Multi-State Coalition Sues Obama Administration Over Immigration Action

[Webster]

ABC News: Multi-State Coalition Sues Obama Administration Over Immigration Action

Texas is leading a 17-state coalition suing over President Barack Obama's recently announced executive actions on immigration, arguing in a lawsuit filed Wednesday that the move "tramples" key portions of the U.S. Constitution.

Many top Republicans have denounced Obama's unilateral move, which was designed to spare as many as 5 million people living illegally in the United States from deportation.

But Texas Gov.-elect Greg Abbott took it a step further, filing a formal legal challenge in federal court in the Southern District of Texas. His state is joined by 16 other mostly conservative states, largely in the south and Midwest, such as Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana and the Carolinas.

The states aren't seeking monetary damages, but instead want the courts to block Obama's actions.

The lawsuit could make things awkward come Friday, when Abbott travels to Washington to meet with Obama as part of a group of newly elected governors.

Under Obama's order, announced Nov. 20, protection from deportation and the right to work will be extended to an estimated 4.1 million parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents who have lived in the U.S. for at least five years and to hundreds of thousands more young people.

The lawsuit raises three objections: that Obama violated the "Take Care Clause" of the U.S. Constitution that Abbott said limits the scope of presidential power; that the federal government didn't follow proper rulemaking procedures; and that the order will "exacerbate the humanitarian crisis along the southern border, which will affect increased state investment in law enforcement, health care and education."

Abbott said Obama's actions "directly violate a fundamental promise to the American people" and that it was up to the president to "execute the law, not de facto make law."

Republican presidents, including Ronald Reagan, have issued past executive orders pertaining to immigration. Abbott said those were in response to actions by Congress ? unlike Obama, who Abbott said acted in lieu of congressional approval.

Overwhelmingly elected governor last month, Abbott has been Texas attorney general since 2002. Wednesday marks the 31st time he has sued the federal government since Obama took office.

Many of those were over environmental regulations or the White House's signature health care law, however. The only other high-profile lawsuit against Obama's executive order has come on behalf of Arizona Sheriff Nebulous Arpaio.

Earlier this week, House Majority Leader John Boehner told lawmakers the GOP-led House may vote to undo Obama's executive action, but the move would be mostly symbolic, as Obama would certainly veto such legislation and the Democratic-led Senate wouldn't go for it, either.

Potential 2016 presidential candidate and current Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who leaves office in January, also spoke out against the executive order earlier Wednesday, saying it could trigger a new flood of people pouring across the Texas-Mexico border and create chaos that could be exploited by drug- and people-smugglers.

Perry said hours before Abbott's announcement that Obama's 2012 executive order delaying the deportation of children brought into the U.S. illegally by their parents triggered an unprecedented wave of unaccompanied minors and families, mostly from Central America, crossing into the U.S. this summer.

"In effect, his action placed a neon sign on our border, assuring people that they could ignore the law of the United States," said Perry, who has deployed up to 1,000 National Guard troops to the border.

Abbott said his state can already predict the future effects of Obama's executive action based on the 2012 order.

"Texas has been at the epicenter of the results of the president's executive action," Abbott said.

The federal lawsuit involves the following states: Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Thoughts?

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

This needs to go straight to the Supreme Court like yesterday.

 

[Webster]

This needs to go straight to the Supreme Court like yesterday.

I have HAD IT with stories like this.  I don't want to hear what people WANT to do, I want to see these threats of action against the imposter fulfilled.  Enough talk about the now innumerable acts of treason that douche nozzle has committed, the countless times he has taken a huge shit on our Constitution, DO SOMETHING about it or shut the fuck UP.  I'll believe this one when I see it.  I'm not holding my breath.

@Liberty: It might get there...of course, given the time that it takes cases to meander their way through the federal courts, the clock might run out on standing before it gets to the High Court.
@Smooth: Therein lies the rub...its' either, sue the President or Congress passing a law defunding the President's immigration action. In regards to the latter: the odds of such a bill becoming law are slim-to-none; there's no way Obama's going to sign such a bill....if he did, every immigration advocate would throttle the man for doing so. On the other hand, the bastard's betting that the courts will stonewill the states on this, arguing that immigration is a federal issue, not a state issue (which has never made sense in that states are also affected by immigration issues, but that's another argument for another day). FWIW, I don't hold out a lot of hope in regards to the lawsuit, but at least give them a little credit for doing something.

 

[DrLeftover]

Doesn't matter.

Mr. Obama is going to do what he wants to do, period.

He's already defied the People, the Congress, and even the Supreme Court on a couple of occasions.....

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381296/supreme-court-rules-unanimously-against-obama-12th-and-13th-time-2012-john-fund

... So you can expect an "Immigration Czar" soon.

 

[Webster]

American Thinker: States' Lawsuit Against Obama Amnesty Draws Judge Unafraid To Criticize Lack Of Immigration Enforcement

The 20 states suing the Obama administration over the president’s unilateral amnesty, led by Texas AG and governor-elect Greg Abbott, filed their lawsuit in Brownsville, Texas. That was evidently a strategic choice. Stephen Dinan of the Washington Times reports: The states challenging President Obama’s deportation amnesty have already won the first round in court after the case landed in the lap of Judge Andrew S. Hanen, a Bush appointee who issued a scorching rebuke to the Department of Homeland Security last year, accusing it of refusing to follow border security laws.

It could hardly have been a worse outcome for Mr. Obama, who, in order to preserve his policy, will now have to convince a judge who is on record calling his previous, less-extensive nondeportation policies “dangerous and unconscionable.” (snip) [The case] could have gone to one of two judges — the other a Clinton appointee — but it landed in the lap of Judge Hanen last week, putting Mr. Obama on the defensive early.

Judge Hanen seems to believe that the law should be enforced as it is written: In a 10-page order last December, just as the surge of illegal immigrant children was beginning, he blasted the Obama administration for refusing to get tough on enforcement and instead shipping children caught at the border to live with their illegal immigrant parents here in the U.S. — and refusing to even try to deport those parents.

“The DHS should cease telling the citizens of the United States that it is enforcing our border security laws because it is clearly not,” Judge Hanen wrote. “Even worse, it is helping those who violate these laws.” Judge Hanen, who took his spot in the federal bench in 2002, was quick to say in his order that he didn’t take a “position on the topic of immigration reform,” but said he was dismayed at “the failure by the DHS to enforce current United States law.”

Even more striking was his reasoning: Judge Hanen said the government was wasting money, not saving it, by refusing to deport illegal immigrants and instead paying to connect children and their illegal immigrant parents.

This is relevant to the current case because: The states that sued to halt Mr. Obama’s policy say they too will incur hundreds of millions of dollars in costs if they have to police, educate and provide care for the thousands of new illegal immigrants they expect to be enticed to enter the U.S. illegally based on the new amnesty. The states argue they have been injured by Mr. Obama’s order — or, in legal terms, have “standing” to sue in court — because of those economic consequences.

Standing will be a huge issue in this case, and there is no guarantee that Judge Hanen’s previous decision will incline him to grant standing to the states. They have to prove that harm will befall them. The wheels of justice move slowly, and a preliminary hearing on the case is tentatively scheduled for the end of March next year.

 

[DrLeftover]

The Wanker will never stand trial for anything.

And even if, by some miracle, he was indicted on anything serious, the next Bozo will probably pardon him.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

The Wanker will never stand trial for anything.

And even if, by some miracle, he was indicted on anything serious, the next Bozo will probably pardon him.

President Cruz would never pardon that criminal.