Obama’s Amnesty DOA at Supreme Court | June 2016

Deadlocked Supreme Court Deals Critical Blow to Obama’s Illegal Amnesty

– the Hill

obo23

A divided Court affirmed a nation-wide injunction on President Barack Obama’s 2014 deferred-action policy

“The Supreme Court dealt a critical blow to President Obama’s immigration policies on Thursday, deadlocking in a 4-4 decision over two controversial programs the White House wants to implement.

The tied vote leaves in place a lower court ruling that blocks a program allowing undocumented immigrants who are parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents to remain in the United States for three years and apply for work permits.

It also prevents the administration from otherwise expanding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program issued by Obama in 2012.

This is the most prominent Supreme Court case to stall in a 4-4 tie, and it raises the stakes further in this fall’s presidential election.

After Justice Antonin Scalia died in February, Obama nominated federal Judge Merrick Garland to the court.

But Senate Republicans, even before that nomination, said they would not hold a vote or a hearing for anyone nominated by Obama, arguing the pivotal vote on the high court should be determined by the next president.

The White House and Democrats in Congress have howled in rage over that move, and Thursday’s decision will increase tensions over the Senate blockade.

Obama in an appearance from the White House press briefing room decried what he called the “lack” of a decision by the eight-justice court.

“The fact the Supreme Court wasn’t able to issue a decision today doesn’t just set the system back even further, it takes us further back from the country we want to be,” he said.

 

Democratic Party standard-bearer Hillary Clinton has backed the president’s actions and said she would go even further as president to reshape immigration policy.

“Today’s deadlocked decision from the Supreme Court is unacceptable, and shows us all just how high the stakes are in this election,” she said in a statement.

Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump has pledged to place tough new restrictions on illegal immigration, including the construction of a massive wall along the U.S.’s southern border that he says Mexico will pay for.

Republicans hailed the high court’s vote.

“The Supreme Court’s ruling makes the president’s executive action on immigration null and void,” Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said in a statement. “The Constitution is clear: The president is not permitted to write laws — only Congress is. This is another major victory in our fight to restore the separation of powers.”

Thursday’s action does not affect the original DACA decision by Obama that allows certain children who entered or stayed in the United States illegally to remain in the country and apply for work permits.

Twenty-six Republican-led states sued the federal government over the expansion of that program, as well as the new program for parents, after the president issued fresh executive actions in November 2014.

The states claimed they would be burdened by having to spend more on public services like healthcare, law enforcement and education if undocumented parents of both American citizens and legal permanent residents were allowed to stay in the country.

Texas, specifically, said it would be hurt by having to issue more driver’s licenses, a benefit that’s now subsidized.”

…Continue reading @ the Hill

 

 

Obama: SCOTUS Ruling Doesn’t Change My ‘Priorities’ — I’m Still Not Deporting Most Illegals

– Daily Caller

obo1

President defies Supreme Court

Speaking shortly after the Supreme Court’s immigration decision, President Obama made it “very clear” that deporting illegal immigrants is not a priority of his administration.

On Thursday morning, Supreme Court upheld an injunction on Obama’s 2014 Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents policy by a 4-4 split vote.

The executive order would have granted work permits and legal status to millions of illegal immigrants living in the United States.

“What was unaffected by today’s ruling, or lack of a ruling, is the enforcement priorities that we’ve put in place,” the president stated. “Our enforcement priorities have been laid out by Secretary Jeh Johnson and the Department of Homeland Security are pretty clear.”

– From the comment section: “People are basically fed up with all the romanticizing of people coming into the country illegally and going to the front of the line. When you have a government at any level that rigidly enforces every nuance of the law on its citizens, but willingly and openly bends those laws to accommodate illegal aliens, all that it does is breed cynicism toward the government and resentment of the illegal aliens who get preferred treatment.
….Continue reading @ Daily Caller

Supreme Court Decision Agrees with Constitutional Scholar Obama

– Youtube

– Apparently, 2008 presidential candidate Obama agrees with 2016 Supreme Court decision.

 

From Nov 2015:

 

Fifth Circuit Rules President Obama Violated Constitution On Unilateral Immigration Changes

– JonathanTurley.org

jt11

“A federal appeals court said President Obama’s own words claiming powers to “change the law” were part of the reason it struck down his deportation amnesty, in a ruling late Monday that reaffirmed the president must carry out laws and doesn’t have blanket powers to waive them.

US-CourtOfAppeals-5thCircuit-SealThe United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled that President Barack Obama violated the Constitution in order unilateral changes to immigration laws in the latest such ruling against executive overreach by the President. The President’s own words were used by the panel to rule that he intended to unilaterally change the law.

Some 26 states sued to stop the amnesty as violative of the Immigration and Nationality Act. President Obama ordered Deferred Action for Parental Arrivals, or DAPA, to grant up to 5 million illegal immigrants a proactive three-year stay of deportation and to give them work permits. To qualify, illegal immigrants had to be parents of U.S. citizens or legal permanent resident children.

Smith added that the Justice Department seemed to stumble over the remarks: “At oral argument, and despite being given several opportunities, the attorney for the United States was unable to reconcile that remark with the position that the government now takes.”

Deferred action, however, is much more than nonenforcement: It would affirmatively confer “lawful presence” and associated benefits on a class of
unlawfully present aliens. Though revocable, that change in designation would trigger (as we have already explained) eligibility for federal benefits—for example, under title II and XVIII of the Social Security Act99—and state benefits—for example, driver’s licenses and unemployment insurance—that would not otherwise be available to illegal aliens.

I testified (here and here and here) and wrote a column on President Obama’s increasing circumvention of Congress in negating or suspending U.S. laws. I ran another column listing such incidents of executive over-reach. My prior testimony has discussed unilateral actions in the immigration field that do raise separation issues.

Major changes in these areas should not be the result of unilateral action in my view. The Madisonian system is designed to allow different constituencies to come to bear in the bicameral system to take factional disputes and convert them into majoritarian compromises. The result has greater legitimacy as the result of the legislative process and often constitutes a better process after being put through the difficult drafting and amendment process. During times of division, less may get done. Both sides must either compromise or seek to change the balance of power in the next election. If the country and Congress is too divided to reach a compromise, unilateral action will only deepen the questions of legitimacy and over-reach.”

…Continue reading more @ JonathanTurley.org

Here is the opinion: Texas v. United States