Tag: Executive

Obama Crime Syndicate Update: Regime Violates Executive Amnesty Injunction… AGAIN!

‘OOPS!’ Feds Violate Executive Amnesty Injunction… Again! – Breitbart

.

.
The government has once again violated a federal court’s injunction prohibiting the implementation of President Obama’s executive amnesty plan. The action comes right before high-ranking federal government officials, including the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), have been ordered to appear in an August hearing to show why they should not be held in contempt for prior failures to comply with the injunction.

The litigation began in December 2014 when the state of Texas and 25 other states filed a federal lawsuit to halt President Obama’s amnesty plan.

A federal judge in Brownsville, Judge Andrew Hanen, issued an injunction in early February temporarily stopping the implementation of the executive amnesty plan.

In April, Judge Hanen issued a scathing rebuke directed at government lawyers and the DHS for misrepresentations made in the case, ordered the government to produce related documents, and warned the government against destroying any of this evidence, as reported by Breitbart Texas.

On July 7th, Judge Hanen ordered top Obama administration officials to personally appear in his court.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, and all other federal defendants, were ordered to attend a hearing on August 19th at 10 a.m. to show why the judge should not hold them in contempt of court.

Other defendant top officials ordered to appear include: R. Gil Kerlikowske, commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Leon Rodriguez, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; Sarah R Saldana, director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Ronald D. Vitiello, deputy chief of U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border of Protection.

The judge said he would cancel the hearing if a report ordered filed on July 31st satisfied him that the situation had been remedied. “Otherwise, the Court intends to utilize all available powers to compel compliance.”

The government’s latest report, and supplemental report, were filed just a few weeks before the July 31st compliance date.

Lawyers for the federal government have been working on the reports, called an “advisory,” to update the judge.

When compiling the report, the government found yet another failure by the federal government to follow the federal judge’s orders. The government has had to scurry in an attempt to avoid further wrath by the judge.

A government contractor mailed approximately 500 cards extending work and stay authorizations.

The executive amnesty plan would expand from two to three years, work authorizations and stays in the U.S.

The cards had been mailed prior to the injunction but were returned because of a problem with the addresses. The contractor updated the addresses and then mailed them out again – this time after the court’s injunction.

The government assures the Court that it is taking immediate actions to address the new violations.

The government says they have attempted to remedy this new problem by sending letters to these individuals demanding that they return the cards.

In his July order, Judge Hanen warned the government if violations which had been committed as of that time had not been corrected, and corrected by the end of the month, “the only logical conclusion is that the Government needs a stronger motivation to comply with lawful orders.”

He continued, “Neither side should interpret this Court’s personal preference to not sanction lawyers or parties as an indication that it will merely acquiesce to a party’s unlawful conduct.”

The judge noted in his July 7th order that there had been “approximately 2,000 individuals that were given various benefits in violation of this Court’s order after the injunction was issued.”

He wrote, “The Court was first apprised by the Government of the violations of its injunction on May 7, 2015. It admitted that it violated this Court’s injunction on at least 2,000 occasions – violations which have not been fixed.”

The judge warned U.S. Department of Justice lawyers and federal officials that “no reasonable person could possibly consider a direct violation of an injunction a side issue.”

He also wrote, “the Court is shocked and surprised at the cavalier attitude the Government has taken with regards to its ‘efforts’ to rectify this situation.”

He noted that the situation had not been corrected six weeks after the government admitted it had violated the orders on May 7th and promised it would mend the situation.

In ordering federal officials to the August 19th hearing in Brownsville, he also ordered that “the Government shall bring all relevant witnesses on this topic as the Court will not continue this matter to a later date.”

At that time, the Court stated that the administration “has not remediated its own violative behavior,” despite the passage of two months. The judge wrote, “That is unacceptable and, as far as the Government’s attorneys are concerned, completely unprofessional.”

Judge Hanen warned, “To be clear, this Court expects the Government to be in full compliance with this Court’s injunction. Compliance as to just those aliens living in the Plaintiff States is not full compliance.”

It is unknown how the Court will take yet another violation of its orders.

.

.

IRS Commissioner Admits Illegal Aliens Can Get Back Taxes Under Obama’s Executive Amnesty

IRS Finally Admits Illegals Can Get Back Taxes Under Obama Amnesty – Washington Times

.

.
IRS Commissioner John Koskinen has confirmed to Congress that illegal immigrants granted amnesty under President Obama’s new programs could claim back refunds even when they never filed returns to pay their taxes in the first place.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, who had pressed Mr. Koskinen over the issue, released written responses Wednesday in which the commissioner admitted he’d botched the question earlier and, in fact, illegal immigrants granted the amnesty will now be able to claim refunds on tax returns they never even filed, thanks to the Earned Income Tax Credit.

“To clarify my earlier comments on EITC, not only can an individual amend a prior year return to claim EITC, but an individual who did not file a prior year return may file a return and claim EITC (subject to refund limitations under section 6511 of the Internal Revenue Code),” Mr. Koskinen said.

He insisted, however, that he doubts many illegal immigrants will take advantage of the loophole because they would have to be able to prove their earnings for those years they never filed returns.

“Filers would have to reconstruct earnings and other records for years when they were not able to work on the books,” he said.

Taxpayers must have Social Security numbers in order to claim the EITC, and illegal immigrants aren’t supposed to have numbers. But Mr. Obama’s new deportation amnesty grants illegal immigrants work permits, which are then used to obtain Social Security numbers.

IRS lawyers have ruled that once illegal immigrants get numbers, they can go back and refile for up to three previous years’ taxes and claim refunds even for time they were working illegally.

The lawyers said since the EITC is a refundable credit, that’s allowed even when the illegal immigrants worked off the books and never paid taxes in the first place.

“Section 32 of the Internal Revenue Code requires an SSN on the return, but a taxpayer claiming the EITC is not required to have an SSN before the close of the year for which the EITC is claimed,” Mr. Koskinen said. “At your request, the IRS has reviewed the relevant statutes and legislative history, and we believe that the 2000 Chief Counsel Advice (CCA) on this issue is correct.”

Mr. Koskinen had initially said illegal immigrants could claim refunds, but only for years they’d filed returns and presumably had paid some taxes.

Most of Mr. Obama’s amnesty is on hold after federal courts ruled he likely broke the law by acting on his own without Congress‘ approval and without putting his policy out for public review and comment.

But a 2012 policy that applies to so-called Dreamers, or young adult illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, is in effect.

Homeland Security has approved 664,607 initial applications for Dreamers, and approved another 243,872 renewals over the last year, extending the initial two-year amnesty for another two years.

.

.

Federal Court Deals Blow To President Asshat’s Executive Amnesty Scheme

Federal Appeals Court Deals Blow To President Obama’s Amnesty – Washington Times

.

.
A federal appeals court upheld an injunction against President Obama’s new deportation in a ruling Tuesday that marks the second major legal setback for an administration that had insisted its actions were legal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Texas, which had sued to stop the amnesty, on all key points, finding that Mr. Obama’s amnesty likely broke the law governing how big policies are to be written.

“The public interest favors maintenance of the injunction,” the judges wrote in the majority opinion.

Mr. Obama had acted in November to try to grant tentative legal status and work permits to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants, saying he was tired of waiting for Congress to act.

The full amnesty, known as Deferred Action for Parental Accountability, or DAPA, had been scheduled to begin last week, while an earlier part had been slated to accept applications on Feb. 18. But just two days before that, Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued his injunction finding that Mr. Obama had broken the law.

Administration officials had criticized that ruling, and immigrant-rights advocates had called Judge Hanen an activist bent on punishing immigrants. But Tuesday’s ruling upholds his injunction, giving some vindication to the judge.

It also could mean Mr. Obama will have to appeal to the Supreme Court if he wants to implement his amnesty before the end of his term.

In the 2-1 decision, Judge Jerry E. Smith and Jennifer Elrod ruled in favor of Texas, finding that the state would suffer an injury from having to deliver services to the illegal immigrants granted legal status, and ruling that it was a major enough policy that the president should have sent it through the usual rule-making process.

“DAPA modifies substantive rights and interests – conferring lawful presence on 500,000 illegal aliens in Texas forces the state to choose between spending millions of dollars to subsidize driver’s licenses and changing its law,” the judges wrote.

Judge Stephen A. Higginson dissented from Tuesday’s ruling, saying he would have left the fight over immigration policy to the White House and Congress, saying Mr. Obama should have broad discretion to decide who gets deported and how he goes about that.

Just Higginson also said the fight was a political battle, not a legal one

“The political nature of this dispute is clear from the names on the briefs: hundreds of mayors, police chiefs, sheriffs, attorneys general, governors, and state legislators – not to mention 185 members of Congress, 15 states and the District of Columbia on the one hand, and 113 members of Congress and 26 states on the other,” he wrote.

.

.

Thanks Barack… Over Half A Million Illegals Have Received Social Security Numbers Since 2012 Executive Order

Senators Ask Gov’t How Many Illegals Got Social Security; The Number Is Almost Unbelievable – The Blaze

.
…………

.
The Social Security Administration has told Congress that more than half a million illegal immigrants have received new Social Security numbers, under President Barack Obama’s 2012 executive action allowing younger immigrants to stay in the United States and work.

Obama imposed his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals plan, also known as DACA, in 2012, and in doing so gave younger illegal immigrants legal protection and the ability to work. More than 600,000 immigrants have applied under the program, and in March, Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) asked how many of these immigrants also received Social Security numbers.

The Social Security Administration has told Congress that more than half a million illegal immigrants have received new Social Security numbers, under President Barack Obama’s 2012 executive action allowing younger immigrants to stay in the United States and work.

Obama imposed his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals plan, also known as DACA, in 2012, and in doing so gave younger illegal immigrants legal protection and the ability to work. More than 600,000 immigrants have applied under the program, and in March, Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) asked how many of these immigrants also received Social Security numbers.

The Obama administration says about 541,000 illegal immigrants now have Social Security numbers under President Obama’s 2012 executive action on immigration. Image via Shutterstock

At the time, they thought as many as 90,000 had received Social Security numbers, but Acting Social Security Administration Commissioner Carolyn Colvin said it was several multiples of that number.

“By the end of fiscal year 2014, we had issued approximately 541,000 original SSNs to individuals authorized to work under the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy since its inception,” she wrote.

Colvin said her agency did not have any data on how many immigrants might have applied for Social Security numbers who did not get one.

Colvin said her agency has “rigorous procedures” for processing these requests, and that applicants must show proof of identity and the ability to work. “We will not issue an SSN if an individual has insufficient or unacceptable documentation,” she wrote.

The two senators also asked how many illegal immigrants have received Social Security numbers under Obama’s more recent immigration action late last year. That action expanded DACA, and created a new program to let parents and legal guardians of legal residents stay in the country and work.

But Colvin said the answer to that question is, “none,” because a federal court has shut down that program for now. “We would only issue SSNs to these individuals if DHS began to accept and adjudicate applications and grant work authorization and documentation evidencing such authorization,” she wrote.

Still, her answers will likely draw criticism from Republican opponents of Obama’s actions, since they show that more than half a million illegal immigrants now have access to federal benefits like retirement and disability benefits.

Critics of Obama’s plan have criticized the plan because low-income immigrants with no net tax liability could gain as much as $3 in Social Security benefits for every $1 they pay into the system, which means Americans will now be subsidizing these immigrants.

.

.

Obama Regime Ordered Back To Federal Court To Explain Why It Lied About Executive Amnesty

WH Ordered Back To Court To Explain Alleged False Facts In Amnesty Case – Big Government

.

.
The judge who blocked President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration has ordered the Justice Department to answer allegations the government misled him about part of the plan.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen has ordered federal government lawyers to appear in his court March 19 in Brownsville. The hearing is in response to a filing last week in which the government acknowledged some deportation reprieves were granted before Hanen’s Feb. 16 injunction.

Government attorneys had previously said officials wouldn’t accept such requests under Obama’s action until Feb. 18.

The government said in its filing that the 100,000 immigrants who were granted three-year reprieves and work permits were already eligible under a previous immigration plan from 2012.

The 26 states suing over Obama’s plan requested more information.

.

.

26 States Call For Investigation Of Obama’s Executive Amnesty Scheme And Federal Court Perjury

26 States Want Investigation Of Obama’s Amnesty – Daily Caller

.

.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking a judge to allow an investigation of the closed-door workings of President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty, following the discovery that 100,000 illegal immigrants had secretly been given three-year amnesty documents well before a promised start date.

“The Obama Administration appears to have already been issuing expanded work permits, in direct contradiction to what they told a federal judge previously in this litigation,” Paxton said in a Thursday statement describing his legal request, which was signed by the governors or attorneys general of 26 states.

“The circumstances behind this must be investigated, and the motion we seek would help us determine to what extent the Administration might have misrepresented the facts in this case,” he added.

The judge has frozen Obama’s amnesty since Feb. 16, pending the future decisions of appeals court judges. Without the judge’s decision, Obama’s deputies already would be preparing work permits and tax rebates for illegals.

Paxton’s hardball response was cheered by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott. ”I commend Attorney General Paxton for continuing to hold the Obama Administration accountable, and I’m confident an investigation would find the Administration knowingly or recklessly misled a Federal Court in issuing thousands of amnesty documents illegally,” he said Thursday.

“President Obama has continued to show complete disregard for the Rule of Law by acting beyond his Constitutional authority at every stage of this process,” he added.

The judge, Andrew Hanen, showed his skepticism about the administration in a 2014 case, when he said border officers were being used by the administration to illegally transfer foreign children from Central America to their parents living illegally in U.S. cities.

On Feb. 16, Hanen froze Obama’s two-part amnesty, which was intended to provide residency, work permits and tax rebates to at least four million illegals, after concluding it likely violated the federal government’s rule-making process.

The amnesty for roughly 1 million younger illegals is called the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, and it was launched in June 2012, five months before the 2012 election. Obama’s November amnesty extends the work permits given to the younger illegals from two years to three years.

The amnesty for roughly 4 million parent illegals is called DAPA, or Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents. Obama’s plan would give them work permits, tax rebates, Social Security numbers, drivers’ license and a fast-track to citizenship.

In November, administration statements had declared it would not start the DACA upgrade until Feb. 18, and would not start the DAPA amnesty until in May 2015. On Jan. 15, Obama’s lawyer told the judge that “no applications for the revised DACA… would be accepted until the 18th of February.”

But Obama’s deputies were already handing out the three-year DACA amnesties. By mid-February, 100,000 three-year amnesties had been given to illegals who had received two-year amnesties in 2012 or 2013.

On March 3, Obama’s lawyers admitted to the judge that officials had already given the three-year DACA amnesties to 100,000 people, according to a March 4 article in the Washington Examiner.

“Out of an abundance of caution, however, Defendants wish to bring one issue to the Court’s attention,” said the administration’s document given to the judge. “Between November 24, 2014 and the issuance of the Court’s [Feb. 16] Order, USCIS granted three-year periods of deferred action to approximately 100,000 individuals who had requested deferred action under the original 2012 DACA guidelines.”

The officials excused the deception by claiming that the announced Feb. 18 start date “may have led to confusion about when USCIS had begun providing three-year terms of deferred action to individuals already eligible for deferred action under 2012 DACA.”

The administration’s “confusion” was exposed March 3, the same day that top GOP leaders allied with Democrats to pressure GOP legislators to pass a budget bill for the Department of Homeland Security. The budget did pass, and it doesn’t block funding for Obama’s unpopular and possibly illegal amnesty.

.

.

*VIDEOS* House Committees: Hearings On Executive Amnesty And Immigration Law Enforcement


HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING ON PRESIDENT OBAMA’S EXECUTIVE AMNESTY

.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY GOWDY’S OPENING STATEMENT

.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY GOWDY QUESTIONS LEFTIST PROFESSOR STEPHEN LEGOMSKY

.
FULL HEARING

……………………….Click on image above to watch video.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related videos:

.

HOUSE OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE HEARING ON IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT

.
TESTIMONY OF JAMIEL SHAW, FATHER OF TEENAGER MURDERED BY ILLEGAL ALIEN

.
FULL HEARING

.

Federal Judge Slams The Brakes On President Asshat’s Executive Amnesty Scheme

Federal Judge Halts Obama’s Amnesty Orders – WorldNetDaily

.

.
A federal judge in Texas on Monday granted a temporary injunction halting President Obama’s executive-order driven amnesty program.

The ruling from U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen ordered the government not to proceed with any portion of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, DAPA.

In his order the federal judge said the court found “that at least one plaintiff has satisfied all the necessary elements to maintain a lawsuit and to obtain a temporary injunction.”

“The United States of America, its departments, agencies, officers, agents and employees and Jeh Johnson, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; R. Gil Kerlikowske, commissioner of United States customs and Border Protection; Ronald D. Vitiello, deputy chief of United States Border Patrol, United States Customs and Border Protection; Thomas S. Winkowski, acting director of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Leon Rodriguez, director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services are hereby enjoined from implementing any and all aspects or phases of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents…”

The outline of plans was “set out in the Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson’s memorandum dated November 20, 2014.”

The injunction is until “a final resolution of the merits of this case or until a further order of this court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit or the United States Supreme Court,” the judge ordered.

He cited the Obama administration’s failure to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act.

Hanen also ordered that federal officials and agencies are further enjoined from implementing “any and all aspects or phases of the expansions (including any and all changes) to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.”

That was the program begun several years ago by Obama.

The judge also explained the defendants will be allowed to “reapproach this court for relief from this order, in the time period between the date of this order and the trial on the merits, for good cause, including if Congress passes legislation that authorizes DAPA or at such a time as the defendants have complied with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.”

He scheduled a conference call for counsel following a Feb. 27, 2015, deadline for a schedule for the case to be processed.

In Austin, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said, “President Obama abdicated his responsibility to uphold the United States Constitution when he attempted to circumvent the laws passed by Congress via executive fiat, and Judge Hanen’s decision rightly stops the president’s overreach in its tracks. We live in a nation governed by a system of checks and balances, and the president’s attempt to by-pass the will of the American people was successfully checked today. The district court’s ruling is very clear – it prevents the president from implementing the policies in ‘any and all aspects.’”

It’s one of two pending cases challenging Obama’s amnesty.

The other actually was developed first, and was thrown out at the district court level.

But it now is on a fast track before an appellate court in Washington, D.C.

It was filed by attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, on behalf of Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona.

Klayman told WND he’s waiting now for the government to respond to the appellate court.

“We want the D.C. court to enter a preliminary injunction, stopping everything in its tracks,” he said. “We’re confident that they will agree with us.”

Obama’s amnesty plans are forecast to allow at least another five million illegal aliens in the U.S. to be given a legal status, where they could hold jobs, driver’s licenses – and critics say they would even be allowed to vote.

WND had reported earlier on the significance of the case, which was brought by 26 states against the federal government. It was predicted to go far beyond amnesty and immigration.

The fight will determine whether the United States can be run by a president and his decrees, or by a chief elected official who enforces the laws Congress writes, according to Mark Krikorian, chief of the Center for Immigration Studies, which watches the immigration situation.

“If I were a Republican politician, I wouldn’t even be arguing this on the basis of immigration,” he told WND in an interview. “I would be talking about this as just the latest and most egregious example of a president’s rule by decree.”

He said the coming dispute, which very well may extend into the 2016 presidential election or beyond, is going to decide “the balance of powers, whether Congress actually makes law or is an advisory body like the U.N. General Assembly, which is how Obama sees it.”

Obama already has challenged America’s laws a multitude of times, simply issuing orders to make changes to the Obamacare law, and on a variety of other issues, all without the benefit of a decision by Congress, which originally wrote the laws.

The fight over amnesty is one of two focal points – the other is Obamacare – of a letter-writing campaign to encourage GOP members of the U.S. House to replace Speaker John Boehner.

The “Dump Boehner Now” campaign allows voters to reach every single Republican House member with hard-copy letters asking them to reconsider their choice as speaker. The letter says House members had the chance to stop Obamacare and amnesty, but Boehner failed to take advantage.

Joseph Farah, WND founder and campaign organizer, set up the letters campaign. He said the opposition to Boehner is based on the Obamacare and amnesty program that voters rejected in the 2014 midterm elections.

The letter explains to members of the U.S. House that two issues have “prompted Americans to turn in droves to the Republican Party in November 2014 – Barack Obama’s blatantly unconstitutional executive action to provide amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, and the deliberately deceptive restructuring of America’s health-care system through Obamacare, which threatens to unravel the greatest health delivery system in the world.”

Pointing out that Republicans before the election “solemnly vowed to STOP this lame-duck president,” the letter states: “Now you have the power, right and duty to stop him.

“But it won’t happen with John Boehner leading you. You know this to be true. The trillion-dollar budget deal is just the latest proof that Boehner is not capable of leading the House to victory during this critical period.”

It’s because during the lame-duck Congress, Boehner agreed to Obama’s plan to continue funding for Obamacare and amnesty into 2015.

MSNBC did a report only days ago speculating on whether Hanen would halt the federal plan. MSNBC called Hanen “a critic of the Obama administration’s immigration policies.”

Worried MSNBC, “If Hanen decides against the Obama administration, he could block the implementation of the executive measures, which are scheduled to kick in Feb. 18. If that were to happen, the Department of Justice would almost certainly appeal the decision, which would then go to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals – yet another conservative-leaning court.”

The fact that more than half the states are participating in the case has alarmed amnesty supporters, but they still hope more and more illegals come out of the shadows and claim a place at the head of the line of those awaiting official recognition in the U.S., or at least it appears that way.

Karen Tumlin of the National Immigration Law Center told MSNBC, “People have been waiting so long for a chance to come forward and be able to work with authorization and not be looking over their shoulder all day long. We’re really trying to send the message that this should be business as usual.”

House Republicans, under Boehner, also have said they are going to take court action, but haven’t yet.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the decision was a victory.

“And a crucial first step in reining in President Obama’s lawlessness,” he added.

Klayman has explained it’s not a case mainly about immigration.

“This is fundamentally about the rule of law and our constitutional system,” he said.

“I know we would prefer, like all conservatives and patriots, to have a clear ruling that executive overreach by any president is a dangerous injury to our Constitution. Lawyers do recognize, however, that courts try to find the easiest way to reach a result. We hope to reach a ruling that the executive branch cannot rewrite the nation’s laws whether they go through the Administrative Procedures Act process or not,” Klayman said.

In an accompanying 123-page memorandum, Hanen wrote about the states’ interest in not allowing “their own resources” to be drained by the “constant influx of illegal immigrants.”

He found “States ultimately bear the brunt of illegal immigration.”

The opinion noted specifically that Washington “maintains that none of the plaintiffs have standing to bring this injunctive action. The states disagree, claiming that the government cannot implement a substantive program and then insulate itself from legal challenges by those who suffer from its negative effects.”

The judge noted the reality of the immigration situation.

“When apprehending illegal aliens, the government often processes and releases them with only the promise that they will return for a hearing if and when the government decides to hold one. In the meantime, the states – with little or no help from the government – are required by law to provide various services to this population.”

He continued, “It is indisputable that the states are harmed to some extent by the government’s action and inaction in the area of immigration.”

The judge said Obama’s program isn’t only a situation where there aren’t enough resources, so program managers pick and choose which cases to handle. Washington’s current program “is an announced program of non-enforcement of the law that contradicts Congress’ statutory goals.”

“The DHS does have discretion in the manner in which it chooses to fulfill the expressed will of Congress. It cannot, however, enact a program whereby it not only ignores the dictates of Congress, but actively acts to thwart them,” the judge said.

.

.

Undocumented Democrats Update: Obama’s Executive Amnesty Creates Easy Loophole For Illegals To Vote

This Just In: The Term ‘Undocumented Democrats’ Is Not A Joke; Wait Until You Read This – TPNN

.
…………

.
In December 2014, Utah Senator Mike Lee warned that Obama’s illegal executive amnesty would create an easy loophole for illegal aliens to register to vote thereby compromising our election system. On Thursday, two Secretaries of State testified before Congress that Obama’s illegal amnesty would indeed lead to more illegals voting.

Obama’s illegal amnesty creates a significant loophole since illegal aliens will, under Obama’s plan, be able to get drivers licenses and social security numbers. The Washington Times details the testimony of John Husted, Secretary of State in Ohio, and Kris Kobach, Secretary of state in Kansas.

Husted said that mass voter registration drives often lack the resources to fully pay attention to the verification of someone’s immigration status. When the individual is asked if they would like to register to vote and they can produce a drivers license and social security number, which Obama will allow illegal aliens to have, then the result will be more illegals voting, despite the fact that such action is illegal.

“It is a guarantee that it will happen, “ Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach said regarding an increasing number of illegals voting in elections. He added that illegals have pointed to being asked by workers at the Department of Motor Vehicles if they would like to register to vote as the reason that did register, then did indeed vote.

Of course, Democrats are accusing Republicans of simply wanting to suppress the right to vote, even though according to the Constitution, illegals do not have the right to vote.

Eleanor Holmes Norton, a non-voting delegate to Congress representing the District of Columbia, demonstrated that she is in need of a history lesson based upon her criticism of Republicans. Norton said, “The president’s executive order gives immigrants the right to stay – immigrants who have been here for years, immigrants who have been working hard and whose labor we have needed. The Republicans may want to go down in history as the party who tried once again 100 years later to nullify the right to vote. Well, I am here to say they shall not succeed.”

Perhaps Norton needs to brush up on her history since it was the Democrat Party who implemented Jim Crow laws in an attempt to prevent voting by blacks, just as it was the Democrats who enslaved blacks and fought to maintain the practice of slavery.

Rep. Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Democrat, took another dishonest path with his defense of Obama’s illegal amnesty by claiming that it’s doubtful that illegal aliens would risk voting since getting caught could get them deported. He added that votes by illegals would be an “insignificant part of an election.”

This disingenuous statement by Lynch is proven to be an egregious lie based upon polls by both the Washington Post and Pew Research Center which determined that illegal aliens are hyper-partisan with an overwhelming majority identifying as Democrats.

.

.

*VIDEO* Rep. Brooks Calls On GOP Senators To Grow A Pair And Defund Obama’s Illegal Executive Amnesty


.

.

Nevada And Tennessee Join 24 Other States Suing To Stop Obama’s Executive Amnesty

Nevada And Tennessee Make It 26 States Suing To Stop Obama’s Amnesty – Townhall

.

.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced Monday that both Nevada and Tennessee have joined the Lone Star state’s challenge of President Obama’s executive amnesty, bringing the total number of states fighting Obama’s unilateral immigration policies to 26.

“Texas is proud to lead a coalition that now includes a majority of the United States standing up against the President’s rogue actions,” Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement. “The momentum against the President’s lawlessness continues to build with Tennessee and Nevada joining the effort to protect our states from the economic and public safety implications of illegal amnesty. As President Obama himself has said numerous times, he lacks the authority to impose amnesty. His actions represent a blatant case of overreach and clear abuse of power.”

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen already heard oral arguments in the case January 15th, where Texas argued that Obama’s amnesty would create a new wave of illegal immigration that would burden state governments. “This is the second time they’ve done it in two years,” Texas attorney Andrew Oldham told Hanen. “People think: They’ve done it twice in two years. Maybe they’ll do it again in 2016.”

Obama lawyer Kathleen Hartnett disputed that claim, insisting that new arrivals will not come “on the expectation of receiving deferred action because they will be turned away.” “His policy only applies to people who have been here since 2012,” she said.

Judge Hanen is not likely to buy that administration argument. In a 2013 case, Hanen predicted that Obama’s lax border enforcement policies would lead to a wave of illegal immigration. And that is exactly what happened in 2014.

Texas and the other 25 states are asking Judge Hanen to issue an injunction that would stop Obama from giving out any work permits before the program gets up and running in May.

If Obama’s amnesty does stand it will cost taxpayers billions in tax credits every year.

With Tennessee and Nevada, the full list of 26 states suing Obama over his executive amnesty are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin.

.

.

Coalition Of States Suing Over Obama’s Executive Amnesty Scheme Swells To 24

Coalition Of States Suing Over Immigration Swells To 24 – Conservative Intelligence Briefing

Last week we reported that the tip of the Republican spear aimed at President Obama’s Executive-Order-turned-proclamation on immigration was the coalition of states that have joined the suit filed and led by TX Attorney General Greg Abbott.

.

.
At the time of reporting, the coalition of states in the suit stood at a healthy 17, but that number has now swelled to 24. With the potential for more states to sign on in the coming weeks, more than half of the states in the union could be taking on the federal government for its overreach.

Abbott remarked in a statement Wednesday on the coalition’s suit, “The president’s proposed executive decree violates the U.S. Constitution and federal law, circumvents the will of the American people and is an affront to the families and individuals who follow our laws to legally immigrate to the United States.”

The suit now includes the following states, reports CNN: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

.

.

Strike One: Federal Court Rules Obama’s Executive Amnesty Unconstitutional

District Court Declares Obama Immigration Action Unconstitutional – Washington Post

.

.
Earlier Tuesday, a federal court in Pennsylvania declared aspects of President Obama’s executive actions on immigration policy unconstitutional.

According to the opinion by Judge Arthur Schwab, the president’s policy goes “beyond prosecutorial discretion” in that it provides a relatively rigid framework for considering applications for deferred action, thus obviating any meaningful case-by-case determination as prosecutorial discretion requires, and provides substantive rights to applicable individuals. As a consequence, Schwab concluded, the action exceeds the scope of executive authority.

This is the first judicial opinion to address Obama’s decision to expand deferred action for some individuals unlawfully present in the United States. [I’ve now posted the opinion here.]

The procedural background of the case is somewhat unusual. The case involves an individual who was deported and then reentered the country unlawfully. In considering how to sentence the defendant, the court sought supplemental briefing on the applicability of the new policies to the defendant, and whether these policies would provide the defendant with additional avenues for seeking the deferral of his deportation. In this case, however, it’s not entirely clear it was necessary to reach the constitutional question to resolve the issues before the court with regard to the defendant’s sentence.

This isn’t the only case challenging the lawfulness of the Obama’s immigration actions. Some two-dozen states have filed suit challenging Obama’s recent immigration policy reforms. Led by Texas, these states claim that the president as exceeded the scope of executive authority in this area. As I’ve noted before, I’m skeptical of these arguments on the merits (as is Ilya), and wonder whether the states will be able to satisfy the requirements of Article III standing to bring their claims. Yet as this case shows, even if the states don’t have standing, the legality of the president’s actions could nonetheless be decided in federal court.

.

.

*VIDEO* Ted Cruz Verbally Bitchslaps Barack Obama Over Unconstitutional Executive Amnesty Scheme


.

.

17 States Take Obama To Court Over His Lawless Executive Amnesty Scheme

17 States Take Obama To Court: You Are Trampling The Constitution – CNS

.

.
A coalition of seventeen states joined together today to file suit against the Obama administration, arguing that President Obama swept aside the constitutional limits on his power and violated his constitutional obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” when he moved to unilateral dismiss enforcement of the immigration laws against 4 million illegal aliens.

“This lawsuit is not about immigration,” said the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. “It is about the rule of law, presidential power, and the structural limits of the U.S. Constitution.”

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who is the governor-elect of Texas, explained the states’ argument.

“The President’s unilateral executive action tramples the U.S. Constitution’s Take Care Clause and federal law,” Abbott said in a statement. “The Constitution’s Take Care Clause limits the President’s power and ensures that he will faithfully execute Congress’s laws – not rewrite them under the guise of ‘prosecutorial discretion.’”

In the complaint itself, the states pointed out that Obama had admitted, in a speech in Chicago, that he had in fact changed the law.

“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,” says the complaint. 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.’”

The seventeen states joining in the suit are: Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, North Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Mississippi and Maine.

They are asking for the court to block the president’s action.

.

.

President Asshat Promises To Shut Down The Government If Republicans Defund His Executive Amnesty

White House: Obama Will Shut Down The Government If GOP Doesn’t Fund His Executive Amnesty – Weasel Zippers

.

.
EXTREMIST!

Via Daily Caller:

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Monday that President Barack Obama will block a government budget bill if the GOP denies him the funds needed to provide amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

“Yes,” Earnest said when asked by ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl if Obama would veto a government-wide budget that defunded the amnesty program.

If Obama blocks the budget to help the illegals, large sections of the federal government would shut down on Dec. 12.

Keep reading

.

.

Your Daley Gator Unconstitutional Executive Amnesty News Update

Obama: Illegal Alien Wife Beaters Who Claim To Have An Abusive Childhood… Can Stay – Universal Free Press

.

.
A recent Department of Homeland Security (DHS) internal memo has revealed a new policy, which will allow untold numbers of illegal aliens who have been convicted of domestic violence to avoid deportation. The measure is part of Obama’s ‘executive order amnesty.’

On Nov. 20, DHS chief Jeh Johnson issued the memo, entitled “Policies for the Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants,” which among other items, classifies illegal aliens with domestic violence convictions as “Priority 2″ offenders.

The memo states:

“Aliens described in this priority , who are also not described in Priority 1, represent the second-highest priority for apprehension and removal. Resources should be dedicated accordingly to the removal of the following: aliens convicted of a “significant misdemeanor,” which for these purposes is an offense of domestic violence…”

However, a footnote to the paragraph reads:

“ln evaluating whether the offense is a significant misdemeanor involving …domestic violence,” careful consideration should be given to whether the convicted alien was also the victim of domestic violence; if so, this should be a mitigating factor.”

In other words… he gets to stay!

So, if an illegal alien is convicted of domestic violence for beating his girlfriend or wife, he can simply claim that he was once a victim of abuse as well, and he can continue to live his life in what is becoming a lawless nation.

This is yet another ploy by a criminal president to allow criminal aliens to stay in the country.

.

.

*VIDEO* Obama Repeatedly Declares Executive Amnesty Unconstitutional… Then Grants Amnesty To Millions Of Illegals


.

.

*VIDEOS* Excerpts Of House Judiciary Committee Hearing On Obama’s Executive Malfeasance


PART 1

.
PART 2

.

At Least 35 House Members Set To Sue Obama For Executive Overreaching

At Least 35 House Members Set To Sue Obama – WorldNetDaily

On Dec. 19, the Obama administration made its 14th change to Obamacare without requesting congressional action to make the amendments. Such a move is precisely why an effort is underway in the House of Representatives to sue President Obama and force him to abide by constitutional restraints.

.

.
The measure is known as the Stop This Overreaching Presidency, or STOP, Act and is sponsored by freshman Rep. Tom Rice, R-S.C. He told WND this is about abiding by the Constitution.

“Article II, Section 3, requires the president to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. Everybody’s bound by the law, including the president. He is not exempt,” Rice said. “If a president is allowed to pick and choose which laws he wishes to enforce, it creates tremendous opportunities for wrongdoing.

“What would we say if the next president who came in decided he didn’t like Obamacare and he wasn’t going to enforce any part of it? What would we say if a president decided he wasn’t going to enforce the maximum bracket on the income tax, or wasn’t going to enforce the income tax on his political friends? Of course, those things wouldn’t be tolerated,” Rice said. “We’ve got a similar type of lines going on here with Obamacare. We’ve got the president giving 1,300 exemptions. We’ve got him waiving the employer mandate for businesses but applying the individual mandate for the common conservative. It’s not right. The law has got to be applied uniformly.”

He said he actually started exploring this legislation earlier in the year based on comments made by a Democrat.

“I started working on this last July,” Rice said. “Right after the extension of the employer mandate was in the press, one of the Democratic senators said, ‘How can the president do this?’ That’s what spurred me to look at what we could do to force the president to enforce the law,” Rice said.

While executive branch changes to Obamacare are the most visible examples of Obama altering laws, Rice said there are plenty of other examples, too.

“In the resolution, we list four specific things. One is the waiver of the work requirements under the welfare law. One is the granting of legal work status to illegal immigrants en masse. One is the waiver of the employer mandate under the Affordable Care Act. The fourth is the extension for one year of the ability of the insurance companies to sell ‘substandard insurance policies.’ In this case, substandard means any insurance policy that people actually want to buy,” he said.

The congressman pointed out that the resolution only needs to pass the House, since the House can file or defend a lawsuit as a standalone institution. He said that would carry far more weight in a federal court than a lone member filing suit. He said he didn’t “ask permission” from GOP leaders before filing the bill, and a conversation with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor gives him reason for optimism.

“I have spoken to Cantor about it, and he seems interested in it. I think the chances of it hitting the floor are pretty good,” said Rice, who revealed he has 34 co-sponsors, including three House Judiciary Committee members. He said the ultimate success of the effort will depend upon how vocal the American people are about making sure the president follows the Constitution.

Democrats are expected to label the effort as another attempt by Republicans to scuttle Obamacare because they can’t accept that was passed and signed into law. Rice said that’s not the goal at all.

“I hear that a lot, but they don’t want to enforce what was passed. That’s the problem. They want to enforce the parts that they want. Let’s enforce exactly what was passed,” he said.

“This is not a tea-party thing,” he added. “This is not a Democrat versus Republican thing. This is not any personal animosity toward the president. What the president is doing undermines our constitutional protections, the separation of powers. Congress makes the laws. The president enforces the laws, and he’s refusing to do that. He’s not carrying out his constitutional duty and I simply want him to do what he’s required to do by the Constitution,” said Rice.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.