Obama’s Amnesty Program Would Undermine Constitutional Language Says Appeals Court


The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has not issued a final ruling in the lawsuit to block Barack Obama’s deferred deportation amnesty program, but they definitely tipped their hand yesterday and Obama isn’t happy.

The Obama administration called for the court to overturn the temporary injunction that has blocked the deferred deportation of illegal aliens. In their request, they asked the court to allow the injunction to remain in effect in Texas since that is the state that originated the lawsuit, but to remove the injunction for the rest of the nation.

The Fifth Circuit Court refused to overturn the injunction or keep it for just Texas and not the rest of the nation. In their response to the Obama administration, the Fifth Circuit Court stated:

“The district court found that Texas would lose at least $130.89 on each license it issues to a DAPA beneficiary, and the United States does not dispute that calculation on appeal.”

“It is well established that a financial loss generally constitutes an injury so Texas is likely to meet its burden.”

“That well-established case law is dispositive because if pressure to change state law in some substantial way were not injury, states would have no standing to challenge bona fide harms because they could offset most financial losses by raising taxes or fees. Texas’s forced choice between incurring costs and changing its laws is an injury because those laws exist for the administration of a state program, not to challenge federal law, and Texas did not enact them merely to create standing.”

“‘The government maintains that the nationwide scope of the injunction is an abuse of discretion, so it asks that the injunction be confined to Texas or the plaintiff states, but partial implementation of DAPA would undermine the constitutional imperative of ‘a uniform Rule of Naturalization’ and Congress’s instruction that ‘the immigration laws of the United States should be enforced vigorously and uniformly.’ A patchwork system would ‘detract[] from the ‘integrated scheme of regulation’ created by Congress.’ Further, there is a substantial likelihood that a partial injunction would be ineffective because DAPA beneficiaries would be free to move between states.’”

“The motion to stay the preliminary injunction or narrow its scope pending appeal is DENIED.”

Don’t forget that although the lawsuit to block Obama’s deferred deportation originated in Texas, a total of 26 states have joined in the lawsuit.

I was encouraged to see that the Fifth Circuit Court realized that immigration laws were created by Congress and according to the US Constitution, only Congress can change them. They also stated that constitutional language mandates that the immigration laws be enforced uniformly and vigorously, something that has not been done since Obama declared himself the supreme dictator.

If our current immigration laws were being uniformly and vigorously enforced, millions of illegals would already have been deported to their home countries. Had that been done, thousands of Americans would not be the victims of their crimes – robbery, assault, molestation, rape and murder. It would also have freed up millions of jobs for American citizens and saved state and local governments millions in benefits that they would not have had to pay.

In places close to the Mexican border, more families would feel safe in their homes at night. More small hospitals and urgent care centers would still be open and available to help Americans in need.

But all this doesn’t matter to Obama. He only sees millions of illegal voters casting illegal votes for Democrats and he seems to be determined to do everything in his power and not of his power to make this a reality. That is the heart of the entire immigration debacle that he has created.

Previous Hillary Clinton Approved Arms Deal To Saudi Arabia After $10 Million Donation to Clinton Foundation
Next Modern American Criminal Justice – De Facto Segregation?

Comment