President Obama’s Executive #Amnesty Program is Attack Upon Rule of Law; Texas Leads 26-State Coalition in Oral Arguments in Fifth Circuit Immigration HearingPosted: July 10, 2015
Texas leads a 26-state bipartisan coalition fighting the president’s attempt to unilaterally grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants
The Texas Attorney General’s Office today continued the fight against President Obama’s executive amnesty program, arguing for the bipartisan coalition of 26 states in the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court will decide whether to reverse the district court’s decision to halt the president’s plan.
“As President Obama said himself shortly after announcing the program, he ‘took an action to change the law,’ when he signed the executive action on immigration. Texas has argued that any sweeping change in immigration policy should be up to lawmakers, not the unilateral action of the executive branch.”
“President Obama’s executive amnesty program would prompt some of the most massive changes to national immigration law in history, all without any input from Congress or the American people. Federal lawyers today even acknowledged several times that this action constitutes a ‘significant policy enactment,’” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said. “Our system of checks and balances is intended to prevent the very action that this president has taken. This lawsuit isn’t about immigration policy – it’s about the rule of law, and we need to leave lawmaking to Congress, which was entrusted, empowered and elected by the people to do just that.”
“President Obama’s executive amnesty program would prompt some of the most massive changes to national immigration law in history, all without any input from Congress or the American people. Federal lawyers today even acknowledged several times that this action constitutes a ‘significant policy enactment.’”
Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller argued for the states. On May 26, the Fifth Circuit denied the Obama Administration’s request to begin implementing the president’s amnesty plan after the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted a preliminary injunction on February 16, halting the president’s executive action on immigration from taking effect.
As President Obama said himself shortly after announcing the program, he “took an action to change the law,” when he signed the executive action on immigration. Texas has argued that any sweeping change in immigration policy should be up to lawmakers, not the unilateral action of the executive branch.
The president’s plan would allow more than 4 million illegal immigrants to be deemed lawfully present and to take advantage of the following government benefits: work permits, tax credits, Social Security, Medicare, driver’s licenses, unemployment insurance, and the right to international travel. The states would also be compelled to fund additional education, health care and law enforcement costs.
“The president’s plan would allow more than 4 million illegal immigrants to be deemed lawfully present and to take advantage of the following government benefits: work permits, tax credits, Social Security, Medicare, driver’s licenses, unemployment insurance, and the right to international travel. The states would also be compelled to fund additional education, health care and law enforcement costs.”
While the states await a ruling on the preliminary injunction appeal in the Fifth Circuit, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas is also reviewing the Obama Administration’s misrepresentations in court and admitted violation of a judge’s order. After the Obama Administration admitted that more than 100,000 illegal immigrants had already been issued expanded work permits under the president’s amnesty plan – in direct contradiction to what they told the federal court – the federal government in May advised the judge that 2,000 more individuals were prematurely granted expanded work permits, and just yesterday updated that total to 2,500. Read the rest of this entry »
A federal appeals court rebukes his immigration order
“…The Fifth Circuit decision vindicates the rule of law and shows again how Mr. Obama is exceeding his legal authority. But it is also a tragedy for immigrants who Mr. Obama teased with his illegal legalization. After last year’s election, many GOP leaders believed they had a chance to pass reform that addressed specific immigration problems—for farm or high-tech workers, for example.
But by acting on his own Mr. Obama poisoned the politics of immigration reform for the rest of his tenure. Republicans who favor reform have no chance to bring along angry back-benchers who have zero trust in the President to follow any immigration reform that Congress passes. This may have been part of Mr. Obama’s plan, letting him take sole political credit among Hispanic voters for legalizing 4.3 million while causing Republicans to again seem anti-immigrant.
Mr. Obama could have avoided this mess if he had recalled his law classes on the separation of powers…”
BREAKING: Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Court Rules with 26 States Challenging Obama’s Executive Immigration ActionPosted: May 26, 2015
The three-judge panel ruled that the executive action, which would grant an estimated 4.7 million undocumented immigrants relief from deportation, should stay on hold while the states work to overturn it.
Judge Denies Obama’s Request to Let Immigration Policy Stand
Julián Aguilar reports: A Brownsville-based federal judge on Tuesday denied the Obama administration’s request to let a controversial immigration program proceed while the issue plays out in the courts.
United States District Judge Andrew Hanen ruled that his initial decision to halt the president’s November executive action — which seeks to grant deportation relief and a work permit to up to 5 million undocumented immigrants, including a portion of the 1.6 million currently living in Texas — was the right one.
“Having considered the positions of all parties and the applicable law, this court remains convinced that its original findings and rulings in the Order of Temporary Injunction and Memorandum Opinion and Order issued on Feb. 16, 2015…were correct.”
Hanen initially ruled that the White House violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs the way federal policies are crafted and how much input the public gets.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has called Obama’s action “beyond any president’s authority,” and says it “would inevitably cause irreparable harm to our state, imposing hundreds of millions of dollars in costs on Texas.”
Gov. Greg Abbott, the state’s former attorney general, filed the lawsuit against the Obama administration in December before being sworn in as governor. Texas is part of a 26-state coalition that challenged the executive action.
Hanen blocked the measure in February and the Obama administration immediately requested that the judge delay his own order. But on Tuesday, Hanen reiterated that wasn’t going to happen. Read the rest of this entry »
The president is saying one thing, his bureaucracy is doing another
President Obama claimed his executive amnesty would “stem the flow of illegal crossings and speed the return of those who do crossover.” But internal e-mails obtained by National Review Online reveal that his administration has taken steps to ensure the opposite outcome, ordering Border Patrol agents to curtail the initiation of deportation proceedings and to screen the illegal border crossers they detail for eligibility under the president’s deferred-action programs instead.
Before a federal judge last week halted the president’s executive amnesty program, the Border Patrol issued new guidance to agents that would eliminate the likelihood of deportation for thousands of illegal immigrants that will encounter by Border Patrol.
Border Patrol division chief Kelly C. Good e-mailed agents last month to tell them they should issue far fewer “Notices to Appear,” or NTA, in immigration court for deportation proceedings. Notices to Appear are the charging documents issued by the Department of Homeland Security, of which the Border Patrol is a part, to commence deportation proceedings. Read the rest of this entry »
Liberals and even some conservatives embrace the ‘heckler’s veto’ threat to the First Amendment
Barry A. Fisher writes: An essential freedom-of-speech paradigm was established in 1949 by the Supreme Court in Terminiello v. Chicago. In that case a vitriolic, racist speaker spoke to an auditorium packed with supporters. Outside the auditorium was what was described as “ ‘a surging, howling mob hurling epithets’ at those who would enter and ‘tried to tear their clothes off.’ ” The police blamed the mob’s action on the speaker, Arthur Terminiello, a Catholic priest under suspension by his bishop. He was convicted of disturbing the peace and fined.
“University of Chicago law professor Harry Kalven Jr. would later coin the term “heckler’s veto” to describe what would have happened had the court decided otherwise. First Amendment rights could be “vetoed” by others who create a public disturbance that forces the silencing of the speaker.”
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, reversed the conviction and ruled that Terminiello’s speech was protected by the First Amendment. The court said that the police, instead of taking action against the speaker, should have protected him and controlled the crowd, including making arrests if necessary. University of Chicago law professor Harry Kalven Jr. would later coin the term “heckler’s veto” to describe what would have happened had the court decided otherwise. First Amendment rights could be “vetoed” by others who create a public disturbance that forces the silencing of the speaker.
Sony ’s recent crisis over the film “The Interview”—along with the domestic political correctness and anti-hate speech movements, various international agreements and globalization itself—is leading the country precisely toward a heckler’s veto.
There is growing support, including among academics and racial and religious advocacy groups, that what they define as hate speech…Law professors have concocted influential concepts like ‘outsider jurisprudence,’ ‘critical race theory,’ ‘critical feminist theory’, and ‘storytelling’ theory to define some kinds of politically incorrect speech as not speech at all, but ‘mechanisms of subordination.'”
Protesters have silenced speakers on several occasions this year, sometimes with the law’s support. In February a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a California high school’s decision to prohibit students from wearing American-flag T-shirts on Cinco de Mayo “to avert violence.” In August a panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ejection of an anti-Islam Christian group from an Arab festival in Dearborn, Mich., on the theory that the group’s speech would incite festivalgoers to violence. (In October the full court agreed to reconsider the decision.)
In December protesters against the non-indictment of a police officer in Ferguson, Mo., stormed into an auditorium at the University of California, Berkeley, and shut down a speech by Internet entrepreneur Peter Thiel . And during the past academic year, protesters caused the cancellation of commencement addresses by former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at Rutgers University, and International Monetary Fund Director Christine Lagarde at Smith College. Read the rest of this entry »
For The Daily Caller, White House Correspondent Neil Munro writes: President Obama once declared that an influx of illegal immigrants will harm “the wages of blue-collar
Americans” and “put strains on an already overburdened safety net.”
“Obama now presides over a very porous southern border, and he’s allowed 130,000 Central American migrants across since October 2013.”
“[T]here’s no denying that many blacks share the same anxieties as many whites about the wave of illegal immigration flooding our Southern border—a sense that what’s happening now is fundamentally different from what has gone on before,” then-Senator Obama wrote in his 2006 autobiography, “The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.”
”Not all these fears are irrational,” he wrote.
“Via executive order, he is also about to provide work permits to at least 3 million illegal immigrants, allowing them to compete against the very Americans — black, white, Latino and Asian — who he once said would be harmed by such a move.”
[Read the rest at The Daily Caller]
“If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole—especially by keeping our workforce young, in contrast to an increasingly geriatric Europe and Japan—it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and put strains on an already overburdened safety net.”
“The guest worker provision of the bill troubled me. it was essentially a sop to big business, a means for them to employ immigrants without granting them citizenship rights—indeed, a means for business to gain the benefits of outsourcing without having to locate their operations overseas.”
— Senator Barack Obama, 2006
If these feel like the words of one of Obama’s opponents, it’s because they’re the exact argument that the president’s critics have been making as he now rushes to announce a sweeping executive order that would give work permits to millions of illegal immigrants in the country. Read the rest of this entry »
Breathtaking Arrogance: Obama tramples the separation of powers