Posted on 07/31/2014 9:02:43 PM PDT by Steelfish
July 31, 2014 If Obama Tries to Grant Legal Status to Illegal Immigrants, the States Should Say 'I'll See You In Court'
By Allan J. Favish
It has been reported that President Barack Obama is planning to unilaterally attempt to grant legal status to illegal immigrants. There is no legal authority for him to do so. It has been reported that it may not be possible to stop Obama’s action with a lawsuit because nobody would have standing to bring the lawsuit.
Legal experts see any challenge to the expected immigration policy changes headed for the same key roadblock facing House Speaker John Boehner’s planned suit over Obamacare implementation delays: finding a way to show the injury needed to press a case in the federal courts. (snip)
While broad immigration moves clearly have beneficiaries, it’s hard to find a person or entity harmed enough by under-enforcement to have the standing to pursue a case in court.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Stacking the deck with DemocRAT voters is something only a fascist dictator would do.
People couldn't sue for obama’s birth certificate, college records, or health records because nobody had standing.
No one could sue to overturn obamacare for lack of standing.
And now dumping illegals cannot be challenged in court because states and its people have no standing.
Never in my wildest dreams would I think this would happen in the United States.
I believe the framers foresaw it... hence the wisdom of 2A.
It’s a constitutional doctrine. No one is allowed to file amorphous grievances in federal courts. It must be a very concrete harm actually suffered by the plaintiff and as a result of an unconstitutional law. This article states that state governments may take a case directly to the US Supreme Court as against the Federal Government. The point made in the article is quite persuasive. Worth a full read.
CW II. Or maybe ARW II.
this could work. Cleaner than impeachment, can't blame a political party since it's the entire state doing the suing, and it goes straight to the Supremes instead of through lower courts. I like it.
I wonder if America will be standing much longer?
Agree. Texas and Arizona can join suit.
It just means that you. like the most of the frogs, haven't been paying attention for the last 50 years.
Since 1904, many prominent Americans have laid out, in great detail, the dangerous path leading to this final spiral into the (now irrevocable) endless tyranny.
Never was the anecdotal term "frogs in a pot" more applicable...
In fact, it is quite the contrary.
It sometimes does seem all this is utterly irreversible.
It is reversible but not, I think; through polite measures.
Vraiment
Thanks for posting this.
We also need to factor in solid facts WRT communities devastated by onerous education, welfare, healthcare costs, and so on---costs borne by taxpayers.
Taken in its entirety, parking illegals in communities undermines interstate commerce ---b/c communities are expected to provide limitless govt handouts to non-citizens (triggers the Hobbs Act).
=================================================
REFERENCE SOURCE justice.gov---Criminal Resource Manual ---Section 9-131.000---THE HOBBS ACT—18 U.S.C. § 1951
The Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C. § 1951) prohibits actual or attempted robbery or extortion affecting interstate or foreign commerce. Section 1951 also proscribes conspiracy to commit robbery or extortion without reference to the conspiracy statute at 18 U.S.C. § 371. Although the Hobbs Act was enacted as a statute to combat racketeering in labor-management disputes, the statute is frequently used in connection with cases involving public corruption, commercial disputes, and corruption directed at members of labor unions (has been recently utilized against corrupt elected officials).
Primary investigative jurisdiction of offenses in 18 U.S.C. § 1951 lies with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Inspector General's Office of Investigations, Division of Labor Racketeering (formerly the Office of Labor Racketeering), United States Department of Labor, is also authorized to investigate violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 in labor-management disputes involving the extortion of property from employers by reason of authority conferred on investigators as Special Deputy United States Marshals.--snip--
=================================================
Migrant crimes most probably include (1) falsifying official documents, (2) giving false info to US authorities, (3) stealing SS nos, (4) faking multiple identities, (5) receiving govt monies under false pretenses, (6)falsifying tax returns to get EITC refunds, (7) money-laundering via remittanced to homelands, (8) colluding w/ criminal drug cartels to violate US borders...perhaps aiding and abetting by carrying drugs into the US.
This triggers RICO laws b/c it involves patterns of criminal behavior. NOTE: Anyone can file a RICO. Lots of how-to's on the web.
Migrants are committing numerous crimes including: (1) falsifying official documents, (2) giving false info to US authorities, (3) stealing SS nos, (4) faking multiple identities, (5) receiving govt monies under false pretenses, (6)falsifying tax returns to get EITC refunds, (7) money-laundering via remittanced to homelands, (8) colluding w/ criminal drug cartels to violate US borders, (9) carrying drugs into the US....and so on.
Would be easy to get the sue-happy migrants to file suit against Obama---claiming Obama's unleashing DACA was "entrapment"---causing them to commit crimes.
“Stacking the deck with DemocRAT voters is something only a fascist dictator would do.”.......
A “dictator” no longer “needs” votes.
When the hoards of illegals land here permanently, they just might find fewer and fewer jobs and more “takers” than tax payers can/will support. Might be cause for them to turn back to their homelands.....(I dream).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.