Posted on 04/17/2015 2:57:56 PM PDT by 11th_VA
NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - Two conservative U.S. appeals court judges expressed skepticism on Friday over arguments to lift an injunction blocking President Barack Obama's efforts to overhaul immigration law without congressional action.
Administration lawyers were in court to ask a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel to lift the injunction, issued in February by a federal judge in Texas, halting the president's executive action intended to shield 4.7 million undocumented immigrants from deportation.
(Excerpt) Read more at mobile.reuters.com ...
This charade by Obama and his enables now displays their duplicity as to law. If a person is subject for some reason to legal prosecution and you tell me that there is no ‘benefit’ by giving relief I will tell you that such is what fools are schooled to argue. Any person(s) making such a presentation should not be allowed any government job except perhaps as a toilet cleaner.
Greatly appreciated. Thank you very much.
Rand Paul's immigration speech...The Republican Party must embrace more legal immigration.[Posted on 03/19/2013 7:04:07 AM PDT by Perdogg]
Unfortunately, like many of the major debates in Washington, immigration has become a stalemate-where both sides are imprisoned by their own rhetoric or attachment to sacred cows that prevent the possibility of a balanced solution.
Immigration Reform will not occur until Conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution. I am here today to begin that conversation.
Let's start that conversation by acknowledging we aren't going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants.
If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you...
This is where prudence, compassion and thrift all point us toward the same goal: bringing these workers out of the shadows and into being taxpaying members of society.
Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers.12 million more people assimilating into society. 12 million more people being productive contributors.
Rand Paul calls on conservatives to embrace immigration reformLatinos, should be a natural constituency for the party, Paul argued, but "Republicans have pushed them away with harsh rhetoric over immigration." ...he would create a bipartisan panel to determine how many visas should be granted for workers already in the United States and those who might follow... [and the buried lead] "Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers...[Posted on 04/21/2013 1:52:42 PM PDT by SoConPubbie]
[but he's not in favor of amnesty, snicker, definition of is is]
I’m happy to have been of assistance an end.
Thank you dear queer barney frank.
Maybe the Judge is thinking of following the existing legislation that is on the books.
Dotto that....and maybe Judge Hansen will have some further probing questions...followed up by appropriate sanctions...regarding the 500,000 social security number Obama had issued to illegals.
If what you say is true, then there are no valid Federal immigration laws and, therefore, all the illegal immigrants are legal immigrants - since most states don't have their own immigration laws.
Further, any state can make them citizens, then they could move to other states as citizens. (See Article IV, section 1 and 2)
I agree with your reasoning, not that it is your opinion. There are no valid federal immigration laws imo.
Simply put, the federal government has no powers other than those which the states delegate to the feds expressly via the Constitution. And although politically correct interpretations of the the Uniform Rule of Naturalization Clause (1.8.4) are used to argue the validity of federal immigrations, such arguments are in error imo.
More specfically, note that both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Madison generally regarded as the father of the Constitution, had written, in terms of the 10th Amendment nonetheless, that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate immigration, immigration therefore a state power issue.
As mentioned in related threads, here is the relevant excerpt from Jefferson’s writing.
“4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the — day of July, 1798, intituled “An Act concerning aliens,” which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force [emphasis added].” —Thomas Jefferson, Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions - October 1798.
And here is the related excerpt from the writings of James Madison in Virginia Resolutions.
"That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, ...Further, any state can make them citizens, then they could move to other states as citizens. (See Article IV, section 1 and 2)”…
… the General Assembly doth solemenly appeal to the like dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid, are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people [emphasis added]. ”— James Madison, Draft of the Virginia Resolutions - December 1798.
It is my understanding that when the Founding States drafted the Constitution there were problems with the states making people citizens, part of the problem being that different states unsurprisingly had different citizenship requirements. So when the Founding States drafted the Constitution they made the Uniform Rule of Naturalization Clause to deliberately let the feds call the shots with respect to who becomes a USA citizen.
I won’t go into detail, but the first unconstitutional federal immigration laws started appearing in the books after the Civil War as a consequence of PC interpretations of constitutional clauses other than the Uniform Rule of Naturalization Clause imo. And the 17th Amendment ultimately provided the corrupt feds with more opportunity to get away with making unconstitutional immigration laws.
Unconstitutional, vote-winning federal immigration laws is another reason that the 17th Amendment needs to disappear.
The sentence takes some parsing: "In a previous case concerning carbon emissions rules, states had standing. I will weigh that fact heavily here in considering whether Texas has standing in this immigration case."
The gist is yes, there are two skeptical judges and one Administration lackey on this panel.
Send Obama back to Kenya
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.