Zoe Lofgren: “There is legal authority for the President's immigration actions derived, in part, from his constitutional duty to take…”

“There is legal authority for the President's immigration actions derived, in part, from his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. In Heckler v. Chaney, the Supreme Court explained this duty does not require the President to act against every technical violation of the law. The Court said: ``An agency's decision not to prosecute or enforce, whether through civil or criminal process, is a decision generally committed to the agency's absolute discretion.'' Two years ago, the Supreme Court, in Arizona v. United States, struck down most of Arizona's S.B. 1070 law. The Court said then the broad discretion exercised by Federal immigration officials extends to ``whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all.'' The Court said discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns and can turn on factors, including whether the alien has children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service. When we created the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, we charged the Secretary with the duty to establish national immigration enforcement policies and priorities. That is at 6 U.S. Code 202. {time} 1245 Congress delegated that authority to the executive branch, and they are now using this authority. We enacted a law that permits the issuance of employment authorization. They are now implementing that part of the law.…”