La Opinion (Editorial)
May 22, 2016
Federal judge Andrew S. Hanen did not have enough with blocking the DACA and DAPA executive orders. He has now assigned himself the role of ethics supervisor for the Department of Justice (DOJ) and manager of the personal information of over 100,000 immigrants benefiting from the actions.
The justice determined that DOJ lawyers lied to the court and that they claimed to be respecting Hanen’s suspension of the 2014 executive orders, when, in reality, permission to stay for two to three more years was being extended for youths benefiting from DACA as proposed by Obama’s DACA +.
In cases of false representation, it is normal to annul the government’s argument or to require it to pay the legal fees for the 26 states that filed a lawsuit against the executive orders. Instead, Judge Hanen ordered an onerous and absurd system of ethics courses for DOJ lawyers.
If this is unusual, it is even more so to punish someone who has not commit any faults, like the 100,000 current DACA recipients. Justice Hanen requested the names and addresses of these immigrants, which will not be made public until after the Supreme Court makes a decision regarding Obama’s executive actions.
Threatening with handing this information to the 26 suing states is an act of intimidation against these immigrants, who are seeking to regularize their stay. The argument is also based on an apparent misunderstanding.
The government said that these 100,000 people were processed according to the DACA order from 2012, which does not fall under Hanen’s decision. The DOJ admitted that 2,000 incorrect procedures were carried out, which have been already corrected since.
It is clear that Hanen, a favorite among anti-immigrant conservatives, wants to continue being the protagonist of a case that is now in the hands of the Supreme Court. To do so, he assigned himself the role of ethics guardian overseeing government lawyers and gatekeeper of private information. He illustrates this in a document in which he cites dialogue from the films “Bridge of Spies” and “Miracle on 34th Street” to support his position.
It is normal to quote legal precedents to back an argument in court but not fictional dialogue taken from Hollywood films. This is an example of a very inappropriate and irregular court order, which deserves to be appealed.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com