This judge gave Obama a slap in the face


A ruling from the United States District Judge federal trial judge, Andrew Hanen in Brownsville, Texas has put a stop to the immigration question anyway. It is 123 pages long, and I will digest part of the temporary injunction for you. A temporary injunction means stop what you are doing in terms of this amnesty for immigrants.  This injunction is against “The United States of America, its departments, agencies, officers, agents and employees and Jeh Johnson, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, R. Gil Kerlikowske Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Ronald D Vitiello deputy chief, US Border Patrol, United States Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Leon Rodriguez Director of USA citizenship and immigration services, are all hereby enjoined from implementing any and all aspects or phases of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans for lawful permanent residents.”

This judge gave Obama a slap in the face. Yes it will probably be over turned. This judge saw through all of the BS and the propaganda about this ‘executive action’. First of all, seeing the numbers involved and after the phrase “Deferred Action for Parents of Americans for lawful permanent residence as set out in” this is the wording of the judge, “ Secretary Jeh Johnson’s memorandum dated November 20, 2014 (DAPA memorandum)”. One of the key rulings of this judge, is that the implementation of this amnesty didn’t even occur by an executive order of the president. I have discussed this before ( . I tried to find on the official White House pages any sign of an executive order creating this amnesty, and all I could find was on or around November 20, 2014 was a memorandum from the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, which has been used to make up this ‘law’.

This judge just nailed it with this ruling. There is little piece of what he said, “The DHS was not given any discretion by law to give 4.3 million removable aliens what the DHS itself labels as ‘legal presence.’ He says, “In fact the law mandates that the illegally present individuals be removed. The DHS has adopted a new rule that substantially changes both the status and employability of millions. These changes go beyond mere enforcement or even non-enforcement of this nation’s immigration scheme”. This judge is nailing this. There is no lawful authority for the Secretary of Department of Homeland Security to all of a sudden say that all sorts of ‘removable illegal’s’ in this country, illegally under law, are going to stay because of prosecutorial discretion.”

The concept as explained here before ( , the concept of prosecutorial discretion is one in which under the circumstances and facts of an individual case, a prosecutor may, in the interest of justice modify or withdraw a prosecution. Prosecutorial discretion is not allowed to assume that 4.3 million people, which is number given by the Obama administration, because of prosecutorial discretion are not going to be removed from the United States even though they are removable by their status, by law passed by Congress signed by a president.

In addition to that, we have a situation in which the president has expanded beyond the issue of whether the individual is going to be removed from the country; the president is going to give them a work permit. Nothing in the law, allows that if any individual case, under prosecutorial discretion is deferred, delayed, or withdrawn at the immigration court in terms of deportation, there is no authority to give that person a work permit anywhere the law – it is completely made up.

The most interesting thing about this opinion, brought by 26 states- led by Greg Abbott now the Governor of Texas, who then was Attorney General, who said wait a minute the non-enforcement of immigration law by this president dumps millions of people on our states, who are going to want drivers licenses because he told they could get them.   This has caused California to open up nine new offices of the Department motor vehicles exclusively for illegal’s and the foot the cost. In the school districts, in law enforcement, in DMV and a whole bunch of places, the states have to bear the burden, the cost of the Obama non-enforcement of the law and basically making up the law about illegal’s rights which were heretofore non-existent by law. The judge stated that the federal government cannot by non-enforcement of the law, impose costs on the states. Basic law built into our Constitution. The judge said that “Obama had been disingenuous.” In case you do not understand the legal vocabulary, he meant that Obama was lying. That is what disingenuous means.


When Obama said that all he was only issuing a guidance to the officer of the Immigration Service, the judge said “While the program does not provide legal permanent residency, it certainly provides a legal benefit in the form of legal presence plus all that it entails. A benefit not otherwise available in existing immigration laws. In this case actions speak louder than words.”

That is a tough one for Obama to swallow, because all he is, is words. From the, ruling this on the subject of prosecutorial discretion “The DHS (Department of Homeland Security) cannot reasonably claim that under a general delegation to establish enforcement policies, it can establish a blanket policy of non-enforcement but also rewards legal presence and benefits to otherwise removable aliens.” “As a general matter of statutory adjudication,” the judge said, “if Congress intended to confer that kind of discretion through the HSA provision,” (that’s the immigration law) “to apply to all of its mandates under these statutes, there would have been no need to expressly and specifically confer discretion in only a few of those provisions.” In other words, Congress said in regard to this, this and this detail we will leave it to you to figure out how to enforce those provisions. The judge said “You had discretion given on certain items, that does not give you discretion to ignore the entire law, discretion is selective not all inclusive.”

Therefore, the administration has asked another court to stay the injunction. Let us see if this judge will follow the law. For them to issue a stay, they would have to offer a counter argument for ALL of the points raised by this judge in Texas. Or, will the judge issue some mumble-jumble and hope for an appointment to a higher court later on.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s