Things That Matter

SCOTUS Immigration Case Will Impact Millions — Possibly Even You

On April 18th, the Supreme Court will hear arguments for the case against Deferred Action for Parents of Americans to Legal Permanent Resident (DAPA), with implications for the expansion of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Dragging through the courts since February 2015, what started in the bordertown of Brownsville, Texas, is now in the hands of SCOTUS.  The case affects roughly 5.2 million undocumented people — more than the city populations of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Miami combined. Numerous concerns, both constitutional and moral, hang in the balance. It impacts people you know, family members, possibly even you. Here is everything you need to know about this historic court case.

The SCOTUS decision will directly affect MILLIONS of undocumented people.

Credit: @erincarly / Instagram

In 2014, President Obama signed executive orders putting a handful of immigration reform policies in place, the DAPA program and an expansion of 2012’s DACA among them. (The case itself would only impact the expansion, not DACA itself.) The case addresses constitutionality of executive authority with regard to immigration reform. At stake is the lawful presence of MILLIONS of undocumented people.

DAPA? DACA? You’ve heard the terms, but what do they even mean?

giphy
Credit: Broad City / Comedy Central / CrazeTV / Giphy

Let’s break it down and see what these two executive orders are all about, shall we?

To understand DAPA, you need to know DACA. DACA appeared in 2012, offering certain people who were brought to the U.S. as children educational opportunities, work permits and, importantly, relief from deportation.

Working

Credit: La Santa Cecilia / LaSantaCeciliaVEVO / YouTube

DACA provides relief for children who had no control over the decision to immigrate. Some don’t even know a life outside of the U.S.

To qualify for DACA, you: Were under 31 as of June 15, 2012 (when DACA was created); entered the U.S. before turning 16; have continuous residence since June 15, 2007; were physically present in the U.S. on the date DACA was created and the date of your DACA request; entered without inspection or your visa expired before June 15, 2012; are currently in school, have graduated with a high school diploma or have a GED certificate, or were honorably discharged from the military; and have no felony convictions, a significant misdemeanor, or three other misdemeanors on your record, and do not pose a threat to national security or public safety.

The criteria were pretty stringent, but the program immediately offered 1.2 million young, undocumented immigrants some kind of safety for the first time.

MotherDaughter2
Credit: La Santa Cecilia / LaSantaCeciliaVEVO / YouTube

And since DACA was implemented four years ago, hundreds of thousands of young, undocumented people living in the U.S. have renewed and maintained their DACA status. The current DACA law states that people benefiting from the program can renew their DACA status every two years. It is not guaranteed that their DACA request will be granted every time.

So, DACA’s been in effect for 4 years with some positive results… what’s the deal?

Credit: @OLBLightBrigade / Twitter

Well, on Nov. 20, 2014, when President Obama signed those executive orders on immigration, they did two things: (1) Expand the current DACA program to offer protection and benefits to more people and (2) created DAPA, which would open up some of those similar DACA protections and benefits to undocumented parents of children who are U.S. citizens or permanent legal residents.

Under DACA expansion, the age cap is lifted, the continuous residence rule relaxed, and 290,000 ~more~ people who have lived most of their lives in the U.S. can register.

Bicycle
Credit: La Santa Cecilia / LaSantaCeciliaVEVO / YouTube

This means that anyone who came to the U.S. before their 16th birthday can be a DACA recipient. The expansion also states that you have to have continuous residence in the US as of Jan. 1, 2010 instead of June 15, 2007. This would open up the program to 290,000 more undocumented immigrants seeking protection and stability, bringing the total number of people eligible for DACA protection to 1.5 million.

DACA recipients would also get more time between renewals, up from two years to three, giving them fewer encounters with immigration services.

giphy-2
Credit: Inside Amy Schumer / Comedy Central / CraveTV / Giphy

Sounds like a good idea, right?

This will all help DAPA make sense. If DACA is about saving childhood arrivals, DAPA is all about saving parents of U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. Kids and parents, ya know?

MotherDaughter
Credit: La Santa Cecilia / LaSantaCeciliaVEVO / YouTube

When President Obama proposed DACA expansion back in 2014, he also brought the idea of protecting the parents of U.S.-born children. Yes, he tackled both of these immigration issues on the same day. ?

The criteria for applying for DAPA are similar to DACA’s, with some slight differences.

HardWorkers
Credit: La Santa Cecilia / LaSantaCeciliaVEVO / YouTube

Like DACA, DAPA recipients must have continuous residence in the U.S. since Jan. 1, 2010; they had to have been physically present in the U.S. on Nov. 20, 2014, and when they request DAPA; they must have no lawful status on Nov. 20, 2014 (either unchecked entry or expired visa); as of Nov. 20, 2014, those requesting DAPA must have a child who is a U.S. citizen of any age or marital status, or their child has to be a permanent legal resident; and, again, no felonies, significant misdemeanor, multiple minor misdemeanors, nor can they pose any threat or be prioritized for deportation.

DAPA has the potential to directly and immediately impact the lives of 3.7 million people living in the U.S.

giphy-3
Credit: Sex And The City / HBO / heackyeahreactiongifs / Tumblr

That’s right. 3.7 MILLION people would benefit from DAPA alone.

Now, for some easy math. Between DACA, expanded DACA and DAPA, 5.2 MILLION people would be spared deportation and raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

ICETools
Credit: La Santa Cecilia / LaSantaCeciliaVEVO / YouTube

Like, that is a lot of people.

The number of people saved by these executive orders is a larger number than the populations of Los Angeles …

Screen Shot 2016-04-14 at 10.37.27 AM
Credit: DejanBody2010 / YouTube

… San Francisco …

Screen Shot 2016-04-14 at 11.02.50 AM
Credit: Golden State Warriors / YouTube

…AND Miami. Combined.

Screen Shot 2016-04-14 at 11.13.31 AM
Credit: @ViganZeqirii / Twitter

Now, imagine losing the entire populations of those three cities and think about the repercussions, both human and economic. The number of people that would benefit from the orders is still less than half of the 11.4 million undocumented people living in the U.S.

So, what is this court case all about and how did it start?

giphy-4
Credit: strangecaboose / Reddit

United States v. Texas started in Brownsville, Texas, a 5-hour drive south of Austin, under the authority of Judge Andrew Hanen.

10469411_347344365468180_1105723916027146221_n
Credit: Unofficial: Judge Andrew S. Hanen / Facebook

On February 16, 2015, just two days before DAPA and expanded DACA were supposed to take affect, Judge Hanen handed down a 123-page memorandum putting a halt to the implementation of the executive orders President Obama had signed three months before. Judge Hanen argued that the passing of expanded DACA and DAPA would place an undue burden on the states in terms of public schooling and subsidized medical costs, while ignoring the potential benefits like job creation, increased wages and increased tax revenue generated by those who would be “legalized” by the order.

Texas, along with 25 other states, filed the lawsuit claiming that President Obama had overreached his authority by signing the executive orders into law. Basically, they are challenging the case on a technicality, not the orders themselves.

Screen Shot 2016-04-13 at 1.12.24 PM
Credit: thecolor.com

The states suing against DACA expansion and DAPA are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

After the Hanen decision, the case was appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. The government asked for a stay on the injunction to allow expanded DACA and DAPA, but it was denied.

Credit: @TXOrgProject / Twitter

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, upheld the ruling made by the lower court in Texas. This further delayed DAPA and expanded DACA, further delaying the benefit to millions.

Once again, the federal government appealed. This time the case is going up to the Supreme Court, which will have the final say on the fate of expanded DACA and DAPA.

twenty20_15a355c5-b53d-48f5-9c6c-7ae8630012a8
Credit: nachtjacob / Twenty20

Granted, the Supreme Court has been on a more liberal streak in recent years, but with the death of Antonin Scalia, things on the court have been very different.

But, here’s the thing: With just eight justices currently sitting, the last few Supreme Court have all come back with a 4-4 split vote. That matters. A lot.

giphy-10
Credit: Real Housewives Of Atlanta / Bravo / Yosub / Giphy

A 4-4 tied vote at the Supreme Court means that the decision of the lower court is upheld. That spells death for DAPA and the DACA expansion.

TornFamilies
Credit: La Santa Cecilia / LaSantaCecilaVEVO / YouTube

Which would mean that scenes like these from La Santa Cecilia’s “Ice El Hielo”…

ICEIsHere
Credit: La Santa Cecilia / LaSantaCeciliaVEVO / YouTube

…would continue, separating families and deporting innocent people who came to this country for freedom.

CantEscape
Credit: La Santa Cecilia / LaSantaCeciliaVEVO / YouTube

The Supreme Court to hear the arguments and deliver their decision as early as June 2016. All we can do is wait.

Watch La Santa Cecilia’s “Ice El Hielo” full music video below:

Credit: LaSantaCeciliaVEVO / YouTube

READ: Sotomayor: Greatest Obstacle Is Fear, Not Discrimination

Share this story with all your friends by tapping that share button below and let’s bring more attention to this court case affecting millions.

Notice any needed corrections? Please email us at corrections@wearemitu.com

As Republicans Move To Fill Supreme Court Seat, Julián Castro Says Democrats Should Consider Nuclear Option

Things That Matter

As Republicans Move To Fill Supreme Court Seat, Julián Castro Says Democrats Should Consider Nuclear Option

Gabriela Bhaskar / Getty Images

With the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, progressives are struggling to figure out their next move. Republicans have made it clear they don’t care about precedent or even following their own made up rules, and plan to attempt to fill the vacancy as quickly as possible.

Some Republicans have even gone as far as saying they’ll vote to confirm Trump’s Supreme Court nominee even if he loses the November election, in a lame duck session of Congress.

This has Democrats in overdrive trying to figure out their game plan and how they’ll respond to Republican efforts to once again steal a Supreme Court seat.

Julián Castro says that Democrats should consider packing the court if they come into power come January.

In an interview with Buzzfeed’s News O’Clock podcast, this year’s only Latino candidate for president said that Democrats should consider adding more justices to the Supreme Court if Senate Republicans rush to confirm a justice to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg. His announcement is a reversal from his stated position during the presidential campaign.

“For many of us, that wasn’t our preference, but the fact is you have Mitch McConnell not abiding by, not working in good faith under the Constitution. … If you have that kind of abuse of the system, then I think that, yeah, Democrats should be open to different ways that we can stave off draconian changes to our fundamental rights,” he said.

During last year’s presidential primaries, Castro said that he “would not pack the court” if we were elected president, but with reproductive rights, voting rights, and healthcare hanging in the balance, he now believes Democrats should consider structural reform to the court.

“When those are the stakes, and Mitch McConnell is the one who’s abused this system, then yeah, I think we need to be open to considering either adding more justices or other structural reforms that will prevent this kind of abuse in the future,” he said.

Nothing in the Constitution limits the number of justices that sit on the Supreme Court.

Credit: Sam Gateaux / Getty Images

Adding more justices to the Supreme Court, or “packing the court”, has become widely popular among progressives as they see it as a last resort to restoring equality to the court. And the only way in writing wrongs committed by Republican Senate leadership.

Obviously, one concern is that if the Democrats increase the court size when they have power, that the Republicans could expand it again when they regain power. And we would have a never ending saga.

But as the Democrats are once again outplayed and outmaneuvered by the GOP, many say it’s a risk worth taking.

Castro also warned that Biden was losing his traction with Latino voters.

Meanwhile, Castro has also expressed concern that the Biden campaign isn’t doing enough to win the support of Latino voters.

“I believe the campaign gets it in that they understand they have work to do,” Castro said, adding that he thinks that Biden will pick up Latino support by Nov. 3 because the campaign is now investing in voter registration, bilingual messaging across platforms, and tailored outreach to different Latino communities, rather than treating them as one unified voting block.

“The Latino community too often is invisible, it’s an afterthought,” said Castro, who was housing secretary under Barack Obama. “Even though it’s going to be the largest non-white voting group in 2020. I think in every way in American society … there’s this image of the Latino community as though everybody got here five minutes ago.”

Joe Biden’s campaign has “to make sure that they are doing everything they can to reach out to a community that already has one of the lowest rates of voting, that needs to be brought into the fold”, Castro said.

With 29 million eligible voters in 2018, or about 12.8% of the total, Latinos voted more than two-to-one for Democrats, according to Pew Research. That was a much lower rate than for the party’s key bloc, African Americans, who went 90%-9% for Democrats.

Notice any needed corrections? Please email us at corrections@wearemitu.com

Conservative Cuban-American Federal Judge Tops Trump’s SCOTUS Nominee List

Things That Matter

Conservative Cuban-American Federal Judge Tops Trump’s SCOTUS Nominee List

Supreme Court of Florida / Public Domain

Conservative Cuban judge Barbara Lagoa is said to be towards the top of President Donald Trump’s list of Supreme Court picks. If announced, Lagoa will then undergo a confirmation hearing to fill the seat vacated by Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death.

President Trump is reportedly considering two very conservative women to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s empty seat on the Supreme Court.

Barbara Lagoa, a Cuban-American federal judge, is one of the women President Trump is seriously considering for the Supreme Court nomination. Critics state that President Trump is trying to stack the court to rule conservatively for decades to come. Lagoa was the first Latina to be appointed to the Florida Supreme Court.

Politicians and political pundits are calling on the Senate to follow precedent they set in 2016. During President Obama’s last year in office, the Republican-led Senate refused to confirm a nominee to the Supreme Court following the death of conservative justice Antonin Scalia in March. The argument was that the American people should have the right to decide who fills the seat since it is an election year. In 2020, the same Senate is committing to rushing a hearing as soon as possible.

Lagoa made a name for herself when she worked to fight Elián González’s deportation.

Lagoa, who currently serves on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, worked behind the scenes. Her role in the González fight was in making the argument against the Bill Clinton administration. The judge, like most Cuban-Americans at the time, was desperate to keep González in the U.S. having witnessed the trauma of the Cuban exile diaspora in Miami.

Her position on abortion is up for debate right now.

Lagoa hasn’t had to weigh in on the heavier issues because of her previous positions so it isn’t clear how she’ll rule on abortion matters. However, in her confirmation hearing last year for the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, Lagoa answered question about Roe v Wade.

Senator Dianne Feinstein of California asked Lagoa about the decision and how she would follow it.

“Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is binding precedent of the Supreme Court and I would faithfully follow it as I would follow all precedent of the Supreme Court regardless of whether it is referred to as ‘super-stare decisis’ or ‘superprecedent,'” Lago wrote in response.

Lagoa did vote to make access voting harder for felons in Florida despite the people voting in 2018.

Lagoa was one of the voting members in the 6-4 ruling of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that created voting restrictions for felons. The decision was a key legal victory for the Trump administration and Republicans. Lagoa’s vote made it so that felons could only restore their voting rights if they pay their fees and fines, which the state of Florida is not responsible for telling or showing them how to pay them off.

President Trump is expected to make an announcement soon about who he is going to be nominating to the Supreme Court. A political battle is already brewing as both sides of the aisle fight for the seat.

READ: Latino Politicians And Celebrities Mourn The Death Of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Notice any needed corrections? Please email us at corrections@wearemitu.com