White House puts immigration plans on hold after ruling

[webfact]

White House puts immigration plans on hold after ruling
By ERICA WERNER and JIM KUHNHENN

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration put its new deportation-relief program on hold Tuesday on the eve of its launch, complying reluctantly with a federal judge's order that roiled immigrant communities nationwide and seemed to harden an already-tense stalemate on Capitol Hill.

President Barack Obama promised an appeal and predicted he'd prevail. But for tens of thousands of immigrants in line to begin applying Wednesday for work permits and deportation stays under his directives, their plans were canceled, at least temporarily.

Talking to reporters in the Oval Office, Obama said he disagreed with the ruling by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen of Texas that the administration had exceeded its authority. But he said that, for now, he must abide by it.

"We're not going to disregard this federal court ruling," Obama said, but he added that administration officials would continue to prepare to roll out the program. "I think the law is on our side and history is on our side," he said.

On Capitol Hill, the Homeland Security Department stood 10 days away from losing funding, but Hanen's ruling made a compromise on that dispute look more distant than ever. Republicans are blocking funding for the agency unless Democrats agree to cancel Obama's immigration orders, and they seized on the ruling as validation for their position.

"Congress must reassert its waning power. We must re-establish the constitutional principle that the people's representatives control the purse," said Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, a leading immigration hardliner.

Yet Senate Democrats, who have been blocking a House-passed bill that would fund the department but also undo Obama's actions, said the ruling from Hanen did nothing to budge them.

"Democrats remain united in our belief that funding for the Department of Homeland Security should not be used as a ransom by Republicans, period," said Chuck Schumer of New York.

The agency's $40 billion budget runs out Feb. 27, and with Congress now on recess lawmakers will have only a few days to reach an agreement once they return to Washington next week. One possibility is a short-term extension of current funding levels, but House Speaker John Boehner said over the weekend that the House had done its job and he would "certainly" let a shutdown occur if the Senate didn't act.

If the political impasse seemed severe, so were the implications for millions of immigrants in the country illegally who have cheered Obama's executive directives in the face of congressional inaction.

"We feel powerless but not defeated, sure that it will all work out," 46-year-old Claudia Ramon, a native of Colombia, said at a rally in Houston, one of dozens nationwide where immigrants and their advocates vowed to continue with preparations under Obama's programs.

Obama's directives would make more than 4 million immigrants in the United States illegally eligible for three-year deportation stays and work permits. Mostly those are people who have been in the country for more than five years and have children who are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. Applications for the first phase were to begin Wednesday, when as many as 300,000 immigrants brought illegally to the country as children could begin applying for an expansion of Obama's 2012 program aimed at the younger immigrants known as Dreamers.

Yet there was also palpable anxiety, with their apparent White House gains under attack on Capitol Hill and in the courts. Advocates pledged to redouble their efforts to sign up as many people as possible.

"It's extremely important for the community to understand from a legal perspective it is on solid legal footing and actually the larger numbers of people who come forward to apply, the more likely we can protect the expansion," said Marielena Hincapie, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center.

Hanen's ruling late Monday night, in a case brought by 26 states led by Texas, said that Obama and his Homeland Security Department lacked the authority to take the actions they did.

"No statute gives the DHS the discretion it is trying to exercise here," wrote Hanen, and he issued a stay blocking the actions from taking effect. His order was not a big surprise from a Republican-appointed judge who has showed a hard line on border issues.

The Obama administration could seek a stay of his order in addition to appealing to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday that the Justice Department was deciding its next move.

He said, "I've always expected that this is a matter that will ultimately be decided by a higher court — if not the Supreme Court then a federal court of appeals."

The drama played out with the 2016 presidential contest getting underway and candidates of both parties eager to win over Latino voters. One potential Republican candidate, Jeb Bush, weighed in with a post to his Facebook page declaring that Obama had overstepped his authority and "hurt the effort toward a commonsense immigration solution."

"Now, more than ever, we need President Obama to work with Congress to secure the border and fix our broken immigration system," Bush wrote.
___

Associated Press writers Eric Tucker in Washington and Juan Lozano in Houston contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-02-18

[kerrysum]

Yes,

We have rules too bitch!!!! It is called a Constitution....

[Ulysses G.]

According to Judge Napolitano, the White House better do a lot more than put their plans on "hold".

Napolitano said the amnesty program is on hold "probably forever" unless the appeals court decides to overturn Hanen's injunction.

He said it will probably take longer than two years - Obama's remaining time in office - for the overall case to wind its way through the courts.

"The judge said the feds will probably lose and there is probably irreparable harm to the states, therefore I am going to stop this from happening and I'm going to stop it right now," he explained.

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

[NeverSure]

How did the American people ever elect such an inexperienced trainee as president? In the primaries he was running against Hillary Clinton who at least had a lot of experience in federal government. I don't agree with either of their politics, but the American people must have all been out to lunch when the voting took place.

[ALLSEEINGEYE]

you mean George Bush?

[NeverSure]

you mean George Bush?

George W. Bush was a graduate of Harvard Business School and was governor of the State of Texas. He had also served in the military.

Obama was a community organizer among thugs in Chicago and had a degree as a lawyer which somehow he lost or abandoned. The reason Obama is often called the "community organizer" is because that's all anyone can figure out he's done other than vote "present" for his short and uneventful time in Congress.

[sdanielmcev]

you mean George Bush?

George Bush is not the President, nor has he anything to do with this topic .Obama is merely satisfying his political base. This was for show, nothing more.

[englishoak]

He he funny to watch a load of immigrants get riled up over other immigrants.

[beechguy]

He he funny to watch a load of immigrants get riled up over other immigrants.

That's unfortunate your school didn't teach you the difference between legal, and illegal.

[Paulc01]

He he funny to watch a load of immigrants get riled up over other immigrants.

Not nearly as funny as watching some cold, damp little island turned into one giant mosque.

[Publicus]

According to Judge Napolitano, the White House better do a lot more than put their plans on "hold".

Napolitano said the amnesty program is on hold "probably forever" unless the appeals court decides to overturn Hanen's injunction.

He said it will probably take longer than two years - Obama's remaining time in office - for the overall case to wind its way through the courts.

"The judge said the feds will probably lose and there is probably irreparable harm to the states, therefore I am going to stop this from happening and I'm going to stop it right now," he explained.

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

Banking on a highly politicized US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals I see. And glued to Fox besides.

All the controlling SCOTUS decisions over the past 238 years favor the Constitution's Article I, which identifies the powers reserved to the executive only, such as foreign policy to include immigration law enforcement which in turn includes the executive's responsibility and obligation to ascertain the foreign policy interests of the United States and the enforcement of the immigration laws are compatible and consistent. The states have no interest in this, none. zip.

Personal opinion here does not matter. What does matter is awareness of the issues and the questions, not viewer ratings during this period of the legal battles over immigration and its related policy matters.

Did I mention btw that the word "amnesty" is nowhere in the case before the courts....that the word "amnesty" has no bearing on the case....that the word "amnesty" is irrelevant and immaterial to the entire case and to the issues now before the courts. "Amnesty" will not be granted..."amnesty" will not be denied, because "amnesty" is not before the courts in this litigation.

That is because the president's immigration executive action has absolutely zero nothing zilch to do with amnesty.

[Ulysses G.]

According to Judge Napolitano, the White House better do a lot more than put their plans on "hold".

Napolitano said the amnesty program is on hold "probably forever" unless the appeals court decides to overturn Hanen's injunction.

He said it will probably take longer than two years - Obama's remaining time in office - for the overall case to wind its way through the courts.

"The judge said the feds will probably lose and there is probably irreparable harm to the states, therefore I am going to stop this from happening and I'm going to stop it right now," he explained.

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

Banking on a highly politicized US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals I see.

Actually, I'm banking on an appeal's court that will actually follow the law and the constitution. The Obama administration keep looking for loopholes to get around them and left-wing activist judges often back them up. The odds are against the lawless president this time.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Publicus]

According to Judge Napolitano, the White House better do a lot more than put their plans on "hold".

Napolitano said the amnesty program is on hold "probably forever" unless the appeals court decides to overturn Hanen's injunction.

He said it will probably take longer than two years - Obama's remaining time in office - for the overall case to wind its way through the courts.

"The judge said the feds will probably lose and there is probably irreparable harm to the states, therefore I am going to stop this from happening and I'm going to stop it right now," he explained.

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

Banking on a highly politicized US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals I see.

Actually, I'm banking on an appeal's court that will actually follow the law and the constitution. The Obama administration keep looking for loopholes to get around them and left-wing activist judges often back them up. The odds are against the lawless president this time.

No matter how the right slices it, it's still baloney.

It is well known the Republican governors who brought this suit shopped around the country to choose this tea party federal judge in Texas who'd ranted and raged against Prez Obama in an immigration case in 2013. In his ruling the US district judge in Texas gave standing to Texas only among the 26 states in the suit.

It is well known the Republican objective is to use the tea party federal district court judge and the strong conservative majority of judges on the appeals court to tie up Prez Obama's immigration executive action in the courts, and to try to tie it up indefinitely. That's what the post I replied to above is all about.

The Republican right and their tea party bosses must however get the cooperation of the US court of appeals, as the post I reply to above duly notes. Without that the far right will have nothing. Yet, all the SCOTUS case law over 238 years favors the executive in these disputes and says the states have no authority, no say, no standing to sue.

So it is now time to let the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals show us its stuff, to everyone. Let's see if they are right wing political judges or whether they do as judges do, which is to respect all the SCOTUS case precedents in these matters, disputes, issues -- case precedents predicated in the Constitution.

My chips are on their being judges rather than political hacks. Others on the right need and want the appeals judges to be political hacks. I just told my banker they are judges.

[Scott]

An off-topic, inflammatory post which takes a quote out of context has been removed along with the reply.

Perhaps a suspension would help give others a chance to post and prevent this thread from becoming a personal playground for a select few posters.

[chuckd]

No matter how the right slices it, it's still baloney.

It is well known the Republican governors who brought this suit shopped around the country to choose this tea party federal judge in Texas who'd ranted and raged against Prez Obama in an immigration case in 2013. In his ruling the US district judge in Texas gave standing to Texas only among the 26 states in the suit.

It is well known the Republican objective is to use the tea party federal district court judge and the strong conservative majority of judges on the appeals court to tie up Prez Obama's immigration executive action in the courts, and to try to tie it up indefinitely. That's what the post I replied to above is all about.

The Republican right and their tea party bosses must however get the cooperation of the US court of appeals, as the post I reply to above duly notes. Without that the far right will have nothing. Yet, all the SCOTUS case law over 238 years favors the executive in these disputes and says the states have no authority, no say, no standing to sue.

So it is now time to let the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals show us its stuff, to everyone. Let's see if they are right wing political judges or whether they do as judges do, which is to respect all the SCOTUS case precedents in these matters, disputes, issues -- case precedents predicated in the Constitution.

My chips are on their being judges rather than political hacks. Others on the right need and want the appeals judges to be political hacks. I just told my banker they are judges.

Do you have any links to support all of this bluster?

For instance:

1. "It is well known the Republican governors who brought this suit shopped around the country to choose this tea party federal judge in Texas who'd ranted and raged against Prez Obama in an immigration case in 2013. In his ruling the US district judge in Texas gave standing to Texas only among the 26 states in the suit."

The case is titled..."Texas v. United States".

Texas is the primary plaintiff. Perhaps their choice of filing the motion in a federal court located in Texas is hardly "shopping around the country" but rather filing the motion before the Southern District of Texas Federal Court, located in Brownsville, Texas.

It is true only Texas was granted standing by the Judge. That is all it needed for the suit to go forward. Multiple states with standing were not required. Only the one.

Do you have any links to tie this specific judge with any tea party movement?

2. "The Republican right and their tea party bosses must however get the cooperation of the US court of appeals, as the post I reply to above duly notes. Without that the far right will have nothing. Yet, all the SCOTUS case law over 238 years favors the executive in these disputes and says the states have no authority, no say, no standing to sue."

Again, the tea party myth. Please provide some reliable source that affirms the so called tea party is actively soliciting judicial favoritism from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

I would question your unqualified statement that the States have "no authority, no say and no standing to sue". If that be the case, how did Texas get standing to sue?

You are correct if you are claiming the States have no authority and no say in the rules of Immigration, which by the Constitution, are the sole property of the Federal government and Congress specifically. However, they do have the right to sue for redress if the actions of the federal government cause financial impact on the various states due to the requirements of those actions, executive or otherwise.

The financial impact to the state of Texas alone is reason enough for the government to have followed the procedural requirements of the Administration Procedure Act.

3. "My chips are on their being judges rather than political hacks. Others on the right need and want the appeals judges to be political hacks. I just told my banker they are judges."

Do you consider most judges to be "political hacks" or is it only those that might have the audacity to lean to the conservative side of a legal issue? You throw these derogatory terms around with great abandon so you must have some insight as t which judges might be "political hacks" and which would not be. Links available?

Here is a link to the temporary injunction in full: http://www.scribd.com/doc/255994877/Memorandum-Opinion-And-Order-Texas-v-United-States

The Conclusion is on page 123.

[NeverSure]

No matter how the right slices it, it's still baloney.

It is well known the Republican governors who brought this suit shopped around the country to choose this tea party federal judge in Texas who'd ranted and raged against Prez Obama in an immigration case in 2013. In his ruling the US district judge in Texas gave standing to Texas only among the 26 states in the suit.

-snip-

This is patently untrue. The US District Courts ("Federal Courts" as opposed to state courts) are divided into Districts (jurisdictions). Each district has a court. Had Texas filed in any other court the WH is smart enough to immediately file a motion for dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction. That motion would be instantly granted.

The states in the US have a lot of power. When the US constitution was originally drafted and ratified, the smaller colonies were very much afraid of being ruled by the larger colonies. The compromise was to have a republic of states with each state having equal say in Congress - two senators.

The other issue was to strictly limit the Federal Government's power over the states. The colonists had just fought a war of independence from the King of England and didn't want to be ruled by a central power. Therefore there is language in the Constitution clearly stating that any powers not granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution are reserved for each state. This is the default setting. If the Constitution doesn't give the Federal Government power, then it doesn't have it.

This issue is going to boil down to whether the Federal Government can make executive orders or pass laws which attach monetary costs to a state without the states permission, when that cost is not a power granted in the Constitution. It isn't granted to the Federal Government. The Federal Government has overstepped its authority.

Texas has by far the largest border with Mexico. It has a serious illegal immigration problem as people slip over that huge desert border with Mexico and try to blend in with the population of Texas. It also results in expensive criminal issues as drugs and other things are smuggled over that border.

Texas has a massive problem. It's going after it in Federal Court. If the judges follow the law (the Constitution) Texas will prevail.

Edited February 19, 2015 by NeverSure

[JDGRUEN]

This short opinion piece gets to the heart of the matter... obama's actions won't stand.

Will Obama’s defeat on his immigration order be sustained?



"...ruling is confined to the most egregious feature of the executive order — the grant to illegal immigrants of work authorization and benefits. Granting these sorts of affirmative favors has never been a matter of prosecutorial discretion, nor can it sensibly be viewed as such..."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/02/124848.php

[danmarnj]

According to Judge Napolitano, the White House better do a lot more than put their plans on "hold".

Napolitano said the amnesty program is on hold "probably forever" unless the appeals court decides to overturn Hanen's injunction.

He said it will probably take longer than two years - Obama's remaining time in office - for the overall case to wind its way through the courts.

"The judge said the feds will probably lose and there is probably irreparable harm to the states, therefore I am going to stop this from happening and I'm going to stop it right now," he explained.

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

Banking on a highly politicized US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals I see.

Actually, I'm banking on an appeal's court that will actually follow the law and the constitution. The Obama administration keep looking for loopholes to get around them and left-wing activist judges often back them up. The odds are against the lawless president this time.

The way I understand the Court's ruling is that Obama has decided to make changes to an already existing law without Congressional approval. This is the reason the administration may lose this fight. .

[JDGRUEN]

Obama Administration Not Likely to Seek Emergency Stay of District Court Preliminary Injunction, DAPA to Remain on Hold

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2015/02/obama-administration-not-likely-to-seek-emergency-stay-of-district-court-preliminary-injunction-dapa.html

[Publicus]

This case needs to get to the Supreme Court as soon as possible.......

When it comes to the merits, the Republicans may have a tough time at the Supreme Court, should the case eventually reach there. Legomsky pointed to two Supreme Court cases — both cited in the Obama administration's legal memo justifying the actions — Chaney v. Heckler and Arizona v. U.S. as examples of the "very broad prosecutorial discretion" that the executive branch has on the issue of immigration.

In 2012, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in Arizona v. U.S., "Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all." His 5-3 majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/gop-lawsuit-stop-obama-immigration-actions

Delay only deflects any effort to obtain ultimate legal clarity of the issues. Delay benefits one side and obstructs the other.

[chuckd]

This case needs to get to the Supreme Court as soon as possible.......

When it comes to the merits, the Republicans may have a tough time at the Supreme Court, should the case eventually reach there. Legomsky pointed to two Supreme Court cases — both cited in the Obama administration's legal memo justifying the actions — Chaney v. Heckler and Arizona v. U.S. as examples of the "very broad prosecutorial discretion" that the executive branch has on the issue of immigration.

In 2012, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in Arizona v. U.S., "Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all." His 5-3 majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/gop-lawsuit-stop-obama-immigration-actions

Delay only deflects any effort to obtain ultimate legal clarity of the issues. Delay benefits one side and obstructs the other.

You really need to catch up by getting some new material.

This from your link:

"BySAHIL KAPURPublished

DECEMBER 11, 2014, 6:00 AM EST"

This opinion piece was written and published two months before Judge Hanen issued his decision.

The Judge did address prosecutorial discretion by stating in his opinion he would not rule on it.

He also addressed the delay issue by saying the delay can not harm the government or the Dreamers. Those Dreamers that are eligible for the new legislation-by-executive-fiat today will still be eligible in a few months, after the action is either held to be constitutional or declared unconstitutional. It will have no effect on the Dreamers or the government by delaying the action...other than DHS might have to stop hiring 1,000 new agents to process the paperwork.

A delay will prevent a future chaotic condition for the various state governments. The injunction prevents the issuance of driver's licenses, work permits and Social Security cards as it would be nearly impossible to correct the issuance of those documents should the action be deemed unconstitutional by the Courts at a later date.

As the Judge said...It will be hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube.

[Publicus]

The case needs to get to the SCOTUS as soon as possible.

All the provisions of the executive action are temporary. The federal judge did not rule on the constitutionality of the executive action, nor did the federal judge rule on the executive order in relation to the body of all previous immigration law. He ruled instead that the Administrative Procedures Act applies to the executive order, which is unprecedented in the case and statutory law.

The federal judge in Texas is engaging in radical new lawmaking so he is wrong.

As is pointed out by Cass R. Sunstein, director of the Harvard Law School center on economics and public policy, the judicial activist in Texas is wrong in both his approach and in his judicial activism.....

"The decision by a federal judge in Texas Monday to strike down President Barack Obama’s immigration reform initiative runs to a whopping 123 pages. The law here is based on the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act, which governs many activities of executive agencies. The APA does indeed require Homeland Security to seek public comment on any “proposed rulemaking” — but not on “general statements of policy.”

Judge Hanen was right to focus on the APA and the technical requirements of the law. The crucial ruling is narrow

But he got the technical argument wrong. Judge Hanen almost certainly overreached." "

http://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/insidenews/archive/2015/02/19/cass-sunstein-on-the-apa-and-judge-hanen-39-s-injunction.aspx

Edited February 20, 2015 by Publicus

[Publicus]

Obama Administration Not Likely to Seek Emergency Stay of District Court Preliminary Injunction, DAPA to Remain on Hold

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2015/02/obama-administration-not-likely-to-seek-emergency-stay-of-district-court-preliminary-injunction-dapa.html

The case needs to go to the SCOTUS as soon as possible.

[chuckd]

Obama Administration Not Likely to Seek Emergency Stay of District Court Preliminary Injunction, DAPA to Remain on Hold

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2015/02/obama-administration-not-likely-to-seek-emergency-stay-of-district-court-preliminary-injunction-dapa.html

The case needs to go to the SCOTUS as soon as possible.

"That process is likely to take six months or longer."

You seem overwrought. Relax.

[JDGRUEN]

Obama Administration Not Likely to Seek Emergency Stay of District Court Preliminary Injunction, DAPA to Remain on Hold

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2015/02/obama-administration-not-likely-to-seek-emergency-stay-of-district-court-preliminary-injunction-dapa.html

The case needs to go to the SCOTUS as soon as possible.

Are you wishing - hoping or praying there Publicus? ... As you have repeated yourself several times...If I were you I would not try to hold my breath until obama's unconstitutional action is approved by the court.

[Publicus]

The White House is clear about the course of action here, as are the DoJ and DHS, which is to appeal the injunction on the merits of the executive action to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The side that the appeals court gives the short end of the stick to will appeal further to the SCOTUS. It's been prominently noted that the appeals court is packed with activist judges so everyone will find out whether those judges are activist conservatives or activist liberals.

Each side can then claim he will win in the SCOTUS. It's clear to you that your side will win; it's clear to me my side will win.

That is how it is done.

The longer it takes to process this litigation, the longer justice will be denied, which is why the SCOTUS needs to get the case asap, so let's hope the court of appeals does not drag out the appeals process.

Who could argue against a fair and speedy trial...

Edited February 20, 2015 by Publicus

[Ulysses G.]

It is looking more and more like Judge Napolitano might have been correct.

Napolitano said the amnesty program is on hold "probably forever" unless the appeals court decides to overturn Hanen's injunction.

He said it will probably take longer than two years - Obama's remaining time in office - for the overall case to wind its way through the courts.

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

[Publicus]

It is looking more and more like Judge Napolitano might have been correct.

Napolitano said the amnesty program is on hold "probably forever" unless the appeals court decides to overturn Hanen's injunction.

He said it will probably take longer than two years - Obama's remaining time in office - for the overall case to wind its way through the courts.

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

There isn't any "amnesty" program.

Support for Obama’s executive actions among Latinos is staggering

According to the poll, 80 percent of Latinos oppose Republicans in Congress taking steps to stop Obama from taking executive action on immigration. Only 18 percent said they support these efforts by Republicans.

He noted that support for Obama’s executive actions also exists among Latinos who identify as Republicans, as 76 percent of them said they support the president’s move on immigration. Meanwhile, 95 percent of Latino Democrats expressed support for Obama’s executive actions on immigration, as did 81 percent of Latino independents.

“This is not a partisan issue for Latinos,” Barreto said about Obama’s move on immigration. “It is one that clearly crosses party lines.”

http://voxxi.com/2014/11/24/support-obama-executive-actions-latinos/

Republicans have their public opinion polling too but it is done by Republicans themselves who constantly use the wrong word, "amnesty", rather than by credible polling organizations that properly refer to the immigration executive action which only the right calls an amnesty.

[Ulysses G.]

It is looking more and more like Judge Napolitano might have been correct.

Napolitano said the amnesty program is on hold "probably forever" unless the appeals court decides to overturn Hanen's injunction.

He said it will probably take longer than two years - Obama's remaining time in office - for the overall case to wind its way through the courts.

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

There isn't any "amnesty" program.

Support for Obama’s executive actions among Latinos is staggering

According to the poll, 80 percent of Latinos oppose Republicans in Congress taking steps to stop Obama from taking executive action on immigration. Only 18 percent said they support these efforts by Republicans.[/size]

He noted that support for Obama’s executive actions also exists among Latinos who identify as Republicans, as 76 percent of them said they support the president’s move on immigration. Meanwhile, 95 percent of Latino Democrats expressed support for Obama’s executive actions on immigration, as did 81 percent of Latino independents.[/size]

“This is not a partisan issue for Latinos,” Barreto said about Obama’s move on immigration. “It is one that clearly crosses party lines.”

http://voxxi.com/2014/11/24/support-obama-executive-actions-latinos/

Republicans have their public opinion polling too but it is done by Republicans themselves who constantly use the wrong word, "amnesty", rather than by credible polling organizations that properly refer to the immigration executive action which only the right calls an amnesty.

"There isn't any "amnesty" program."

It certainly is starting to look that way.

“The district court’s order was abundantly clear: The federal court enjoined any and all aspects of the illegal amnesty order,” Mr. Cruz said. “If the Department of Homeland Security continues moving forward, that on its face is in violation of a federal court injunction.”

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/18/ted-cruz-warns-obama-to-stop-spending-on-amnesty-p/#ixzz3SGMoURCT

Edited February 20, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[cup-O-coffee]

you mean George Bush?

Search Bush family history on Google. Generally speaking and for the most part, you'll find that the Bush family was and is a family and not a constructed family like the "Cosby Show". The Bush family history was raised in the USA and have a semblance of a family. They can be traced and are a matter of publioc record. They are not perfect, but they have a history that is broadcast and even documentaries are made of them.

Search Obama family History on Google.

I demand that he be given the same due diligence that every other president has been given, regarding their family history, verification (verification) of their acheivements, and all the heapings poured on.

As a foundational basis for discussing this piece of mystery trash, and the controversy that surrounds this human piece of mystery, I need say no more.

I guess I can be excused for my opinion about him, as I call on his lack of views and presence in favor of anyone not black, Muslim or illegal residing in the USA and abroad. Added to that, again, is his lack of background, and the unyet questioned fraudulance of who he really is and where he really came from and what he has really accomplished through his own energies and from the people he actively sought out in his questionable life span and whose views he has embraced.

I feel this has a lot to do regarding the question of immigration, and any other question that is put before the POTUS. I feel this is very relevant; to know exactly who "We The People" (Not "Those His People) are dealing with and placing our trust in with regards to our sovereign entity, The USA and each and every legal US citizen.

Again, my take and view on this, and all respect to anyone who disagrees with that.