On Wednesday, Mexican presidential hopeful Andrés Manuel López Obrador submitted a petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) accusing President Donald Trump of persecuting migrants. The petition could indicate a swelling international resistance to Trump.

In a press conference at the National Press Club, López Obrador and his team announced that the petition challenged Trump’s anti-immigration executive orders. While the petition lists 30 specific cases involving Mexican and Guatemalan citizens, López Obrador’s team claimed to be acting on behalf of immigrants around the world.

Signed by over 12,000 Mexican and American citizens, the petition will be placed under initial review. If the IACHR allows it proceed, the case could go before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. However, even if the court denounces the U.S., such a ruling would have little, if any, effect.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are components of the Organization of American States, and collectively uphold the American Convention on Human Rights. While the U.S. signed the convention in 1977, it did not ratify it. Therefore, the U.S. is under no legal obligation to accept rulings issued by the Inter-American Court. Furthermore, Trump has regularly expressed his contempt for international organizations and would most certainly dismiss any ruling that denounced his policies.

It is unlikely that López Obrador submitted the petition with the intention of mounting a genuine legal challenge. He will be well aware that U.S. is not beholden to IACHR rulings. However, by submitting the petition, the left-wing politician has cast himself as a determined political opponent of Trump. Though candidates for the Mexican presidential race are not expected to file until the summer, López Obrador has been working to drum up early support and currently leads opinion polls.

While the extremely unpopular Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto received an outpouring of support  after he canceled a meeting with Trump, his approval rating has since dropped to a record low. López Obrador is promising a platform that stands to the left of the president’s Institutional Revolutionary Party.

Speaking at the National Press Club, López Obrador said he was “disappointed” with how Peña Nieto handled early conversations with Trump. He accused the Mexican president of “submitting” to the U.S. by agreeing to avoid publicly discussing Trump’s proposed border wall and immigration policies. López Obrador declared that Mexico “is not a colony” and that the two countries “need a relationship based on respect not force.”

Riding the same wave of anti-establishment sentiment that propelled Trump to the White House, López Obrador is a refreshing alternative to many who are tired of the status quo. Though largely symbolic, López Obrador’s petition sends a clear statement of intent to both those in Mexico and those in the U.S.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mexican Presidential Hopeful López Obrador Accuses Trump of Human Rights Violations appeared first on Law Street.

This post is part of Law Street’s continuing analysis of the recent Supreme Court rulings. To read the rest of the coverage click here.

Immigration: United States v. Texas

The decision: With the court in a 4-4 split, the decision of the Fifth Circuit is upheld, blocking president Obama’s executive action on immigration, namely DAPA and the expansion of DACA.

So what are DACA/DAPA?

DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) is an initiative launched in 2012 as an act of prosecutorial discretion by president Obama. The order allows undocumented immigrants who move to the United States before the age of 16 to seek temporary relief from deportation given they meet criteria for age, arrival time, criminal record, and schooling.

The expansion of DACA (or DACA+) was authorized by President Obama in 2014 that eliminates certain arrival timeline requirements, the age ceiling, and extends relief period from two years to three years.

DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans) is also an initiative launched in 2014 that would allow parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents to seek temporary relief from deportation and apply for work permits.

These executive actions were intended to allow deportation officials to focus on illegal immigrants who engage in criminal behavior and thus threaten public safety, while allowing other immigrants who do not have legal status but have vested interests in the United States (for example, if they spent their childhood here or  have a child who is a citizen) to stay for a temporary period.

How did the lawsuit begin?

The lawsuit came to fruition when 26 states sued the federal government claiming that DAPA/DACA+ violated the Administrative Procedure Act by not allowing a notice-and-comment period during rulemaking.

When the states took the case to district court in February 2015, Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued a preliminary injunction, prohibiting further action on DAPA/DACA+ indefinitely. In November 2015, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s order to grant a preliminary injunction. The federal government filed a petition for certiorari later that month and the Supreme Court decided to take up the case in January. The Supreme Court also decided to consider whether DAPA/DACA+ violated the “Take Care Clause” of the Constitution.

Check out this article to read more about the case’s background.

What does today’s tie mean?

The deadlocked ruling in United States v. Texas affirms Fifth Circuit Court’s decision to block the president’s executive actions. Today’s ruling amounted to just one sentence: “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.” As a result, as many as five million undocumented immigrants will no longer be protected from deportation

Because the court did not actually decide on the case but rather affirmed the affirmation of an indefinite suspension of a program, the future of DAPA/DACA+ is obviously ambiguous. Immigration advocates find it unfair that the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit would be able to determine immigration policy for the whole country. Some also speculate that another group of states will sue in favor of the actions, which could create a split between appellate courts while the Supreme Court remains deadlocked in a tie.

If the decision remains through the 2016 election, the future of DAPA/DACA+ and immigration policy will be decided by the next president or it may require a ninth Supreme Court justice to break the tie.

You can read the (very brief) opinion here.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Split Blocks Obama’s Immigration Actions appeared first on Law Street.

Today, Wayne LaPierre, the CEO and Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association, released a video in which he challenged President Barack Obama to a debate. This comes on the heels of executive orders released by Obama in which the president expanded background checks, emphasized that anyone who sells guns needs a license, and called for a beefing of up gun law enforcements, among other facets. After releasing information about the executive order, Obama participated in a town hall on guns with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, and criticized the NRA for not attending, saying: “And by the way, there’s a reason why the NRA is not here. They’re just down the street. And since this is the main reason they exist, you’d think they’d be prepared to have a debate with…a president.” Today’s video from LaPierre appears to be in response to both that comment and the executive orders; watch it for yourself:

In the video, LaPierre invites Obama to join him in a one-on-one, one-hour debate, with a moderator that they have both agreed upon, and without any “pre-screened questions”–the NRA alleges that CNN only offered them pre-screened questions for the town hall with Obama, and that’s why it chose not to participate.

I get that Obama basically invited a debate with LaPierre when he called the NRA out for not attending the CNN town hall, but I don’t think he should take LaPierre up on this offer, and here’s why: the NRA does not deserve that kind of respect, particularly not after this video.

The NRA has relatively high levels of support, that’s for sure. In a Gallup poll conducted in October 2015, the NRA was viewed as favorable by 58 percent of Americans. The NRA sees particularly high favorability among gun owners, with 78 percent viewing the NRA favorably. While it’s unclear how high gun ownership is in the United States–a recent National Opinion Research Center (NORC) poll puts the percentage of American households that have a gun at 31 percent–it’s clear that guns are, for many, a part of daily American life.

Yet despite the fact that the NRA has relatively high levels of support, so do the kinds of actions Obama is advocating for in the executive orders. For example, 85 percent of Americans are in favor of conducting background checks on those buying guns. Another 79 percent want laws that prevent people who are deemed mentally ill from buying guns, and 70 percent want a database that tracks gun sales. The things that Obama is advocating can’t be considered extreme unless you want to say that 85 percent of Americans are extreme–yet the NRA goes so far as to make claims that Obama “wants to destroy the NRA before the election, so that Hillary can destroy the Second Amendment after it.” The NRA is clearly using fear-mongering to rally support.

Part of me would love to see a showdown between LaPierre and Obama. But at the same time, LaPierre should not be given the national platform to have that conversation unless he’s willing to use facts instead of scare tactics–and this video makes me doubt that.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post President Obama Shouldn’t Debate Wayne LaPierre: Here’s Why appeared first on Law Street.

“It is always encouraging to see American citizens focusing on the really important parts of big political events,” she says with heavy sarcasm. During his speech yesterday morning announcing new executive actions on gun control, President Obama outlined several facets of his new initiative to make guns safer and harder to obtain. He also teared up when referencing the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Guess which part conservatives are choosing to focus on.

In case you’ve forgotten, the Sandy Hook shooting, which took place in 2012, ended with 20 elementary students and six staff members dead. Today, President Obama was introduced at the podium by Mark Barden, the father of one of those victims.

But apparently, crying while remembering the elementary school students who were slaughtered at Sandy Hook is a sign of weakness, psychopathy, and fake sadness.

He never once cried over death of vets, babies murdered abortion Obama cries announcing gun control | Daily Mail https://t.co/8mwsmrkWaj

— dawn goodfallow (@dawngpsalm63) January 6, 2016

When Obama cries, he can’t even do that right. pic.twitter.com/6GzZv62ezs — Bart Bartlett (@BartBuzz) January 6, 2016

BREAKING: Obama talks about gun control. pic.twitter.com/UTey5uiRgo

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) January 5, 2016

Near Obama right now… pic.twitter.com/AUKrSx7S7d — jimgeraghty (@jimgeraghty) January 5, 2016

There is just one word to describe this reaction from gun enthusiasts: childish. The speech Obama gave was over 30 minutes long, and trolls like those above and even people in the public eye like Fox News host Andrea Tantaros are focusing on about five seconds, using those seconds to call into question the President’s sincerity and his ability to “contain his emotions.”

Why is showing emotion on the same plane as showing weakness? And why wouldn’t he get choked up at the thought of those children? Would these people complaining about his tears rather have a callous, robotic president who showed no care for anyone? Apparently.

The problem here is that there is nothing in his initiative that violates the Second Amendment. There is nothing that says he’s taking guns away from everyone, and that’s what right wing gun enthusiasts expected. Without that fodder for their Twitter feeds and Facebook timelines, what are they left to complain about? What could they possibly find wrong with the steps outlined in these executive orders? Nothing.

“I believe in the Second Amendment… it guarantees a right to bear arms,” Obama said in his speech. “No matter how many times people try to twist my words around, I taught constitutional law… I get it. But I also believe we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the Second Amendment.”

So, naturally, in the absence of solid, substantial complaints, Obama haters have reverted to childish bullying. Unfortunately, as all bullies must learn, making fun of people does not get you what you want.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Conservatives Don’t Like Gun Control, So They Mock Obama’s Tears appeared first on Law Street.

The millions of undocumented people living in the United States waiting for the “green light” to apply for the deportation protection program presented by President Obama may never get their chance, thanks to a Federal Appeals court decision Tuesday.

The appeals court for the Fifth Circuit opted to deny the Obama Administration’s request to lift a hold on the president’s executive actions on immigration. This court’s decision is a Republican victory for Texas and the 25 other states who collectively filed the lawsuit to prevent the president’s proposed path to citizenship from reaching fruition.

In November, President Obama first announced the executive orders to implement the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Personal Residents (DAPA). The program was designed to be a kind of “legal reprieve” by granting citizenship to undocumented parents of children born in the U.S. and illegal immigrants who have lived in the country permanently for at least five years.

The president also announced expansion plans for the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), a program that permits teenagers and young adults who were born outside of the United States, but raised in the country, to apply for protection from deportation and for employment authorizations. However, both orders were immediately met with Republican resistance questioning the legality of such an action.

In a statement issued by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and quoted by CNN, Paxton praised the ruling calling it a “victory for those committed to preserving the rule of law in America.” Paxton said,

Telling illegal aliens that they are now lawfully present in this country, and awarding them valuable government benefits, is a drastic change in immigration policy. The President’s attempt to do this by himself, without a law passed by Congress and without any input from the states, is a remarkable violation of the U.S Constitution and laws.

The White House issued its own response to these allegations via spokesperson Brandi Hoffine who called the decision a “misrepresentation of the facts and the law.” Hoffine as quoted by USA Today said,

As the powerful dissent from Judge [Stephen] Higginson recognizes, President Obama’s immigration executive actions are fully consistent with the law. The president’s actions were designed to bring greater accountability to our broken immigration system, grow the economy, and keep our communities safe.

…

Fifteen states and the District of Columbia, business leaders, local law enforcement and elected officials, educators, faith leaders, legal scholars, and others have all asked the courts to allow these actions to move forward, given the important economic and public safety benefits.

With bids for the 2016 presidential election already well under way, these programs were meant to be a lasting part of Obama’s presidential legacy, but it’s unclear where their fate may now lay. The White House and Justice Department lawyers are reportedly evaluating the court’s ruling while considering possible next steps. Regardless of which side of the immigration aisle you lean, it’s obvious that this decision does little to fix the nation’s broken system.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama’s Immigration Plan: Does it Have Any Hope of Moving Forward? appeared first on Law Street.