Immigrants feel stuck after judge blocks Obama orders

[Publicus]

I know the legal terminology "cause of action" as I've known it for decades thx, since my political science major as an undergrad and since First Amendment studies under law professors in grad school. The 123 page memorandum written by the Texas federal judge is "obiter dicta" in legal terminology as will become obvious when this case knocks on the door of the SCOTUS.

The courts have ruled that when the states sustain new and additional expenses consequent to new federal law to include executive orders/actions they have no option but to comply with the federal law, rules, regulations. This is true in respect of federal immigration law or any federal laws. This is the normal state of things.

The tea party federal judge is out of his realm of jurisdiction in this respect and in many respects. Another is that in federal immigration law the states have no recourse, claim, right of complaint in law, no right of appeal or to challenge the federal government. This will become plain and clear once the case crashes into the SCOTUS as in indicated by all and every case precedent in respect of immigration.

ob•i•ter dic•tum

(ˈɒb ɪ tər ˈdɪk təm)

n., pl. obiter dic•ta (ˈdɪk tə)

1. an incidental remark or opinion.

2. a judicial opinion in a matter related but not essential to a case.

[1805–15; < Latin: (a) saying by the way]

Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

"The courts have ruled that when the states sustain new and additional expenses consequent to new federal law to include executive orders/actions they have no option but to comply with the federal law, rules, regulations. This is true in respect of federal immigration law or any federal laws. This is the normal state of things."

If either Obama's executive order per se, or the process by which he enacted it are judged unconstitutional, then the expenses thereof must also be deemed null and void.

So how is it that the "tea party federal judge" is out of his realm?

The judge said the states have judicial standing on the basis of new costs and expenditures yet there is nothing in the Constitution or in the SCOTUS body of case law to support the judge. The judge in his 123 page memorandum which accompanied his injunction order provided no legal citation to support his opinion because there isn't one, which is why in the end the judge will get reversed.

The states have always had to eat the expenses new and otherwise that they incur in implementing federal laws, rules, regulations, executive policies. This fact of life is as old as the hills and there is nothing new about it.

What is new is the ruling by the federal judge in Texas that the states that brought the cause of action do in fact have a cause of action, i.e., legal standing. The opposite is true and it has always been true. The states have no legal standing whatsoever in matters of immigration law. The federal judge should have dismissed the case for lack of legal standing, same as the Washington DC federal District Court did in a similar case last year (which is on appeal).

Immigration is a federal matter whether it's the federal legislature or the federal executive. The SCOTUS has always been absolutely consistent in the matter.

Andrew S. Hanen, the judge in question, must have said a great many things to fill up 123 pages. Certainly enough to allow one dissenting to cherry-pick his arguments, which you appear to be doing.

In all the articles I've read, Hanen is basing legal standing on the following: "Hanen ruled in a lawsuit brought by 26 states that the administration had failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, which calls for the White House to afford a longer notification and comment period before taking action."

So the crux of the case is not dependent on the money aspect of the issue, like you're asserting, but the Administrative Procedure Act.

I don't dispute your argument that the states are responsible to bear the cost of federal laws, rules, regulations, executive policies. Only that such an argument is moot, given the above-quoted comment: that standing is being based on the procedure by which the order was enacted. Everything concerning the cost aspect of the order must come after that fact, in order to assume its proper context.

It is refreshing to get a literate post on the issue.

The case has two major and determining factors: Standing and the Merits.

1) Standing. You and I admit the fact the states always have borne the costs of implementing laws and regulations enacted and adopted by the federal government, that they continue to do so; they shall continue to do so, Judge Hanen notwithstanding.

This necessarily means the states in fact have no standing to litigate against the federal government on this basis alone or in part. Judge Hanen therefore has erred; Judge Hansen has erred in granting standing to the states.

The judge's error is more than a minor or an insignificant error. It is an error that is directly contrary to the Constitution, to the laws, to the long standing and uncontested practice of the US federal system. This means Judge Hanen's ruling with respect to standing will be reversed on appeal (maybe not until it reaches the SCOTUS). This means the case fails and it is dismissed in its entirety.

The other central matter of standing has to do with the fact that immigration is the exclusive domain of the federal government whether it be the legislature, the executive, the judiciary, which means the states have no say in anything at all pertaining to immigration, not in any way, not ever.

All the same, let's look at

2) The merits.

First, it would be have been vital to the case that Judge Hanen did not rule on the constitutionality or on whether there is a statutory basis of the president's executive action. The judge thus avoided the great risk of being overturned and reversed on appeal, which he knows would be the very highly probable outcome if he made either or both rulings against the president.

Next and at the core of the case, the judge instead ruled based on the argument made by the states that the executive failed to conform to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (1946) in taking its action. It is on this basis that Judge Hanen issued his injunction (Temporary Restraining Order), which is only the fifth time since WW2 that a federal judge has issued a TRO against the federal government.

The judge justified the order on the basis of his belief the APA argument will prevail at trial in the federal district court, which isn't particularly prescient due to the fact Hansen will be the district court trial judge and that the trial will have no jury.

Applying the APA to an executive action is new. The APA has to do with rulemaking The APA requires rules and regulations made pursuant to law to have a period of public comment and the like. An executive action or order however makes policy, so the APA has never been applied to the president himself.

If the case had standing, this would be tested on appeal, but the case does not have standing, Judge Hanen's determination notwithstanding. It is anyway generally agreed Judge Hanen's interpretation of the APA would not succeed on appeal at the SCOTUS, if not at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The APA is specific to rulemaking pursuant to new laws or new amendments to existing law.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Publicus

[Publicus]

Here, I found a quote that places the cost issue into context, which NeverSure first brought into the discussion:

"Judge Hanen’s opinion was certainly skeptical of the administration’s approach. “The court finds that the government’s failure to secure the border has exacerbated illegal immigration into this country,” he wrote. “Further, the record supports the finding that this lack of enforcement, combined with this country’s high rate of illegal immigration, significantly drains the states’ resources.”"

See, Publicus, how your earlier comments have absolutely no bearing on what's being discussed here?

This is not about Texas incurring the cost of adhering to federal law, but the costs incurred by the state because the feds aren't upholding the law themselves, when they're the ones responsible for enforcing it.

The suit brought by the 26 states only has to do with the costs they would incur due to the executive action.

Number one, that is speculative.

Number two, the states always bear the costs of federal laws, rules, regulations, executive actions, orders, decisions, and judicial ones too.

Number three, the states have absolutely no say in immigration matters in any way whatsoever to include fiduciary or fiscal impact.

These matters are firmly anchored in the Constitution and in the body of case law established by the SCOTUS.

[sirineou]

So, Beltran just wants a job in the US. Just like a few billion others. Why him and not them? Everybody can just come on in. No problem at all. Pretty soon everywhere in the US will look just like those charming slums in Brazil.

I love it when American's complain about immigration.

So ironic.

It was immigration that built the country - and if ever want a chance to push back China - open the doors to a minimum two million a year for the next ten years. Your economy will go through the roof.

My parents were immigrants to the US I am the proud product of Immigration, as are all Americans, with the exception of some American Indians. No one is complaining about immigration, What we have a problem with is

illegal immigration. I agree that immigration build this country, and continues to do so, diversity is also an other straight of the US Illegal immigration is detrimental to the the fair and orderly immigration process and threatens to undermine the diversity that made this country strong.

If you are a proponent of immigration and diversity then you have to be opposed to the current Obama policy

This new immigrants if Obama is successful, will take immigration slots that should be offered to immigrants for other regions of the world, which not only be unfair, but reduce diversity.

As I mentioned in an other thread on the subject, when these illegal immigrants become legal, with all the privileges and rights of legal immigrants, what's to prevent them being replaced by a new crop of Illegal immigrants to take their place? will we be revisiting this in a other twenty years as we did Reagan in '86

I challenge anyone to answer me this, so far every time I ask this question, they always change the subject as I am sure they will again.

[Credo]

The process of getting a lot of illegals out of the US is very expensive, time consuming and subject to failure and endless judicial review.

In the past some of the more conservative presidents have allowed them to stay not because they wanted them to stay, but because they knew it was not going to work to try to get them deported.

You have families with one or more members who are citizens and a member who is eligible for immigration but is currently in the US. There are lots of situations where deportation is simply not a feasible option.

[aTomsLife]

It is refreshing to get a literate post on the issue.

The case has two major and determining factors: Standing and the Merits.

1) Standing. You and I admit the fact the states always have borne the costs of implementing laws and regulations enacted and adopted by the federal government, that they continue to do so; they shall continue to do so, Judge Hanen notwithstanding.

This necessarily means the states in fact have no standing to litigate against the federal government on this basis alone or in part. Judge Hanen therefore has erred; Judge Hansen has erred in granting standing to the states.

The judge's error is more than a minor or an insignificant error. It is an error that is directly contrary to the Constitution, to the laws, to the long standing and uncontested practice of the US federal system. This means Judge Hanen's ruling with respect to standing will be reversed on appeal (maybe not until it reaches the SCOTUS). This means the case fails and it is dismissed in its entirety.

The other central matter of standing has to do with the fact that immigration is the exclusive domain of the federal government whether it be the legislature, the executive, the judiciary, which means the states have no say in anything at all pertaining to immigration, not in any way, not ever.

All the same, let's look at

2) The merits.

First, it would be have been vital to the case that Judge Hanen did not rule on the constitutionality or on whether there is a statutory basis of the president's executive action. The judge thus avoided the great risk of being overturned and reversed on appeal, which he knows would be the very highly probable outcome if he made either or both rulings against the president.

Next and at the core of the case, the judge instead ruled based on the argument made by the states that the executive failed to conform to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (1946) in taking its action. It is on this basis that Judge Hanen issued his injunction (Temporary Restraining Order), which is only the fifth time since WW2 that a federal judge has issued a TRO against the federal government.

The judge justified the order on the basis of his belief the APA argument will prevail at trial in the federal district court, which isn't particularly prescient due to the fact Hansen will be the district court trial judge and that the trial will have no jury.

Applying the APA to an executive action is new. The APA has to do with rulemaking The APA requires rules and regulations made pursuant to law to have a period of public comment and the like. An executive action or order however makes policy, so the APA has never been applied to the president himself.

If the case had standing, this would be tested on appeal, but the case does not have standing, Judge Hanen's determination notwithstanding. It is anyway generally agreed Judge Hanen's interpretation of the APA would not succeed on appeal at the SCOTUS, if not at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The APA is specific to rulemaking pursuant to new laws or new amendments to existing law.

Thanks for the compliment, and thanks as well for your own literate posts.

That said, you're obfuscating the issue by focusing most of your argument on the judge's action itself, and not enough on what he based the action on. I've been reading up on the case throughout the day, and the best analysis I found (I'd link it, but it's to another blog, which is against forum rules) states that the legality of Obama's Order hinges on the following :

"[That] The [APA] requirement...does not apply to "interpretative rules" or "legislative rules," an exception that Justice Department lawyers said applied to Obama's announcement in November....For Hanen, the pivotal question became whether the new rules, such as granting work permits to potentially millions of illegal immigrants, was binding on federal agents or merely general guidance. He ruled that they were binding, and that Obama should have allowed for notice and comment."

Of course the rules were binding. Once people are granted work permits, they are then de facto legal aliens.

[aTomsLife]

Here, I found a quote that places the cost issue into context, which NeverSure first brought into the discussion:

"Judge Hanen’s opinion was certainly skeptical of the administration’s approach. “The court finds that the government’s failure to secure the border has exacerbated illegal immigration into this country,” he wrote. “Further, the record supports the finding that this lack of enforcement, combined with this country’s high rate of illegal immigration, significantly drains the states’ resources.”"

See, Publicus, how your earlier comments have absolutely no bearing on what's being discussed here?

This is not about Texas incurring the cost of adhering to federal law, but the costs incurred by the state because the feds aren't upholding the law themselves, when they're the ones responsible for enforcing it.

The suit brought by the 26 states only has to do with the costs they would incur due to the executive action.

Number one, that is speculative.

Number two, the states always bear the costs of federal laws, rules, regulations, executive actions, orders, decisions, and judicial ones too.

Number three, the states have absolutely no say in immigration matters in any way whatsoever to include fiduciary or fiscal impact.

These matters are firmly anchored in the Constitution and in the body of case law established by the SCOTUS.

No, this is the crux of what the suit contends:

"The 26 states suing to overturn the President’s executive actions, led by Texas, contend that the President may exercise prosecutorial discretion in enforcing immigration law by deporting people who have been apprehended for entering the country illegally on a case by case basis only, but he may not issue an order so sweeping as to exempt five million people from the law."

In effect, at least to my understanding, they are arguing that Obama has usurped congressional authority, and is attempting to overrule existing law.

Anyway, it might be a good time to just agree to disagree. Time will tell, and if you prove right, I'll remember to PM you and eat crow. haha

Edited February 21, 2015 by aTomsLife

[sirineou]

The process of getting a lot of illegals out of the US is very expensive, time consuming and subject to failure and endless judicial review.

In the past some of the more conservative presidents have allowed them to stay not because they wanted them to stay, but because they knew it was not going to work to try to get them deported.

You have families with one or more members who are citizens and a member who is eligible for immigration but is currently in the US. There are lots of situations where deportation is simply not a feasible option.

Agreed, mass deportation is not feasible, emphasis on the "mass"

This does not mean that we should capitulate,there are other options available,

IMO

we should straighten the boarders to prevent them from coming here in the first place

then go after those employing them, we all know who they are, how is it that the government does not? issue large fines to those employing illegal immigrants, and subsidise the enforcement, from such fines.

once the available employment dries up. they will stop coming here, and the ones here will self deport.

Work with governments in neighboring countries to strengthen their economies,and legal systems so that people would stay in their own countries, I a sure most of these people dont want to come to the US , and be exploited and disrespected, Their country with their culture, families and friends is where they want to be.

once you do all these and other measures I have not thought of, you approach the problem of what to do with the ones remaining here,

I dont know, what you think, Im I making any sense? Always willing to learn

[Credo]

The problem is that no matter what is done to solve this problem, other than some sort of amnesty, it is going to cost A LOT of money. We can tighten up the borders, but in all honesty, I doubt we can tighten them up enough to keep large numbers out. People smugglers are pretty ingenious about getting people across borders. The smugglers also aren't too concerned about the welfare of their charges.

There is the Pacific Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico for alternate routes. When you look at Australia, which is a very large island, they have a fair amount of trouble keeping illegals out.

[sirineou]

The problem is that no matter what is done to solve this problem, other than some sort of amnesty, it is going to cost A LOT of money. We can tighten up the borders, but in all honesty, I doubt we can tighten them up enough to keep large numbers out. People smugglers are pretty ingenious about getting people across borders. The smugglers also aren't too concerned about the welfare of their charges.

There is the Pacific Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico for alternate routes. When you look at Australia, which is a very large island, they have a fair amount of trouble keeping illegals out.

How about going after those employing illegal workers?

We have no problem enforcing, other work related laws, How about removing the profit component of hiring illegals?

It is the implied promise of work by illegal employers that brought them here, should they not be held responsible for sending them back?

[Publicus]

Boo hoo they're <deleted> illegal they should be delayed!!! Democrats just trying to buy votes is what is happening.

The Democratic party has always been the party of immigrants, from the founding of its predecessor party by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792.

The present Democratic party was founded in 1828 which is ten years before the Republican party was formed. Incorporating and representing immigrants has been a central pillar of the Democratic party since its first president, Andrew Jackson brought the common frontier man to Washington to serve in government.

Throughout the 19th century the big city political machines incorporated and included immigrants without which their integration into American society and its economy would have been exceeding difficult if not impossible.

[sirineou]

Boo hoo they're <deleted> illegal they should be delayed!!! Democrats just trying to buy votes is what is happening.

The Democratic party has always been the party of immigrants, from the founding of its predecessor party by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792.

The present Democratic party was founded in 1828 which is ten years before the Republican party was formed. Incorporating and representing immigrants has been a central pillar of the Democratic party since its first president, Andrew Jackson brought the common frontier man to Washington to serve in government.

Throughout the 19th century the big city political machines incorporated and included immigrants without which their integration into American society and its economy would have been exceeding difficult if not impossible.

This is all fine, but what does it have to do with the price of tea in China?

We are talking about illegal immigration, as far as I know, no party in the history of the US, was ever in support of illegal immigration,

Both parties have attempted to rectify the problems created by illegal immigration , both to the country's

and to the illegal and legal aliens detriment,

This latest attempt, will also by unsuccessful IMO, but what it will be successful in will be creating a larger pool of hispanic voters, traditionally voting Democratic

A larger pool of Hispanic voters will also help, IMO, to further undermine the immigration rules in the favor of Hispanic voters as both Parties will be forced to pander to the Hispanic vote.

So IMO , there is some value in what losworld is sayin, but not in the way he said it we can disagree with out being disagreeable.

Edited February 21, 2015 by sirineou

[Publicus]

So, Beltran just wants a job in the US. Just like a few billion others. Why him and not them? Everybody can just come on in. No problem at all. Pretty soon everywhere in the US will look just like those charming slums in Brazil.

I love it when American's complain about immigration.

So ironic.

It was immigration that built the country - and if ever want a chance to push back China - open the doors to a minimum two million a year for the next ten years. Your economy will go through the roof.

My parents were immigrants to the US I am the proud product of Immigration, as are all Americans, with the exception of some American Indians. No one is complaining about immigration, What we have a problem with is

illegal immigration. I agree that immigration build this country, and continues to do so, diversity is also an other straight of the US Illegal immigration is detrimental to the the fair and orderly immigration process and threatens to undermine the diversity that made this country strong.

If you are a proponent of immigration and diversity then you have to be opposed to the current Obama policy

This new immigrants if Obama is successful, will take immigration slots that should be offered to immigrants for other regions of the world, which not only be unfair, but reduce diversity.

As I mentioned in an other thread on the subject, when these illegal immigrants become legal, with all the privileges and rights of legal immigrants, what's to prevent them being replaced by a new crop of Illegal immigrants to take their place? will we be revisiting this in a other twenty years as we did Reagan in '86

I challenge anyone to answer me this, so far every time I ask this question, they always change the subject as I am sure they will again.

Only Congress can confer citizenship. Concerning illegal aliens acquiring US citizenship, the laws are a bit like crossing the ocean excluding all methods of travelling over, under or on the ocean. In other words, it can be done but it is a Herculean feat accomplished by the very few. I reiterate, only Congress can confer citizenship.

Prez Obama's executive action is temporary and it does not attempt to confer citizenship nor does it attempt to at any point in time confer legal status on persons in the United States who are currently illegal aliens.

Anything and everything about Prez Obama's executive action is temporary. The judge's opinion that the executive action causes "irreparable harm" on the states is therefore in error, and the error of the judge is substantial and significant.

Further, the states have absolutely no say in immigration matters which are entirely and completely the sovereign authority and jurisdiction of the federal government, meaning the federal legislature, the federal executive, the federal judiciary. The states have absolutely no say in anything pertaining to immigration to include costs.

[Publicus]

Boo hoo they're <deleted> illegal they should be delayed!!! Democrats just trying to buy votes is what is happening.

The Democratic party has always been the party of immigrants, from the founding of its predecessor party by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792.

The present Democratic party was founded in 1828 which is ten years before the Republican party was formed. Incorporating and representing immigrants has been a central pillar of the Democratic party since its first president, Andrew Jackson brought the common frontier man to Washington to serve in government.

Throughout the 19th century the big city political machines incorporated and included immigrants without which their integration into American society and its economy would have been exceeding difficult if not impossible.

This is all fine, but what does it have to do with the price of tea in China?

We are talking about illegal immigration, as far as I know, no party in the history of the US, was ever in support of illegal immigration,

Both parties have attempted to rectify the problems created by illegal immigration , both to the country's

and to the illegal and legal aliens detriment,

This latest attempt, will also by unsuccessful IMO, but what it will be successful in will be creating a larger pool of hispanic voters, traditionally voting Democratic

A larger pool of Hispanic voters will also help, IMO, to further undermine the immigration rules in the favor of Hispanic voters as both Parties will be forced to pander to the Hispanic vote.

So IMO , there is some value in what losworld is sayin, but not in the way he said it we can disagree with out being disagreeable.

It obviously has to do with the repeated allegation the prez and Democratic party are simply buying votes. I address the poster in particular that is yet another poster that makes this vacuous charge.

My post establishes that the Democratic party has always incorporated and promoted the integration of immigrants. Neither the prez nor the D party is buying votes.

http://www.readwritethink.org/classroom-resources/lesson-plans/building-reading-comprehension-through-139.html

[sirineou]

So, Beltran just wants a job in the US. Just like a few billion others. Why him and not them? Everybody can just come on in. No problem at all. Pretty soon everywhere in the US will look just like those charming slums in Brazil.

I love it when American's complain about immigration.

So ironic.

It was immigration that built the country - and if ever want a chance to push back China - open the doors to a minimum two million a year for the next ten years. Your economy will go through the roof.

My parents were immigrants to the US I am the proud product of Immigration, as are all Americans, with the exception of some American Indians. No one is complaining about immigration, What we have a problem with is

illegal immigration. I agree that immigration build this country, and continues to do so, diversity is also an other straight of the US Illegal immigration is detrimental to the the fair and orderly immigration process and threatens to undermine the diversity that made this country strong.

If you are a proponent of immigration and diversity then you have to be opposed to the current Obama policy

This new immigrants if Obama is successful, will take immigration slots that should be offered to immigrants for other regions of the world, which not only be unfair, but reduce diversity.

As I mentioned in an other thread on the subject, when these illegal immigrants become legal, with all the privileges and rights of legal immigrants, what's to prevent them being replaced by a new crop of Illegal immigrants to take their place? will we be revisiting this in a other twenty years as we did Reagan in '86

I challenge anyone to answer me this, so far every time I ask this question, they always change the subject as I am sure they will again.

Only Congress can confer citizenship. Concerning illegal aliens acquiring US citizenship, the laws are a bit like crossing the ocean excluding all methods of travelling over, under or on the ocean. In other words, it can be done but it is a Herculean feat accomplished by the very few. I reiterate, only Congress can confer citizenship.

Prez Obama's executive action is temporary and it does not attempt to confer citizenship nor does it attempt to at any point in time confer legal status on persons in the United States who are currently illegal aliens.

Anything and everything about Prez Obama's executive action is temporary. The judge's opinion that the executive action causes "irreparable harm" on the states is therefore in error, and the error of the judge is substantial and significant.

Further, the states have absolutely no say in immigration matters which are entirely and completely the sovereign authority and jurisdiction of the federal government, meaning the federal legislature, the federal executive, the federal judiciary. The states have absolutely no say in anything pertaining to immigration to include costs.

Earned Citizenship

"We have to deal with the 11 million individuals who are here illegally. We all agree that these men and women should have to earn their way to citizenship. But for comprehensive immigration reform to work, it must be clear from the outset that there is a pathway to citizenship. We’ve got to lay out a path — a process that includes passing a background check, paying taxes, paying a penalty, learning English, and then going to the back of the line, behind all the folks who are trying to come here legally. That's only fair."

President Barack Obama, January 29, 2013

Dont you think this would be rewarding illegal behavior, and what kind of message would encourage, further future illegal behaviour in the part of those who for what ever reason are unwilling or unable to follow the rules followed by all those doing things legally? what message will this be sending to others wanting to come here illegally?

We would like to bring my wife's sister here in the US to be with us, last we checked the process will take a minimum of 12 years, Should she come here illegally pay a fine, learn english and then stay here while waiting to be issued legal status? and what will she be doing while here, will she be getting a work permit? and a drivers licence, etc.

A rose by any other name,,,,,,

[Ulysses G.]

Anything and everything about Prez Obama's executive action is temporary.

Everyone knows this is a lie - just one more sneaky legal trick. That is why the judge's opinion that the executive action causes irreparable harm to the states is 100% correct.

[sdanielmcev]

Boo hoo they're <deleted> illegal they should be delayed!!! Democrats just trying to buy votes is what is happening.

The Democratic party has always been the party of immigrants, from the founding of its predecessor party by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792.

The present Democratic party was founded in 1828 which is ten years before the Republican party was formed. Incorporating and representing immigrants has been a central pillar of the Democratic party since its first president, Andrew Jackson brought the common frontier man to Washington to serve in government.

Throughout the 19th century the big city political machines incorporated and included immigrants without which their integration into American society and its economy would have been exceeding difficult if not impossible.

This is all fine, but what does it have to do with the price of tea in China?

We are talking about illegal immigration, as far as I know, no party in the history of the US, was ever in support of illegal immigration,

Both parties have attempted to rectify the problems created by illegal immigration , both to the country's

and to the illegal and legal aliens detriment,

This latest attempt, will also by unsuccessful IMO, but what it will be successful in will be creating a larger pool of hispanic voters, traditionally voting Democratic

A larger pool of Hispanic voters will also help, IMO, to further undermine the immigration rules in the favor of Hispanic voters as both Parties will be forced to pander to the Hispanic vote.

So IMO , there is some value in what losworld is sayin, but not in the way he said it we can disagree with out being disagreeable.

It obviously has to do with the repeated allegation the prez and Democratic party are simply buying votes. I address the poster in particular that is yet another poster that makes this vacuous charge.

My post establishes that the Democratic party has always incorporated and promoted the integration of immigrants. Neither the prez nor the D party is buying votes.

http://www.readwritethink.org/classroom-resources/lesson-plans/building-reading-comprehension-through-139.html

What does that website have to do with your naivete about political vote buying?

[NeverSure]

Here, I found a quote that places the cost issue into context, which NeverSure first brought into the discussion:

"Judge Hanen’s opinion was certainly skeptical of the administration’s approach. “The court finds that the government’s failure to secure the border has exacerbated illegal immigration into this country,” he wrote. “Further, the record supports the finding that this lack of enforcement, combined with this country’s high rate of illegal immigration, significantly drains the states’ resources.”"

See, Publicus, how your earlier comments have absolutely no bearing on what's being discussed here?

This is not about Texas incurring the cost of adhering to federal law, but the costs incurred by the state because the feds aren't upholding the law themselves, when they're the ones responsible for enforcing it.

The suit brought by the 26 states only has to do with the costs they would incur due to the executive action.

Number one, that is speculative.

Number two, the states always bear the costs of federal laws, rules, regulations, executive actions, orders, decisions, and judicial ones too.

Number three, the states have absolutely no say in immigration matters in any way whatsoever to include fiduciary or fiscal impact.

These matters are firmly anchored in the Constitution and in the body of case law established by the SCOTUS.

"Number two, the states always bear the costs of federal laws, rules, regulations, executive actions, orders, decisions, and judicial ones too."

This is simply not true. The US Constitution gives the Feds the right to tax and spend (Federal money.) It doesn't give it the right to spend state money or to force or cause a state to spend money.

When the Department of Education was formed in the 60's and made a Cabinet Level Department in the 80's it developed new regulations and then funded those regulations for the states. It can't make a regulation and force the state to pay for it. It's a back and forth issue because the money is also the carrot, but it comes from the feds.

"Number three, the states have absolutely no say in immigration matters in any way whatsoever to include fiduciary or fiscal impact."

See above. Indirectly the states have say in immigration matters if those matters are federal policy but would require the state to pay for it. The Feds can't make a law which requires a state to spend state money.

The Constitution gives the feds the right to tax and spend with certain restrictions, but only to spend federal money.

You are going to lose on this one. The strongest cause of action that the State of Texas has against Obama here is MONEY.

[sirineou]

Boo hoo they're <deleted> illegal they should be delayed!!! Democrats just trying to buy votes is what is happening.

The Democratic party has always been the party of immigrants, from the founding of its predecessor party by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792.

The present Democratic party was founded in 1828 which is ten years before the Republican party was formed. Incorporating and representing immigrants has been a central pillar of the Democratic party since its first president, Andrew Jackson brought the common frontier man to Washington to serve in government.

Throughout the 19th century the big city political machines incorporated and included immigrants without which their integration into American society and its economy would have been exceeding difficult if not impossible.

This is all fine, but what does it have to do with the price of tea in China?

We are talking about illegal immigration, as far as I know, no party in the history of the US, was ever in support of illegal immigration,

Both parties have attempted to rectify the problems created by illegal immigration , both to the country's

and to the illegal and legal aliens detriment,

This latest attempt, will also by unsuccessful IMO, but what it will be successful in will be creating a larger pool of hispanic voters, traditionally voting Democratic

A larger pool of Hispanic voters will also help, IMO, to further undermine the immigration rules in the favor of Hispanic voters as both Parties will be forced to pander to the Hispanic vote.

So IMO , there is some value in what losworld is sayin, but not in the way he said it we can disagree with out being disagreeable.

It obviously has to do with the repeated allegation the prez and Democratic party are simply buying votes. I address the poster in particular that is yet another poster that makes this vacuous charge.

My post establishes that the Democratic party has always incorporated and promoted the integration of immigrants. Neither the prez nor the D party is buying votes.

http://www.readwritethink.org/classroom-resources/lesson-plans/building-reading-comprehension-through-139.html

If you would read my post, you will see that I am not talking about Immigration, I am talking about illegal immigration, I even went so far as to write "Illegal" in bold .

I don't dispute that traditionally the democrats have the reputation of being pro-immigrant, though it was Reagan a Republican who introduced a most sweeping immigration reform in 1986.

This reform was somewhat ill conceived because it did not provide safeguards that would prevent new illegals from replacing the ones who received amnesty.

You seem to want to talk about immigration, but that is not what this thread is about. It is about Illegal Immigration. and specifically about the judicial block on Obama's executive order.

Reagan's Reforms had some unforeseen consequences, one IMO was the replacement of those who received amnesty, with new illegals, the other was an increase in the hispanic population who supports democrats.

I am sure he did not intend of either of these things to happen

Obama on the other hand has the benefit of History on his side, He is no Idiot, he must know what the results of the Reagan amnesty were.

They say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results

So the question is, what's different this time?

Dont get me wrong, I am not insensitive, or unsympathetic. I understand the difficulties facing those here illegally and their families.and realise that something needs to be done.

but unless that something occurs with safeguards, I am sure we will be talking about this in twenty years again,

with another set of Illegals being exploited, states bearing the burden of unfunded mandates, and americans suffering from the results.

So what changes then?

exchange one set of exploited immigrants for an other

and of course a larger pool of democratic voters, I am not saying that this is the reason the Democrats are doing this, but dont tell me it has not crossed their minds.

Are there any safeguards to prevent new illegals from replacing the old ones? if not , then let's put on the brakes, go back to the drawing board, and come back with a better plan, not only for the good of the country but also for those coming here illegally.

[Credo]

Here, I found a quote that places the cost issue into context, which NeverSure first brought into the discussion:

"Judge Hanen’s opinion was certainly skeptical of the administration’s approach. “The court finds that the government’s failure to secure the border has exacerbated illegal immigration into this country,” he wrote. “Further, the record supports the finding that this lack of enforcement, combined with this country’s high rate of illegal immigration, significantly drains the states’ resources.”"

See, Publicus, how your earlier comments have absolutely no bearing on what's being discussed here?

This is not about Texas incurring the cost of adhering to federal law, but the costs incurred by the state because the feds aren't upholding the law themselves, when they're the ones responsible for enforcing it.

The suit brought by the 26 states only has to do with the costs they would incur due to the executive action.

Number one, that is speculative.

Number two, the states always bear the costs of federal laws, rules, regulations, executive actions, orders, decisions, and judicial ones too.

Number three, the states have absolutely no say in immigration matters in any way whatsoever to include fiduciary or fiscal impact.

These matters are firmly anchored in the Constitution and in the body of case law established by the SCOTUS.

"Number two, the states always bear the costs of federal laws, rules, regulations, executive actions, orders, decisions, and judicial ones too."

This is simply not true. The US Constitution gives the Feds the right to tax and spend (Federal money.) It doesn't give it the right to spend state money or to force or cause a state to spend money.

When the Department of Education was formed in the 60's and made a Cabinet Level Department in the 80's it developed new regulations and then funded those regulations for the states. It can't make a regulation and force the state to pay for it. It's a back and forth issue because the money is also the carrot, but it comes from the feds.

"Number three, the states have absolutely no say in immigration matters in any way whatsoever to include fiduciary or fiscal impact."

See above. Indirectly the states have say in immigration matters if those matters are federal policy but would require the state to pay for it. The Feds can't make a law which requires a state to spend state money.

The Constitution gives the feds the right to tax and spend with certain restrictions, but only to spend federal money.

You are going to lose on this one. The strongest cause of action that the State of Texas has against Obama here is MONEY.

Not exactly true. The states opt for certain programs and in return they get funding. If they don't want the federal funds then they can opt out of the programs, but this has huge financial costs to the states. Examples are highway funds and welfare costs. In the case of welfare costs, all participating states agree to have the services available to all citizens in all counties (or parishes). If you deny it in one place the state loses all funding -- and that's a lot of money.

You might remember when the 55 MPH speed limit was put into effect, some states said no, until they realized the amount of money they would lose.

The States aren't all that different from a Patpong hooker; they start selling themselves when they realize how much they will lose if they don't.

[NeverSure]

"Number two, the states always bear the costs of federal laws, rules, regulations, executive actions, orders, decisions, and judicial ones too."

This is simply not true. The US Constitution gives the Feds the right to tax and spend (Federal money.) It doesn't give it the right to spend state money or to force or cause a state to spend money.

When the Department of Education was formed in the 60's and made a Cabinet Level Department in the 80's it developed new regulations and then funded those regulations for the states. It can't make a regulation and force the state to pay for it. It's a back and forth issue because the money is also the carrot, but it comes from the feds.

"Number three, the states have absolutely no say in immigration matters in any way whatsoever to include fiduciary or fiscal impact."

See above. Indirectly the states have say in immigration matters if those matters are federal policy but would require the state to pay for it. The Feds can't make a law which requires a state to spend state money.

The Constitution gives the feds the right to tax and spend with certain restrictions, but only to spend federal money.

You are going to lose on this one. The strongest cause of action that the State of Texas has against Obama here is MONEY.

Not exactly true. The states opt for certain programs and in return they get funding. If they don't want the federal funds then they can opt out of the programs, but this has huge financial costs to the states. Examples are highway funds and welfare costs. In the case of welfare costs, all participating states agree to have the services available to all citizens in all counties (or parishes). If you deny it in one place the state loses all funding -- and that's a lot of money.

You might remember when the 55 MPH speed limit was put into effect, some states said no, until they realized the amount of money they would lose.

The States aren't all that different from a Patpong hooker; they start selling themselves when they realize how much they will lose if they don't.

With all due respect, I think you missed my point. The feds can't force it on the states. In the case of an immigration which will cause the state to have to spend its own money, the feds can't do that.

You're talking about the states opting in or out by their own choice. The lawsuit objects to a law which will cost the state money without providing the money.

There are other causes of action in the suit, but this is the one that the judge zeroed in on, and this is the one that will win the case. The State of Texas has to prevail on just one cause of action, and it will at least win this one.

[Credo]

No, I didn't miss the point, but thanks for the clarification.

[newbepat]

Why is it that you yanks elect a Obama and give him no powers to do anything , I don't really understand, Am I missing something ?

[Ulysses G.]

He has the power to enforce the laws as passed by the legislative branch, but he is choosing not to enforce some of them. He has NO power to make up new ones to suit his own agenda.

As he has admitted himself, he was not elected King.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[newbepat]

Why elect him if he can't do his thing

[newbepat]

He wants to sort out the illegals but he can't do even that. what's the point of. President ?

[newbepat]

Why have a president. Then give him no powers. Sorry I don't understand

[newbepat]

Hey I thought we were talking about Obama and Immigration ?

[SpokaneAl]

Why have a president. Then give him no powers. Sorry I don't understand

We don't elect an emperor or a king - we choose a president who, as the leader of the executive branch, represents one third of the governing entity of the U.S., along with the legislative and judicial branches which each of the three helps ensure checks and balances.

When one is sworn in as president he/she is not given a blank check, nor does the loyal opposition lay down and roll over. He must continue to follow the laws. That is the issue and question here.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed. Please stay on topic.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts removed. It might be a good idea to read up on the subject if you plan on posting. This thread is not a primer for the US system of gov't.