DAPA AND EXPANDED DACA ON ORAL ARGUMENT AT THE SUPREME COURT

On April 18, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a preliminary injunction suit brought by 26 states (led by Texas) against the Obama administration's 2014 DAPA and expanded DACA initiatives. These initiatives would offer approximately 4 out of 11 million unauthorized immigrants temporary relief from removal (protection from deportation) as well as temporary eligibility for employment authorization documents. More specifically, DAPA could benefit about 3.7 million parents of U.S. citizens and residents, while expanded DACA could benefit about 300,000 individuals who arrived in the U.S. as children -- in addition to the 1.2 million already eligible under the current DACA program.

Texas does not contest the President's claim that Congress has failed to allocate enough resources to deport 11 million people. Nor does it claim that the President, with record annual deportation numbers (around 400,000) achieved under his watch, has failed to properly use or exhaust allocated immigration enforcement resources. There is no challenge to the President's authority to re-organize those resources by prioritizing some immigration law violators over others (for example, serious criminals over DAPA-eligible violators), so that designated low-priority violators can be made officially immune from removal for a limited period of time (three years under the proposed initiatives).

Texas' core challenge to DAPA and expanded DACA is narrower: it claims that these initiatives would create, without Congress' authorization, brand new categories of "lawful status," as demonstrated by the issuance of employment authorization documents.

ARTICLES ON SOMALI MIGRANTS

GPI LAW attorney Amien Kacou has a third piece published in the Georgetown Journal of International Affairs Online. The article focuses on the special difficulties faced by Somali migrants due to the unavailability of reliable official documents in their country.

Related articles published on NOLO.COM include the following:

• How do I prove I'm from Somalia so as to claim refugee status in the U.S.? (available here)
• Proving Foreign Marriage When Official Documents Are Unavailable (available here)
• Migrating to the U.S. From a Country With No U.S. Embassy or Consulate (available here)
• When Religious or Traditional Marriage Ceremonies Are Valid for Immigration Purposes (available here)

LEGALIZING UNAUTHORIZED IMMIGRANTS: EU vs. US

As we begin yet another year disillusioned at the charade of comprehensive immigration reform in the United States, perhaps we might, in the proud tradition of Thomas Jefferson, gaze across the Atlantic for relative consolation. There, we might hope to find in, say, the 22,000 migrant deaths at the European Union's southern border since the year 2000 (as compared with "only" 6,000 deaths at the US-Mexico border) a reminder--albeit morbid--of why, despite its shortcomings, America is still the world's beacon: "a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home."

But, then, what should we make of the fact that EU nations have actually legalized far larger proportions of their unauthorized immigrant populations than the United States in recent decades?

ARTICLE ON IMMIGRATION "AMNESTY"

GPI LAW attorney Amien Kacou has a new online article published in the Georgetown Journal of International Affairs. The article, titled "The Equity of Immigration 'Amnesty'," is written in light of current U.S. immigration reform debates; it argues in favor of granting so-called "amnesty" to unauthorized immigrants as a matter of justice.