Gutsy federal judge whacks Obama Threatens to overturn 'amnesty' policy for young illegal aliens

A federal judge has a message for President Obama: Stop bypassing Congress on immigration.

Obama issued a directive in June 2012 halting the deportation of many young illegal aliens after Congress refused to pass the DREAM Act, which would have provided conditional permanent residency to young illegals.

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor said Tuesday that he will likely rule in favor of a lawsuit seeking to overturn the new policy. He has asked both sides to file additional arguments by May 6.

The ICE agent union challenged the policy, arguing that the Obama administration is disciplining agents who enforce federal immigration law.

The president of that union, the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council, also said the policy is being abused.

He told the court, “It is now the story in the jails for aliens to use to avoid arrest and deportation.”

Those aliens appear to be taking advantage of the policy with great success. National Review found, “Since the policy took effect in August 2012, the Obama administration has approved 268,361 applications for ‘deferred action’ status, and denied just 1,377 – an approval rate of 99.5 percent.”

Judge O’Connor indicated it’s also illegal for the Obama administration to tell immigration agents not to arrest an illegal alien who is a low priority.

“The court finds that DHS (Department of Homeland Security) does not have discretion to refuse to initiate removal proceedings,” Judge O’Connor wrote.

O’Connor issued a court order stating that Congress, not the president, sets priorities for arresting illegal aliens and that the law requires them to face deportation.

I think Obama will ignore the judge also.

A good analysis by Numbersusa.com this morning:

The Senate Judiciary Committee held two hearings earlier this week in advance of marking up the Gang of Eight’s comprehensive amnesty bill. The first was a nearly 8-hour long marathon with a parade of witnesses from Big Business to Big Labor to Special Interest groups with just a few witnesses sprinkled in to testify about the need for more interior enforcement, better border security, and the huge fiscal drain that an amnesty would have on the nation’s future.

The following day, the Committee brought in DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano.

Here’s what we learned. . .

NUMBER ONE

Every part of the bill was written as though America is facing a severe labor shortage crisis. Monday’s hearing featured one industry spokesperson after another who testified that Americans from high-school drop outs to the laid off engineer were either too lazy or too uneducated to fill U.S. labor needs at the wages being offered. The only guarantees in the bill concern large increases in the pool of available foreign workers, including millions of illegal workers who receive amnesty.

NUMBER TWO

The legalization comes first. There are no hard enforcement triggers for the initial amnesty (legalization + work permits). Chris Crane, ICE Officer and President of the National ICE Council testified to that on Monday. No one disputed that point and it has been reported in the press.

NUMBER THREE

Sen. Schumer and company called Sen. Rubio’s bluff: Back in January, Rubio promised, “If, in fact, this bill does not have real triggers in there...if there is not language in this bill that guarantees that nothing else will happen unless these enforcement mechanisms are in place, I won’t support it.”

Since the bill has been available to read, Rubio has issued repeated statements that are contradicted by his own legislation and by Schumer.

NUMBER FOUR

No one seems capable of explaining what will happen to future illegal aliens if the bill passes (see Roy’s blog).

The bill excludes post-December 31, 2011 illegal aliens. What happens to them? The bill also calls for expanded guest worker programs. What happens to the guest workers who don’t go home when their work visa expires?

Will the administration ramp up interior enforcement to detect and remove illegal aliens not covered by the bill? Or will the administration adopt the “attrition through enforcement” approach both the White House and Gang of Eight have decried? Or will the bill preserve the status quo immigration enforcement that gives “prosecutorial discretion” to non-violent aliens unlawfully residing and working in the country, thus building up a new illegal population to be amnestied at a later date? The bill doesn’t say. The bill’s authors won’t say.

“A government run by the courts seems like a good idea now, but when the shoe is on the other foot it could be a problem.”

Not the case, oldbrowser. The judge is within his right. He is standing by the law.

That being said...
At first I wanted to say, YAAAAAYYYY!!!

But Obama will turn into Andrew Jackson on this one. He’ll tell that judge if he wants it enforced, then do it, ‘cause he isn’t going to.

Precedent, don’t ya know.

And this isn’t even a supreme court judge.

And there’s not much the judge can or will do about it.

Elections matter. (And I mean the PRIMARY before the media/GOPe get us boneheads like McCain, Romney.....)

This isn't a case of a court inventing law ~ Congress already passed the law. It's out there.

The creativeness of the suit is simply breath-taking. The Obama regime is punishing officers for properly administering the law. Can't be expressed more simply than that.

You'd win a civil service appeal with that one ~ iron-clad ~ gets to the very basis of having a civil service law.

It's noteworthy that the Obamistas and many of their critics imagine that federal employees will follow the dictates of an Executive Order blindly. That is utter nonsense. Federal workers strive first and foremost for their retirement and any benefits that flow from it ~ it's a prime motivator ~ and that means getting along with the various regimes over decades. Obama is a flash in the pan. He's not going to be around long enough to benefit federal retirement plans ~ so, in a sense, whatever he's up to doesn't count inside the government ~ just out there with the 'newsies' and politicians.

The federal government employees want to obey the law and they will drag you through the courts for the rest of your life to make you want to agree with them.

Jus' the way it is!

The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security is responsible under law for administering the immigration laws and while she is appointed by the President and serves at his pleasure, she is the responsible party being sued in this case. While the court has no mechanism to force her to enforce the law, it can hold that she has no authority to take the specified action and can issue an injunction ordering her cease doing so. While a cabinet secretary has immunity from civil suit while acting in their official capacity, and can only be removed by the President or by Congress through impeachment, if she is found to be acting outside her legal authority, she would likely not have civil immunity for the consequences of that illegal activity.

As an example, if the court issues an injunction against her releasing criminal aliens and she ignores that injunction and deliberately releases them anyway, does she incur personal liability for damages done by the released alien. If someone she releases in deliberate violation of a court order commits murder or rape, does the victim of that crime have civil recourse against the Secretary in a personal capacity. I would think the victim would clearly have standing to file a lawsuit and the Secretary would be on her own in mounting a defense and paying any resulting judgment.

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.