Posted on 11/19/2016 8:56:29 AM PST by cpforlife.org
The administration has already taken the first step to accommodate President-elect Trump’s positions, agreeing Friday to take a timeout on President Obama’s push to kick-start his 2014 deportation amnesty.
In documents filed with a federal judge in Texas the Justice Department said that in light of the new management that will take over next year, the case should be suspended.
“Accordingly, the parties respectfully submit that further proceedings on the merits of this case, including the submission of a schedule for resolving the merits, should be stayed until February 20, 2017,” the Justice Department and lawyers for Texas said in a joint request of Judge Andrew S. Hanen.
Judge Hanen had halted Mr. Obama’s expanded amnesty in February 2015, just two days before it was to go into effect, ruling that the administration broke administrative law. An appeals court twice upheld his injunction, as did the Supreme Court, in a 4-4 deadlock decision this summer.
The injunction remains in place while Judge Hanen was to hear full arguments — but both sides now say President-elect Trump should have the chance to weigh in.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Yup.
We know who Obama bows to — and it isn’t the American people.
But I'm joyfully tired!!
Ping here!
Job well done removing the specter of millions and millions of executive amnesty voters for the progressive agenda.
Their game plan in February 2015 was to get illegals fully documented and ‘coached’ to say they had already been in the United States for at least 5 years making them immediately eligible for US citizenship and therefore conferred a right to vote.
Coaches were to be drawn from numerous ‘community organizing’ groups like ACORN, funded by groups with links to Soros and other billionaires in the secretive Democracy Alliance.
Another tact was via the voting machines and systems. That didn’t work out for them but that doesn’t mean they won’t stop trying.
We have a chance to see these attacks stopped on election integrity.
The President-Elect will neuter the illegal amnesty angle. He will need to call for a commission on election reform to examine cyber security and uniform electronic vote counting machines and systems.
This only applies to DAPA, his second illegal amnesty for illegal aliens.
His first illegal amnesty for illegal aliens, DACA, goes on unhindered because the GOP refused to take him to court to stop it like the states did with the second.
Both of them can be stopped with an executive order by Trump repealing the executive orders that Obama started them with.
Pardons are coming
He can’t pardon illegal aliens.
Nor can he make them citizens.
yep
He can’t pardon illegal aliens into citizens.
In fact he can’t even pardon them into legal aliens.
It really does not smell right. Hope Judge Hanan sees that.
Our President Doesn't Know That a “Religious Test” for Refugees Seeking Asylum Is Required by Federal Law
November 18, 2015
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: As you know, I'm a history buff. I think there are a lot of lessons in history, and I want to share some history with you now. I've spoken frequently in recent months about how immigration to the United States was more than curtailed. It was suspended in the early 1920s. From 1924 to 1965 we didn't have any immigration. You'd be amazed still at the number of people who are hearing that for the first time and don't know it. That simply is not part of the American education curriculum, especially now. I know I didn't learn that in school, at any level of school.
But it is particularly relevant today because the left and Obama and the United Nations are all accusing the United States of these horrific acts of bigotry and inhumane treatment and behavior of people and so forth. And they want to try to create this impression that we are reaching new depths, that the United States is sinking to new lows, and it's a terrible shame what's happened because of the right wing bigotry and the closed-mindedness and all of that that exists in this country.
So I think it would be very useful and helpful here just to review a little history to let you know that what we propose today and what many Americans support today is actually traditionally American. It is not new. It is not unprecedented. It is historical. No immigration, 1924 to 1965. The reason was that we had seen a flood of immigrants to the country and we had to assimilate them. We took time to assimilate those who had come to America. They wanted to be Americans. They wanted to assimilate. They did not want to establish Balkanized beachheads of their countries. They did not forget their native cultures. They held on to them and they lived in neighborhoods, but they wanted to be Americans. They knew what being an American meant, compared to where they lived and where they were from. They wanted everything about America that they could get and they wanted to work hard for it. You know the drill.
But there was another reason why immigration was curtailed in the early 1920s. And would you be surprised to learn that that reason was terrorist attacks? There were acts of terror committed in the United States, mostly from groups, the so-called anarchist groups. They were really mostly communists. But, for instance, September 6th, 1901, President William McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist in Buffalo, New York. And in the early 1900s there were a number of bombings and bombing attempts committed by these anarchists, the majority of whom were from southern and central and eastern Europe. They were part of this massive immigration that took place in the country, the late 1800s into the early 1900s.
I'll give you a name. Ferdinando Sacco. I'll give you another name. Bartolomeo Vanzetti were two revolutionary terrorists who were convicted and executed in 1927 for a 1920 double murder carried out during a robbery. Sacco and Vanzetti became communist cause celebre for decades. Liberals argued they had been wrongly convicted. It was exactly what you get in the news today, except it happened back in the early 1920s. And if you read books and you see movies from or about that period anarchist bombings loom large. We had terrorism. It wasn't Islamic. But they were nevertheless acts of terror.
There was a group. They were known as the anarchists. They have modern descendants to this day, Occupy Wall Street and so forth, all these anarchists that gather various global meetings of the United Nations around the world. The bill, the piece of legislation that limited immigration, the immigration act of 1924 was primarily aimed at further restricting the immigration of southern Europeans and eastern Europeans because those regions were seen as the hotbed for radical terrorists.
It's not like we haven't been here and done that before. We have done exactly what is being suggested today. We've done it before. We have specified certain people. We targeted certain people for either deportation or imprisonment or just keep them out of the country precisely because of where they came from and because of the acts committed by others who had also come from the same place.
Now, the difference was back in 1924 and the early 1920s everybody was all for it. We didn't have any terrorists apologists. Well, you did, you had some terrorist apologists, but they weren't anywhere near. They certainly weren't in the White House, and they weren't in the US House of Representatives, and they weren't in governorships. They were random Hollywood types and others. The literary crowd. But for the most part, my point here is that what's happening today has precedent. What's happening today is not the United States descending to new depths never before plundered.
One other thing that you might be shocked to learn, ladies and gentlemen. President Obama, in one of his many harangues — you know, Trump put a message out on Instagram that said: You know, it's really scary, and it's really dangerous. Our president is insane.
Okay, Dittocam. Sorry, I thought I had it on; it was off. The Dittocam is now on. (interruption) Because I didn't turn it on when it was off. It was not a glitch. I forgot to turn it on. It's on now. But Obama’s out there, I mean, defending acts of terror, downplaying acts of terror, and being hypercritical, and he doesn't need... By the way, when he starts in on Republicans and conservatives, either generically or by name, he doesn't need a teleprompter. Have you noticed? He doesn't need cue cards because that's when he's speaking from the heart.
I have told you over and over again that to Obama and many like him in the Democrat Party and the left, we represent their greatest threat. In their eyes, we are far more dangerous to them. We pose a greater threat to them than ISIS or any other terror group, because we are trying to take their power away. We are trying to stop them. Do not doubt me. When Obama gets on these tirades — and they have been tirades, and they've been juvenile, and even some Democrats are starting to get worried about it, according to the Drive-By Media.
For example, in his latest rip at Senator Ted Cruz and others opposed to his insistence on continuing to import thousands of Muslim refugees from Syria... Hey, by the way, can I ask a question about that? We're “vetting” them, right? Well, that's what they tell us. They're vetting them. (paraphrased) “We have an exhaustive vetting process. Right. It takes up to two years. And we got biometrics, and who knows whatever else that we use, magic and technology. But we've got the greatest vetting! I mean, we we're really doing a great job. We're really vetting these people,” right?
Would somebody tell me: What are the deal-breakers? With our extensive and exhaustive vetting of refugees, what do they have to do to be rejected? Well, it's a legitimate, isn't it? Are they just be rubber stamps? Are any rejected? I want to know what deals end up being broken. What are the things that they do, what are the things that we could find out about them that would make us say, “Ah, ah, ah, ah! No way, Sahib. You're not getting in today”?
Have you ever asked yourself that question? Wait a minute. See, you would assume that if they have any terrorist ties, they wouldn't get in. I don't want to assume anything. What if they had terrorist ties but only because they were mad at the pictures from Abu Ghraib? Do we let them in? What if they had terrorist ties because they were upset and made mentally deranged by George W. Bush? The same thing happened to a lot of Democrats.
Would that be a deal breaker, or would we welcome them in as like-minded? (interruption) No, no, no, no, no. I'm serious. What are the deal breakers? What has to be said, what has to happen, what has to be discovered for a refugee to be rejected? I haven't seen that anywhere. I would just like to know. Anyway, in Obama’s latest diatribe against Senator Cruz and other Americans opposed to his insistence on continuing to import thousands of Muslim refugees from Syria, he said:
“When I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which a person who's fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted, that's shameful. That's not American. That's not who we are. We don't have religious tests to our compassion.” I would venture to say that virtually everybody who hears him say that probably has to nod their head in agreement. “Yeah, yeah, that's probably right.” Except you'd all be wrong. My friend Andrew McCarthy, National Review Online:
“Under federal law, the executive branch [of the United States of America] is expressly required to take religion into account in determining who is granted asylum. Under the provision governing asylum (section 1158 of Title 8, US Code), an alien applying for admission must establish that … religion [among other things] ... was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.” We damn well ask them about religion! We damn well do decide who gets in and who does not based on aspects of religion.
And it is in the federal statutes!
“Moreover, to qualify for asylum in the United States, the applicant must be a ‘refugee’ as defined by federal law. That definition (set forth in Section 1101(a)(42)(A) of Title , US Code) also requires the executive branch to take account of the alien’s religion: The term ‘refugee’ means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality ... and who is unable or unwilling to return to ... that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of ... religion [among other things] ...[.]”
Well, how can we confirm any of those claims if we don't know what their religion is? We have to ask them. It's in federal law. There are religious tests and requirements through the United States law. President Obama doesn't know what he's talking about. President Obama is pontificating from liberal feel-good bromides. He's projecting bigotry and racism and all these other things because he is a leftist radical and assumes that everybody opposing him is a bigot, a racist, or what have you.
And he dares to tell some of the most devout and religious people of this country that they are bigots and unqualified and that they are shameful. This country has a record of looking out for itself. This country has statute after statute, historical event after historical event, precedent after precedent. This country has never, ever just opened the doors to anyone on the basis of “humanity” or “compassion” and said, “Come on in!” Never. It's another first brought to us by Obama. That's what he now wants to do, while claiming that people opposed to it are a new kind of American.
largeDespicable, racist jingoistic, all of these negatives that they attach to Neanderthals, is the impression that Obama is trying to leave. So the law requires a religious test, and the reason for the religious test is obvious. The asylum law is not a reflection of the incumbent president's personal sense of compassion. No matter who that president is. We do not base any of this law on compassion. Asylum is a discretionary national act of compassion directed by law, not a whim to address persecution.
Nowhere does the law say we must put ourselves at risk in order to exercise this compassion. Nowhere does it say anywhere in American statutory law or in American precedent that we must throw our values overboard in order to be compassionate or to satisfy the whims of a dubiously and questionably all-there president of the United States. There is no right to emigrate to the United States of America. Therefore, us — we — by maintaining our standards as established by law, protecting our national security and sovereignty are not violating anybody’s rights by standing up for our own.
We are not violating anybody’s freedom, rights, or otherwise by acting in a way as to defend and protect the people of this country and the Constitution. The fact that someone might come from a country or territory ravaged by war does not by itself qualify one as an asylum candidate. If it did, we would be overrun already because war is never over. War is a staple in a world governed by the aggressive use of force.
END TRANSCRIPT
Audio:
Rush Limbaugh Gives History Lesson On Immigration
http://dailyrushbo.com/rush-limbaugh-gives-history-lesson-on-immigration/
http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/11/11/limbaugh-trump-didnt-go-far-enough-with-immigra/206794
audio at link
RUSH LIMBAUGH: Jeb and Kasich and all these other guys, they look at it as a civil rights issue, and the left looks at it as a civil rights — they almost look at it as a racial issue, and it's not.
[...]
For them, they think it's an act of compassion to welcome them in, and if we disagree with ignoring the law, then we are called racists. And it's not about that at all, it's about sustaining the U.S. economy, the job market the wage base, all these kinds of things.
[...]
But I thought one of the most telling lines, when they're discussing all this, and Jeb says, well you know, they're — you're talking about deporting people, you're going to deport people — 11 million, 12 million people. You realize they're doing hand stands and applauding over at the Clinton campaign. And Trump comes in, you ever heard of Ike? I like Ike? Dwight Eisenhower. Ike? I like Ike? We like Ike? Everybody likes him. You know what Ike did? Ike got rid of a million-and-a-half — I mean, he deported — what do you mean it can't be done?
[...]
Trump was entirely correct to point out the history — what Eisenhower did. And I don't think Trump went far enough, actually. In reality, Harry Truman, another Democrat president, deported illegal aliens — over 3.4 million, did you know that?
[...]
Harry Truman deported illegal aliens — 3.4 million of them. You add that to the 2.1 million Ike deported — or who left on their own at the time. Nearly 6 million illegal aliens were deported or left voluntarily under those two highly-beloved presidents. The country didn't fall apart, and we didn't become a bunch of racists overnight. We didn't lose our compassion, we didn't lose our big hearts.
Could you please move this out of chat? If this isn’t news I don’t know what is.... I guess I messed up originally posting the thread. Thanks.
“”Doesn’t smell right, here comes the “pardon”...””
You’re right about the smell. obozo will NEVER do anything to help the new administration. Beware of “Greeks” bearing gifts or “Kenyans”???? None of us would trust that man as far as - pick a phrase!
Even if he does pardon the Dreamers, and I don't think he will, that doesn't make them citizens, nor ineligible for deportation.
Re ‘Winning’
Isn’t it freeping awesome? I mean BIGLY AWESOME!
Everyday since the election I re-realize that we actually DID WIN.
I followed Freeper LS and https://twitter.com/mitchellvii and others, and I thought we would win, but in the back of my mind I knew they would try to steal it, and they did try, just not enough.
The last 8 years was indescribably horrid and painful. I described it to someone: try and imagine watching a loved one dying of a slow and painful disease. That’s how I saw our Republic. I felt the hidaBEAST would steal it and finish us off for good.
The loooong national nightmare is quickly coming to a close. Thank you Jesus!
yawn...
Trump Wins... again.
I hope the generally worthless congress is seeking to make permanent law on criminal invasion. Merely repealing exec orders is only temporary.
Laws must be passed to inhibit exec orders by future criminal minded POTUS office holders from duplicating what the floppy eared half-black Obammy and his perfumed coterie have thus far inflicted on America.
Sounds like Obama is worried about being indicted.
Obama knows there's no legal way to attain his goals so he's pretending like it's his idea to give Trump a chance while he continues his "slam Trump because Obama's so great" tour....the manpetulant child is committing treason as the basis of his last tour.
“Doesn’t smell right, here comes the “pardon”...”
The case was dead and the DOJ would have had to continue fighting in the same court that had found their policies and attorneys in violation of his orders.
Odumbo might still do some empty gesture that will have no lasting impact.
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.