5th Circuit Court Of Appeals Hears Obama Immigration “Executive Action” Appeal…

Texas Judge Hanen previously blocked execution of President Obama’s “executive action”, the DOJ now seeking to eliminate the injunction….  Hanen is well positioned to have his decision upheld.  However, like all Obama action – nothing is ever actually safe, just because the law is being followed.

(Via Associated Press) Federal appeals judges on Friday peppered lawyers on both sides with questions in a fight over President Barack Obama’s move to shield millions of immigrants from deportation.


A 5th Circuit Court of Appeals panel held a special hearing in a closely watched case that is holding up Obama’s immigration action.

A coalition of 26 states, led by Texas sued to block the plan. The hearing was on an appeal of a Texas judge’s injunction.

The Justice Department argued that Texas has no legal standing in the matter. Texas’ solicitor general countered that granting legal status to immigrants will be costly for Texas.

The judges did not rule and took the case under advisement.

[…]  U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville, Texas, granted a preliminary injunction on Feb. 16 at the request of the states that oppose Obama’s action. Hanen’s rulings have temporarily blocked the Obama administration from implementing the policies that would allow as many as 5 million people in the U.S. illegally to remain.

The Justice Department appealed his ruling and Friday’s special hearing — which took more than two hours — was lively as two of the judges had plenty of questions. They centered mostly on whether an individual state can seek to undo a federal immigration policy.

Benjamin Mizer, the Justice Department’s principal deputy assistant attorney general, called Texas’ suit unprecedented and argued that immigration policy is a domain of the federal government.

“If Texas is right, it could challenge an individual’s right to seek asylum,” Mizer said. “The states do not have standing in the downstream effects of a federal immigration policy.”

Scott Keller, Texas’ solicitor general, argued that Obama’s immigration move has direct consequences because Texas will incur the costs of providing drivers’ licenses, schooling and health care to immigrants granted permission to stay in the United States.

“This is one of the largest changes in immigration policy in the nation’s history,” Keller said. “What this is doing is conferring a legal presence” to people now living illegally in the country, he said. “We absolutely have a stake,” he added.

Judges Jennifer Elrod, a George W. Bush appointee, and Stephen Higginson, an Obama appointee, often interrupted the legal arguments with queries. Judge Jerry Smith, a Ronald Reagan appointee, was the third judge on the panel.

Elrod seemed skeptical of the Justice Department’s arguments while Higginson of those brought by Texas.  (read more)

illegal aliens major

This entry was posted in A New America, Big Stupid Government, Cultural Marxism, Dept Of Justice, Illegal Aliens, media bias, Notorious Liars, Obama Research/Discovery, Occupy Type Moonbats, Operation Brown Dream, propaganda, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to 5th Circuit Court Of Appeals Hears Obama Immigration “Executive Action” Appeal…

  1. doodahdaze says:

    The illegals, and their family should be rounded up and deported asap. En Masse.

    Liked by 2 people

    • booger71 says:

      Either Eisenhower or Truman got it done…we could to. The sovereign state of Texas (or any state) has the right to repel an invasion per the Constitution. This is an invasion.

      Liked by 7 people

      • Blonde in Red says:

        This is an invasion

        Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

        The onslaught is not only bringing the uneducated, diseased, bean fartin’ folk, but, also bringing the gang-bangers, rapists and murderers.

        La Raza [The Race] must be so proud of their tΰrd-worlders.

        Liked by 2 people

        • carterzest says:

          My family and I have had the Flu-like crud 6x so far this year.

          My kids school has the largest concentration of OTM’s in the state of Oregon. they are not ESL kids, but integrated into my kids classes-MAINSTREAMED if you will. We have been vigilant on hand washing, hygiene, and all the usual ways to stave off the cruds.


          Weeks ago, I shared the story about my 3rd grade son’s class having 15 of the 32 students OTM. One day a couple months ago, in ONE DAY, the students raised their hand(s) 15 TIMES, stating in their spanglish dialects…..”Teacher, can I get a break”

          Each time this occurs, the teacher stops and drops everything, picks up the phone, dials the room where the OTM Breaksters get to retreat to…..(most of the time they are unavailable, so the teacher has to escort the OTM (NON ESL KID) to the OPPOSITE END OF THE SCHOOL, drop them at “THE ROOM”, then she walks back to class. EACH OCCURRENCE WASTES 4-5 minutes of the classes time. This happened 15x in ONE DAY. You do the math.

          It has gotten a little bit better as the year goes on. Worst day since is 7X.

          Oh, and my wife who has a chronic lung condition(never smoked), who has also been afflicted like me with the OTM crud 6x this school year ALONE, just got diagnosed with Strepp Throat today.

          Tell me that oBama did not build this. #OBAMABUILTTHIS

          My wife is 41. Strepp and Mono are usually teenage to early 20’s diseases.

          My input from a suburb of the peoples republic of Portland.


      • This is an invasion.

        Coordinated by the same people in this country who are supposed to be preventing it.

        Liked by 2 people

      • 1american1st says:

        This is an invasion!

        If the 10s of millions of Illegal Aliens had invaded us all at once we would be at war.
        Oh wait! We are at war with Obama The Traitor!

        I would have included his Democrat Socialist Party, but the more I read, the more I find that the majority of ALL American Citizens (both parties) are against Amnesty & all this Immigration Reform BS.

        Liked by 3 people

    • Jett Black says:

      It was a target rich environment on 600 Camp St. most of the day. Probably around 200 noisy, stupid scumbags yelling chants at a big, armored, noise-proofed courthouse. Lots of allied scum with t-shirts that said “keep fighting the system”. Whenever I see idjits like these, I wonder, what system they’re fighting? The one that gives them a Louisiana Purchase Card? EBT system? The Obama-care system? The Obama-phone system? Seems to me the need “the system” pretty bad and don’t know what, who, why, or if they’re fighting. They’re mostly just in it for the free van ride and outing. I think they got chicken or something delivered at noon, ’cause the shouting pretty much stopped. Seriously. Idjits! Praying they really PO’d the 5th Cir. judges.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Roy says:

      You BET! Pronto!


  2. True Colors says:

    “The states do not have standing in the downstream effects of a federal immigration policy.”

    Notice how the Obamacrat uses the word “policy” instead of “law.”

    The LAW should rule the day here. Not a unilateral decision by Obama trying to pose as law.


    Liked by 5 people

    • joanfoster says:

      The story doesn’t imply this, but I thought the whole point of the lawsuit was to say that the President cannot change the law by executive order or agency policy, but it must be changed through the legislative branch. If that is all this panel needs to judge, it should be a cakewalk.


    • Roy says:

      BO has elevated his policy above the law. His people do actively follow his policy, not the law. The damage is done before legal remedies can react.

      From Saturday: Immigration Customs Enforcement Director Sarah R. Saldana Tells Congressman: We Follow Obama Rules, Not The Law…

      “If I had policies or directives that were contrary to the law, I would understand if they didn’t want to follow them. I would expect them to follow the law first,” Representative Young said.

      To that, Saldana replied, “And that’s where you and I probably have a fundamental disagreement.”


  3. Justice_099 says:

    Since the end result is that they are NOT deporting the illegals while under this injunction, what exactly are they blocking? They are still not deporting anyone, so win-win for Obama either way.


    • sundance says:

      The blocking aspect is to stop the Obama administration from classifying an entirely new status of personage. “Illegal but lawful Alien”

      Under Obama’s “illegal but lawful alien” status he is saying the states and federal government will be forced to grant drivers licenses, work authorization, and social security benefits to illegal aliens.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Justice_099 says:

        Given that the DHS has absolutely zero authority to actually generate a new citizen status no matter how much you twist the law, I can’t even imagine how this would take a court longer than 10 seconds to decide. It’s unconstitutional on it’s face. No deliberation needed.

        Either way, the illegals are still here, still working, still receiving benefits even without that status. So Obama still wins as this court goofs around over this no-brainer.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Sentient says:

          If Obama forces states to issue drivers’ licenses, in many states they’ll automatically be registered to vote. That’s why he’s in a hurry.


          • Justice_099 says:

            BY what mechanism could Obama ever force a State to issue driver’s licenses? That is ENTIRELY a state function and has nothing at all to do with the federal government.

            If any state did it and then cried that Obama forced them to, I would personally work 24/7 on recall efforts for every single official in the state.

            But there is some truth to what you say. The politicians prey on the lack of understanding by the average citizen on how the government works. Made worse of course by completely dropping U.S. Government and Civics classes from schools. Obviously we can’t have informed citizens if we want to destroy the constitution! No wonder Obama feels comfortable trying to get 16yos to vote


      • Justice_099 says:

        I thought what was in question in this case is the general stand-down order given to the IGS. In THAT case, the stand-down continues unabated.


      • doodahdaze says:

        Legal illegals.


  4. doodahdaze says:

    The greatest fear of the progs is that a conservative candidate runs on conservative issues and wins big. If one were allowed to they would.


  5. ImpeachEmAll says:

    Liked by 1 person

    • Eskie Mom says:

      Those are some straaaange bedfellows under the “Associates” tab. Oh, there’s a “party line” alright- the uniparty & Forward (Soviet). The ad is very cleverly done, though.

      Liked by 1 person

    • 7delta says:

      “One in five deportees had children born in the United States…”

      Gee, that’s too bad, but the Law of the Land already provides the proper and legal way to prevent that from happening anymore. The 14th Amendment expressly states…”subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” According the framers of the 14th that means “sole” jurisdiction. Sen. Howard and Representative Bingham also stated that the 14th did not change existing citizenship laws at all. The sole purpose of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to the freemen, since Constitutionally, it was necessary to be a citizen of a state to be a U.S. citizen. The 14th Amendment simply bypassed that to provide remedy for the freemen, in case states refused citizenship to them.

      The 14th was never intended to be a baby citizen net for anybody just passing through to drop a kid. Citizenship to children born on the soil to non-citizens did not exist prior to the 14th being misinterpreted (Wong Kim Ark, IIRC, though there was debate about it before). The only exceptions were laws that were passed back when travel was difficult and people settled in remote locations that allowed citizenship to children born here of immigrants who had stated their intent to become citizens and had begun the naturalization process. That did not apply to diplomats, people who were visiting, here on permanent or temporary visas without intent to naturalize or here illegally.

      Solution: Follow the original intent. No more anchor babies. Those who have already received citizenship must decide which citizenship they’ll keep when they come of age or if an adult, within one year of the law passing. If they not do formally inform the U.S. and renounce all other citizenship within one year of the law being passed, or their 18th birthday, the U.S. will automatically terminate U.S. citizenship.

      There. Fixed it and it’s already the law or close enough to get the job done.

      Old documents are our friend. Current Congress and some courts, not so much.

      Liked by 1 person

      • 1american1st says:

        We need to do away with the Anchor Baby BS. A baby should automatically be a citizen of its father’s country. It might help curb some of these foreign women sneaking across the border for the sole purpose of dropping an Anchor Baby here.

        Liked by 2 people

        • 7delta says:

          It used to be the father’s citizenship determined the whole family’s. That changed with the Cable Act in 1922 when naturalization by marriage was abolished. James Madison summed up the view of the founding generation regarding dual citizenship when he said no one could be loyal to two countries at one time. He was right, of course. Another quote by an early Secretary of State stated that civilized nations considered dual citizenship anathema to a free and sovereign state. The War of 1812 was largely fought over conflicting views of expatriation and a person’s unalienable right to choose with whom they would associate politically. Dual citizenship is conflict. Anchor babies are feudalistic.

          The federal government has always recognized there would be circumstances outside U.S. control that would leave people with dual citizenship. Law and policy discouraged it, but the intent was never to actively create the conflict ourselves. Immigration and naturalization laws have been adjusted when loopholes were used by people to get citizenship, then returned home, as means to avoid having to serve in the military of their home country or to avoid other citizen obligations there. Things worked pretty well until the last half century or so when the feds simply stopped enforcing the law and began encouraging and rewarding illegal behavior. Since it would not violate the Constitution, Congress could fix the anchor baby issue in a short one paragraph law to rectify the bad court decisions. Congress makes law. Courts do not. Congress hasn’t done it.

          I’m okay with a child born within U.S. jurisdiction to one citizen parent for that child to have U.S. citizenship, but, if the child has dual citizenship, the child should be required to choose when coming of age. I think that law is still on the books. If a parent is here illegally, including the mother, that parent should be deported and have to go through the process to come legally, but I don’t think we can deny the citizen the right to his/her child’s citizenship if the child is born here. It must be to the parents’ advantage for the foreign parent to be here legally or we’ll just set up a scam for women to claim any willing male citizen is the father to get to stay and to get citizenship for the child. Two foreign parents, legally present or not, absolutely no. The progressive trend of living and breathing the Constitution into a reinterpretation that was never intended is extremely dangerous to national security.

          If we want to stop illegal immigration, we have to stop the anchor baby policy, enforce and enhance, with stiff penalties, the federal law that makes it a federal crime to hire illegal entrants or aliens who have overstayed their visas, stop all public assistance and entitlements, and education at all levels to anyone here illegally. With no benefits for breaking the law, the vast majority will have to self deport. Vigorously deport the ones who stay anyway. I’m willing to make a few deals and exceptions one time and one time only. It’ll be a little messy here and there, but the only thing that will stop feeding the flow is to remove the incentive. Removing the majority of illegals will also help make the ones here for nefarious reasons more visible and we’ll have the resources to deal with them. A fence may help, but it won’t stop the flow as long as we keep dangling carrots on our side. There is no reason we can’t keep up with aliens who overstay their visas either. We used to…without computers.

          I saw a report recently that said we now have more OTMs (Other than Mexicans) than Mexicans coming over the border, including Middle easterners, Chinese and Russians. Russia and China could piecemeal an entire army over our border, with their weapons, and we’d give them food stamps, housing, a driver’s license, in-state tuition and a free translator.

          The U.S. is home to some of the stupidest people on earth. Not all, by a long shot. Some, who unfortunately have weaseled their way into power or are just organized and loud are the problem. No matter which side we’re on in this debate, we’re all going to seriously regret this constant flow over the border…soon, very soon.

          Liked by 1 person

  6. Justice_099 says:

    This is my problem with the entire government as a whole. Both parties. It’s just a dog and pony show. What is there to even debate about creating some new citizen class out of thin air with no constitutional authority to do so? Why would any one even take it serious enough to even debate about it as if to give it some type of validity?

    All it does is create optics while effectively doing nothing. Just like every other ‘investigation’ in the last 6 years. Absolutely nothing comes of it.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. This is not good that it went before the Court on a Friday, sets up a weekend decision and data dump while no one is watching.

    This is more orchestration.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Father Paul Lemmen says:

    Reblogged this on A Conservative Christian Man.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. rashomon says:

    I finally found this excellent article by Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute on the lawlessness of Obama’s immigration policies:


    Hopefully, U.S. District Judge Hanen will recognize the ramifications of allowing DHS to ignore its responsibility to enforce the law. Otherwise, we swiftly will become a third world nation hamstrung by the conflicts of multiple cultures and economic powers struggling for limited resources — the same characteristics of the very countries these illegals are so anxious to escape. Let them return home to improve their country of origin rather than pulling us down because of Obama’s narcissistic need to transform a country he obviously doesn’t understand nor respect.

    Liked by 1 person

    • 1american1st says:

      Judge Hanen already recognized it and issued an injunction. It is the Federal judges who will decide. Actually, there is nothing to decide. Obama is breaking the law by passing this Amnesty to 5 million 3rd world foreigners. He has no authority to make a law, especially one that breaks our laws.

      If the Fed judges side with Obama then they need to be removed from the bench. A judge who endorses breaking the law, especially on a scale this large, is not fit to be a judge.

      Liked by 2 people

      • rashomon says:

        Yes, you are right. I convoluted the statement about Judge Hanen, meaning to say that I hoped the Federal judges will recognize the ramifications….

        The impact of all these illegals is disrupting so many issues that impact the fabric of our country. Last week, the hundreds marching for an increase to a $15 minimum wage were mostly non-English speaking, at least in my area. The school classrooms suddenly have increased in size with many non-English speaking students; one school now has 29 different languages/dialects represented, which by itself impacts how well a teacher can deliver information to the students. Gang activity has picked up (and we’re barely into the warmer weather that invites such mayhem) as, while DHS has been hampered with all the women and children issues, plenty of male cartel members have entered the country.

        But then, I’m preaching to the choir.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. doodahdaze says:

    Obama…the criminals best friend. The democrat motto in 16…Crime, legalize it.


  11. Bob says:

    US is being invaded! No country can be invaded and survive unlimited 3rd world hords,
    Obama goals has always been destroy America! And Obama winning


  12. Centinel2012 says:

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:

    The CORE problem is that the Federal Government under Obama is now anti-American!


    • Sentient says:

      The problem is the people who voted for Obama. And don’t kid yourselves for a moment that they’re not poised to vote for Hillary. Don’t judge the mood of the country by your friends’ opinions. Conservatives are outnumbered by a combination of liberals and the self-interested. A presidential election can’t be won merely by increased turnout among conservatives. Some swing voters must be swung. I’m not saying another mushy moderate should be nominated, but a winning Republican candidate will have to appeal to people who had voted democrat in the past. Harping about Benghazi or screeching words like “patriot” and “liberty” won’t do that. Convinceable centrist voters don’t even understand what conservatives are so POd about, and venomous candidates aren’t generally appealing. “Where’s the outrage?” didn’t work for Dole in ’96 and it won’t work for Republicans in 2016.


      • rashomon says:

        Our country has not had secure elections since 1960 when the Democrats manipulated key electoral states for JFK. If you don’t think today’s voting machines can be hacked, I have a bridge to sell you. Plus, Obama’s former organizing of Motor/Voter laws has teamed driver’s licenses with voting privileges. Why else would he be so anxious to get licenses for illegals? It’s going to take some heavy-duty, boots-on-the-ground supervision of elections to overcome the damage already done.

        Liked by 1 person

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