A judge has sided with Maricopa County Sheriff
Joe Arpaio in the first clash in what is expected to be a major court fight
over the legality of President Obama’s executive immigration actions, ordering
a fast track for case arguments and hearings.
Two Justice Department lawyers representing
Obama in the case had asked for the deadline for their initial response to be
delayed until late January.
But U.S. District Judge
Beryl A. Howell in Washington, D.C., granted a motion by Arpaio’s attorney,
Larry Klayman of FreedomWatch, to move things along quickly.
Howell ordered Obama to respond to Arpaio’s
motion for a preliminary injunction – to protect the U.S. while the court
considers the constitutionality of Obama’s actions – by Dec. 15. A full
preliminary injunction hearing is set for Dec. 22.
Arpaio was the first to file a complaint
regarding the immigration actions Obama announced to the nation Nov. 20, which
effectively granted amnesty to up to 5 million illegal aliens by delaying
deportation.
“We are very pleased that Judge Howell has
ordered an expedited hearing on our motion for preliminary injunction which
asks to preserve the status quo and stop the implementation of President
Obama’s executive order,” Klayman said. “The executive order violates the
Constitution, as it seeks to circumvent the powers which the Framers delegated
to Congress.”
Klayman argued Obama’s executive action “thwarts
Sheriff Arpaio’s duties and responsibilities as the chief law enforcement
officer of Maricopa County, Arizona.”
The complaint states: “This unconstitutional act
will have a serious detrimental impact. Specifically, it will severely strain
our resources. Among the many negative [e]ffects of this executive order, will
be the increased release of criminal aliens back onto streets of Maricopa
County, Arizona, and the rest of the nation.”
Klayman argued that similar to his case against
National Security Agency snooping, “one day that constitutional rights are
violated is one day too long.”
“In the NSA case, the Fourth Amendment rights of
nearly all Americans were violated. In this case concerning Obama’s immigration
order, the constitutional powers of the Congress are being flouted,” he said.
WND
reported earlier Wednesday
that Arpaio’s complaint argued the timing is crucial, because the government
already is pouring resources into meeting the orders, and the offer of amnesty
likely will draw a whole new flood of illegal aliens.
Department of Justice attorneys Adam Kirschner
and Brad Cohen had argued to a federal court in Washington, D.C., that
Christmas is coming, and they need a lot more time.
The attorneys had asked that they be allowed
until the second half of January even to submit an initial response to Arpaio’s
motion for a preliminary injunction, even though the administration has boasted
it has thoroughly examined the legality of Obama’s immigration action.
“This timeline is also warranted because it will
be particularly difficult to address the array of issues presented on a
condensed schedule in light of the upcoming holidays,” the attorneys said.
Klayman told the judge, however, that “the
defendants obviously have already extensively reviewed and analyzed their view
of the law and precedents.”
“On Nov. 20, 2014, the Office of Legal Counsel of
the U.S. Department of Justice released its 33 page legal memorandum for the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security.”
Klayman told the judge the Obama administration
officials “have not only evidenced but publicly boasted that they have
extensively examined these issues legally.”
Klayman’s submission to the court noted that
even though Obama never signed a formal executive order on his immigration
action, the impact is that programs and procedures are being changed already to
meet his demands.
The president’s decision, Klayman wrote, “orders
direct DHS personnel including the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and ICE
to immediately suspend enforcement of immigration laws with regard to
any who appear to be eligible for the new deferred action programs, even though
such persons might not yet be able to apply for formal recognition.”
The instructions also tell law enforcement
officials to “immediately” begin identifying those who could be given the
special benefit.
Klayman also argued that the federal government
already has leased office space and begun the process of hiring 1,000 new
workers to process the illegals through Obama’s amnesty program.
All of those actions would be for nothing if a
court rules that the program doesn’t meet the Constitution’s requirements, he
wrote.
“By contrast if the implementation is simply
delayed until a court decision, there will be no such harm,” he said.
Another injury would result from a new flood of
illegals drawn by the promise of amnesty, he said.
“America witnessed the tragedy and the shock as
thousands of ‘unaccompanied minors’ rushed across the nation’s southern border
shared with Mexico in the summer of 2014. Some of these ‘unaccompanied minors’
were middle-aged men with gray hair claiming to be 17 years old without
identity documents, some intact families but misreported among the news, but
some children as young as four (4) years old. Young men and middle-aged men –
lacking any documentation but claiming to be 17 years old – were placed in high
schools next to 16 and 17 year old girls.”
The fallout has resulted in “an epidemic of
Enterovirus D68 and most likely hepatitis,” he said.
“The Department of Homeland Security should be
ordered to stop issuing any new DACA amnesty or work permits or renewing DACA
status and Employment Authorization Cards until the court can analyze, review,
and decide upon whether DACA status is legally valid and constitutional.”
The
original lawsuit, filed only hours after
Obama’s immigration announcement was made, names Obama and Homeland Security
Secretary Jeh Johnson, Immigration Services chief Leon Rodriquez and Attorney
General Eric Holder as defendants.
It seeks to avoid “irreversible harm” from
Obama’s actions because they will “encourage[e] more illegal aliens to enter
the country unlawfully.”
Arpaio, who has been consistently at odds with
the Obama administration, released a statement at the time: “I am not seeking
to myself enforce the immigration laws as this is the province of the federal
government. Rather, I am seeking to have the president and the other defendants
obey the U.S. Constitution, which prevents this executive order from having
been issued in the first place. This unconstitutional act must be enjoined by a
court of law on behalf of not just myself, but all of the American people.”
Source:http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/sheriff-joe-scores-victory-against-obamas-amnesty/
No comments:
Post a Comment