The Obama Administration has undertaken sweeping changes to the current immigration system in the United States. The biggest impact is expected to come from the proposed program allowing approximately 4-5 million of the estimated 11.4 million people in the country illegally to come forward, pay a fee and submit to a background check in exchange for a work permit and a temporary reprieve from deportation. The group of five million will include the parents of lawful permanent residents and U.S. citizens who will be able to apply for temporary relief from deportation and a work permit if they have lived in the country for more than five years
(Deferred Action for Parents of Americans). This new initiative will also operate as an expansion of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which was created by President Obama in 2012.  Since that time, the program has been successful in granting work permits to more than 680,000 people who were brought to the country illegally as children. The program will be expanded to include any children who were brought to this country illegally before January 1, 2010. Previously, the president had deferred the deportation of those born after 1981 that had entered the country before June 15, 2007. Those who are approved for deferred action are protected from being expelled from the United States for three years, and the deferrals can be renewed. Neither of those two groups will be given a green card. Both of them will be able to get a Social Security card, but they will not be eligible for Social Security benefits.

Mr. Obama’s actions are also expected to provide other sweeping changes including expanding opportunities for legal immigrants who have high-tech skills making it easier for them to stay in this country. The plan also includes shifting extra security resources to the nation’s southern border, ending a controversial immigration enforcement program called Secure Communities. These changes reflect a systemic and practical shift in policy where the focus becomes upon protecting individuals embedded in their chosen communities with strong family ties.

A new memorandum is also expected to be issued directing this policy shift in making the enforcement of immigration more realistic, humane and in the best interests of this country.  Border agents and immigration judges should focus our limited resources on deportations for convicted criminals, foreigners who pose national security risks and recent border crossers.

In addition to all of these proposed changes, it should not be lost that President Obama’s ultimate goal is to place political pressure on Republicans to support a legislative bill that completely overhauls the current immigration system and places the 11.4 million illegal immigrants in this country on the path to legal status and citizenship. President Obama’s executive action could be the first step in a truly dramatic change in the future of United States immigration policy.

However, rather than force Republicans to the table to discuss immigration, President Obama’s executive action has instead lead Republicans to decry his actions as unconstitutional. A legal challenge by twenty six states followed. In February, a federal district judge in Texas angrily ordered an indefinite halt to the president’s plan. The judge, Andrew S. Hanen, in Brownsville, Tex., said President Obama had abused his power and violated administrative procedures. As a result Judge Hanen granted an injunction against the Obama’s administration implementation of the executive action.

In response, the Obama administration requested the United States Court of Appeals 5^th Circuit to lift the lower-court ruling blocking the government from implementing the president’s executive actions to shield undocumented immigrants from deportation and to grant them work permits. The argument by the 26 states is that the Obama administration violated Administrative Procedure Act by issuing a rule change without following administrative law which requires all new regulatory policies by federal agencies be promulgated with advance notice and the opportunity for comment by the public and interested parties and that the burden of the costs of implementing the plan namely in providing driver’s licenses, health care and education to these individuals. The Justice Department countered that the benefits of work permits providing tax revenue from a source which would otherwise not pay taxes far exceeds any possible cost in implementation. The Justice Department also argued this is not a rule change but rather an example of prosecutorial discretion so it would be unreviewable under the APA.

If the Justice Department and Obama administration fail to prevail in the 5^th Circuit to lift the preliminary injunction, the next step will be a formal appeal of the federal court in Texas. A major concern is that Obama will have exited office by the time the appeals process is finished. As such, this attempt to reform immigration will subject to the proclivities of a new administration.