[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

How Red Light Unlocks Your Body’s Hidden Fat-Burning Switch

The Mar-a-Lago Accord Confirmed: Miran Brings Trump's Reset To The Fed ($8,000 Gold)

This taboo sex act could save your relationship, expert insists: ‘Catalyst for conversations’

LA Police Bust Burglary Crew Suspected In 92 Residential Heists

Top 10 Jobs AI is Going to Wipe Out

It’s REALLY Happening! The Australian Continent Is Drifting Towards Asia

Broken Germany Discovers BRUTAL Reality

Nuclear War, Trump's New $500 dollar note: Armstrong says gold is going much higher

Scientists unlock 30-year mystery: Rare micronutrient holds key to brain health and cancer defense

City of Fort Wayne proposing changes to food, alcohol requirements for Riverfront Liquor Licenses

Cash Jordan: Migrant MOB BLOCKS Whitehouse… Demands ‘11 Million Illegals’ Stay

Not much going on that I can find today

In Britain, they are secretly preparing for mass deaths

These Are The Best And Worst Countries For Work (US Last Place)-Life Balance

These Are The World's Most Powerful Cars

Doctor: Trump has 6 to 8 Months TO LIVE?!

Whatever Happened to Robert E. Lee's 7 Children

Is the Wailing Wall Actually a Roman Fort?

Israelis Persecute Americans

Israelis SHOCKED The World Hates Them

Ghost Dancers and Democracy: Tucker Carlson

Amalek (Enemies of Israel) 100,000 Views on Bitchute

ICE agents pull screaming illegal immigrant influencer from car after resisting arrest

Aaron Lewis on Being Blacklisted & Why Record Labels Promote Terrible Music

Connecticut Democratic Party Holds Presser To Cry About Libs of TikTok

Trump wants concealed carry in DC.

Chinese 108m Steel Bridge Collapses in 3s, 16 Workers Fall 130m into Yellow River

COVID-19 mRNA-Induced TURBO CANCERS.

Think Tank Urges Dems To Drop These 45 Terms That Turn Off Normies

Man attempts to carjack a New Yorker


Resistance
See other Resistance Articles

Title: Judge Nap: 'Rare Ruling Against Obama Could Delay Amnesty Forever'
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/02/ ... as-immigration-amnesty-forever
Published: Feb 18, 2015
Author: .
Post Date: 2015-02-18 01:35:36 by James Deffenbach
Keywords: None
Views: 1272
Comments: 90

Judge Andrew Napolitano said today that a new federal court ruling could actually delay President Obama's immigration amnesty "forever."

On FBN's "Varney & Co.," the judge explained the meaning behind the new ruling that temporarily blocks the implementation of Obama's executive actions on immigration.

The ruling came late Monday after 26 states asked the court to delay the implementation until after the conclusion of a lawsuit challenging the legality of Obama's orders.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen granted the preliminary injunction Monday after hearing arguments in Brownsville, Texas, last month. He wrote in a memorandum accompanying his order that the lawsuit should go forward and that without a preliminary injunction the states will "suffer irreparable harm in this case."

"The genie would be impossible to put back into the bottle," he wrote, adding that he agreed with the plaintiffs' argument that legalizing the presence of millions of people is a "virtually irreversible" action.

The first of Obama's orders -- to expand a program that protects young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. illegally as children -- was set to start taking effect Wednesday. The other major part of Obama's order, which extends deportation protections to parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have been in the country for some years, was not expected to begin until May 19.

Napolitano called Hanen's ruling "rare," saying one federal judge usually does not decide to stop the president from doing something. He said it's more common for a federal judge to let an appeals court decide.

"You could count on one hand the number of times a single federal judge has done this to a President of the United States since World War II and you would not use all your fingers," he said.

The case now moves to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that covers New Orleans and Houston.

Napolitano said the amnesty program is on hold "probably forever" unless the appeals court decides to overturn Hanen's injunction.

He said it will probably take longer than two years - Obama's remaining time in office - for the overall case to wind its way through the courts.

"The judge said the feds will probably lose and there is probably irreparable harm to the states, therefore I am going to stop this from happening and I'm going to stop it right now," he explained.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 67.

#3. To: James Deffenbach (#0) (Edited)

Napolitano called Hanen's ruling "rare"...

Rarer still is a judge granting States standing to bring suit over a clearly delineated reserved power...even more puzzling is that he based his ruling on an unrelated law, i.e. The Administrative Procedures Act, rather than an issue of either constitutional authority, i.e. issuing an Executive Order, which is what was actually challenged, or the actual law itself, i.e. Title 8 Section 212.5...those facts underscore the activist nature of the decision...

war  posted on  2015-02-18   10:27:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: war (#3)

Rarer still is a judge granting States standing to bring suit over a clearly delineated reserved power..

Lol, you are funny!

So, the president is the one who makes law? Not congress? Is that your clearly delineated power?

Friggen unbelievable.

Dead Culture Watch  posted on  2015-02-18   12:03:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Dead Culture Watch (#5)

So, the president is the one who makes law?

The President is the one who executes the law. In this particular case, the law (Title 8 Section 212.5) allows an agent of the executive branch (which is headed by the POTUS) to parole any alien in to the US and having been granted parole, apply for a work permit.

Again, this decision was not based upon any Constitutional issue; it was based upon a wholly contrived violation of The Administrative Procedures Act...an act that grants the POTUS power to implement law in stages...making it applicable to an existing law that has seen similar acts of parole done prior is extremely puzzling...

war  posted on  2015-02-18   12:22:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: war (#6)

When one treats an individual this way, it is NOT defacto making law.

You know, and I know, that is EXACTLY what he is doing.

Dead Culture Watch  posted on  2015-02-18   16:02:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Dead Culture Watch (#7)

When one treats an individual this way, it is NOT defacto making law.

I'm unclear as to what you are stating here...

war  posted on  2015-02-19   8:43:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: war (#8)

What I said, although I admit a but murkily, is that 0Zero can grant pardons legally, of course, on an INDIVIDUAL basis.

When he does so for GROUPS, he is in fact, making law.

Something not exactly in his job description.

Dead Culture Watch  posted on  2015-02-20   4:21:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Dead Culture Watch (#9)

When he does so for GROUPS, he is in fact, making law.

I've read the law...it puts no such restriction on DHS regarding parole...and, in fact, DHS lists keeping families, a group, together as a means of obtaining humanitarian parole...

war  posted on  2015-02-20   8:27:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: war (#10) (Edited)

When he does so for GROUPS, he is in fact, making law.

I've read the law...it puts no such restriction on DHS regarding parole...and, in fact, DHS lists keeping families, a group, together as a means of obtaining humanitarian parole...

This Presidential "pardon/reprieve" issue [Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1] has already been discussed thoroughly before. You seem to be confusing that with some kind of imaginary, perpetual immunity for illegal aliens from immediately reverting back to criminal status within a split second of such an Executive overreach to supposedly grant them "absolution" for their prior offenses here. Obama couldn't even sign "re-orders" fast enough to keep up with that glitch in his "Amnesty" schemes, which he seemingly intends to do for illegal migrants what the 14th Amendment did after the "Civil War" by blanketly bestowing U.S. citizenship in-general for every State citizen here uniformly so as to ensure the Constitutional rights of any freed Slaves that didn't have State citizenship yet.

In the first place, the only Constitutionally delegated authority that the Federal government actually has over immigration is to protect the States from invasion [Article IV, Section 4: Guarantee Clause] and to establish, then equitably maintain, a "uniform Rule of Naturalization" [Article I, Section 8, Clause 4: Naturalization], not special rules for illegals -- both of which Obama has been violating and coercively so. The States have the reserved right to determine their immigration policy in accordance with their intake ability.

Edited sentence 3 and next to last sentence.

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-02-20   10:53:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: GreyLmist (#12)

This Presidential "pardon/reprieve" issue [Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1] has already been discussed thoroughly before.

Granting parole is not the same as granting a pardon or a reprieve. Pardons and reprieves are terminal. Parole is temporary and the power to do so has been extended by enacted law...in this case Title 8 Section 212.5

. You seem to be confusing that with some kind of imaginary, perpetual immunity for illegal aliens from immediately reverting back to criminal status within a split second of such an Executive overreach to supposedly grant them "absolution" for their prior offenses here.

I'm not confused at all. On the other hand, anyone confusing the temporary state of parole with *amnesty*, which is a permanent state, is the one who is confused.

In the first place, the only Constitutionally delegated authority that the Federal government actually has over immigration is to protect the States from invasion

That's pure bullshit. The Federalist, Madison's notes and the Farrand Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 all make it very clear that this clause refers to a violent invasion by a foreign army (which included the neighboring Indian nations).

"Then, on July 18, Gouverneur Morris objected to this language on the ground that ''[h]e should be very unwilling that such laws as exist in R. Island ought to be guaranteed to each State of the Union.'' 2 id., 47. Madison then suggested language ''that the Constitutional authority of the States shall be guaranteed to them respectively against domestic as well as foreign violence,''

" Again, on July 18, when Wilson and Mason indicated their understanding that the object of the proposal was ''merely'' to protect States against violence, Randolph asserted: ''The Resoln. has 2 Objects. 1. to secure Republican government. 2. to suppress domestic commotions. He urged the necessity of both these provisions.'' 2 id., 47. Following speakers alluded to the dangers of monarchy being created peacefully as necessitating the provision. Id., 48. See W. Wiecek, The Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution -

See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/...e4/annotation18.html#t322

Then you have Joseph Story:

§ 1812. "A protection against invasion is due from every society, to the parts composing it. The latitude of the expression here used, seems to secure each state not only against foreign hostility, but against ambitious or vindictive enterprises of its more powerful neighbours.

-Joseph Story, Commentaries On The Constitution

http://www.constitution.org/js/js_341.htm

The States have the reserved right to determine their immigration policy in accordance with their intake ability.

You couldn't be more wrong...states have no power to regulate persons as they ingress or egress through their states...

war  posted on  2015-02-20   11:19:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: war (#15) (Edited)

Granting parole is not the same as granting a pardon or a reprieve. Pardons and reprieves are terminal. Parole is temporary and the power to do so has been extended by enacted law...in this case Title 8 Section 212.5

Parole involves a conviction. People aren't "paroled" from criminal status prior to being convicted, nor are illegal aliens "paroled" to "immunity", temporarily or otherwise, from being reinstated to criminal status. Don't go trying to sneak that word into Article 2. It ain't there and isn't supposed to be.

Edited sentence 2.

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-02-20   11:33:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: GreyLmist (#17)

Parole involves a conviction.

Wrong.

In immigration law there are three possible ways to be paroled.

definitions.uslegal.com/p/parole-immigration/

Stop trying to play Perry Mason.

war  posted on  2015-02-20   11:40:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: war (#18)

Wrong.

In immigration law there are three possible ways to be paroled.

definitions.uslegal.com/p/parole-immigration/

Stop trying to play Perry Mason.

They haven't sought asylum or refugee status. They are sneakers. Nor have they all been released from detention facilities. Not that I really care much what lawsmithies concocted about it to try and get around the Constitution. There is no Presidential "parole" power in Article II, period. I don't have long to debate this with you this today, so you stop trying to play Perry Mason and then maybe I'll stop objecting.

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-02-20   11:52:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: GreyLmist (#21)

They haven't sought asylum or refugee status.

Nor have they all been released from detention facilities.

So?

There is no Presidential "parole" power in Article II, period.

Irrelevant...the POTUS is the chief executive of laws...Congress, in its exercise of its Article I powers, enacted immigration law that grants immigrants a limited right to be paroled into the US.

war  posted on  2015-02-20   12:41:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: war (#24)

There is no Presidential "parole" power in Article II, period.

Irrelevant...the POTUS is the chief executive of laws...Congress, in its exercise of its Article I powers, enacted immigration law that grants immigrants a limited right to be paroled into the US.

Congress isn't really authorized to reword or otherwise alter the Article II restricted powers of the Executive branch by passing immigration law. It would take an Amendment, and one in keeping with all of the Constitution, to write the word "parole" into that section.

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-02-22   11:59:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: GreyLmist (#39)

It would take an Amendment, and one in keeping with all of the Constitution, to write the word "parole" into that section.

Good observation. AND valid, had we still had a Constitution.

The USCON is now what the Emperor sez it is these days. Congress are nothing but 435 bobblehead poodles.

Liberator  posted on  2015-02-27   17:37:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: Liberator (#54)

It would take an Amendment, and one in keeping with all of the Constitution, to write the word "parole" into that section.

Good observation. AND valid, had we still had a Constitution.

So far, I've been able to trace this supposed "parole" issue back to last year and the Military was being used then as an excuse to preferentially "legalize" any illegal alien family members of serving U.S. citizens, as well as to fast-track them non-uniformly for citizenship:

Immigration change gives legal status to undocumented relatives of US military

Excerpts:

By William La Jeunesse, Dan GalloPublished March 11, 2014 FoxNews.com

a new Obama administration policy is extending legal status and military benefits to thousands of illegal immigrants who are the spouses, parents and children of American military members.

But critics say the policy is tantamount to backdoor amnesty.

"A whole class of aliens with no right to be in the United States are suddenly going to be allowed to live and work here on the basis of their relationship with military and veterans," said Dan Cadman, with the Center for Immigration Studies.

The exemption, called parole in place, came in the form of a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services "policy memorandum." It was not submitted to or approved by Congress, and the regulations were not published in the Federal Register, which allows for public comment prior to a rule taking effect.

"I don't want to overstate it, but it sounds very similar to imperial decree if you ask me," Cadman said. "The public had no chance to comment on this new policy. I believe the way this was done was illegal."

Obama administration officials say the new rules do not require congressional action because they're based on existing statutes.

Based on what existing statues? Doesn't say, nor whether the statutes in question are themselves Unconstitutional.

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-01   12:14:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: All (#62)

Based on what existing statues? Doesn't say, nor whether the statutes in question are themselves Unconstitutional.

US Senator for Utah, Mike Lee:

How Illegal Aliens Will Receive Fast Track to Citizenship Under the President’s Executive Amnesty - Dec 11 2014

As we all know, the President has recently announced executive action on immigration — what he calls “deferred action” for millions of aliens who are here illegally, but who have children who were born here and are therefore U.S. citizens.

The President has repeatedly assured the American people that he is not creating a path to citizenship for those people. But the President is not telling the truth. He and his Administration have cleared the pathway to citizenship for millions of people who crossed our border illegally; they know that’s what they’ve done; and it is illegal.

Immigration law is very complicated, but here’s the bottom line: If you are a foreign national and a parent of a U.S. citizen, when that child reaches age 21, assuming you haven’t committed certain crimes or done certain other things, you can get a green card and, eventually, citizenship.

However, if you crossed the U.S. border illegally — “entered without inspection” as the law says — you first have to leave the country, wait a period of either 3 or 10 years before returning (depending on how long you had resided in the U.S.) and then come back into the United States lawfully in order to get back on the path to citizenship.

That’s how the system is designed to work. That’s what the law says.

But the President is now opening a huge loophole, using a program called “advance parole,” that will allow millions of illegal aliens, who are not currently eligible for citizenship, to bypass the rules and become eligible for green cards and eventually citizenship.

Here’s how it works:

Under the law, parole is essentially permission for an undocumented alien to travel to the United States. Parole is a kind of temporary, emergency pass to let someone into the country for an extremely urgent reason. In fact, a federal statute restricts the President’s power to use parole to a very narrow set of circumstances.

That law, INA § 212(d)(5)(A) says that the executive branch may parole people into the United States “only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.” “Urgent humanitarian reasons” means things like: to get medical treatment, or perhaps to attend a close relative’s funeral. “Significant public benefit” usually means things like: you’re a witness to a crime, and you need to attend the trial even though you can’t get a visa.

But for deferred action recipients filing for “advanced parole,” which allows them to obtain a parole waiver without first having to leave, the President is using a much more relaxed standard: they simply need to file Form I-131 with USCIS which allows deferred action recipients to get parole for “educational purposes, employment purposes, or humanitarian purposes.”

Educational purposes include, but are not limited to, semester abroad programs or academic research;

Employment purposes include, but are not limited to, overseas assignments, interviews, conferences, training, or meetings with clients;

These more relaxed standards are in clear violation of existing law. In no universe is a “meeting with a client” or a “conference” an urgent humanitarian reason or a significant benefit to the American public.

Once they have secured advance parole, they can leave and return lawfully. And when they have reentered the country legally, using their advanced parole documents, the government will now ignore the fact that the individual had ever crossed over illegally – which now makes this person eligible to obtain a green card and eventually become a citizen.

For example, imagine a foreign national walks up to the border, whereupon border officials ask him for his visa. He says, “I don’t have a visa. But I do have a business meeting in Denver. Can’t you just let me in?” No doubt he would be turned away.

But for the new deferred-action recipients who have been granted advanced parole, they will be allowed to leave and come back so long as they can claim they have a business meeting or an interview (or anything else that falls under the new relaxed standards).

Once back in the country they will be allowed to stay, and once they meet the criteria for a green card application, they will be on their way to citizenship.

How do I know this? In 2010, the American Spectator published a leaked DHS memo, a version of which reached the DHS Secretary, exploring the Administration’s options on immigration. That memo explicitly contemplated using parole as a way to sidestep Congress and give citizenship to illegal aliens who are relatives of U.S. citizens. It says, “[I]ndividuals could…be paroled into the U.S. for purposes of applying for adjustment of status…To render immediate relatives of U.S. citizens eligible for parole, DHS could issue guidance establishing that family reunification constitutes a ‘significant public benefit.’”

So to be clear: Advance parole leads to citizenship for parents of U.S. citizens; the Administration knows that; and they are giving advance parole for reasons — like client meetings — that clearly violate federal law.

This is the danger of unilateral executive action, drafted in secret and announced to the American people as a fait accompli. In our system, policies are debated in the legislature and their consequences explored through that debate. Here, the President’s action has avoided that constitutional lawmaking process. But it has also broken existing laws.

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-01   12:45:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: GreyLmist (#63)

Lee makes several misstatements of fact. Simply filling out form I-131 will not suffice. The person must also provide form I-134 as well as a detailed explanation of why deferred action for humanitarian parole is being requested.

war  posted on  2015-03-02   11:31:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 67.

#84. To: war (#67) (Edited)

Lee makes several misstatements of fact. Simply filling out form I-131 will not suffice. The person must also provide form I-134 as well as a detailed explanation of why deferred action for humanitarian parole is being requested.

You'd probably know much more about all of that than me but I'll check this statement by Senator Lee at Post #63:

"Once they have secured advance parole, they can leave and return lawfully."

Your frequently cited source again, TITLE 8 SECTION 212.5: "PAROLE OF ALIENS INTO THE UNITED STATES" - Government Publishing Office, CFR-2012-title8-vol1-sec212-5. Scroll to pg. 208, 2nd down here:

blah, blah, blah ... fast-forward to the last 2 paragraphs, column 2 ... "discretionary" glitches:

(e) Termination of parole—(1) Automatic. Parole shall be automatically terminated without written notice (i) upon the departure from the United States of the alien, or, (ii) if not departed, at the expiration of the time for which parole was authorized, and in the latter case the alien shall be processed in accordance with paragraph (e)(2) of this section except that no written notice shall be required.

(2)(i) On notice. In cases not covered by paragraph (e)(1) of this section, upon accomplishment of the purpose for which parole was authorized or when in the opinion of one of the officials listed in paragraph (a) of this section, neither humanitarian reasons nor

[Contined on pg. 209, last one there and at top of left column]

public benefit warrants the continued presence of the alien in the United States, parole shall be terminated upon written notice to the alien and he or she shall be restored to the status that he or she had at the time of parole. When a charging document is served on the alien, the charging document will constitute written notice of termination of parole, unless otherwise specified. Any further inspection or hearing shall be conducted under section 235 or 240 of the Act and this chapter, or any order of exclusion, deportation, or removal previously entered shall be executed.

You at #68: www.cubanet.org/htdocs/CNews/y00/mar00/28e7.htm

Note the use of the word *parole*...

Ah, yes, Elian Gonzalez...iirc, that child was either deported during Dem. Clinton's admin or it was decided compellingly otherwise, then, that he be sent back to his family and home in Cuba.

Edited formatting + paragraph referencing for the 2nd link.

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-03-04 12:01:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 67.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]