Federal judge stalls Obama's executive action on immigration

[webfact]

Federal judge stalls Obama's executive action on immigration
JUAN A. LOZANO, Associated Press

HOUSTON (AP) — A federal judge in Texas on Monday temporarily blocked President Barack Obama's executive action on immigration, giving a coalition of 26 states time to pursue a lawsuit that aims to permanently stop the orders.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen's decision comes after a hearing in Brownsville, Texas, in January. It puts on hold Obama's orders that could spare as many as five million people who are in the U.S. illegally from deportation.

Hanen wrote in a memorandum accompanying his order that the lawsuit should go forward and that without a preliminary injunction the states will "suffer irreparable harm in this case."

"The genie would be impossible to put back into the bottle," he wrote, adding that he agreed with the plaintiffs' argument that legalizing the presence of millions of people is a "virtually irreversible" action.

The federal government is expected to appeal the ruling to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Neither the White House nor the Justice Department had any immediate comment early Tuesday.

The first of Obama's orders — to expand a program that protects young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. illegally as children — was set to start taking effect Wednesday. The other major part of Obama's order, which extends deportation protections to parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have been in the country for some years, was not expected to begin until May 19.

Joaquin Guerra, political director of the Texas Organizing Project, called the ruling a "temporary setback."

"We will continue getting immigrants ready to apply for administrative relief," he said in a statement.

In a 2013 ruling in a separate case, Hanen suggested that the Homeland Security Department should be arresting parents living in the U.S. illegally who induce their children to cross the border illegally.

The coalition of states, led by Texas and made up of mostly conservative states in the South and Midwest, argues that Obama has violated the "Take Care Clause" of the U.S. Constitution, which they say limits the scope of presidential power. They also say the order will force increased investment in law enforcement, health care and education.

In their request for the injunction, the coalition said it was necessary because it would be "difficult or impossible to undo the President's lawlessness after the Defendants start granting applications for deferred action."

"Judge Hanen's decision rightly stops the President's overreach in its tracks," Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said in a statement.

Hanen, who's been on the federal court since 2002 after being nominated by President George W. Bush, regularly handles border cases but wasn't known for being outspoken on immigration until a 2013 case. In his ruling in that case, Hanen suggested the Homeland Security Department should be arresting parents living in the U.S. illegally who induce their children to cross the border illegally.

Congressional Republicans have vowed to block Obama's actions on immigration by cutting off Homeland Security Department spending for the program. Earlier this year, the Republican-controlled House passed a $39.7 billion spending bill to fund the department through the end of the budget year, but attached language to undo Obama's executive actions. The fate of that House-passed bill is unclear as Republicans in the Senate do not have the 60 votes needed to advance most legislation.

The White House has said Obama's executive order is not out of legal bounds and that the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress have said federal officials can set priorities in enforcing immigration laws. Past U.S. Supreme Court decisions have granted immigration officials "broad discretion" on deportation matters.

Others supporting Obama's executive order include a group of 12 mostly liberal states, including Washington state and California, as well as Washington, D.C. They filed a motion with Hanen in support of Obama, arguing the directives will substantially benefit states and will further the public interest.

A group of law enforcement officials, including the Major Cities Chiefs Association and more than 20 police chiefs and sheriffs from across the country, also filed a motion in support, arguing the executive action will improve public safety by encouraging cooperation between police and individuals with concerns about their immigration status.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-02-17

[rickirs]

The Court of Appeals will not uphold the lower court decision. The primary reason may be that the subject immigrants are entitled to humantarium treatment and the plaintiffs offer no alternative except for unworkable mass deportation. Also, the immigrants are entitiled to due process of law under the US Constitution that does not distinguish people for their nationality.

For a state that has a large hispanic electorate, Texas Republicans may pay for their anti-immigration antics in the 2016 General Election that includes election of a new US President. For potential Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush who favors immigration amnesty, this lawsuit will keep him out of mainstream Republican ideology.

[Ulysses G.]

Obama's lawless action must be stopped, before it is too late. Too many Americans need jobs to be giving what to amounts to amnesty for 5 million illegals.

Edited February 17, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

@ rickirs

Why not send a message to the 5th circuit judges and tell them not to come. You have already made the decision.

The makeup of the judges and their appointments by President are:

Ronald Reagan - 3 appointments

Bill Clinton - 2 appointments

George Bush - 6 appointments

Barack Obama - 3 appointments

I think I will wait for a decision by the decision makers.

Edited February 17, 2015 by chuckd

[JDGRUEN]

The Court of Appeals will not uphold the lower court decision. The primary reason may be that the subject immigrants are entitled to humantarium treatment and the plaintiffs offer no alternative except for unworkable mass deportation. Also, the immigrants are entitiled to due process of law under the US Constitution that does not distinguish people for their nationality.

For a state that has a large hispanic electorate, Texas Republicans may pay for their anti-immigration antics in the 2016 General Election that includes election of a new US President. For potential Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush who favors immigration amnesty, this lawsuit will keep him out of mainstream Republican ideology.

The case is about an unlawful action of of the president usurping Congress and using executive actions to balloon laws that were meant to handle illegal aliens on a case by case basis into a mass action for millions. obama has violated the U.S. Constitution and correcting that is far more important than whether someone gets deported or not.

There is another method for handling the situation: Self Deportation induced by actually enforcing existing Federal laws against employing illegal aliens ... Cut off their funds and benefits and they will self-deport over a period of 5 years... It has been proven to work in states like Alabama where tough laws caused a exodus from the state over a period of a few months.

Illegal Aliens entered the U,S, by breaking the law - either by crossing the border without a visa and / or overstaying. The stated number of 5 million is a drastic understatement. There is no universal law granting people citizenship in the U.S. If all people in the world were allowed to behave and enter the U.S. AT WILL as these illegal aliens have - the population of the U.S. would balloon from 320 million to 1/2 Billion in a matter of a few years...

The U.S. has a particularly strange situation brought about by an old court ruling - called Chain Migration. When a new (LEGAL) immigrant is granted citizenship he/she is allowed to sponsor ALL their blood relatives over time for U.S. Citizenship... This 'law' of case precedence - Chain Migration cannot be easily changed. Just do the math ... 10 - 15 - 20 million people allowed to become citizens in a few short years has a multiplier effect over the next 10-15-20-30 years of causing an unmanageable situation of increasing the U.S. population enormously in a relatively short period of time.

Currently on an annual basis the United States of America grants legal citizenship to more previous foreigners - (legal immigrants) that surpasses all such actions by all countries of the world combined... Some of us Americans think we are already doing our part.

[NickJ]

Those Mexicans are the same as Europes muslims......at least the Mexicans seem ro work.......This is not a situation that a blanket executive order. These measures are supposed to be able to be decided on a case by case basis......sure there are those rhat should be allowed to stay......but lordy....was Castro helping Barry with the logistics and wording????

[rethaier]

Obama's lawless action must be stopped, before it is too late. Too many Americans need jobs to be giving what to amounts to amnesty for 5 million illegals.

Though I disagree with the amnesty act, I think your logic is flawed. Most of the illegals are doing work that Americans wont do because it is below them and does not pay enough.

[JDGRUEN]

Obama's lawless action must be stopped, before it is too late. Too many Americans need jobs to be giving what to amounts to amnesty for 5 million illegals.

Though I disagree with the amnesty act, I think your logic is flawed. Most of the illegals are doing work that Americans wont do because it is below them and does not pay enough.

Your assumption was disproved when the state of Alabama some several years ago invoked a set of strict laws relative to the employment of illegal aliens and even their presence in the state... Within days of the actions - U.S. Citizens of every color and creed began lining up for the jobs that came open ... Repeating truisms does not truth make ...

[Ulysses G.]

Obama's lawless action must be stopped, before it is too late. Too many Americans need jobs to be giving what to amounts to amnesty for 5 million illegals.

Though I disagree with the amnesty act, I think your logic is flawed. Most of the illegals are doing work that Americans wont do because it is below them and does not pay enough.

Even if that were true, it won't be once they are legal. They will take a lot of jobs that unemployed low-skilled Americans could survive on.

[Publicus]

The Court of Appeals will not uphold the lower court decision. The primary reason may be that the subject immigrants are entitled to humantarium treatment and the plaintiffs offer no alternative except for unworkable mass deportation. Also, the immigrants are entitiled to due process of law under the US Constitution that does not distinguish people for their nationality.

For a state that has a large hispanic electorate, Texas Republicans may pay for their anti-immigration antics in the 2016 General Election that includes election of a new US President. For potential Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush who favors immigration amnesty, this lawsuit will keep him out of mainstream Republican ideology.

The case is about an unlawful action of of the president usurping Congress and using executive actions to balloon laws that were meant to handle illegal aliens on a case by case basis into a mass action for millions. obama has violated the U.S. Constitution and correcting that is far more important than whether someone gets deported or not.

There is another method for handling the situation: Self Deportation induced by actually enforcing existing Federal laws against employing illegal aliens ... Cut off their funds and benefits and they will self-deport over a period of 5 years... It has been proven to work in states like Alabama where tough laws caused a exodus from the state over a period of a few months.

Illegal Aliens entered the U,S, by breaking the law - either by crossing the border without a visa and / or overstaying. The stated number of 5 million is a drastic understatement. There is no universal law granting people citizenship in the U.S. If all people in the world were allowed to behave and enter the U.S. AT WILL as these illegal aliens have - the population of the U.S. would balloon from 320 million to 1/2 Billion in a matter of a few years...

The U.S. has a particularly strange situation brought about by an old court ruling - called Chain Migration. When a new (LEGAL) immigrant is granted citizenship he/she is allowed to sponsor ALL their blood relatives over time for U.S. Citizenship... This 'law' of case precedence - Chain Migration cannot be easily changed. Just do the math ... 10 - 15 - 20 million people allowed to become citizens in a few short years has a multiplier effect over the next 10-15-20-30 years of causing an unmanageable situation of increasing the U.S. population enormously in a relatively short period of time.

Currently on an annual basis the United States of America grants legal citizenship to more previous foreigners - (legal immigrants) that surpasses all such actions by all countries of the world combined... Some of us Americans think we are already doing our part.

This 'law' of case precedence

It is a judicial doctrine, not a law.

The judge and his temporary order delaying only a small part of the immigration executive order does not have a prayer on appeal. The post above has come to recognize the fact which is why it instead focuses on other actions a state government can take to discourage immigration it does not like.

Things legal are now going to happen and they will happen in a relatively short order. The bottom line is that the president's immigration executive action will be reinstated on appeal and the new immigration rules will resume unobstructed by the courts.

That's the short of it.

A more detailed and specific walk-thru that leads to this inevitable outcome shows that....

White House lawyers must first ask the (tea party) US district judge in Texas to reconsider his order, which in reality is laughable but in legal protocol is required.

Next the president's lawyers will appeal to a three judge panel of the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals which sits in New Orleans, Louisiana and has Texas in its jurisdiction. This becomes a variable because we'd need to know which three or the appellate court's 17 authorized judges get the case and the judges will be selected by computer.

Yes a computer is programmed by humans but the programming in these instances is based on factors such as a judge's case load, schedule, availability and the like. This appeals court is dominated by judges who are politically conservative (9-5), which also means they should concomitantly be Constitutionally conservative but this is not necessarily the case. (Political conservatives are the least Constitutionally conservative people in the body politic.)

The three judges will need to observe and respect Supreme Court case law precedents concerning executive authority itself and in immigration matters specifically. All the SCOTUS case precedents in every respect of this case say the three judges must instruct the district court judge to kill his order and allow the new immigration rules to resume and to proceed unimpeded by the courts.

Either way, the loser can appeal to the full appeals court which may or may not hear the appeal. Most appeals courts in such instances do humor the appellant by agreeing to sit en banc, which is to say in full.

The loser of that appeal can make an urgent appeal to the SCOTUS circuit justice for the 5th judicial circuit, who is Justice Antonin Scalia.

Justice Scalia in his opinions and in his concurrences unmistakably recognizes executive authority in this matter and should be expected to rule in favor of the White House each and every time. Justice Scalia has the option to refer the urgent appeal to the full SCOTUS but would be unlikely to do so. The full SCOTUS, if it accepts a possible referral by Justice Scalia, should be expected to uphold its own case precedents of the past 200+ years which will make the White House happy.

End of. This tea party gets broken up by the law and they all have to go home to sleep it off

The president's executive action on immigration will withstand the constitutional and legal challenges to it by the Republican governors who have brought this case. The Republican party in Washington and in the state capitals which have Republican governors will have been exposed as abusive of the legal system, the Constitution, the president, the normal political process and the normal legislative processes, immigrants and their families, and of the taxpayers themselves who will have paid for frivolous legal shenanigans by the Republican party.

Again. Yet again. And still again.

[JDGRUEN]

Sen. Sessions Releases Lengthy Timeline Of Obama Administration’s Dismantling Of Immigration Law

The timeline begins in January 2009 with the administration ending worksite enforcement actions and, 50 pages later, ends on February 13, 2015 with the House Judiciary Committee’s revelation that the administration included a “sneaky” avenue for illegal immigrants granted deferred status to be placed on a pathway to citizenship.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/02/16/sen-sessions-releases-lengthy-timeline-of-obama-administrations-dismantling-of-immigration-law/

[F430murci]

Obama's lawless action must be stopped, before it is too late. Too many Americans need jobs to be giving what to amounts to amnesty for 5 million illegals.

Though I disagree with the amnesty act, I think your logic is flawed. Most of the illegals are doing work that Americans wont do because it is below them and does not pay enough.

I dunno, most of the illegals around here work in Mexican restaurants and Mexican grocery stores. At least that is where most round ups occur. Waiting tables and cooking food is done by a lot of Americans.

[NeverSure]

Obama's lawless action must be stopped, before it is too late. Too many Americans need jobs to be giving what to amounts to amnesty for 5 million illegals.

Though I disagree with the amnesty act, I think your logic is flawed. Most of the illegals are doing work that Americans wont do because it is below them and does not pay enough.

Even if that were true, it won't be once they are legal. They will take a lot of jobs that unemployed low-skilled Americans could survive on.

Many jobs in America are low paid simply because there are illegals to do them. Landscape workers and day laborers come to mind.

If those illegals weren't there, the employers, usually small businesses with one or two people, would have to pay at least the minimum wage and the payroll taxes. Oh, seasonal employers such as farms, ranches and orchards etc. also tend to hire illegals. Many of those jobs are steady year around jobs especially where animals are being raised.

Yes Americans would do those jobs if they paid the legal wage and required payroll taxes. Americans work at McDonalds, after all.

[HeijoshinCool]

Obama's lawless action must be stopped, before it is too late. Too many Americans need jobs to be giving what to amounts to amnesty for 5 million illegals.

Though I disagree with the amnesty act, I think your logic is flawed. Most of the illegals are doing work that Americans wont do because it is below them and does not pay enough.

.

That is a myth.

[Publicus]

The president's immigration executive action imposes a 13-year work program for undocumented aliens to proceed in stages to a legal status, checking off many boxes along the way.

It offers opportunity and it does not guarantee anything.

It is not an amnesty.

Did I say it is not an amnesty....

Just to be sure, let me say it is not an amnesty.

[NeverSure]

Obama's lawless action must be stopped, before it is too late. Too many Americans need jobs to be giving what to amounts to amnesty for 5 million illegals.

Though I disagree with the amnesty act, I think your logic is flawed. Most of the illegals are doing work that Americans wont do because it is below them and does not pay enough.

I dunno, most of the illegals around here work in Mexican restaurants and Mexican grocery stores. At least that is where most round ups occur. Waiting tables and cooking food is done by a lot of Americans.

Waiting tables actually pays pretty well considering the culture of tipping in American. Many food servers make more in tips than wages. Many restaurants require the tips to be shared somewhat with cooks and cleaners.

[NeverSure]

The president's immigration executive action imposes a 13-year work program for undocumented aliens to proceed in stages to a legal status, checking off many boxes along the way.

It offers opportunity and it does not guarantee anything.

It is not an amnesty.

Did I say it is not an amnesty....

Just to be sure, let me say it is not an amnesty.

It is amnesty for the crime they originally committed to be in the country. We don't rightfully call them "illegal aliens" without reason.

How anyone can allow these people to profit from their crimes is beyond me.

[JockPieandBeans]

Obama's lawless action must be stopped, before it is too late. Too many Americans need jobs to be giving what to amounts to amnesty for 5 million illegals.

Though I disagree with the amnesty act, I think your logic is flawed. Most of the illegals are doing work that Americans wont do because it is below them and does not pay enough.

.

That is a myth.

Cut off benefits and it will not take long to see that no job is below them or does not pay enough.

[HeijoshinCool]

Obama's lawless action must be stopped, before it is too late. Too many Americans need jobs to be giving what to amounts to amnesty for 5 million illegals.

Though I disagree with the amnesty act, I think your logic is flawed. Most of the illegals are doing work that Americans wont do because it is below them and does not pay enough.

.

That is a myth.

Cut off benefits and it will not take long to see that no job is below them or does not pay enough.

.

A voice of reason.

Yeah, buddy.

[Ulysses G.]

The Court of Appeals will not uphold the lower court decision.

I'm not so sure about that. Obama said 22 times that he does not have the power to change the law and the day after he signed the order, he said, "I just took an action to change the law". That violates the constitution. The United States Constitution says the legislative power is held by Congress, not by the president.

This judge is a conservative and on Fox News, but he is also honest to a fault and often bucks the party line when it comes to the law. He always tries to tell it like it is. If he says that there is an excellent chance of stopping Obama's unlawful action, it is very likely that he is correct. He explains his position in the video.

Judge Andrew Napolitano said today that a new federal court ruling could actually delay President Obama's immigration amnesty "forever."

http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/02/17/judge-napolitano-rare-federal-court-ruling-could-delay-obamas-immigration-amnesty-forever

Edited February 18, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[sdanielmcev]

Us citizens certainly could use those 11 million jobs those illegals have. They are not for the most part low paying jobs. Try getting a job in construction in Texas.

[sdanielmcev]

The Court of Appeals will not uphold the lower court decision. The primary reason may be that the subject immigrants are entitled to humantarium treatment and the plaintiffs offer no alternative except for unworkable mass deportation. Also, the immigrants are entitiled to due process of law under the US Constitution that does not distinguish people for their nationality.

For a state that has a large hispanic electorate, Texas Republicans may pay for their anti-immigration antics in the 2016 General Election that includes election of a new US President. For potential Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush who favors immigration amnesty, this lawsuit will keep him out of mainstream Republican ideology.

I'd really like to know how you are certain of their ruling.

Also, why is it inhumane to send them back to their own country? And, Texas, where I'm from, doesn't worry about it.

[JDGRUEN]

Us citizens certainly could use those 11 million jobs those illegals have. They are not for the most part low paying jobs. Try getting a job in construction in Texas.

Illegal Aliens were/are not only job takers they are wage busters. After the initial new wave of illegal aliens began emerging starting in 1999 or so - by the time 2003 rolled around wages in construction, meat packing and some assembly line work started dropping ... What at one time were living wages for American in brick laying and meat packing -- around $16.00 to $18.00 per hour - dropped to around $8.50 an hour. The only reason that illegal aliens could live in America on those wages is by living 10-12 members to a household. Something that no Americans do - thus pushing American citizens to accept a Third World lifestyle or taking jobs at Costco, SAMS or Home Depot, etc. for $10.00 an hour and moving in with the in-laws to make ends meet.

That is what a wave of 20 million Mexicans and Central Americans have done to the American Society. Not to mention increases in taxes due to the lopsided granting of various forms of welfare to Illegal Aliens -- often done via fraud.

Stealing Social Security Numbers and doing general ID theft many Americans were harmed. Some Americans during this time had 100 illegal aliens using their Social Security Number. Typically an Illegal Alien domestic worker - Innocent Maria would go through drawers of papers in the house - find the Social Security Numbers and sell them ... At one point it became fashionable to steal the SSNs of children... thus delaying the time it took to discover the ID theft as SSN were/are not used much by the parents of the children.

My uncle - a WWII Vet had his Social Security Number stolen by an illegal alien. It was discovered on a visit to the VA clinic for treatment of Alzheimer's -- my aunt noticed that a name came up on the computer screen - an Hispanic man was using my uncle's SSN to get medical treatment at the VA.

Yes - these innocent - harmless ... lawbreakers do bring HARM to Americans... There are thousands of stories like this -- including a continuing rash of DUI/DWI cases involving none other than Illegal Aliens - repeated times - after being deported once or even twice. The list of crimes goes pages long - AND IT IS DISPROPORTIONATE in numbers to the total population.

Edited February 18, 2015 by JDGRUEN

[JDGRUEN]

Georgia Poll Shows Huge Opposition To Obama’s Amnesty

Ninety percent of Republicans and 70 percent of Democrats said that Americans “should get the future jobs in Georgia” prior to the hiring of foreign workers.



http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/16/georgia-poll-shows-huge-opposition-to-obamas-amnesty/

[Publicus]

Almost everyone is opposed to "amnesty."

Prez Obama's order is a 13-year work program in stages with boxes to check just to get legal status. There isn't any amnesty.

The tea party federal judge in tea party Texas did not rule on the constitutionality of the executive action and there is a reason for that conscious omission, which is that he didn't want to get entangled in an issue he was going to lose.

The federal judge did not rule on the president's authority to administer immigration laws or any laws for the same reason, which is that he didn't want to get reversed by the appeals court on that basis either.

The federal judge in Texas instead took an unheard of and unprecedented approach. He based his temporary injunction on the Administrative Procedures Act. There is no legal precedent however for an executive action to conform to the APA. The federal judge is trying to create new law. The judge is yet another right wing activist judge.

Because of the dates of the implementation of the executive action, tomorrow and then May 16, the case will get fast track consideration to the next level, the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals which sits in New Orleans. The appeals court will have to consider that the SCOTUS decisions in these matters have for 200+ years been in favor of the executive branch.

Today in New Orleans is Fat Tuesday so nobody is working. Beginning tomorrow the DoJ will file its appeal briefs and the court will form its three judge panel to begin to hear and consider the government's appeal. A decision should be ready in about three to four weeks if not sooner.

The word "amnesty" is nowhere in the suit, the case, the law, the issues before the courts The word "amnesty" does not exist as a legal factor or consideration in the case at all. The word "amnesty" is irrelevant and immaterial to this case.

[Ulysses G.]

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has appellate jurisdiction over the federal courts in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. It often has the last word on questions of federal law. It is also reputed to be the nation's most conservative appeals court, so there is a very good chance that the injunction will be upheld. As Judge Andrew Napolitano said about it, this new federal court ruling could delay President Obama's immigration amnesty "forever."

Edited February 18, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Publicus]

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has appellate jurisdiction over the federal courts in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. It often has the last word on questions of federal law. It is also reputed to be the nation's most conservative appeals court, so there is a very good chance that the injunction will be upheld. As Judge Andrew Napolitano said about it, this new federal court ruling could delay President Obama's immigration amnesty "forever."

Yep, the most conservative US Circuit Court of Appeals for sure but the computer will select the three judge panel that will hear the government's appeal of the district court judge's order. The numerical probabilities say two of the three appellate judges will be supportive of the district judge but that is not an iron rule izzit.

As I'd noted, the district judge is trying a new approach to the law, citing the Administrative Procedures Act rather than trying to rule on the constitutionality of the president's executive action or on whether the prez has the statutory authority to issue the executive action. I'd noted the district judge avoided each matter because he didn't want to be reversed on appeal on either or both of these bases.

In trying instead to apply the APA to an executive action, the tea party district judge is trying to write new law. He is a conservative activist judge. He is an activist conservative judge. The district judge is activist in his pursuit of his conservative causes and ideologies. Many legal scholars who have read the district judge's 123 page memorandum in this case say it is difficult to separate political rhetoric from legal language and that it is an ideological treatise rather than a judicial opinion.

At any rate, whichever side loses at the appeals court will go to the SCOTUS. Tell Judge Napolitano I said that. Then do continue to keep me posted thx.

Did I mention that the word "amnesty" is not in this case and that the word "amnesty" has no bearing on the case, and that the word "amnesty" is irrelevant and immaterial to the case.

Just to be sure about it, I'll say now for the record that the word "amnesty" is irrelevant and immaterial to this case and that the word "amnesty" appears nowhere meaningfully or significantly in the case. The word "amnesty" has nothing whatsoever to do with this case.

Edited February 18, 2015 by Publicus

[NeverSure]

-snip-

Did I mention that the word "amnesty" is not in this case and that the word "amnesty" has no bearing on the case, and that the word "amnesty" is irrelevant and immaterial to the case.

Just to be sure about it, I'll say now for the record that the word "amnesty" is irrelevant and immaterial to this case and that the word "amnesty" appears nowhere meaningfully or significantly in the case. The word "amnesty" has nothing whatsoever to do with this case.

Maybe not, but the Federal Judge in Texas who issued the ruling used the term "illegal immigration" twice in just one paragraph - two sentences in a row - when writing his reasons for his decision and order against Obama.

That's a concept "some people" sure have trouble getting their heads around, but the judge didn't have a problem with it at all.

The judge is of course an attorney, and attorneys by definition are wordsmiths. Listen up, private Publicus:

"The court finds that the government's failure to secure the border has exacerbated illegal immigration into this country," Hanen wrote. "Further, the record supports the finding that this lack of enforcement, combined with the country's high rate of illegal immigration, significantly drains the states' resources."

USA Today

Edited February 18, 2015 by NeverSure

[Publicus]

-snip-

Did I mention that the word "amnesty" is not in this case and that the word "amnesty" has no bearing on the case, and that the word "amnesty" is irrelevant and immaterial to the case.

Just to be sure about it, I'll say now for the record that the word "amnesty" is irrelevant and immaterial to this case and that the word "amnesty" appears nowhere meaningfully or significantly in the case. The word "amnesty" has nothing whatsoever to do with this case.

Maybe not, but the Federal Judge in Texas who issued the ruling used the term "illegal immigration" twice in just one paragraph - two sentences in a row - when writing his reasons for his decision and order against Obama.

That's a concept "some people" sure have trouble getting their heads around, but the judge didn't have a problem with it at all.

The judge is of course an attorney, and attorneys by definition are wordsmiths. Listen up, private Publicus:

"The court finds that the government's failure to secure the border has exacerbated illegal immigration into this country," Hanen wrote. "Further, the record supports the finding that this lack of enforcement, combined with the country's high rate of illegal immigration, significantly drains the states' resources."

USA Today

The federal district judge in this case is a nutcase himself who only the extreme far right take seriously.....

Judge Andrew Hanen so obviously hates both Obama and his immigration actions that no one is going to take his decision seriously. It's a polemic, not a proper court ruling. The case will continue its dreary way through Hanen's docket, but I imagine an appeals court will stay the injunction pretty quickly, and then overrule his inevitable final ruling in short order. The right-wing plaintiffs in this case may have thought they were being clever in venue shopping to get the case before Hanen, but it won't do them any good. It might even backfire, given just how transparently political Hanen's ruling is.

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/02/federal-judge-who-issued-injunction

[chuckd]

We await Mother Jones' interpretation of the ruling.