Give Us Liberty

WND EXCLUSIVE

Sheriff Joe's case against amnesty on fast track

'The president does not have the authority to rewrite immigration laws'

A federal appeals court has ordered an expedited schedule for a case brought by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio against President Obama over his amnesty program that is being implemented even as the case progresses.
The order released Wednesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the brief for the appellants is due Jan. 29, and the government’s brief in defense of amnesty will be due March 2.
“Due to the expedited nature of this case, the court will not entertain dispositive motions. The parties should therefore address in their briefs any arguments otherwise properly raised in such motions,” said the order.
“The president does not have the authority to rewrite immigration laws. Legislation and national policy are enacted by Congress, not the president,” said Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, who is representing the famous Arizona sheriff.
Arpaio explained in the original complaint that he’ll be affected directly because he’ll have to deal locally with a multitude of criminals who remain in the U.S. under Obama’s plan rather than being deported and out of his jurisdiction.
“It is a big victory [for] Sheriff Arpaio and, indeed, the American people that the D.C. Circuit recognized the need for this case to be quickly resolved before Obama’s unconstitutional amnesty program goes into full effect this spring,” Klayman said. “There are constitutional issues of great magnitude at stake, and we are confident that the D.C. Circuit will put a legal stop to this illegal activity, which seeks to end-run congressional authority.
“I am grateful for Sheriff Arpaio’s courage in pursuing the very necessary legal action,” he said.
In earlier filings,Arpaio and Klayman 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 said the request to accelerate the case was submitted because the lower court made a mistake in dismissing it. He contends a preliminary injunction should be issued to prevent “irreparable harm” from Obama’s “unconstitutional executive actions granting amnesty to roughly 5 million illegal aliens.”
“Time is of the essence, since the brunt of Obama’s amnesty will occur in February,” Klayman said in his announcement about the case.
“As the old adage goes, justice delayed is justice denied. The D.C. Circuit has a duty to move quickly to protect the citizens of Arizona and the nation from the harmful effects of allowing for the continued horde of illegal criminal aliens who will not now be deported to remain in the United States, as was required under existing law before Obama issued his executive actions. And, an early decision will also allow the Supreme Court discretion to review Obama’s executive actions at the earliest practicable time,” said a statement on the dispute.
According to Sheriff Arpaio: “This act by the president will have a serious detrimental impact on my carrying out the duties and responsibilities for which I am encharged as sheriff. Specifically, if a preliminary injunction is not swiftly entered, Obama’s illegal executive actions will severely strain and cause severe harm to our crime-fighting resources, both in manpower and financially, necessary to protect the citizens I was elected to serve.”
What do YOU think? Do you expect Obama’s amnesty to be stopped? Sound off in today’s WND poll!
The changes already are being made, and it will be a wasted effort if there eventually is a ruling that the amnesty program is not constitutional, the filing explains.
“The entire enforcement mechanism of DHS, including the U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement must abruptly undergo a massive change to stop enforcing the immigration laws and then seek to understand precisely and apply the new criteria so as to exempt from enforcement, even for deportations already imminent, anyone who might potentially qualify for these new programs,” the submission explains.
“A new program granting amnesty to at least 1 million more illegal aliens is scheduled to begin accepting applications for the granting of amnesty no later than February 19, 2015,” the brief explains. “A new program granting amnesty to … approximately 4 million additional illegal aliens is scheduled to begin accepting applications for the granting of amnesty no later than May 20, 2015, which requires the appellees to finalize and publish application guidelines, forms, etc.”
The changes in U.S. law already have begun, it explains.
“On November 20, 2014, by a barrage of memoranda from Secretary [Jeh] Johnson containing various orders, issued at President Barack Obama’s order, appellees both expanded and extended [deferred action privilege] to new categories of ‘childhood arrivals’ as well as to citizens of foreign countries illegally present in the United States who are parents of U.S. citizens or of Lawful Permanent Residents, (typically green card holders), as well as created other programs giving amnesty and/or other benefits to illegal aliens.”
Worse yet, the “executive action” actually “creates an immediate magnet for millions more illegal aliens to rush the border,” the filing warns. It cites the crisis in 2014 when “tens of thousands of children from Central America” crossed illegally through Mexico to reach the U.S. border.
“Some children lost limbs or their lives jumping on to the train or while riding on it. Other children were raped or abused or turned into slaves or diverted to sex trafficking. No one knows how many of those children died in the desert attempting to reach the United States.”
“Allowing the executive branch to immediately implement the president’s DACA and executive amnesty programs will cause irreparable harm, including to those illegal aliens the programs seek to enroll, if the federal courts later determine the programs to be unlawful,” the brief argues.
Klayman had argued at the district court level: “This was important because as we speak, millions of illegal aliens are in the process of being granted amnesty. As presented to the court, a large number of these illegal aliens will be back onto the streets of Maricopa County and the nation as a whole. Many of these illegals are repeat criminal offenders. This puts a great strain on the resources of Sheriff Arpaio’s office and endangers the people of Maricopa County.”
He 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.