Federal judge stalls Obama's executive action on immigration

[sdanielmcev]

Maybe third time will be a charm. How are they discriminated against? Please tell us lightweights that you have such a hard time explaining at even the most rudimentary level. You keep blathering the same thing every time.

You keep crying about the far right. You aren't even close. It's the people -11,000,000 jobs. They are tired of slobs like you that want all these illegals in their country, taking jobs and identities. But you don't care. You like the "vast right wing conspiracy." Only way you can give credence to your socialism.

A little bit about me. I am pretty close to a true moderate. I used to, since I no longer live there, vote for the person, not the party. Never been Republican nor Democrat.

[chuckd]

<<snip>>

SCOTUS has ruled that illegal immigrants are eligible for the same programs as citizens, so let's just leave the fact at that, and note that means the states cannot deny illegal immigrants equal access to education, employment, health and medical care, driver's licence, police protection and the like because they are illegal immigrants. Can't do it, that.

<<snip>>

No one is hearing this publicly because lawyers and law professors don't talk or write of these realities in public. Number one, they well know never to predict a court or a jury because one really really never actually and absolutely knows for sure or for certain. But I'm neither a lawyer nor am I a law professor. I don't have a professional reputation or legal career to lose. I can say this and these things. If I'm wrong -- and I am not wrong -- I have only TVF posters to deal with which is anyway light work for me. But I'm not wrong. Bank on it.

Here's a little more light work for you.

Perhaps the next Constitutional challenge against Obamacare will be based on the 14th Amendment.

This from the National Immigration Law Center, which is a helpful guide for all immigrants, both legal and illegal, in how to garner free government benefits.

The linked web site specifically gives the following guidelines on eligibility for the benefits of Obamacare.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS

No federal coverage.

Not allowed to purchase private health insurance at full cost in state insurance exchange(s).

Not eligible for premium tax credits or lower copayments.

Exempt from individual mandate.

Not eligible for Medicare, nonemergency Medicaid, or CHIP.

Remain eligible for emergency care under federal law.

Eligible for Emergency Medicaid if low-income.

Citizen or lawfully present children of undocumented parents are eligible:

To purchase from the state insurance exchange.

For premium tax credits and lower copayments.

For Medicaid or CHIP.

May seek nonemergency health services at community health centers or safety-net hospitals.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

In accordance with this web site, Obamacare benefits do NOT extend to illegal immigrants, apparently despite all the exhortations from some about the 14th Amendment.

http://www.nilc.org/immigrantshcr.html

Then there is this...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama’s order won’t extend Obamacare to undocumented immigrants

By Jason Millman and Juliet Eilperin November 19, 2014

President Obama's impending executive action on immigration apparently won't bestow health care benefits on millions of undocumented immigrants, according to an individual familiar with the decision.

That means the millions who will be protected from deportation won't be eligible to purchase subsidized coverage from the public health insurance marketplaces established under the Affordable Care Act.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/19/obamas-order-wont-extend-obamacare-to-undocumented-immigrants/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

In short, if, as you say, "SCOTUS has ruled that illegal immigrants are eligible for the same programs as citizens", why aren't they eligible for Obamacare?

Is Obamacare in violation of the 14th Amendment since it specifically forbids illegal immigrant coverage?

[Publicus]

In short, if, as you say, "SCOTUS has ruled that illegal immigrants are eligible for the same programs as citizens", why aren't they eligible for Obamacare?

They are eligible, they just don't qualify as a matter of policy making in the congress and also in the executive branch, which in this kind of instance is 100% constitutional.

Because the executive branch has good, sound and constitutional reasons of policy, the laws, priorities, budget, and the like to exclude them. Illegal immigrants are not included because it's been determined they don't seek as much health or medical care as other groups do, so other groups will be be given qualifying status. The how and the why of it are clear and constitutional.

"They will still need to find alternative ways to seek care because nothing in the law really expands coverage and affordable coverage options for undocumented immigrants," says Sonal Ambegaokar, a health policy attorney with the National Immigration Law Center in Los Angeles.

http://www.businessinsider.com/obamacare-wont-cover-everyone-2012-6#ixzz3TaX9iA00

As long as they're not being excluded because they are illegal immigrants.

Conservatives and others on the right such as the 26 Republican controlled states in the suit want to exclude illegal immigrants because, well, they are illegal immigrants and the states in the suit don't want to pay to host illegal immigrants because, well, illegal immigrants are illegal immigrants. The SCOTUS has said can't do that.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Publicus

[chuckd]

In short, if, as you say, "SCOTUS has ruled that illegal immigrants are eligible for the same programs as citizens", why aren't they eligible for Obamacare?

They are eligible, they just don't qualify as a matter of policy making in the congress and also in the executive branch, which in this kind of instance is 100% constitutional.

Because the executive branch has good, sound and constitutional reasons of policy, the laws, priorities, budget, and the like to exclude them. Illegal immigrants are not included because it's been determined they don't seek as much health or medical care as other groups do, so other groups will be be given qualifying status. The how and the why of it are clear and constitutional.

"They will still need to find alternative ways to seek care because nothing in the law really expands coverage and affordable coverage options for undocumented immigrants," says Sonal Ambegaokar, a health policy attorney with the National Immigration Law Center in Los Angeles.

http://www.businessinsider.com/obamacare-wont-cover-everyone-2012-6#ixzz3TaX9iA00

As long as they're not being excluded because they are illegal immigrants.

Conservatives and others on the right such as the 26 Republican controlled states in the suit want to exclude illegal immigrants because, well, they are illegal immigrants and the states in the suit don't want to pay to host illegal immigrants because, well, illegal immigrants are illegal immigrants. The SCOTUS has said can't do that.

This is what you claimed with your interpretation of the 14th Amendment...

"SCOTUS has ruled that illegal immigrants are eligible for the same programs as citizens, so let's just leave the fact at that, and note that means the states cannot deny illegal immigrants equal access to education, employment, health and medical care, driver's licence, police protection and the like because they are illegal immigrants. Can't do it, that."

You then came back on the next post to make this claim:

"They are eligible, they just don't qualify as a matter of policy making in the congress and also in the executive branch, which in this kind of instance is 100% constitutional."

You can't have it both ways. You can't say the Supreme Court has declared all illegal immigrants are eligible for the same programs as citizens in one breath and then come back with the ridiculous sentence of double speak of..."They are eligible, they just don't qualify as a matter of policy". If they are eligible, they qualify. If the are ineligible, they do not qualify.

Then you double up on that with this comment...

"Illegal immigrants are not included because it's been determined they don't seek as much health or medical care as other groups do, so other groups will be be given qualifying status."

Where on God's green earth did you come up with that idea?

Are you implying that illegal immigrants are somehow so much healthier than the average citizen, they don't need the medical care or is there yet another reason for your statement?

I could understand it if you claimed that illegal immigrants didn't sign up for government health care because they didn't want to appear on a government site that required citizenship and flagged them for possible deportation, but to somehow claim they simply don't seek as much medical care for any other reason is absurd.

The real answer is the Democratic Congress and President deemed illegal immigrants to be ineligible for the Affordable Care Act because of the simple fact they are, after all is said and done...ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

You have now declared the Affordable Care Act as being unconstitutional, in accordance with the 14th Amendment.

[Publicus]

Given that eligible refers to meeting the stipulated requirements, and that qualify means to define to include restrict, the post is self-contradictory and self-indulgent besides given its convoluted ramblings.

If anyone goes to the news article I cited to read the article, and to read it with comprehension, one can see the discussion of the reasons illegal aliens do not qualify for Obamacare even though they are constitutionally eligible to subscribe to it. I wrote a summary statement that is 100% consistent with the quotes and information presented in the news article concerning exclusion of illegal immigrants from Obamacare.

Pedantics, semantics and some conservative childishness aside, SCOTUS has made itself clear in respect of the 14th Amendment and illegal immigrants, concerning the authority and scope of jurisdiction the Executive Branch has in immigration law and enforcement policies, and that the federal government has absolute authority in immigration law, not the states.

The states haven't ever had determining authority in respect of national immigration law or policy, and the states won't ever have either.

This immigration suit brought by the 26 Republican controlled states to the cherry picked tea party federal judge down there in Texas is a bottom feeder lawsuit and a wave of the wand ruling by the judge who is besides trying to write new law to suit their far right politics and jurisprudence.

[JDGRUEN]

Given that eligible refers to meeting the stipulated requirements, and that qualify means to define to include restrict, the post is self-contradictory and self-indulgent besides given its convoluted ramblings.

If anyone goes to the news article I cited to read the article, and to read it with comprehension, one can see the discussion of the reasons illegal aliens do not qualify for Obamacare even though they are constitutionally eligible to subscribe to it. I wrote a summary statement that is 100% consistent with the quotes and information presented in the news article concerning exclusion of illegal immigrants from Obamacare.

Pedantics, semantics and some conservative childishness aside, SCOTUS has made itself clear in respect of the 14th Amendment and illegal immigrants, concerning the authority and scope of jurisdiction the Executive Branch has in immigration law and enforcement policies, and that the federal government has absolute authority in immigration law, not the states.

The states haven't ever had determining authority in respect of national immigration law or policy, and the states won't ever have either.

This immigration suit brought by the 26 Republican controlled states to the cherry picked tea party federal judge down there in Texas is a bottom feeder lawsuit and a wave of the wand ruling by the judge who is besides trying to write new law to suit their far right politics and jurisprudence.

"This immigration suit brought by the 26 Republican controlled states to the cherry picked tea party federal judge down there in Texas is a bottom feeder lawsuit and a wave of the wand ruling by the judge who is besides trying to write new law to suit their far right politics and jurisprudence."

Go to sleepy dreaming of this simplistic analysis of the Judicial Action -- which includes that the Judge has already turned down an appeal to remove the Restraining Order...

Because that is all you can do is have dreams and daydreams -- as the Judge is not going to let obama off the hook....

AND when the 5th. Circuit Court Panel reviews it -- obama's AMNESTY will be denied AGAIN... Even possible they will turn it back to the lower Federal court with prejudice - meaning it cannot come up again -- FINAL .. DONE ... And it would never make it to SCOTUS....

[chuckd]

"The states haven't ever had determining authority in respect of national immigration law or policy, and the states won't ever have either."

...and herein lies yet another wee problem.

If the states have no authority in respect of national immigration law or policy, which by the way I agree with, then who is to enforce those laws which are forced upon the states?

Who is to pay those additional costs which are incurred by the states since the law is not being enforced?

Can the non-enforcement of existing immigration laws by the federal government cause an undue financial burden on individual states treasuries?

The cost of education alone is estimated to be over $761 Million in the US with Texas absorbing costs in 2014 totaling $78 Million. Since Texas has no say in the matter of enacting or enforcing immigration laws, it falls upon the Federal government to do their collective jobs.

Hence, the law suit and the Judge's decision.

The cost to educate young illegal immigrants over $761 million - a bill for all 50 states

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/8/cost-educate-young-illegal-immigrants-over-761-mil/#ixzz3Tch90jOV

Edited March 6, 2015 by chuckd

[Publicus]

"The states haven't ever had determining authority in respect of national immigration law or policy, and the states won't ever have either."

...and herein lies yet another wee problem.

If the states have no authority in respect of national immigration law or policy, which by the way I agree with, then who is to enforce those laws which are forced upon the states?

Who is to pay those additional costs which are incurred by the states since the law is not being enforced?

Can the non-enforcement of existing immigration laws by the federal government cause an undue financial burden on individual states treasuries?

The cost of education alone is estimated to be over $761 Million in the US with Texas absorbing costs in 2014 totaling $78 Million. Since Texas has no say in the matter of enacting or enforcing immigration laws, it falls upon the Federal government to do their collective jobs.

Hence, the law suit and the Judge's decision.

The cost to educate young illegal immigrants over $761 million - a bill for all 50 states

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/8/cost-educate-young-illegal-immigrants-over-761-mil/#ixzz3Tch90jOV

I understand your profoundly felt pain for the states but, as with the Republican controlled states themselves, anyone in pain about this will have to tell it to the judge....the nine justices of the SCOTUS.

Keep in mind 24 states did not file in this lawsuit, that the only states to have filed are Republican party controlled states. So not all states are in pain over the president's immigration executive action.

As documented and cited below, SCOTUS has anyway ruled -- and has ruled repeatedly -- that the states have no grievance against federal immigration laws despite the fact the federal immigration laws may increase the population of a state and concomitantly increase each state's use of resources.

The federal judge down there in Texas ignored this body of SCOTUS case law precedent, and the tea party judge will pay for his negligence and for his overt disregard of established and settled case and Constitutional law when the case goes on appeal, even if the case has to go to the SCOTUS. This judge is a narrow judge who wears political blinders when he reads the law....and he is moreover willful about it.

As the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized: “‘a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government—claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in [the] proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly [or] tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large—does not state an Article III case or controversy.' Simply put, a state official has not suffered an injury in fact to a legally cognizable interest because a federal government program is anticipated to produce an increase in that state’s population and a concomitant increase in the need for the state’s resources.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/federal-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-challenging-obamas-immigration-executive-action/

Conservatives cannot produce any documentation or legal citations of SCOTUS to contradict this because there are not any such SCOTUS cases....none...zero....ziltch....oogats.

[Publicus]

For the record, 26 states are suing the federal government over Prez Obama's immigration executive action. Twenty-four states did not join the suit. Here respectively are the 26 states in the suit and the 24 states not participating.

The 26 states involved in the lawsuit, according to Texas, are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

The 24 states not participating are: Washington, Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Wyoming – and the District of Columbia.

Twenty of the 26 states joining the lawsuit voted for Romney.

Twenty of the 24 states not signing on to the lawsuit voted for Prez Obama in 2008 and in 2012.

[NeverSure]

As the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized: “‘a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government—claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in [the] proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly [or] tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large—does not state an Article III case or controversy.' Simply put, a state official has not suffered an injury in fact to a legally cognizable interest because a federal government program is anticipated to produce an increase in that state’s population and a concomitant increase in the need for the state’s resources.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/federal-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-challenging-obamas-immigration-executive-action/

Conservatives cannot produce any documentation or legal citations of SCOTUS to contradict this because there are not any such SCOTUS cases....none...zero....ziltch....oogats.

Your argument is fatally flawed. This is a case where a sheriff, not a state brought a lawsuit. Sheriffs don't have the Constitutional Sovereignty that states do.

The sheriff was arguing about what might conceivably happen in the future re crime and enforcement but the court ruled he failed to prove it. Basically the court saw it as speculation. The sheriff was ruled to lack admissible evidence, if you will.

There is NO speculation in the instant case brought by Texas. Texas can document what it has already spent. There is no question of standing to sue because Texas is a sovereign state.

Please don't represent anyone in court.

[Gumballl]

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.

Yep, the gov't should stick it to those 1-year babies that crossed the border illegally decades ago. Now those babies are full grown adults, and know no other country than the US. A lot of them are educated, they work and they pay taxes.

In the meantime, the 'legals' of the US are looking for any way to avoid having to work and pay taxes.

It's really a screwed up country.

[Publicus]

As the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized: “‘a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government—claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in [the] proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly [or] tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large—does not state an Article III case or controversy.' Simply put, a state official has not suffered an injury in fact to a legally cognizable interest because a federal government program is anticipated to produce an increase in that state’s population and a concomitant increase in the need for the state’s resources.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/federal-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-challenging-obamas-immigration-executive-action/

Conservatives cannot produce any documentation or legal citations of SCOTUS to contradict this because there are not any such SCOTUS cases....none...zero....ziltch....oogats.

Your argument is fatally flawed. This is a case where a sheriff, not a state brought a lawsuit. Sheriffs don't have the Constitutional Sovereignty that states do.

The sheriff was arguing about what might conceivably happen in the future re crime and enforcement but the court ruled he failed to prove it. Basically the court saw it as speculation. The sheriff was ruled to lack admissible evidence, if you will.

There is NO speculation in the instant case brought by Texas. Texas can document what it has already spent. There is no question of standing to sue because Texas is a sovereign state.

Please don't represent anyone in court.

Yes I know the case you reference because I know what I cite to post to the board.

It's about the Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona who has attracted national headlines and media clips due to his boasts he's the toughest lawman in the country and who rides the prairies after immigrants of all kinds to lasso 'em and round 'em all up.

Well it turns out the sheriff wandered outside his jurisdiction when the US district judge for the the Washington DC federal court tossed the sheriff out on his badge for lack of standing, the same principle that applies in this case of the tea party federal judge down there Texas way.

Number One, yes, he's a county sheriff elected in the state and empowered by the state, so as such he lacked standing....because states themselves lack standing on these very issues and principles of law and jurisprudence. The sovereignty of each state referred to in your post went out when the Confederacy lost the Civil War, or maybe the leftover bubbas among the population down there didn't notice and still haven't realized it.

Number two, the US district judge in Washington DC noted in his ruling and I cite it in my post, that..."As the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized:"

"As the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized"....the states lack standing to complain that the federal immigration laws have always imposed on the states costs and expenses of implementing them. That is, the federal government passes an immigration law, the states pay the cost, always. This has always been true because the principle is at the core of the US federal system, the constitutional doctrine of parens partiae.

The states have no Constitutional or legal recourse. In other words, the states have to eat the expenses of new federal immigration laws. SCOTUS has always ruled this to be the case. This is also true of rules and regulations developed by the Executive Branch pursuant to new or amended laws. This is also true of the president's executive orders, memoranda, actions.

In this instance, whatever the DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson has done, he did it as the CEO of a department of the Executive Branch and the president, who is the big cheese in all of this, has not rescinded Sec Johnson's action, so it is endorsed -- if not ordered -- by the grand fromage president. If it was ordered by the president, that would be fine too under the Constitution and the federal immigration and other laws.

The Washington DC judge quoted the SCOTUS case law legal precedent, the repeated case law legal precedents pertaining to immigration handed to us by SCOTUS since 1868.

I am quoting both.

Your post quotes and cites......um.....er...your post cites -- I'm looking for it here -- in the case law the....your...one moment......the ah.....your post cites nothing in any category of law. Your post cites no case law, nothing from SCOTUS, no statutory law.....

My god, your post cites personal opinion! Ah-hah! I got it....your post writes new law, same as the activist federal judge conservative does down there Texas way who is trying to write new law, new law that is contrary to the entire body of SCOTUS case law legal precedents since 1868....which are based in the Constitution.

Talk about pissing up a rope down there in Texas....a lasso besides. The judge down there Texas way got caught up in his own lasso throw. You too got caught up in and by it. You know what, though, not everyone on the right wing is letting themselves get caught up in this cowboy judge down there in Texas and in his take in these matters.

A lotta people on the far right just want to see this case tied up in the US district court down there in southern Texas and in the US appellate court and all the while hope it never does get to the SCOTUS, where the Texas judge will get thrown out on his ear like a bum out of a saloon in Tombstone.

Judge Nap methinks is one who likes this idea of tying this case up forever in the lower and appeals courts, never to darken the entrance ways of the SCOTUS, at least not until after the next election, just in case another Democrat gets elected then too.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/federal-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-challenging-obamas-immigration-executive-action/

Edited March 6, 2015 by Publicus

[NeverSure]

As the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized: “‘a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government—claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in [the] proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly [or] tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large—does not state an Article III case or controversy.' Simply put, a state official has not suffered an injury in fact to a legally cognizable interest because a federal government program is anticipated to produce an increase in that state’s population and a concomitant increase in the need for the state’s resources.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/federal-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-challenging-obamas-immigration-executive-action/

Conservatives cannot produce any documentation or legal citations of SCOTUS to contradict this because there are not any such SCOTUS cases....none...zero....ziltch....oogats.

Your argument is fatally flawed. This is a case where a sheriff, not a state brought a lawsuit. Sheriffs don't have the Constitutional Sovereignty that states do.

The sheriff was arguing about what might conceivably happen in the future re crime and enforcement but the court ruled he failed to prove it. Basically the court saw it as speculation. The sheriff was ruled to lack admissible evidence, if you will.

There is NO speculation in the instant case brought by Texas. Texas can document what it has already spent. There is no question of standing to sue because Texas is a sovereign state.

Please don't represent anyone in court.

Yes I know the case you reference because I know what I cite to post to the board.

It's about the Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona who has attracted national headlines and media clips due to his boasts he's the toughest lawman in the country and who rides the prairies after immigrants of all kinds to lasso 'em and round 'em all up.

Well it turns out the sheriff wandered outside his jurisdiction when the US district judge for the the Washington DC federal court tossed the sheriff out on his badge for lack of standing, the same principle that applies in this case of the tea party federal judge down there Texas way.

Number One, yes, he's a county sheriff elected in the state and empowered by the state, so as such he lacked standing....because states themselves lack standing on these very issues and principles of law and jurisprudence. The sovereignty of each state referred to in your post went out when the Confederacy lost the Civil War, or maybe the leftover bubbas among the population down there didn't notice and still haven't realized it.

Number two, the US district judge in Washington DC noted in his ruling and I cite it in my post, that..."As the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized:"

"As the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized"....the states lack standing to complain that the federal immigration laws have always imposed on the states costs and expenses of implementing them. That is, the federal government passes an immigration law, the states pay the cost, always. This has always been true because the principle is at the core of the US federal system, the constitutional doctrine of parens partiae.

The states have no Constitutional or legal recourse. In other words, the states have to eat the expenses of new federal immigration laws. SCOTUS has always ruled this to be the case. This is also true of rules and regulations developed by the Executive Branch pursuant to new or amended laws. This is also true of the president's executive orders, memoranda, actions.

In this instance, whatever the DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson has done, he did it as the CEO of a department of the Executive Branch and the president, who is the big cheese in all of this, has not rescinded Sec Johnson's action, so it is endorsed -- if not ordered -- by the grand fromage president. If it was ordered by the president, that would be fine too under the Constitution and the federal immigration and other laws.

The Washington DC judge quoted the SCOTUS case law legal precedent, the repeated case law legal precedents pertaining to immigration handed to us by SCOTUS since 1868.

I am quoting both.

Your post quotes and cites......um.....er...your post cites -- I'm looking for it here -- in the case law the....your...one moment......the ah.....your post cites nothing in any category of law. Your post cites no case law, nothing from SCOTUS, no statutory law.....

My god, your post cites personal opinion! Ah-hah! I got it....your post writes new law, same as the activist federal judge conservative does down there Texas way who is trying to write new law, new law that is contrary to the entire body of SCOTUS case law legal precedents since 1868....which are based in the Constitution.

Talk about pissing up a rope down there in Texas....a lasso besides. The judge down there Texas way got caught up in his own lasso throw. You too got caught up in and by it. You know what, though, not everyone on the right wing is letting themselves get caught up in this cowboy judge down there in Texas and in his take in these matters.

A lotta people on the far right just want to see this case tied up in the US district court down there in southern Texas and in the US appellate court and all the while hope it never does get to the SCOTUS, where the Texas judge will get thrown out on his ear like a bum out of a saloon in Tombstone.

Judge Nap methinks is one who likes this idea of tying this case up forever in the lower and appeals courts, never to darken the entrance ways of the SCOTUS, at least not until after the next election, just in case another Democrat gets elected then too.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/federal-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-challenging-obamas-immigration-executive-action/

So far your record on the instant case in federal court is 0 -1. But I'm sure you are a better lawyer than the attorneys general of 26 states, and a judge on the federal bench.

[Publicus]

Wrong again.

Produce the post in which I said Judge Andrew Hanen would do anything different from what he did do.

The judge ruled against the government, against Prez Obama's immigration executive action.

Produce the post in which I said Judge Hanen would do otherwise. You need to produce the post in which I said Judge Hanen would rule in favor of the government.

You need to produce the post in which I predicted Judge Hanen would rule in favor of Prez Obama. Produce the post that supports your posts saying I am supposedly 0-1 in this legal proceeding.

Produce it....you people on the far right are making the allegation and it is a completely false allegation. Produce the post to support your bogus claim I said Judge Hanen would rule in favor of Prez Obama. Produce it.

Produce the post.

In the meantime, here's a little something about your political party and Judge Hanen appointed by the Bush family to consider, to think about with a presidential election coming up next year .....btw that's Jeb speeding in the car at the right.

[Publicus]

P.S. I will remind you tomorrow to produce the post.

And the day after tomorrow.

And the day after that.

And still..........

[CharlieH]

I remind posters here of the following:

14) You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles).

Please only post a link, the headline and the first three sentences, NOT the article itself.

[Publicus]

In short, if, as you say, "SCOTUS has ruled that illegal immigrants are eligible for the same programs as citizens", why aren't they eligible for Obamacare?

They are eligible, they just don't qualify as a matter of policy making in the congress and also in the executive branch, which in this kind of instance is 100% constitutional.

Because the executive branch has good, sound and constitutional reasons of policy, the laws, priorities, budget, and the like to exclude them. Illegal immigrants are not included because it's been determined they don't seek as much health or medical care as other groups do, so other groups will be be given qualifying status. The how and the why of it are clear and constitutional.

"They will still need to find alternative ways to seek care because nothing in the law really expands coverage and affordable coverage options for undocumented immigrants," says Sonal Ambegaokar, a health policy attorney with the National Immigration Law Center in Los Angeles.

http://www.businessinsider.com/obamacare-wont-cover-everyone-2012-6#ixzz3TaX9iA00

As long as they're not being excluded because they are illegal immigrants.

Conservatives and others on the right such as the 26 Republican controlled states in the suit want to exclude illegal immigrants because, well, they are illegal immigrants and the states in the suit don't want to pay to host illegal immigrants because, well, illegal immigrants are illegal immigrants. The SCOTUS has said can't do that.

This is what you claimed with your interpretation of the 14th Amendment...

"SCOTUS has ruled that illegal immigrants are eligible for the same programs as citizens, so let's just leave the fact at that, and note that means the states cannot deny illegal immigrants equal access to education, employment, health and medical care, driver's licence, police protection and the like because they are illegal immigrants. Can't do it, that."

You then came back on the next post to make this claim:

"They are eligible, they just don't qualify as a matter of policy making in the congress and also in the executive branch, which in this kind of instance is 100% constitutional."

You can't have it both ways. You can't say the Supreme Court has declared all illegal immigrants are eligible for the same programs as citizens in one breath and then come back with the ridiculous sentence of double speak of..."They are eligible, they just don't qualify as a matter of policy". If they are eligible, they qualify. If the are ineligible, they do not qualify.

Then you double up on that with this comment...

"Illegal immigrants are not included because it's been determined they don't seek as much health or medical care as other groups do, so other groups will be be given qualifying status."

Where on God's green earth did you come up with that idea?

Are you implying that illegal immigrants are somehow so much healthier than the average citizen, they don't need the medical care or is there yet another reason for your statement?

I could understand it if you claimed that illegal immigrants didn't sign up for government health care because they didn't want to appear on a government site that required citizenship and flagged them for possible deportation, but to somehow claim they simply don't seek as much medical care for any other reason is absurd.

The real answer is the Democratic Congress and President deemed illegal immigrants to be ineligible for the Affordable Care Act because of the simple fact they are, after all is said and done...ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

You have now declared the Affordable Care Act as being unconstitutional, in accordance with the 14th Amendment.

This is what you claimed with your interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

You are wrong again. It is not my "interpretation of the 14th Amendment."

I cite and quote from the SCOTUS ruling and the broadly accepted legal analysis of it by the legal community.

The analysis of it is 100% consistent with SCOTUS rulings on immigration and the 14th Amendment since the Amendment was adopted in 1868. It is not my opinion. I cite the language of the SCOTUS ruling and the accepted analysis of it. No opinion here except your own wrong one.

"In rejecting the argument that the "equal" protections of the 14th Amendment are limited to U.S. citizens, the Supreme Court has referred to language used by the Congressional Committee that drafted the amendment: http://usgovinfo.abo...legalrights.htm In final analysis, the courts have ruled that, while they are within the borders of the United States, illegal aliens are granted the same fundamental, undeniable constitutional rights granted to all Americans."

[NeverSure]

This is what you claimed with your interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

You are wrong again. It is not my "interpretation of the 14th Amendment."

I cite and quote from the SCOTUS ruling and the broadly accepted legal analysis of it by the legal community.

The analysis of it is 100% consistent with SCOTUS rulings on immigration and the 14th Amendment since the Amendment was adopted in 1868. It is not my opinion. I cite the language of the SCOTUS ruling and the accepted analysis of it. No opinion here except your own wrong one.

"In rejecting the argument that the "equal" protections of the 14th Amendment are limited to U.S. citizens, the Supreme Court has referred to language used by the Congressional Committee that drafted the amendment: http://usgovinfo.abo...legalrights.htm In final analysis, the courts have ruled that, while they are within the borders of the United States, illegal aliens are granted the same fundamental, undeniable constitutional rights granted to all Americans."

I wish you'd learn to clean up posts, and when using the copy/paste feature, refrain from pasting the entire dang internet in here.

Illegal aliens don't have all of the rights of citizens. They can't legally vote. They can't own firearms. The interpretation of this court ruling by you is too broad.

Illegal aliens have the constitutional right to due process, and to other things while they are in the country illegally. That does NOT say that they must be left in the country illegally or that the government does NOT have the power to deport them.

You are confusing the two.

I'm out of here. Your rants are far too long (mostly due to ctrl+V) and always off the mark.

[sdanielmcev]

"The states haven't ever had determining authority in respect of national immigration law or policy, and the states won't ever have either."

...and herein lies yet another wee problem.

If the states have no authority in respect of national immigration law or policy, which by the way I agree with, then who is to enforce those laws which are forced upon the states?

Who is to pay those additional costs which are incurred by the states since the law is not being enforced?

Can the non-enforcement of existing immigration laws by the federal government cause an undue financial burden on individual states treasuries?

The cost of education alone is estimated to be over $761 Million in the US with Texas absorbing costs in 2014 totaling $78 Million. Since Texas has no say in the matter of enacting or enforcing immigration laws, it falls upon the Federal government to do their collective jobs.

Hence, the law suit and the Judge's decision.

The cost to educate young illegal immigrants over $761 million - a bill for all 50 states

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/8/cost-educate-young-illegal-immigrants-over-761-mil/#ixzz3Tch90jOV

I understand your profoundly felt pain for the states but, as with the Republican controlled states themselves, anyone in pain about this will have to tell it to the judge....the nine justices of the SCOTUS.

Keep in mind 24 states did not file in this lawsuit, that the only states to have filed are Republican party controlled states. So not all states are in pain over the president's immigration executive action.

As documented and cited below, SCOTUS has anyway ruled -- and has ruled repeatedly -- that the states have no grievance against federal immigration laws despite the fact the federal immigration laws may increase the population of a state and concomitantly increase each state's use of resources.

The federal judge down there in Texas ignored this body of SCOTUS case law precedent, and the tea party judge will pay for his negligence and for his overt disregard of established and settled case and Constitutional law when the case goes on appeal, even if the case has to go to the SCOTUS. This judge is a narrow judge who wears political blinders when he reads the law....and he is moreover willful about it.

As the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized: a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about governmentclaiming only harm to his and every citizens interest in [the] proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly [or] tangibly benefits him than it does the public at largedoes not state an Article III case or controversy.' Simply put, a state official has not suffered an injury in fact to a legally cognizable interest because a federal government program is anticipated to produce an increase in that states population and a concomitant increase in the need for the states resources.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/federal-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-challenging-obamas-immigration-executive-action/

Conservatives cannot produce any documentation or legal citations of SCOTUS to contradict this because there are not any such SCOTUS cases....none...zero....ziltch....oogats.

There you go again. It reads state official. Not state. So how would it be possible to contradict?

You really should read the 10th amendment.

[Publicus]

This is what you claimed with your interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

You are wrong again. It is not my "interpretation of the 14th Amendment."

I cite and quote from the SCOTUS ruling and the broadly accepted legal analysis of it by the legal community.

The analysis of it is 100% consistent with SCOTUS rulings on immigration and the 14th Amendment since the Amendment was adopted in 1868. It is not my opinion. I cite the language of the SCOTUS ruling and the accepted analysis of it. No opinion here except your own wrong one.

"In rejecting the argument that the "equal" protections of the 14th Amendment are limited to U.S. citizens, the Supreme Court has referred to language used by the Congressional Committee that drafted the amendment: http://usgovinfo.abo...legalrights.htm In final analysis, the courts have ruled that, while they are within the borders of the United States, illegal aliens are granted the same fundamental, undeniable constitutional rights granted to all Americans."

I wish you'd learn to clean up posts, and when using the copy/paste feature, refrain from pasting the entire dang internet in here.

Illegal aliens don't have all of the rights of citizens. They can't legally vote. They can't own firearms. The interpretation of this court ruling by you is too broad.

Illegal aliens have the constitutional right to due process, and to other things while they are in the country illegally. That does NOT say that they must be left in the country illegally or that the government does NOT have the power to deport them.

You are confusing the two.

I'm out of here. Your rants are far too long (mostly due to ctrl+V) and always off the mark.

They can't legally vote. They can't own firearms. The interpretation of this court ruling by you is too broad.

My posts to the immigration threads include quotes and citations of court rulings on immigration, to include several of the major case law legal precedents of SCOTUS immigration case/common law. I post what the courts and the Constitution say about the 14th Amendment, to include posting the text of the 14th Amendment itself. Then I post my opinion of the tea party activist conservative federal judge down there Texas way.

The highlighted quote from the posts above is therefore not a news bulletin containing any new information, facts, truth, reality. So going forward, some certain posters need either to actually read all of the posts to the thread, re-read all of the posts, or get some reading assistance. The whole of the post above also states the obvious that I have posted already.

The fact remains, no one on the other side of this issue can produce a single case law precedent ruling of SCOTUS to support any one single thing the posters say. No posts have been made by the other side to counter in any way the SCOTUS case law precedents I have posted. There are no posts of any SCOTUS case law precedent that might contradict my posts to the thread, or might qualify or limit the SCOTUS case precedents I have posted by quoting them and by citing them.

And no one can find any post at any of the threads anywhere any time in which I said the tea party conservative activist federal judge down Texas way was going to rule in favor of Prez Obama and against the states in this immigration farce and fiasco of a case. After all, the states cherry picked Judge Hanen based on a previous anti-immigration ruling and rant against Prez Obama by Judge Hanen, in 2012, in anticipation of his favorable ruling to them in this case. Everyone knows this and I have documented the fact.

Judge Hanen does in fact plan to tie up and bog down this case in his court through the next presidential election, to include the at the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. None of the states in the suit want this case to get to SCOTUS, for their own good political reasons for them and for them only.

[chuckd]

I'm on a short time frame right now but I would still like to address one of Publicus' posts detailing the Governors of the 50 states.

While it is true this action only obtained participation from 26 states, all Republican Governors, it might be of interest to some to know that at present there are 35 Republican governors.

It only takes 38 states to pass a Constitutional amendment.

[NeverSure]

They can't legally vote. They can't own firearms. The interpretation of this court ruling by you is too broad.

My posts to the immigration threads include quotes and citations of court rulings on immigration, to include several of the major case law legal precedents of SCOTUS immigration case/common law. I post what the courts and the Constitution say about the 14th Amendment, to include posting the text of the 14th Amendment itself. Then I post my opinion of the tea party activist conservative federal judge down there Texas way.

The highlighted quote from the posts above is therefore not a news bulletin containing any new information, facts, truth, reality. So going forward, some certain posters need either to actually read all of the posts to the thread, re-read all of the posts, or get some reading assistance. The whole of the post above also states the obvious that I have posted already.

The fact remains, no one on the other side of this issue can produce a single case law precedent ruling of SCOTUS to support any one single thing the posters say. No posts have been made by the other side to counter in any way the SCOTUS case law precedents I have posted. There are no posts of any SCOTUS case law precedent that might contradict my posts to the thread, or might qualify or limit the SCOTUS case precedents I have posted by quoting them and by citing them.

And no one can find any post at any of the threads anywhere any time in which I said the tea party conservative activist federal judge down Texas way was going to rule in favor of Prez Obama and against the states in this immigration farce and fiasco of a case. After all, the states cherry picked Judge Hanen based on a previous anti-immigration ruling and rant against Prez Obama by Judge Hanen, in 2012, in anticipation of his favorable ruling to them in this case. Everyone knows this and I have documented the fact.

Judge Hanen does in fact plan to tie up and bog down this case in his court through the next presidential election, to include the at the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. None of the states in the suit want this case to get to SCOTUS, for their own good political reasons for them and for them only.

It's not that you don't know a lot. It's just that what you do know is so wrong.

You keep going on asking for precedents or whatever it is that you "think" is important. Let me teach you a new term.

It's called "Case of First Impression." The State of Texas is breaking new ground. This exact issue based on these pleadings has never been before the courts before. Texas is pleading a different argument than has been made before. It is claiming that it is a sovereign state, and that nothing in the Constitution gives the feds the authority to spend its money under these circumstances. Texas is claiming that the feds are failing it and costing it money by not enforcing existing immigration law. It is calling the feds unlawful. The US Constitution is law.

Read the pleading. It spells it and all arguments out very succinctly.

The precedent if there is one is the Constitution of the United States of America and that is what Texas is claiming.

Why don't you just wait and see how it rattles out? There will be prejudices and political beliefs on both sides with the Supreme Court mixed, and there will be briefs by friends of the Court and so on.

Believe me, their briefs and pleadings will be better than yours, but if the courts follow the Constitution, Texas will prevail.

Edited March 7, 2015 by NeverSure

[Publicus]

I'm on a short time frame right now but I would still like to address one of Publicus' posts detailing the Governors of the 50 states.

While it is true this action only obtained participation from 26 states, all Republican Governors, it might be of interest to some to know that at present there are 35 Republican governors.

It only takes 38 states to pass a Constitutional amendment.

The extreme far right has been working especially hard since LBJ's Great Society to call a 2nd Constitutional Convention which it is reasonably safe to say will occur simultaneous to the second coming of you-know-who.

Two near successes to call a second constitutional convention occurred in 1969 and the other in 1983. Each came within one state of calling a Second Constitutional Convention. Each campaign failed because, as the advocates got closer to the number of states required, the opposition from the White House, Congress and many states became too strong for the proponents to prevail.

The far out extreme right wants to gut the Constitution and has wanted to demolish the Bill of Rights since the Civil War, but it has been continually frustrated. The tea party extremists are the heirs of the previous campaigners for a new convention. The great majority of Americans know however that a second constitutional convention is not needed or wanted, nor would it be desirable.

Indeed, let youse guyz rewrite the Constitution, cause that's who it would be, the delegates elected by the passionate radical right wing activists across the country -- no way that is gonna happen..

Hell will freeze over first. Which also explains why it hasn't happened despite the neverending passion of the far right to pull it off. Indeed, this tea party federal judge down Texas way would be the presiding officer given he's currently the hero of the far out radical right Republicans.

The fear is that a convention would exceed its mandate and radically alter the Constitution, or at least propose amendments beyond the scope of the originally intended subject matter.38 There are two perspectives on this issue:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No3_Rogersonline.pdf

[JDGRUEN]

@Publicus Reference Posts, 113,110,107,102,77,80,82,88,90 and 8 or 10 more reams of paper equivalent.

Do you actually think that posting bloated bloviated posts made up of multiple links, often repeating your points, droning on endlessly and other acts of excess will help you win the day in these arguments?

Your post alone take up about 1/2 of the 5 pages of posts in the Topic Thread. I am sure you think that anyone posing this question is on the losing end of your arguments... but please note - it is difficult to know what your position is as it is made up of rambling cross referenced B.S.- often just diatribes. Much of the time when I see you have made these posts - seemingly in an effort to dominate and drown out those who oppose you - I just shake my head in wonderment that somehow you seem to think that drowning people out is a way to prevail in an argument.

It is possible - that you could make your point more succinctly? But I don't think you can as you seem to share genes with Rush Limbaugh who drones on for hours on subjects that most people could make the point about in 5 minutes.

[Publicus]

They can't legally vote. They can't own firearms. The interpretation of this court ruling by you is too broad.

My posts to the immigration threads include quotes and citations of court rulings on immigration, to include several of the major case law legal precedents of SCOTUS immigration case/common law. I post what the courts and the Constitution say about the 14th Amendment, to include posting the text of the 14th Amendment itself. Then I post my opinion of the tea party activist conservative federal judge down there Texas way.

The highlighted quote from the posts above is therefore not a news bulletin containing any new information, facts, truth, reality. So going forward, some certain posters need either to actually read all of the posts to the thread, re-read all of the posts, or get some reading assistance. The whole of the post above also states the obvious that I have posted already.

The fact remains, no one on the other side of this issue can produce a single case law precedent ruling of SCOTUS to support any one single thing the posters say. No posts have been made by the other side to counter in any way the SCOTUS case law precedents I have posted. There are no posts of any SCOTUS case law precedent that might contradict my posts to the thread, or might qualify or limit the SCOTUS case precedents I have posted by quoting them and by citing them.

And no one can find any post at any of the threads anywhere any time in which I said the tea party conservative activist federal judge down Texas way was going to rule in favor of Prez Obama and against the states in this immigration farce and fiasco of a case. After all, the states cherry picked Judge Hanen based on a previous anti-immigration ruling and rant against Prez Obama by Judge Hanen, in 2012, in anticipation of his favorable ruling to them in this case. Everyone knows this and I have documented the fact.

Judge Hanen does in fact plan to tie up and bog down this case in his court through the next presidential election, to include the at the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. None of the states in the suit want this case to get to SCOTUS, for their own good political reasons for them and for them only.

It's not that you don't know a lot. It's just that what you do know is so wrong.

You keep going on asking for precedents or whatever it is that you "think" is important. Let me teach you a new term.

It's called "Case of First Impression." The State of Texas is breaking new ground. This exact issue based on these pleadings has never been before the courts before. Texas is pleading a different argument than has been made before. It is claiming that it is a sovereign state, and that nothing in the Constitution gives the feds the authority to spend its money under these circumstances. Texas is claiming that the feds are failing it and costing it money by not enforcing existing immigration law. It is calling the feds unlawful. The US Constitution is law.

Read the pleading. It spells it and all arguments out very succinctly.

The precedent if there is one is the Constitution of the United States of America and that is what Texas is claiming.

Why don't you just wait and see how it rattles out? There will be prejudices and political beliefs on both sides with the Supreme Court mixed, and there will be briefs by friends of the Court and so on.

Believe me, their briefs and pleadings will be better than yours, but if the courts follow the Constitution, Texas will prevail.

So yes, a number of us have read the judge's Memorandum and other documents which almost anyone would agree requires some level of a literacy in the law and in legal writing and analysis.

Let's now get out of the way the fact the Constitution is not a precedent in law as you claim it to be. The Constitution is the source document, the original commandments to lawmakers, to those who execute the laws, and to those who interpret the law, meaning the judges....not to mention to the body politic, the citizens. In respect of immigration law per se.....

"Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution empowers Congress to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” – or, more simply stated, to make universal rules about giving foreign-born residents of the United States the “privileges of native” born residents."

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/04/28/immigration-vs-naturalization/

Indeed, the Constitution and SCOTUS are unambiguous that the national government is the sole authority over immigration. SCOTUS confirms that immigration laws, rules, regulations need to comport to the nation's foreign policies which only the feds can do. These realities mean the states have never had a say in writing immigration law, rules, regulations. So perhaps it can be said you and I are making some progress here because your post finally acknowledges that the tea party judge down there Texas way is trying to write new law.

Trouble is, the conservatives want to think and believe the judge and his new law will prevail. I assert that he and it will not...cannot even get their foot in the door.

The Constitution is unambiguous and SCOTUS has a body of case law pursuant to the Constitution that says the states are not players in respect of immigration law. It is not genius to note that it is hard for any society and its legal specialists to reverse even mildly, nevermind radically and suddenly an unambiguous founding document and also a couple of hundred years of case law legal precedent that flow from the document.

Specifically, I again quote the SCOTUS and the prevailing legal analysis of the Court's ruling in respect of the always in all circumstances superior authority of the federal/national government over the states in the matter of immigration law, laws and rules pursuant to laws governing aliens, citizenship....

The regulation of aliens is so intimately blended and intertwined with responsibilities of the national government that where it acts, and the state also acts on the same subject, “the act of Congress or treaty is supreme; and the law of the state, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it.” And where the federal government, in the exercise of its superior authority in this field, has enacted a complete scheme of regulation … states cannot, inconsistently with the purpose of Congress, conflict or interfere with, curtail or complement, the federal law, or enforce additional or auxiliary regulations.

http://constitution.i2i.org/2010/12/17/does-the-constitution-really-give-congress-power-over-immigration/

So what about the "sovereign" states in national immigration law and the Constitution? Can't a state/states petition the federal courts?

"The Constitution never uses the word immigration, so how is it that the rules for immigrants, and quotas for countries, are set by the federal government and not by the state governments? After all, as the 10th Amendment states, are the powers not delegated to the United States held by the states, or the people?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, includes the power to regulate immigration (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976])."

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#immigration

It is a long settled and established matter that the federal government is empowered by the Constitution to specifically be the sole authority on immigration and that the states have no say at all, whatsoever, for any reason or claim, period, time knoweth not to the contrary.

[Publicus]

@Publicus Reference Posts, 113,110,107,102,77,80,82,88,90 and 8 or 10 more reams of paper equivalent.

Do you actually think that posting bloated bloviated posts made up of multiple links, often repeating your points, droning on endlessly and other acts of excess will help you win the day in these arguments?

Your post alone take up about 1/2 of the 5 pages of posts in the Topic Thread. I am sure you think that anyone posing this question is on the losing end of your arguments... but please note - it is difficult to know what your position is as it is made up of rambling cross referenced B.S.- often just diatribes. Much of the time when I see you have made these posts - seemingly in an effort to dominate and drown out those who oppose you - I just shake my head in wonderment that somehow you seem to think that drowning people out is a way to prevail in an argument.

It is possible - that you could make your point more succinctly? But I don't think you can as you seem to share genes with Rush Limbaugh who drones on for hours on subjects that most people could make the point about in 5 minutes.

Call my AA in the morning.

She'll get back to you before noon.

Just to specifically satisfy you and AlwaysSure, I will reduce my typical post in these subtle and complex legal matters.

Get a good night's sleep too while you're at it.

Cheers.

[Publicus]

"The states haven't ever had determining authority in respect of national immigration law or policy, and the states won't ever have either."

...and herein lies yet another wee problem.

If the states have no authority in respect of national immigration law or policy, which by the way I agree with, then who is to enforce those laws which are forced upon the states?

Who is to pay those additional costs which are incurred by the states since the law is not being enforced?

Can the non-enforcement of existing immigration laws by the federal government cause an undue financial burden on individual states treasuries?

The cost of education alone is estimated to be over $761 Million in the US with Texas absorbing costs in 2014 totaling $78 Million. Since Texas has no say in the matter of enacting or enforcing immigration laws, it falls upon the Federal government to do their collective jobs.

Hence, the law suit and the Judge's decision.

The cost to educate young illegal immigrants over $761 million - a bill for all 50 states

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/8/cost-educate-young-illegal-immigrants-over-761-mil/#ixzz3Tch90jOV

I understand your profoundly felt pain for the states but, as with the Republican controlled states themselves, anyone in pain about this will have to tell it to the judge....the nine justices of the SCOTUS.

Keep in mind 24 states did not file in this lawsuit, that the only states to have filed are Republican party controlled states. So not all states are in pain over the president's immigration executive action.

As documented and cited below, SCOTUS has anyway ruled -- and has ruled repeatedly -- that the states have no grievance against federal immigration laws despite the fact the federal immigration laws may increase the population of a state and concomitantly increase each state's use of resources.

The federal judge down there in Texas ignored this body of SCOTUS case law precedent, and the tea party judge will pay for his negligence and for his overt disregard of established and settled case and Constitutional law when the case goes on appeal, even if the case has to go to the SCOTUS. This judge is a narrow judge who wears political blinders when he reads the law....and he is moreover willful about it.

As the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized: a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about governmentclaiming only harm to his and every citizens interest in [the] proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly [or] tangibly benefits him than it does the public at largedoes not state an Article III case or controversy.' Simply put, a state official has not suffered an injury in fact to a legally cognizable interest because a federal government program is anticipated to produce an increase in that states population and a concomitant increase in the need for the states resources.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/federal-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-challenging-obamas-immigration-executive-action/

Conservatives cannot produce any documentation or legal citations of SCOTUS to contradict this because there are not any such SCOTUS cases....none...zero....ziltch....oogats.

There you go again. It reads state official. Not state. So how would it be possible to contradict?

You really should read the 10th amendment.

When the SCOTUS says "state official" it refers to a state, Texas for example, or California, New York etc....the state itself....the whole of it.

Legal language can seem a mite tricky or obscure so it might also be advisable to seek professional help.

[Publicus]

In the worthy interest toward some day being pithy, the analysis is presented below of Judge Hanen's ruling and temporary injunction.

The quoted statement is by Prof of immigration law Anil Kalhan of the Drexel University School of Law and a Visiting Scholar at the University of California at Berkeley Center for the Study of Law and Society, School of Law.

Judge Hanen writes nonchalantly in his opinion about “self-deportation” as if that were a completely noncontroversial, ordinary thing to say.

These claims by...Judge Hanen that the Obama administration is trying to “grant lawful status” to millions of undocumented immigrations are at the core of...objections to both programs. The claims are entirely continuous and of a piece with the kinds of accusations that anti-immigration politicians and opinion writers now casually throw around on a routine basis—that the initiatives amount to “executive amnesty,” that they turn “anchor babies” into “automatic human shields” for their “illegal parents” (Rep. Steve King), that they amount to an outright “refusal to enforce our current immigration laws” (Rep. Bob Goodlatte), that they give “illegals … legal status,” (Ben Carson), and even that “in effect” they involve “printing up [and] counterfeiting immigration documents” (Sen. Ted Cruz). And on and on and on. As political rhetoric, the charges leveled by...Judge Hanen, and these anti-immigration politicians and opinion writers make for useful talking points and arresting sound bites. As legal claims, however, they’re also completely false.

http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2015/02/is-judge-hanens-smackdown-of-executive.html

What does a tea party Republican federal judge appointed two times by two Bush presidents look like down there in Texas?

US District Court Judge Andrew F. Hanen of the federal Southern District of Texas.

Judge Hanen ruled that Prez Obama's executive action granted federal benefits to certain illegal aliens. This is wrong. The judge is in legal error.

Prez Obama temporarily deferred prosecution of certain illegal aliens. Other federal programs may or may not grant some certain benefits to some resident aliens. Prez Obama's deferral action does not grant social welfare benefits to any aliens.

Judge Hanen is in legal error. Ruling reversed, temporary injunction dissolved. The president's prosecutorial discretion upheld, sustained. The deferral program is reinstated in full.

Judge Hanen to the corner in a dunce cap.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.

[chuckd]

26 States Want Investigation Of Obama’s Amnesty

7:51 AM 03/06/2015

NEIL MUNRO

White House Correspondent

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking a judge to allow an investigation of the closed-door workings of President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty, following the discovery that 100,000 illegal immigrants had secretly been given three-year amnesty documents well before a promised start date.

“The Obama Administration appears to have already been issuing expanded work permits, in direct contradiction to what they told a federal judge previously in this litigation,” Paxton said in a Thursday statement describing his legal request, which was signed by the governors or attorneys general of 26 states.

“The circumstances behind this must be investigated, and the motion we seek would help us determine to what extent the Administration might have misrepresented the facts in this case,” he added.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/06/26-states-want-investigation-of-obamas-amnesty/