Thread: DAPA in Court 4/18 - Most Illegals Deemed "Lawfully Present" Being Pushed

This will give ALL illegals with an anchor baby the status of being "lawfully present" & earning SS benefits, disability, medicare....... they ALL have anchor babies.........

Obama Claims Power to Make Illegal Immigrants Eligible for Social Security, Disability

By Terence P. Jeffrey | April 6, 2016 | 2:31 PM EDT

(AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

Does the president of the United States have the power to unilaterally tell millions of individuals who are violating federal law that he will not enforce that law against them now, that they may continue to violate that law in the future and that he will take action that makes them eligible for federal benefit programs for which they are not currently eligible due to their unlawful status?

Through Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, President Barack Obama is telling the Supreme Court exactly this right now.

The solicitor general calls what Obama is doing "prosecutorial discretion."

He argues that under this particular type of "prosecutorial discretion," the executive can make millions of people in this country illegally eligible for Social Security, disability and Medicare.

On April 18, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case.

Entitled United States v. Texas, it pits President Obama against not only the Lone Star State, but also a majority of the states, which have joined in the litigation against the administration.

DAPA - At issue is the policy the administration calls Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, which would allow aliens in this country illegally who are parents of citizens or lawful permanent residents to stay in the United States.

"The Executive Branch unilaterally created a program — known as DAPA — that contravenes Congress's complex statutory framework for determining when an alien may lawfully enter, remain in, and work in the country," the attorney general and solicitor general of Texas explained in a brief submitted to the Supreme Court on behalf of the states seeking to block the policy.

"DAPA would deem over four million unlawfully present aliens as
'lawfully present' and eligible for work authorization," says the Texas brief. "And 'lawful presence' is an immigration classification established by Congress that is necessary for valuable benefits, such as Medicare and Social Security."

In the administration's brief, the solicitor general admits that the president's DAPA program does not convert people illegally in the United States into legal immigrants. He further asserts that the administration at any time can decide to go ahead and remove these aliens from the country.

"Deferred action does not confer lawful immigration status or provide any defense to removal," he says. "An alien with deferred action remains removable at any time and DHS has absolute discretion to revoke deferred action unilaterally, without notice or process."

Despite this, he argues, the administration can authorize aliens here illegally on "deferred action" to legally work in the United States.

"Without the ability to work lawfully, individuals with deferred action would have no way to lawfully make ends meet while present here," says the administration's brief.

Nonetheless, the solicitor general stresses that "deferred action" does not make an illegal immigrant eligible for federal welfare.

"In general," he says, "only 'qualified' aliens are eligible to participate in federal public benefit programs, and deferred action does not make an alien 'qualified.'... Aliens with deferred action thus cannot receive food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, temporary aid for needy families, and many other federal benefits."

But, he says, aliens here illegally with deferred action will be eligible for "earned-benefit programs."

"A non-qualified alien is not categorically barred, however, from participating in certain federal earned-benefit programs associated with lawfully working in the United States — the Social Security retirement and disability, Medicare, and railroad-worker programs — so long as the alien is 'lawfully present in the United States as determined by the (Secretary),'" says the solicitor general.

The "secretary" here is the secretary of Homeland Security.

"An alien with deferred action is considered 'lawfully present' for these purposes," says the solicitor general.

So, as explained to the Supreme Court by Obama's solicitor general, when DHS grants an alien here illegally "deferred action" under the president's DAPA policy, that alien is not given "lawful immigration status" and can be removed from the country "at any time." However, according to the solicitor general, that alien will be authorized to work in the United States and will be "considered 'lawfully present'" for purposes of being eligible for "the Social Security retirement and disability, Medicare, and railroad-worker programs."

The U.S. Constitution imposes this straightforward mandate on the president: "(H)e shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."
When the Supreme Court agreed in January to hear U.S. v. Texas, it made a telling request. It asked the parties to argue whether Obama's DAPA policy "violates the Take Care Clause of the Constitution."

The Obama administration has taken care of just one thing here: It has constructed a convoluted — and unconvincing argument — it hopes will provide the activists on the Supreme Court with a cover story to explain why this president need not faithfully execute the nation's immigration laws.

http://cnsnews.com/commentary/terenc...urity?AID=7236

Supreme Court tie vote would mean Obama loses immigration case

I had read that a Supreme court tie vote would mean that the Fifth Circuit injunction against DAPA would only apply in the Fifth Circuit. Is that true?

Originally Posted by Captainron

I had read that a Supreme court tie vote would mean that the Fifth Circuit injunction against DAPA would only apply in the Fifth Circuit. Is that true?

That is one of those questions that depend upon whom you ask. Every self appointed "Expert" will give their opinions as "Fact".
Me? I don't know.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is spearheading the legal push against President Barack Obama's actions. | AP Photo

Senate GOP files Supreme Court brief against Obama’s immigration actions

By Seung Min Kim
04/04/16 02:31 PM EDT
Updated 04/04/16 07:58 PM EDT

Senate Republicans are wading into the contentious court fight over President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration by filing a legal brief with the Supreme Court that declares Obama’s controversial moves a “stark contravention to federal law.”

The amicus brief is a significant assertion from most members of the Senate GOP conference that Obama’s executive actions — whose future depends on the eight justices now sitting on the Supreme Court — should be ruled unconstitutional.

The key point from the nearly four dozen GOP senators who signed the brief is that Obama, through his immigration programs, is essentially making law from the White House, threatening the separation of powers laid out by the Constitution.

“There is little doubt that [Obama] adopted the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (“DAPA”) program as part of an explicit effort to circumvent the legislative process,” the Republicans’ friend-of-the-court brief, to be released later Monday, says.

The Republican-led House of Representatives voted last month on a resolution that green-lights an amicus brief arguing against the Obama administration. Lawyers for the House also on Monday filed their brief, which argues that "neither any immigration law now on the books nor the Constitution empowers [Obama] to authorize—let alone facilitate—the prospective violation of those laws on a massive class-wide scale.”

The legal push in the Senate was spearheaded by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who circulated a Dear Colleague letter last month that urged fellow Republicans to sign on. In the letter, he called Obama’s actions a “brazen challenge” to Congress’s law-making powers.

“Not only is the President’s blatant refusal to follow those laws an extraordinary and virtually unprecedented power grab, it is a direct attack on our constitutional order,” McConnell wrote in the Dear Colleague letter, obtained by POLITICO. “The Senate has a duty to ensure that the President faithfully enforces the laws that Congress enacts.”

McConnell also argues that Obama’s executive actions are “unprecedented” in their scope. The prime argument from Democrats has been that presidents dating back to Dwight Eisenhower have taken some form of so-called “deferred action” to protect immigrants from being deported. But McConnell argues that the latest actions, announced in November 2014 but on hold since due to a federal court order, are not comparable to actions from previous chief executives.

Of the 54-member Senate GOP Conference, 43 senators endorsed the brief. The 11 Republicans who did not sign appear to have disparate reasons for doing so. For instance, Sens. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Rob Portman of Ohio and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania are all Republicans running for reelection in swing states, where endorsing the immigration brief could open them up to attack from Democrats hoping to capitalize on support from Latino voters.

Among others who did not sign the brief, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska are among the more moderate members of the Republican conference, while Cory Gardner of Colorado and Dean Heller of Nevada represent Latino-heavy states. Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, who also did not endorse the brief, is an ardent Republican advocate of immigration reform, though he has expressed concern with Obama’s unilateral actions. Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa also did not sign on.

Oral arguments in the high-stakes case will be held at the Supreme Court on April 18. The legal case against Obama’s actions was triggered by a lawsuit led by the state of Texas and now joined by more than two dozen GOP-led states. If allowed to go through, the programs would give work permits to potentially more than four million immigrants here illegally but who came to the United States as children or are parents to U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

More than 200 Democratic lawmakers from both the House and Senate have submitted multiple amicus briefs backing Obama’s actions.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...#ixzz44tjJtW7K

Senate GOP Files Brief Against DAPA In Supreme Court Case

Apr 5^th 2016 @ 1:40 pm EDT

Senate Republicans filed an amicus brief yesterday against Pres. Obama’s executive amnesty, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA), in the upcoming Supreme Court case. In the brief Senate Republicans claim that Pres. Obama overstepped his authority by issuing an executive action that would change current immigration laws.

“There is little doubt that [Obama] adopted the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (“DAPA”) program as part of an explicit effort to circumvent the legislative process,” the Republicans’ friend-of-the-court brief states.

DAPA was put on hold last February after Texas and 25 other states filed a lawsuit against the executive action. The injunction has been upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court that said DAPA would affect more than just immigration enforcement but would actually change the status of illegal aliens.

DAPA would provide approximately 5 million illegal aliens access to work permits and social security cards, which would qualify them for other state and federal benefits including welfare, essentially granting them legal status.

The Supreme Court will begin to hear arguments on the case on April 18th and is expected to give a ruling by the end of June.

Out of the 54-member Senate GOP conference 43 senators signed the brief while only 11 did not. Here are the 43 members who signed the brief:

1. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
2. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)
3. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)
4. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
5. Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY)
6. Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO)
7. Sen. John Boozman (R-AR)
8. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)
9. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA)
10. Sen. Daniel Coats (R-IN)
11. Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS)
12. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN)
13. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR)
14. Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID)
15. Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT)
16. Sen. Michael Enzi (R-WY)
17. Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE)
18. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
19. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
20. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
21. Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND)
22. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)
23. Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
24. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI)
25. Sen. James Lankford (R-OK)
26. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)
27. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
28. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS)
29. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
30. Sen. David Perdue (R-GA)
31. Sen. James Risch (R-ID)
32. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS)
33. Sen. M. Michael Rounds (R-SD)
34. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)
35. Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE)
36. Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC)
37. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
38. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL)
39. Sen. Daniel Sullivan (R-AK)
40. Sen. John Thune (R-SD)
41. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC)
42. Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)
43. Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS)

The 11 members who did not sign the brief include:

1. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
2. Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC)
3. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
4. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA)
5. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
6. Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO)
7. Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV)
8. Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL)
9. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
10. Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH)
11. Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA)

https://www.numbersusa.com/news/sena...eme-court-case

http://video.insider.foxnews.com/v/v...amp;share=true
Krauthammer: If Obama Wins Immigration Battle, 'Then There Are No Laws'



As seen on Special Report with Bret Baier

Later this month, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments surrounding President Obama's executive orders on illegal immigrants.

The justices will review whether Obama, acting without congressional approval, has the power to shield from deportation up to 5 million immigrants living in the U.S. illegally and make them eligible to work without fear of being rounded up.

At issue is the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program, which Obama said in late 2014 would allow people who have been in the United States more than five years and who have children who are in the country legally to "come out of the shadows and get right with the law."

When he announced the measures 14 months ago, Obama said he was acting under his own authority because Congress had failed to overhaul the immigration system. The Senate did pass legislation on a bipartisan vote, but House Republicans refused to put the matter to a vote.

On "Special Report," Charles Krauthammer said that if Obama prevails in the Court against opposition led by Republican governors, "then you can send Congress home and you can eliminate Article I from the Constitution -- then there are no laws."

Krauthammer said that if the president can unilaterally overturn the action by Congress, "then we have essentially a single branch of government that legislates."

"This is a huge decision. I do not understand how the four liberal justices will -- as they will -- resist the logic here."

Watch the segment at either top or bottom link.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/04/0...re-are-no-laws

---