Sheriff
Joe's case against amnesty on fast track
'The president does not have the authority to rewrite
immigration laws' by Bob Unruh 1/14/15
A federal appeals court has ordered an expedited schedule
for a case brought by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio against President
Obama over his amnesty program that is being implemented even as the case
progresses.
The order released Wednesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit said the brief for the appellants is due
Jan. 29 and the government’s brief in defense of amnesty will be due March 2.
“Due to the expedited nature of this case, the court will
not entertain dispositive motions. The parties should therefore address in
their briefs any arguments otherwise properly raised in such motions,” said the
order.
“The president does not have the
authority to rewrite immigration laws. Legislation and national policy are
enacted by Congress, not the president,” said Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, who is representing the famous Arizona sheriff.
Arpaio
explained in the original complaint that he’ll be affected directly because he’ll
have to deal locally with a multitude of criminals who remain in the U.S. under
Obama’s plan rather than being deported and out of his jurisdiction.
“It is a big victory [for] Sheriff Arpaio and indeed the
American people that the D.C. Circuit recognized the need for this case to be
quickly resolved before Obama’s unconstitutional amnesty program goes into full
effect this spring,” Klayman said. “There are constitutional issues of great
magnitude at stake and we are confident that the D.C. Circuit will put a legal
stop to this illegal activity, which seeks to end-run congressional authority.
“I am grateful for Sheriff Arpaio’s courage in pursuing the
very necessary legal action,” he said.
In
earlier filings, Arpaio and Klayman argued that some
aspects of amnesty already have begun taking effect, and the federal government
is preparing to hired thousands of workers to process illegal aliens under
amnesty.
The goal of the case at the outset was to obtain a ruling
from the Supreme Court on Obama’s strategy to use notes to federal agencies,
called executive memoranda, to change the law, rather than going through
Congress.
Klayman said the request to accelerate the case was
submitted because the lower court made a mistake in dismissing it. He contends
a preliminary injunction should be issued to prevent “irreparable harm” from
Obama’s “unconstitutional executive actions granting amnesty to roughly 5
million illegal aliens.”
“Time is of the essence, since the brunt of Obama’s amnesty
will occur in February,” Klayman said in his announcement about the case.
“As the old adage goes, justice delayed is justice denied.
The D.C. Circuit has a duty to move quickly to protect the citizens of Arizona
and the nation from the harmful effects of allowing for the continued horde of
illegal criminal aliens who will not now be deported to remain in the United
States, as was required under existing law before Obama issued his executive
actions. And, an early decision will also allow the Supreme Court discretion to
review Obama’s executive actions at the earliest practicable time,” said a
statement on the dispute.
According to Sheriff Arpaio: “This act by the president will
have a serious detrimental impact on my carrying out the duties and responsibilities
for which I am encharged as sheriff. Specifically, if a preliminary injunction
is not swiftly entered, Obama’s illegal executive actions will severely strain
and cause severe harm to our crime-fighting resources, both in manpower and
financially, necessary to protect the citizens I was elected to serve.”
The changes already are being made, and it will be a wasted
effort if there eventually is a ruling that the amnesty program is not
constitutional, the filing explains.
“The entire enforcement mechanism of DHS, including the U.S.
Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement must
abruptly undergo a massive change to stop enforcing the immigration laws and
then seek to understand precisely and apply the new criteria so as to exempt
from enforcement, even for deportations already imminent, anyone who might
potentially qualify for these new programs,” the submission explains.
“A new program granting amnesty to at least 1 million more
illegal aliens is scheduled to begin accepting applications for the granting of
amnesty no later than February 19, 2015,” the brief explains. “A new program
granting amnesty to … approximately 4 million additional illegal aliens is
scheduled to begin accepting applications for the granting of amnesty no later
than May 20, 2015, which requires the appellees to finalize and publish
application guidelines, forms, etc.”
The changes in U.S. law already have begun, it explains.
“On November 20, 2014, by a barrage of memoranda from
Secretary [Jeh] Johnson containing various orders, issued at President Barack
Obama’s order, appellees both expanded and extended [deferred action privilege]
to new categories of ‘childhood arrivals’ as well as to citizens of foreign
countries illegally present in the United States who are parents of U.S.
citizens or of Lawful Permanent Residents, (typically green card holders), as
well as created other programs giving amnesty and/or other benefits to illegal
aliens.”
Worse yet, the “executive action” actually “creates an immediate
magnet for millions more illegal aliens to rush the border,” the filing warns.
It cites the crisis in 2014 when “tens of thousands of children from Central
America” crossed illegally through Mexico to reach the U.S. border.
“Some children lost limbs or their lives jumping on to the
train or while riding on it. Other children were raped or abused or turned into
slaves or diverted to sex trafficking. No one knows how many of those children
died in the desert attempting to reach the United States.”
“Allowing the executive branch to immediately implement the
president’s DACA and executive amnesty programs will cause irreparable harm,
including to those illegal aliens the programs seek to enroll, if the federal
courts later determine the programs to be unlawful,” the brief argues.
Klayman had argued at the district court level: “This was
important because as we speak, millions of illegal aliens are in the process of
being granted amnesty. As presented to the court, a large number of these
illegal aliens will be back onto the streets of Maricopa County and the nation
as a whole. Many of these illegals are repeat criminal offenders. This puts a
great strain on the resources of Sheriff Arpaio’s office and endangers the
people of Maricopa County.”
He contended Obama “cannot end-run Congress based on his own
‘emperor-like’ actions.”
“By his own admission 22 times in the past, Obama lacks the
power to take this unconstitutional executive action,” Klayman said. “To allow
this to stand would amount to trashing our constitutional republic and set a
bad precedent for future presidents.”
He argued the status quo should be maintained until Congress
changes the national law.
WND
reported when a federal judge in
Pennsylvania declared the amnesty unconstitutional.
“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’s 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.”
Quoting from a previous precedent, the judge said that in
the “framework of our Constitution, the president’s power to see that the laws
are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker.”
“The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking
process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he
thinks bad,” Schwab said.
The judge said Obama’s contention that Congress had not worked
in his time frame was largely irrelevant.
Source:http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/major-score-for-sheriff-joe-in-fight-against-obama/
No comments:
Post a Comment