Posted on 02/17/2015 2:47:13 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
US Federal Judge Andrew Hanen is of the US District Court in Brownsville, Texas and was appointed by George W. Bush, has issued an injunction against the President until the case has made it's way through court. Twenty-six states have filed this case stating that the President have over stepped his authority on immigration action. These are Republican held states. The injunction was just filed yesterday.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/255994877/Memorandum-Opinion-And-Order-Texas-v-United-States
Judge Hanen said in the ruling according to Huffington Post:
that the 26 states who brought the suit had standing to do so, and indicated he was sympathetic to their arguments.
In December, 2013
A federal judge in Texas is accusing the Department of Homeland Security of hand-delivering children smuggled into the United States to their illegal immigrant parents.
U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen revealed the practice in a blistering court order filed late last week. He said the "dangerous" practice is effectively aiding human traffickers and particularly the drug cartels, which run many of these operations.
"These actions are both dangerous and unconscionable," he wrote.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/19/judge-claims-dhs-parents-smuggle/
He not biased now is he?
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/01/14/3611263/lawsuit-challenging-obamas-immigration-policy-will-be-heard-by-worst-possible-judge-for-immigrants/
On Thursday, Judge Andrew Hanen, a George W. Bush appointee to a federal trial court in Texas, will hear a challenge brought by officials in two dozen states that object to President Obama’s recently announced immigration policy. Last month, however, Hanen handed down a strongly worded order claiming that the federal government engaged in a “dangerous course of action” because it allowed an undocumented mother to be united with her child without having criminal charges brought against her. Though it is theoretically possible to draw a narrow legal distinction between the arguments Hanen raised in his December order and the arguments against President Obama’s broader policy, the order leaves little doubt about how Hanen will decide the case currently pending before his court. The Obama Administration might as well attempt to defend its policy before Judge Ted Cruz.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-texas-judge-injunction-immigration-20150216-story.html
The injunction and an accompanying 123-page order issued by U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen in Brownsville bar federal immigration officials from implementing Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, or DAPA, and expanding Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.
Applications were to start for DAPA and DACA on Feburary 18,2015. That would of deferred 5 million people from being deported that are living in the United States with out documentation. These are people who are parents of children born in this country and children who were brought to this country by their parents.
Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott tweeted praise for the order late Monday, saying it “stops the president's overreach in its tracks.”
“We live in a nation governed by a system of checks and balances, and the president's attempt to bypass the will of the American people was successfully checked today,” Abbott wrote.
This action maybe popular with the far right Republicans but poling shows the President's Actions are popular with public opinion.
http://americasvoice.org/blog/snapshot-polling-public-opinion-immigration-executive-action-larger-debate/
Latino Decisions – 89%-10% support among Latino voters for executive action (Nov. 2014): According to Latino Decisions polling from late November (comprised entirely of registered Latino voter respondents rather than just Latino adults) 89% of Latinos (including 95% of Latino Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 76% of Republicans) support the president’s executive action on immigration.
http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm
Feb 4-8 2015 with a 3.6 + or - 1,015 adults nation wide.
58 % said this immigration policy would strengthen the country.
31 % said this immigration policy would burden the country.
7 % said neither/both.
4 % refused or was unsure.
The country widely wants immigration reform and is behind the President. Only the Republican base is against allowing this group of people to stay. Republicans are going to lose Latino voters over this for many decades.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/227328-poll-majority-want-congress-to-pass-immigration-reform
A majority of voters want Congress to focus on passing immigration reform, not reversing President Obama's executive action on immigration, according to a new poll.
The Beyond the Beltway Insights Initiative poll found 69 percent of voters favored Congress tackling legislation dealing with immigration — including 50 percent of Republicans. Democrats and independents widely favored a reform-focused approach.
This action may improve the prospect of a clean Homeland Security funding bill to be passed since this is now going to work it's way through the court system. It will probably be a long battle and could hurt the GOP in the 2016 election. Like ACA, the Republicans don't have any immigration reform bill to replace the executive action. Almost every President since Eisenhower has done executive orders on immigration. This is just an attempt to discredit President Obama and feed the base.
History is going to be hard on the Roberts Court because of Citizen United. Chef Justice Roberts may not want to take another hit on his legacy with stripping or limiting Executive Order Powers from the President's Office. This might be popular with the Republican base and the Koch bros. but too many moves like this going against precedence could label this court as an out of touch activist court for hundreds of years to come. Roberts may not want to be raked over the coals in law schools in the future.
To Hell with the polls!
Perhaps the “non-deportation” portion of the Obama edict could be argued, but the same executive order created a new class of employment, clearly not part of “prioritizing”, and this is the crux of the judge’s ruling.
So the executive has been trumped in a court of law, not by the legislative branch, but by the states. This is very important moving forward. It is only a temporary injunction, but the case moves forward, and meanwhile illegals are not accorded legal job status, only Congress should have the power to do this.
The political importance of this is that a judge did it, a court, instead of the Republicans in Congress.
Here is where we see how important it was to win the governorships and state houses in 2010 and 2014.
What a poorly written article. The information is comforting and we can all be glad the judge issued the injunction, but the writing is horrible. The first sentence is not a sentence.
Needs an editor, badly.
First time in a long time I woke up to a little good news.
That first sentence needed to have all the information crammed into it that would let the reader know this was a right wing, racist decision.
Well, leftists like the author are not very smart.
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.