parents of americans which was expanded to the deferred action or childhood arrival. a lower court but those programs on hold in february last year. first the courthouse whether or not they've been harmed in some way by the president planned before deciding deciding on the merits of the case. the states argue they'll have to spend our money and public services to undocumented parents are about to stay in the country. texas says it would be the most burdened because it would have to issue a substantial number of new drivers licenses. that is a benefit partly subsidized in texas. the administration argues the costs are self generated. [chanting] [chanting] [chanting] [cheers and applause] [chanting] [chanting] [chanting] [chanting] [chanting] [inaudible conversations] [chanting] [inaudible conversations] [chanting] [inaudible conversations] [chanting] [chanting] [chanting] [inaudible conversations] [chanting] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [chanting] [chanting] [chanting] [chanting] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> taking a look here, and a shot at the u.s. capitol at the u. s. n. here the supreme court which is right across the street and my people demonstrating outside the supreme court today hearing oral arguments in united states v. texas. the case challenging president obama's executive actions on immigration that would shield 5 million illegal immigrants from deportation and allow them to work here 26 states have sued and lost the president executive action. outside the court we see groups supporting those actions as well as those that appear to be in favor of waiting for the next president to nominate and that justice to replace antonin scalia on the bench. the court agreed to hear the major immigration case in january. justice khalil died in february which leads a 4-for death like possible. that would mean lower court ruling would block the president's immigration executive actions. we've seen times two groups. the acronyms of the deferred action for parents of americans in the deferred action for childhood arrival. those are the president's plan and i want to allow unauthorized immigrants who are parents of citizens or lawful residents to avoid deportation and can't work legally. a lower court but those programs in february of last year. watching the live coverage on c-span camera crews outside the u.s. supreme court. [chanting] [chanting] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [cheers and applause] >> we are asking for the supreme court to make this decision. [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [chanting] [chanting] >> people demonstrating outside the u.s. supreme court today hearing oral argument in the united states versus texas good a case challenging president obama's executive actions on immigration would shield nearly 5 million illegal immigrant from deportation and allow them to work legally in the united states. 26 states are involved in this lawsuit and they've so far blocked the president executive action. the oral arguments scheduled to start almost an hour ago at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. usually oral argument is one hour. in this case, chief justice allowed for an hour and a half with major cases like this one to allow people who are arguing more time. we expect this to be wrapping up perhaps at 1130 eastern time and we could hear remarks from those in type the court as they come out onto the plaza and steps of the u.s. capitol. bring a live coverage from outside the u.s. supreme court on c-span2. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> keep their families together. what did you do today? [chanting] [inaudible conversations] [chanting] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [cheers and applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [chanting] [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] [chanting] [cheers and applause] [applause] [chanting] >> in a look here at the demonstration. the signs outside the u.s. supreme court hearing oral argument in the united states versus texas. texas being one of 26 states sue to block the president executive actions on immigration. .. watching live coverage from c-span's camera crews just outside the u.s. supreme court. also argued before the court today, representative for republican lawmakers in the u.s. house after the house filed an amicus brief to the court, an unprecedented move by the u.s. house supporting the states in this case. the president plans to a unauthorized immigrants who are parents of citizens or lawful residents to apply for program called dapa. the supreme court has to decide if the states in this case for stating whether or not they have been harmed in some way by the president's plan before deciding on the merit of the united states v. texas. [chanting] [inaudible conversations] [background sounds] [inaudible conversations] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [speaking spanish] >> no paper, no fears. [speaking spanish] [background sounds] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [speaking spanish] >> no papers. >> no fears. >> no papers. >> no fears. [inaudible conversations] >> the supreme court hearing oral argument today in united states v. texas. as the "new york times" reports is a major challenge to present obama's plan to shield millions of immigrants from deportation and allow them to work. this is this invite outside the supreme court. as you saw some shots of the court itself in the plaza outside the court kept clear but then these protesters gathered just outside those steps. along the street that divides the u.s. supreme court from the u.s. capitol building. this case united states v. texas was brought by 26 states. when attending texas. the court agreed to hear this case but in the absence of justice scalia who died in february means a deadlock is now a possibility. the president's plan on immigration would allow more than a 4 million unauthorized immigrants who are parents of citizens or lawful permanent residents to apply for a program to avoid deportation and allow them to work. the state involved say the obama administration should have provided notice and gotten their input before announcing this plan that congress did not authorize it and present obama has violated the constitutional responsibility to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. the administradministr ation says the constitution and the immigration laws give the president great discretion in deciding who did deport and that by default illegal immigrants have been working and getting benefits anyway. administration argues texas and other states lacked standing because they have not been injured by the president plan. if there is a trend for deadlock, the lower court's ruling would stand which means those plans of the obama administration would be blocked. [chanting] [speaking spanish] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [cheers and applause] where are you from, pedro? argue mexican? -- are you mexican? [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [background sounds] [background sounds] [background sounds] speaking people demonstrating outside u.s. supreme court today which is hearing for arguments in united states v. texas, case challenging president obama's executive action that would shield nearly 5 million illegal immigrants from deportation and allow them to work legally in the united states. it involves 26 states that have sued to block the president's executive action. the oral argument discounts to start at 10 a.m. eastern. usually because one hour but in this case chief justice john roberts allowed for an hour and a half which is happy with other major cases like this would do about those who are arguing more time. about 10 minutes left in oral argument today and we may see some of the litigants come out onto the steps of the supreme court and speak. we are not quite sure so we are going to stay here and watch all of the people outside the supreme court and see if anyone does come to speak on the case that is being argued inside united states v. texas. [background sounds] [background sounds] [background sounds] [background sounds] [background sounds] [background sounds] [chanting] [chanting] [chanting] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪. .. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [cheering] and although conversations the land of the free end of the home of the brave not the helm of the free air the land of the slaves. not the land of the greedy. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [applause] anybody need a microphone check? some of the protests outside of the supreme court. the oral arguments should be wrapping up about this time. the united states versus texas challenging president obama's executive actions that would prevent nearly 5 million people, illegal immigrants from deportation and allow them to work in the united states. the case involves 26 states that have sued to block the president executive action. the argument started an hour and a half ago or was scheduled to and we could be seeing some of the litigants come out of the supreme court and if they do we hope they will be speaking to the crowd. we are going to try to get those reactions if there are any. chief justice john roberts allowed for the case to go 30 minutes longer then most cases for major cases like this one. some extra time for the people to make their arguments. arguing on behalf of the obama administration today was the solicitor general, thomas saint had 15 minutes he's with the mexican american legal defense and education fund and the texas solicitor general argued on behalf of the state for 30 minutes followed by erin murphy a lawyer for the u.s. house of representatives which is unusual. the u.s. house and the republicanrepublicans in the hod to file an amicus brief with the court and they are involved in the case. we will keep you updated as we watch some of the sights and sounds outside of the supreme court. >> [chanting] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [applause] [chanting] [chanting] [inaudible conversations] it's incredibly real littl litte league because my family wouldn't be together but the violence and conflic in the cone my parents are from. may of last year we received the news that my beloved cousin was murdered in mexico. [inaudible conversations] [chanting] [chanting "up up with liberation down down with deportation"] [inaudible conversations] that is all that my sisters have ever known. [inaudible conversations] [chanting] [chanting] brothers and sisters! millions of families are devastated [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [chanting] everywhere we go people want to know who we are, so we told them! a demonstration outside th of te u.s. supreme court today hearing oral arguments united states versus texas a state involving -- a case involving 26 states challenging president obama's executive actions on immigration that would allow nearly 5 million people to avoid deportation and allow them to work in the united states. oral arguments probabloral argug up about this time. we may hear from the people inside have been arguing the case. there's an opinion piece in national review saying president obama broke the law with his executive action and senator leahy writes most moms and dads in america don't teach their children to follow the rules even when they are inconvenient but when they look to the nation's capital they see a different case, one that rewards politicians and bureaucrats that realize the rules. >> we did well because the american people support this pathway. today, clearly they have no argument. the fact is millions of people live in the united states in the shadows into the drive. they should drive with drivers licenses and with insurance. the fact is millions of people in the united states work. they should work and pay taxes to the federal government and work so they don't undermine american workers that are immigrants to this country. it just seems to me the law is on the site of the people. the president of the united states has taken action. they were established in the court that ronald reagan took, that george bush took. the only difference today and it was barack obama who took those issues and we believe the court is going to simply say lock every time a state doesn't like what the federal, what the administration does or what the legislature does, you can't go in the court and sue. what the president did was lawful within the united states. the congress of the united states passed legislation outlawing the president to take the very actions that are being considered today. so i will say to everybody that i'm looking forward, i'm very optimistic that next june we are going to rule and there will be 4 million people signing up not only for drivers licenses but to be able to protect their families. >> i thought the argument this morning was [inaudible] i'm the ranking member on the immigrants city in the house of representatives. i thought the arguments were very encouraging. i think justice breyer nailed it when he pointed out this is a political dispute between texas and the president. texas is allowed to precede every time the state disagrees with the president they are going to file a lawsuit. this isn't something that should even be before the court, number one. number two it was made abundantly clear that the ability of the president to run deferred action that is a long-standinofflong-standing ane statutes and regulations to deny that at this point would be extraordinary torture so i'm very optimistic the court will find it likely there was no protection to proceed but if texas is allowed t to proceed tn what the president did was anti-yearly lawful. >> i believe, i've been listening to the arguments and that many of the justices questions exposed the political theater that is going on here. the reality is on the standing question that dominated a great deal of time of the justices. there is no question that for 60 years from president eisenhower to the present, presidents have used executive actions on immigration time and time again and the fact of the matter is we see a set of circumstances in the argument that a potential costs to the state of texas or other states that are situated would open the floodgates in which any action in the administration or any action of congress that have a cost upon the state would then create a flood of lawsuits so i don't believe them and i think the justices while come to the conclusion texas and the other states do not have standing on a question that is immigration law in the description of the use of the decision whether or not to deport someone and second the other thing i thought i heard was congress failed to act if in fact it wanted to limit the discussion it could do so by the did not end for various decades now that discretion has existed. i hope the justices will come to the conclusion that the questions brought up in the first place, no standin standin, congress decided on this issue and states across the country at the end of the day simply because there is a cost and if that is the case we would be on the pathway to get millions of people in opportunity to pass some form of status while we figure out in congress with our natural -- national immigration law should be a. >> good morning. good afternoon. i will open it up and then i will pass it on. good afternoon. i am the executive director of national immigration law center. this morning the communities and families walked into the supreme court. we are on the right side of history. it's of our familie about famill prevail. the futures are directly impacted by the justices decision and they sat there patiently hearing each of the arguments and we want to hear from them directly. they are from los angeles and they traveled here because their mother is eligible. i am 6-years-old and i'm an american citizen. we are united by a single mission. [inaudible] help us for immigration for all. >> good job i am 6-years-old and i am an american citizen and we are united by a single mission. we want the same rights for all. help us with immigration reform for all. i have the right to live with my parents and the right to be happy. give me the opportunity to achieve my goals had the opportunity to stay with my parents. children have dreams like me. i have faith that you -- thank you for listening to the voice of law. [inaudible] >> are giving counsel will now be speaking. the state of texas solicitor general and the attorney general will now give their comments. [inaudible conversations] sipping telegraphesitting to thy briefly, attorney general and the state solicitor general scott keller. here is general paxton. thank you all for being here today. i want to thank governor abbott for starting this and also my fellow attorney general who's here today from the state as part of the case and specifically the council from oklahoma and luther for being a part of this. it is an amazing opportunity for us. our efforts to stop the plan go back to a fundamental principle that one person doesn't have the authority to change the law. today the solicitor general argued the case strongly for the rule of law. if we allow a president whether it is this president or future president, no matter their political persuasion or party to make changes in the law without congressional approval, then we will end up with a perverted constitution. so today is a strong day for the constitution defending the rule of law and we are grateful for that opportunity and happy to answer any questions, scott keller or me. >> [inaudible] we are here defending the constitution and so whether we have people out here or not isn't relevant to. any other questions? [inaudible] i'm encouraged today. i feel like the justices will support the constitution which requires the law to be faithfully executed by the president and he doesn't have the authority to make law. we had questions from almost all of the justices. spinnaker that the questions about the lawfulness [inaudible] they keep asking why not challenge? the judge kept asking you about the challenge of the lawfulness. it's always been about the separation of powers. and what does this transforms the conduct and i think if the president has the power to do that, that should trouble every american because we have the separation to protect our liberties and that's what it is about. i would like to read a quote. there is a monument from robert taft and it's as if we wish to make democracy permanent in the country let us abide by the fundamental principle laid out by the constitution. that is why we are here today. [inaudible] >> i don't have a crystal ball. i don't the justice is going to do. but we feel confident. >> any other questions? thank you all very much. >> next you will hear from the arguing counsel who represents three undocumented women granted litigation. jane doe one, two and three commanded the general counsel of the mexican american legal defense and educational fund which represents the three jane does in this litigation. they were granted oral argument time by the u.s. supreme court. and she will share his remarks and perspectives with you after concluding his oral argument. thank you. >> good morning. i'm the president and general counsel and the represents the jane doe intervener that you heard. we were granted argument time this morning and joined the solicitor general in defending the president's exercise of the constitutional prerogative that has been exercised by his many predecessors over the last 50 years to set the priority in immigration enforcement. his guidance issued in november 2014 was simply an exercise of the long-standing authority. the justices this morning seemed very concerned in the questioning about whether the state of texas had the right to even be in court to challenge the exercise. other questions also reflected confusion about the state of texas is challenging in its briefing as it must under the law if the president has the authority through the homeland security to determine how to raise enforcement resources and identify priorities and to determine certain folks will be low priority and will not be removed even though that is a protection that can be invoked at any moment. 90 minutes of argument went fairly quickly because of the many issues involved here all of them revolving around by the state of texas have been decided long ago to provide subsidized drivers licenses and determined to oppose those who received licenses under the deferred action. other questions revolved around whether the president had the authority given that it has been exercised by others and what the state of texas was challenging. the work authorization versus deferred action versus what they seemed to assign to some magical input and language used in the guidance. i'm available to answer any questions. >> what was your sense of the comments? >> it is always hard to determine where a single justice is going to fall that he was very attentive to the questioning much of it surrounding the issue of standing on the part of texas and much of it related to work authorization. whether that relates to the injury the state has set forth and whether there is any basis to challenge the authorization statute enacted by congress if the attorney general now the secretary of homelansecretary oy has the right to determine. any questions? i will answer by saying it was an honor to represent the three jane does come hard-working mothers raising families including united states citizens in south texas who simply wanted the opportunity provided to step forward to seek discretionary relief to protect them from the daily threats they would be removed from their family if they would be detained and deported and we are hopeful come june the president will be able to implement that and provided relief. thank you. i think it is possible the justices could move before june simply the end of june is the outside of when the expectation has come and they will decide all the cases. [inaudible] at this point there is no way to expedite their thinking. they have a little over two months to put it all together. who knows how many. we certainly hope that once a decision comes, the opportunity will lend itself to immediately implement the guidance. [inaudible] well we know them before [inaudible] >> if they decide there is no standing in the debate, that is their decision and the case is over. the district judge has nothing else than to dismiss and it is our hope that they will struggle with the questions before and conclude texas didn't have the kind of concrete interest that is traceable to the guidance that is addressed by the claim to strike down. [inaudible] >> not necessarily. it's a matter of how long they take to make the decision and put it into writing if we expect the supreme court to justify and release it. the real world impact is to be free of the daily fear that they might not come home one day with their children including u.s. citizen children will have their parent or parents put into detention and they will have their parent or parents be separated and then have to make the tough choice do you leave your u.s. citizen children here, the country of their birth and citizenship or take them with you to a country that is not familiar to them. it's the fear that play that fee minds of not just jane doe and others eligible but their children into this provides relief from the daily fear. thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] and again we are outside of the supreme court. united states supreme court just heard from some of the lawmakers and other interested parties were inside the court today hearing oral arguments on the united states versus texas. the court released the audio on friday. we will be playing that entire year argument over on c-span at 8 p.m. eastern time. just want to let you know we heard from democratic lawmakers and here we have one of the people representing the mexican american legal defense and education fund. and we also heard from other interested parties, some of the lawyers arguing on behalf of the state as well both sounded a positive and optimistic about the arguments put forward today. [inaudible] [inaudible] beyond that, work authorization [inaudible] the house judiciary committee where i spent time since 2003. i also serve on the constitution subcommittee. i'vi bought a member of the amendment on the house floor that defunded the memos and also on the amendment to pass the house to defend the administration's defense of the case that has been argued before the supreme court and i think it is very simple. the white house argued they have prosecutorial discretion. you read through their documents and it's clear even from the beginning that created groups or classes of people that would give blanket amnesty under the productive given by the president and then the president went to chicago and sent that he had changed the law. so the separation of power arguments before the court is the confession of the president that he has gone outside the bounds of his article to authority and changed the law. the white house has obviously granted broad sweeping group category amnesty to people under the board memos and again make the argument legitimately that they've played this on an individual basis only so they've already by the evidence in front of them crossed the line on two big issues. they are not exercising prosecutorial discretion and the president cannot change the law. i've concluded and i can take any questions. hearing none. and [inaudible conversations] without the work authorization -- the federal statute declares that the immigration law and if someone is unlawfully present in the united states [inaudible] that is what the law requires a. how does congress write a law [inaudible] we've argued that since barack obama became president. if a law is tight enough with enforcement [inaudible] that is what has happened here. it is an agreement to the law of the land, the constitution, we haven't acted as president. he's not thinking about violating. it's purely political and can he get away with it. he wants to legalize many people to vote for him. this is about millions of undocumented democrats and people on the left. it's about the rule of law. the [inaudible] we will get another one and focus on the policy. [inaudible] of the people vote and elect a president [inaudible] i si said on the judiciary committee in the house [inaudible] i would vote no on the confirmation of every one of them. [inaudible] [inaudible] i don't want to be critical of the arguments presented by texas before the court. [inaudible] i've taken action against every single one in the house of representatives come every single one of them come every board member, dapa, daca [inaudible] the minority in the senate if we had an open and close about we would have had to convince the american people are right and he's wrong. so this isn't hard to understa understand. it's only toomey you can have a justice on the supreme court that has the understanding in the constitution to represent what is said to disable the discussions are part of the constitutional argument. we have heard that today unfold. and to think we could have even still another justice when it comes to the constitutional pressure. [inaudible] how do you predict this case? i understood that the justices ithe justices in theconstitutio. i had a pretty good handle on being able to predict the supreme court and now it is almost impossible to predict because you can't go back to the constitution and i pray we do get back to the constitution and it may take a president who will make more than one. >> thank you all so much. appreciate it. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] we are here today to undermine the reality that president obama's time in office has been marked by disregard for the rule of law. and [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [cheering] [chanting] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [cheering] my name and then back to you, right? [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [cheering] we are no longer invisible. we just want to be part of the american dream! [inaudible conversations] i'm now going to pass the microphone to the leaders. let's give a big round of applause. thank you very much. [cheering] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] dap [inaudible conversations] [applause] [inaudible conversations] they said they could stay here but they should feel the suffering [inaudible] to acknowledge what the congress hasn't given some of yo, but yot giving the president. [inaudible conversations] one of the justices said it was enough money for 4 billion. but the other justice said 400,000 a year in other words to come here to tell the president of the united states melian of them have never seen enough money so isn't it logical and rational to say that those are the lowest priority is, those that are ready what the president said coming and they kept saying it on a case-by-case basis but this is. each individual immigrant must admit their case individually. it isn't like everybody that's been here for five years has committed a crime. no. you have to submit the documents, pay for your background check and once that has gone through if you've been here five years -- then you get a work permit. you can't get a single federal benefit but what you can do is work. you have to pay into social security and you can only get out a the program [inaudible] social security is about to run out of money unless we do what unless they start charging the american people more money or unless you get 11 or 12 million people on the books paying social security but we know that millions of undocumented pay federal income tax but there employer [inaudible] isn't this a way to make it better? if the argument is and they admitted the president has the authority of the argument to be okay let's get a work permit but i am only supplying homeland security for $400 million. [inaudible] [chanting]

Related Keywords

Mexico , New York , United States , Oklahoma , Spain , Texas , Chicago , Illinois , Americans , America , Spanish , Mexican , American , Scott Keller , Jane Doe , Robert Taft , Barack Obama , John Roberts , Ronald Reagan , Los Angeles , Erin Murphy , George Bush ,