in the same manner as immediate family members of other new resident aliens.