A federal judge who last winter ordered
a halt to President Obama’s de facto amnesty and then ordered federal
officials to testify when they were found to be in violation of his
injunction is relenting, just a little.
U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen said Tuesday he will release
certain defendants from testifying, but he warned that he expects the
federal government to comply with his order to stop its
delayed-deportation program before an Aug. 19 hearing.
Fully.
“The court does not consider mere substantial compliance, after an
order has been in place for six months, to be acceptable and neither
should counsel,” Hanen wrote in his newest order in a case brought by 26
states.
Hanen’s injunction disrupted Obama’s plan to delay deportation for up
to 5 million illegal aliens under a 2014 initiative called Deferred
Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA.
DAPA would offer three-year work permits to illegal aliens who have
been in the United States since 2010 and have children who are American
citizens or lawful permanent residents. The Obama administration, in
compliance with Hanen’s order, apparently hasn’t enacted that provision.
But when the federal government began carrying out a DAPA provision
that changes a 2012 program called Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals, Hanen reacted. The provision extends a two-year reprieve on
deportation to three years, and federal government lawyers granted the
extra year to 100,000 applicants, prompting a rebuke from Hanen.
Hanen’s new order releases “individual defendants,” including
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, from an order to
testify, but he said he still has concerns about illegal aliens who have
“credentials issued in violation of the court’s injunction.”
The government “needs to be prepared to discuss the reasons that
these individuals are not in compliance,” Hanen ordered, “the steps the
government has taken and will continue to take to achieve complete
compliance and the time table to achieve that goal in the very near
future.”
It was Feb. 16
when Hanen granted a preliminary injunction
to the 26 states that sued Obama for changing immigration law through
executive action rather than by proposing legislation to Congress.
Ann
Coulter is back, more fearless than ever, writing about the untouchable
subject in American politics: immigration. Her “Adios, America!”
tackles “the disaster that is U.S. immigration policy.”
Government attorneys now are attempting to satisfy the judge,
explaining they are trying to fetch the documents they issued that were
in violation of the his order.
The change in attitude is in sharp contrast to previous reactions from the administration.
Shortly after the judge’s order, the Washington Times reported
Cecilia Munoz, White House domestic policy director, addressed the
issue: “It’s important to put [Hanen's order] in context, because the
broader executive actions are moving forward. The administration
continues to implement the portions of the actions that the president
and the Department of Homeland Security took, which were not affected by
the court’s ruling.”
But Hanen’s original order had said: “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 United States customs and Border
Protection; Ronald D. Vitiello, deputy chief of United States Border
Patrol, United States Customs and Border Protection; Thomas S.
Winkowski, acting director of United States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; and Leon Rodriguez, director of United States Citizenship
and Immigration Services are hereby enjoined from implementing any and
all aspects or phases of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans
and Lawful Permanent Residents.”
And even Obama himself said the Constitution barred him from acting alone.
House Speaker John Boehner has listed 22 times when Obama has made such statements.
For example, in October 2010, Obama said: “I am president, I am not
king. I can’t do these things just by myself. … I’ve got to have some
partners to do it. … If Congress has laws on the books that says that
people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I
can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources,
to focus on people who are really causing problems as opposed to
families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there’s
a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to
execute the law. … I can’t just make the laws up by myself.”
‘Unilateral legislative action’
Hanen’s ruling marks the second time federal courts have ruled against Obama’s amnesty actions.
WND reported the ruling of a federal court in Pennsylvania.
“President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the
separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as
well as the Take Care Clause and, therefore, is unconstitutional,”
said U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab.
The judge noted Obama “contended that although legislation is the
most appropriate course of action to solve the immigration debate, his
executive action was necessary because of Congress’ failure to pass
legislation, acceptable to him, in this regard.”
“This proposition is arbitrary and does not negate the requirement
that the November 20, 2014, executive action be lawfully within the
president’s executive authority,” the judge wrote. “It is not.”
Hanen had told the administration officials to show up in his court after discovering they had gone ahead with the immigration program despite his order.
The judge wrote: “The court was first apprised by the government of
the violations of its injunction on May 7, 2015. It admitted that it
violated this court’s injunction on at least 2,000 occasions –
violations which have not yet been fixed. This court has expressed its
willingness to believe that these actions were accidental and not done
purposefully to violate this court’s order. Nevertheless, it is shocked
and surprised at the cavalier attitude the government has taken with
regard to its ‘efforts’ to rectify this situation. The government
promised this court on May 7, 2015, that ‘immediate steps’ were being
taken to remedy the violations of the injunction. Yet, as of June 23,
2015 – some six weeks after making that representation – the situation
had not been rectified.”
He warned, “At some point, when a non-compliant party refuses to
bring its conduct into compliance, one must conclude that the conduct is
not accidental, but deliberate.”
The case against Obama’s plan
is pending before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
But the courts have refused to overturn Hanen’s injunction and allow
Obama’s immigration amnesty to move forward pending a resolution.
A panel of three judges at the appeals court said Obama’s plan “makes
aliens who were not otherwise qualified for federal public benefits
eligible for ‘social security retirement benefits, security disability
benefits, [and] health insurance under Part A of the Medicare program.’”
“Further, ‘each person who applies for deferred action pursuant to
the [DAPA] criteria … shall also be eligible to apply for work
authorization for the [renewable three-year] period of deferred
action.’”
Such procedures would allow illegal aliens to “‘obtain a Social
Security Number,’ ‘accrue quarters of covered employment,’ and ‘correct
wage records to add prior covered employment,’” the opinion said.
It warned that should the program ultimately struck down, the illegal aliens who participated would have benefited improperly.
The injunction, the appeals judges said, preserves the status quo.
David
Limbaugh’s book chillingly documents the destructive “transformation”
of the United States – get “The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama’s War on
the Republic”
Hanen previously expressed frustration with the government for
failing to inform him that officials also had given deferred action to
108,000 applicants shortly after Obama announced his plan in November.
“The court expects all parties, including the government of the
United States, to act in a forthright manner and not hide behind
deceptive representations and half-truths,” Hanen wrote.
At one point, WND reported, Hanen bluntly asked a Justice
Department attorney whether or not President Obama and federal officials
can be believed.
“I can trust what Secretary [Jeh] Johnson says … what President Obama says?” Hanen asked,
the Los Angeles Times reported.
Fox News reported the judge even went further, instructing Justice Department attorney Kathleen Hartnett, “That’s a yes or no question.”
She responded, “Yes, your honor.”
The Texas lawsuit, joined by 25 other states, was filed when the
states suddenly faced massive new demands for public services such as
schooling and health care from foreigners who previously had been
subject to deportation.
