Federal Judge Blocks Obama’s “Executive Action” On Immigration – The White House Responds…

It must be noted at the beginning of this discussion to remind readers of what is not stated, along with what is.

Obama_seal

Back in November of 2014 President Obama announced his intention to “fix a broken immigration system” with his pen. The basic outline was sold by the White House as a pending “executive order”.  However when the immediate debate erupted around presidential authority in that regard most readers will note that an “executive order” was never actually issued. Instead, after delivering his nationally televised speech, Obama directed Jeh Johnson to modify his DHS immigration enforcement approach with what was/is now called an “executive action“.

The difference between what Obama promised to the illegal alien community via an “executive order”, and what was delivered days later via an “executive action” reflects a key legal distinction affirming the reality that an “executive order” -to intentionally subvert legislative authority- would have been unconstitutional.

The White House Office of Legal Counsel knew and advised Obama from the outset an executive order was impossible.   This aspect Obama himself admitted numerous times over the preceding two years to Latino audiences. 

Image: Barack Obama, Jeh Johnson

Subsequently the White House and DHS attempted to thread the needle with a claim of Presidential authority to “set priorities regarding enforcement“.

However, as we previously outlined the “enforcement priority” did more than “prioritize enforcement”, it actually created an entire new category of immigration personage.

Yesterday a Federal Court blocked the Obama/DHS plan, ruling that as the lawsuits filed by Texas and 25 states challenging the action proceeded – an injunction barring the application of the new “executive action” would place a hold on any change.

Judge Andrew Hanen’s decision carried an accompanying memorandum which states:

[…] 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. (link)

Obviously this is a huge blow to the Obama immigration agenda, and we should anticipate a significant amount of liberal media outrage and sympathy toward Obama’s grand scheme being derailed. The White House responded immediately with the following statement:

white house press release texas immigration

While there are numerous legal issues at stake regarding the scope of presidential authority, one of the more significant flaws in Obama’s scheme was overlooked by almost everyone at the time. A large problem relates to an intent on classifying a new category of illegal alien with eligible work status.

Riddled throughout President Obama’s Executive Order speech  in November was something more than prosecutorial discretion and/or non-deportation. Extensively disbursed throughout the proposal was a claim of lawful “work/employment status“.

[…] Now here’s the thing: we expect people who live in this country to play by the rules. We expect that those who cut the line will not be unfairly rewarded. So we’re going to offer the following deal: If you’ve been in America for more than five years; if you have children who are American citizens or legal residents; if you register, pass a criminal background check, and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes – you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily, without fear of deportation. You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law.

Later in the speech Obama condescendingly referenced the way he views the work of illegal aliens:

…[…] Are we a nation that tolerates the hypocrisy of a system where workers who pick our fruit and make our beds never have a chance to get right with the law?

Because in Obama’s America – Latino’s can only be fruit pickers, yard workers and housemaids right? I digress.

Another employment reference follows moments later:

…[…] Over the past few years, I have seen the determination of immigrant fathers who worked two or three jobs, without taking a dime from the government, and at risk at any moment of losing it all, just to build a better life for their kids.

Well, you get the picture… the speech was filled with employment references.

Now, here’s the aspect worth thinking about which directly relates to the injunction delivered by Judge Hanen.

If all Obama is doing is “not deporting” people, ergo he’s using his executive authority of prosecutorial discretion, and that’s the claim of those who say this is constitutional; well, how or what part of ‘non-deportation’ includes granting “work/employment authorization”?

Work and Employment eligibility, and the qualifications for allowable status of permission therein, is federal law.

If Obama is claiming he can provide legal work authorization, though an executive action, he is absolutely creating a new law. Such a decree clearly violates the separation of powers within the constitution.

If not deporting illegal aliens is constitutionally allowable under the auspices of executive branch prosecutorial discretion, you might win the argument.

However, if President Obama thinks he can arbitrarily grant a new status of legal employment eligibility, he’s grossly mistaken. That would be making new employment law from the executive branch.

This, in my opinion is where he went too far.  To put that construct in the executive action, and giving such an instruction to DHS head Jeh Johnson, any court challenge raised in that regard he would most certainly lose.

A reminder of the previous White House outline proposal.

Barack Obama

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Big Stupid Government, Cultural Marxism, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Illegal Aliens, media bias, Notorious Liars, Obama re-election, Obama Research/Discovery, Operation Brown Dream, Political correctness/cultural marxism, propaganda, Uncategorized, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

165 Responses to Federal Judge Blocks Obama’s “Executive Action” On Immigration – The White House Responds…

  1. shirley49 says:

    Does anyone thinks he gives a wit at what a Judge orders? He has blatantly defied other Judges orders and will more than likely give this one the finger also.

    Liked by 8 people

    • thefirstab says:

      Let him try… Maybe then he can be removed for not faithfully executing his duties.

      Liked by 2 people

      • smiley says:

        and contempt of court for each person involved, including Johnson, if they try to defy the court order.
        this is a great victory..thanks Texas and Gov. Abbott !!!!
        but its not the end of this.
        selfie could try to stall this, or hope that it gets “suspended” in the 5th Circuit (Appeals).
        or, worse, get it sent to Supreme Ct. where it could drag out further.
        but his ” fiat” executive over-reach has been checked.
        if he pushes this envelope, it really (imo) is aiding & abetting etc.
        wondering how Ms Lynch sees this.
        wish Gov Abbott would take it a step further and seal the borders.
        still..its very good news.
        (of course, prog media will scream about it, and so will la raza.)

        Liked by 8 people

        • doodahdaze says:

          Deport Obama!

          Liked by 2 people

        • libertyman62 says:

          Come on, folks…do you really believe that Obama will follow this court order? REALLY?

          It is already being appealed, that means it could remain in the system for years, & in the meantime Obama will find a way around it. By the time it gets to the USSC it will be too late — the importation of millions of more illegals would have already occurred & his term in Office would have expired & a new POTUS would have been sworn-in (provided that he leaves Office in Jan. 2017 like he is supposed to, of course).

          NOTHING will stop Obama. He is completely lawless. Which court would dare cite him w/ contempt of court, & even if they did, who would enforce it? Congress won’t impeach the sorry SOB, & even if they did & the Senate found him guilty of the crimes for which he was impeached, who would dare to force him out of the White House? Don’t forget that Obama has MILLIONS of “sons”, both male & female, across the entire nation who would spring into action & riot if their dear leader was removed from Office or harmed in any way. Are we as a nation ready for that?

          Liked by 3 people

        • Betty says:

          Ms Lynch already said during her Congressional approval hearings that she believes that illegals have a RIGHT to work.

          Liked by 1 person

      • AdukeLAXobserver says:

        Republicans don’t have the guts to impeach and remove 0bama. They don’t even want to risk shutting down the government. They are a bunch of cowards.

        Liked by 12 people

        • springstreet says:

          Women love Obama (and his knee weakening smile) so he will never be removed for any Presidential actions. As my sister-in-law admitted: I know he lying … but I believe he’s doing it for me!
          If the Treehouse wants him gone, go after his uncertain parentage (Frank Marshall Davis) … and the reason why (the Iranian born) Valerie Jarrett can control his every move.

          Liked by 1 person

          • doodahdaze says:

            Like their hairstylist.

            Like

          • shirley49 says:

            I think any woman who thinks this man is attractive has serious self esteem issues. I cannot even look at him because to me he is ugly inside and out. There are 14 women in my book club and all but one hate his guts.

            Liked by 7 people

          • joanfoster says:

            “As my sister in law admitted: I know he’s lying …but I believe he’s doing it for me!
            I know he’s lying also, but lying not for the American people but against their interest.

            Liked by 3 people

          • AdukeLAXobserver says:

            All democrats lie. But if it forwards the cause of liberalism their voters don’t care.

            Liked by 3 people

          • polk8dot says:

            ‘Women love Obama (and his knee weakening smile) so he will never be removed for any Presidential actions.’

            Wow, that is one of the most uncharitable comments on women as a group I’ve read in a very long time. Maybe it would not have needled me so much, had it any basis in fact, but as it is supported by none such, it does come across as completely generic and gratuitous.

            Sure, I’ve seen some women on TV, in print etc, who have professed unabated support for the Usurper, but their ‘womanhood’ was very evidently NOT what their purported dedication was rooted in. Thus, I’ve taken the liberty of fixing your statement’s fallacy for ya’ so that it’s not so patronizing to us simple, little, silly women:
            Lib/Progs love Obama (and his knee weakening smile – ??? {yuck!} )so he will never be removed for any Presidential actions, up to and including “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. (US Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 4)

            P.S. As one of these ‘simple, little, silly’ women-folk I find being condescended to, even unintentional, quite objectionable. As to your SIL, all I can say is — There’s a lid for every pot, but you don’t want to be around when the mismatched lid blows, as is wont to happen, sooner or later. 😉

            Liked by 3 people

            • springstreet says:

              polk8dot. Sorry my diatribe came across as uncharitable, but I was trying to make a broad point in a short post. Let me expand. A majority of women (and blacks who voted by skin color) elected Obama … and will seek to keep him in power. Understanding this is not being condescended to … but recognizing a documented fact.
              I think it is in America’s interest to get rid of Obama, by exposing him as a fraud … to the very women (like my NOT “simple, little, silly” sister-in-law) who think he actually cares about them … instead of his real interest which is creating an Islamic State.
              P.S. I think objectionable patronizing of women comes from Obama … and his oh so practiced smile. Excuse my previous less than concise wording.

              Liked by 1 person

              • polk8dot says:

                No harm, no foul, springstreet.

                We all get carried away on the issues we are deeply invested in, and sometimes the words that come out are not necessarily a perfect match to the sentiment attempted. 🙂
                I was actually going for more of a tongue-in-cheek feel in my response, and yet you can see how poorly that turned out…..Fail.

                I do agree with you that Obama is the epitome of condescension, not just to women, but essentially to that entire part of the American society that got him into office. Their obliviousness to it is one of the most staggering sights to behold in today’s political life. I guess there is no deeper blindness than the intentional one..

                And now, on to one of particular pet peeves of mine – the commonly accepted myths created by political pollsters for the benefit of political pundits, which to me seem to stem mostly from intellectual laziness and/or unwitting incoherence, i.e. the myths of the so called ‘voting blocks’. Both the terminology and the information behind it are as artificial as Lib/Prog ‘protected-people’ classes or ‘war-on..’ victims. We are all way too diverse to be squeezed into a simple classifications of ‘soccer moms’ or ‘Silicon Valley wunderkinds’ etc. I believe that this type of thinking was developed specifically to enslave people to an ideology not their own, to offer them a sense of belonging, a sense of joint responsibility where personal one may be to much to bear, in an attempt to swindle the minds and hearts into accepting the proffered group-think as their own, to implant them with ideas otherwise foreign to them. In essence, one of the least recognized, yet extremely prevalent forms of mind control / opinion shaping in today’s society.

                Now, voting blocks distinguished by race and culture, that is a completely different story. Can’t argue with that.

                Liked by 1 person

                • springstreet says:

                  polk8dot
                  The conservative is comfortable with reason and order. The Liberal (I’m married to one) seeks consensus and agreement. If a Liberal ever offers reason that differs from the group-think, then he/she will be ostracized. I’ve watched this phenomenon in my wife’s book club. At home we watch Fox News and my wife shakes her head as the lies pour out of Obama’s mouth BUT, when it is time to vote for the likes of McCain/Romney, she votes for Obama … and keeps her (Liberal) friends.
                  I spent nine years researching and writing “Watergate Fiction” … a book about a non-investigated crime (not the much publicized cover-up) but, it’s discoveries and reason will go unread … when the group-think has accepted a more convenient narrative. Alas.

                  Like

            • Pam says:

              LOL! I think someone hit a hot button. 🙂

              How any woman could use the word “love” or think that nasty bag of bones is attractive is beyond me, but apparently some women “fall in love” with jailed serial killers, so this is a crazy world.

              Liked by 5 people

            • Shibbity Boo says:

              Phew! What a relief! As long as there’s a Herman Cain, black Americans block voting for Barack Obama – and most other Democrats – is just an urban legend. Don’t worry, I’ll let Snopes know.

              Like

            • justfactsplz says:

              I am a woman and can’t stand his guts. You penned my own thoughts perfectly.

              Liked by 1 person

          • Sharon says:

            Women love obama?…..silly generalization. Speak for yourself. This woman despises him and has since the summer of 2008.

            Liked by 7 people

          • Thank God, all women don’t think like your sister-in-law.

            Like

        • doodahdaze says:

          McConnell and his absurd “tactic” would never have worked. In fact he probably knew it. The GOP-e might be just as unhappy as Obama on this. Would not surprise me.

          Like

        • thefirstab says:

          It certainly looks that way, doesn’t it? Our wonderful Senator Sessions has been fighting hard though, and with more alarming issues adding to the mix* hopefully more will see the light.
          * Most of the illegals are Catholics – Islamic extremists are being given leeway in slaughtering other Christians, and has already lied to them and given them false hope of amnesty. The Rs should make hay with this!

          Liked by 1 person

        • kinthenorthwest says:

          Like I said someplace else—I wish we could just empty out DC. Putting the republicans in there has done nothing. H3LL The Republicans are even trying to close Trey down on Benghazi.
          You know I was stupid enough to think that giving control to the Republicans they would get to the bottom of some of the MANY Obama Scandals. Was I ever wrong.

          Liked by 4 people

          • polk8dot says:

            The least evil – sometimes that is the only option left to us. That’s all that happened last November. It certainly was not a ‘mandate’ Boehner, McConnell and other RINOs seem to have chosen to view it as.
            I can’t wait for the day when we can finally shirk the ‘least evil’ philosophy and wholeheartedly focus on bringing the country back.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Shibbity Boo says:

              You – the collective “you” – have no chance – not a slim chance, not a slight chance, but no chance – of discarding that “philosophy” until “you” accept that, in “representative” republics

              If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

              like the cake – is a lie.

              Like

        • libertyman62 says:

          I reckon that Holder was right when he said that we are a nation of cowards: the Congressional GOP proves it on a daily basis by their not standing up to Obama & not punishing him for his treasonous actions the way they should. Obama should have been impeached & arrested years ago.

          Liked by 4 people

        • Jim Brown says:

          The question is this; what good would it do to impeach without the ability to convict him in the Senate and remove him from office? The Republican’s would need 67 votes in the Senate to get a conviction and have him removed from office, there is no way the Democrats are going to provide 13 votes to convict him. The Democrats will not vote for a conviction no matter how much evidence there is against him. The Democrats do not care what damage he is doing to the country or the Constitution, they only care about winning the political battles; they, by a large margin put their party above the country and the Constitution. This will not change until the people see fit to vote more of them out of office or until the 17th Amendment is repealed. So considering this fact, what good would impeachment in the House do? And make no mistake, I would love nothing more than to see impeachment, conviction and removal from office happen, but without the requisite votes in the Senate it would all be a waste of time.

          Like

      • libertyman62 says:

        Ain’t gonna happen. The House already has reason to impeach him not only for his treasonous actions, which includes his refusal to protect our nation against the invasion of illegal aliens. The GOPe wants this invasion to continue & support it wholeheartedly. Obama couldn’t ask for a better friend than the Congressional GOP.

        Liked by 3 people

  2. I hope Obama loses big on this.

    And I hope the Republicans in Congress, too afraid of being called racist to do anything about Obama’s flagrant disregard for rule of law in this country, pay attention and work on those articles of impeachment. (How is trying to rule by executive order fiat NOT at the very least a misdemeanor?)

    Liked by 2 people

    • smiley says:

      I think it begins w/ a T..and rhymes w/ season.

      Liked by 5 people

      • libertyman62 says:

        You may be too afraid to say it *& that REALLY bothers me), but I’m not, & I don’t care what the repercussions of saying it are:

        TREASON

        Obama has long proved that he is a TRAITOR to our Constitution: he encourages our enemies by refusing to call them for what they are, by his allowing members of the Muslim Brotherhood to play a role in his Administration, by his giving Iran more & more time to create the Bomb, his refusal to defend our Consulate in Benghazi, by his not stopping the INVASION of illegal immigrants along our southern border, etc. All of these actions are impeachable & are worthy of arrest.

        Liked by 2 people

    • libertyman62 says:

      When you have a history of other POTUS’ who have gotten away w/ making Executive Orders time & time again & Congress does nothing about it, then Obama’s defenders can rightfully say that he is doing nothing new, it’s all been done in the past.

      Maybe it is time for Constitutional Amendment that limits, if not prohibits altogether, the authority of the POTUS to make Executive Orders in the 1st place? Would that be too much to ask for?

      Like

      • 2+2 says:

        agree. see my post above. 🙂

        Like

      • Shibbity Boo says:

        Of a Professional Better? Yes, it absolutely wold be too much to ask. It’s “nice” to focus on this President, and these issues – but there’s more at stake than just POTUS autonomy. It’s simple (minded?) to say that “the opposition” (same league; same retirement fund; same factory, different color jersey) is worried about hobbling Their Guy, when it’s next Their turn. How many legislative actions have you seen on parking regulation? How many on what can be planted as, when and how much it can be watered, and how it must be trimmed, to be a legal “lawn”? And – much more importantly – what legislative action to define, handing over to judicial action to enforce, the fines, fees, and et ceteras – it’s not a tax unless we label it a tax – for all those “vital” activities of The Holy Mother State? Without “rule by executive fiat” – from the Top, all the way down – The Unites States Government, and all Her Courtiers, must – literally – shut down.

        Like

        • 2+2 says:

          Wrong. This is a Republic, not a Monarchy. This country is not “ruled,” it is GOVERNED by the will of the people, by three branches of government with a separation of powers set up by our Constitution. Look up Executive Orders to discover the original purpose.

          Like

  3. 2x4x8 says:

    many of Obama’s efforts have been struck down by the Courts, even his appointees at the SC have voted against him, still doesn’t prevent him from doing his “change”, Harry Reid in the Senate even went Nuclear and tore up Senate rules to get another Democrat judge on the important DC Court of Appeals (more like admiring Roosevelt than Lincoln)

    American owes a big thank you to the 25 states, and particularly Texas’ Governor Greg Abbott, who said as Secretary of State, he “went to work every day, sued Obama, and went home”, all in a days work, great results

    the power of the Courts are there to uphold the Constitution, wishing success also to all those that pursue the common law

    Liked by 7 people

    • doodahdaze says:

      Big Grin! Help is on the way!

      Like

    • smiley says:

      this could also be a win for Art. V.. states-rights, yes ?

      Liked by 1 person

      • 2x4x8 says:

        if 2/3 rds of Representatives in Congress won’t pass an amendment, I doubt if the legislators home states will muster-up 2/3 rds of the number of states needed for a Convention for that purpose

        Like

      • polk8dot says:

        Unfortunately, it is very slow going, but there is some progress, especially lately.

        Here’s the full list, as of 11 Feb 2015, of states which filed or are preparing to file Article V application for their state legislatures:

        South Carolina, Missouri, New Mexico, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Montana, Nebraska, Wyoming, Virginia, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Utah, Texas, South Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Minnesota, Kansas, North Carolina, West Virginia, Arkansas, and Kentucky.
        (Note: These legislatures must pass their Article V resolutions before they can be counted towards the necessary 34.)’

        So far, the Alaska, Florida, Georgia and Arizona (just last week) legislatures have each passed a resolution in support of a convention.
        The Convention of States application in North Dakota — HCR 3014 — will go to the House floor today, Feb 17, for a vote. (Fingers crossed.)

        For more updates, visit http://www.conventionofstates.com/newsblog,

        Liked by 3 people

        • smiley says:

          TY for your reply.

          Like

        • 2x4x8 says:

          I do not support a Constitutional Convention, did that, done that, over with, as you recall, instead of amending the Articles of Confederation, they created and expanded a national government over the independent nation states

          the New World Order has been trying to bring about a new constitution, don’t fall into their trap

          http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/03/constitutional-convention-call-redux-rexford-g-tugwell-the-newstates-constitution/

          Like

          • smiley says:

            well..that’s something to think about, for sure.

            Like

          • polk8dot says:

            Thanks for the link, 2x4x8. It was an interesting read.
            Clearly, my view is not as drastic as intimated therein. I am what you’d call a pragmatic ‘strict Constitutionalist’, and consider the document one of the hallow pillars on which this Republic was built and still stands. But even the genius of the Founding Fathers, though far reaching enough to anticipate some future, unforeseen need for additions, was not prescient enough to guard against every potentiality. And clearly, one of the most foreign concepts to them would have been the current state of our society, education, culture, civics, political involvement and the Left’s unabated drive to enslave us all.
            That’s why the law provides a process for amendments. And as at this juncture it is pretty apparent that our federal legislature has zero intentions of curbing the treason, high crimes and misdemeanors perpetrated every day by Obama the Usurper, I am looking to the convention of states as a last resort to help halt our national slide off the cliff, and try to right the ship of state,for which all keel over. True, almost all my other hopes of improvement, via numerous other political avenues, have come to naught, but for my own sanity, if noting else, I choose to cling on to something reasonable and realistic. The Constitutional Amendment convention is that for me today.

            Like

            • 2x4x8 says:

              I understand where you are coming from, we can respectfully disagree, it was certainly put there for possible use, and has been used successfully for the repeal of Prohibition

              it may lead to a constitutional crisis, and I feel it best not to go there, the federal budget was balanced by Gingrich during Clinton’s Presidency, there are other gripes for “amendments” out there; such as anchor babies or right to life, and the Left would like to rework the second amendment

              Like

              • polk8dot says:

                2x4x8, your comments really kept me thinking.
                I accept your contention about the majority of the problems having possible other solutions.
                But some, I can’t even imagine the current congress trying to tackle. Among those would be states’ rights, the federal usurpation of states’ lands, federal overreach in enforcing BS immigration policies against states’ legislation, federal interference with state voting laws, like Voter I.D., and a whole host of other issues, not the least of which being presidential power grabs. I will never believe our current crop of politicians are able to even consider such actions. I’d hope thy might find it easier to proceed when it comes to ratification, and even then their input may not be necessary.
                I understand that an amendment convention may open a can of worms, and I don’t have an easy solution for that.
                But just because at some point in the future the Left may try to enforce whatever radical tactics and schemes suit them at that moment, overtly because ‘we’ have shown them the way, is no excuse for doing nothing now. This may be the same reasoning which the RINOs parade around as their excuse for inaction, but to me it is simply a non-factor right now. You can’t worry about thieves jumping on to your bus, when the bus is careening down a steep slope right into the abyss.
                My main hope though would be at least a repeal of the XVII amendment.

                I am by no means trying to convince you as to which one of us is right or wrong. Opinions are like noses, right? But I would like you to know that I really enjoyed this exchange. ☺

                Like

    • 2+2 says:

      BIG like!

      Like

  4. doodahdaze says:

    Hip Hip Hooray!!! Law 1 Obama 0

    Like

  5. Chip Bennett says:

    President Stompy Feet was in rare form with that press release.

    Liked by 4 people

  6. doodahdaze says:

    5th District will hear the appeal from the Obama criminal DOJ. heh heh heh.

    Like

  7. stella says:

    Reblogged this on Stella's Place.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. georgiafl says:

    The Imperial Obama does not tolerate or recognize dissent/opposition.

    Liked by 1 person

    • doodahdaze says:

      The place to stop Obama is in the courts. The GOP is a flailing joke. The law is where to get him.

      Liked by 5 people

    • 2+2 says:

      The ultimate criticism of Executive Orders is that the runaway use of EOs could result in a President becoming a virtual dictator, capable of making major policy decisions without any congressional or judicial input.

      Once the genie is out of the bottle, it’s impossible to put it back. Each president since Reagan has assumed more power for the Executive Branch through the use of EO’s. It needs to be reined in, the question is how to put limits on EO’s?

      Liked by 1 person

  9. doodahdaze says:

    If the circuit does not take Stompy’s appeal the trial could last until he has been evicted.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. 2+2 says:

    Millions of undocumented immigrants who live in the shadows but want to play by the rules and pay taxes have no way to correct their immigration status under the law

    THAT is the key phrase. They have no legal immigration status under the law. His executive order/action allowing them to be here creates a new class of immigrant. There are two issues, immigration status, and work status. He is absolutely violating the separation of powers in the Constitution.

    The immigration system isn’t broken. The laws exist. What is broken is our government, which has taken the ability to enforce the laws away from the agencies responsible for doing so. Give Immigration and Customs officials, and local law enforcement the necessary authority to do their jobs, arrest and deport illegals. We are on the verge of civil war within our borders, the open borders policy has failed. Deport them, close the borders. Make it clear if they want to live and work here, they have to do so legally. Give the agencies the authority and funding needed to do their jobs, take the handcuffs off law enforcement and put them on the criminals.

    Liked by 6 people

    • doodahdaze says:

      Law and Order must be restored in America. This criminal administration must be stopped. The pathetic GOP will never step up. Maybe the courts can stop them, or at least delay them for a while. Maybe one of the criminals will defect.

      Like

    • yankeeintx says:

      If they really want to “play by the rules”, they would have come here legally. To claim they suddenly want to play by the rules is a lie.

      Like

      • 2+2 says:

        Yankee, Obama is deluding himself, drinking the KoolAid he’s being fed by you know who. I do believe his sole agenda has to do with the MB and destroying America from within by civil war and anarchy; he really doesn’t give a damn about immigration and he’s just doing what he’s told. If he did, he would have fought harder for it the past 6 years and not waited until the twilight of this Presidence to do an Executive Action that he knew would fail.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Shibbity Boo says:

      If scrubbing Grand Central Station with a toothbrush is too hard, I suppose two toothbrushes is – technically – easier. I just don’t know that it should be called “a solution”.

      Like

  11. taqiyyologist says:

    Over the past few years, I have seen the determination of immigrant fathers who worked two or three jobs, without taking a dime from the government, and at risk at any moment of losing it all, just to build a better life for their kids.

    So… they DID build that?

    Liked by 4 people

  12. 2+2 says:

    marvelous post Sundance! 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  13. doodahdaze says:

    Stomp out Stompy! The courts will determine whether or nor the order is legal. The lawsuit will last long enough to stop Stompy I hope. If the circuit allows the suit to continue while barring Obama from giving amnesty. Fingers crossed.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. joshua says:

    Did anyone ever write a song called “Ballad of the Community Organizers”????

    uh, kinda like this truly AMERICAN PATRIOTIC SONG..

    Ballad Of The Green Berets

    As Written & Performed by SSgt Barry Sadler

    Special Forces Paratrooper

    Fighting soldiers from the sky
    Fearless men who jump and die
    Men who mean just what they say
    The brave men of the Green Beret

    Silver wings upon their chest
    These are men, America’s best
    One hundred men we’ll test today
    But only three win the Green Beret

    Trained to live, off nature’s land
    Trained in combat, hand to hand
    Men who fight by night and day
    Courage deep, from the Green Beret

    Silver wings upon their chest
    These are men, America’s best
    One hundred men we’ll test today
    But only three win the Green Beret

    Back at home a young wife waits
    Her Green Beret has met his fate
    He has died for those oppressed
    Leaving her this last request

    Put silver wings on my son’s chest
    Make him one of America’s best
    He’ll be a man they’ll test one day
    Have him win the Green Beret

    Why do our military report to a Muslim Community Organizer in Chief instead of a patriotic, America loving, able bodied, principled leader of nations?

    Liked by 2 people

  15. kinthenorthwest says:

    Obama doesn’t give a Crap about America and Americans.
    The Illegals are destroying our country financially and criminally. Hundreds of Billions are spent yearly on the illegals for their needs, not including all the Criminal offenses. H3LL Obama has been too busy letting any Illegal Criminals out of jails so they can go and commit more crimes.
    If they are given amnesty they will end up totally bankrupting our country…Already 20% of the welfare rolls are Illegals..
    Just. look at the billions they have bee defrauding from the IRS. Now they want to let them file even if they have not paid in. H3LL mot illegals use other SS #s claiming the max until caught then changing SS #s.

    Like

  16. Betty says:

    Remember when Obama’s pick for Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, said illegal aliens have a RIGHT to work.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Why in the world should we allow illegals to become citizens? What good will that do the everyday American citizen…? Anyone? Anyone? Pandering to people who aren’t even allowed to be here and aren’t even a citizen makes zero sense.

    What has our country come to? Enforce our laws and this won’t be an issue.

    Why are we obligated to house these ILLEGAL people? They already get FREE healthcare at hospitals. What’s next – giving them free food, voting rights, and a EBT card / welfare check?

    Obama has destroyed our economy and amnesty for illegals will only make it worse. Everyone is under-employed and can’t afford to live. We must now purchase health insurance we cannot afford and do not want or need (mine is $450/month… contrast this to my $25/month auto insurance from Insurance Panda… or my $15/month renters insurance from Eagle… both private-enterprise!). Imagine what will happen when we have to subsidize the insurance for all these illegals….

    Illegal aliens show up and all of sudden the govt. can bend over backwards to support them.

    Liked by 2 people

    • 2+2 says:

      Fund the agencies that enforce the laws and give them the personnel and authority to do so!

      Like

      • Dems B. Dcvrs says:

        And DEFUND every agency that fails to enforce our Laws, acts against our Laws, or is Colluding with Obama.

        Bye bye EPA, IRS, & DHS.
        DHS was never necessary and is fast becoming 3rd Reich’s Gestapo, acting above law and reporting to no one but Heir Obama.

        Like

    • Concerned says:

      I have a friend who has some slacker welfare leeches in his immediate and extended family. He mentioned one of them just a couple of days ago, a woman who happily lives in a nice Section 8 apartment and pays only $150/month for a unit which probably has a market rate of $1500/month. He only talked about what a great deal it is for her, he never once mentioned that he and I and other hard-working tax-paying citizens are paying her rent for her. When I said “Does she work?” it shook him up a bit, and then he said “Oh, I think she has some kind of psychological problem”. Right.

      I think he is representative of this kind of out-of-sight out-of-mind ignorance that so many Dems suffer from. They have no clue about, and no interest in, where the money comes from. Someone needs to break it down for them. See your paycheck? Here’s how much is being paid to other people who can’t or don'[t want to work, and in our big blue city I think it’s safe to assume that most fall into that latter category. I’ve already shared with him the amazing public housing statistics, a certain group which comprises a small percentage of the population consumes 90%+ of the public housing spaces.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Coast says:

        Part of the problem is that we are NOT paying for whats being done…that’s why we have a $18T debt..and climbing. If taxpayers were force to pay for the government we have, then we would see change.

        Like

        • 2+2 says:

          I feel like I’m paying and have been since my first paycheck. Government needs to stop sending aid to countries that hate us, cut off benes to aliens and able-bodied welfare recipients. People getting crazy checks are capable of doing farm work that immigrant laborers do. Put them to work and see how quickly they get normal. If you want that check, work for it, whatever work we find for you. No workee, no money. If you don’t like the job, go find something better.

          I’ve learned a lot about that class of people researching social media. The majority of them have high school educations and a good percentage have been to community college, on our dime. They aren’t as ignorant as we think, a lot of it is pretense so they can remain in the system. They choose to milk the system because it’s easier than working at lowpaying jobs and competing for the better middle class jobs. Those who do work earn just enough to get the maximum EITC, which is more than they pay in taxes. That’s just a supplement for their real income from drugs and other illicit activities. If you go on FB there’s a lot of talk by the women about their “tax money.”

          Like

    • Shibbity Boo says:

      “Everyone is under-employed and can’t afford to live.”

      But that has absolutely nothing to do with “undocumented workers” – nor “public benefits”.

      Like

  18. Concerned says:

    Obama talks about the hard-working illegals who just want to “get right with the law”, but I’m remembering the photos of so many women with their children and I can’t help but think they came to the US not to work but to receive the handouts Obama had dangled in front of them. Like we need more people on welfare.

    Very ironic that an illegal would be so interested in being lawful when their very entry was unlawful. I can’t imagine going to, say, France, and expecting them to make me a citizen because I squatted there for x number of years.

    Liked by 1 person

    • doodahdaze says:

      It is about more votes for democrats. They need help to destroy what is left of america.

      Like

      • kinthenorthwest says:

        Have a feeling there is more than just the votes…Just my suspicous mind but I feel that some of the people crossing the border were not the usual type of Illegals, but Middle Eastern Islamics

        Like

  19. FlatFoot says:

    We’re gonna punish our enemies, and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.”
    –pResident Barack Hussein Obama [Nov. 2010 – Hispanic radio, Univision]

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Dems B. Dcvrs says:

    Obama directed Jeh Johnson to modify his DHS immigration enforcement approach with what was/is now called an “executive action“.

    Obama’s ‘””Executive Action”””, directing Jeh Johnson to modify DHS immigration enforcement is an Illegal and Unconstitutional action. The only difference between “Executive Order” and “””Executive Action””” is first is written and second is verbal (with wink of eye). I don’t give a Rat’s Rear what any Legal expert says. This is no different than Mob boss hinting at hit, it is still a crime.

    After two Federal Judges rulings, any Federal Employee or Officer continuing to follow Obama’s “Executive Action” and its trickle down orders or effects, are committing Crimes against United States of America.

    Like

  21. TexasRanger says:

    US Department of Homeland Security says it will comply with temporary injunction on President Obama’s immigration order –

    Homeland Security chief Jeh Johnson says undocumented immigrants should not mail in their applications for President Obama’s program to protect them from deportation –

    US Attorney General: Justice Department considering whether it will seek a stay on Texas judge’s decision to temporarily block President Obama’s immigration executive order.

    DHS Sec. Johnson tells undocumented immigrants NOT to mail in their applications for Obama’s program to protect them from deportation.

    https://twitter.com/Reuters
    https://twitter.com/alangomez

    Liked by 1 person

    • 2+2 says:

      so they have already wasted money printing applications and sending them out; they could either pick them up or request them from the USCIS website. Printing and postage. That should come out of Obamas salary.
      Plus the money wasted on setting up this celebration:
      Spanish Teleconference with USCIS Director León Rodríguez
      CANCELLED –
      The Spanish-language stakeholder teleconference with USCIS Director León Rodríguez tomorrow Wednesday, Feb. 18, 2015, from 3 to 4:30 p.m. (Eastern) to discuss the expansion of DACA as part of the recently announced executive actions on immigration has been cancelled

      http://www.uscis.gov/outreach/upcoming-national-engagements/spanish-teleconference-uscis-director-leon-rodriguez

      Like

  22. Jill says:

    While the Republicans may not want to impeach Obama, they can certainly impeach Jeh Johnson, head of HHS, who issued the executive action.

    Article I provides in Section 3 that:

    Quote:The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

    Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

    Article II covers the Executive power of the United States. It provides in Section 4 that:

    Quote:The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

    Like

    • doodahdaze says:

      They will not impeach anyone. They only care about their split of the loot. They are politicians. Why in the world would anyone believe a word a politician says? They all have dirt on each other and live in a corrupt world of Mutually Assured Destruction.

      Like

    • 2+2 says:

      Department Heads take an oath of office that includes obeying the President. He can’t be impeached for following orders.

      Like

  23. Interesting to note, Obama has already done exactly what he was trying to do here a couple of years ago via DACA. That illegal EO gave “Dreamers” permission to stay AND gave them work permits. And no one raised a hand to try and stop him. If lawsuits had been put together then, we might not be where we are today.

    Will be interesting to see how it shakes out, because one can’t be legal and the other illegal. You can’t say it’s okay to pass an illegal EO for illegals who came as children but it’s not okay to do the same for their parents. Both involve a president doing what he doesn’t have the authority to do.

    Like

  24. Dems B. Dcvrs says:

    Obama once again demonstrating his Flippant attitude:
    Barack Hussein Obama: “I think the law is on our side and history is on our side,”

    Despite opinion rendered by Federal Judge in Pennsylvania and now ruling by Federal Judge in Texas.

    I’ll say it, at this point Secret Service is protecting a Ruler, not POTUS.

    Like

    • doodahdaze says:

      The law is not on his side. His argument does not even address the complaint. When the law is applied to the facts he comes up a loser. The trial will go on until he is history.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s