Stephanie
Diamond Member
- Jul 11, 2004
- 70,230
- 10,864
- 2,040
SNIP:
66 2 351
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Email ArticlePrint Article
Send a Tip by Ken Klukowski 15 hours ago 135post a comment
President Obamas new amnesty policy regarding illegal aliens violates the law. But theres probably no route to trump it either in Congress or in court, so the only recourse is for the American people to trump it by electing a new president.
Obamas actions on granting backdoor amnesty fall into two different stages. Each is illegal for different reasons. However, occasionally situations can arise in our constitutional system where there is a right without a remedy, where peoples rights are being violated but theres nothing a court can do about it. Thats whats happening here.
Although the details are still unclear, according to reports Obamas new policy will be not to deport illegal aliens if they (1) were brought to America before age 16, (2) have not yet reached age 30, (3) have no criminal record, (4) have graduated from high school, and (5) are either pursuing college or serving in the military. Aliens meeting all five criteria can be issued work visas and wont be deported.
The argument Obama is using is that prosecutorial discretion gives the executive branch sole discretion to determining which cases to allocate resources to, so they can decide which aliens to deport. One problem with that argument is that theres a difference between deciding case-by-case which ones to go after, versus making a policy of not going after anyone in a very broad category. Another is that such discretion doesnt in any way extend to issuing work visas.
Commentators are already talking about lawsuits. There are two parts to this policy, and neither can be challenged in court.
The first part consists of the presidents speech and any executive orders he makes pursuant to that speech. (Such as ordering the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to stop deportations.)
No one can sue over those, because theres no right of action in federal court over presidential speeches or orders. (Unless, perhaps, if a president issues an order directly against a specific person or organization, which is not the case here.) You must cite to some constitutional provision or federal statute that empowers you to take an issue to court.
A right of action will be created when DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano acts on Obamas order by creating regulations for issuing the work permits and stopping deportations. The Administration Procedure Act (APA) creates a cause of action for any regulation that is contrary to law. These new lawless rules and regulations certainly qualify.
However, you probably still cant have a lawsuit because no one has standing. In order to have standing to sue in federal court, a plaintiff must assert a personal injury that is different from an abstract injury to the public at large; one that is clear and concrete; one that can be directly traced to the defendant; and one that a court can fix by giving the plaintiff what he asks in the lawsuit.
read it all..
Only Voters Can Hold Obama Accountable for Illegal Amnesty Policy
66 2 351
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Email ArticlePrint Article
Send a Tip by Ken Klukowski 15 hours ago 135post a comment
President Obamas new amnesty policy regarding illegal aliens violates the law. But theres probably no route to trump it either in Congress or in court, so the only recourse is for the American people to trump it by electing a new president.
Obamas actions on granting backdoor amnesty fall into two different stages. Each is illegal for different reasons. However, occasionally situations can arise in our constitutional system where there is a right without a remedy, where peoples rights are being violated but theres nothing a court can do about it. Thats whats happening here.
Although the details are still unclear, according to reports Obamas new policy will be not to deport illegal aliens if they (1) were brought to America before age 16, (2) have not yet reached age 30, (3) have no criminal record, (4) have graduated from high school, and (5) are either pursuing college or serving in the military. Aliens meeting all five criteria can be issued work visas and wont be deported.
The argument Obama is using is that prosecutorial discretion gives the executive branch sole discretion to determining which cases to allocate resources to, so they can decide which aliens to deport. One problem with that argument is that theres a difference between deciding case-by-case which ones to go after, versus making a policy of not going after anyone in a very broad category. Another is that such discretion doesnt in any way extend to issuing work visas.
Commentators are already talking about lawsuits. There are two parts to this policy, and neither can be challenged in court.
The first part consists of the presidents speech and any executive orders he makes pursuant to that speech. (Such as ordering the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to stop deportations.)
No one can sue over those, because theres no right of action in federal court over presidential speeches or orders. (Unless, perhaps, if a president issues an order directly against a specific person or organization, which is not the case here.) You must cite to some constitutional provision or federal statute that empowers you to take an issue to court.
A right of action will be created when DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano acts on Obamas order by creating regulations for issuing the work permits and stopping deportations. The Administration Procedure Act (APA) creates a cause of action for any regulation that is contrary to law. These new lawless rules and regulations certainly qualify.
However, you probably still cant have a lawsuit because no one has standing. In order to have standing to sue in federal court, a plaintiff must assert a personal injury that is different from an abstract injury to the public at large; one that is clear and concrete; one that can be directly traced to the defendant; and one that a court can fix by giving the plaintiff what he asks in the lawsuit.
read it all..
Only Voters Can Hold Obama Accountable for Illegal Amnesty Policy
