US files appeal of judge's hold on immigration action

[chuckd]

"No law has been changed."

Could you please point me in the right direction to find that part of the law on immigration that requires the issuance of driver's license, Social Security numbers and work permits for illegal immigrants?

[Publicus]

Prez Obama is right to (overly) reiterate that a president has no authority to change a law. Prez Obama never intended to change the immigration law or laws, and Prez Obama did nothing that affects or changes any immigration laws.

That spin is worthy of Baghdad Bob, but I believe what he said the other 22 times.

Reality is that Judge Hanen's temporary injunction that is on appeal is about the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946. The trial that will occur no matter what is about the APA.

The judge made no ruling concerning the Constitution. The judge said specifically there is no amnesty in the immigration executive order. The flying right wing simply says "unconstitutional amnesty" again and again until that is what we are expected to accept and believe, every time it's recited by the right everywhere.

BTW, the different 5th Circuit three-judge panel that will on July 6th hear the DoJ appeal of the temporary injunction itself, last month threw the State of Mississippi out of court because the state per se has lack of standing in its suit against a US immigration law.

Here's from the National Law Journal, the premier lawyer's publication in the US, the unanimous decision of the different three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit....

Fifth Circuit Bolsters Obama Case for Immigration Order

April 8, 2015

A unanimous three-judge panel in Crane v. Johnson held on Tuesday that the state of Mississippi lacked standing to challenge the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA.

"This decision has major implications for the appeal pending before the same court in Texas v. United States," said immigration law scholar Stephen Legomsky of Washington University in St. Louis School of Law.

Read more: http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202722952004/Fifth-Circuit-Bolsters-Obama-Case-for-Immigration-Order#ixzz3bYBfjmfb

Here's another of the many news accounts of the unanimous decision of the different 5th Circuit three-judge panel in a different but same-same immigration law case.....

Appeals court sides with Obama on immigration action

By Josh Gerstein

4/7/15

A three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that several immigration agents and the state of Mississippi lacked legal standing to sue over Obama’s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program because evidence that the agents or the state would be harmed by the effort was too speculative.

“Neither Mississippi nor the Agents have alleged a sufficiently concrete and particularized injury that would give Plaintiffs standing to challenge DACA,” Judge W. Eugene Davis wrote in an opinion joined by Judges Carolyn King and Priscilla Owen.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/obama-immigration-action-lawsuit-dismissal-upheld-appeals-court-116738.html#ixzz3bYDlUjhk

That's two different grounds for bringing a suit rejected by the different three-judge panel, i.e., standing; harm.

Mississippi is of course trying to hedge its bets so to speak as one of the 26 Republican controlled states that filed the current suit with Judge Hanen down there in Texas who issued the temporary injunction and who has a public record of rantings in court in 2013 against immigration and Prez Obama.

I post the whole internet here to show that the people who have the facts pound on the facts while the people who don't have the facts have to pound on the table with fictions such as a make-believe "unconstitutional amnesty".

[Publicus]

"No law has been changed."

Could you please point me in the right direction to find that part of the law on immigration that requires the issuance of driver's license, Social Security numbers and work permits for illegal immigrants?

The immigration executive action is about immigration and immigrants only.

Immigrations laws say nothing about the matters contained in the post. Immigration laws affect immigrants' immigration or naturalization status only. Immigration laws under Title 18 of the United States Code of Laws are of course narrow, specific, exclusive to immigration and immigration only.

SCOTUS for instance has thrown out states' or municipal laws prohibiting children of illegal immigrants attending the public schools. The several states' laws that had been thrown out had nothing to do with federal immigration laws, rules, regulations. The laws had been made by the states pertaining to access to their public schools. The states' laws were ruled to be unconstitutional.

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a state statute denying funding for education to undocumented immigrant children and simultaneously struck down a municipal school district's attempt to charge undocumented immigrants an annual $1,000 tuition fee for each undocumented immigrant student to compensate for the lost state funding. The Court found that where states limit the rights afforded to people (specifically children) based on their status as immigrants, this limitation must be examined under an intermediate scrutiny standard to determine whether it furthers a substantial goal of the State

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undocumented_students_in_the_United_States

The SCOTUS thus officially went on record against cruelty to immigrant children. Virtually all of SCOTUS immigration rulings have been of this nature.

[sdanielmcev]

Once again, pubicus is way off topic, trying to equate other issues with an illegal executive action versus state and local rulings. One has nothing to do with the other. And of course the whole point is moot now with the 5th 's ruling.

[Publicus]

A different three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the DoJ appeal of the injunction on July 6th. It is not over with or settled, certainly not yet.

Anyone who might think the ruling last week by another 3-judge panel of the 5th Circuit settles matters is entirely wrong. Last week's ruling by that particular group of 5th Circuit appeals court judges was on the DoJ emergency request.

The hearing coming July 6th is on the injunction per se, it has three different judges of the Circuit, and while no one can predict with certainly what a court might do, it could end up presenting us with a horse of a different color.

http://www.politico....l#ixzz3bYDlUjhk

[sdanielmcev]

2 days ago the DoJ said it would not appeal the injunction. Please stop your misinformation quest (trolling.)

[Scott]

A troll post has been removed. I suggest staying on topic and the topic is about a forum member.

[Publicus]

July 10th is the hearing date at the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

DoJ decided not to appeal to SCOTUS at this time, instead to continue to pursue the appeal further at the 5th Circuit...no one has posted otherwise to the thread.

The Reuters video:

http://media.thehill.com/services/player/bcpid2764968420001?bctid=4265114086001&bckey=AQ~~,AAAAAEA-5AE~,7pYsU79IKz2CXW_BSQItHbG6JoyZCfQ5

A news article accompanying the video:

Court sets July hearing on Obama's immigration actions

By Jordan Fabian - 05/28/15

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments on July 10 in New Orleans in the Obama administration’s attempt to lift a preliminary injunction from U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen of Texas, which blocked several executive actions from taking effect.

A three-judge panel from the 5th Circuit handed Obama a defeat this week, when it denied an emergency request from the administration to lift the hold on the president’s executive actions.

The Department of Justice announced it would not bring that request to the Supreme Court, and instead would focus on its appeal of Hanen’s injunction, which will be considered at the July hearing.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/243324-court-sets-july-hearing-on-obamas-immigration-actions

The fat lady remains nowhere in sight or within hearing until next month, from the 10th of July.

[chuckd]

A different three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the DoJ appeal of the injunction on July 6th. It is not over with or settled, certainly not yet.

Anyone who might think the ruling last week by another 3-judge panel of the 5th Circuit settles matters is entirely wrong. Last week's ruling by that particular group of 5th Circuit appeals court judges was on the DoJ emergency request.

The hearing coming July 6th is on the injunction per se, it has three different judges of the Circuit, and while no one can predict with certainly what a court might do, it could end up presenting us with a horse of a different color.

http://www.politico....l#ixzz3bYDlUjhk

Why do you insist on bringing up this Mississippi case. Itr has absolutely nothing to do with the Texas decision.

Texas' standing has been granted due to the Obama unilateral decision that the state MUST issue Texas driver's license to illegal immigrants. That is what standing was issued on, not the schooling of illegal immigrant children.

The hearing on 10 July could even be the same three judges that heard the first appeal. The panel will be announced on 3 July.

You have an entire month to throw more deflection into the grist mill.

[saharmohamedali]

I will give Obama credit for one thing.

[chuckd]

It seems that nasty old Tea Party loving, Obama hating, uneducated red neck Federal Judge in Texas is at it again.

If Secretary Johnson shows up, maybe he will have a chance to go visit the border his Department is not protecting. This could turn into a wonderful learning experience for him.

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

Judge Says Federal Officials Must Personally Appear In Court For Violating Amnesty Injunction

Chuck Ross

Reporter

12:32 AM 07/08/2015

A federal judge in the district court of South Texas has ordered top officials with the Department of Homeland Security — including Sec. Jeh Johnson — to appear in person in his court in Brownsville next month to show why they should not be held in contempt for violating an injunction issued against President Obama’s executive amnesty order.

Andrew Hanen issued the rare order on Tuesday in the latest court filing for a lawsuit filed to halt President Obama’s executive amnesty order. Obama announced the action on Nov. 20. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, then the state’s attorney general, filed the suit on Dec. 3.

Hanen called the Obama administration’s response to his Feb. 16 injunction “unacceptable” and “unprofessional.” He also stated that he is “shocked and surprised at the cavalier attitude the Government has taken” towards it.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/08/judge-says-federal-officials-must-personally-appear-in-court-for-violating-amnesty-injunction/#ixzz3fJz6NjNl

[stevenl]

You forgot an important part:

"Hanen says that the government must answer that question to his satisfaction by the end of the month or else appear in his court on Aug. 19."

So they only have to appear if they don't answer that question.

[Publicus]

Judge Hanen down there in Texas says he'll forget the whole thing if the government remedies this sliver of his immigration problem by July 30th, which the government is almost certainly going to do. Hanen makes clear that it is not however automatic that he'd let the government off the rightwing hook. This is Hanen's view of rightwing cat and liberal mouse which some certain people here or there rather get off on.

The tea party US District Court Judge Andrew Hanen has a more severe temperament than the right wing reactionary Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court and he makes Justice Clarence Thomas look like a left-liberal-progressive.

Hanen is a right wing darling, having been unsuccessfully nominated to the federal bench by GHW Bush then finally getting successfully nominated by GW Bush. Ted Cruz, Rick Perry and Andrew Hanen are a trio of cotton pickers from way back. It is the legacy of the Presidents Bush, to include Clarence Thomas who was a gift from GHW himself.

[chuckd]

You forgot an important part:

"Hanen says that the government must answer that question to his satisfaction by the end of the month or else appear in his court on Aug. 19."

So they only have to appear if they don't answer that question.

I didn't forget anything.

I stepped over the line by quoting five sentences and didn't want to go any further.

I knew a liberal progressive would be along soon to point out something anyway.

I'm just surprised you decided to pick on that point.

You must not understand what the " government must answer that question to his satisfaction" implies.

Very simply put, it means...make me happy or get on that private Homeland Security private jet and visit my courtroom.

[stevenl]

You forgot an important part:

"Hanen says that the government must answer that question to his satisfaction by the end of the month or else appear in his court on Aug. 19."

So they only have to appear if they don't answer that question.

I didn't forget anything.

I stepped over the line by quoting five sentences and didn't want to go any further.

I knew a liberal progressive would be along soon to point out something anyway.

I'm just surprised you decided to pick on that point.

You must not understand what the " government must answer that question to his satisfaction" implies.

Very simply put, it means...make me happy or get on that private Homeland Security private jet and visit my courtroom.

Ah, ok, so you chose to omit important information just to put everybody here on the wrong track. Thanks for the clarification.

I clarify a point and now you claim I don't understand it? Makes no sense, but I'm used to that from you.

[chuckd]

You forgot an important part:

"Hanen says that the government must answer that question to his satisfaction by the end of the month or else appear in his court on Aug. 19."

So they only have to appear if they don't answer that question.

I didn't forget anything.

I stepped over the line by quoting five sentences and didn't want to go any further.

I knew a liberal progressive would be along soon to point out something anyway.

I'm just surprised you decided to pick on that point.

You must not understand what the " government must answer that question to his satisfaction" implies.

Very simply put, it means...make me happy or get on that private Homeland Security private jet and visit my courtroom.

Ah, ok, so you chose to omit important information just to put everybody here on the wrong track. Thanks for the clarification.

I clarify a point and now you claim I don't understand it? Makes no sense, but I'm used to that from you.

What I "chose" to do was not violate forum rule 16 by any more than I felt compelled to.

The entire article was there for you to read. The link was provided.

You read it (congratulations), found what you considered to be a "gotcha" and tried to use it.

You failed.

[cdnvic]

Both of you are walking the edge. Cut the personal arguments.