Filed under: 26 States, Amnesty, Congress, Immigration | Tags: Supreme Court, Executive Amnesty, Appeals Court
A federal appeals court has upheld a U.S. district court’s injunction preventing the Obama administration’s executive amnesty programs from moving forward.
U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hannan placed a preliminary injunction on Obama’s executive amnesty programs in February, and denied a second request from the Justice Department in March — ruling that the executive order must not be implemented until the lawsuit from the states is decided, keeping the programs from taking effect. Obama’s attempts at amnesty included the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). Judge blocked the programs after a coalition of 26 states challenged the executive amnesty. The federal government did not help their case by preceding to grant work permits to illegals anyway, in spite of the injunction.
Justice Department lawyers sought a stay on the injunction fro the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court declined to issue a stay on a 2-1 vote because it concluded the government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its appeal. This represents a significant setback for Obama’s executive amnesty plans.
Judge Smith noted that the:
affirmative act of conferring “lawful presence” on a class of unlawfully present aliens. Though revocable, that new designation triggers eligibility for federal and state benefits that would be otherwise available.’
Although prosecutorial discretion is broad, it is not ‘unfettered.’ Declining to prosecute does not convert an act deemed unlawful by Congress into a lawful one and confer eligibility for benefits based on that new classification.
Both the State of Texas and the Obama administration have signaled willingness to take the case to the Supreme Court. The
Texas is leading the 26 state coalition that is challenging the amnesty. Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin are members of the coalition.
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, History, Immigration, Law, Politics, Progressivism, The Constitution | Tags: ICE Threatened, Illegal Immigration Amnesty, Immigration Enforcement
CNSNews.com) – Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) has a message for those who may approve of — or even benefit from — President Obama’s unconstitutional immigration policy: “Be careful what you do with the law today, because if you weaken it today, you weaken it forever,” he told the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.
Gowdy said the law is the nation’s greatest unifying and equalizing force — “but one person does not make law in a republic.”
President Obama, by doing exactly what he once said he could not do, is not only going beyond the considerable powers of his office; he is assuring that future presidents also will expand the power of the executive branch, thus “threatening the constitutional equilibrium.”
Mr. Chairman, the thread that holds the tapestry of our country together is respect for and adherence to the rule of law. The law is the greatest unifying and the greatest equalizing force that we have in our culture.
The law is what makes the richest person drive the precise same speed limit as the poorest person. The law is what makes the richest person in this country pay his or her taxes on precisely the same day as the poorest person in this country.
The law, Mr. Chairman, is symbolized by a blind woman holding a set of scales and a sword. The law is both a shield and a sword, and it is the foundation upon which this Republic stands.
We think so highly of the law, Mr. Chairman, that in the oath of citizenship administered to those who pledge allegiance to this country — to their new country — it makes six different references to the law. So attempts to undermine the law via executive fiat, regardless of motivation, are detrimental to the foundation of a democracy.
President Obama, after the November midterm elections I hasten to add, announced one of the largest extra-constitutional acts ever by a chief executive. He declared unilaterally almost 5 million undocumented aliens would receive deferred action under some newfangled definition of prosecutorial discretion. Moreover, in addition to using prosecutorial discretion as a license to rewrite the law, he also conferred benefits on those same people.
You may like the policy. You may wish the policy were the law. But one person does not make law in a republic.
If you enjoy a person making law, you should investigate living in another country, because our Framers did not give us, nor have generations of our fellow citizens all conserved and sacrificed, for a single person to make law in a unilateral way.
So removing consequences for breaking the law is one thing; bestowing benefits such as work authorization and immigration benefits is another.
The president himself recognized his own inability to do this, Mr. Chairman — more than 20 separate times he said he lacked the power to do what he ultimately did.
In 2011, he said this, and I quote: ‘The notion that I can just suspend deportation through executive order, that’s just not the case.’ He told us time and time again, Mr Chairman, that he was not a king.
His position may have changed, but the Constitution has not; and that document is clear and it is time-tested and it is true, and it says that Congress passes laws and it is the responsibility of the chief executive to take care that those laws are faithfully enforced.
Prosecutorial discretion is real and constitutionally valid, Mr. Chairman, but it is not a synonym for anarchy.
As U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen wrote in his recent opinion, DHS does have discretion in the manner in which it chooses to fulfill the express will of Congress. It cannot, however, enact a program whereby it not only ignores the dictates of Congress but actively moves to thwart them.
The Constitution gives the president a lot of power, Mr. Chairman. He’s the commander in chief, he nominates Supreme Court justices, he can veto legislation for any reason or no reason, he can fail to defend the constitutionality of the law, he has the power of pardon. He has a lot of power, Mr. Chairman, but what he cannot do is make law by himself. That is the responsibility of the Congress.
And if this president’s unilateral extra-constitutional acts are not stopped, future presidents, you may rest assured, will expand that power of the Executive Branch, thereby threatening the constitutional equilibrium.
“And the argument that previous administrations have acted outside constitutional boundaries holds no bearing with me. The fact that other people made mistakes is not a license for this executive to do the same thing.
Mr. President, in conclusion, we live in a country where process matters. The end does not justify the means, no matter how good the intentions.
When a police officer fails to check the right box on an application for a search warrant, the fruits of that search warrant are suppressed. When a police officer, even though he has the right suspect for the right crime but he just fails to include one small part of those prophylactic Miranda warnings, what happens? The statement is suppressed, even though you have the right person, even though you have the right crime — because we view process over the end.
And I’m going to say this, and then we’ll finish. I’m going to say this to those who benefit from the president’s policies.
You may be willing to allow the end to justify the means in this case. You may well like the fact that the pres has abused pro discretion and conferred benefits in an unprecedented way.
You may benefit from the president’s failure to enforce the law today, but I’ll make you this promise: There will come a day where you will cry out for the enforcement of the law.
There will come a day when you long for the law to be the foundation of this republic. So you be careful what you do with the law today, because if you weaken it today, you weaken it forever.”
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economy, Education, Freedom, Heartwarming, History, Immigration, Politics, The United States | Tags: Dr. Thomas Sowell, Hoover's 'Uncommon Knowledge', Peter Robinson
Tom Sowell has a marvelous skill in bringing economics down to the personal human world, or what you might call the common sense end of things. Peter Robinson is a marvelous host and asks great questions. This is one of the best of the Uncommon Knowledge interviews ever. Make time for it when you can.
Filed under: Capitalism, Communism, Cuba, Democrat Corruption, Economy, Immigration, Latin America | Tags: Free Markets / Free People, No Change in Communism, Raul Castro: "We Won!"
President Raúl Castro, Fidel’s little brother, declared victory for the Cuban Revolution in a televised speech before Parliament and a group of favored guests —including Elián Gonzales (remember him?) — reaffirming that any restored relations with the United States did not mean any change in Communist rule in Cuba. He added “We won the war.”
Obama didn’t check in with any of the Cuban community here or with the Cubans who are fighting for freedom in Cuba. They are pretty unanimous in saying that the way Obama has gone about this is a major mistake. The Ladies in White who march in support of political prisoners each week in a major display of courage, said “betrayal” and didn’t understand why Obama had gone back on his statement that “significant steps toward democracy” must precede any liberalization.
As usual, Obama does not learn from history. Engagement does not necessarily promote freedom — see China, Vietnam, and increasingly less freedom in those countries.
In an official announcement in the state newspaper Gramma. government officials announced a system in which employees of corporations with foreign capital will be paid two Cuban Pesos for every Convertible Cuban Peso (CUP) which are used exclusively for tourists and is the equivalent of an American dollar and 26.5 Cuban Pesos. The 24 Cuban Pesos that workers will NOT receive amount to 92% of their salaries. So 92% of the value of Cubans’ work will go to prop up the Communist state. How that is supposed to be an important entry in the history books for Mr. Obama is not clear.
Cuba’s major benefactors —Russia and Venezuela — are in deep trouble from the declining price of oil. The current price is far below their ‘break-even’ point. Some Conservatives welcome the change in policy, believing that free trade will make great changes in Cuba. Raúl Castro doesn’t think so. “Once they see better goods and services” they say, but at roughly 67¢ a day in income Cubans cannot buy “better goods.” I don’t know what they have to trade. Reportedly, even their cigars aren’t that good any more.
Will Cuba suddenly allow their people to travel to the U.S.? Not likely. Any visitors to the U.S would be likely to seek asylum. The Cuban Adjustment Act says that any Cuban who is granted parole into the U.S. may, after one year apply for adjustment to permanent resident status. In the past every Cuban who made it here got parole and a green card.
I firmly believe in free markets and free people — but the “free” part seems to be completely missing here.
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Immigration, Law, Politics, Progressivism, Regulation | Tags: Addressed Next Year, Executive Amnesty, New Immigration Law
A federal district court judge in Pennsylvania has ruled that portions of President Obama’s executive amnesty are unconstitutional. Judge Arthur Schwab said in his opinion that the presidential policy goes “beyond prosecutorial discretion” and into the realm of legislating. Because of this, Judge Schwab wrote, the action exceeds the scope of executive authority.
This is the first case to address Obama’s “decision to expand deferred action for some individuals unlawfully in the United States.” This particular case involved an individual who was deported and then returned to the United States unlawfully. The court, in considering how to sentence the defendant, sought direction on how the new policies affected this particular defendant who was seeking the deferral of his deportation. It is not clear if the constitutional question needed to be addressed in this case. It is unusual for a district court to reach this sort of constitutional issue in this sort of case.
Jonathan Adler, who wrote this piece for the Washington Post, pointed out that in this case, no one was raising the question of constitutionality, so Judge Schwab’s opinion is more of an advisory, and leaves the defendant free to change his plea and reapply under the new rules. He declared the president’s action to be unlawful, but he did not set it aside.
Three other legal challenges to Obama’s executive actions are waiting trial dates, including the suit filed by 24 states. Adler is unsure if that case will satisfy the requirements of Article III standing to bring their claims. Yet even if the states don’t have standing, the legality of the president’s actions could be decided in Federal court. Adler says “if Congress is unhappy with the degree of discretion the executive branch enjoys over immigration policy, Congress needs to revise existing immigration laws to constrain executive authority.”
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economy, Immigration, Law, National Security, Politics, The United States | Tags: Big Amnesty Speech, President Barack Obama, Utterly and Completely Lawless
It is often assumed that occupants of the Oval Office live in a bit of a bubble, isolated from the American people, and consequently out-of-touch. With President Obama, it goes deeper. He lives in a fantasy world, transforming events into something more comfortable to live with. Press Secretary Josh Earnest said in carefully prepared remarks that “President Obama wears being called ‘an Emperor’ as a badge of honor.” So he does notice a little of what is going on out in the world.
This one came from Jon Gabriel, editor at Ricochet. The cherub at the bottom is undoubtedly an anchor baby.
One of Obama’s first acts in office was to stop construction of the fence at the border. It was Obama who instructed the border patrol and ICE to stop deporting people, to pull back from the border, and whose efforts in Central American countries insinuated that children who crossed the border would not be deported, and caused the vast influx of illegal aliens. It was Obama who sent the “unaccompanied minors” all over the country and enrolled them in local schools who were completely unprepared for such an influx of young people requiring special services at vast cost.
When I took office, I committed to fixing this broken immigration system. And I began by doing what I could to secure our borders. Today, we have more agents and technology deployed to secure our southern border than at any time in our history. And over the past six years, illegal border crossings have been cut by more than half. Although this summer, there was a brief spike in unaccompanied children being apprehended at our border, the number of such children is now actually lower than it’s been in nearly two years. Overall, the number of people trying to cross our border illegally is at its lowest level since the 1970s. Those are the facts.
Uh huh. That’s why members of ICE are suing the government for not allowing them to do the jobs they are required to do. That’s why the Houston Independent School District suddenly has 3,000 new students to deal with, and unknown numbers of other school districts around the 50 states are dealing with unknown numbers, because the federal government won’t tell where they have shipped the kids.
Obama’s speech is self-glorifying nonsense. False facts, pretty phrases, and attempts to turn reality into something more palatable. Won’t wash. Here is the text of the speech, should you care to read it. Frankly, I didn’t have the stomach for it.
He always ends his most divisive speeches with a pitiful anecdote about a suffering child or the like. This one has all the hallmarks of being completely made up. It’s almost sad watching the Democratic Party commit suicide.