Amnesty Coming to a Town Near You

[Dos Equis]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/25/Obama-Puzzled-By-Illegal-Hecklers-I-Just-Took-An-Action-To-Change-The-Law

“What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

Article II of the U.S. Constitution:  the president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . . ."

[Dos Equis]

Jeb Bush Condemns Obama Immigration Order
Monday, 01 Dec 2014

Hinting that a decision on his presidential ambitions is coming "in short order," former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush on Monday condemned President Barack Obama's recent immigration order for going "way beyond" what other presidents have done — including Bush's own father.

Bush, the son of one president and brother of another, also reiterated his support for a pathway to legal status for immigrants in the U.S. illegally, but said Obama may have exceeded his constitutional authority by unilaterally lifting the threat of deportation from millions of such immigrants last month.

"The idea that, well, Reagan did it, my dad did it — they did it on a much smaller scale and they did it with consent of Congress. There are a lot of differences," Bush said Monday night at the Wall Street Journal's CEO Council, an invitation-only event in Washington featuring some of the nation's most powerful CEOs.

Obama's move "makes it harder" for Congress to adopt lasting immigration reform, Bush said, speaking publicly about the order for the first time. "It's a shame."

The former Florida governor is seen as the early favorite of business-minded Republicans eager to reclaim the White House in 2016. While he would be a force in the Republican presidential primary, Bush would face criticism from the party's conservative wing unhappy with his positions on immigration and education reform. Those who attended Monday's event, however, include many political donors and Republican business leaders who support a more forgiving immigration policy.

Bush was seen chatting with News Corp. head Rupert Murdoch, who has urged lawmakers to adopt a pathway to legal status for immigrants who are in the country illegally.

Two of the last three Republican presidents — Ronald Reagan and Bush's father, George H.W. Bush — also extended amnesty to family members of immigrants who were not covered by the last major overhaul of immigration law in 1986.

Obama's executive order has drawn a withering response from Republicans, but also has laid bare divisions within the GOP over how to deal with immigration. The issue is seen as critical for the GOP ahead of the in 2016 presidential contest as party officials works to attract more Hispanic voters.

Bush reiterated his interest in a presidential run on Monday.

"I'm thinking about running for president. And I'll make up my mind in short order — not that far out in the future," he said.

"I don't know if I'd be a good candidate or a bad one," Bush continued. "I kind of know how a Republican can win, whether it's me or somebody else, and it has to be much more uplifting, much more positive, much more willing to be practical..."

The comments come as Bush works this week to keep his public profile high.

Earlier in the day, he attended a Capitol Hill fundraiser for Republican Senate hopeful Bill Cassidy, less than a week before Cassidy faces incumbent Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu in a runoff election that could increase the GOP's new majority.

On Tuesday, immigration may come up again as Bush addresses the annual luncheon on U.S. Cuba Democracy PAC in Miami. The organization is a political action committee that advocates a tough stance on Cuba.

Bush, whose wife is Mexican, told the CEO Council that he supports a nation in which people ultimately find no need to identify their cultural origin.

"That is the America we should aspire to — not the one where we're dividing ourselves up to find where we are different," Bush said, "but the fact that you're from a different place or you've got a different origin is totally irrelevant."

http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-GOP-2016-Jeb-Bush/2014/12/01/id/610436/#ixzz3KlUy3E4F

[Dos Equis]

I think this will be a mission fail.  They're likely going to beat their chests, then pass a budget that funds Obama's amnesty. 

John Boehner Plots A Way Around A Government Shutdown
Posted: 12/02/2014

WASHINGTON -- House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) stepped back on Tuesday from an immediate confrontation with President Barack Obama over immigration, taxes and funding the government, deferring a showdown until a new Republican Congress is sworn in next year.

Though no plans have been formally announced, early reports suggest that House Republicans will pass the yearly massive appropriations bill to fund the government through next year, since current funding runs through Dec. 11. But they want to break out funding for the Department of Homeland Security and pass that as a continuing resolution, keeping the funding for the agency at current levels until March. Their strategy to get through the lame-duck session also includes the possibility of a disapproval vote on the president's executive action on immigration.

The decision to separate DHS funding from the rest of the budget is purely political. Republicans will control the Senate come 2015, in addition to having an increased majority in the House. That additional leverage could be funneled into a confrontation with Obama over his move to shield up to 5 million undocumented immigrants from deportation.

"No decisions have been made at this point," Boehner said in a Capitol Hill news conference after his conference met Tuesday morning, when asked if this was his game plan. The speaker added that he and his members would look at a variety of options in the lame-duck session and emphasized that they still believe that the president's move on immigration represents an egregious overstepping of his authority.

"We don't believe that the president has the authority to do what he did," Boehner said. "This is a serious breach of our Constitution. It is a serious threat to our system of government. And frankly, we have limited options and limited abilities to deal with it directly."

Should House Republicans pursue the so-called CROmnibus, or continuing resolution and omnibus, it would be a victory for the speaker, who has had difficulty keeping his fractious, tea party-driven conference in line in past budget battles.

"I think they understand it is going to be difficult to make meaningful action as long as we have Democratic control of the Senate," Boehner said, suggesting that he had, indeed, put a lid on intra-party angst. GOP leadership has also reportedly headed off an attempt to vote on the House floor on whether to censure the president for his immigration executive action.

But minutes after Boehner's statement, several more conservative members made it clear that they weren't eager to play along.

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) characterized the Cromnibus as a "punt," and Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) said he would likely oppose the idea unless the length of the continuing resolution for DHS funding was shortened.

"Why not vote on it the first day we are back when we do get all our troops in the Senate?" he asked.

Conservatives outside Congress weren't entirely pleased with reports that a fight over the president's immigration policy would be punted until March. Dan Holler, the communications director for the influential Heritage Action Fund, called the procedural move a "blank check" for amnesty.

"Putting an expiration date on DHS funding does not do anything to block the President’s executive actions – it allows them to proceed for several months unchecked," said Holler. "It is essentially a promise to fight at a later date, but that promised has not been defined or articulated clearly. Most significantly, GOP leaders have not promised to use the appropriations process to stop the actions come March. Hard to see how any of this lines up as taking a stand against the President and preparing to block his actions."

Heritage Action, Holler added, would be communicating their disapproval with the idea to House Republican offices.

Democrats, likewise, don't seem particularly eager to give Boehner cover for such a move. Leadership was expected to address Boehner's comments later in the day. But at roughly the same time the speaker made his remarks, Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson was urging Congress to act on the administration's appropriations request instead of extending funding for the agency until March.

"That is, in my judgment, a very bad idea for Homeland Security, because during that period of the CR we do not engage in new starts," he said Tuesday morning, speaking before the House Committee on Homeland Security. "We've got some Homeland Security priorities that need to be funded now."

Johnson said should Congress only pass a short-term continuing resolution, he would be unable to hire new Secret Service agents needed ahead of the 2016 presidential elections. A funding bill that stretched only to March would also harm the agency's ability to fund its new detention facility in Texas, he said.

"I need the help of Congress to support and build upon border security that I believe all of you support," he said.

UPDATE: 1:25 p.m. -- White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters later Tuesday that Obama would oppose any bills that would undo his executive actions on immigration, though he did not say whether the president would veto a bill with short-term funding for DHS. But he said the White House wants to see government funding for the full year and for the full government.

"The administration believes that it's the responsibility of Congress to pass a full year budget for the federal government, and that is what we would like to see them do," he said. "We'd like to see them pass that full year budget for the full government. As I think I said yesterday, we're not asking them to do anything heroic, we're asking them to do their job."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/02/john-boehner-immigration-shutdown_n_6254978.html

[Dos Equis]

Good.

Texas leads coalition of states in lawsuit against Obama immigration actions
Published December 03, 2014
FoxNews.com

Texas Gov.-elect Greg Abbott announced Wednesday that Texas is leading a 17-state coalition suing the Obama administration over the president's executive actions on immigration.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Texas on Wednesday, and names the heads of the top immigration enforcement agencies as defendants.

Abbott, in a news conference in Austin, said the "broken" immigration system should be fixed by Congress, not by "presidential fiat."

He said President Obama's recently announced executive actions -- a move designed to spare as many as 5 million people living illegally in the United States from deportation -- "directly violate the fundamental promise to the American people" by running afoul of the Constitution.

"The ability of the president to dispense with laws was specifically considered and unanimously rejected at the Constitutional Convention," he said.

Abbott specifically cited Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution which states the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

He said the lawsuit asks the court to require Obama to go through Congress before enforcing laws, "rather than making them up himself."

The announcement opens a new front in the roiling debate across the country over the immigration actions.

The legal action comes as a separate legislative battle plays out on Capitol Hill. Some Republicans want to use a must-pass spending bill as leverage to defund the president's immigration initiatives. But House Speaker John Boehner is trying to push off that battle until next year, when his party will control both chambers.

Under Obama's order, announced Nov. 20, protection from deportation and the right to work will be extended to an estimated 4.1 million parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents who have lived in the U.S. for at least five years and to hundreds of thousands more young people.

In the lawsuit, Texas is joined by 16 other, mostly southern and Midwestern states, including Alabama, Georgia, Idaho and Indiana.

Abbott argued Wednesday that Obama's action "tramples" portions of the U.S. Constitution.

The lawsuit raises three objections: that Obama violated the "Take Care Clause" of the U.S. Constitution that limits the scope of presidential power; that the federal government violated rulemaking procedures; and that the order will "exacerbate the humanitarian crisis along the southern border, which will affect increased state investment in law enforcement, health care and education."

Wednesday's announcement marks the 31st time the Texas attorney general has brought action against the federal government since Obama took office in 2009. The only other high-profile lawsuit against the immigration action has come on behalf of Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Potential 2016 presidential candidate and current Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who leaves office in January, also spoke out against the executive order earlier Wednesday, saying it could trigger a new flood of people pouring across the Texas-Mexico border. Perry and Abbott also have said the order will promote a culture of lawlessness.

Perry said at a news conference that Obama's 2012 executive order delaying the deportation of children brought into the U.S. illegally by their parents triggered an unprecedented wave of unaccompanied minors and families, mostly from Central America, crossing into the U.S. this summer.

"In effect, his action placed a neon sign on our border, assuring people that they could ignore the law of the United States," said Perry, who has deployed up to 1,000 National Guard troops to the border.

The federal lawsuit involves the following states: Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/03/texas-leads-lawsuit-by-17-states-against-obama-immigration-actions/

[Dos Equis]

24 states now suing Obama over immigration
By Ashley Killough, CNN
Wed December 10, 2014

Washington (CNN) -- Twenty-four states have signed onto the legal challenge against President Barack Obama over his executive action on immigration, incoming Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced Wednesday.

Abbott, the Texas attorney general who will assume his new role in January, is leading the coalition.

"The president's proposed executive decree violates the U.S. Constitution and federal law, circumvents the will of the American people and is an affront to the families and individuals who follow our laws to legally immigrate to the United States," he said in a written statement.

Obama drew fire from Republicans when he announced last month that he would use the executive branch to temporarily delay deportation for up to 5 million people who came to the United States illegally.

The President and his staff have long argued that Obama has the legal right to take action, saying he only acted because Congress failed to pass immigration reform.

"When members of Congress question whether I have the authority to do this, I have one answer: Yes, and pass a bill," Obama said Tuesday at an event in Nashville.

The Texas-led coalition of states in the legal challenge consist of: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/10/politics/immigration-lawsuit/index.html?hpt=po_c2

[Dos Equis]

Great.  I hope the judge hearing the challenge filed by the states gets it right too. 

Federal judge: Obama immigration actions 'unconstitutional'
Published December 16, 2014
FoxNews.com

A federal judge has declared parts of President Obama's immigration executive actions unconstitutional, in the first court opinion to tackle Obama's controversial policy changes.

In an opinion filed Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Arthur Schwab, in Pennsylvania, said Obama's immigration actions are invalid and effectively count as "legislation" from the Executive Branch. 

"President Obama's unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore, is unconstitutional," the judge wrote.

The opinion, though, is unique in that it did not come in response to a challenge to Obama's immigration policy announcement. It is unclear what impact, if any, the opinion might have other than to rally critics and fuel momentum behind other lawsuits.

Rather, Schwab issued his opinion in response to a criminal case against Honduran illegal immigrant Elionardo Juarez-Escobar, who was previously deported in 2005 -- and was caught in the U.S. again earlier this year.

He already has pleaded guilty to "re-entry of a removed alien," but the court subsequently examined the impact of Obama's immigration actions on the case.

For that review, Schwab left open whether the actions might apply to Juarez-Escobar but determined the executive actions themselves were unconstitutional.

He wrote that the action goes beyond so-called "prosecutorial discretion" -- which is the "discretion" the administration cites in determining whether to pursue deportation against illegal immigrants.

Obama's policy changes would give a reprieve to up to 5 million illegal immigrants, including those whose children are citizens or legal permanent residents and who meet other criteria. 

Schwab, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote that this "systematic and rigid process" applies to a "broad range" of enforcement decisions, as opposed to dealing with matters on a "case-by-case basis."

Further, he wrote that the action goes beyond deferring deportation by letting beneficiaries apply for work authorization and allowing some to become "quasi-United States citizens."

He also cited Obama's argument that he was proceeding with executive action after Congress failed to act on comprehensive immigration legislation, and countered: "Congressional inaction does not endow legislative power with the Executive."

The Justice Department downplayed the significance of the opinion.

"The decision is unfounded and the court had no basis to issue such an order," a DOJ spokesperson said in a statement. "No party in the case challenged the constitutionality of the immigration-related executive actions and the department's filing made it clear that the executive actions did not apply to the criminal matter before the court. Moreover, the court's analysis of the legality of the executive actions is flatly wrong. We will respond to the court's decision at the appropriate time."

Critics of the administration's policy, though, hailed the opinion.

"The President's unilateral executive action suspending the nation's immigration laws for roughly five million illegal aliens has received its first judicial test, and it has failed," John Eastman, law professor at Chapman University, said in a statement.

Other direct legal challenges to Obama's immigration actions, including one by two-dozen states, remain pending before the federal courts.

The latest opinion was first reported by the Volokh Conspiracy blog.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/16/federal-judge-obama-immigration-actions-unconstitutional/

[Dos Equis]

Constitution Check: Is Obama’s new immigration policy already in legal trouble?
National Constitution Center By Lyle Denniston
December 18, 2014

The National Constitution Center’s constitutional literacy adviser, Lyle Denniston, explains how a federal judge’s ruling in Pittsburgh about President Obama’s immigration orders could be a sign of things to come.

THE STATEMENTS AT ISSUE:
“[President Obama’s] Executive Action crosses the line, constitutes legislation, and effectively changes the United States’ immigration policy. The President may only ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…’; he may not take any Executive Action that creates laws….President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore, is unconstitutional.”

– Excerpts from a ruling Tuesday by a federal judge in Pittsburgh, Arthur J. Schwab, declaring that the President had no constitutional authority to act on his own to order delays of deportation for more than 4 million undocumented immigrants.   This was the first court ruling on the validity of the November announcement of the sweeping new immigration regulations.

“The judge is clearly reaching beyond the bounds of the case before him to engage in constitutional scrutiny of the executive actions,” said Peter J. Spiro, a law professor at Temple University in Philadelphia, noting that the new policies had not gone into effect yet. “It involves a lot of judicial gymnastics for the judge to get to that question.”

– Comment from the Temple law professor as quoted in The New York Times on Tuesday, in a story about Judge Schwab’s decision.

WE CHECKED THE CONSTITUTION, AND…

Deeply resentful of the arbitrary actions of English kings, the Founders who wrote the American Constitution were determined to split up power in the new national government they were creating. While the three branches are not totally sealed off from each other, they do have distinct powers and they are not supposed to exercise authority given to another branch. This is part of the checks-and-balances approach. But knowing when that separation principle has been violated has been an evolving issue ever since the Founding and remains unresolved today.

In recent months, America’s governing officials in Washington have been locked in a struggle over whether President Obama has been exceeding the powers of the Executive Branch; that struggle has grown especially intense over Obama’s initiatives on immigration policy.

While Congress and the White House have been the main combatants on this issue, the courts were being slowly drawn into the middle of it, with the filing of several lawsuits contending that President Obama had exceeded his authority by deciding to allow more than 4 million undocumented immigrants, who had entered the country illegally to remain in the U.S. for perhaps three years and to get jobs.

Given how slowly the wheels of justice often turn, it had appeared that it would take months for the judiciary to take a stand on the Obama initiative; the constitutional question might not be answered by them at least until late in the Obama presidency. That expectation ended suddenly on Tuesday, when a federal judge in Pittsburgh found a way – a highly unusual way – to move into the middle of the constitutional controversy.

District Judge Arthur J. Schwab ruled that the President had crossed the line into Congress’s legislative territory, and had actually – in the judge’s view – adopted the equivalent of new legislation on immigration policy. The judge had allowed himself to raise that constitutional issue because, he said, the new policy might have a bearing on the case before him of a Honduran national who was facing deportation for having illegally entered the country after being deported earlier.

As it turned out, however, the judge did not really strike down the new Obama policy – at least not in the usual way of judicial nullification of a federal law.   The judge did not order the government to abandon plans to enforce the policy, and, in fact, proceeded to write the remainder of his ruling as if the policy were valid. In the binding part of the ruling, Judge Schwab gave the Honduran immigrant a chance to drop his guilty plea and, if he wished, to try to take advantage of the new deferral of deportation that soon would be available for at least some individuals who are in the country illegally.   There is a chance, the judge said, that the policy might create an opening in the Honduran’s situation.

The ruling, as it stands at this point, does not appear to be a direct constitutional threat to the President’s initiative. That is because the judge’s statements about unconstitutionality may not have been critical to the bottom line of his ruling: the Honduran may get to stay in the U.S., at least for a time.

Many readers of the judge’s opinion, however, will have difficulty reconciling its two main parts: on the one hand, there are the stern comments about the President supposedly having used constitutional power he did not have, while, on the other hand, there is the judge’s formal declaration that maybe the policy is lawful, after all.

The ruling came as a considerable surprise to the Obama Administration, because its lawyers had told Judge Schwab that the new deferred deportation policy is not supposed to apply at all to criminal cases, like the one involving the Honduran immigrant. Now, administration lawyers have to decide what stance to take when that case unfolds further, in January

If the Administration is upset by the judge’s ruling, as it very likely is, it is not yet clear just what options are available. An appeal at this point might be premature, and a plea to the judge to reconsider might well be futile.

Beyond the Administration, however, the rest of America has learned that the federal judiciary may become an obstacle to the new Obama immigration policy, and that this prospect may be unfolding much earlier than expected. That could mean that the Supreme Court will be pulled into the constitutional debate fairly soon.

The Supreme Court so far has been on the sidelines of the current White House-Congress struggle over immigration policy. The Supreme Court refused, on Wednesday, to examine even a small part of that dispute, when it turned aside – without explanation – a request by the state of Arizona seeking permission to deny driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants who will benefit from at least some aspects of the Executive Branch’s new initiatives on immigrants and their legal opportunities in the U.S.   But, even in that modest judicial action, there was a glimmer of a threat to the Obama policy: three Justices dissented, indicating that they would have granted Arizona’s request.

At this point, the debate in the near term will continue to go forward when a new Congress arrives in Washington, and when the government and Judge Schwab take their next steps in the test case in Pittsburgh.

http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-check-obama-immigration-policy-already-legal-trouble-110211304.html

[Dos Equis]

Larry Klayman's immigration arguments get skeptical hearing
Judge takes issue with arguments in lawyer’s case seeking to block Obama’s policy.
By JOSH GERSTEIN
Updated 12/23/14

A federal judge considering a lawsuit challenging President Barack Obama’s recent executive actions on immigration gave no sign Monday that she’s prepared to block the effort through which the administration plans to offer quasi-legal status to as many as 5 million undocumented immigrants.

Judge Beryl Howell allowed conservative legal activist Larry Klayman to present more than an hour’s worth of arguments against the effort at a hearing in Washington on Monday, but her quizzical looks and pointed retorts left little doubt that the legal gadfly’s effort will come up short, at least in her courtroom.
Story Continued Below

At the conclusion of the roughly 75-minute hearing, Howell promised a ruling “very soon,” but it did not sound likely she would be granting an injunction. It also seemed possible she would grant a government motion to dismiss the case on the basis that the plaintiff wasn’t harmed enough to pursue a suit.

At one point, Howell even dismissed Klayman’s arguments as suffering from a “logical fallacy,” since the key immigration policy changes Obama announced last month haven’t kicked in yet.

The Obama administration announced last month an expansion of the 2012 program for so-called DREAMers who came to the U.S. illegally as children, as well as a new program to defer deportation of parents of U.S. citizens. Many conservatives have denounced the moves as an unconstitutional expansion of executive authority, but the Obama administration insists they are legal and in line with similar moves by past presidents.

Klayman, who filed the suit on behalf of Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, said the lawman is hurt by Obama’s lax immigration enforcement policies because undocumented immigrants return to jail again and again after the federal government declines to deport them.

Howell appeared convinced that Arpaio’s complaints about costs for housing illegal immigrants who have been arrested seem to stem from broader immigration enforcement concerns or from the program for DREAMers that Obama announced in 2012. The judge said she saw no indication that those harms flow from the changes the president announced in November.

Howell — an Obama appointee — also said Klayman wasn’t being precise enough about what problems Obama’s latest actions were causing to Arpaio, the Maricopa County, Arizona, sheriff.

“That just doesn’t cut it for me when you’re asking me to enjoin from the bench, with a strike of my pen, some national program,” the judge said.

Klayman called the new moves an “exacerbation” of existing problems and warned that Obama’s move could have dire consequences.

“We are a system of laws not men,” the conservative lawyer told Howell. “The precedent here is terrible. It’s trashing our Constitution.”

At one point, Klayman’s comments earned a rebuke from the judge. “Let’s not play to the gallery, here,” she warned.

The conservative gadfly predicted the case would be heading to the Supreme Court, which he said could make Howell famous.
“In this room, I think you are the most famous person, Mr. Klayman,” the judge replied.

Howell said she did not find “at all persuasive” a Pennsylvania federal judge’s ruling last week that the Obama immigration moves are unconstitutional. She noted the ruling was issued in a criminal deportation case and said repeatedly that the judge there “reached out” to address an issue not properly before him.
A potentially more dangerous case for the administration was filed earlier this month in Brownsville, Texas. In that suit, 24 states are challenging Obama’s immigration actions.

The judge assigned to that case, Andrew Hanen, is a George W. Bush appointee who has publicly questioned the administration’s immigration enforcement policies. He set a hearing Jan. 9 on the states’ request for a preliminary injunction.

Even though Howell appeared unpersuaded by Klayman, the Obama administration seems to be taking the challenge seriously, assigning Deputy Assistant Attorney General Kathleen Hartnett rather than a lower-ranking Justice Department lawyer. Last year, Klayman won the first and only injunction against the National Security Agency’s program gathering data on billions of Americans’ telephone calls.

The administration has turned to Hartnett, a former lawyer in Obama’s White House Counsel’s Office, for politically sensitive arguments, such as those in a fight between Attorney General Eric Holder and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee relating to Operation Fast and Furious.

Asked by Howell whether the recent Obama moves amount to an “amnesty,” Hartnett said, “This does not provide legal status or a pathway to citizenship.” She said the programs simply put certain cases “to the side” while officials focus on more urgent enforcement priorities.

Hartnett also said there are numerous precedents for the Obama administration’s latest immigration actions, including a so-called “family fairness” program instituted under President George H.W. Bush. “That applied to 1.5 million people,” Hartnett said, using a figure that was referenced in congressional testimony at the time but has been widely disputed.

Amid the rhetorical flourishes, Klayman did put some substantive and even important points on the record.

Despite the government’s arguments that the most publicized immigration changes don’t kick in until February or May, the conservative activist noted that directives from Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson tell law enforcement to begin now to identify immigrants in the system who may be eligible for relief under the programs and even to take the new programs into account when encountering immigrants who might have to face deportation proceedings.
Klayman also noted that the Justice Department sought and won an injunction against key parts of an Arizona anti-illegal-immigration law before it ever took effect.

In a brief, Klayman ridiculed as “phony and disingenuous” the government’s claims that it will consider as many as 5 million applications on a case-by-case basis.

Howell said that unusually pointed language “jumped off the page,” prompting Klayman to suggest a substitute.

Paraphrasing a line from the 1971 film “Bananas,” the conservative lawyer joked: “I could’ve used Woody Allen’s expression: a sham of a sham of a sham.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/barack-obama-immigration-lawsuit-hearing-113747.html#ixzz3Mjh4tbSz

[Dos Equis]

California DMV revs up for undocumented migrants applying for licenses
By David Hernandez
Published December 26, 2014
Fox News Latino


FILE - In this Wednesday, April 23, 2014 file photo, California Highway Patrol officers Armando Garcia, right, and Ray Patton explain to immigrants the process of getting a drivers license during an information session at the Mexican Consulate, in San Diego. California is gearing up to start issuing driverâs licenses to immigrants in the country illegally in a bid to make the roads safer that could also give more than a million people access to state-issued identification. (AP Photo/Lenny Ignelzi,File)

California’s Department of Motor Vehicles has opened four new offices and hired more than 900 additional staff in an effort to prepare for the law that will allow undocumented immigrants to apply for a driver’s license.

The applications, which require individuals to verify their identities and show proof of California residency, will be accepted beginning Jan. 2. The department expects to process approximately 1.4 million new driver’s license applications in the next three years.

DMV opened new offices in Granada Hills, Stanton, Lompoc and San Jose to process new driver’s license applications, including those of undocumented immigrants after the law goes into effect.

In January, the DMV will extend its Saturday hours at up to 60 offices for new license applicants with appointments.

Individuals have been able to make appointments for a new license since Nov. 12.  Officials say they aren’t sure if there will be an initial surge of applications, but the number of people making license appointments more than doubled to 379,000 during the first two weeks immigrants were allowed to sign up.

Alliance San Diego, a social justice non-profit, has participated in more than 30 community forums to promote the law and help immigrants prepare to apply for a license. Special projects organizer Daniel Alfaro told Fox News Latino that most immigrants have said they would apply for a driver’s license.

“For families, I think it will make life much, much easier,” he said.

But not all immigrant advocates are as encouraging.

"For the vast majority of people, getting a license is a good decision," Alison Kamhi, a staff attorney at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center told the Associated Press. "At the same time, I think it is important people are aware there is some risk."

Anyone who previously obtained a driver's license under a false name or someone else's Social Security number, for instance, or those with a prior deportation order or criminal record might want to speak first with a lawyer, Kamhi said, pointing out that federal immigration and law enforcement officials can access Department of Motor Vehicles data during an investigation.

The list of documents that will be accepted to verify an applicant’s identity includes foreign passports, consular ID cards, and a combination of documents such as birth certificate and income tax returns.

Applicants also will need to provide a thumbprint and pass a vision assessment, as well as a written and behind-the-wheel-driving test. The tests will be available in various languages including Spanish.

Individuals will also be required to pay a new license fee and show proof of insurance if they register a vehicle.

Experts don't foresee major problems with the rollout of the program because the state has had more than a year to prepare and an ample budget — $141 million spanning three years.
In Nevada, about 90 percent of immigrants failed the required written test during the first few weeks a driver authorization card was offered because they were not prepared. In Colorado, the state had no startup funding to issue licenses and couldn't keep pace with demand, leading to monthslong waits.

Jonathan Blazer, advocacy and policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, told the AP that he expects California to license as many immigrants in the country illegally as the nine other states, Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico combined.

"If California is not able to do this right with the resources it put into this, other states will take notice," Blazer said.

The new IDs will be similar to ordinary California licenses but will include the phrase “federal limits apply” on the front, and a caution on the back that the card can’t be used for “official federal purposes.”

Pro-immigration groups have argued that the differences could make immigrants more vulnerable to discrimination.

Isidro Ortiz, a professor at San Diego State University whose area of research focuses on immigration policy and reform, said some activists have referred to the licenses as scarlet letters, marking the bearers as being in the country illegally.

“I think that’s a serious concern, especially here in the border region,” Ortiz said.

He said the apprehension is tied to the number of deportations that have been carried out under President Obama as well as and the stricter border security that’s also called for under the immigration plan.

Alfaro said that Alliance San Diego is developing a hotline to allow immigrants to report discrimination they may face from law enforcement or other entities as a result of the new licenses.

Abel Rivera, a 37-year-old forklift driver, took a class to brush up on differences between driving in California and his native Mexico, where he was a truck driver for more than a decade. One thing he hadn't considered was how to drive on icy roads, said Rivera, who has an appointment  for a license in mid-January.

"The sooner the better, because it will be safer to drive," he told the AP, adding that he hopes to qualify for better insurance coverage and avoid problems like those faced by his brother when he was pulled over and had his car impounded.

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2014/12/26/california-dmv-revs-up-for-undocumented-migrants-applying-for-licenses/

[TheGrinch]

so what happens when the "undocumented immigrant" hits my car with his "valid" DL? He/she still doesnt have any freakin car insurance?

Im confused

[Jack T. Cross]

Yeah, was watching media coverage of this. You'd never know there was even the slightest opposition to it. It's as though everyone is thrilled with the direction we're being pushed toward, to watch this shit. The clips they pick to "represent" public opinion, etc., is just sickening.

I thought FOX was supposed to be "Fair and Balanced"? Why don't they spell it out, to show how the whole "immigration reform" is a bullshit move?

[Jack T. Cross]

so what happens when the "undocumented immigrant" hits my car with his "valid" DL? He/she still doesnt have any freakin car insurance?

Im confused

No, there are insurance companies that will write policies.

[Jack T. Cross]

...but if the person decides to shag ass, instead, then good luck. (and no, the "solution" isn't further globalization, as media would have you believe)

[Jack T. Cross]

The globalist assholes, living within their gated estates...FORCING THE AMERICAN TO BE A BITCH. Laughing all the way to the bank. That's the current state of the world, friends.

[TheGrinch]

The globalist assholes, living within their gated estates...FORCING THE AMERICAN TO BE A BITCH. Laughing all the way to the bank. That's the current state of the world, friends.

but that the EXACT part I dont understand... TPTB have to live in this world too... why the fark would they want to make it worse for themselves by doing all the shit they do?

[240 is Back]

I thought FOX was supposed to be "Fair and Balanced"? Why don't they spell it out, to show how the whole "immigration reform" is a bullshit move?

Hannity came out 2 weeks after the 2012 landslide loss and said we need to embrace immigration reform/amnesty.

Boehnner, ryan, cantor and the other repub bigwhigs all got on board.  Even rand.  and yes, rubio. And of course, jeb.  And yes, mitt too.

Now, Ted Cruz and maybe santorum are the only repubs that are actually against amnesty.   FOX news has embraced it from the top down.  Nobody can really argue it, this is fact now.  Mitt went on record last week to say we should make these obama amnesty changes PERMANENT instead of a one-time thing.  Amazing.  outlibbing the lib!  yet some "repubs" still want mitt to run again in 2016.  They're dems with republican t-shirts on, that's what they are.

[Jack T. Cross]

but that the EXACT part I dont understand... TPTB have to live in this world too... why the fark would they want to make it worse for themselves by doing all the shit they do?

By seeing others suffer, you mean?

[Jack T. Cross]

Hannity came out 2 weeks after the 2012 landslide loss and said we need to embrace immigration reform/amnesty.

Boehnner, ryan, cantor and the other repub bigwhigs all got on board.  Even rand.  and yes, rubio. And of course, jeb.  And yes, mitt too.

Now, Ted Cruz and maybe santorum are the only repubs that are actually against amnesty.   FOX news has embraced it from the top down.  Nobody can really argue it, this is fact now.  Mitt went on record last week to say we should make these obama amnesty changes PERMANENT instead of a one-time thing.  Amazing.  outlibbing the lib!  yet some "repubs" still want mitt to run again in 2016.  They're dems with republican t-shirts on, that's what they are.

Yes, it didn't take much persuasion for FOX to concoct a reason to give up on common people, did it?

Sad thing is, all the morons that snapped right to. This board has many that did exactly that. They know who they are, but they'll run like hell when confronted with it.

[240 is Back]

Yes, it didn't take much persuasion for FOX to concoct a reason to give up on common people, did it?

Sad thing is, all the morons that snapped right to. This board has many that did exactly that. They know who they are, but they'll run like hell when confronted with it.

YES!   I posted a thread containing amnesty points and guess what - most of the "repubs" that scream LIB the loudest were saying "I like this, it's reasonable"

It allowed people who have broken the US law continuously for 5 years to STAY.  Like a freakin award!   Like, let's let the BEST lawbreakers stay, you who got caught aren't shady enough to be here.  unreal.

This whole RINO thing is WORSE than liberals - because they run canddiates like mccain or romney that hand elections to Libs when the conservative base won't settle. 

[Jack T. Cross]

Rupert Murdoch and everyone associated with him have been on board the entire time. He's delivered the quotes to show it. Why can't the dipshits see that?

I'd like to know why the common people turned away from what's right, for such POS ideas.

WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY THINKING?

[Jack T. Cross]

Yeah, 240. And I'll tell you: NO WAY numbers will be controlled. Much, much too easy to allow an open funnel, for it not to take place. So much so, it is ridiculous.

I mean, we separated ourselves from the rest of the world for very good reason, so we need to understand the consequences of giving that up. It seems too few people get that. Globalist acts are committed for reasons of financial gain by way of devaluing people, obviously, so when you realize what an endless chase that becomes, it proposes a very grim reality. A VERY grim reality.

[Dos Equis]

Leaked Documents Show Most Illegals Now Immune to Arrest
Monday, 12 Jan 2015
By James Morrison

New Obama administration rules make the vast majority of illegal immigrants immune to arrest and relegate border patrol agents to the role of social workers, according to Breitbart Texas.

A border agent leaked the documents to the conservative web site, explaining that the Department of Homeland Security has decided that the majority of immigrants crossing U.S. borders illegally cannot be detained or deported without approval from top officials in Washington.

The documents do not specifically order agents to let illegal immigrants pass freely into the United States, the source said. But the rules “clearly” say “don’t waste your time because the alien will not be put into detention, sent back or deported,” he said.

“There is literally no reason to arrest an illegal alien because they are specifically telling Border Patrol there will be no consequence for the illegal alien. It is a waste of time and resources to arrest someone who is off limits for detainment or deportation and the documents make that fact clear,” the source added.

“Border Patrol agents are now being trained to be social workers, not law enforcement.”
News Update

The training documents create three categories of illegal immigrants. “Priority one” includes those who “pose a threat to national security, border security or public safety.” “Priority two” would comprise those guilty of misdemeanors or “new immigration” violations. “Priority three” are simply described as “other immigration violators.”

The new rules follow a Nov. 20 directive from Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, who ordered agents to arrest only immigrants they see crossing the border or those who are wanted criminals or convicted felons.

“This is not how it was before,” the source told Breitbart. “Border Patrol used to arrest, process, and turn the illegal alien over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the courts. Under this new program, the majority of illegal aliens will be released directly from the Border Patrol with no appointments or expectation that they ever have to show up for a hearing.”

http://www.Newsmax.com/US/Border-Patrol-Homeland-Security/2015/01/12/id/618095/#ixzz3OiVPpWHY

[JOHN MATRIX]

Leaked Documents Show Most Illegals Now Immune to Arrest
Monday, 12 Jan 2015
By James Morrison

New Obama administration rules make the vast majority of illegal immigrants immune to arrest and relegate border patrol agents to the role of social workers, according to Breitbart Texas.

A border agent leaked the documents to the conservative web site, explaining that the Department of Homeland Security has decided that the majority of immigrants crossing U.S. borders illegally cannot be detained or deported without approval from top officials in Washington.

The documents do not specifically order agents to let illegal immigrants pass freely into the United States, the source said. But the rules “clearly” say “don’t waste your time because the alien will not be put into detention, sent back or deported,” he said.

“There is literally no reason to arrest an illegal alien because they are specifically telling Border Patrol there will be no consequence for the illegal alien. It is a waste of time and resources to arrest someone who is off limits for detainment or deportation and the documents make that fact clear,” the source added.

“Border Patrol agents are now being trained to be social workers, not law enforcement.”
News Update

The training documents create three categories of illegal immigrants. “Priority one” includes those who “pose a threat to national security, border security or public safety.” “Priority two” would comprise those guilty of misdemeanors or “new immigration” violations. “Priority three” are simply described as “other immigration violators.”

The new rules follow a Nov. 20 directive from Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, who ordered agents to arrest only immigrants they see crossing the border or those who are wanted criminals or convicted felons.

“This is not how it was before,” the source told Breitbart. “Border Patrol used to arrest, process, and turn the illegal alien over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the courts. Under this new program, the majority of illegal aliens will be released directly from the Border Patrol with no appointments or expectation that they ever have to show up for a hearing.”

http://www.Newsmax.com/US/Border-Patrol-Homeland-Security/2015/01/12/id/618095/#ixzz3OiVPpWHY

unbelievable...

[240 is Back]

Leaked Documents Show Most Illegals Now Immune to Arrest

that should make romney and obama happy. 

[Dos Equis]

Good.  Likely going nowhere in the Senate, but at least the House has shown some cojones. 

House GOP Votes To Block Protections For Undocumented Immigrants
Posted: 01/14/2015

WASHINGTON -- House Republicans voted Wednesday to fund the Department of Homeland Security, but with the requirement that millions of undocumented young people, parents and others be put back at risk of deportation.

The DHS funding bill was the opening shot in what is likely to be a contentious weekslong fight over how to deal with appropriations for the agency before its funding runs out at the end of February. For now, Republicans and Democrats have drawn lines in the sand: Most GOP House members said they would not vote to fund DHS without measures to end many of President Barack Obama's immigration policies, while Democrats and the president have vowed to oppose anything that includes those amendments.

But the vote also showed a schism in the House Republicans -- this time from moderates rather than the usual revolts by immigration hardliners. Those moderates nearly derailed an amendment to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy, or DACA, which helps undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children. Twenty-six House Republicans joined with Democrats to oppose that amendment, which narrowly passed in a 218-209 vote.

The vote on the full bill was 236-191. Ten Republicans opposed final passage, and two Democrats split with their party to support it.

"We do not take this action lightly, but simply, there is no alternative," House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a floor speech just before the vote. "It's not a dispute between the parties or even the branches of our government. This executive overreach is an affront to the rule of law and to the Constitution itself."

But what comes next is unclear. In the Senate, members such as Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) have said a DHS bill must include measures to block Obama's executive actions on immigration. But other GOP senators have expressed wariness over adding contentious measures to a must-pass bill and threatening a DHS shutdown.

Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) told reporters Tuesday that the chamber would take up the House bill, but that he wasn't sure of the timing. The bill would need Democratic votes to get through the Senate, which means it could fail there. "If we can't pass the House bill, we'd have to come up with an idea of what could pass the Senate," Cornyn said.

Republican senators and House members are heading to a retreat in Hershey, Pennsylvania, for the remainder of the week and are expected to discuss a path forward on DHS funding. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) told reporters at a Wednesday morning Christian Science Monitor event that he expects it will be a "hot topic of discussion" at the retreat.

They must contend with firm opposition from Obama to bills like the one that passed the House on Wednesday. The White House issued a formal veto threat for the bill earlier this week, and officials have said Obama will veto anything that goes against his executive actions on immigration.

Obama announced a new policy in November to allow some parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents to remain in the country and receive work authorization. He also expanded DACA and created other modes of reprieve that could help up to 5 million undocumented immigrants stay in the U.S.

One approved amendment to the DHS funding bill would end DACA and block those who already have it from renewing that status, which they must do every two years. In addition to blocking those programs, the House Republican package would do away with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement priorities memos that instruct agents to focus on certain categories of undocumented immigrants, and restart a controversial program to make local law enforcement hold suspected deportable immigrants for ICE. Another amendment would require ICE to make those convicted of sexual offenses or domestic violence a top priority for deportation, which Democrats said was both redundant and potentially damaging because it could lead to the removal of domestic violence victims.

Goodlatte said Republicans don't oppose ICE prioritizing whom to target for deportation, but they do oppose policies that lead to some undocumented immigrants receiving benefits, such as work permits.

Democrats have said the Republican bill would effectively demand that ICE deport more undocumented young people, parents and others who have been living in the country for years. Though the executive action policies don't fully protect against deportation, they do grant a higher level of certainty, along with work authorization that lets undocumented immigrants work legally instead of under the table.

Democrats are pushing forward with efforts to get eligible undocumented immigrants signed up for the reprieve. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) will join fellow Democrats on a tour of cities to prepare people for the executive actions, which he predicted Tuesday will stand despite Republican opposition.

"There is no divide on the Democratic caucus on this issue," he said at a press conference. "We're going to stand with the president. Let me just say this: If any of these poison pills are attached, I expect the president of the United States to carry out his veto threat and I expect the Democrats to sustain that veto threat."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/14/house-republicans-dhs-immigration_n_6470288.html