Immigrants feel stuck after judge blocks Obama orders

[Pimay1]

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.

I believe your dog is barking up the wrong tree my friend. We "Americans" do not complain about immigration. We complain about "illegal immagration". Do you have an issue with the word illegal? Would you by chance be one of the PC crowd that prefers to call illegal immigrants "undocumented immigrants"? There is a reason they are "undocumented". They are in the US illegally which simply makes them illegal immigrants, the direct and honest word, ‘illegal,’ because it is actually illegal to cross the border of any country without proper documents.

As for the immigrants that built the country, they were the millions that arrived at Ellis Island from countries throughout the world. They were legally processed and became legal immigrants. They didn't slip in across the border during the night.

The doors are already open for anyone who wants to legally immigrate to the US.

Click on the link below for a very informative video about Ellis Island if you so choose.

http://www.history.com/topics/ellis-island

[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.

"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.

The federal government provides grants and other funds to the states from matching funds to supporting funds to supplemental funds and the like. There however are no provisions in the Constitution or in statutory law that require the federal government to fund the states to enforce federal laws. This has always been true and it remains true in the US federal system.

The states expend tax and budget funds and other resources to also enforce for instance the Clean Air Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Trade Act, Consumer Protection Act and the list of federal laws the states must expend state funds to enforce and support could fill this page and more

It is the legal doctrine of the US federal system, called parens patriae, meaning by the way...you have to pay for it. Yes, it is about money and the states have to cash it up to enforce or also enforce a thousand federal laws. Welcome to the real world since 1789 when the Constitution was adopted. It is obvious Judge Hanen got his law degree in Texas and the fact is painfully obvious.

Here for instance is a statement made on the House floor by USRep Charlie Norwood R-GA talking about state and local responsibilities in enforcing the federal immigration laws.....

"There are upwards of 400,000 individuals who have received final deportation orders that are hiding in our communities. Their appeals have run out, and those orders tell them, 'it's time to go.' But, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement can't find them!. There is no way the 2,000 agents they have assigned to find some 400,000 people can get the job done.State and local police officers have the inherent authority to arrest and detain criminal and illegal aliens during the normal course of their duty."

An exact instance of this doctrine occurred In Arizona, where a 2007 partnership between the Bush administration Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency and the sheriff's department in Maricopa County resulted in deputies identifying 16,000 illegal immigrants among 106,000 jail inmates over three months. However, the effort racked up a debt of $1.3 million during those three months, the percentage of crimes the department solved dropped and the time it took for officers to respond to calls for service grew. The Obama administration cancelled the agreement.

It is worthwhile to also point out that, at the 2013 rate of deportation orders and federal budget levels, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency estimated that it would take 15 years and more than $5 billion for it to alone clear just the backlog of those who have been ordered deported, nevermind deporting all of the 11 million undocumented immigrants currently in the United States. Judge Hanen said nothing about this cost or its impact in his memorandum.

It is very much about money! But it is also about the states having to spend their money to enforce or to also enforce the federal code of laws, to include the immigration and naturalization of citizenship laws.

http://immigration.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000800

http://www.rand.org/news/press/2010/04/29.html

[Publicus]

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 ?

Prez Obama is exactly and precisely within his Constitutional and statutory authority to have issued his immigration executive action. The president's action will be upheld by the SCOTUS but that won't be until sometime next year due the the legal processes, but very likely by mid-year at the latest.

All the case/common law of the SCOTUS of the past 238 years says so, despite what the conservatives say this far away from the coming SCOTUS decision in the case.

The US Constitutional and federal system of a balance of powers, and of the institutional checks and balances, is designed to prevent King George III of Great Britain ever abusing the colonies again...which is the whole problem here. But there is a method to the madness...and a madness to the method.

The focus is much more on the process and far less on the result or the outcome. It is an adversarial system and this instance of the immigration laws is a prime example of the fact. Congress needed years ago to enact immigration reform but hasn't done so, won't do so, can't do so, is wholly unable and incapable to this point of doing so. It someday probably will process immigration reform laws but that day is not yet in sight. This is normal.

There's a well known saying among Americans about something that is exceedingly difficult to to or might be highly time consuming and laborious to do -- anything in life one might be discussing or attempting to do, anything -- that to accomplish it will so to speak require an act of congress. "Is his hot new girlfriend putting out yet?" "Naw, he says that will take an act of congress."

Edited February 22, 2015 by Publicus

[Ulysses G.]

I wonder if the lawyer for the States will be able to play the videos of Obama saying 22 times that he does not have the power to do what he did. I would not count my chickens on the SCOTUS upholding it after that.

[Publicus]

I wonder if the lawyer for the States will be able to play the videos of Obama saying 22 times that he does not have the power to do what he did. I would not count my chickens on the SCOTUS upholding it after that.

I posted this yesterday but I know that for some people it was a very long time ago to remember, even though some can count up to at least 22......

The states’ lawsuit quotes Mr. Obama as saying many times in recent years that he did not have authority to take actions as broad as those he ultimately took. Mr. Tribe said that argument was not likely to pass muster with appeals court judges.

“All of that is interesting political rhetoric,” said Laurence H. Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard, “but it has nothing to do with whether the states have standing and nothing to do with the law.”

[Ulysses G.]

Oh. If Tribe says so. Sounds like another biased opinion.

Tribe is noted for his extensive support of liberal legal causes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Tribe

Here is different one:

Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott filed a lawsuit against President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration when he was the state’s attorney general and he says the suit will succeed because Obama himself “is our star witness.”

Speaking with Fox News on Tuesday, Abbott pointed to Obama’s own words to make his case that the president “changed the law” and violated the U.S. Constitution with his executive actions on immigration. He said the president acted with “complete abdication” of federal law.

“I think we will win all the way for one simple reason, and that is, the man you just had on the screen, Barack Obama, is our star witness,” said Abbott. “Twenty-two times Barack Obama said he did not have the authority to implement this type of measure. And then the day after he signed this into law, he said, quote, ‘I just changed the law.’ Those words alone show that he violated the Constitution, and violated federal law.”

http://houston.cbslocal.com/2015/02/18/texas-gov-abbott-obama-is-our-star-witness-in-immigration-suit/

Edited February 22, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

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 ?

Prez Obama is exactly and precisely within his Constitutional and statutory authority to have issued his immigration executive action. The president's action will be upheld by the SCOTUS but that won't be until sometime next year due the the legal processes, but very likely by mid-year at the latest.

All the case/common law of the SCOTUS of the past 238 years says so, despite what the conservatives say this far away from the coming SCOTUS decision in the case.

The US Constitutional and federal system of a balance of powers, and of the institutional checks and balances, is designed to prevent King George III of Great Britain ever abusing the colonies again...which is the whole problem here. But there is a method to the madness...and a madness to the method.

The focus is much more on the process and far less on the result or the outcome. It is an adversarial system and this instance of the immigration laws is a prime example of the fact. Congress needed years ago to enact immigration reform but hasn't done so, won't do so, can't do so, is wholly unable and incapable to this point of doing so. It someday probably will process immigration reform laws but that day is not yet in sight. This is normal.

There's a well known saying among Americans about something that is exceedingly difficult to to or might be highly time consuming and laborious to do -- anything in life one might be discussing or attempting to do, anything -- that to accomplish it will so to speak require an act of congress. "Is his hot new girlfriend putting out yet?" "Naw, he says that will take an act of congress."

"Prez Obama is exactly and precisely within his Constitutional and statutory authority to have issued his immigration executive action. The president's action will be upheld by the SCOTUS but that won't be until sometime next year due the the legal processes, but very likely by mid-year at the latest.

Since President Obama never issued an Executive action which is involved with the Texas v. United States law suit and the topic of this thread, I can guarantee that even SCOTUS cannot uphold something that is not being contested and seemingly doesn't even exist.

This suit was brought against a policy memorandum issued by Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson addressed to subordinates to institute what is being called DAPA, an addendum and change to DACA (existing Dreamer's act).

Part of page 6 of Judge Henan's opinion follows:

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

"Finally, both sides agree that the President in his official capacity has not directly instituted any program at issue in this case. Regardless of the fact the Executive Branch has made public statements to the contrary, there are no executive orders or other Presidential proclamations or communique that exist regarding DAPA. The DAPA memorandum issued by Secretary Johnson is the focus in this suit."

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

The cost to Texas of issuing driver's license to all applicants regardless of immigration status and the schooling of illegal immigrant children in the State of Texas are the primary drivers of providing Standing in this case. These direct costs to the state are estimated in the tens of millions of dollars and represent a sizable impact on the state's treasury.

Texas law requires an immigrant possess a federally issued work permit for issuance of a driver's license. DAPA mandates the issuance of federal work permits for anybody that might apply, thus Texas must bear the cost of issuing any licenses as requested and required. The cost to Texas of issuing a driver's license is $198.73 per license with the applicant paying a fee of $24.00, for a net loss of $174.73 per license.

Texas is estimated to have some 1.7 million illegal immigrants within their borders. If only 50,000 immigrants apply, the cost to the state will be in excess of $8.7 million.

Another direct cost to the State of Texas is the cost of schooling of illegal immigrant children. From the opinion of Judge Henan...

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

...Evidence shows that Texas pays $9,473 annually to educate each illegal alien child enrolled in public school. In Texas, 7,409 unaccompanied illegal immigrant children were released to sponsors between October of 2013 and September of 2014. Thus, in that period alone Texas absorbed additional education costs of at least $58,531,100 stemming from illegal immigration. Further, this figure addresses only the newly-admitted, unaccompanied children; it by no means includes all costs expended during this period to educate all illegal immigrant residing in the state. Evidence in the record also shows that in 2008, Texas incurred $716,800,000 in uncompensated medical care provided to illegal aliens."

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

Thus, Texas has standing.

In short, this suit isn't about whether or not Obama can change the law, it is whether or not the Secretary of Homeland Security can do so.

Edit to add link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/255994877/Memorandum-Opinion-And-Order-Texas-v-United-States

Edited February 22, 2015 by chuckd

[arjunadawn]

This OP is hogwash. The issue regarding the president's executive orders and a court vacating or enjoining them pertain to criminals, not immigrants. The executive orders in reference apply to those who are in the US illegally. Every nation on earth has strict rules regarding presence in their country. Being in a country without proper status is a crime.

[aTomsLife]

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 ?

Prez Obama is exactly and precisely within his Constitutional and statutory authority to have issued his immigration executive action. The president's action will be upheld by the SCOTUS but that won't be until sometime next year due the the legal processes, but very likely by mid-year at the latest.

All the case/common law of the SCOTUS of the past 238 years says so, despite what the conservatives say this far away from the coming SCOTUS decision in the case.

The US Constitutional and federal system of a balance of powers, and of the institutional checks and balances, is designed to prevent King George III of Great Britain ever abusing the colonies again...which is the whole problem here. But there is a method to the madness...and a madness to the method.

The focus is much more on the process and far less on the result or the outcome. It is an adversarial system and this instance of the immigration laws is a prime example of the fact. Congress needed years ago to enact immigration reform but hasn't done so, won't do so, can't do so, is wholly unable and incapable to this point of doing so. It someday probably will process immigration reform laws but that day is not yet in sight. This is normal.

There's a well known saying among Americans about something that is exceedingly difficult to to or might be highly time consuming and laborious to do -- anything in life one might be discussing or attempting to do, anything -- that to accomplish it will so to speak require an act of congress. "Is his hot new girlfriend putting out yet?" "Naw, he says that will take an act of congress."

"Prez Obama is exactly and precisely within his Constitutional and statutory authority to have issued his immigration executive action. The president's action will be upheld by the SCOTUS but that won't be until sometime next year due the the legal processes, but very likely by mid-year at the latest.

Since President Obama never issued an Executive action which is involved with the Texas v. United States law suit and the topic of this thread, I can guarantee that even SCOTUS cannot uphold something that is not being contested and seemingly doesn't even exist.

This suit was brought against a policy memorandum issued by Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson addressed to subordinates to institute what is being called DAPA, an addendum and change to DACA (existing Dreamer's act).

Part of page 6 of Judge Henan's opinion follows:

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

"Finally, both sides agree that the President in his official capacity has not directly instituted any program at issue in this case. Regardless of the fact the Executive Branch has made public statements to the contrary, there are no executive orders or other Presidential proclamations or communique that exist regarding DAPA. The DAPA memorandum issued by Secretary Johnson is the focus in this suit."

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

The cost to Texas of issuing driver's license to all applicants regardless of immigration status and the schooling of illegal immigrant children in the State of Texas are the primary drivers of providing Standing in this case. These direct costs to the state are estimated in the tens of millions of dollars and represent a sizable impact on the state's treasury.

Texas law requires an immigrant possess a federally issued work permit for issuance of a driver's license. DAPA mandates the issuance of federal work permits for anybody that might apply, thus Texas must bear the cost of issuing any licenses as requested and required. The cost to Texas of issuing a driver's license is $198.73 per license with the applicant paying a fee of $24.00, for a net loss of $174.73 per license.

Texas is estimated to have some 1.7 million illegal immigrants within their borders. If only 50,000 immigrants apply, the cost to the state will be in excess of $8.7 million.

Another direct cost to the State of Texas is the cost of schooling of illegal immigrant children. From the opinion of Judge Henan...

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

...Evidence shows that Texas pays $9,473 annually to educate each illegal alien child enrolled in public school. In Texas, 7,409 unaccompanied illegal immigrant children were released to sponsors between October of 2013 and September of 2014. Thus, in that period alone Texas absorbed additional education costs of at least $58,531,100 stemming from illegal immigration. Further, this figure addresses only the newly-admitted, unaccompanied children; it by no means includes all costs expended during this period to educate all illegal immigrant residing in the state. Evidence in the record also shows that in 2008, Texas incurred $716,800,000 in uncompensated medical care provided to illegal aliens."

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

Thus, Texas has standing.

In short, this suit isn't about whether or not Obama can change the law, it is whether or not the Secretary of Homeland Security can do so.

Edit to add link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/255994877/Memorandum-Opinion-And-Order-Texas-v-United-States

Very nice post. I knew better, yet opted to get all my info from the media's short write-ups, rather than the memorandum itself. Not a small blunder on my end. Especially when so many media outlets have a clear liberal bias, referring to the people in question as "immigrants," for example, rather than illegal aliens.

Edit: My point being, in case I wasn't clear, is that I see now how the money aspect takes as much precedence in the case as anything to do with the Administrative Procedures Act.

Edited February 23, 2015 by aTomsLife

[chuckd]

Prez Obama is exactly and precisely within his Constitutional and statutory authority to have issued his immigration executive action. The president's action will be upheld by the SCOTUS but that won't be until sometime next year due the the legal processes, but very likely by mid-year at the latest.

All the case/common law of the SCOTUS of the past 238 years says so, despite what the conservatives say this far away from the coming SCOTUS decision in the case.

The US Constitutional and federal system of a balance of powers, and of the institutional checks and balances, is designed to prevent King George III of Great Britain ever abusing the colonies again...which is the whole problem here. But there is a method to the madness...and a madness to the method.

The focus is much more on the process and far less on the result or the outcome. It is an adversarial system and this instance of the immigration laws is a prime example of the fact. Congress needed years ago to enact immigration reform but hasn't done so, won't do so, can't do so, is wholly unable and incapable to this point of doing so. It someday probably will process immigration reform laws but that day is not yet in sight. This is normal.

There's a well known saying among Americans about something that is exceedingly difficult to to or might be highly time consuming and laborious to do -- anything in life one might be discussing or attempting to do, anything -- that to accomplish it will so to speak require an act of congress. "Is his hot new girlfriend putting out yet?" "Naw, he says that will take an act of congress."

"Prez Obama is exactly and precisely within his Constitutional and statutory authority to have issued his immigration executive action. The president's action will be upheld by the SCOTUS but that won't be until sometime next year due the the legal processes, but very likely by mid-year at the latest.

Since President Obama never issued an Executive action which is involved with the Texas v. United States law suit and the topic of this thread, I can guarantee that even SCOTUS cannot uphold something that is not being contested and seemingly doesn't even exist.

This suit was brought against a policy memorandum issued by Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson addressed to subordinates to institute what is being called DAPA, an addendum and change to DACA (existing Dreamer's act).

Part of page 6 of Judge Henan's opinion follows:

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

"Finally, both sides agree that the President in his official capacity has not directly instituted any program at issue in this case. Regardless of the fact the Executive Branch has made public statements to the contrary, there are no executive orders or other Presidential proclamations or communique that exist regarding DAPA. The DAPA memorandum issued by Secretary Johnson is the focus in this suit."

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

The cost to Texas of issuing driver's license to all applicants regardless of immigration status and the schooling of illegal immigrant children in the State of Texas are the primary drivers of providing Standing in this case. These direct costs to the state are estimated in the tens of millions of dollars and represent a sizable impact on the state's treasury.

Texas law requires an immigrant possess a federally issued work permit for issuance of a driver's license. DAPA mandates the issuance of federal work permits for anybody that might apply, thus Texas must bear the cost of issuing any licenses as requested and required. The cost to Texas of issuing a driver's license is $198.73 per license with the applicant paying a fee of $24.00, for a net loss of $174.73 per license.

Texas is estimated to have some 1.7 million illegal immigrants within their borders. If only 50,000 immigrants apply, the cost to the state will be in excess of $8.7 million.

Another direct cost to the State of Texas is the cost of schooling of illegal immigrant children. From the opinion of Judge Henan...

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

...Evidence shows that Texas pays $9,473 annually to educate each illegal alien child enrolled in public school. In Texas, 7,409 unaccompanied illegal immigrant children were released to sponsors between October of 2013 and September of 2014. Thus, in that period alone Texas absorbed additional education costs of at least $58,531,100 stemming from illegal immigration. Further, this figure addresses only the newly-admitted, unaccompanied children; it by no means includes all costs expended during this period to educate all illegal immigrant residing in the state. Evidence in the record also shows that in 2008, Texas incurred $716,800,000 in uncompensated medical care provided to illegal aliens."

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

Thus, Texas has standing.

In short, this suit isn't about whether or not Obama can change the law, it is whether or not the Secretary of Homeland Security can do so.

Edit to add link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/255994877/Memorandum-Opinion-And-Order-Texas-v-United-States

Very nice post. I knew better, yet opted to get all my info from the media's short write-ups, rather than the memorandum itself. Not a small blunder on my end. Especially when so many media outlets have a clear liberal bias, referring to the people in question as "immigrants," for example, rather than illegal aliens.

Edit: My point being, in case I wasn't clear, is that I see now how the money aspect takes as much precedence in the case as anything to do with the Administrative Procedures Act.

Yeah, I woke up in the middle of the night and realized I should have tied my post to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

The APA is designed specifically for a period of comments on any government program that might have a material financial impact on either the private or public sector. Standing occurs when it is determined a substantial fiscal impact will be felt on the plaintiff in any suit with which the federal government says the plaintiff must adhere to.

The administration and, specifically, Secretary Johnson apparently decided there was no need to follow the law by their failure to have public hearings on the proposed changes to existing regulations.

It appears Secretary Johnson and the administration might have been wrong.

Your point about the money has been clear to me all along.

[NeverSure]

"Prez Obama is exactly and precisely within his Constitutional and statutory authority to have issued his immigration executive action. The president's action will be upheld by the SCOTUS but that won't be until sometime next year due the the legal processes, but very likely by mid-year at the latest.

Since President Obama never issued an Executive action which is involved with the Texas v. United States law suit and the topic of this thread, I can guarantee that even SCOTUS cannot uphold something that is not being contested and seemingly doesn't even exist.

This suit was brought against a policy memorandum issued by Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson addressed to subordinates to institute what is being called DAPA, an addendum and change to DACA (existing Dreamer's act).

Part of page 6 of Judge Henan's opinion follows:

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

"Finally, both sides agree that the President in his official capacity has not directly instituted any program at issue in this case. Regardless of the fact the Executive Branch has made public statements to the contrary, there are no executive orders or other Presidential proclamations or communique that exist regarding DAPA. The DAPA memorandum issued by Secretary Johnson is the focus in this suit."

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

The cost to Texas of issuing driver's license to all applicants regardless of immigration status and the schooling of illegal immigrant children in the State of Texas are the primary drivers of providing Standing in this case. These direct costs to the state are estimated in the tens of millions of dollars and represent a sizable impact on the state's treasury.

Texas law requires an immigrant possess a federally issued work permit for issuance of a driver's license. DAPA mandates the issuance of federal work permits for anybody that might apply, thus Texas must bear the cost of issuing any licenses as requested and required. The cost to Texas of issuing a driver's license is $198.73 per license with the applicant paying a fee of $24.00, for a net loss of $174.73 per license.

Texas is estimated to have some 1.7 million illegal immigrants within their borders. If only 50,000 immigrants apply, the cost to the state will be in excess of $8.7 million.

Another direct cost to the State of Texas is the cost of schooling of illegal immigrant children. From the opinion of Judge Henan...

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

...Evidence shows that Texas pays $9,473 annually to educate each illegal alien child enrolled in public school. In Texas, 7,409 unaccompanied illegal immigrant children were released to sponsors between October of 2013 and September of 2014. Thus, in that period alone Texas absorbed additional education costs of at least $58,531,100 stemming from illegal immigration. Further, this figure addresses only the newly-admitted, unaccompanied children; it by no means includes all costs expended during this period to educate all illegal immigrant residing in the state. Evidence in the record also shows that in 2008, Texas incurred $716,800,000 in uncompensated medical care provided to illegal aliens."

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

Thus, Texas has standing.

In short, this suit isn't about whether or not Obama can change the law, it is whether or not the Secretary of Homeland Security can do so.

Edit to add link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/255994877/Memorandum-Opinion-And-Order-Texas-v-United-States

Very nice post. I knew better, yet opted to get all my info from the media's short write-ups, rather than the memorandum itself. Not a small blunder on my end. Especially when so many media outlets have a clear liberal bias, referring to the people in question as "immigrants," for example, rather than illegal aliens.

Edit: My point being, in case I wasn't clear, is that I see now how the money aspect takes as much precedence in the case as anything to do with the Administrative Procedures Act.

I've been hollerin' "money" ever since I read the complaint and the judge's ruling. The judge obviously stressed costs to the state more than even the complaint did. He zeroed on it.

The lawsuit isn't about immigration although we have a member here who keeps repeating that the executive branch controls immigration. As soon as we get it that neither the complaint nor the ruling was about immigration, the easier it is to follow.

The complaint, made by the State of Texas and joined by more than 20 others states literally says near the beginning, on page 2 after the obligatory boilerplate:

2. "This lawsuit is not about immigration. It is about the rule of law,

presidential power, and the structural limits of the U.S. Constitution." (Emphasis mine)

It goes on to say:

"By authorizing a large class of undocumented immigrants to work in the United States, the DHS Directive will expose Texas to the cost of processing and

issuing additional licenses and benefits. Moreover, it will cause Texas to issue such licenses and benefits to individuals who are not legally authorized to be in the country (or to take on the burdensome task of attempting to figure out which undocumented immigrants have bona fide deferred action status and which ones benefited from the unlawful DHS Directive)."

By "benefits" it talks about unemployment benefits and other benefits which flow to legal residents from the State of Texas' coffers.

While there are several independent claims for relief, all of which should prevail, the pleading for relief from the unconstitutional burden of costs is as strong as any.

LINK to quotes above (the lawsuit.)

Edit to add. Texas has to prevail only on one claim to enjoin Obama. All claims relate to constitutional powers and if one prevails, Obama's department's actions are nullified as unconstitutional.

Edited February 23, 2015 by NeverSure

[aTomsLife]

"Prez Obama is exactly and precisely within his Constitutional and statutory authority to have issued his immigration executive action. The president's action will be upheld by the SCOTUS but that won't be until sometime next year due the the legal processes, but very likely by mid-year at the latest.

Since President Obama never issued an Executive action which is involved with the Texas v. United States law suit and the topic of this thread, I can guarantee that even SCOTUS cannot uphold something that is not being contested and seemingly doesn't even exist.

This suit was brought against a policy memorandum issued by Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson addressed to subordinates to institute what is being called DAPA, an addendum and change to DACA (existing Dreamer's act).

Part of page 6 of Judge Henan's opinion follows:

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

"Finally, both sides agree that the President in his official capacity has not directly instituted any program at issue in this case. Regardless of the fact the Executive Branch has made public statements to the contrary, there are no executive orders or other Presidential proclamations or communique that exist regarding DAPA. The DAPA memorandum issued by Secretary Johnson is the focus in this suit."

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

The cost to Texas of issuing driver's license to all applicants regardless of immigration status and the schooling of illegal immigrant children in the State of Texas are the primary drivers of providing Standing in this case. These direct costs to the state are estimated in the tens of millions of dollars and represent a sizable impact on the state's treasury.

Texas law requires an immigrant possess a federally issued work permit for issuance of a driver's license. DAPA mandates the issuance of federal work permits for anybody that might apply, thus Texas must bear the cost of issuing any licenses as requested and required. The cost to Texas of issuing a driver's license is $198.73 per license with the applicant paying a fee of $24.00, for a net loss of $174.73 per license.

Texas is estimated to have some 1.7 million illegal immigrants within their borders. If only 50,000 immigrants apply, the cost to the state will be in excess of $8.7 million.

Another direct cost to the State of Texas is the cost of schooling of illegal immigrant children. From the opinion of Judge Henan...

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

...Evidence shows that Texas pays $9,473 annually to educate each illegal alien child enrolled in public school. In Texas, 7,409 unaccompanied illegal immigrant children were released to sponsors between October of 2013 and September of 2014. Thus, in that period alone Texas absorbed additional education costs of at least $58,531,100 stemming from illegal immigration. Further, this figure addresses only the newly-admitted, unaccompanied children; it by no means includes all costs expended during this period to educate all illegal immigrant residing in the state. Evidence in the record also shows that in 2008, Texas incurred $716,800,000 in uncompensated medical care provided to illegal aliens."

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

Thus, Texas has standing.

In short, this suit isn't about whether or not Obama can change the law, it is whether or not the Secretary of Homeland Security can do so.

Edit to add link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/255994877/Memorandum-Opinion-And-Order-Texas-v-United-States

Very nice post. I knew better, yet opted to get all my info from the media's short write-ups, rather than the memorandum itself. Not a small blunder on my end. Especially when so many media outlets have a clear liberal bias, referring to the people in question as "immigrants," for example, rather than illegal aliens.

Edit: My point being, in case I wasn't clear, is that I see now how the money aspect takes as much precedence in the case as anything to do with the Administrative Procedures Act.

I've been hollerin' "money" ever since I read the complaint and the judge's ruling. The judge obviously stressed costs to the state more than even the complaint did. He zeroed on it.

The lawsuit isn't about immigration although we have a member here who keeps repeating that the executive branch controls immigration. As soon as we get it that neither the complaint nor the ruling was about immigration, the easier it is to follow.

The complaint, made by the State of Texas and joined by more than 20 others states literally says near the beginning, on page 2 after the obligatory boilerplate:

2. "This lawsuit is not about immigration. It is about the rule of law,

presidential power, and the structural limits of the U.S. Constitution." (Emphasis mine)

It goes on to say:

"By authorizing a large class of undocumented immigrants to work in the United States, the DHS Directive will expose Texas to the cost of processing and

issuing additional licenses and benefits. Moreover, it will cause Texas to issue such licenses and benefits to individuals who are not legally authorized to be in the country (or to take on the burdensome task of attempting to figure out which undocumented immigrants have bona fide deferred action status and which ones benefited from the unlawful DHS Directive)."

By "benefits" it talks about unemployment benefits and other benefits which flow to legal residents from the State of Texas' coffers.

While there are several independent claims for relief, all of which should prevail, the pleading for relief from the unconstitutional burden of costs is as strong as any.

LINK to quotes above (the lawsuit.)

Edit to add. Texas has to prevail only on one claim to enjoin Obama. All claims relate to constitutional powers and if one prevails, Obama's department's actions are nullified as unconstitutional.

"I've been hollerin' "money" ever since..."

I know you have, and I thought you were putting the cart before the horse. Turns out, I was. That's egg on my face for engaging in a debate without having done my due diligence.

That said, I still haven't read the memorandum for myself, and until I do, this'll be my last post concerning the matter.

Cheers, everyone, for the enlightening discussion, though. Can't say I didn't learn a lot.

[NeverSure]

"I've been hollerin' "money" ever since..."

I know you have, and I thought you were putting the cart before the horse. Turns out, I was. That's egg on my face for engaging in a debate without having done my due diligence.

That said, I still haven't read the memorandum for myself, and until I do, this'll be my last post concerning the matter.

Cheers, everyone, for the enlightening discussion, though. Can't say I didn't learn a lot.

You don't have egg on your face at all. I've been reading and listening to some pretty smart people in the news who thought it was about illegal immigration. Of course in a way that triggered it, but it triggered burdens for Texas which are unconstitutional and delineated in the lawsuit.

Texas is suing for Constitutional States' Rights. There are several claims for lawful relief but the judge's ruling centered on the money - the costs to sovereign Texas.

Frankly and obviously I think it's fascinating to watch a state stand up to the Feds. It's about time, LOL.

[Publicus]

It has taken a while but now the political fringe media have started grinding it out and because of it the wayward have been able to come home and to sing the praises of their sudden and new enlightenment, for which the newly enlightened are wholly grateful while falling silent hereafter.

After all, some on the right had actually made the gross and inexplicable error of depending on the MSM entirely for their prior misinformation, but now all of a sudden they have seen the light and know better.

Hallelujia !

And the politically right media organs have taken the view that their sheer, massive and repeated volume of misinformation about the case and the judge's ruling will carry the day, or at least until the appeal courts of the United States can contradict them directly and decisively by overtuning the ruling of the federal judge and reversing it.

Until the final judicial appeal is decided however it is a field day romp in the wilted daisies of misinformation, disinformation and curious colloquies of dialogue from the politically right media quoting a hand picked tea party federal judge in Texas that on appeal will be reversed and overturned conclusively and much to his career detriment.

[NeverSure]

It has taken a while but now the political fringe media have started grinding it out and because of it the wayward have been able to come home and to sing the praises of their sudden and new enlightenment, for which the newly enlightened are wholly grateful while falling silent hereafter.

After all, some on the right had actually made the gross and inexplicable error of depending on the MSM entirely for their prior misinformation, but now all of a sudden they have seen the light and know better.

Hallelujia !

And the politically right media organs have taken the view that their sheer, massive and repeated volume of misinformation about the case and the judge's ruling will carry the day, or at least until the appeal courts of the United States can contradict them directly and decisively by overtuning the ruling of the federal judge and reversing it.

Until the final judicial appeal is decided however it is a field day romp in the wilted daisies of misinformation, disinformation and curious colloquies of dialogue from the politically right media quoting a hand picked tea party federal judge in Texas that on appeal will be reversed and overturned conclusively and much to his career detriment.

Talk about misinformation. The attorneys general of more than half of the states in the United States of America and a federal district judge disagree with you in whole but you seem to think you know more than they do.

You fail to prove the claim that the judge is a member of the Tea Party rather than just following the law. You seem to think that name calling will win the day when you have nothing else. Not once in your post above did you actually discuss the law.

So far your side has lost and the score for you is 0 - 1.

[phrodan]

Boston Tea Party - the cowards that dressed up as Native Americans in case it all went wrong and they poor Native Americans would get the blame.

Yes, I've heard of them.

Geez. You didn't use the term "Tea Party" once. How DID you manage to post?

BTW, has it been established that this judge is a member of the Tea Party as you keep claiming?

You and others to include myself know the "tea party" is not a formal political party, that it is an attitude and this Texas federal judge has the attitude, 100%.

You presume a lot. I know no such thing. The Tea Party isn't an "attitude". It's a belief. Have you ever heard of the Boston Tea Party, LOL?

HERE is the Tea Party's platform. It want's fewer taxes, less spending, no deficit spending, more freedoms, obedience to the Constitution and so on.

It takes no stand on immigration but of course you wouldn't know that because you too often speak of what you don't know.

Anything you disagree with is "Tea Party". What a broad and educated way to debate a lawsuit brought by the State of Texas.

[phrodan]

It was an Open Door policy -

And nobody said "Labourers need not apply."

There, I fixed it for ya.

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.

It was legal immigration that built the country...(there fixed that for ya).

Besides, we don't need more unskilled laborers. There are too many as it is. So comparing past immigration waves, especially those which took place during an industrial revolution, is a false parallel.

[Jai Dee]

A couple of posts containing baiting and off-topic content have been removed from this thread.

[snarky66]

They are not immigrants. They are illegal immigrants and should be deported. IMHO. aka rule of law.

[Publicus]

It has taken a while but now the political fringe media have started grinding it out and because of it the wayward have been able to come home and to sing the praises of their sudden and new enlightenment, for which the newly enlightened are wholly grateful while falling silent hereafter.

After all, some on the right had actually made the gross and inexplicable error of depending on the MSM entirely for their prior misinformation, but now all of a sudden they have seen the light and know better.

Hallelujia !

And the politically right media organs have taken the view that their sheer, massive and repeated volume of misinformation about the case and the judge's ruling will carry the day, or at least until the appeal courts of the United States can contradict them directly and decisively by overtuning the ruling of the federal judge and reversing it.

Until the final judicial appeal is decided however it is a field day romp in the wilted daisies of misinformation, disinformation and curious colloquies of dialogue from the politically right media quoting a hand picked tea party federal judge in Texas that on appeal will be reversed and overturned conclusively and much to his career detriment.

Talk about misinformation. The attorneys general of more than half of the states in the United States of America and a federal district judge disagree with you in whole but you seem to think you know more than they do.

You fail to prove the claim that the judge is a member of the Tea Party rather than just following the law. You seem to think that name calling will win the day when you have nothing else. Not once in your post above did you actually discuss the law.

So far your side has lost and the score for you is 0 - 1.

disagree with you......you seem to think....you know....You fail to prove....when you have nothing....your post....your side....

Yours truly is not the topic of the thread.

The activist judge wrote new law.

The judge and the new law will be tested on appeal.

Immigration law.

[Ulysses G.]

The activist judge wrote new law.

The judge did not write a new law. He is enforcing the constitution as he is supposed to do.

[Publicus]

The activist judge wrote new law.

The judge did not write a new law. He is enforcing the constitution as he is supposed to do.

The judge ruled the Administrative Procedure Act applies to executive actions by the president.....that is new.

The judge ruled Texas has standing because federal immigration laws require it (and the states) to spend money.....that is new.

The judge did not rule on the constitutionality of the president's immigration executive action because he found no constitutional issue outside of his belief the APA applies to presidential executive actions. The judge said also the case was not about an immigration amnesty because there's nothing in it about an amnesty in law, which is also true.

The judge did write new law on the two key issues, standing and the merits of the case.

Next stop is the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, in New Orleans. If you hurry you can catch the train as it is pulling out of the station at this very moment.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Publicus

[Publicus]

What Obama done was illegal. He is simply buying votes for the Democrats. The sooner the white house door hits his behind the happier the world will be. He can go off and give speeches that no one attends.

The United States has been a nation of immigrants since before there was a United States.

Historically from the beginning the Democratic party and its predecessor party has represented immigrants at all levels, local, state, federal. The Democratic party is 20 years older than the Grand Old Party which with its predecessor party has always represented big business, expansion of the country's borders by war, exploitation of immigrants by setting immigrant groups against immigrant groups.

The present conflict is nothing new.

The immigration decision by the Supreme Court will occur during the first half of next year, which is a quadrennial election year of the president. The decision will come down during the Republican party primary contests for that party's nomination for prez. The R party is in the process of getting what it deserves which will indeed come on election day on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November 2016.

The R party in control of Congress needs between now and then to enact comprehensive immigration reform. The R party may surprise itself by doing the responsible and reasonable thing which is to enact the long overdue and sorely needed reforms. Then again, it just might not do that. It's much easier to believe pigs will fly first however. So in the next election the R party will get what it deserves from the electorate and I can't say too many people will get teary eyed about it.

Your knowledge of US politics is abysmal.

Btw, the US has comprehensive immigration rules.

No one can predict elections.

[Publicus]

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?