Posted on 12/08/2014 7:56:32 PM PST by SeekAndFind
AUSTIN, Texas -- Three more states have joined a Texas-led multistate coalition suing over the Obama administration’s recently announced executive actions on immigration.
The addition of Arizona, Florida and Ohio brings to 20 the number of states fighting the order in a federal district court in Brownsville.
Many top Republicans have denounced the president’s unilateral move designed to spare as many as 5 million people living illegally in the United States from deportation.
But Texas Gov.-elect Greg Abbott took it a step further with filing a lawsuit in federal court in the Southern District of Texas.
Most of the 20 states participating in the lawsuit are in the South and Midwest, but Abbott argues that Texas could be uniquely hurt by the executive orders because of its large border.
Announced Nov. 20, Obama's order extends protection from deportation and the right to work to an estimated 4.1 million parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents who have lived in the country for at least five years and to hundreds of thousands more young people.
(Excerpt) Read more at latino.foxnews.com ...
Well, what’s going to happen to these suits in light of the fact that there is no actual order?
No standing?
One has to be damaged before one can sue, and how can one be damaged by someting that does not actually exist?
Amazing that no one ever seems to have standing to sue on any Obama made-up laws. Quite a loophole.
The standing here is zero has mitigated a new swarm over our TX border, something our ICE budgets cannot address.
zero sent the clarion call to central america last summer and they’re still streaming in. He went on Univision to encourage the new stream.
TX Border Patrol budgets can’t handle it.
Zer0 and the rats that supported this should have to pay for all of it and be accomplices to future crimes.
While there is no Executive Order, there is still an identifiable policy that has been formally adopted and justified on the basis of "prosecutorial discretion".
The case will hinge on whether "prosecutorial discretion" can be used to justify a broad policy of non-deportation of millions of illegals or whether it's applicability is limited to selected case-by-case decisions.
In other words, is the President violating his oath to "faithfully execute the laws" or is he justified in applying "discretion"?
Well, the thing is that he never actually signed any executive order.
He gave that speech, said he was going to do it, then never did it.
So I’m not sure how you can sue someone for something that they never did.
He’s clearly not enforcing laws, but courts have already decidied that he has that descretion, and they have further decided that states cannot enforce them on their own.
So there is no legal action there, and since he has not actually issued an executive order, he isn’t damaging anyone by way of executive order, so I don’t see how these suits can go anywhere other than tossed out.
It seems to me, but perhaps I am wrong, that courts have already decided that he can enforce whtever law he wants and however he wants to enofrce them.
Because he has clearly not been faithfully executing laws, and he has never been held accountable for that, in fact in a number of instances, he has been changing laws at will, which he clearly has no authority to do, and he hasn’t been held acocuntable for that either by either a court or by the people who allegedly write those laws.
I agree, based on the asinine decisions earlier RE: the AZ law. There’s a set of laws, the executive branch does not enforce. The states try to enforce existing law and get their hand slapped.
The executive branch now decides to ignore even more laws, and as you said, one would assume they would still decide to allow the executive brand to ignore law. The courts are seriously messed up, giving presidents dictatorial authority.
Obama is doing his version of the crime of “inciting a riot”.
“So I’m not sure how you can sue someone for something that they never did.”
Wait until they print up and start handing out the Green Cards. My bet is that that will be “doing something.” These are specific illegal acts irrespective of the existence of some signed EO.
Be nice if the RINO’s did not control the Repub Party since the RINO’s running it, are also backing Amnesty...and the RINO’s are obviously bought/blackmailed/etc off since even a dumb person can figure out that creating many millions of new FSArmy people, will vote Dem and cause the Repubs to never be in the majority again.
The Repub Leadership are working, despite many urgings to not do so, for the Dems.
Traitors.
In the earlier Arizona case there was a federal law that specifically denies the states the authority to enforce immigration laws without the approval of the Feds.
There is no law authorizing what Obama is doing now.
It is based on a concept- prosecutorial discretion- which may, or may not, be supported by a court.
Alaska, where are you!
But see that’s the thing, he hasn’t actually done anything.
he said he was going to issue an order, but he didn’t.
So as far as I know, he is simply still not enforcing existin glaw, which has already been upheld as far as I know.
Just as with constitutionally indefensble Obamacare, even if Obama was to do things the right way by establishing his immigration policies within the framework of the Constitution, he still doesn’t have the required support of the Article V 3/4 state supermajority to do so.
Exactly.
There will be some Executive Action written or oral directive that will set in motion the executive branch "doing something" unconstitutional.
That's what happened with Obama's 24 ACA changes. There were no EO's for that. There won't be any EO's for Amnesty.
I don’t think the president was listed as a defendant in the lawsuit. I think it was against the implementing agents and departments that have actually taken action.
He directed the agency that enforces immigration law to change it’s procedures.
That lawless change is what’s being challenged, not an ‘order’.
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.