Home > Hot Topics > Comprehensive Amnesty Threat > ICE Agents v. Napolitano: Read the Complaint

Update

ICE Agents v. Napolitano: Read the Complaint

On August 23, 2012, a group of 10 ICE agents and officers, led by ICE Council president Chris Crane, filed suit against DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and ICE Director John Morton seeking an injunction against the Napolitano Directive of June 15, 2012. The Directive orders ICE agents to violate federal immigration laws or face adverse employment action. Kris Kobach is representing the ICE agents and officers, and NumbersUSA is providing financial assistance.

On October 10, 2012, Gov. Phil Bryant on behalf of the state of Mississippi joined the lawsuit as a plaintiff. 

Here's the text of the complaint as filed in the District Court for the Northern District of Texas:

(Download a PDF version of the complaint and Appendix A)

For media inquiries or to schedule interviews please contact Peter Robbio at (703) 683-5004.

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

 

CHRISTOPHER L. CRANE, DAVID A.     )

ENGLE, ANASTASIA MARIE                    )

CARROLL, Ricardo Diaz,           )

Lorenzo garza, Felix            )

Luciano, Tre Rebstock,        )

fernando silva, Samuel            )

Martin, James d. doebler, and        )                       Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-03247-O

THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, by and     )

through GOVERNOR PHIL BRYANT       )

                                                                        )                      

            Plaintiffs,                                           )                      

                                                                        )

            v.                                                         )                                                                                                                       )                       AMENDED COMPLAINT

JANET NAPOLITANO, in her official      )

capacity as Secretary of Homeland            )

Security, JOHN MORTON, in his            )

official capacity as Director of                    )

Immigration and Customs Enforcement,  )

and ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his    )

official capacity as Director of United       )

States Citizenship and Immigration         )

Services                                                         )

                                                                        )

            Defendants.                                       )

                                   

 

 

INTRODUCTION

1.              Plaintiffs are law enforcement officers of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), as well as the State of Mississippi by and through Governor Phil Bryant, pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §§ 7-1-5(n) and 7-1-33.

2.              On June 15, 2012, Defendant Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano issued a Directive entitled “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children” (hereinafter “the Directive”).  The Directive, attached to this Complaint as Appendix A, instructs ICE officers to refrain from placing certain aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States (“illegal aliens”) into removal proceedings, and to take actions to facilitate the granting of deferred action to aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States.  The Directive also directs DHS personnel to grant employment authorization to certain beneficiaries of the Directive.

3.              The requirements that an unlawfully present alien must assert to be granted the privileges described in the Directive are that the alien:

• came to the United States under the age of sixteen;

• has continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding June 15, 2012, and was present in the United States on June 15, 2012;

• is currently in school, has graduated from high school, has obtained a general education development certificate, or is an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States;

• has not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, or multiple misdemeanor offenses, and does not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety; and

• is not above the age of thirty.

4.              The Directive commands ICE officers to violate federal law, as detailed below, commands ICE officers to violate their oaths to uphold and support federal law, violates the Administrative Procedure Act, unconstitutionally usurps and encroaches upon the legislative powers of Congress, as defined in Article I of the United States Constitution, and violates the obligation of the executive branch to faithfully execute the law, as required by Article II, Section 3, of the United States Constitution.

5.              Plaintiffs bring this civil action to seek injunctive relief preventing the implementation of this unlawful and unconstitutional Directive.

6.              This lawsuit seeks to prevent law enforcement officer Plaintiffs from being forced to either violate federal law if they comply with the unlawful Directive or risk adverse employment action if they disobey the unlawful orders of the DHS Secretary.

7.              This lawsuit also seeks to protect the State of Mississippi from the fiscal burden imposed upon the State by illegal aliens who would otherwise be placed in removal proceedings and removed from the United States, but for the implementation of the unlawful Directive.

8.              This lawsuit also seeks to preserve the balance of legislative and executive powers established by the United States Constitution.

THE PARTIES

Plaintiffs

9.              Plaintiff Christopher L. Crane is an ICE Deportation Officer.  He serves in Enforcement and Removal Operations at the Salt Lake City Field Office at 2975 Decker Lake Drive, Stop A, in West Valley City, Utah.  He is also the President of the ICE Agents and Officers Union, AFGE Council #118.  As an ICE Deportation Officer, Crane is authorized by law to, inter alia, arrest aliens for administrative immigration violations or for any criminal offense against the United States and execute administrative and criminal arrest warrants.

10.           Plaintiff David A. Engle is an ICE Immigration Enforcement Agent.  He serves in Enforcement and Removal Operations at the Dallas Field Office at 8101 N. Stemmons Freeway, in Dallas, Texas.  As an ICE Immigration Enforcement Agent, Engle is authorized to, inter alia, arrest aliens for immigration violations, arrest any person for felonies regulating the admission or removal of aliens, and execute administrative arrest warrants for aliens.

11.           Plaintiff Anastasia Marie Carroll is an ICE Immigration Enforcement Agent.  She serves in Enforcement and Removal Operations at the El Paso Field Office at 1545 Hawkins Boulevard, in El Paso, Texas.  As an ICE Immigration Enforcement Agent, Carroll is authorized to, inter alia, arrest aliens for immigration violations, arrest any person for felonies regulating the admission or removal of aliens, and execute administrative arrest warrants for aliens.

12.           Plaintiff Ricardo Diaz is an ICE Immigration Enforcement Agent.  He serves in Enforcement and Removal Operations at the El Paso Field Office at 1545 Hawkins Boulevard, in El Paso, Texas.  As an ICE Immigration Enforcement Agent, Diaz is authorized to, inter alia, arrest aliens for immigration violations, arrest any person for felonies regulating the admission or removal of aliens, and execute administrative arrest warrants for aliens.

13.           Plaintiff Lorenzo Garza is an ICE Immigration Enforcement Agent.  He serves in Enforcement and Removal Operations at the Port Isabel Detention Center at 27791 Buena Vista Boulevard, in Los Fresnos, Texas.  As an ICE Immigration Enforcement Agent, Garza is authorized to, inter alia, arrest aliens for immigration violations, arrest any person for felonies regulating the admission or removal of aliens, and execute administrative arrest warrants for aliens.

14.           Plaintiff Felix Luciano is an ICE Immigration Enforcement Agent.  He serves in Enforcement and Removal Operations at the San Diego Field Office at 880 Front Street, Suite B-2232, in San Diego, California.  As an ICE Immigration Enforcement Agent, Luciano is authorized to, inter alia, arrest aliens for immigration violations, arrest any person for felonies regulating the admission or removal of aliens, and execute administrative arrest warrants for aliens.

15.           Plaintiff Tre Rebstock is an ICE Immigration Enforcement Agent.  He serves in Enforcement and Removal Operations at the Houston Field Office at 7405 C-1 Highway 75 South, in Huntsville, Texas.  As an ICE Immigration Enforcement Agent, Rebstock is authorized to, inter alia, arrest aliens for immigration violations, arrest any person for felonies regulating the admission or removal of aliens, and execute administrative arrest warrants for aliens.

16.           Plaintiff Fernando Silva is an ICE Immigration Enforcement Agent.  He serves in Enforcement and Removal Operations at the El Paso Field Office at 1545 Hawkins Boulevard, in El Paso, Texas.  As an ICE Immigration Enforcement Agent, Silva is authorized to, inter alia, arrest aliens for immigration violations, arrest any person for felonies regulating the admission or removal of aliens, and issue administrative arrest warrants for aliens.

17.           Plaintiff Samuel Martin is an ICE Immigration Enforcement Agent.  He serves in Enforcement and Removal Operations in the El Paso Field Office at 8915 Montana Avenue, in El Paso, Texas.  As an ICE Immigration Enforcement Agent, Martin is authorized to, inter alia, arrest aliens for immigration violations, arrest any person for felonies regulating the admission or removal of aliens, and execute administrative arrest warrants for aliens.

18.           Plaintiff James D. Doebler is an ICE Deportation Officer.  He serves in Enforcement and Removal Operations in the Dover Sub-Office at 1305 McD Drive, in Dover, Delaware.  As an ICE Deportation Officer, Doebler is authorized by law to, inter alia, arrest aliens for administrative immigration violations or for any criminal offense against the United States and execute administrative and criminal arrest warrants.

19.           Each ICE plaintiff is authorized to execute the laws of the United States pursuant to statutory authority and delegated authority under regulations of the Department of Homeland Security.

20.           Illegal immigration imposes a wide variety of significant fiscal costs on Plaintiff the State of Mississippi and its taxpayers, including but not limited to:  costs associated with educating illegal aliens in the State’s K-12 school system; costs related to uncompensated healthcare provided by state agencies, hospitals, and clinics; law enforcement costs associated with arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating illegal aliens in the State’s criminal justice system; and lost tax revenues and economic losses related to illegal aliens who work “off the books” and thereby avoid paying state taxes and/or who send “remittances” to relatives in foreign countries, diverting dollars that otherwise would remain in the State’s economy and generate additional state tax revenues.

21.           Governor Phil Bryant brings this suit on behalf of the State of Mississippi pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §§ 7-1-5(n) and 7-1-33.

Defendants

22.           Defendant Janet Napolitano is the Secretary of Homeland Security and the head of the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and in her official capacity is responsible for the enforcement of federal immigration laws, 6 U.S.C. § 112, 8 U.S.C. § 1101, et seq., pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(2).

23.           Defendant John Morton is the Director of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and in his official capacity is responsible for administering all operations of ICE.  Defendant Morton is not authorized to promulgate regulations implementing the Immigration and Nationality Act.

24.           Defendant Alejandro Mayorkas is the Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and in his official capacity is responsible for administering all operations of USCIS.  Defendant Mayorkas is not authorized to promulgate regulations implementing the Immigration and Nationality Act.

25.           Defendant Napolitano issued the Directive on June 15, 2012, and is the executive branch official responsible for its implementation by and through her inferior officers and other employees of DHS.  Defendant Napolitano is the official authorized to promulgate regulations implementing the Immigration and Nationality Act in the Department of Homeland Security.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

26.           This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.           S.C. § 1331 over Plaintiffs’ claims under the Constitution and laws of the United States.  This Court is authorized to grant Plaintiffs’ requests for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.

27.           Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because the majority of the Plaintiffs named in this complaint reside and work in the State of Texas.  Plaintiff Engle resides and works in the Northern District of Texas.

THE DIRECTIVE AND RELATED EVENTS

28.           On June 17, 2011, Defendant Morton issued a Memorandum entitled “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion Consistent with the Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities of the Agency for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens” (the “Morton Memorandum”).

29.           On June 15, 2012, Defendant Napolitano issued the Directive.

30.           In July 2012, DHS issued the “ERO Supplemental Guidance:  Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion With Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children” which directs Plaintiffs and other DHS personnel to implement the terms of the Directive.

31.           In early August 2012, DHS issued a document of more than 90 pages explaining how applicants for the benefits of the Directive would be processed by DHS, entitled “National Standard Operating Procedures (SOP):  Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) (Form I-821D and Form I-765).”

32.           On August 15, 2012, DHS began full implementation of the Directive, including receiving applications and distributing the benefits of deferred action and employment authorization.

33.           The orders in the field that have been given to Plaintiffs by their supervisors are that an alien only needs to claim that he is covered by the Directive in order to be released and offered the benefits of the Directive.  ICE agents are prohibited from demanding that an alien provide proof that he meets the Directive’s criteria.

34.           On August 16, 2012, DHS published a Federal Register Notice soliciting public comments on the Directive.  The Notice offered for review and comment no actual rules that will be promulgated.  Instead, it only solicited comments on the questions to be posed on the form that DHS has developed to accept applications for benefits under the Directive.  DHS categorized the notice as an “information collection” exercise.

35.           According to official estimates provided on August 16, 2012, by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, the number of aliens unlawfully present in the United States who qualify for the benefits offered by the Directive is estimated to be 1.76 million.  Source:  U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Agency Information Collection Activities: Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, Form I–821D, New Information Collection; Emergency Submission to the Office of Management and Budget; Comment Request,  77 Fed. Reg. 49451 (Aug. 16, 2012) (1,041,300 estimated total number of responses for new Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, Form I-821D, USCIS); U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Employment Authorization, Form I–765, Revision of a Currently Approved Information Collection; Emergency Submission to the Office of Management and Budget; Comment Request, 77 Fed. Reg. 49453 (Aug. 16, 2012) (estimated 1,761,300 responses related to Application for Employment Authorization Document, Form I–765, USCIS; 1,385,292 responses related to Biometrics; 1,047,357 responses related to Application for Employment Authorization Document Worksheet, Form I–765WS, USCIS; and 1,761,300 responses to required Passport-Style Photographs).

36.           According to DHS, the number of aliens unlawfully present in the United States is estimated to be 11.5 million.  Michael Hoefer, Nancy Rytina, and Bryan Baker, “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2011” (March 2012), available at http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2011.pdf.

FEDERAL STATUTORY BACKGROUND

37.           In 1996, Congress sought to significantly reduce executive discretion in the enforcement of federal immigration laws: “[I]mmigration law enforcement is as high a priority as other aspects of Federal law enforcement, and illegal aliens do not have the right to remain in the United States undetected and unapprehended.”  H.R. Rep. 104-725 (1996), at 383.

38.           Enacted in 1996, 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1) provides that “an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted … shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.”

39.           8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(3) provides that all applicants for admission “shall be inspected by immigration officers.”

40.           8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates that “if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a proceeding under section 1229a of this title.” (emphasis added).

41.           Deferred action is not specifically authorized anywhere in federal law.  Historically, deferred action has been utilized sparsely for small numbers of aliens in discrete distress pending statutory or foreign policy-mandated regulatory changes.  No group of aliens has been granted deferred action in the past 15 years that approaches a fraction of the size of the class of aliens subject to the Directive.

42.           Regulations describe deferred action only in the application sense as authorizing employment upon application in 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(14), or application for social security benefits, 8 C.F.R. § 1.3(a)(4)(vi).  Accordingly, “deferred action” is a substantive government benefit

43.           Federal regulations do not authorize the Secretary to grant deferred action wholesale to a large number of illegal aliens.

44.           Eligibility for a substantive immigration benefit may not be conferred as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, but only by regulations promulgated under authority delegated by Congress, consistent with the terms of the law authorizing the regulations.

45.           By definition, “prosecutorial discretion” cannot be used to confer a substantive benefit.

46.           USCIS is not a law enforcement agency and has no “prosecutorial” authority.  As such, USCIS cannot exercise “prosecutorial discretion.”

HARM

47.           ICE Plaintiffs have each sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the United States.

48.           ICE Plaintiffs believe that if they follow the Directive, they will be violating their oath of office, as well as violating several laws of the United States.

49.           ICE Plaintiffs reasonably fear, based upon official communications to them, their knowledge of communications to Plaintiff Doebler, Plaintiff Martin, and Plaintiff Crane from their superiors, past events, and public sources, that if they follow the requirements of federal law, contrary to the “Directive,” and arrest an alien or issue an alien an Notice to Appear (NTA) in removal proceedings, they will be disciplined or suffer other adverse employment consequences.

50.           Plaintiff James D. Doebler arrested an alien who was unlawfully present in the United States and issued the alien an NTA, contrary to the general directions of his supervisors that he should decline to issue NTAs to certain illegal aliens.  Plaintiff Doebler was issued a Notice of Proposed Suspension.  Plaintiff Doebler is facing a three-day suspension for arresting and processing the alien for a hearing rather than exercising the “prosecutorial discretion” commanded by his supervisors.  Plaintiff Doebler requested a written directive ordering him not to issue the NTA.  His supervisors have refused to give him a written directive and would not sign any paperwork authorizing the use of “prosecutorial discretion.”

51.           Plaintiff Doebler reasonably fears, based on his past experience, that if he follows the requirements of federal law, contrary to the “Directive,” and arrests an alien or issues the alien an NTA, he will be disciplined again.  He reasonably fears that a second disciplinary action will result in the loss of his job.

52.           On July 17, 2012, Plaintiff Samuel Martin, along with another immigration enforcement agent, picked up an illegal alien from the El Paso County Jail.  While the agents were trying to place the alien in the vehicle, the alien attempted to escape, and resisted and assaulted Plaintiff Martin and his colleague.  The agents regained custody of the alien and transported him to the El Paso Criminal Alien Program office for processing.  Plaintiff Martin’s supervisors ordered him to release the alien without any charges being filed against the alien and ordered Plaintiff Martin not to issue an NTA.  The agents who were present protested the release of the alien; but they were told “it was a management decision, based on the President’s new immigration policies.”  No supervisor ever asked the agents if they were injured or if they needed assistance.  It is the understanding of Plaintiff Martin, reflected in his signed statement concerning the incident, that his supervisors gave him these orders based on the Directive.

53.           On January 25, 2012, Plaintiff Christopher L. Crane, in his capacity as President of the ICE Agents and Officers Union, filed a Demand to Bargain with Defendants, expressing significant concerns with the Morton Memorandum, including that the actions that ICE agents would have to take or not take under it were contrary to federal law.  The Demand to Bargain included the proposal that: “No employee will be subject to disciplinary or adverse action for refusing to obey an unlawful order.”

54.           On April 5, 2012, Plaintiff Christopher L. Crane, in his capacity as President of the ICE Agents and Officers Union, submitted Additional Proposals, reiterating that officers should not be subject to discipline or adverse action for refusing to obey an unlawful order.  Plaintiff Crane also filed an Information Request at that time.

55.           On August 20, 2012, nearly eight months after the January 25, 2012, Demand to Bargain, Defendant Morton sent a letter to the ICE Agents and Officers Union merely indicating that Defendant Morton “may” formally respond to the January 25, 2012, Demand to Bargain and the April 5, 2012, Additional Proposals at an unspecified time in the future.  In the past, when confronted with a Demand to Bargain letter, Defendants have ultimately refused to bargain at all and have refused to make any changes to their policies.

56.           As of the filing of this complaint, Defendants have not changed ICE policies in any way in response to Plaintiff Crane’s January 25, 2012, Demand to Bargain and April 5, 2012, Additional Proposals.

57.           ICE Plaintiffs reasonably expect that the filing of a similar Demand to Bargain in order to protest the Directive would be treated in a similarly non-responsive manner, and that it would not result in any response or alteration of the Directive policy.

58.           Because ICE Plaintiffs are now being ordered to implement the Directive, they have an immediate and urgent need for relief.   They are being ordered to violate federal law and are facing discipline or adverse employment action if they follow federal law.

59.           Defendants Napolitano and Morton are obligated, under the terms of their signed agreement with the ICE Agents and Officers Union, to issue an “Article 9A Notice of Proposed Change” prior to the alteration of agency policies.  The purpose of such a Notice is to allow ICE agents and officers to provide input regarding proposed agency policies.  No such Notice was issued prior to the June 15, 2012, Directive or its August 15, 2012, implementation date.

60.           Plaintiff the State of Mississippi will be compelled to bear the foreseeable fiscal costs of the illegal aliens residing in Mississippi who are not placed in removal proceedings, who are granted deferred action, or who are otherwise permitted to remain in the State of Mississippi, as a direct consequence of the Directive.

61.           Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant formerly served as the State Auditor of Mississippi.  In that capacity, on February 21, 2006, he issued a report entitled “The Impact of Illegal Immigration on Mississippi:  Costs and Population Trends” (OSA Report).  A copy of the OSA Report is attached to this Amended Complaint.

62.           The OSA Report concluded that the net fiscal impact of illegal aliens in the State of Mississippi was at least $25 million per year.  The OSA Report took into consideration the tax contributions made to the State by illegal aliens.

63.           The OSA Report was based on an estimate that the number of illegal aliens in Mississippi in 2006 was 49,000.  This represented a midpoint among various estimates available at the time.  Upon information and belief, the State’s current illegal alien population remains that high, if not higher.

64.           Prior to the issuance of the Directive, a significant number of illegal aliens aged 30 and younger were removed from the State of Mississippi by the federal government each year.

65.           The implementation of the Directive will allow a significant number of illegal aliens aged 30 and younger, who would otherwise have been removed, to remain in the State of Mississippi.

66.           The illegal alien beneficiaries of the Directive that remain in the State of Mississippi will impose a net fiscal cost on the State that is foreseeable, estimable, and significant.  The sources of that fiscal cost are described in the OSA Report.  They include, inter alia: costs associated with educating illegal aliens in the State’s K-12 school system; costs related to uncompensated healthcare provided by state agencies, hospitals, and clinics; law enforcement costs associated with arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating illegal aliens in the State’s criminal justice system; and lost tax revenues and economic losses related to illegal aliens who work “off the books” and thereby avoid paying state taxes and/or who send “remittances” to relatives in foreign countries, diverting dollars that otherwise would remain in the State’s economy and generate additional state tax revenues.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

THE DIRECTIVE EXPRESSLY VIOLATES FEDERAL STATUTES REQUIRING THE INITIATION OF REMOVALS

 

67.           Plaintiffs reallege, adopt, and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

68.           8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1) requires that “an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted … shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.”  This designation triggers 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(3), which requires that all applicants for admission “shall be inspected by immigration officers.”  This in turn triggers 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), which mandates that “if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a proceeding under section 1229a of this title.”  The proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a are removal proceedings in United States immigration courts.

69.           The Directive orders ICE Plaintiffs to violate the above-listed provisions of federal law by declining to place certain aliens into removal proceedings, when federal law clearly requires Plaintiffs to place such aliens into removal proceedings.

70.           The Morton Memorandum, as implemented by Defendants, asserts “prosecutorial discretion… [not] to issue, reissue, serve, file, or cancel a Notice to Appear (NTA),” in direct contradiction of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) in cases in which that statute applies.

71.           Because Congress has expressly limited the discretion of Defendants to not initiate removal proceedings, any “prosecutorial discretion” that Defendants exercise must be consistent with 8 U.S.C. § 1225 and can only occur after an alien has been placed into removal proceedings as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1225, or under a provision of federal law expressly authorizing such “prosecutorial discretion.”

72.           Defendant Napolitano’s authority under 8 USC § 1103(a)(5) and 8 CFR § 2.1 does not authorize her to order her subordinate officers or employees to violate the requirements of federal law expressed in 8 U.S.C. § 1225.

73.           Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment to these effects, together with corresponding injunctive relief.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

THE DIRECTIVE VIOLATES FEDERAL LAW BY CONFERRING A NON-STATUTORY FORM OF BENEFIT, DEFERRED ACTION, TO MORE THAN 1.7 MILLION ALIENS, RATHER THAN A FORM OF RELIEF OR BENEFIT THAT FEDERAL LAW PERMITS ON SUCH A LARGE SCALE

 

74.           Plaintiffs reallege, adopt, and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

75.           “Deferred action” is a benefit that is not authorized in federal statute and is only authorized to a limited extent and for limited purposes in federal regulations.

76.           No federal regulation authorizes the granting of the benefit of deferred action to aliens who are in the position of the more than 1.7 million beneficiaries of the Directive.

77.           No federal regulation authorizes the conferral of the benefit of deferred action to an entire category of unlawfully present aliens numbering in excess of 1.7 million persons.

78.           If an executive agency’s practice contradicts the express terms of federal law, that practice is ultra vires and unlawful.

79.           Defendant Napolitano’s authority under 8 USC § 1103(a)(5) and 8 CFR § 2.1 does not authorize her to order her subordinate officers or employees to violate the requirements of federal law expressed in 8 U.S.C. § 1225.

80.           Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment to these effects, together with corresponding injunctive relief.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

THE DIRECTIVE VIOLATES FEDERAL LAW BY CONFERRING THE LEGAL BENEFIT OF EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION WITHOUT ANY STATUTORY BASIS AND UNDER THE FALSE PRETENSE OF “PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION”

 

81.           Plaintiffs reallege, adopt, and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

82.           The Directive purports to use “prosecutorial discretion” to grant the benefit of employment authorization to unlawfully present aliens.

83.           Employment authorization is a benefit under federal regulations that is “granted” to beneficiary aliens.  8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(14).

84.           Federal law specifies the circumstances under which aliens may be granted the benefit of employment authorization.

85.           The Morton Memorandum on pp. 2-3 lists twelve ways in which “prosecutorial discretion” may purportedly be exercised in immigration law, but nowhere mentions the conferral of the benefit of employment authorization.

86.           “Prosecutorial discretion,” insofar as it is permitted by federal immigration law, is by definition the exercise of discretion not to remove; it is not the conferral of a benefit.

87.           To the limited extent that any “prosecutorial discretion” is permitted by federal immigration law, such discretion allows ICE to seek the cancellation or withholding of a removal.  The exercise of “prosecutorial discretion” does not permit any DHS employee or officer to grant unlawfully present aliens the benefit of employment authorization in the manner attempted by the Directive.

88.           U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is not a law enforcement agency.

89.           A non-law-enforcement agency cannot exercise prosecutorial discretion.

90.           Defendant Napolitano’s authority under 8 USC § 1103(a)(5) and 8 CFR § 2.1 does not authorize her to order her subordinate officers or employees to confer a substantive benefit on aliens that is not authorized by federal law.

91.           Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment to these effects, together with corresponding injunctive relief.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

THE DIRECTIVE VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTIONAL ALLOCATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER TO CONGRESS

 

92.           Plaintiffs reallege, adopt, and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

93.           Article I, section 1, of the United States Constitution provides that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

94.           The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM Act), in various forms, has been proposed in Congress at least 24 times.  It was introduced in the following bills:  S. 1291, 107th Cong. §§ 2, 3 (2001); S. 1545, 108th Cong. (2003); S. 2863, 108th Cong. §§ 1801-1813 (2004); S. 2075, 109th Cong. (2005); H.R. 5131, 109th Cong. (2006); S. 2611, 109th Cong. §§ 621–632 (2006); H.R. 1275, 110th Cong. (2007); H.R. 1645, 110th Cong. §§ 621-632 (2007); S. 774, 110th Cong. (2007); S. 1348, 110th Cong. §§ 621–632 (2007) (as amended by S.A. 1150 §§ 612–619); S. 1639, 110th Cong. §§ 612-620 (2007); S. 2205, 110th Cong. (2007); H.R. 1751, 111th Cong. (2009); S. 729, 111th Cong. (2009); H.R. 5281, 111th Cong. §§ 5-16 (2010); H.R. 6497, 111th Cong. (2010); S. 3827, 111th Cong. (2010); S. 3932, 111th Cong. §§ 531-542 (2010); S. 3962, 111th Cong. (2010); S. 3963, 111th Cong. (2010); S. 3992, 111th Cong. (2010); H.R. 1842, 112th Cong. (2011); S. 952, 112th Cong. (2011); S. 1258, 112th Cong. §§ 141-149 (2011); H.R. 5869, 112th Cong. (2012).

95.           The principal provisions of the DREAM Act, as reiterated in the two dozen DREAM Act bills introduced in Congress, are that it establishes a class of unlawfully present aliens who may apply for cancellation of removal and either temporary or conditional lawful residence, and then may adjust to lawful permanent resident status or have the conditions removed.  The class is generally defined as those aliens who arrived in the United States as minors, have been physically present in the United States for a period of years (typically five years) prior to enactment, have not been convicted of a felony or two or more misdemeanors and do not pose a threat to national security or public safety, have earned a high school diploma or a general education development certificate in the United States, and are below a certain age (typically early to mid-thirties) on the date of enactment.  Qualifying aliens whose removal is cancelled and who are granted temporary or conditional residence then must be admitted to, or earn a certain number of credits in, an institution of higher education or serve honorably in the U.S. Armed Forces for a certain period in order to adjust to lawful permanent resident status or have the conditions on their status removed.

96.           The DREAM Act has never been passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the President.

97.           The fact that the DREAM Act has been proposed in Congress two dozen times, and has been voted on by the United States House of Representatives and by the United States Senate, indicates Congress’s understanding that federal legislation is required in order to achieve these objectives.

98.           The Directive attempts to confer continued presence in the United States, as well as employment authorization, to all aliens meeting the criteria specified in the Directive.

99.           The unlawfully present aliens who are given benefits by the Directive are substantially the same aliens that would have been given benefits by the DREAM Act, had it passed both Houses of Congress and been signed into law by the President.

100.        The conferral of legal rights and privileges to a large class of persons meeting certain criteria is a legislative act.

101.        The application of “deferred action” to approximately 15% of aliens who are in the United States without authorization is not an exercise of executive branch discretion permitted by the Constitution.  The application of  “deferred action” to approximately 15% of aliens who are in the United States without authorization is a legislative act of amnesty, the granting of a legislative benefit, and an act otherwise exceeding the Secretary’s authority as a principal executive officer under the Constitution.  It therefore usurps the legislative authority conferred by the Constitution exclusively on Congress.

102.        Because the Directive is a legislative act that Defendants have implemented through executive action, it is in violation of Article I, section 1, of the United States Constitution.

103.        Defendant Napolitano’s authority under 8 USC § 1103(a)(5) and 8 CFR § 2.1 does not authorize her to exercise legislative powers through the issuance of directives.

104.        Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment to these effects, together with corresponding injunctive relief.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

THE DIRECTIVE VIOLATES THE ARTICLE II, SECTION 3, CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION OF THE EXECUTIVE TO TAKE CARE THAT THE LAWS ARE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED

 

105.        Plaintiffs reallege, adopt, and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

106.        Article II, section 3, of the United States Constitution requires that the President, by and through his executive branch officials, including Defendants, “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

107.        The application of “deferred action” to approximately 15% of aliens who are in the United States without authorization is not consistent with the executive’s duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.  In effect, the Directive orders that the immigration laws of the United States shall not be executed against a class of more than 1.7 million aliens.

108.        Defendant Napolitano’s authority under 8  USC § 1103(a)(5) and 8 CFR § 2.1 does not authorize her to order her subordinate officers or employees to decline to enforce federal immigration laws against a class of more than 1.7 million aliens.

109.        Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment to these effects, together with corresponding injunctive relief.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

THE DIRECTIVE VIOLATES THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT THROUGH CONFERRAL OF A BENEFIT WITHOUT REGULATORY IMPLEMENTATION

 

110.        Plaintiffs reallege, adopt, and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

111.        The Administrative Procedure Act requires that agencies implementing Congressional statutes in whole or in part through an agency statement of general applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy do so through a rulemaking.   A rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act is defined as the agency process for formulating, amending, or repealing a rule through notice and comment procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553. The Immigration and Nationality Act delegates authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General to implement its provisions through regulations.  The Secretary has not promulgated any regulation that establishes the criteria for eligibility for relief from removal from the United States or the granting of employment authorization.  The Directive identifies a large class of individuals by specific eligibility criteria against whom the immigration laws of the United States requiring their removal shall not be executed and who are made eligible for specific benefits.

112.        Establishing a class of eligibility by criteria for exception from removal from the United States and affirmative eligibility for benefits is quintessentially a “rule” under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551(4).  The Secretary has not issued a notice of proposed rulemaking or promulgated a final rule in conformity with the Administrative Procedure Act.  The Directive is not a rule under the Administrative Procedure Act.

113.        The Directive is in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right, and without observance of procedure required by the Administrative Procedure Act.

114.        Defendant Napolitano’s issuance of a Federal Register Notice on August 16, 2012, as part of a so-called “information collection” exercise in no way satisfies the publication and comment requirements for rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.

115.        Defendant Napolitano’s authority under 8  USC § 1103(a)(5) and 8 CFR § 2.1 does not authorize her to order her subordinate officers or employees to circumvent the terms of the Administrative Procedure Act by simply issuing “directives” or “orders” that confer substantive legal benefits and privileges, and significantly transform the enforcement of federal immigration law.

116.        Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment to these effects, together with corresponding injunctive relief.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court:

A.            Declare pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(B) that the Directive is unlawful and in violation of Article I of the Constitution of the United States as a usurpation of legislative authority, and vacate the Directive;

B.             Declare pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(B) that the Directive is unlawful and in violation of Article II of the Constitution of the United States as in excess of executive authority and vacate the Directive;

C.             Declare pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(B) that the Directive and relevant provisions of the Morton Memorandum are unlawful and in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) and vacate the Directive and relevant provisions of the Morton Memorandum;

D.            Declare pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C) that the Directive is unlawful and in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act as in excess of delegated authority and vacate the Directive;

E.             Declare pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D) that the Directive is unlawful and in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act as a rule promulgated without conforming to the procedure described therein and vacate the Directive;

F.             Temporarily restrain, preliminarily enjoin, and permanently enjoin Defendants and their subordinate officers, employees, and agents from implementing or enforcing the Directive, or taking any adverse action against Plaintiffs pursuant to the Directive or for not following the Directive;

G.            Direct Defendants to pay all costs associated with this lawsuit; and

H.            Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems equitable, just, and proper.

 

Dated:  October 10, 2012                   By:  s/ Kris W. Kobach                     

                                                            KRIS W. KOBACH

                                                            Kansas Bar No. 17280 (pro hac vice applic. pending)

                                                            Kobach Law, LLC

                                                            4701 N. 130th St.

                                                            Kansas City, Kansas 66109

 

 

                                                           

                                                            P. MICHAEL JUNG

                                                            Texas Bar No. 11054600

                                                            Strasburger & Price, LLP

                                                            901 Main Street, Suite 4400

                                                            Dallas, Texas 75202

 

 

 

                                                            Attorneys for Plaintiffs

 

 

 

 

 Download a PDF version of the complaint

Appendix A: Janet Napolitano's June 15, 2012 Memorandum

For media inquiries or to schedule interviews please contact Peter Robbio at (703) 683-5004.

Reports

Border Patrol Immigration Reform Plan

Reports - Friday, March 4, 2011

The National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers (NAFBPO) is a national, non-profit, public interest organization of concerned citizens. Our ranks include officers who spent their careers on the Canadian and Mexican borders, in Florida, on the Gulf Coast, in Puerto Rico, and in foreign lands enduring discomfort and danger as they worked to protect and serve our nation. Many of us went on to high positions in the Border Patrol or its parent organization, the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Now, though we are retired we recall our oath of office and we share a common bond and heritage with our brothers and sisters who still serve our country as members of the Department of Homeland Security. With that oath and bond in mind, we submit to you A Proposal for Comprehensive Immigration Enforcement and Reform.

Download Publication

Quotes

Sen. LeMeiux (R-Fla.) - Secure the Borders

Quotes - Wednesday, September 9, 2009

LeMieux appears likely to steer clear of Martinez's controversial attempts to overhaul immigration law, which would include a path to citizenship for the undocumented. "We need to secure our borders," LeMieux said. "After we do that, we can figure what happens to people already here."

By William E. Gibson -- Sun (Ft. Lauderdale) Sentinel

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/florida/orl-lemieux-senate-090909,0,4035843.story

Sen. Bennet (D-Colo.) -- Favors Amnesty

Quotes - Sunday, April 26, 2009

Sen. Michael Bennet, potentially wading into a heated political debate a year before he runs for his first election, said Saturday he supports a path to citizenship for those in the country illegally.

Speaking at a news conference of four Colorado congressional Democrats touting efforts during Barack Obama's first 100 days in office and the new Congress, Bennet said a path to citizenship along with increased border enforcement should be part of comprehensive immigration reform.

'The current status quo is clearly unacceptable on so many levels,' Bennet said.

He said the path to citizenship should come with requirements, including completing education, learning English and holding a job….

…'Not withstanding all the demagoguery on the issue, this country needs to have comprehensive immigration reform,' Bennet said. 'The question is the timing, and that I can't answer today.' …

By P. Solomon Banda -- The Associated Press

http://www.gazette.com/articles/path_52456___article.html/bennet_supports.html

Sen. McCaskill (D-Mo.) -- Supports Dream

Quotes - Tuesday, April 7, 2009

…McCaskill, in turn, reaffirmed her longstanding argument that the best way to battle illegal immigration is to enforce stiff penalties on employers who knowingly hired illegals and, for example, "put 14 in a hotel room ...and pay them $200 in cash on Fridays" to work as roofing or lawn crews.

Such jobs are the real enticement for illegal immigrants and their disappearance is the best was to discourage it, the senator said.

However, McCaskill emphasized that she also had sympathy for some teenagers who had been brought to the United States as infants or toddlers by their illegal-immigrant parents. The teens (some who were unaware of their illegal status) now face deportation, because their status became known when they applied for college or the military.

By Jo Mannies -- St. Louis Beacon

…McCaskill, in turn, reaffirmed her longstanding argument that the best way to battle illegal immigration is to enforce stiff penalties on employers who knowingly hired illegals and, for example, "put 14 in a hotel room ...and pay them $200 in cash on Fridays" to work as roofing or lawn crews.

Such jobs are the real enticement for illegal immigrants and their disappearance is the best was to discourage it, the senator said.

However, McCaskill emphasized that she also had sympathy for some teenagers who had been brought to the United States as infants or toddlers by their illegal-immigrant parents. The teens (some who were unaware of their illegal status) now face deportation, because their status became known when they applied for college or the military.

"We have a heart-breaking example of young woman in mid-Missouri. Who's valedictorian of her class,'' McCaskill said. "Huge community leader in her church. Now having trouble staying the country because her parents didn't follow the rules.'' …

…"The DREAM Act is hard,'' McCaskill said. But she then added, "I will probably vote for the DREAM act. I didn't vote for it last time."

The difference with the new version is that it's tightly tailored to address only a limited number cases of illegal-immigrant teens who have been longtime U.S. residents and could be productive adult citizens, McCaskill said…

By Jo Mannies -- St. Louis Beacon

Show More http://www.stlbeacon.org/beacon_backroom/mccaskill_buffeted_by_immigration_woes_supports_trimmed-down_dream_bill

Sen. Kyl (R-Ariz.) -- Secure the Borders, Limit Chain Migration

Quotes - Saturday, December 20, 2008

Kyl isn't saying no to immigration reform out of hand, but he supports a position first articulated by McCain during the campaign: that Congress must convince the American people that the borders are secure before pursuing other reforms that critics view as benefiting illegal immigrants…

He also credited Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Kennedy for their willingness to make concessions, particularly on restricting family "chain migration," upon which Kyl says few other countries base their immigration systems. With chain migration, immigrants can facilitate visas for relatives.

Kennedy's conciliatory attitude prompted Kyl to make concessions, too. He agreed to a proposed pathway to citizenship for many who are now in the country illegally. Kyl prefers a system based on the U.S. marketplace's need for temporary workers and had opposed such a pathway in 2006.

By Dan Nowicki -- Arizona Republic

Kyl isn't saying no to immigration reform out of hand, but he supports a position first articulated by McCain during the campaign: that Congress must convince the American people that the borders are secure before pursuing other reforms that critics view as benefiting illegal immigrants…

He also credited Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Kennedy for their willingness to make concessions, particularly on restricting family "chain migration," upon which Kyl says few other countries base their immigration systems. With chain migration, immigrants can facilitate visas for relatives.

Kennedy's conciliatory attitude prompted Kyl to make concessions, too. He agreed to a proposed pathway to citizenship for many who are now in the country illegally. Kyl prefers a system based on the U.S. marketplace's need for temporary workers and had opposed such a pathway in 2006.

"I doubt that the public thinks we're there yet, and I'm not sure that the same basic trade-offs will be agreed to again," Kyl said. "I don't know whether the Obama administration would be willing to consider the same changes, but they were critical to my support for the ultimate bill. And if they alter the agreement significantly, and I suspect they will do so, then the equation for trade-offs becomes totally different."

By Dan Nowicki -- Arizona Republic

Show More http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2008/12/20/20081220kyl-immig1220.html

Sen. Wicker (R-Miss.) -- Increase Border Control, Expand E-Verify

Quotes - Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Wicker said he has supported legislation to increase military presence on the country's border with Mexico and a more stringent employment verification system.

"We need to make sure the E-Verify system is as accurate and instantaneous as it can be," he said. "I know there are people who think it's inaccurate, (but) it seemed to be a system on the right track to me."

In a wide-ranging interview, Wicker said he disagrees that babies born in the United States to parents who are in the country illegally should automatically become American citizens.

"I personally don't think that, and that alone, should confer citizenship on someone," Wicker said. "It would take a statute to be passed to say that interpretation of the 14th Amendment is incorrect. I would vote for such a statute to say something more has to take place than for the child to be physically born of illegal immigrant parents for that child to be a citizen."…

By Terry L. Jones -- Hattiesburg American

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080827/NEWS01/808270381

Sen. Hutchison (R-Texas) -- Favors Guest-Worker Program

Quotes - Monday, September 17, 2007

Hutchison made clear the GOP plan, shaping up as the rival to Feinstein's AgJobs bill, would not offer citizenship to the temporary workers.

"The problem we had in the last bill was the controversy over amnesty," Hutchison said when asked how her legislation could avoid the fate of the proposed comprehensive immigration fix.

Sessions, who called AgJobs a "massive amnesty," is pressing for a program that would allow foreign workers to stay in the U.S. for as long as 10 months and then return home before applying to re-enter for another temporary work cycle...

…Hutchison is making no promises. "I don't know if we are going to be successful," she said. But, she added, "Let's try taking it in smaller pieces and do what, really, Congresses in the past should have done."

Houston Chronicle

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5139911.html

Sen. Dorgan (D-N.D.) -- Secure Boders

Quotes - Friday, June 29, 2007

this issue will come back. I think the first thing’s first: to provide demonstrated border security and border enforcement. At that point the American people will feel that we’re doing the first thing we need to do.

The Hill

http://blog.thehill.com/2007/06/29/the-immigration-debate-is-not-over-sen-byron-dorgan/

Publications

National All-Voters Immigration Poll - February 2014

Fact Sheets - Friday, February 21, 2014

National All-Voters Immigration Poll - Feb. 2014

Fact Sheets - Friday, February 21, 2014

Evangelicals for Biblical Immigration September 2013 Letter to Congress

Letters & Endorsements - Thursday, October 17, 2013

Rep. Stockman "No Conference" Dear Colleague Letter

Letters & Endorsements - Wednesday, September 18, 2013

National Poll - August 8, 2013

Fact Sheets - Wednesday, August 14, 2013

BALA Open Letter to Rep. Paul Ryan

Letters & Endorsements - Thursday, August 8, 2013

USCIS Letter to Congress on GOP DREAM Act

Letters & Endorsements - Thursday, August 1, 2013

Evangelicals for Biblical Immigration Letter to Congress

Letters & Endorsements - Monday, July 22, 2013

USCIS Union opposes Corker-Hoeven amendment to S.744

Fact Sheets - Monday, June 24, 2013

Fact Sheet: Corker-Hoeven amendment to S.744

Fact Sheets - Monday, June 24, 2013

Polls

Evangelical Christians Believe Immigration Laws Should Protect America's Vulnerable

Polls - Monday, February 24, 2014

78% of evangelical Christians believe that the Old Testament verses in which "God commands the ancient Israelites to love the stranger as themselves" means the U.S. government should offer humane treatment while fairly applying the law.

Evangelical VotersNational Poll of evangelical voters' biblical views on immigration policy by dmarshNumbersusa

78% of evangelical Christians believe that the Old Testament verses in which "God commands the ancient Israelites to love the stranger as themselves" means the U.S. government should offer humane treatment while fairly applying the law.

Evangelical VotersNational Poll of evangelical voters' biblical views on immigration policy by dmarshNumbersusa

Show More Download Publication

Strong Support Among GOP Evangelicals for 'Controlled Immigration'

Polls - Wednesday, September 25, 2013

63% of GOP Evangelical likely voters strongly oppose a bill that would grant work permits and legalization to illegal aliens. 65% of GOP Evangelicals feel little to no moral responsibility to help illegal aliens who are living in the United States. See the poll's full results here.

63% of GOP Evangelical likely voters strongly oppose a bill that would grant work permits and legalization to illegal aliens. 65% of GOP Evangelicals feel little to no moral responsibility to help illegal aliens who are living in the United States. See the poll's full results here.

Strong Support Among GOP Evangelicals for Controlled Immigration by NumbersUSA

Show More Download Publication

Language Matters: GOP Strongly Supports 'Controlled Immigration'

Polls - Tuesday, September 17, 2013

A survey of 1,000 likely Republican voters found concern for the direction of immigration policy with 74% favoring an approach that favors Immigration Security and Enforcement ahead of other concerns. 57% also support reducing current legal immigration levels by at least 25%. View the full poll results here.

Download Publication Web Friendly Version

Catholic opinions on the Morality of Immigration Reform

Polls - Friday, September 13, 2013

Catholic voters were three times more likely to say the government has "a lot" of moral responsibility to protect American workers from competition with immigrant workers than to say it has "a lot" of moral responsibility to protect illegal immigrants from being separated from their families by deportation. View the full poll details here.

Catholic voters were three times more likely to say the government has "a lot" of moral responsibility to protect American workers from competition with immigrant workers than to say it has "a lot" of moral responsibility to protect illegal immigrants from being separated from their families by deportation. View the full poll details here.

Catholic Opinions on the Morality of Immigration Reform by NumbersUSA

Show More Download Publication Web Friendly Version

Texas Poll August 2013

Polls - Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Americans Prefer Fewer Guest Workers

Prefer Lower Numbers Protect Jobs and Wages - Monday, July 22, 2013

According to a poll conducted by the National Journal, the majority of Americans prefer fewer high-tech and construction guest workers. The poll found that 65% of Republicans, 53% of Democrats, and 53% of Independents want fewer high-tech guest workers. It also found that 71% of Republicans, 60% of Democrats, and 58% of Independents want fewer construction guest workers.

National Journal

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressional-connection/infographics/unwanted-guest-workers-20130620

64% of Likely Voters support Border Control Before Amnesty

Oppose Amnesty - Friday, March 22, 2013

64% of Likely U.S. voters say they support securing the border before dealing with the 11-19 million illegal aliens currently living in the United States. Only 26% support an amnesty with a promise to secure the border later.

Rasmussen Reports

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/questions/pt_survey_questions/march_2013/questions_securing_the_border_march_20_21_2013

69% of Registered Voters Support Border Security Before Amnesty

Oppose Amnesty - Monday, March 4, 2013

69% of registered voters support securing the border before dealing with other issues within our immigration system, inlcuding 81 percent of Republicans, 62% of Democrats, and 60% of independents. Only 25 percent support securing the border while dealing with the 11-19 million illegal aliens at the same time.

Fox News Poll

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/04/fox-news-poll-most-support-strengthening-borders-before-other-immigration/print#ixzz2Mccd3UDK

53% of Americans favor enforcement over legalization

Oppose Amnesty - Thursday, February 21, 2013

30% of respondents think that most illegal aliens should be deported with some exceptions. Another 23% think that all illegal aliens should be deported. Only 36% think most or all illegal aliens should be allowed to stay in the United States.

Reuters/Ipsos

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/21/us-usa-immigration-idUSBRE91K01A20130221

Americans Prefer Illegal Immigrants Head Home

Oppose Amnesty - Tuesday, February 5, 2013

Of likely voters, 52 percent responded that they preferred to see illegal immigrants in the United States go back to their home countries, compared to just 33 percent who would like them to be given legal status.

Pulse Opinion Research

http://cis.org/americans-prefer-illegal-immigrants-head-home-results-of-national-survey

In the News

NumbersUSA's Beck: Public Pressure Can Stop Immigration Amnesty

Quoted - Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Americans must keep pressure on Congress to stop lawmakers from ramming through an immigration reform bill that includes amnesty, says Roy Beck, executive director of NumbersUSA.

http://www.newsmax.com/NewsmaxTv/amnesty-immigration-paul-ryan-roy-beck/2014/02/04/id/550919#ixzz2sStjy8IX

US immigration reform nears tipping point

Quoted - Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Separately, groups like Numbers USA, which calls for lower levels of immigration, are preparing to step up their campaign urging lawmakers to vote against reform....

Meanwhile, Numbers USA plans to start a new radio campaign as soon as the debate over control has been concluded. This would increase the pressure it is already applying to lawmakers, having sent 2m faxes objecting to legalisation, said Roy Beck, chief executive.

“The difference between now and 2007 is that there weren’t 20m Americans looking for jobs who couldn’t find work then,” Mr Beck said.

By Anna Fifield in the Financial Times

Download Publication http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/0fce9c66-a1f3-11e2-ad0c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2QBUnrgNA

Outside Group Targets Begich on Immigration

Quoted - Friday, April 5, 2013

The group Numbers USA aims to "educate voters" in states with senators who could play a pivotal role in the coming immigration debate.

The group started airing an ad throughout Alaska this week that asks actors who "thinks Senator Mark Begich's plan to bring in foreign workers to take American jobs is a good idea?"

Roy Beck, executive director of Numbers USA, said Senator Begich has been tight-lipped on immigration since arriving in the Senate four years ago, except on J-1 visas.

By Peter Granitz -- Alaska Public Radio

http://www.alaskapublic.org/2013/04/04/outside-group-targets-begich-on-immigration/

Conservative groups back immigration reform

Quoted - Friday, April 5, 2013

The push comes as conservative critics have also begun to ramp up their campaign to scuttle the immigration overhaul, which makes efforts like these key if Congress is going to succeed in passing immigration legislation. Numbers USA is already up with ads in Alaska and South Carolina targeting Sens. Mark Begich and Lindsey Graham and they expect to go up with more ads in the near future.

By ANNA PALMER and JAKE SHERMAN -- Politico

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/conservatives-immigration-reform-89649.html

Anti-amnesty group targets Sen. Mark Begich in immigration debate

Quoted - Thursday, April 4, 2013

Looking to derail comprehensive immigration talks on Capitol Hill, the advocacy group NumbersUSA launched a new ad campaign Wednesday targeting Alaska Sen. Mark Begich, who is seen as one of the most vulnerable Democrats up for re-election in 2014.

The ad is part of the group's "Say No to Amnesty" campaign (https://www.saynotoamnesty.com/), which also has targeted Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, who is a member of the bipartisan "Gang of Eight" that is hammering out a comprehensive immigration bill that could provide legal status as well as a path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrantsliving here.

By Seth McLaughlin - The Washington Times

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/apr/3/anti-amnesty-group-targets-democratic-sen-mark-beg/

Veteran opponents of reform ready for immigration fight

Quoted - Tuesday, April 2, 2013

“Everything other than the politics is worse now than it was in 2007,” says Rosemary Jenks, a lobbyist for NumbersUSA, an immigration limitation group heavily involved in fighting the Bush-backed measure.

And according to Jenks, that includes, most importantly, the unemployment rate. It’s improved in recent months to 7.7 percent, but is currently higher than the 4.5 percent recorded by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the summer of 2007.

NumbersUSA – which works to strictly limit legal immigration in addition to opposing efforts to legalize undocumented immigrants – and other groups aim to again mobilize opponents of reform by arguing that the proposed legalization and guest-worker programs would hurt Americans already struggling to find work.

By Carrie Dann -- NBC News

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/01/17555907-veteran-opponents-of-reform-ready-for-immigration-fight?lite

'The Uninvited' -- Rosemary Jenks: Amnesty would give terrorists 'Brand New' identities

Quoted - Thursday, March 28, 2013

At Breitbart News' "The Uninvited" Panel during CPAC last weekend, Rosemary Jenks, the director of government relations for Numbers USA, told the packed audience that Republicans have not thoroughly considered and discussed how giving amnesty to 11-12 million illegal immigrants would allow terrorists to receive brand new identities, cost the government $2.5 trillion dollars over their lifetime, and create more Democrats.  

By Tony Lee -- Breibart News

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/03/19/Rosemary-Jenks-at-The-Uninvited-Amnesty-Would-Cost-U-S-2-5-Trillion-Give-Terrorists-Brand-New-Identities

Obama’s immigration exemptions poison needed reforms, say critics

Quoted - Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Advocates of a compromise reform of immigration law say their efforts are being hampered by President Barack Obama’s policy of ignoring unwanted portions of previous immigration-law compromises.

“It would be ridiculous for Republicans to actually believe that the Obama administration is going to uphold its end of any compromise,” said Rosemary Jenks, the director of government relations at NumbersUSA, which wants a reform that would invite fewer, but higher skilled, immigrants

“If Obama does not believe the existing laws apply to him, why would he believe a new compromise applies to him?” she said.

By Neil Munro -- The Daily Caller

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/04/obamas-immigration-exemptions-poison-needed-reforms-say-critics/

For Undocumented Youth, New Policy Carries Risks

Quoted - Wednesday, August 15, 2012

"Unemployed Americans are now going to have abouyt 1.8 million more people added into the legal workforce to compete with them for a limited number of jobs. There is a cost to this, and the cost is to the most vulnerable young Americans," Roy Beck said.

By Joel Rose, NPR

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/15/158872445/for-undocumented-youth-new-policy-carries-risks

Irish immigration bill draws ire from advocates

Quoted - Thursday, March 22, 2012

Roy Beck, executive director of NumbersUSA, which wants to reduce immigration, said Brown's bill will end up hurting American workers of all races and ethnic backgrounds.
 
"Why would you want to bring in 10,500 more foreign workers at a time when we've got 20 million Americans who either can't find jobs or are forced to take part-time jobs when they want to work full-time," Beck said. "Brown's bill is about pandering."

By Erin Kelly, USA Today

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-03-22/irish-immigration-congress/53706766/1

L.A. County officials worried about costs of immigration overhaul

In the News - Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Few regions will absorb the impact of future immigration reforms more than Los Angeles County, home to an estimated 1.1 million people in the country illegally, one-tenth of the nation's total.

As the Senate Judiciary Committee began debating the bipartisan immigration bill last week, county officials voiced concerns that local taxpayers will be "left holding the bag" to pay for the brunt of healthcare and other services for multitudes of immigrants who apply for citizenship.

By Richard Simon -- Los Angeles Times

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/11/local/la-me-county-immigration-20130512

Immigration Reform Issue: The Effect on the Budget

In the News - Tuesday, February 12, 2013

It’s hard to say with precision what impact offering citizenship would have on the budget, but the chances are good that it would cost the government money. Half to three-quarters of illegal immigrants pay taxes, according to studies reviewed in a 2007 report by the Congressional Budget Office. And they are relatively inexpensive, compared with Americans of similar incomes. Their children can attend public schools at government expense — putting a burden on state and local budgets. But they are barred from receiving federal benefits like the earned-income tax credit, food stamps and Medicaid. Only their American-born children can get those.

By Eduardo Porter - New York Times

It’s hard to say with precision what impact offering citizenship would have on the budget, but the chances are good that it would cost the government money. Half to three-quarters of illegal immigrants pay taxes, according to studies reviewed in a 2007 report by the Congressional Budget Office. And they are relatively inexpensive, compared with Americans of similar incomes. Their children can attend public schools at government expense — putting a burden on state and local budgets. But they are barred from receiving federal benefits like the earned-income tax credit, food stamps and Medicaid. Only their American-born children can get those. Government revenue might not change much with legalization. Most illegal immigrants who don’t pay taxes probably work in the cash economy — as nannies or gardeners — where tax compliance among citizens is low. Costs, of course, would increase. Once they became citizens, immigrants would be entitled to the same array of government benefits as other Americans. For Social Security and Medicare alone, offering citizenship to illegal immigrants would mean losing a subsidy worth several billion dollars a year in payroll taxes from immigrants who can’t collect benefits in old age.

By Eduardo Porter - New York Times

Show More http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/business/immigration-reform-issue-the-effect-on-the-budget.html?ref=immigrationandemigration&_r=0

Chamber's Donohue Pushes for Immigration and Entitlement Reform

In the News - Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Immigration reform also took a prominent place in Donohue's remarks, with the Chamber president emphasizing the need for skilled workers to help stave off outsourcing. He advocated guest visas for lower-skilled workers and expanding the caps on high-skilled visas, as well as helping foreigners who earn advanced degrees in the U.S. to stay.

"Even with high unemployment, we have millions of job openings that go unfilled," he said. "Either the workers come here to fill those jobs or the companies take all of their jobs somewhere else."

President Obama has spoken of immigration reform as one of his priorities for his second term. Donohue said that he has spoken with senators, as well as AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, about the potential for overhauling the nation's immigration laws.

By DANIELLE KURTZLEBEN -- US News

Immigration reform also took a prominent place in Donohue's remarks, with the Chamber president emphasizing the need for skilled workers to help stave off outsourcing. He advocated guest visas for lower-skilled workers and expanding the caps on high-skilled visas, as well as helping foreigners who earn advanced degrees in the U.S. to stay.

"Even with high unemployment, we have millions of job openings that go unfilled," he said. "Either the workers come here to fill those jobs or the companies take all of their jobs somewhere else."

President Obama has spoken of immigration reform as one of his priorities for his second term. Donohue said that he has spoken with senators, as well as AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, about the potential for overhauling the nation's immigration laws.

"I have an optimistic feeling about this," said Donohue, pointing to bipartisan support for reform. But he acknowledged that support for immigration reform is not unanimous.

By DANIELLE KURTZLEBEN -- US News

Show More http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/10/chambers-donohue-pushes-for-immigration-and-entitlement-reform

Deferred action applications continue at slower pace

In the News - Tuesday, December 18, 2012

What some initially perceived as an election-related drop in applications for deferred action - a federal program offering temporary legal status to young undocumented immigrants - has continued into December. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is reporting that the daily pace of incoming applications for the program continues to slow.

The agency's latest numbers show that while applications peaked at 5,715 a day in September, they averaged 3,988 a day through the entire month of November. Through Dec. 13, incoming applications have been averaging 2,720 a day.

By Leslie Berestein Rojas - Southern California Public Radio

http://www.scpr.org/blogs/multiamerican/2012/12/14/11564/deferred-action-applications-continue-slower-pace/

Lee rules out ‘amnesty’ as he works on immigration-reform team

In the News - Friday, December 14, 2012

Sen. Mike Lee opposed amnesty for illegal immigrants in his 2010 campaign and he continues to fight it now, which makes his inclusion in a bipartisan group working on comprehensive reform all the more surprising.

The Utahn is one of four Republicans holding private talks with four Democrats in hopes of overhauling the nation’s immigration laws by the end of 2013.

By Matt Canham -- The Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/55453081-90/lee-immigration-immigrants-illegal.html.csp?page=1

New 'Gang of Eight' on immigration

In the News - Friday, December 14, 2012

Make way for a new Gang of Eight. An octet of senators has begun to meet to discuss immigration reform, multiple sources told POLITICO. It’s a possible sign of progress on what’s expected to be a top legislative priority on Capitol Hill next year.

By Seung Min Kim -- Politico

http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/new-gang-of-eight-on-immigration-84772.html

Syrians in the U.S. Are Given Protected Immigration Status

In the News - Monday, March 26, 2012

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Friday granted temporary immigration status to Syrians in the United States, sparing them from having to return home, in a new sign that Washington believes security conditions in Syria are going from bad to worse.

By Julia Preston- The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/us/syrians-in-the-us-are-given-protected-immigration-status.html?_r=2&ref=immigrationandemigration

Admin. extends Salvadoran deportation freeze

In the News - Tuesday, January 10, 2012

The Obama administration has extended temporary protected status to El Salvadoran nationals through late 2013, shielding them from deportation and forcible return to their home country.

By Byron Tau and Joshua Gerstein, Politico, January 10, 2012

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/01/admin-extends-salvadoran-deportation-freeze-110304.html

Colorado Senator Michael Bennet introduces bill to give skilled immigrant students a pathway to legal status

In the News - Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Undocumented students who graduate high school and enroll in college in a science, technology or math program would be eligible for temporary student visas in an immigration overhaul bill introduced today by Sen. Michael Bennet.

Bennet, a Democrat and former Denver schools chief, said his proposed bill would also make it easier for students who graduate with advanced degrees in science or math to stay and work in the United States — particularly if there is a need for them.

By Allison Sherry -- The Denver Post

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_19537105

No, Obama can’t grant ‘amnesty’ by pardoning illegal immigrants

In the News - Tuesday, December 6, 2011

In reality, the president does not possess this authority, as unauthorized presence in the U.S. is a civil violation, not a criminal one. Presidential pardon power only applies to federal crimes, described as “offenses against the United States” in the Constitution. As such, “a pardon can’t make someone a citizen or lawful resident,” explains John Harrison, a law professor at the University of Virginia. “Deportation is not a criminal proceeding, it’s a civil process that removes from the country someone who is not entitled to be here.”

By Suzy Khimm -- Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/no-obama-cant-grant-amnesty-by-pardoning-illegal-immigrants/2011/12/06/gIQA5S53ZO_blog.html

Congressional Testimony

Jordan Commission's Full Report to Congress

Congressional Testimony - Monday, September 1, 1997

U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, September 1997

Download Publication

Jordan Commission -- Executive Summary on Legal Immigration

Congressional Testimony - Friday, September 1, 1995

U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, 1995

Download Publication

Jordan Commission -- Executive Summary on Illegal Immigration

Congressional Testimony - Thursday, September 1, 1994

U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, 1994

Download Publication