Essay 4: Argument Background: In 2014, President Barack Obama signed 12 executive orders directing various agencies in the departments of State, Justice, and Homeland Security to refrain from deporting some 4 million adult immigrants illegally present in the United States if they are the parents of children born here or legally present here, and if they hold a job, obtain a high-school diploma or its equivalent, pay taxes, and stay out of prison. However, for the president Congress had rejected the conditions he established for avoiding deportation. In response to the executive orders, 26 states and the House of Representatives sued the president and the recipients of the orders, seeking to prevent them from being enforced. The States and the House argued that the president effectively rewrote the immigration laws and changed the standards for the deportation of unlawfully present adult immigrants. The states also argued that because federal law requires them to offer the same safety net of social services for those illegally present as they do for those lawfully present, the financial burden that the enforcement of those orders would put upon them would be far beyond their budgetary limits. Moreover, they argued, enforcement of the president’s orders would effectively constitute a presidential command to the states to spend their own tax dollars against their wishes, and the president lacks the power to do that. In reply, the president argued that the literal enforcement of the law creates an impossible conundrum for him. He does not want to deport the parents of American children, as that destroys families and impairs the welfare of children, and he cannot deport children who were born here, as they are American citizens. The case was filed in Texas, where a federal district court judge agreed with the states and signed an order that prohibited the feds from enforcing the president’s orders, pending a full trial. The feds appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans upheld the injunction against the president. In so doing, it agreed with the states that the financial burden on them that would come from the enforcement of these executive orders would be unconstitutional. It also agreed with the House of Representatives that the president exceeded his authority under the Constitution and effectively rewrote the laws. In early April 2016, the Supreme Court heard the feds’ appeal. Because the seat formerly occupied by the late Justice Antonin Scalia for 30 years is still vacant, the court has just eight justices -- for the most part, four conservatives and four liberals. A tie vote in the court, which appears likely in this case, will not set any precedent, but it will retain the injunction against the president. Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, says that the most recent time this happened was 1952, when the court enjoined President Harry Truman from seizing steel mills during ...

1. Essay 4: Argument
Background:
In 2014, President Barack Obama signed 12 executive orders
directing various agencies in the departments of State, Justice,
and Homeland Security to refrain from deporting some 4 million
adult immigrants illegally present in the United States if they
are the parents of children born here or legally present here, and
if they hold a job, obtain a high-school diploma or its
equivalent, pay taxes, and stay out of prison. However, for the
president Congress had rejected the conditions he established
for avoiding deportation. In response to the executive orders, 26
states and the House of Representatives sued the president and
the recipients of the orders, seeking to prevent them from being
enforced. The States and the House argued that the president
effectively rewrote the immigration laws and changed the
standards for the deportation of unlawfully present adult
immigrants.
The states also argued that because federal law requires them to
offer the same safety net of social services for those illegally
present as they do for those lawfully present, the financial
burden that the enforcement of those orders would put upon
them would be far beyond their budgetary limits. Moreover,
they argued, enforcement of the president’s orders would
effectively constitute a presidential command to the states to
spend their own tax dollars against their wishes, and the
president lacks the power to do that. In reply, the president
argued that the literal enforcement of the law creates an
impossible conundrum for him. He does not want to deport the
parents of American children, as that destroys families and
impairs the welfare of children, and he cannot deport children
who were born here, as they are American citizens. The case
was filed in Texas, where a federal district court judge agreed
with the states and signed an order that prohibited the feds from

2. enforcing the president’s orders, pending a full trial. The feds
appealed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans
upheld the injunction against the president. In so doing, it
agreed with the states that the financial burden on them that
would come from the enforcement of these executive orders
would be unconstitutional. It also agreed with the House of
Representatives that the president exceeded his authority under
the Constitution and effectively rewrote the laws. In early April
2016, the Supreme Court heard the feds’ appeal. Because the
seat formerly occupied by the late Justice Antonin Scalia for 30
years is still vacant, the court has just eight justices -- for the
most part, four conservatives and four liberals. A tie vote in the
court, which appears likely in this case, will not set any
precedent, but it will retain the injunction against the president.
Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of
New Jersey, says that the most recent time this happened was
1952, when the court enjoined President Harry Truman from
seizing steel mills during the Korean conflict. Though the issue
here is immigration, the constitutional values underlying the
case are more far-reaching. Since the era of Woodrow Wilson --
accelerated under Franklin D. Roosevelt, enhanced under
Lyndon B. Johnson and brought over the top under George W.
Bush -- Congress has ceded some of its powers to the president.
It has enabled him to borrow unlimited amounts of money and
to spend as he sees fit. It has looked the other way when
presidents have started wars, arrested Americans without charge
or trial and even killed Americans. Can Congress voluntarily
give some of its powers to the president, either by legislation or
by impotent acquiescence when the president takes them? In a
word, no. The purpose of the division of powers -- Congress
writes the laws, the president enforces the laws and the courts
interpret them and decide what they mean -- is to preserve
personal liberty by preventing the accumulation of too much
power in one branch of government.
The 26 states and the House told the Supreme Court that the

3. president is enforcing the laws not as Congress wrote them but
as he wishes them to have been written, because he actually
directed officials of the executive branch to enforce the versions
of the laws that he rewrote instead of the laws on the books.
That arguably violates his oath of office, in which he agreed
that he would “faithfully” enforce all federal laws. We know
from his notes that James Madison, when he drafted the
presidential oath, insisted that the word “faithfully” be inserted
so as to impress upon presidents their obligation to enforce laws
even if they disagree with them. During oral argument in the
court, there was a bizarre exchange over terminology that the
president used in his orders. In a weird series of questions,
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. asked whether the president's
executive orders could be salvaged constitutionally by excising
or changing a few words. This was improper because it treated
an executive order as if it were a statute. It is not the job of the
court to find ways to salvage executive orders, as it is to
salvage statutes, because the Constitution has given "all
legislative Powers" to Congress and none to the president.
Statutes are presumed to be constitutional. Executive orders that
contradict statutes are presumed to be unconstitutional, and the
court has no business trying to save them. All presidents from
time to time have exercised discretion upon individuals when it
comes to enforcing laws that pose hardships. But none has done
so for 4 million people, and none has written substitute laws of
his own making. Until now.
Prompt:
For this assignment, write three-page essay in which you
present both side of the current immigration debate and then
present a compromise. Use the Gun Control sample (on BB) as
your guideline. As part of the pre-writing stage, develop three
columns; column 1: For Obama’s executive order; column 2:
Against Obama’s executive order; column 3: your compromise.
Under each column, list the claim, the reasons, the evidence,
and the objections (refutation). You need to cite at least three
journal articles and two books.

4. Issue: president Obama's immigration executive order .
First paragraph is introduction include three points:
1- opining statement (topic) what essay about ? how want to
explain that 1-2 sentences
Ex. On (data) president Obama's issued an executive order to
provide temporary protect from deportation of 3-4 million
illegal people present in the U.S who are the parents of
children born in the U.S.
2-Background info (from prompt) 5-8 sentence (why the issue
requires discussing)
Ex. 1(data-year) president Regan issue an amnesty in which in
providen legalization ….)
Value) 3- thesis statement (how) I agree (claim
Ex. I agree with president ……separating families based on
immigration status is both wrong and against the fundamental
American values
Second paragraph
Explain your reason . include 2-3 sentences from article
In this formal full name of author, author expertise, source,
author tag, book(title) or "Article" (date), he writes or he
argues" ……………….."(pg#).
Third paragraph
What are you evidences? Use appeal for the Evidence. include
2-3 sentences from article
Four paragraph
Objections for other side
Ex. The opponents of president executive order.
Finally, conclusion.