One of the campaign issues that likely contributed the most to President Donald J. Trump’s election victory in 2016 was his pledge to fully enforce all immigration laws and to end a program enacted by his predecessor without authority and without congressional approval.

The Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, came into being via an executive order signed by President Barack Obama after he repeatedly claimed during his 2012 reelection bid that he didn’t have the authority, as president, to change immigration statutes.

True to form, Obama wasn’t being honest. So in 2014 he waved his magic presidential pen and granted amnesty to millions of people brought illegally into the United States.

Also true to form, Trump signed an order ending the program in the fall of last year, giving Congress six months to come up with a legislative fix. Congress failed, largely because Democrats who always say they are ‘for immigrants’ refused to cooperate with Republicans.

Not to be deterred by the rule of law, Left-wing groups then took to courts to stop the president from undoing what a previous president never had the authority to do in the first place. 

Fed up, Texas has had enough of the games.

On Tuesday the Lone Start State led a coalition of other states in a lawsuit that directly challenges the legality of DACA, “opening up a new legal front in the increasingly messy battle over illegal immigration,” The Washington Times reports. 

The paper noted further:

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in southern Texas, asks judges to rule against the 2012 program that’s granted tentative legal status to more than 800,000 Dreamers.

Rather than ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, though, the seven-state coalition says it would be open to a two-year phaseout similar to what President Trump tried to do last year. No new DACA permits or renewals would be allowed, but those already approved could serve out the rest of their two-year permits.

“Texas has argued for years that the federal executive branch lacks the power to unilaterally grant unlawfully present aliens lawful presence and work authorization,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said when filing the suit. “Left intact, DACA sets a dangerous precedent by giving the executive branch sweeping authority to ignore the laws enacted by Congress and change our nation’s immigration laws to suit a president’s own policy preferences.”

Paxton threatened to file suit last year unless the Trump White House moved to end the program. At that time, several other states were set to enjoin the suit. At the time he ended the program, the administration said it believed that the lawsuit had a good chance of succeeding.
Then-acting Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke said the White House, faced with legal challenges to the program, “chose the least disruptive option.”

But Congress balked because Democrats essentially punted on a group of people they have long claimed to care about. (Related: White House pushes back against reports that admin considering DACA amnesty in exchange for minor wall funding.)

Texas is joined in its suit by Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, and West Virginia. They argue that unlike federal courts that have blocked Trump from ending the program because he ‘cut too many legal corners’ in doing so, the original Obama executive order actually did that.

The suit will put the president in the position now of choosing whether to defend the policy — one which his own top lawyers have said is unconstitutional and was illegally implemented.

Some legal analysts believe that Left-wing groups supporting DACA will step in to defend the program instead. 

As for Texas, the state has sued over federal immigration policies before. In 2014 it sued the Obama administration after the president proposed expanding his DACA program to include millions more people. The Supreme Court let the appeals court ruling stand, effectively thwarting Mr. Obama’s immigration plans.

Federal courts in the past have ruled that the Obama regime broke procedural rules to implement the program in the first place; oddly, though, none of those courts ordered the implementation of the program to be blocked.

See more news about illegal immigration at InvasionUSA.news.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Sources include:

WashingtonTimes.com

NewsTarget.com