Join The Times' book club. This month's selection: "Cadillac Desert"
Opinion Op-Ed

Can Obama unilaterally ban deportations?

Last month in San Francisco, President Obama called on Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform. His speech was novel in many respects: The president used the backdrop of a community center in Chinatown to remind voters that immigrants are racially diverse. Also, for the first time in prepared remarks, the president signaled that he would consider a piecemeal approach to immigration reform long favored by Republican leaders in the House of Representatives.

What got the most attention, however, was an unscripted exchange between Obama and Ju Hong, an undocumented UC Berkeley graduate who interrupted the president, calling on him to use his executive authority to halt all deportations. Hong's outburst refocused the immigration debate on its thorniest element: addressing the problem of more than 11 million unauthorized immigrants in a manner acceptable to both the Senate's Democratic majority and Republican House leaders.

Though Obama might have preferred not to have his speech interrupted, the exchange actually may have helped the prospects for immigration reform in some key respects. First, the dramatic nature of the interruption drew more media attention to the speech — and thus to immigration reform — than it might have received otherwise. It also introduced a large, national audience to the idea of halting most deportations.

YEAR IN REVIEW: Highs and lows from Obama's roller-coaster year

But does the president really have this authority? Possibly, but taking such action would carry significant political and legal risks. Additionally, an executive order would be far more limited than congressional legislation, because future presidents could reverse the decision and unauthorized immigrants would still not qualify for a pathway to citizenship absent congressional approval.

Still, such an executive order provides an intriguing "nuclear option" for the president. He could potentially employ such action to address gaps in any congressional legislation on immigration reform, or he could merely threaten its use to pressure Congress to pass a bill that includes a pathway to citizenship.

The Constitution delegates to the president the power to execute federal laws, including immigration law. Such power includes the discretionary authority over law enforcement, and as part of that authority, executive officials often exercise prosecutorial discretion on a case-by-case basis. Last year, the president used that power to institute the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program, which preemptively shielded a significant number of undocumented youths and young adults from deportation. Many immigrant advocates concluded that, if the president can halt deportations of undocumented youths, he also has the power to halt deportations more generally.

Though the president may be able to extend deferred action to a broader population, he would find it far more difficult to defend a near-cessation of deportation as an exercise of discretion or prioritization. When Obama deferred action last year on those who arrived in the U.S. as children, his administration was still utilizing its enforcement resources to deport about 400,000 people a year who weren't covered by the program. These deportation levels were the same as in recent years and in line with the administration's assessment on the maximum removals possible under its current budget.

Currently, enforcement mandates from Congress call for at least 34,000 beds to be filled in immigration detention facilities at all times, which would make it difficult for the president to expand the reach of deferred action to halt all deportations. Moreover, many would interpret such action as usurping congressional power or as a "backdoor veto" of immigration law.

Congress might not be able to get the Supreme Court to weigh in on the constitutionality of such a move, as the court has traditionally been reluctant to enter disputes between the other two branches of government. But a cessation of most deportations would probably provoke a political crisis between the presidency and Congress, and cause a drop in public approval of the president and the Democratic Party heading into next year's midterm election.

The president could, however, change immigration enforcement priorities in more modest and less politically risky ways. For example, he could defer the deportation of immediate relatives of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals beneficiaries. Enacting or threatening such a move would draw the attention of Congress, but it might not provoke a constitutional crisis. And it could help break the current logjam on immigration legislation, spurring Congress to pass a more durable and comprehensive fix to the problem of unauthorized immigration.

Karthick Ramakrishnan is an associate professor of political science at UC Riverside. Pratheepan Gulasekaram is an associate professor of law at Santa Clara University.

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • Does the E-Verify system have a future?

    Does the E-Verify system have a future?

    Whatever comprehensive immigration reform plan finally emerges from Congress will almost certainly make it more difficult for future immigrants to enter the country illegally — and, if they do, will make it harder for them to stay. One of the likely mechanisms of that is the E-Verify hiring database,...

  • Hey, ICE, let the mothers with children go free

    Hey, ICE, let the mothers with children go free

    As the federal government struggled to handle the illicit flow of mothers and children, and children traveling alone, over the Mexican border last summer, it adopted several strategies, some of which made more sense (like trying to improve conditions in Central America) than others. Among the worst...

  • Could the anti-immigrant loudmouths pass a U.S. citizenship test?

    Could the anti-immigrant loudmouths pass a U.S. citizenship test?

    To listen to talk radio and cable television, which are dominated by conservatives, the national and state debates over immigration give the impression that most legal residents of the state of California oppose immigrant workers here illegally and might even be favorably disposed to Mitt Romney's...

  • Obama, top officials playing fast and loose with the immigrants they are trying to help

    Obama, top officials playing fast and loose with the immigrants they are trying to help

    Last week, Jeh Johnson, head of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, encouraged a packed audience at the L.A. Central Library to step forward and take advantage of the Obama administration's expanded deferred action program, even going so far as to offer his own pen to a woman in the audience...

  • Obama set the immigration trap, and the GOP walked in

    Obama set the immigration trap, and the GOP walked in

    On Monday, a federal judge in Texas blocked President Obama's latest executive actions on immigration. This is a short-term win for Republicans, who rightly believe the president lacked the authority to act unilaterally. But it does nothing to change the underlying political dynamic — Republicans...

  • Immigration debate slowed by another partisan sideshow

    Immigration debate slowed by another partisan sideshow

    A federal judge on Monday halted portions of President Obama's executive actions shielding more than 4 million immigrants in the country illegally from deportation. The administration has pledged to appeal. When it does, the courts should act with all due speed to reinstate the president's policies.

  • End H-1B visa program's abuse

    End H-1B visa program's abuse

    Information technology workers at Southern California Edison have found themselves in the unhappy position of training their own replacements, thanks to a plan by the utility to outsource their jobs to two India-based staffing companies.

  • Another outdated U.S. policy toward Cuba: immigration

    Under a policy forged in the crucible of the Cold War, the U.S. government treats Cubans fleeing their country differently than it does all other immigrants. Essentially, the policy is: If you can get here, you can stay. But the world has changed since the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 took effect,...