Immigration agents file suit against Napolitano

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Immigration agents file suit against Napolitano over 'amnesty' program


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz24PGM4e8L




Ten federal immigration agents have filed suit against Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano claiming recent directives are forcing them to break the law and ignore their duties when it comes to deporting illegal immigrants.
The suit was filed Thursday in Texas federal court by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials. It challenges recent directives allowing some illegal immigrants -- particularly non-felons and those who came to the U.S. as children -- to stay and, in some cases, get work permits.
The suit, obtained by Fox News, says the agents are being forced to "violate federal law." It says the new directive "unconstitutionally usurps and encroaches upon the legislative powers of Congress." ICE Director John Morton is also named as a defendant.
Kris Kobach, lead attorney on the case, equated the move to give thousands of illegal immigrants a reprieve to the failed Fast and Furious gun-walking operation.
"In both instances, the Obama administration ordered federal law enforcement agents to break the law, to ignore the laws that they're supposed to enforce, and, in the case of the ICE agents, to actually break federal laws that say you're supposed to deport certain people," he said. "And in each case, the Obama administration seems to be doing so for political reasons."
Kobach, the Kansas secretary of state, is also an adviser to Mitt Romney and a co-author of the Arizona illegal immigration law.
DHS spokesman Matt Chandler, reacting to the suit, stressed that the current policy allows the department to focus on serious offenders -- he said ICE removed a record 216,000 criminal aliens in fiscal 2011.
"DHS uses prosecutorial discretion to assist in focusing vigorously on the removal of individuals who are convicted criminals, repeat immigration law violators, and recent border crossers," he said. "This policy is a temporary measure; Congress must still act to provide a permanent solution to fix the broken immigration system."
Napolitano defended the new rules during testimony last month before the House Judiciary Committee.
"These policies promote the efficient use of our resources ensuring that we do not divert them away from the removal of convicted criminals by pursuing the removal of young people who came to this country as children and who have called no other country home," she said.
The Supreme Court has recognized the ability of the federal government to use what's known as "prosecutorial discretion" in the enforcement of immigration law. In the recent case over the Arizona immigration law, the court defended the government's ability to make "some discretionary decisions."
In the suit, the agents are asking a federal judge to block the directives in question, saying they amount to an end-run around Congress and violate the separation of powers between the Legislative and Executive branches.
Republican lawmakers released a flurry of statements Thursday backing up the suit and challenging the administration policy.
"The Obama administration's amnesty program not only rewards lawbreakers, it also forces ICE agents to violate federal law. ICE agents should enforce our immigration laws and apprehend illegal immigrants. But the Obama administration makes it impossible for ICE agents to do their jobs," House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said in a statement.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., has also raised concern about the possibility of ICE agents being compelled to release illegal immigrants with misdemeanor records.
"It is a sad day when our nation's law enforcement officers are left with no recourse but to file suit against the administration and its political appointees," he said in a statement


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz24PGD6CBF




DHS spokesman Matt Chandler, reacting to the suit, stressed that the current policy allows the department to focus on serious offenders -- he said ICE removed a record 216,000 criminal aliens in fiscal 2011. They don't mention that all those caught at the border that are simply turned around are a huge part of that 216,000 criminal aliens. They're lying to everyone, except when they pander to La Raza, then they tell them that the number is so high because they count those turned around. But you notice when trying to justify their crap to the citizens who want our border secured and immigration laws followed, they call them criminal aliens. They are criminal aliens when is suits their needs, and when it doesn't, then they're just poor immigrants wanting a better life.

[wetibbe]

As known I'm an old timer *( pre-WW2 ). I can recall Adolph Hitler and the Nazi's, brown shirts. When he began acting up in the late 1930's German citizenry was shocked, skeptical, suspicious and nervous - with very good reason.

Those of us who follow it have watched Venezuela's Hugo Chavez systematically progress to a dictators status anointing himself "President for Life". We see this in many others, Moammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Syria's Assad, Egypt's Mubarak and many others such as Stalin, Napoleon and so on down through history.

Now our Chicago street thug and his Cabal are systematically bypassing the Constitution and ordering law enforcement to violate the law: such as the fast and furious gun walker scandal and now the amnesty by edict.

Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert was on Fox news this morning and amplified the total illegality of the orders to turn loose illegal aliens.

I'm not surprised that ICE is suing the lesbian. The troops are turning in open revolt. If BS *( Barry Soetoro ) is actually re-elected there are predictions of another revolt.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Update 8/23 9:00 a.m.

LUBBOCK (CBSDFW.COM) - Reactions continue after a Texas leader issued a public warning for what he calls a ‘civil war’ and possible invasion of United Nations troops if President Barack Obama is re-elected.

Lubbock County Judge Tom Head is convinced that Mr. Obama winning a second term would lead to a revolt by the American people and he’s is pushing a tax increase for the district attorney’s office and the Lubbock County Sheriff’s Office. He says the money is needed to “beef up” its resources in case President Obama wins the November election.


Judge Tom Head (credit: Lubbock County)

On Thursday, KRLD NewsRadio 1080 spoke with both Republican and Democrat officials in Lubbock County, regarding the judge’s recent comments to a local Fox television station.

“We certainly don’t agree with the President and a lot of his policies, but I don’t see any U.N. troops coming to invade Texas anytime soon,” said Lubbock County Republican spokesperson Carl Tepper.

PLAY: Carl Tepper with the Republican Party of Lubbock County

Download: 8-23-12-tepper.mp3



The Democrats in Lubbock aren’t laughing.

“It’s ridiculous. It’s very embarrassing for us here in Lubbock,”Commissioner Gilbert Flores said frustrated.

When asked if the Judge should resign over his comments Mr. Flores said, “I don’t know if it will do any good if he resigns or not. I will be very honest with you, this is West Texas, this is hard core anti-Obama/Tea Party.” Flores continued, “Most of these people here are not anti-Obma, President of the United States, they are anti-Obama the black man.”

PLAY: Commissioners Court of Lubbock , Commissioner Gilbert Flores

Download: 8-23-12-flores.mp3



During his interview Judge Head said that in the event of civil unrest he’s concerned the President would hand over sovereignty of the United States to the U.N. and that the American public would react violently.

“He’s going to try to hand over the sovereignty of the U.S. to the United Nations, what’s going to happen when that happens?” Judge Head told FOX 34 in Lubbock.

“I’m thinking worse case scenario,” he explained. “Civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war maybe…we’re not just talking a few riots or demonstrations.”

The West Texas judge’s proposed tax increase is to help the sheriff’s office hire a law enforcement large enough to protect the county and to drive away the invaders.

“I don’t want rookies,” Head said flatly. “I want trained, equip and seasoned veteran officers to back me.”

PLAY: KRLD’s L.P.Phillips spoke with Lubbock

[ilbegone]

The requirement of the President of the United States to enforce laws passed by Congress and signed on by a previous president whether he agrees with them or not:

Article II Section I clause 8 of the Constitution:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Article II section III of the Constitution:

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Congressional Revocation and Alteration of Executive Orders:

... Further, as long as it is not constitutionally based, Congress may repeal a presidential order, or terminate the underlying authority upon which the action is predicated. For example, in 2006, Congress revoked part of an executive order from November 12, 1838, which reserved certain public land for lighthouse purposes.28 Congress has also explicitly revoked executive orders intheir entirety, such as in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which revoked a December 13, 1912, order that created Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 2.29 Another example of the express nullification of an executive order by Congress involved the revocation of an executive order by President George H. W. Bush to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a human fetal tissue bank for research purposes. To effectuate this repeal, Congress simply directed that the “the provisions of Executive Order 12806 shall not have any
legal effect. ”There have been numerous similarly revoked executive orders and proposals to revoke particular executive orders.

Additionally, Congress has used its appropriations authority to limit the effect of executive orders, such as denying salaries and expenses for an office established in an executive order, as well as denying funds to implement a particular section of a subsequently revoked executive order that would have enabled agency heads to designate a presidential appointee to serve as the agency’s regulatory policy officer. Additionally, Congress has used appropriations acts to enable a program created by executive order to receive donations for publicity materials about the program. Outside of appropriations bills, other legislative proposals have included those that would codify existing executive orders with modifications... https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...2wun3mVEAtfEfg

Congress has the right to repeal executive orders, but it may require a super majority of both houses - enough to over-ride a veto. As I'm understanding it, an executive order in the case of existing law is permissible if the intent of the law is not clear and the executive order fills in the gaps - but I'm not sure. However, immigration law is very clear as to the intent and Obama is constitutionally required to enforce the law, whether he likes it or not.

I'm not sure, but this might be construed to mean that Congress might be able to deny salaries and department funding to those within the Justice Department who fail to carry out the law under the directive of an executive order for so long as they refuse to enforce the law. Maybe such a position would be a stretch and it might be extremely disruptive if carried out...

Obama can also be impeached for not enforcing the laws.

If Congress doesn't act in accordance to either protect their legislative turf, correct the over reach of an aggressive president, or to curb a president who is defying the Constitution by directing that our laws not be enforced there is recourse to the courts by the citizenry.

And interesting, thought provoking, and somewhat alarming opinion essay on the subject entitled Barack Obama And Ruling By Presidential Decree by Thomas Sowell: http://news.investors.com/article/62...der.htm?p=full http://news.investors.com/article/62...der.htm?p=full