Judge Andrew Hanen stops Obama’s march towards amnesty COLD.
Quarterback Barack Obama has been marching down the field towards the goal (amnesty). He’s been having his way with his opponent (Congress) and beating them with play-action, fakes, and misdirection. They are playing soft and lack aggression. Congress looks like a JV team.
They’re getting pushed around, blocked out of plays and missing tackles. Obama has the momentum and Congress’ defense just can’t stop him. It seems that every play he runs surprises them and he makes big gains.
Obama fakes a run up the middle (his EO’s in Las Vegas), but sends Fullback Jeh Johnson on an end run (his DHS memoranda describing prosecutorial discretion). Another fake, more misdirection; but this time it doesn’t work.
This time Johnson gets stuffed by the linebacker (Judge Andrew Hanen). Johnson is stopped cold for no gain and Hanen strips the ball. The drive is stopped and the ball goes over to Congress.
But wait! Coach Holder throws the red flag. Obama’s team is challenging the fumble. We’ll have to wait and see how the Replay Booth (the Fifth Circuit) rules.
Isn’t that about the way the “game” has been going?
But on February 16th, a new hero stepped up; an MVP candidate who has singlehandedly stopped the Obama Express in its tracks.
Judge Hanen not only called out the illogical, unfair, and downright unconstitutional aspects of Jeh Johnson’s covert memorandum, he cut it to ribbons. One headline described him as eviscerating the document – that’s an extremely apt description. Following are the “best” lines from his injunction halting Obama’s executive amnesty.
BTW, they’re taken from an article in PJ Media by Hans. A. Von Spakovsky. It was published on February 19, 2015. Read the entire article HERE.
This is a long read, but be assured that it is well worth your while to read it – Judge Hanen hits so many of the points that we conservatives have been saying for years – he gets it! Bold emphasis is mine.
Hanen notes that “illegal alien” is “the term used by the Supreme Court in its latest pronouncement pertaining to this area of the law.” So the next time someone tells you that’s an offensive term, tell them that is the accurate legal term according to the U.S. Supreme Court. So, we are right to use the term and the administration is wrong to suppress its use.
On the president’s right to “defer action” on removing millions of illegal aliens, Hanen notes: “deferred action is not a status created or authorized by law or by Congress, nor has its properties been described in any relevant legislative act.” In other words, it’s an illegal act.
“There can be no doubt that the failure of the federal government to secure the borders is costing the states — even those not immediately on the border — millions of dollars in damages each year … [and] the federal government has effectively denied the states any means to protect themselves from these effects.” The states have been saying this for years – and Obama has been ignoring it.
On the president’s policies encouraging increased illegal immigration: “The Government’s failure to secure the border has exacerbated illegal immigration into this country” and “Unquestionably, some immigrants are encouraged to come to the United States illegally based upon the information they receive about DACA and DAPA. Reports of lax border security, minimal detention periods following apprehension, and the ease of missing immigration hearings may also encourage many to immigrate to this country illegally.” Again, we’ve been screaming about this for years, it’s about time that someone recognized it.
“The States assert that the Government has abandoned its duty to enforce the law. This assertion cannot be disputed … It is not necessary to search for or imply the abandonment of a duty; rather, the Government has announced its abdication … 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.” Kudos to the Judge for exposing this unconstitutional action by the Obama administration – the president is supposed to ENFORCE the law, not ignore it.
On the government’s claim that it does not have the resources to enforce immigration laws: “if one accepts the Government’s position, then a lack of resources would be an acceptable reason to cease enforcing environmental laws, or the Voting Rights Act, or even the various laws that protect civil rights and equal opportunity.” Hallelujah! That’s another gotcha!
“Congress has clearly stated that illegal aliens should be removed … the DHS program clearly circumvents immigration laws and allows individuals that would otherwise be subject to removal to remain in the United States … DHS does not seek compliance with federal law in any form, but instead establishes a pathway for non-compliance and completely abandons entire sections of this country’s immigration law.” This clearly identifies Obama’s position: I don’t need no stinkin’ immigration law.
“The Government must concede that there is no specific law or statute that authorizes DAPA. In fact, the President announced it was the failure of Congress to pass such a law that prompted him (through his delegate, Secretary Johnson) to ‘change the law.’” No authorization? Obama acting without constitutional authority? Say it ain’t so.
DHS cannot “enact a program whereby it not only ignores the dictates of Congress, but actively acts to thwart them … The DHS Secretary is not just rewriting the laws; he is creating them from scratch.” And he can’t do that. Period.
On the government’s claim that the federal court has no right to review the legality of the DAPA program: “As there is no statute that authorized the DHS to implement the DAPA program, there is certainly no statute that precludes judicial review.” You can’t have one without the other, dumbass.
In dismissing the administration’s oft-heard claim that its immigration policy is within its power of prosecutorial discretion: “Instead of merely refusing to enforce the [Immigration and Nationality Act]’s removal laws against an individual, the DHS has enacted a wide-reaching program that awards legal presence, to individuals Congress has deemed deportable or removable, as well as the ability to obtain Social Security numbers, work authorization permits, and the ability to travel. Absent DAPA, these individuals would not receive these benefits. The DHS has not instructed its officers to merely refrain from arresting, ordering the removal of, or prosecuting unlawfully-present aliens … Exercising prosecutorial discretion and/or refusing to enforce a statute does not also entail bestowing benefits. Non-enforcement is just that — not enforcing the law.” That term “eviscerating” is beginning to sound more and more appropriate.
The Administration’s non-enforcement policy is near absolute. As Hanen points out, the administration has said that, even in the unlikely event that an illegal alien is rejected for the DAPA program, they “will not be referred to ICE for purposes of removal.” In other words, even “if you do not qualify, you still get to stay.” That means that acceptance into the DAPA program is nothing more than a formality, every illegal alien will get the benefits regardless of qualifications – in other words, amnesty for all.
Contrary to the administration’s false claim that immigration agents will retain the discretion to deny benefits to illegal aliens under the DAPA program, “with the criteria set, from the President down to the individual USCIS employees actually processing the applications, discretion is virtually extinguished.” Obama set the criteria so that illegals can’t be denied benefits – what a surprise.
The states “allege that legalizing the presence of millions of people is a ‘virtually irreversible’ action once taken. The Court agrees.” Hanen added, “This genie would be impossible to put back into the bottle” — something the administration appears to view as a benefit rather than a drawback. It’s apparent that the Judge sees through the Obama smokescreen and recognizes the agenda espoused by Obama and his minions. Come one, come all – the door to the country (and the taxpayer’s wallets) is wide open.
And finally, according to Judge Hanen, the public interest “that weighs the heaviest [in this controversy] is ensuring that actions of the Executive Branch (and within it, the DHS — one of the nation’s most important law enforcement agencies) comply with this country’s laws and its Constitution.” President Obama’s actions show little concern for that interest. That’s a polite way to recognize Obama’s philosophy, “screw the Constitution, full steam ahead.”
What Will Rogers once said about Congress can now be applied to the administration’s behavior: with this White House, every time it makes a joke, it’s a law, and every time it makes a law, it’s a joke.
But it’s not over. We still have the Fifth Circuit to rule (or refuse to take the case) and the same is true of the Supreme Court. Admittedly, I thought to myself that Obama will somehow pull a rabbit out of his hat and prevail on this, but on Megyn Kelly’s show the other night, Judge Napolitano said that Judge Hanen’s ruling was UNLIKELY to be overturned by the Fifth Circuit because it was so well reasoned and on solid legal ground. Now that gives us hope that finally, someone is putting a stop to Obama’s lawlessness and holding him to account.
If you’re interested in reading the initial suit as well as Judge Hanen’s ruling (a total of 123 pages), it’s all available in .pdf HERE.