Judge tells Obama to
stop granting amnesty ... now!
'The court does not consider mere substantial compliance to be acceptable' by Bob Unruh, 8/12/15, WND.
'The court does not consider mere substantial compliance to be acceptable' by Bob Unruh, 8/12/15, WND.
A federal judge who last winter ordered a halt to President Obama’s de facto amnesty and then ordered federal officials to testify when they were found to be in violation of his injunction is relenting, just a little.
U.S. District Judge
Andrew S. Hanen said Tuesday he will release certain defendants from
testifying, but he warned that he expects the federal government to comply with
his order to stop its delayed-deportation program before an Aug. 19 hearing. Fully.
“The court does not
consider mere substantial compliance, after an order has been in place for six
months, to be acceptable and neither should counsel,” Hanen wrote in his newest
order in a case brought by 26 states.
Hanen’s injunction
disrupted Obama’s plan to delay deportation for up to 5 million illegal aliens
under a 2014 initiative called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and
Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA.
DAPA would offer
three-year work permits to illegal aliens who have been in the United States
since 2010 and have children who are American citizens or lawful permanent
residents.
The Obama
administration, in compliance with Hanen’s order, apparently hasn’t enacted
that provision. But when the federal government began carrying out a DAPA
provision that changes a 2012 program called Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals,
Hanen reacted. The
provision extends a two-year reprieve on deportation to three years, and
federal government lawyers granted the extra year to 100,000 applicants,
prompting a rebuke from Hanen.
Hanen’s new order
releases “individual defendants,” including Department of Homeland Security
Secretary Jeh Johnson, from an order to testify, but he said he still has
concerns about illegal aliens who have “credentials issued in violation of the
court’s injunction.”
The government “needs to
be prepared to discuss the reasons that these individuals are not in
compliance,” Hanen ordered, “the steps the government has taken and will
continue to take to achieve complete compliance and the time table to achieve
that goal in the very near future.”
It was Feb. 16 when Hanen granted a preliminary
injunction to the 26 states that
sued Obama for changing immigration law through executive action rather than by
proposing legislation to Congress.
Government attorneys now
are attempting to satisfy the judge, explaining they are trying to fetch the
documents they issued that were in violation of his order.
The change in attitude
is in sharp contrast to previous reactions from the administration. Shortly
after the judge’s order, the Washington Times reported Cecilia Munoz, White
House domestic policy director, addressed the issue: “It’s important to put
[Hanen's order] in context, because the broader executive actions are moving
forward. The administration continues to implement the portions of the actions
that the president and the Department of Homeland Security took, which were not
affected by the court’s ruling.”
But Hanen’s original
order had said: “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.”
And even Obama himself
said the Constitution barred him from acting alone. House
Speaker John Boehner has listed 22 times when Obama has made such statements.
For example, in October
2010, Obama said: “I am president, I am not king. I can’t do these things just
by myself. … I’ve got to have some partners to do it. … If Congress has laws on
the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be
deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our
resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as opposed to
families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there’s a
limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the
law. … I can’t just make the laws up by myself.”
‘Unilateral legislative
action’
Hanen’s ruling marks the
second time federal courts have ruled against Obama’s amnesty actions. WND reported the ruling of a federal court in Pennsylvania.
“President Obama’s
unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in
the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause and, therefore,
is unconstitutional,” said
U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab.
The judge noted Obama
“contended that although legislation is the most appropriate course of action
to solve the immigration debate, his executive action was necessary because of
Congress’ failure to pass legislation, acceptable to him, in this regard.”
“This proposition is
arbitrary and does not negate the requirement that the November 20, 2014, executive
action be lawfully within the president’s executive authority,” the judge
wrote. “It is not.”
Hanen
had told the administration officials to show up in his court after discovering they had gone ahead with the
immigration program despite his order.
The judge 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 yet been fixed. This court
has expressed its willingness to believe that these actions were accidental and
not done purposefully to violate this court’s order. Nevertheless, it is
shocked and surprised at the cavalier attitude the government has taken with
regard to its ‘efforts’ to rectify this situation.
The government promised
this court on May 7, 2015, that ‘immediate steps’ were being taken to remedy
the violations of the injunction. Yet, as of June 23, 2015 – some six weeks
after making that representation – the situation had not been rectified.”
He warned, “At some
point, when a non-compliant party refuses to bring its conduct into compliance,
one must conclude that the conduct is not accidental, but deliberate.”
The case against Obama’s
plan is pending before the
5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But the courts have refused to overturn Hanen’s injunction and
allow Obama’s immigration amnesty to move forward pending a resolution.
A panel of three judges
at the appeals court said Obama’s plan “makes aliens who were not otherwise
qualified for federal public benefits eligible for ‘social security retirement
benefits, security disability benefits, [and] health insurance under Part A of
the Medicare program.’”
“Further, ‘each person
who applies for deferred action pursuant to the [DAPA] criteria … shall also be
eligible to apply for work authorization for the [renewable three-year] period
of deferred action.’”
Such procedures would
allow illegal aliens to “‘obtain a Social Security Number,’ ‘accrue quarters of
covered employment,’ and ‘correct wage records to add prior covered
employment,’” the opinion said.
It warned that should
the program ultimately struck down, the illegal aliens who participated would
have benefited improperly. The injunction, the appeals judges said, preserves
the status quo.
Hanen previously
expressed frustration with the government for failing to inform him that
officials also had given deferred action to 108,000 applicants shortly after
Obama announced his plan in November.
“The court expects all
parties, including the government of the United States, to act in a forthright
manner and not hide behind deceptive representations and half-truths,” Hanen
wrote.
At one point, WND
reported, Hanen bluntly asked a Justice Department attorney whether or not
President Obama and federal officials can be believed. “I can trust what
Secretary [Jeh] Johnson says … what President Obama says?” Hanen asked, the
Los Angeles Times reported. Fox
News reported the judge even went further, instructing Justice Department attorney Kathleen Hartnett,
“That’s a yes or no question.”She responded, “Yes, your honor.”
The Texas lawsuit,
joined by 25 other states, was filed when the states suddenly faced massive new
demands for public services such as schooling and health care from foreigners
who previously had been subject to deportation.
http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/judge-tells-feds-to-stop-granting-amnesty-now/
Comments
This is right out of Alinsky’s
Rules for Radicals. Obama’s “helter
skelter” tactics with illegals starts with orders to stop deportations and
orders to allow illegals to enter the US, and set up goofy court return
procedures illegals ignore, and allow releases of criminal illegals, and set up
“Welcome Centers” and “sponsors” and FEMA bus rides to cities in each State.
Orders to comply are the orders the Judge compares with actions actually taken.
The Appeals Court should remove citizen’s benefits from these illegals.
This is the same “helter
skelter” strategy Democrats use to perpetuate voter fraud and federal benefit
fraud. Voting machines can’t be easily audited.
Dead people not only vote, but continue to receive Social Security
checks. Illegals receive fraudulent
Earned Income Credit (EIC). Bus-loads of
paid Black Chicagoans show up to vote in Wisconsin. Illegals get driver’s
licenses and sign up to vote and are paid to vote. Soros pays thugs to burn and loot during
protests. Most of this is handled by NGOs like Acorn.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA
Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment