Immigration Tag

Obama's executive amnesty fiasco seems to get messier by the week. In early May, the DOJ filed a document disclosing U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, (USCIS) had "erroneously" issued 2,000 work permits were issued despite the temporary injunction prohibiting their dispersal. "The government sincerely regrets these circumstances and is taking prompt corrective steps, while gathering additional information about these issues, including how these errors occurred," wrote the DOJ. Yesterday, Texas accused the Justice Department of running interference for the Department of Homeland Security who flubbed Obama's executive amnesty edict. Lead by Texas' Attorney General Ken Paxton, Texas requested proof that executive amnesty has in fact, halted. "In today’s filing with the federal district court, the states argued for increased oversight of the administration's compliance with the court's injunction, and for the opportunity to look into whether the defendants should be sanctioned for their misrepresentations to the court," said a statement from Paxton's office. According to Paxton, “the newly-revealed admission that even more expanded work permits were granted to 2,000 illegal immigrants raises serious questions about the Obama Administration’s reliability moving forward. Increased oversight is needed to hold the federal government accountable for its apparent inability to report accurate information to the court.”

Back in February, a federal judge in Texas enjoined the Obama Administration from rolling out its immigration overhaul via executive action. In the injunction, the court said that the Administration could not claim prosecutorial discretion (as it applies to illegal aliens covered under the proposed amnesty) because their plan confers benefits on those aliens not currently available under law. Instead, the court said that the Administration was effectively changing the law. Earlier this month, the same court that issued the injunction demanded that DoJ attorneys respond to allegations that the Administration was going ahead with its plans by granting expanded DACA benefits to more than 100,000 illegal aliens. Administration lawyers had asked the court to reconsider its decision to enjoin the executive amnesty, but the court refused to do so pending a hearing on the DACA issue. That hearing happened this past week, and by all accounts, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen---the same judge who handled the injunction---was not amused by what he heard (emphasis mine):

U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen, visibly annoyed, confronted a U.S. deputy assistant attorney general over previous government assurances on the timing of the program. He asked why he shouldn’t grant a discovery request for internal federal immigration documents — a request filed Thursday by 26 states that are suing over Obama’s executive actions on immigration. At a one-hour hearing in Brownsville, Hanen gave the Justice Department 48 hours to file a motion in response. He said he would then rule promptly on whether to require the government to produce documents concerning applications under Obama’s deferred action program. The judge said that if he decided to impose sanctions, “the taxpayers of the [26] states would end up paying their own damages.” Hanen’s barbed comments left little doubt that he sympathized with lawyers for the 26 states, who said they suffered “irreparable harm” when federal officials granted more than 100,000 applications for deferred action after Obama announced the program Nov. 20. He said government lawyers had assured him that “nothing was happening” regarding the applications.

House Republicans came out swinging, passed a killer DHS appropriations bill -- one that hammered much needed immigration enforcement, and acted as though they were ready for an immigration battle royal. For one brief, joyous moment, it seemed as though conservatives finally had the Congress they'd long desired. Boy was that short-lived. What began as a bill that held sought to beef up immigration enforcement (an area where this administration has been far too lax), ended as a 'clean' funding bill with no strings attached. Despite holding majorities in both houses, Republicans received nothing they wanted. Friday morning, Boehner said he would, "not be blackmailed by Senate Democrats." Senate Democrats perpetually filibustered the House bill, disallowing debate. By Friday afternoon, Senate Republicans had split the funding bill in two -- one, a 'clean' funding bill, and the other, a bill that addressed the president's executive amnesty and other enforcement related items. The 'clean' funding bill passed in the Senate. The House tried again, but Senate Democrats refused to go to conference to discuss differences in the House and Senate bills, and so the House found itself in a nasty predicament. By passing a 'clean' funding bill, Senate Republicans gave the White House and Democrats exactly what they wanted, leaving House Republicans without any leverage, any backup plan, and absolutely no way around a 'clean' funding bill. Yet in spite of the Senate sell out, there appeared to be hope. As late as Monday evening, prior to the House's passage of Tuesday's 'clean' funding bill, Speaker Boehner and House leadership were promising to hold the line and fight. What went so horribly wrong?

Which means Congress gets to have this same fight all over again next week. Joy. The Senate passed a clean funding bill late yesterday afternoon, placing efforts to combat President Obama's executive overreach in a separate piece of legislation. Last night it looked as though a DHS shutdown was imminent. Democratic lawmakers in the House were actively whipping votes against the three week stopgap appropriations bill, resulting in the bill's failure---even though the White House indicated President Obama would've signed the bill to prevent an agency shutdown. The Washington Post reported (emphasis added):

The House passed a measure earlier Friday afternoon to go to conference with the Senate to hash out the differences between their long-term bills. No Democrats voted for it. Senate Democrats oppose a conference. Senate Democratic aides acknowledged that the bill would probably have passed their chamber if it had cleared the House.

Just two hours before the shutdown deadline, Democratic hold outs caved and agreed to pass a temporary funding bill that will only fund the agency for one week. According to USA Today:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., rallied Democrats to support the one-week extension before funding expired. She said that voting for the seven-day measure would put Democrats on a path toward possible passage next week of a $40 billion spending bill that would fund the agency through the end of September.

Yesterday the U.S. government filed an Emergency motion to stay the U.S. District Court's temporary injunction putting Obama's immigration executive action on hold. In its Emergency Motion, the Feds threatened that if U.S. District Court Judge Andrew S. Hanen did not grant the stay by the close of business on Wednesday, February 25, the Feds would seek an emergency stay from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiff States argued that that was too short of a time for them to respond, considering the Feds took a week to bring the Emergency motion. Judge Hanen just ruled that the States had until Monday, March 2, to respond. (Order below). [Update: Changed to March 3 - see Amended Order below.] Will the Feds now run to the Appeals Court? Or wait until Judge Hanen rules next week? Normally, a litigant has to request relief from the trial court first.  I'm not sure, as I write, whether a modest delay in the trial court would cause the 5th Circuit to refuse to hear an emergency motion until the trial court rules. As of this writing, there has been no stay motion filed in the 5th Circuit according to the electronic docket.)