Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Could a Texas judge derail Obama's DREAM Act amnesty plans?
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Leroy N. Soetoro
May 17, 2013, 3:57:47 PM5/17/13
to
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/05/06/could-texas-judge-derail-obama-
dream-act-amnesty-plans/?intcmp=obnetwork
So maybe the president can�t rewrite the law as he pleases! That�s the
early word from a federal judge in Texas.
On April 24, Judge Reed O�Connor concluded that the Obama administration�s
policy of granting de facto amnesty to some people who entered the country
illegally violates federal immigration law.
He did not issue an injunction, although that may still happen. The judge
is holding off on issuing a final ruling until both parties to the lawsuit
file briefs on one remaining issue.
Judge O�Connor is hearing "Christopher Crane v. Napolitano," a case in
which nine agents of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are
suing their boss, ICE Director John Morton, and his boss, Homeland
Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.
At issue is a 2012 directive from Napolitano barring ICE agents from
starting deportation proceedings against unlawful immigrants who:
- are not yet 30
- were younger than 16 when they entered the country illegally
- have lived here for five years
- have graduated or are attending high school or have served in the
military and
- have no felony convictions.
The directive further instructed ICE agents to halt deportation
proceedings already underway for people fitting these criteria. Instead,
the agents were ordered to grant them and others in the same category work
authorization if they qualified.
Clearly, this was an attempt by the administration to enact�by executive
fiat�most of the DREAM immigration reforms that Congress failed to enact
last year.
ICE agents challenged the DHS directive, claiming that it compels them to
violate the law or face disciplinary action. Federal immigration law,
they say, requires them to initiate removal proceedings against anyone
they detain.
The agents also charge that the directive violates the federal
Administrative Procedure Act because it was implemented without the public
notice and comment required for all new government regulations.
On almost all of these issues, the judge ruled against the government.
There is no question, he said, that the law �mandates the initiation of
removal proceedings whenever an immigration officer encounters an illegal
alien who is not �clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted.��
The administration argued that the law applies only to unlawful immigrants
encountered at a �port of entry.� But once someone makes it past the
border, the government claimed, the DHS Secretary has wide �prosecutorial
discretion� as to whether or not to commence removal proceedings.
Napolitano�s lawyers even argued that the word �shall� in the statute (as
in �the alien shall be detained�) doesn�t have the plain meaning normally
given to that command.
The court disagreed. �Discretion� does not entail the power to create new
law.
Judge O�Connor found ��DHS cannot implement measures that are incompatible
with Congressional intent.�
The judge did not issue an injunction because the government raised a new
issue very late in the case. The administration claimed that, since the
ICE agents are career employees, their claims are �employment-related� and
can only be brought through the civil service merit system. The judge
requested additional briefing on this issue by May 6.
The judge also did not rule on another question: whether DHS can dismiss
or suspend deportation proceedings once they have been initiated. The
agents didn�t raise that issue.
This is an important decision nonetheless. A court has held that the
administration does not have unbridled discretion to simply ignore a law
it doesn�t like. But there is no doubt that Judge O�Connor�s final
decision � when it comes � will be appealed.
Hans von Spakovsky is a Senior Legal Fellow in The Heritage Foundation�s
Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. He is a former Commissioner at the
Federal Election Commission and lawyer in the Justice Department.
--
Barack Obama, reelected by the dumbest voters in the history of the United
States of America.
Eric Holder, racist black murdering United States Attorney General, still
has his job.
Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact to
improper vetting of Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama, a confirmed
felon using SSAN 042-68-4425, belonging to a dead man.
Obama ignored the brutal killing of an American diplomat in Benghazi, then
relieved American military officers who attempted to prevent said murder
in order to cover up his own ineptness.
Obama continues his goal of disarming America while ObamaCare increases
insurance premiums 200% and leaves millions without health care.
Obama helped bankrupt Illinois. Democrat run Chicago closes 54 public
schools.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
dream-act-amnesty-plans/?intcmp=obnetwork
So maybe the president can�t rewrite the law as he pleases! That�s the
early word from a federal judge in Texas.
On April 24, Judge Reed O�Connor concluded that the Obama administration�s
policy of granting de facto amnesty to some people who entered the country
illegally violates federal immigration law.
He did not issue an injunction, although that may still happen. The judge
is holding off on issuing a final ruling until both parties to the lawsuit
file briefs on one remaining issue.
Judge O�Connor is hearing "Christopher Crane v. Napolitano," a case in
which nine agents of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are
suing their boss, ICE Director John Morton, and his boss, Homeland
Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.
At issue is a 2012 directive from Napolitano barring ICE agents from
starting deportation proceedings against unlawful immigrants who:
- are not yet 30
- were younger than 16 when they entered the country illegally
- have lived here for five years
- have graduated or are attending high school or have served in the
military and
- have no felony convictions.
The directive further instructed ICE agents to halt deportation
proceedings already underway for people fitting these criteria. Instead,
the agents were ordered to grant them and others in the same category work
authorization if they qualified.
Clearly, this was an attempt by the administration to enact�by executive
fiat�most of the DREAM immigration reforms that Congress failed to enact
last year.
ICE agents challenged the DHS directive, claiming that it compels them to
violate the law or face disciplinary action. Federal immigration law,
they say, requires them to initiate removal proceedings against anyone
they detain.
The agents also charge that the directive violates the federal
Administrative Procedure Act because it was implemented without the public
notice and comment required for all new government regulations.
On almost all of these issues, the judge ruled against the government.
There is no question, he said, that the law �mandates the initiation of
removal proceedings whenever an immigration officer encounters an illegal
alien who is not �clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted.��
The administration argued that the law applies only to unlawful immigrants
encountered at a �port of entry.� But once someone makes it past the
border, the government claimed, the DHS Secretary has wide �prosecutorial
discretion� as to whether or not to commence removal proceedings.
Napolitano�s lawyers even argued that the word �shall� in the statute (as
in �the alien shall be detained�) doesn�t have the plain meaning normally
given to that command.
The court disagreed. �Discretion� does not entail the power to create new
law.
Judge O�Connor found ��DHS cannot implement measures that are incompatible
with Congressional intent.�
The judge did not issue an injunction because the government raised a new
issue very late in the case. The administration claimed that, since the
ICE agents are career employees, their claims are �employment-related� and
can only be brought through the civil service merit system. The judge
requested additional briefing on this issue by May 6.
The judge also did not rule on another question: whether DHS can dismiss
or suspend deportation proceedings once they have been initiated. The
agents didn�t raise that issue.
This is an important decision nonetheless. A court has held that the
administration does not have unbridled discretion to simply ignore a law
it doesn�t like. But there is no doubt that Judge O�Connor�s final
decision � when it comes � will be appealed.
Hans von Spakovsky is a Senior Legal Fellow in The Heritage Foundation�s
Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. He is a former Commissioner at the
Federal Election Commission and lawyer in the Justice Department.
--
Barack Obama, reelected by the dumbest voters in the history of the United
States of America.
Eric Holder, racist black murdering United States Attorney General, still
has his job.
Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact to
improper vetting of Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama, a confirmed
felon using SSAN 042-68-4425, belonging to a dead man.
Obama ignored the brutal killing of an American diplomat in Benghazi, then
relieved American military officers who attempted to prevent said murder
in order to cover up his own ineptness.
Obama continues his goal of disarming America while ObamaCare increases
insurance premiums 200% and leaves millions without health care.
Obama helped bankrupt Illinois. Democrat run Chicago closes 54 public
schools.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
0 new messages