Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona’s Maricopa County says his local government has spent at least $9.2 million extra on detention and other costs because of President Obama’s first “deferred action” plan providing some of the benefits of citizenship to illegal aliens in the United States. Which means, he is telling a federal court in Texas, that states suing the federal government over a second round of new and expanded deferred action plans deserve an injunction while the arguments are made over the constitutionality of Obama’s strategy. It’s the only way to prevent significant damage from the memos is using to change American law, he said. Arpaio, represented by attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, has a case against Obama over his amnesty plans pending in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit now. He recently submitted comments to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Brownsville asking to be allowed to file a friend-of-the-court brief in a case brought by dozens of states against Obama over the same issue. So far, about 25 states are part of that lawsuit challenging Obama’s amnesty agenda as lawless. Officials from Texas, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin argue that the “unilateral suspension of the nation’s immigration law is unlawful.” They want a preliminary injunction to provide “immediate intervention” to prevent “dramatic and irreparable injuries” from Obama’s plans. “The statutes passed by Congress, not administrative policy, are the exclusive authority on” the status of illegal aliens in the U.S., the brief explains. Arpaio alleges he suffers direct economic harm from the defendants’ executive action amnesty for citizens belonging to a foreign country. On June 15, 2012, Obama launched the DACA program. As a result, from Feb. 1, 2014, through Dec. 17, 2014, the financial harm from illegal aliens to the office of the sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, was at least $9.3 million, consisting of the costs of holding illegal aliens in the sheriff’s jails. The brief argues that besides the simple argument that a president cannot change national law by memo, there are other restrictions on such actions. “Congress by statute, signed by the president, has restrained and governed the conduct of the executive branch through the [Administrative Procedures Act], including both as to procedures for issuing new regulations and the substance of regulations in faithfulness to the authorizing statutes enacted by Congress – including their constitutionality,” it says. It also argues that if the federal government enforced the existing laws, a significant number of illegal aliens would be removed from the U.S., and “they would not be here to cause financial burdens upon Sheriff Arpaio or the plaintiff states here.” The government has portrayed the changes as exercising prosecutorial discretion on the issue, but Klayman writes in the brief that true prosecutorial discretion is not being challenged. The brief explains that means a series of judgment decisions in a specific case. “Defendants’ programs are neither enforcement discretion or prosecutorial discretion but the creation of regulatory programs conferring amnesty and other affirmative benefits on around 6 million beneficiaries who meet the generalized criteria in violation of the requirements of the APA. “Nothing in this case asks this court to restrain, restrict, or enjoin genuine enforcement discretion or prosecutorial discretion by the defendants,” Klayman wrote. “Plaintiffs are contesting defendants’ sweeping, new regulatory programs … which confer amnesty, immunity and affirmative benefits.” WND reported only days ago on a huge victory for Arpaio’s lawsuit in Washington, when a federal appeals court ordered an expedited schedule for the case. “The president does not have the authority to rewrite immigration laws. Legislation and national policy are enacted by Congress, not the president,” said Klayman of the case. In their case filings, Arpaio and Klayman have argued that some aspects of amnesty already have begun taking effect, and the federal government is preparing to hired thousands of workers to process illegal aliens under amnesty. The goal of the case at the outset was to obtain a ruling from the Supreme Court on Obama’s strategy to use notes to federal agencies, called executive memoranda, to change the law, rather than going through Congress. Klayman has contended Obama “cannot end-run Congress based on his own ‘emperor-like’ actions.” “By his own admission 22 times in the past, Obama lacks the power to take this unconstitutional executive action,” Klayman said. “To allow this to stand would amount to trashing our constitutional republic and set a bad precedent for future presidents.” He argued the status quo should be maintained until Congress changes the national law. WND reported when a federal judge in Pennsylvania declared the amnesty unconstitutional. “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.” Quoting from a previous precedent, the judge said that in the “framework of our Constitution, the president’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker.” “The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad,” Schwab said. The judge said Obama’s contention that Congress had not worked in his time frame was largely irrelevant. Read more at wnd/2015/01/sheriff-joe-continues-push-against-obamas-amnesty/#MJpdI4tfqP1EeL5q.99
Posted on: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 03:51:52 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015