Zoe Lofgren: “A lot of discussion has been that, somehow, the President has acted unconstitutionally or unlawfully. Nothing could be…”

“A lot of discussion has been that, somehow, the President has acted unconstitutionally or unlawfully. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is ample legal authority for what the President has done. Prosecutorial discretion is a long-established practice in every area of the law, both civil and criminal. When a law enforcement agency has only enough resources to go after a fraction of the individuals who it suspects of violating the relevant law, it has to make choices. There is no alternative. In the case of immigration, not only do we recognize this, Congress has specifically directed the head of the Department to set priorities, enforcement priorities, for removal. Now, in addition to that, the Supreme Court has recognized in many cases the need--and really the authority of the executive--to make these decisions. In the Arizona case, it said Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all. Our own Congressional Research Service has found that no court appears to have invalidated a policy of nonenforcement founded upon prosecutorial discretion on the grounds that the policy violated the take care clause. Deferred action is nothing more than a tentative revocable signal to a noncitizen that the government does not intend to initiate removal proceedings at this time. Not only is that tentative, but the statute at U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(ii) authorizes the period of stay by the Department in such cases.…”