With Congress divided over comprehensive immigration reform, federal and subfederal actors have stepped into the breach. In and , in an effort to counter congressional paralysis, President Barack Obama extended deferred action to millions of undocumented noncitizen children and their parents. In doing so, he reignited debates about the constitutional boundaries of executive power.
Among other things, these debates have highlighted the ephemerality of executive directives, raising questions as to whether beneficiaries of deferred action will be stripped of its entitlements once the Obama Administration cedes office.
It argues that by entrenching integrationist policies at the subfederal level, state and local actors can legitimize and ultimately constitutionalize deferred action and the benefits available to immigrants thereunder. In doing so, it demonstrates the fallacy of federal exclusivity in the regulation of noncitizens and documents an ongoing reallocation of constitutional immigration authority to state and local actors.
United States, S. Close The purpose and tenor of subfederal immigration law vary by locality. United States, 86 F. See generally Kris W. Close Yet state action tells only half the story behind the current immigration landscape. While states legislated, President Barack Obama muscularly deployed executive power to reorient national immigration policy. Winkowski, Acting Dir. The Administration also extended the period of deferred removal from two years to three.
See Texas , 86 F. See Texas v. United States, No. The Obama Administration has sought Supreme Court review. Times Nov. See Jeffrey S. Of those, approximately 5. See supra text accompanying notes 5β7.
