Who said it has to be perfect?
Posted on 02/23/2015 11:12:25 AM PST by gwjack
The U.S. government asked a federal judge Monday to lift a temporary hold on President Obama’s executive action to protect millions of immigrants from deportation, Fox News has confirmed.
Justice Department lawyers requested a “stay” to delay a federal judge’s decision to block Obama’s immigration order, which legally allows 5 million immigrants to stay in the countRy.
More at link. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Yeah, that is exactly the reason, plus they want to make sure the terrorists streaming in over the border get their tax refunds.
Deadline to pass legislation on DHS funding is Friday, Feb 27. Das Furher probably wants to slide something under the doormat seconds before the clock runs out.
So while our border is flooded with illegals being let in, the state of Washington is threatening a woman who won’t bake a cake for a gay couple.
A sucker deal favored by Rove and the GOPe. It gives the GOPe an out postponing any confrontation with the regime and losing any real leverage. Another court or higher one could overrule this decision and we are back to a worse position than before.
I suspect Hanen will not rule for a year or so.
Why would they fund illegal activity? This is good reason not to fund that amount dedicated to illegal amnesty of illegal aliens.
Actually this is interesting. With the DHS funding bill coming up, there is no reason to fund amnesty if it is being held up in the courts. They should just do a clean DHS bill and after this runs through the courts they can look at it again.
A truly “clean” bill would not include funding for a program already found by a court to be illegal.
“He and the DHS have the right to decide weather to deport individuals.”
________
This is Obama’s very argument. Others believe he has an obligation to deport per the law...
The other asked ‘what was the rush’, and elections is the reason why they want these programs rolling now and in May. Hence why the feds are fighting this in court, rather than going ‘gosh, guess we should wait for the case to be over with.’
Great, on a Friday while no one is paying attention.
Well, at least one U. S. Citizen gets it...
And that’s the problem. Very few do.
People have other concerns with their daily lives. They aren’t tuned in and this is going to bite them on the ass hard one day.
“The DHS was not given any ‘discretion by law’ to give 4.3 million removable aliens what the DHS itself labels as ‘legal presence,’” Judge Hanen wrote. “In fact, the law mandates that these illegally-present individuals be removed. The DHS has adopted a new rule that substantially changes both the status and employability of millions. These changes go beyond mere enforcement or even non-enforcement of this nation’s immigration scheme.”
“The court finds that the government’s failure to secure the border has exacerbated illegal immigration into this country,” Judge Hanen wrote. “Further, the record supports the finding that this lack of enforcement, combined with this country’s high rate of illegal immigration, significantly drains the states’ resources."
So the administration is saying that it is urgent to change the status quo -- never mind a fuller hearing on the merits.
If -- big if -- there is any integrity in the appeals court, this is going nowhere.
Ha...Barakobambi checkmated himself.
Maybe the judge will just reply...”Sorry...you have no standing in this matter”.
Obama's intent to grant amnesty (including house and healthcare benefits, voting privileges, etc.) to the thousand of illegal immigrants, most of whom entered this country with encouragement and blessings from Obama, is despicable; and especially outrageous is that "migration by invitation" was accomplished as a result of the unsecured border situation, which he and plenty of others before him deliberately allowed to deteriorate. Not only is he not enforcing the law, he is encouraging and aiding people (illegal aliens, many of whom have criminal records and/or are gang members, and carrying disease) to defy the law. If this isn't impeachable, I don't know what is.
“Another court or higher one could overrule this decision and we are back to a worse position than before”
And if the judge pulls it now, why would SCOTUS oppose it down the road?
That is why you have the appeal process.
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.