A Federal Judge in Texas apparently agrees with what obama said for years; that he does not have the authority to grant blanket amnesty to illegal aliens.
God Bless Texas (and 25 other States)
Federal judge temporarily blocks Obama's immigration executive action
Published February 17, 2015 - FoxNews.com
A federal judge has granted a request by 26 states to temporarily block President Obama's executive action on illegal immigration, allowing a lawsuit aimed at permanently stopping the orders to make its way through the courts.
U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen granted the preliminary injunction Monday after hearing arguments in Brownsville, Texas last month. He wrote in a memorandum accompanying his order that the lawsuit should go forward and that without a preliminary injunction the states will "suffer irreparable harm in this case."
"The genie would be impossible to put back into the bottle," he wrote, adding that he agreed with the plaintiffs' argument that legalizing the presence of millions of people is a "virtually irreversible" action.
The first of Obama's orders -- to expand a program that protects young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. illegally as children -- was set to start taking effect Wednesday. The other major part of Obama's order, which extends deportation protections to parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have been in the country for some years, was not expected to begin until May 19.
A statement by White House press secretary Josh Earnest restated the administration's position that Obama's executive actions were within the bounds of legality.
"The Supreme Court and Congress have made clear that the federal government can set priorities in enforcing our immigration laws-which is exactly what the President did when he announced commonsense policies to help fix our broken immigration system," Earnest said, later adding "The district court's decision wrongly prevents these lawful, commonsense policies from taking effect and the Department of Justice has indicated that it will appeal that decision."
An appeal by the administration would be handled by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
Hanen, who's been on the federal court since 2002 after being nominated by President George W. Bush, regularly handles border cases but wasn't known for being outspoken on immigration until a 2013 case. In his ruling in that case, he Hanen suggested the Homeland Security Department should be arresting parents living in the U.S. illegally who induce their children to cross the border illegally.
The coalition, led by Texas and made up of mostly conservative states in the South and Midwest, argues that Obama has violated the "Take Care Clause" of the U.S. Constitution, which they say limits the scope of presidential power. They also say the order will force increased investment in law enforcement, health care and education.
"Judge Hanen's decision rightly stops the President's overreach in its tracks," Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said in a statement.
In their request for the injunction, the coalition said it was necessary because it would be "difficult or impossible to undo the President's lawlessness after the Defendants start granting applications for deferred action."
Congressional Republicans have vowed to block Obama's actions on immigration by cutting off Homeland Security Department spending for the program. Earlier this year, the Republican-controlled House passed a $39.7 billion spending bill to fund the department through the end of the budget year, but attached language to undo Obama's executive actions. The fate of that House-passed bill is unclear as Republicans in the Senate are six votes shy of the 60-vote majority needed to advance most legislation.
Others supporting Obama's executive order include a group of 12 mostly liberal states, including Washington and California, as well as the District of Columbia. They filed a motion with Hanen in support of Obama, arguing the directives will substantially benefit states and will further the public interest.
A group of law enforcement officials, including the Major Cities Chiefs Association and more than 20 police chiefs and sheriffs from across the country, also filed a motion in support, arguing the executive action will improve public safety by encouraging cooperation between police and individuals with concerns about their immigration status.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
OP has no idea how relatively insignificant this is. Won't let that stop him from chubbing up anyhow. Even Fox News was careful not to appear too excited...
___________________________________________________________________________
Yea, even ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN are reporting the story. Not a smile in sight.
Obama himself, in both interviews and his many speeches, said while he would love to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants, he does not have the authority to do so.
Last Spring, obama then said he would sign an executive order to do it anyway and would issue that order before the end of the summer. This was obviously a political play for the fall elections.
Summer passed and nothing from obama. Apparently afraid democrats would take even a worse beating stalled his order until after the Nov. elections.
Ever notice when obama says something it often comes back to haunt him? For someone who suffers from verbal diarrhea you would think he would have learned to just shut up. But no!
Anyone notice that obama has never said how he intends to pay for his executive order(s)?
Of course he wouldn’t because he knows very well it is the States that will have to pay for the housing, education, healthcare and food stamps.
Recently the IRS Director testified before Congress that the illegal aliens would qualify for the earned-income tax credit and retroactively for three years.
Criminal illegal aliens, convicted of robbery, rape and murder have been released by ICE on orders from the obama administration.
Some might say these, and many others, are the common “unintended consequences” of government.
No. It is intentional.
The U.S. is over 18 trillion dollars in debt and that is expected to rise to 22 to 24 trillion by the time obama leave office.
While it is quite the human thing to do to help immigrants, it must be done in a legal, financially responsible and fair to American Citizens manner.
Yawn.
Obama himself, in both interviews and his many speeches, said while he would love to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants, he does not have the authority to do so.
You are a confused boy (no surprise to anyone here). What Obama was talking about then and what his executive order does are NOT one and the same.
Also, you apparently have no understanding of what this court has ordered and why. By its ruling, the court did NOT agree or disagree with the executive order itself. Did you even read the article that you posted? Based on your editorial comments, you either didn't read it or don't have a clue about what is actually happening.
For someone who suffers from verbal diarrhea you would think he would have learned to just shut up. But no!
The irony of you making this kind of statement is fantastic!
Keep on ranting, it is quite hilarious.
[Edited on 2/17/2015 by gondicar]
Shocking.
A republiclown judge in Texas rules against the president.
Just shocking.
OP has no idea how relatively insignificant this is. Won't let that stop him from chubbing up anyhow. Even Fox News was careful not to appear too excited...
___________________________________________________________________________
Yea, even ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN are reporting the story.
That in itself is miraculous. What got into them?
Shocking.
A republiclown judge in Texas rules against the president.
Just shocking.
______________________________________________________________________
So a Federal Judge stays an illegal order by obama and you see it as a "republiclown judge".
Newflash dumdass: even democrats have to obey the law.
DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson must be feeling the heat. He will now actually obey the law:
DHS suspends rollout of Obama immigration actions after court order
Published February 17, 2015 - FoxNews.com - The Associated Press
The Department of Homeland Security is suspending the rollout of President Obama's immigration actions, after a federal judge issued an order blocking them.
DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson said in a written statement Tuesday that while he "strongly" disagrees with the court order blocking the actions -- and the Obama administration will appeal -- his department will comply for now.
"The Department of Justice will appeal that temporary injunction; in the meantime, we recognize we must comply with it," Johnson said.
A DHS agency had been set to start accepting applications on Wednesday for the first phase of the plan -- an expanded program shielding young immigrants who came to the U.S. illegally from deportation. Johnson said that is now suspended.
Johnson said DHS also will suspend its plans for implementing the broader portion of Obama's immigration overhaul, which was set to launch in May -- a program to give a deportation reprieve to potentially millions of illegal immigrant parents of legal residents.
The decision comes after U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Texas delivered a blow to the administration. He issued a temporary injunction on Monday after hearing arguments last month, allowing a lawsuit aimed at permanently stopping the actions to make its way through the courts.
He said that if the program were allowed to proceed at this point, "The genie would be impossible to put back into the bottle." The lawsuit was brought by 26 states.
The DHS secretary continued to defend the merits and legality of the program on Tuesday.
"The Department of Justice, legal scholars, immigration experts and even other courts have said that our actions are well within our legal authority. Our actions will also benefit the economy and promote law enforcement. We fully expect to ultimately prevail in the courts, and we will be prepared to implement [the actions] once we do," Johnson said.
Republicans, meanwhile, are seizing on the federal court order to build own their case for stalled legislation that would reverse those directives.
The decision "is a major turning point in the fight to stop Obama's lawless amnesty," Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said in a statement.
Congress is effectively stuck on how to fund the Department of Homeland Security past the end of the month -- and the immigration actions are the sticking point.
Republicans want a bill that would both fund DHS and undo Obama's immigration directives. Democrats, though, want a bill to only fund DHS, with no immigration strings attached -- they want to keep Obama's immigration program in place, and don't think the issue should be debated within a budget bill, anyway.
Senate Democrats repeatedly have blocked a House-passed bill that includes the immigration provision. Each chamber is now waiting for the other to act, with the Feb. 27 funding deadline fast-approaching.
But Republicans see Monday's court order as a boost for their side, and are using it to urge Democrats to drop their resistance to the bill.
"The Senate Democrats who are filibustering Department of Homeland Security funding should look hard at this ruling," Cruz said.
GOP leaders of the House and Senate hit the same argument.
House Speaker John Boehner -- who over the weekend told "Fox News Sunday" that "the House has acted" and he's prepared for a possible partial DHS shutdown -- said in a statement: "Hopefully, Senate Democrats who claim to oppose this executive overreach will now let the Senate begin debate on a bill to fund the Homeland Security department."
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., likewise urged his Democratic counterparts to "end their partisan filibuster of Department of Homeland Security funding."
But despite the round of Republican statements, Democrats did not appear to be budging. And with Congress out this week, lawmakers have just a few days left to strike a deal -- or else DHS will face a partial shutdown.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., a supporter of the president's immigration actions, on Tuesday put the onus on Republicans to move through a funding bill before the deadline.
He said "it is completely unacceptable for Republicans to hold up funding for the Department of Homeland Security while the case wends its way through the legal system."
Schumer also said the ruling "is very unlikely to be upheld."
For the time being, the Obama administration is set to appeal.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, in a statement, reiterated the administration's position that Obama's executive actions were within the bounds of the law.
"The Supreme Court and Congress have made clear that the federal government can set priorities in enforcing our immigration laws-which is exactly what the President did when he announced commonsense policies to help fix our broken immigration system," Earnest said, later adding, "The district court's decision wrongly prevents these lawful, commonsense policies from taking effect and the Department of Justice has indicated that it will appeal that decision."
An appeal by the administration would be handled by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Shocking.
A republiclown judge in Texas rules against the president.
Just shocking.
______________________________________________________________________
So a Federal Judge stays an illegal order by obama and you see it as a "republiclown judge".
Newflash dumdass: even democrats have to obey the law.
The judge's ruling had nothing to do with whether the order is legal or not. If that's what you think, then you're the "dumbass".
Shocking.
A republiclown judge in Texas rules against the president.
Just shocking.
______________________________________________________________________
So a Federal Judge stays an illegal order by obama and you see it as a "republiclown judge".
Newflash dumdass: even democrats have to obey the law.
The judge's ruling had nothing to do with whether the order is legal or not. If that's what you think, then you're the "dumbass".
__________________________________________________________________
Apparently you missed the word "stays".
Try reading all the words. You then might understand.
Even democrat Senators and Congressmen are now openly in opposition to obama's amnesty exec. order.
Until today, the democrats in the Senate were filibustering against the Congress's Immigration measures and not even allowing discussion of the issue in the Senate.
This is also known as obstruction Harry Reid style.
After the federal judges stay order this morning, the democrats in the Senate say they are "open" to discussion.
muledouche's butthurt will resume when the next higher court overturns today's decision.
Shocking.
A republiclown judge in Texas rules against the president.
Just shocking.
______________________________________________________________________
So a Federal Judge stays an illegal order by obama and you see it as a "republiclown judge".
Newflash dumdass: even democrats have to obey the law.
The judge's ruling had nothing to do with whether the order is legal or not. If that's what you think, then you're the "dumbass".
__________________________________________________________________
Apparently you missed the word "stays".
Try reading all the words. You then might understand.Even democrat Senators and Congressmen are now openly in opposition to obama's amnesty exec. order.
Until today, the democrats in the Senate were filibustering against the Congress's Immigration measures and not even allowing discussion of the issue in the Senate.
This is also known as obstruction Harry Reid style.After the federal judges stay order this morning, the democrats in the Senate say they are "open" to discussion.
Hilarious! Freaking hilarious!
Given his history of loss after loss in front of the courts, I'm thinking the bets against Obama on this one have a better chance of paying off.
What's amazing is any level of support for a President who endlessly seeks to expand Executive power. If it were a Republican, the cries of an "imperial presidency" would be deafening, and ghosts of Nixon would paraded in every speech and comment against. And even if one didn't care about the politics, the economics make no sense from folks who regularly crow about "voting for their interests". How do millions of new low-skilled workers help the poor earn more or find work easier?
Supreme Court Rules Unanimously Against Obama for 12th and 13th Time Since 2012
Did you know the Obama administration’s position has been defeated in at least 13 – thirteen — cases before the Supreme Court since January 2012 that were unanimous decisions? It continued its abysmal record before the Supreme Court today with the announcement of two unanimous opinions against arguments the administration had supported. First, the Court rejected the administration’s power grab on recess appointments by making clear it could not decide when the Senate was in recess. Then it unanimously tossed out a law establishing abortion-clinic “buffer zones” against pro-life protests that the Obama administration argued on behalf of before the Court (though the case was led by Massachusetts attorney general Martha Coakley).
The tenure of both President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder has been marked by a dangerous push to legitimize a vast expansion of the power of the federal government that endangers the liberty and freedom of Americans. They have taken such extreme position on key issues that the Court has uncharacteristically slapped them down time and time again. Historically, the Justice Department has won about 70 percent of its cases before the high court. But in each of the last three terms, the Court has ruled against the administration a majority of the time.
So even the liberal justices on the Court, including the two justices appointed by President Barack Obama — Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor — have disagreed with the DOJ’s positions. As George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin told the Washington Times last year, “When the administration loses significant cases in unanimous decisions and cannot even hold the votes of its own appointees . . . it is an indication that they adopted such an extreme position on the scope of federal power that even generally sympathetic judges could not even support it.”
Those decisions are very revealing about the views of President Obama and Eric Holder: Their vision is one of unchecked federal power on immigration and environmental issues, on presidential prerogatives, and the taking of private property by the government; hostility to First Amendment freedoms that don’t meet the politically correct norms; and disregard of Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless government intrusion. These are positions that should alarm all Americans regardless of their political views, political-party affiliations, or background.
While yesterday’s Supreme Court decision unanimously rejecting the administration’s argument that a search warrant wasn’t required for the government to look at cell-phone records and data got a lot of attention, it’s not the first time the Obama administration has taken an anti–civil liberties stance. In last year’s case of U.S. v. Jones, the Justice Department essentially tried to convince the Supreme Court that the Fourth Amendment’s protections against search and seizure should not prevent the government from tracking any American at any time without any reason.
Justice argued that the police should be able to attach a GPS device to your car without a search warrant or even any reason to believe you committed a crime. Fortunately for those who fear the ever-growing power of the federal government, particularly its abuse of new technology, all nine justices agreed that the Fourth Amendment prevents the government from attaching a GPS to your car without getting a warrant.
Even Justice Sotomayor, President Obama’s own nominee to the Court, agreed that the government had invaded “privacy interests long afforded, and undoubtedly entitled to, Fourth Amendment protection.” But Eric Holder wanted to ignore the Bill of Rights and believed that his agents should be able to track all of your movements in public by attaching a GPS device to your car without permission from a judge. This is a frightening view of government power enhanced by new surveillance technology that would have directly threatened our liberty. When will liberals wake up to the fact that this administration takes positions on executive power that would make Richard Nixon and John Mitchell, his attorney general, blush?
Obama’s illegal amnesty order blocked by Fed. Judge
Good.
What Obama was talking about then and what his executive order does are NOT one and the same.
So, Gondicar, could you explain what the difference is? Also, I haven't seen anyone say that the order is illegal, just that there's a stay until the lawsuit can go forward.
What's amazing is any level of support for a President who endlessly seeks to expand Executive power. If it were a Republican, the cries of an "imperial presidency" would be deafening,
Yeah nobody has accused Obama of that! Sheesh.
Live under a rock much?
What Obama was talking about then and what his executive order does are NOT one and the same.
So, Gondicar, could you explain what the difference is? Also, I haven't seen anyone say that the order is illegal, just that there's a stay until the lawsuit can go forward.
It is quite simple. Then he was talking about amnesty. His executive order is not amnesty. His political opponents, as per usual, will say it is amnesty over and over until people start to believe them and repeat it, but that doesn't make it true.
As for your "also", muleman is the one that said the judge's ruling was that the executive order is illegal with the very first line of this thread:
"A Federal Judge in Texas apparently agrees with what obama said for years; that he does not have the authority to grant blanket amnesty to illegal aliens."
[Edited on 2/18/2015 by gondicar]
What Obama was talking about then and what his executive order does are NOT one and the same.
So, Gondicar, could you explain what the difference is? Also, I haven't seen anyone say that the order is illegal, just that there's a stay until the lawsuit can go forward.
It is quite simple. Then he was talking about amnesty. His executive order is not amnesty. His political opponents, as per usual, will say it is amnesty over and over until people start to believe them and repeat it, but that doesn't make it true.
As for your "also", muleman is the one that said the judge's ruling was that the executive order is illegal with the very first line of this thread:
"A Federal Judge in Texas apparently agrees with what obama said for years; that he does not have the authority to grant blanket amnesty to illegal aliens."
[Edited on 2/18/2015 by gondicar]
Sorry, I meant to say that I hadn't seen any of the posts say it was illegal, since he did use it in the TITLE of the thread, but did not say it was illegal in the post.
What Obama was talking about then and what his executive order does are NOT one and the same.
So, Gondicar, could you explain what the difference is? Also, I haven't seen anyone say that the order is illegal, just that there's a stay until the lawsuit can go forward.
It is quite simple. Then he was talking about amnesty. His executive order is not amnesty. His political opponents, as per usual, will say it is amnesty over and over until people start to believe them and repeat it, but that doesn't make it true.
_______________________________________________________________________obama's amnesty order is illegal and has been identified as such by many credible legal scholars.
The fact that the judge stayed the order also lends credence to the illegal label as the root of the lawsuit brought by the 26 states is that The Constitution says obama's exec. order is illegal.
obama himself said 22 times that he did not have the authority to do exactly what he did in November.
So was obama lying then or is he lying now?
As for your "also", muleman is the one that said the judge's ruling was that the executive order is illegal with the very first line of this thread:
"A Federal Judge in Texas apparently agrees with what obama said for years; that he does not have the authority to grant blanket amnesty to illegal aliens."
[Edited on 2/18/2015 by gondicar]
Sorry, I meant to say that I hadn't seen any of the posts say it was illegal, since he did use it in the TITLE of the thread, but did not say it was illegal in the post.
What's amazing is any level of support for a President who endlessly seeks to expand Executive power. If it were a Republican, the cries of an "imperial presidency" would be deafening, and ghosts of Nixon would paraded in every speech and comment against.
You should check your history Fujirich as Reagan and Bush II issued far more executive orders then Obama has to date. Reagan (381), Bush II (291) and Obama (194 as of 11/21/14) So does that mean they were "imperial Presidents" as well? In fact given how much time he has left in office it will be a challenge for him to approach Bush or Reagan's use of executive orders before his term of office is over.
Due to the state of our dysfunctional Congress, and I criticize both parties, this is one of the only means for a sitting President to get any meaningful legislation enacted IMHO.
The GOP has made it very clear they will oppose any legislation the Obama administration proposes so this is the only means for him to get anything done.
What's amazing is any level of support for a President who endlessly seeks to expand Executive power. If it were a Republican, the cries of an "imperial presidency" would be deafening, and ghosts of Nixon would paraded in every speech and comment against.
You should check your history Fujirich as Reagan and Bush II issued far more executive orders then Obama has to date. Reagan (381), Bush II (291) and Obama (194 as of 11/21/14) So does that mean they were "imperial Presidents" as well? In fact given how much time he has left in office it will be a challenge for him to approach Bush or Reagan's use of executive orders before his term of office is over.
Due to the state of our dysfunctional Congress, and I criticize both parties, this is one of the only means for a sitting President to get any meaningful legislation enacted IMHO.
The GOP has made it very clear they will oppose any legislation the Obama administration proposes so this is the only means for him to get anything done.
The initiatives that he proposes have a little to do with it.
What's amazing is any level of support for a President who endlessly seeks to expand Executive power. If it were a Republican, the cries of an "imperial presidency" would be deafening, and ghosts of Nixon would paraded in every speech and comment against.
You should check your history Fujirich as Reagan and Bush II issued far more executive orders then Obama has to date. Reagan (381), Bush II (291) and Obama (194 as of 11/21/14) So does that mean they were "imperial Presidents" as well? In fact given how much time he has left in office it will be a challenge for him to approach Bush or Reagan's use of executive orders before his term of office is over.
Due to the state of our dysfunctional Congress, and I criticize both parties, this is one of the only means for a sitting President to get any meaningful legislation enacted IMHO.
The GOP has made it very clear they will oppose any legislation the Obama administration proposes so this is the only means for him to get anything done.
The initiatives that he proposes have a little to do with it.
This is related to an Executive Order yes? so don't see how it has little to do with what I posted.
The Republicans in Congress face a dilemma. Support the President and lose your next election or don't and win your next election. How do you figure that's going to shake out?
The Republicans in Congress face a dilemma. Support the President and lose your next election or don't and win your next election. How do you figure that's going to shake out?
You must be confused Alloak as I was responding to Fuji's allegation that Obama is abusing his power which based on that fact he has the right to issue Executive orders, and history showing he has not abused this privilege, was my only point. I was not commenting on whether what he proposes is good or bad.
In any case we all know Republicans have basically stonewalled just about every proposed Legislation the Obama administration has proposed the last 6 years so no I would not expect them to support him in this case.
The GOP has made it very clear they will oppose any legislation the Obama administration proposes
The initiatives that he proposes have a little to do with it.
This is related to an Executive Order yes? so don't see how it has little to do with what I posted.
Hmmm
The GOP has made it very clear they will oppose any legislation the Obama administration proposes
The initiatives that he proposes have a little to do with it.
This is related to an Executive Order yes? so don't see how it has little to do with what I posted.
Hmmm
Well the thread is related to an Executive order yes?
Due to the state of our dysfunctional Congress, and I criticize both parties, this is one of the only means for a sitting President to get any meaningful legislation enacted IMHO.
You sure that's not functional? If a sitting President was able to dictate 100% passage of anything he could possibly want, that would be dysfunctional.
The system is working precisely the way it was set up to operate, yet some folks are still not happy.
Due to the state of our dysfunctional Congress, and I criticize both parties, this is one of the only means for a sitting President to get any meaningful legislation enacted IMHO.
You sure that's not functional? If a sitting President was able to dictate 100% passage of anything he could possibly want, that would be dysfunctional.
The system is working precisely the way it was set up to operate, yet some folks are still not happy.
No it is not working as intended Alloak. I doubt our founding fathers envisioned the political parties being so polarized on every issue impacting its citizens. There is little if any bipartisan collaboration in Congress which results in nothing getting done.
Now the Democrats in Congress are just a guilty as the GOP with the stonewalling when they don't control the White House, as can be seen in the large number of Executive Orders Reagan and Bush II issued, but right now there just happens to be a Democrat in the Whitehouse so it is the GOP stonewalling requiring the President to act within the law.
Conservatives don't seem to have an issue when a Republican President uses Executive Orders but somehow Obama is seen as abusing his power.
The system is broken with no fix in sight.
You should check your history Fujirich as Reagan and Bush II issued far more executive orders then Obama has to date. Reagan (381), Bush II (291) and Obama (194 as of 11/21/14) So does that mean they were "imperial Presidents" as well?
It's not the number of executive orders that's important, it's the scope. This amnesty order
isn't like re-naming an airport.
