An immediate reaction that many immigration advocates may have regarding Judge Hanen’s injunction against President Obama’s November immigration executive orders may be that it’s unfair and intentionally obstructive.
However, this is the government’s process. The United States government is based on a system of checks and balances where one branch cannot make decisions without some sort of review.
In this case, the executive branch, headed by President Obama, tried to make a policy in how immigration is handled in the United States and it was challenged by the courts (the judicial branch).
The complaints against the executive orders stated that the administration had overstepped what it was allowed to do, that it’s actions were the responsibility of Congress and that the administration should let Congress make such decisions.
This point will be argued in court very soon. Though many people, including President Obama, believe that there was no overreach at all, it still must be examined to maintain a truly democratic society.
The suit that claimed that the executive orders were too much came from a total of 26 states, which is a majority of states in the Union. Surely, if more than half of the country wants to consider the legitimacy of a policy change, it should be considered.
Another complaint filed against the executive orders was a concern that Texas would suffer undue pressure from the institution of the new policies. Texan driver’s licenses are processed at a loss, so the addition of a large number of new people needing driver’s licenses (specifically recipients of DACA and DAPA) would generate a serious deficit in that state’s budget.
None of these events or complaints spell out the end of the executive orders, but it should be reassuring that the government of the United States is working to ensure that democracy is preserved for all.