Federal judge rules against Obama's immigration plan

December 16, 2014
examiner.com

Part of President Barack Obama’s new plan to extend an amnesty of sorts for upwards of 5 million illegal aliens hit its first legal roadblock on Tuesday. A federal judge handed down a ruling that stated providing relief from deportation for what Obama’s lawyers euphemistically call “undocumented immigrants” is a clear violation the of the United States Constitution. The court decision is the first of many expected decisions that may eventually push the lawsuits against de facto amnesty up to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015.

The government attorneys in response to the ruling claim the decision has not caused the Obama administration to give up on its planned executive orders, and that Judge Arthur Schwab of the Western District of Pennsylvania had used a case of an illegal alien, Elionardo Juarez-Escobar, that was not relevant to the issue.

Schwab is the first judge to rule on the legality of the plan Obama announced on Nov. 20, 2014, after years of denying he had the authority to take any action that would interfere in the execution of immigration law. Besides a majority of voters who oppose executive action by the president, the Republicans in the House of Representatives and the Senate are already mounting their own legal challenges, not to mention challenges by the attorneys general of about 24 states and other lawsuits and injunction motions filed in federal court by law enforcement officials and government watchdogs.

Judge Schwab ruled, what most legal scholars have stated: that Obama’s executive action was a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers as well as the requirement for the President to “faithfully execute laws” that are passed by Congress and signed by the President of the United States. While illegally entering the United States is considered a misdemeanor or minor offense, re-entering after deportation is a crime punishable by up to 20-years in prison.

“Obama has displayed a propensity for deciding how and when to uphold certain laws and he’s gone as far as deception in order to rationalize what many believe is unlawful acts by the executive branch,” said political strategist and attorney Michael Baker. “Sadly, until the case comes before the nation’s highest court, this issue will drag on and illegal aliens will remain in the country illegally. And that includes those who are classified as criminal aliens,” he said.

This month will see another federal case address this same issue: a federal district court judge on has ordered a Dec. 22, 2015, hearing regarding a lawsuit filed by Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio to halt any action by the Obama administration to stop deportations or to grant work permits to more than five million illegal aliens. Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Wednesday ruled that President Barack Obama must respond to Sheriff Arpaio’s legal action.

The newly elected Governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, who is leaving the office of state attorney general, noted that the presidential decree “circumvents the will of the American people.” Texas is leading more than 20 other states in fighting Obama’s “amnesty by fiat,” and Abbott believes his state will make a convincing argument regarding the harm to Texas and Texans by such an action.