Federal Judge Andrew Hanen, in a Houston, Texas court, will evaluate the arguments presented by the parties for, predictably next week, make a decision on the future of this immigration relief
The federal judge Andrew Hanen could take a decision on the order of deferred action for childhood arrivals ( DACA ) next week Wednesday after hearing arguments from both sides in a lawsuit against the program that protects the deportation to some 690,000 undocumented youth in the country.
In a federal court in Houston, Texas, the magistrate, who in 2015 blocked the expansion of this same program created during the presidency of Barack Obama (2009-2017), asked both parties to submit a five-page brief additional arguments and then, predictably next week, make a decision about the future of this migratory aid .
Wednesday’s hearing comes after the Texas Attorney General, Republican Ken Paxton, filed a lawsuit last May in the Southern District Court of Texas for that court to declare DACA illegal and to prohibit the Executive from continuing to renew that program of migratory relief.
” DACA is unconstitutional because it rewrote the federal law on congressional objections,” Paxton said, adding that the program “represents a dangerous vision of the executive branch that would allow the president to unilaterally annul any duly enacted law. .”
“It can not be allowed to continue without seriously damaging our Constitution, this demand is vital to restoring the rule of law in our immigration system,” added the prosecutor, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of a coalition of seven states, led by Texas.
During the hearing, the plaintiffs’ attorneys argued that DACA is “as imperfectly legal as the DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans) program. Obama-era, intended to grant legal presence to more than four million foreigners illegally present in the country”.
At a press conference after the hearing, which lasted about three hours, representatives of the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF), representing 22 DACA beneficiaries, highlighted that the plaintiff’s lawyers did not present evidence that this program, created in 2012, has affected the state of Texas.
Alejandra Avila, one of the lawyers of this organization, said that in the absence of the decision in this court the program that benefits undocumented youth remains the same and added that the “struggle continues.”
Carla Pérez, one of the 22 beneficiaries represented by MALDEF and recently graduated from the law, said that this program not only allowed her to remain in the country but also developed professionally and showed her disappointment that Texas, the state in which she grew up, heads this demand.
Last September, Trump announced that DACA should expire on March 5 if Congress did not reach an agreement on immigration, which did not happen because two judges, one from New York and one from California, forced the government to keep the program alive. , although they established that only those immigrants who had previously benefited could renew their permit.
Similarly, the federal judge with the court in Washington, John D. Bates, reaffirmed his order to reactivate that immigration protection with the admission of new applications, a decision with which the magistrate rejected the government’s appeal to its initial decision of 24 of April.