Posted on 05/13/2015 7:22:27 AM PDT by Elderberry
While Congress was unable to stop President Obama's executive actions on immigration, a series of court cases that are making their way through the system may be able to do just that. Currently, there are court cases dealing with a wide array of issues, including amnesty and work permits for millions of illegal aliens to programs that hurt both low and high-skill American workers.
The case furthest along is the lawsuit brought by 26 states on the harm and legality of President Obama's deferred action program that would grant amnesty and work permits to approximately 5 million illegal aliens. In February, Judge Hanen issued a preliminary injunction halting the implementation of the DAPA program and the expansion and renewal of the DACA program. The Obama administration is seeking a stay of the injunction from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The court heard oral arguments on April 17.
A lesser know portion of President Obama's executive actions announced last November is an expansion of the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program. The program allows foreign graduates of U.S. colleges to work for a year, or 29 months for science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) degrees, in their field of study. Although the details of the expansion have not been announced, a federal judge in Washington, D.C. has found that the Washington Alliance of Technology Workers, a union that represents STEM workers, has standing to sue over the 29-month OPT extension. The standing was granted on the claim that U.S.-born STEM workers faced increased job competition from foreign workers on OPT.
The most recent lawsuit was filed last week by Save Jobs USA on behalf of former employees of Southern California Edison (SCE). The suit challenges a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) final rule that would provide work permits (H-4 visas) to the spouses of H-1B visa holders. As have the workers in the OPT case, the ex-SCE employees are arguing that the rule, effective May 26, will create additional competition for computer-related jobs, not only by providing an incentive for more H-1B workers to remain in the U.S., but also by adding hundreds of thousands of H-4 visa holders to the labor market, many of whom are highly skilled themselves.
While not a part of President Obama's executive actions, the administration also is facing challenges to regulations governing the H-2B low-skilled, nonagricultural guest-worker program. A federal judge in Florida placed a permanent injunction on the 2008 H-2B regulations in March after enjoining the Department of Labor's 2012 regulations in December. The two injunctions caused a complete shutdown of the H-2B program until the judge issued a temporary stay of the March injunction.
The Department of Labor is also facing a lawsuit based on a recently issued proposed rule governing wages and other requirements for H-2A agricultural guest-workers involved in open range production of livestock. The lawsuit was brought by U.S.-born workers who claimed that previous DOL guidance was negatively affecting their ability to find jobs.
I fail to see how any of this will stop it.
Obama ignored a court injunction and gave SS numbers and work permits to 100,000 illegal Mexicans AFTER the injunction went into effect. And admitted it.
So I have to ask, what difference does a court ruling make?
While Congress was unable unwilling to stop President Obama's executive actions on immigration...
Fixed it.
Sounds like Odumbass is striving to destroy the private employment sector in science, technology, computers - information technology and even agriculture with guest worker visas. All planned to destroy the will of the American People. All outlined in saul Alinsky’s book. Yet the country wants Hillary another student of Alinsky who devoted his book to Lucifer!
That certainly is an accurate correction.
There just aren’t enough bullets sometimes...
/johnny
“undo”?
Fine... how can the authorities then find the tens of thousands of people who came here and basically ‘disappeared’ into the country, without any sort of documentation?
“undo”? Really?
Which is not going to happen.
Ditto, here. He is already ignoring the Hobby Lobby decision and ordering all insurance companies to violate the beliefs of their customers.
Then WE'LL need to do it.
unfortunately, you are correct
NOT “unable”.
The correct terminology is UNWILLING to stop..........
100,000 is far less than 5 million or 11 million or more.
Secondly, Judge Hanen is going to come down like a ton of bricks on the DOJ Attorneys that lied to him.
So the short answer is Obama will have no one to carry out his orders because the courts are going to jail them, that’s why.
Obama can get away with a little for a little time, then his game is up. Because he needs pawns, rooks, bishops and knights to carry out his plan. When those pieces are taken, Obama loses.
The game is still in the beginning setup. Soon the Judge will unleash his fury. Stay tuned.
Yes, sir. Blatant Lies to a Federal Judge is not smart at all. They will try to play hide the puck, but I don’t think that will work either. And just following orders is a proven failure as a defence.
Exposure of real crimes is the first step in this battle.
Announce a march on DC or some congressman’s office to show support to all those “living in the shadows”, and good many will come out of the shadows long enough to scream for their “right” to more gibmes on the citizen’s dime. Round them up, deport.
So Obama pardons them all, and puts them right back to work.
Checkmate.
What is missing in the argument is a fundamental legal and constitutional concept that I have yet to see articulated...equal treatment under the law. Proximity to our borders should in no way have an impact on who we allow to legally become citizens.
Our immigration policies are Mexi-centric (or perhaps Lat Am-centric) and it provides members of those ethnic groups to get special treatment under our immigration laws, even when millions of others world-wide are seeking refuge here.
The argument is, of course, skewed by the perceived benefit of favorable voting patterns that Democrats anticipate at the polls, which makes it even more egregious.
What is missing in the argument is a fundamental legal and constitutional concept that I have yet to see articulated...equal treatment under the law. Proximity to our borders should in no way have an impact on who we allow to legally become citizens.
Our immigration policies are Mexi-centric (or perhaps Lat Am-centric) and it provides members of those ethnic groups to get special treatment under our immigration laws, even when millions of others world-wide are seeking refuge here.
The argument is, of course, skewed by the perceived benefit of favorable voting patterns that Democrats anticipate at the polls, which makes it even more egregious.
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.