Anti-Obama amnesty case: U.S. Appeals Court to hear arguments Monday

Jim Kouri
May 3, 2015
As seen in:
Examiner.com

The legal team representing one of America’s most outspoken lawmen will appear before federal judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Monday to present arguments in a lawsuit seeking to prevent President Barack Obama’s executive actions granting amnesty to over 5 million illegal aliens.

Lower court Judge Beryl Howell, appointed to the federal bench by Obama, had originally thrown out the case claiming it was politically motivated. However, the plaintiff in the case, Arizona’s Sheriff Joe Arpaio strongly disgreed. “The Maricopa County top cop’s case is based on constitutional law not some political agenda. The judge and her benefactor Barack Obama are the ones being political in the opinion of legal scholars such as Law Professor Jonathan Turley, who believes Obama’s executive orders are unconstitutional,” said a law enforcement official who supports Arpaio.

Larry Klayman and his organization, Freedom Watch, are representing Sheriff Arpaio, who believes his department has been harmed by President Obama’s unconstitutional and illegal executive orders. Arpaio and Klayman assert that Obama’s actions have increased the cost of law enforcement because many illegal criminal aliens are being given amnesty rather than being deported as is now legally required.

Klayman said in a released statement: “This [is a] case of paramount importance. What’s at issue is the rule of law. A president, in Obama’s own words, cannot be permitted to act like an ‘Emperor’ and override the will of the people as enacted by Congress. Although two of the three judges on the D.C. Circuit who will hear this case were appointed to the bench by President Obama.”

The former Justice Department prosecutor also said, “I hope that they will put politics aside and rule in favor of the American people to preserve the integrity of the Constitution. Otherwise a terrible precedent will have been set, which Republican presidents could also abuse. This is not a case primarily about illegal immigration, but instead the rule of law generally. As our Founding Father John Adams proclaimed in the days leading up to the signing of the Declaration of Independence, we were to be a nation of laws and not men.”

Not a day goes by without Obama or his minions telling Americans that there are economic and tax advantages to allowing large-scale immigration. But a compelling new Congressional Research Service report exposed the fallacies in such claims.

According to the CRS findings presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee, before the foreign-born population surged in the 1970s and beyond, the median earnings for middle-class Americans rose steadily. After 1970, wages flattened until they plummeted dramatically in 2000.

“Specifically, between 1945 and 1970, the total population’s foreign-born percentage dropped from about 7.7 percent to about 4.7 percent, and the median income for the bottom 90 percent of income tax filers increased by 82.5 percent. But then, as the foreign-born percentage of the population rose to about 13 percent in 2013, the median income for the bottom 90 percent of income tax filers dropped by 7.9 percent – a 40-year low point,” according to Joe Guzzardi of Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS).

The Department of Homeland Security’s annual review of immigration statistics show that the United States granted lawful permanent residence status to an average of 260,000 people annually between the years 1945 and 1970. After the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act passed, family-based immigration soared. From 1971 to 1988, the average number of people given lawful permanent residence was about 502,000, but grew to an average of more than one million a year after 1989 through 2013 as the federal government accepted more and more family petitions for permanent residency.

“Since CRS is a nonpartisan, legislative branch agency that works at Congress’ bidding, its research should generate more scrutiny than it does. But when the subject is immigration, facts, especially obvious ones that contradict the White House dialogue, barely get a look-see,” according to Guzzardi’s report.