12 states rush to defend “Obama’s amnesty” against lawsuit
“The truth is that the directives… are well within the President’s broad authority to enforce immigration law.”
In December, 4 governors and 14 states filed suit, requesting a preliminary injunction from President Obama’s executive overreach. Lead by then Texas AG (now Governor) Abbott, the complaint stated, “This lawsuit is not about immigration. It is about the rule of law, presidential power, and the structural limits of the U.S. Constitution.”
The Abbott lead complaint cited numerous damning examples of the President’s insistence on circumventing Congress, beginning with the his most recent venture in bypassing Congress to unilaterally implement immigration reform:
“On November 20, 2014, the President of the United States announced that he would unilaterally suspend the immigration laws as applied to 4 million of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. The President candidly admitted that, in so doing, he unilaterally rewrote the law: “What you’re not paying attention to is, I just took an action to change the law.”
Equipped with reinforcements, House Republicans will debate a Department of Homeland Security (the agency responsible for immigration) appropriation bill Wednesday that if passed with the current amendments, would obliterate Obama’s immigration executive overreach. Disarming the President’s immigration action through funding was the brain child of Rep. Price.
Now somewhat inaccurately dubbed “Obama’s amnesty,” the President’s latest and perhaps most blatant executive sidestep would allow approximately 4.4 million aliens temporary deferral. Aliens would be required to register, prove qualification, pass background checks, and satisfy biometric appointments before being granted work authorization. Meeting these legal tests, they would be eligible for an initial three-year temporary work authorization.
To the rescue with an amicus curiae brief, 12 states plus D.C. are out to defend the President’s immigration power grab. “The Plaintiffs in this case have painted a distorted picture of the impacts of the federal government’s recent immigration directives. In reality, those directives will substantially benefit states—not harm them,” it reads.
“The truth is that the directives will substantially benefit states, will further the public interest, and are well within the President’s broad authority to enforce immigration law,” the brief insists.
Abbott et al smartly targeted executive overreach over the merits of Obama’s immigration policy. Meanwhile, the amicus curiae questions the standing of the complaint and then prattles on about the supposed economic benefits if immigrant influx by citing the Center for American Progress. If states benefit economically, then there’s no irreparable injury, the logic goes.
While things heat up in the court room, Congress prepares for an immigration war of their own.
Follow Kemberlee Kaye on Twitter
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“The truth is that the directives will substantially benefit states, will further the public interest, and are well within the President’s broad authority to enforce immigration law,” the brief insists.
Liars lie. The Collective are liars, and these lies are some of the most evil by design and intent in the entire history of lies.
That’s the truth.
You pretty much sum it up. Lying comes easily to these people. Pelosi is already lying about the GOP “causing a government shutdown” over attempts to defund the amnesty. Lying comes VERY easily to her.
Maybe only her most ridiculous statements bubble up to the top of the news pile, but I don’t recall the last time she said anything that was true. “Lying comes very easy to her” is not just an occasional event, it’s standard operating procedure.
Lying = default action
The irony to cutting funds to DHS is that Obama will use that cut to justify his “prosecutorial discretion” claim, saying that he doesn’t have enough funding to fully implement the law.
That is exactly my concern. That was why passing the Cromnibus bill was such a bad idea. We eliminated the only leverage we had by doing so. There is no leverage in denying him money he doesn’t want to spend to begin with.
Aren’t the Dems continually guilty of extortion (in one form or another) –
“Extortion – Law. the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one’s office or authority.”
The ‘thing of value ‘ in most cases is ‘reasonable judgment’. By always laying on frightful scenarios people like O and Pelosi disrupt the brain from being sensible. And the uneducated are the easiest victims.
Only a liberal could determine that legalizing nearly five million illegal aliens and giving them work permits will help states employment picture despite the fact that there are few jobs available. After all, if 100 jobs are available and you suddenly gain 500 new prospective workers, you are left with 100 jobs. How does this help anything?
>
Only a liberal could announce how legalizing and making government support in the form of healthcare, welfare and such available to a large population of which well over half are uneducated, without job skills, and unable to speak the language is actually a huge benefit to the republic. Not only do these people lie to us, they insult our intelligence by expecting us to believe their nonsense.
Absolutely right. I’m afraid that when Boner gave away the leverage voters handed him on a platter the country just hit the tipping point. The PNR so to speak.
Once the Commerce Clause, mis-applied by Justice Robber Baron, opened Pandora’s box Obamacare, illegal immigration and Obama fiats have been unleashed upon the American people to their detriment.
All of the above are unconstitutional.
“the President’s latest and perhaps most blatant executive sidestep would allow approximately 4.4 million aliens temporary deferral. Aliens would be required to register, prove qualification, pass background checks,”
_________________________________
LOL. Background checks. Again.
I hope one of the justices asks the government (and/or the 12 states cheerleading Obama’s lawlessness) who is going to be performing those 4.4 million “background checks” on all these new amnesty applicants.
When Obama issued his “DREAMer” amnesty, he promised Americans that those illegal aliens would also be required to pass background checks before they received legal status to remain in the U.S. But when served with an FOIA request about those DREAMer background checks, DHS was forced to admit that it has not been performing the checks — instead, DHS has simply been taking the illegal aliens’ word for whatever they put in their amnesty applications, and rubber-stamping them approved. (Because illegal aliens would never LIE just to get legal status, right? That would be . . . illegal!).
DHS tried to justify its rubber-stamping practice by pointing out that it does not have either the money or the personnel necessary to conduct background checks on hundreds of thousands of DREAMer amnesty applicants.
So DHS has already admitted that it doesn’t have the ability (or the desire) to conduct background checks on hundreds of thousands of DREAMer amnesty recipients — but it will have no problem conducting background checks on MILLIONS of new amnesty applicants. (We promise! Wink, wink).
Too bad there isn’t some way we could require that all the newly-amnestied terrorists, murderers, rapists, drug dealers, gang-bangers, thieves, child molesters, welfare frauds, etc., would have to live in the 12 states that are now supporting Obama’s lawlessness.
Actually, there is a way for states who do not want to deal with these illegals to get rid of them but it involves guts.
Any state whose U-6 unemployment rate is above the national average U-6 rate should pass a law stating that employers must hire veterans prior to anyone else. Then they could pass a second law stating that employers who make accommodations for disabled applicants will get a tax rebate for their trouble. Another law could be to require state agencies to award contracts based on how many people a company has hired that were unemployed for two years or more and does not receive UI.
The list of laws that can be passed “nudging” employers to hire only certain people is almost endless. The more laws they pass, the harder it will be for an employer to justify hiring illegals.
Obviously some of these will be challenged in court. If the court cases go against the state, the legislature should pass a law that the decision will not be honored pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment. Of course, the state must be ready to have all federal bribery payments yanked. But in the meantime, the state should rescind its sovereign waiver so that it can only be sued for certain types of cases.
It’s called “NO” and until a state says it loud enough and long enough, nothing will change.
My last thought is to make vote fraud (non-citizen voting) a serious felony with a mandatory 10 year minimum prison sentence. Ironically, this would apply to any election including ones that have federal officers on the ballot. And there’s not a darn thing Holder can do about it.
I forgot one thing – any documents the feds issue that authorize these illegals to work are equal in value to counterfeits. The falsely imply authenticity, which can only come from acts of Congress. The state can still go after employers for hiring illegals assuming it has a law on the books defining who can work.
If the illegals squawk about it, tell them that Puerto Rico and DC are federal enclaves and they should consider relocating their sorry azzes to one of those locations.
Of course, they are. They care neither for Americans nor aliens in America or in their homelands. They support DRAT (Displace, Replace, Abort, and Tax) policy. Not unlike the Hebdo group who are celebrated for their support of DRAT.
I note that other than Crazyfornia, who you can always trust to be on the side of the progressives, most of those states are pretty far north of the border, talk about not having standing, lol.
“The truth is that the directives will substantially benefit states…”
Irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if it will benefit the states. What matters to the court is whether the President has the proper authority to bypass Congress and unilaterally change the law.
“… will further the public interest….”
Also irrelevant. See above. As an aside, note the distinct lack of public interest and/or approval of this executive power grab.
“… and are well within the President’s broad authority to enforce immigration law….”
False. It is the President’s sworn duty to faithfully execute the laws, not to make or change the laws, or decide which laws matter and which don’t. If the current immigration law says the people in question are here illegally, it is not within the President’s power to say otherwise. Likewise, if the current law does not provide a work visa and “pathway to citizenship”, it is not within the President’s authority to provide them.