House lawmakers were battling on Thursday morning over House Speaker Paul Ryan's, R-Wisc., resolution against President Barack Obama's immigration executive actions.

Ryan Introduces House Resolution

On March 14, Ryan introduced a House resolution to authorize him to appear in an amicus curiae on behalf of the House of Representatives ahead of the Supreme Court's review of United States, et al. v. Texas, et al. The resolution, H.Res.639, would support the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, who have moved to block the Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) program and the extended guidelines of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). DAPA and DACA's expansion would grant approximately 4.9 million eligible undocumented immigrants temporary protection from deportation.

By early Thursday afternoon, the House voted mostly along party lines to pass the resolution, 234 in favor and 186 against. Seven Republicans and seven Democrats did not vote. Five Republicans did not vote with the rest of the GOP, including Florida Reps. Carlos Curbelo, Mario Diaz-Balart and Illeana Ros-Lehtinen.

According to Ryan, during a House speech on Thursday morning, the resolution would allow the House to go on the record as an institution.

"I recognize that this is a very extraordinary step. I feel that it is very necessary though, in fact, I believe this is vital. This is not a question of whether or not we are for or against any certain policy," said Ryan, adding lawmakers speaking against the resolution were missing the point: "the integrity of our Constitution."

Ryan later said, "The Supreme Court has recognized the severity of this threat. In United States v. Texas, the Court has asked whether the president's overreach violates his duty to faithfully execute the laws. This House is uniquely qualified -- and I would argue, obligated -- to respond."

Resolution Is Political Stunt?

Prior to the vote, during a press call, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., said Ryan and House Republicans "forced" the House to vote on the resolution. Becerra explained the difference between Ryan's amicus brief and the brief he and more than 220 congressional Democrats filed last week, saying the Republican brief injects the House in its official capacity into the litigation.

"It seems that this Republican Congress is completely out of touch with the interests and expectations of the American people and it's time for us to legislate, not litigate," Becerra said.

"What I find is that the Latino community is being used for political purposes," said Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chairwoman Linda Sanchez, D-Calif. "We are being demonized, we are being marginalized and we see a frightening level of hateful rhetoric and vile hate speech aimed at our community and nobody is standing up within the Republican Party to say that this is unacceptable."

Sanchez said she finds it ironic that House Republicans moved forward with the resolution on St. Patrick's Day, a day that has symbolized the contributions of Irish immigrants.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., a fellow CHC member, also addressed the House before the vote.

"The vote is a political stunt disguised as a legal brief ... the Republican majority sees a crass political opportunity to stand with the anti-immigration wing of their party," said Gutierrez. "I guess the Speaker thinks, hey, why play it straight when you can force a purely political vote on immigration designed to deepen the partisan lines and validate the very angry people that go around showing their hatred, their bigotry and the prejudice in the political process in America."

Lawsuit Challenges DAPA, DACA+

Former Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who now serves as the Lone Star State's governor, launched the lawsuit against Obama's November 2014 executive actions. Abbott claimed Obama breached his executive authority and didn't consider financial impacts affecting U.S. states.

After appeals, the Obama administration encountered setbacks in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which provided the temporary injunction preventing the federal government from implementing the programs.

The U.S. Department of Justice has since requested the Supreme Court review the case. The Supreme Court accepted and will hear oral arguments in April, but a decision may not come until June.

Abbott's lawsuit has since received support from other Republican governors and attorneys general from Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

__

For the latest updates, follow Latin Post's Michael Oleaga on Twitter: @EditorMikeO or contact via email: m.oleaga@latinpost.com.

Related