Thread: Obama’s “smarter enforcement”

MLK’s Top Aide Says Dr. King Would Have OPPOSED Amnesty for Illegal Aliens

By Brian Hayes on January 18, 2015

As the nation celebrates the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King today, advocates for illegal aliens have attempted to hijack the legacy of MLK to support their push for amnesty.

Yesterday, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) — who once said “I have only one loyalty, and that’s to the immigrant community.” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2634838/posts — described the movement to hand amnesty to tens of millions of illegal aliens as “our Selma“:

“This is our Selma and we will walk, we will march, we will be arrested, we will do anything and everything it takes to make sure families are protected in this nation,” Gutierrez said at the Friday evening gathering, according to audio obtained by the Latin Post.

Clarissa Martinez de Castro, the director of immigration policy for the La Raza, said that the effort to push through amnesty for tens of millions of illegal lawbreakers was equivalent to American citizen Blacks’ struggle for full civil rights. “At the core, we are talking about the same thing,” said de Castro, “This is a conversation about the value of a person. It was the core of the conversation then, and it is the core of the conversation now.”

Most outrageously, on MSNBC Wednesday, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, regarded as a rising star by the Democratic Party, compared the status of illegal immigrants in America to that of black slaves before the Civil War. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/dem-keyno...erican-slaves/

But according to King’s closest adviser, the La Raza goons are full of bunk.

Clarence B. Jones, former personal counsel, advisor, close friend, and Dr. King’s speechwriter for the I Have a Dream speech, said that King would vehemently oppose the cause of amnesty for illegal aliens, and would be offended at the comparison of phony rights for lawbreakers to civil rights for oppressed citizen Blacks.

In his book, What Would Martin Say, Jones said:

What would Martin say to illegal aliens? He’d say, “If you’re in this country illegally, have you come here in order to protest what you consider an ‘unjust law?’ If you haven’t, then for whatever other reason you’re here, even if it’s to make money for your sick child, which is as good a reason as there is, then you’re just violating the immigration laws of this country and deserve no more consideration from the authorities than does a thief.

To politicians who pander cravenly to the illegal immigration lobby, Jones said Dr. King would say:



You were elected to do what’s right by your American constituents, whether or not they line your pockets with reelection donations. Please, before you make it easier for the unfortunate of other countries to come here, consider the cost of your actions on the less fortunate of the country whose Constitution you’ve sworn to uphold.”

Despite many “church” leaders now embracing amnesty, Jones said King would lambaste businessmen who put cheap illegal labor above what was moral:



To businesses who knowingly hire illegal aliens or choose not to know, Martin would say what he preached to the congregation at Ebenezer Baptist while still a student. He’d say, “We do not have to look very far to see the tragic consequences which develop when men worship the almighty dollar. First it causes men to be more concerned about making a living than making a life.”

Jones even challenges Blacks who have turned a blind eye or even advocated the “rights” of illegal aliens, despite how illegals have devastated Black communities with job losses and crime:



To Black Americans who have seen their jobs taken, and schools overtaken, he would say: “Why have you stood silently and turned the other way as though the fight belonged to someone else and not you, and the damage being done was not harming you?”

And to the leaders of the black community who claim to have the interests of their people at heart, he’d say: “Brothers, if half a dozen white men had executed some of our young black brothers, you would have been on the next plane and turned this mass murder into a 24/7 cable news show….(W)hy aren’t you doing the same wherever young men who have no legal right to be in this country gun down young black men whose ancestors have been on this soil for hundreds of years. In other words, why are you not in every city insisting that the police be allowed to enforce the laws? How many pieces of silver from political grievance groups that advocate for illegal immigration has it taken to buy your silence? Oh, and how much extra does it cost for you to do nothing when your people lose their jobs?”

Powerful words, from the man who wrote the powerful speech we remember on this day. Let us also remember how the illegitimate drive for amnesty for illegal alien lawbreakers has nothing to do with the crucial fight for Black civil rights championed by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

And to even suggest they are the same is a despicable insult to all Black Americans.

http://toprightnews.com/?p=826

Obama “Hopeful” Immigration Will Drown Conservatism
2:32 PM 02/09/2015

The spread of vibrant social diversity is constricting the GOP’s ability to champion conservative causes, such as smaller government and independent families, President Barack Obama said in a softball media interview.

“Over the long term, I’m pretty optimistic, and the reason is because this country just becomes more and more of a hodgepodge of folks,” Obama told Vox editor Ezra Klein.




“People are getting more and more comfortable with the diversity of this country, much more sophisticated about both the cultural differences but more importantly, the basic commonality that we have,” he said in his talk, which was recorded Jan 23. http://www.vox.com/a/barack-obama-in...content=monday

But for Obama, “commonality” is a go-to euphemism for big, intrusive, nation-wide government by progressive experts.

The nation’s governors “all have a common interest, and that is making sure that their constituents — who are also my constituents — are able to gain opportunity, work hard, prosper, feel secure,” Obama said in a Dec. 5 comment about visiting governors. “That happens best when we work together, whether we’re talking about Democrats and Republicans and independents working together, or whether we’re talking about state, federal and local officials working together,” he said.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/09/ob...-conservatism/

Federal judge stalls Obama's executive action on immigration
Feb 17, 3:19 AM (ET) By JUAN A. LOZANO

A federal judge in South Texas on Monday temporarily blocked President Barack Obama's executive action on immigration, giving a coalition of 26 states time to pursue a lawsuit that aims to permanently stop the orders.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen's decision comes after a hearing in Brownsville in January and puts on hold Obama's orders that could spare as many as five million people who are in the U.S. illegally from deportation.

Hanen wrote in a memorandum accompanying his order that the lawsuit should go forward and that without a preliminary injunction the states will "suffer irreparable harm in this case."

"The genie would be impossible to put back into the bottle," he wrote, adding that he agreed with the plaintiffs' argument that legalizing the presence of millions of people is a "virtually irreversible" action.

The White House in a statement early Tuesday defended the executive orders issued in November as within the president's legal authority, saying that the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress have said federal officials can set priorities in enforcing immigration laws.

"The district court's decision wrongly prevents these lawful, commonsense policies from taking effect and the Department of Justice has indicated that it will appeal that decision," the statement said. An appeal would be heard by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

The first of Obama's orders — to expand a program that protects young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. illegally as children — was set to start taking effect Wednesday. The other major part of Obama's order, which extends deportation protections to parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have been in the country for some years, was not expected to begin until May 19.

Joaquin Guerra, political director of Texas Organizing Project, called the ruling a "temporary setback."

"We will continue getting immigrants ready to apply for administrative relief," he said in a statement.

The coalition of states, led by Texas and made up of mostly conservative states in the South and Midwest, argues that Obama has violated the "Take Care Clause" of the U.S. Constitution, which they say limits the scope of presidential power. They also say the order will force increased investment in law enforcement, health care and education.

In their request for the injunction, the coalition said it was necessary because it would be "difficult or impossible to undo the President's lawlessness after the Defendants start granting applications for deferred action."

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called the decision a "victory for the rule of law in America" in a statement late Monday. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who as the state's former attorney general led the state into the lawsuit, said Hanen's decision "rightly stops the President's overreach in its tracks."

Hanen, who's been on the federal court since 2002 after being nominated by President George W. Bush, regularly handles border cases but wasn't known for being outspoken on immigration until a 2013 case. In an order in that case, Hanen suggested the Homeland Security Department should be arresting parents living in the U.S. illegally who induce their children to cross the border illegally.

Congressional Republicans have vowed to block Obama's actions by cutting off Homeland Security Department spending for the program. Earlier this year, the Republican-controlled House passed a $39.7 billion spending bill to fund the department through the end of the budget year, but attached language to undo Obama's executive actions. The fate of that House-passed bill is unclear as Republicans in the Senate do not have the 60-vote majority needed to advance most legislation.

Among those supporting Obama's executive order is a group of 12 mostly liberal states, including Washington and California, as well as the District of Columbia. They filed a motion with Hanen in support of Obama, arguing the directives will substantially benefit states and will further the public interest.

A group of law enforcement officials, including the Major Cities Chiefs Association and more than 20 police chiefs and sheriffs from across the country, also filed a motion in support, arguing the executive action will improve public safety by encouraging cooperation between police and individuals with concerns about their immigration status.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/2015...50009fcae.html

Judge Eviscerates Obama’s Amnesty Program

On Tuesday, Judge Andrew Hanen of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas issued a temporary injunction against the Department of Homeland Security’s enforcement of President Obama’s executive amnesty. In a comprehensive 123 page opinion, Hanen smacks down the Obama administration repeatedly.

Hanen begins by examining the legacy of executive branch failures to enforce immigration law, then points out that states have borne the brunt of cost related to ineffectual immigration enforcement:

While the States are obviously concerned about national security, they are also concerned about their own resources being drained by the constant influx of illegal immigrants into their respective territories, and that this continual flow of illegal immigration has led and will lead to serious domestic security issues directly affecting their citizenry.

Hanen then quotes Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion in his infamous greenlighting of Obamacare to the effect that Congress has the power to determine immigration policy. Hanen writes:

The ultimate question before the Court is: Do the laws of the United States, including the Constitution, give the Secretary of Homeland Security the power to take the action at issue in this case?

Hanen says that he is not questioning the policy decency of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program pushed by President Obama, but of aspects of its legality. He adds that President Obama’s program may or may not be an amnesty, but says that it makes no difference what you call the program; only its legality is in question. Finally, Hanen sums up the issues:

(1) whether the States have standing to bring this case; (2) whether the DHS has the necessary discretion to institute the DAPA program; and (3) whether the DAPA program is constitutional, comports with existing laws, and was legally adopted.

After summing up the legal and factual background of the case, noting the contentions of both the administration’s critics and the administration’s responses, Hanen comes to the actual legal arguments.

Standing

He first discusses the issue of “standing,” the requirement in any case that the plaintiff in a case be directly affected by the law in question. That requirement breaks down into three elements: that the plaintiff suffer a “concrete and particularized injury that is either actual or imminent”; that there is a causal relationship between the statute and the damages; and that the injury could “likely” be addressed by the court striking down the regulation. Further, the judge points out, a broad harm to the general population should be addressed politically, not in the courts.

The judge points out a second level of standing as well: standing under the Administrative Procedure Act, which allows standing to a “person suffering a legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute.”

The ruling states that the states do have standing to contest the executive amnesty, citing the costs associated with processing of driver’s license, and the fact that supposed workarounds to avoid costs will likely be contested by the federal government, as the federal government did with regard to Arizona’s immigration law. “The federal government made it clear in Arizona (and would not retreat from that stance in this case),” the ruling states, “that any move by a plaintiff state to limit the issuance of driver’s licenses would be viewed as illegal.” The court further rules that these damages are not generalized, but particular to the driver’s license program. The judge slams the federal government’s incoherent immigration policy:


Although the federal government conceded that states enjoy substantial leeway in setting policies for licensing drivers within their jurisdiction, it simultaneously argued that the states could not tailor these laws to create ‘new alien classifications not supported by federal law.’ In other words, the states cannot protect themselves from the costs inflicted by the Government when 4.3 million individuals are granted legal presence wit the resulting ability to compel state action. The irony of this position cannot be fully appreciated unless it is contrasted with the DAPA Directive. The DAPA Directive unilaterally allows individuals removable by law to legally remain in the United States based upon a classification that is not established by any federal law. It is this very lack of law about which the States complain. The Government claims that it can act without a supporting law, but the States cannot.

As the judge adds, it is certainly ironic that the federal government is butting into the driver’s license business, given that it is traditionally a state function. He also points out that the feds require the states to pay certain fees for processing of driver’s licenses.

With regard to causation, Judge Hanen finds that there is a clear relationship between the regulation and the cost. He also finds that striking down the regulation would achieve the goal of avoiding that cost.

Hanen also points out several other possible grounds for standing. Hanen says parens patraie – the ability of a state to bring suit “to protect the interests of its citizens” – applies to state suits against the federal government. The state argued that businesses will be forced to cover health insurance for illegal immigrants under the new program. The federal government made the frightening argument that the federal government is the protector of the interests of citizens, so states could not file suit against the feds. Hanen says states could file parens patraie suit, but that this case has not yet materialized because the federal government has not made clear its intentions with regard to Obamacare.

Hanen then moves on to the biggest argument of all: the argument that the federal government’s refusal to enforce its borders costs the states money, and that that loss makes federal policy justiciable. He says that these costs are not directly related to DAPA:


The Court finds that the Government’s failure to secure the border has exacerbated illegal immigration into this country. 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. Regardless, the Court finds that these more indirect damages described in this section are not caused by DAPA; thus the injunctive relief requested Plaintiffs would not redress these damages.

The court also rejected the argument that allowing illegal immigrants to stay increases costs with regard to programs like education, explaining that the “Constitution and federal law mandate that these individuals are entitled to state benefits merely because of their presence in the United States, whether they reside in the sunshine or the shadows.” The Court adds that the specific costs associated with DAPA – the argument that “continued presence in this county will increase state costs” — is solid, but that the federal argument that the economy will pay for all of that is at least supportable. Finally, the Court states that the federal government’s statements encouraging illegal immigration are not redressable.

The Court then turns to the issue of standing with regard to abdication. Judge Hanan says that “The most provocative and intellectually intriguing standing claim presented by this case is that based upon federal abdication,” the theory by which the “federal government asserts sole authority over a certain area of American life and excludes any authority or regulation by a state; yet subsequently refuses to act in that area. The Court calls this argument indisputable. “[T]he Government has abandoned its duty to enforce the law,” the Court states. The Court drops the hammer: “If one had to formulate from scratch a fact pattern that exemplified the existence of standing due to federal abdication, one could not have crafted a better scenario.”

Discretion

Next, the Court turns to the question of prosecutorial discretion. The Court explains that prosecutorial discretion is the purview of the executive branch, but that the DAPA program is not discretion at all. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Court points out, there has been no rule promulgated that meets the requirements of notice and hearing. The Court states, “The responsibility of the federal government, who exercises plenary power over immigration, includes not only the passage of rational legislation, but also the enforcement of those laws. The States and their residents are entitled to nothing less.” The Court also says that this is not a question of merely federal inaction, but “affirmative action rather than inaction….Exercising prosecutorial discretion and/or refusing to enforce a statute does not also entail bestowing benefits.” Most tellingly, the Court quotes President Obama himself stating that he instructed the Department of Homeland Security to “change the law.” The Court then concludes:

While the Government would not totally concede this point in oral argument, the logical end point of its argument is that the DHS, solely pursuant to its implied authority and general statutory enforcement authority, could have made DAPA applicable to all 11.3 million immigrants estimated to be in the country illegally. This Court finds that the discretion given to the DHS Secretary is not unlimited.

In a final slap, the Court states, “In the instant case, the DHS is tasked with the duty of removing illegal aliens. Congress has provided that it ‘shall’ do this. Nowhere has Congress given it the option to either deport these individuals or give them legal presence and work permits.”

The Court also calls out President Obama directly for contending publicly that he changed the law, then sending his lawyers to claim that DAPA is supposed to be advisory in nature. The Court then states that the only “discretion” used has “already [been] exercised by Secretary Johnson in enacting the DAPA program and establishing the criteria therein.” The Court concludes, “The DAPA program clearly represents a substantive change in immigration policy…it contradicts the INA. It is, in effect, a new law.”


Injunction

The Court issued an injunction in this case because, as Judge Hanan writes, “legalizing the presence of millions of people is a ‘virtually irreversible’ action once taken,” both in terms of cost, and in terms of the presence of the illegal aliens themselves. “Once Defendants make such determinations,” the Court writes, “the States accurately allege that it will be difficult or even impossible for anyone to ‘unscramble the egg.’….This genie would be impossible to put back into the bottle.” The Court points out that the status quo ante would not be changed by striking down the regulation; we would merely have the clarity of knowing whether the government has the authority for DAPA before it is implemented.

Conclusion

In short, the Court eviscerates the Obama administration’s position. The case will be appealed to the Fifth Circuit, but Judge Hanan’s heavy reliance on Fifth Circuit case law makes it unlikely to be reversed at that level. The injunction means that the case will expedite to the Supreme Court level. Now the question becomes whether the lawless Obama administration will obey the judge’s ruling even though the injunction has been granted.

http://www.breitbart.com/border/2015...nesty-program/

Incredibly, those tasked with protecting our southern border are being told they don't have to arrest illegal immigrants who are driving drunk . That's according to a newly obtained Department of Homeland Security memo which informs Customs and Border Protection agents in Tucson Arizona...

Seriously? BO wants them to just let drunk drivers go just because they're illegals? A citizen on the other hand would be arrested! I guess BO thinks two wrong do make a right!