Obama immigration plan blocked by 4-4 tie at Supreme Court

Jun 23, 10:50 AM EDT


Obama immigration plan blocked by 4-4 tie at Supreme Court


By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press




WASHINGTON (AP) -- A tie vote by the Supreme Court is blocking President Barack Obama's immigration plan that sought to shield millions living in the U.S. illegally from deportation.

The justices' one-sentence opinion on Thursday effectively kills the plan for the duration of Obama's presidency.

A tie vote sets no national precedent but leaves in place the ruling by the lower court. In this case, the federal appeals court in New Orleans said the Obama administration lacked the authority to shield up to 4 million immigrants from deportation and make them eligible for work permits without approval from Congress.

Texas led 26 Republican-dominated states in challenging the program Obama announced in November 2014. Congressional Republicans also backed the states' lawsuit.

The Obama administration announced the programs - protections for parents of children who are in the country legally and an expansion of the program that benefits people who were brought to this country as children - in November 2014. Obama decided to move forward after Republicans won control of the Senate in the 2014 midterm elections, and the chances for an immigration overhaul, already remote, were further diminished.

The Senate had passed a broad immigration bill with Democratic and Republican support in 2013, but the measure went nowhere in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives.

The states quickly went to court to block the Obama initiatives.

Their lawsuit was heard by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville, Texas. Hanen previously had criticized the administration for lax immigration enforcement. Hanen sided with the states, blocking the programs from taking effect. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled for the states, and the Justice Department rushed an appeal to the high court so that it could be heard this term.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

Now stop them from flooding across our Border!

No papers...no entry...no rights!

Get the National Guard and our Military down their and turn them right back around. They came through Mexico and they can go right back through Mexico!

Stop the Human Trafficking...drugs...diseases...gangs and terrorists invading our Nation.

Get them the hell out of here. OUT!! OUT!! OUT!!

Supreme Court deadlocks, dooming Obama deportation amnesty

Background info @

Supreme Court tie vote would mean Obama loses immigration case


02-15-2016

And now the bad news.

Because it didn't set a precedent

the illegal alien supporters can try to get the Supreme Court to rehear the entire case in the future.

Quote:

---

A tie vote sets no national precedent but leaves in place the ruling by the lower court. In this case, the federal appeals court in New Orleans said the Obama administration lacked the authority to shield up to 4 million immigrants from deportation and make them eligible for work permits without approval from Congress.

---

Antonin Scalia's death could lead to more 4-4 ties. Here's what ... - Vox

www.vox.com/2016/2/13/10987116/scalia-supreme-court-tie

Feb 13, 2016 - The sudden death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia means the ... In the case of a tie, the lower court's decision is upheld and no precedent is set. ... The Court would have the option to rehear the cases in the following term ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Antonin Scalia's death could lead to more 4-4 ties. Here's what ... - Vox

www.vox.com/2016/2/13/10987116/scalia-supreme-court-tie

Feb 13, 2016 - The sudden death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia means the ... In the case of a tie, the lower court's decision is upheld and no precedent is set. ... The Court would have the option to rehear the cases in the following term ...

---

Yeah, I know, but I'll take it for now. It's definitely better than losing!

Most illegals still won’t be deported

Cut off jobs, freebies, housing, medical, school...they will self-deport.

Amnesty Blocked by a Tied Supreme Court, But Next President Will Decide Whether to Restart It

by Ken Klukowski23 Jun 2016Washington, DC


WASHINGTON, D.C.—President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty program for illegal aliens went down in flames Thursday when the U.S. Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 on the case, leaving in place the lower court’s decision striking down Obama’s program. But a Hillary Clinton victory in November would mean that amnesty would return—and be upheld by a new Supreme Court.

As Breitbart News has reported, in November 2014, Obama reversed his previous position that only Congress can change immigration law, declaring the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program (DAPA), which granted amnesty to 4.5 million illegal aliens in the United States.

Twenty-six states—a majority of the states in the Union—led by Texas, filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of this program. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed with a federal trial court that Obama’s program is illegal. The Fifth Circuit held that DAPA did not follow the Administration Procedure Act’s (APA’s) requirements for how the federal government creates rules and regulations that carry the force of law, and also that DAPA violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the federal law passed by Congress that sets forth who can immigrate into this country, and how they can become citizens.

On April 18, the U.S. Supreme Court heard 90 minutes of legal arguments on this case, the details of which Breitbart News covered firsthand from the Court.

On Thursday, the justices tied 4-4 in this historic case, handing down a one-sentence “per curiam” (“for the Court”) order in United States v. Texas that read, “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.”

When the Supreme Court ties in a case, the lower court opinion is left in place. Therefore the Fifth Circuit’s decision that DAPA is illegal is the law in 26 states. However, it also binds all the defendants in the case nationwide—which means that Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, Labor Secretary Thomas Perez, and all the other federal officials who run DAPA are forbidden from implementing the program anywhere in the nation.

In other words, Obama’s amnesty program is dead.

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Ken Blackwell exclusively responded to Breitbart News regarding today’s decision by applauding the public benefits of the Fifth Circuit’s judgment staying in place, calling it “a win for the rule of law and the separation of powers.”

“The lower court maintained that immigration policy belongs to the people through their elected officials in Congress and that a president cannot unilaterally change the policy,” Blackwell added. “U.S. citizens and legal immigrants in this country have been spared having to face direct job and wage competition from millions of illegals.”
But this victory may be short-lived.

When the Supreme Court ties, no national precedent is created, because the Court itself issued no opinion. That means new challenges can be brought, and if in the future the Supreme Court decides to reconsider a matter, the justices are not in any way bound by the first case, and can freely decide the new case either way.

The tie in United States v. Texas means that there were four justices willing to sustain Obama’s amnesty. If Hillary Clinton wins the White House, she will fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of Antonin Scalia.

Because Clinton will appoint only a reliable liberal, she would be able to restart Obama’s amnesty program, let it go immediately into a new court challenge, and make its way quickly to the Supreme Court, where it is a foregone conclusion that the program would be upheld by a 5-4 liberal majority.

In other words, if Hillary Clinton wins, then even if Republicans keep control of Congress, amnesty for millions of illegal aliens will become a reality.

And even until then, Obama’s first amnesty program, DACA (which granted amnesty to a much smaller number of illegal aliens, focusing on children referred to as DREAMers) will also continue in force throughout 2016, because DACA was not challenged in this lawsuit.

This case is also a sobering and disturbing decision for conservatives because there was a narrow issue on which the Court could have unanimously decided this case against Obama on a temporary basis.

The APA issue, in this case, was that all “substantive rules”—that is, regulations that create public policy resembling a law—must go through the APA’s notice-and-comment requirement. This provision of the APA requires the federal government to publish all proposed rules, allow the American public and various expert groups to submit objections and comments, make formal responses to those concerns, and then issue final rules. That way if anyone files a lawsuit challenging the new regulations, there is a lengthy paper trail that a court can use against the government.

If the Court had ruled that notice-and-comment was not followed here, it could have forced Obama to redo the program correctly, allowing a new legal challenge a couple years down the road. It would have kept the government honest and held it accountable, yet still allowed liberals a chance of victory on the ultimate merits of the case down the road.

But the four liberal justices on the Court were unwilling to take even this very modest step.

It is shocking to suggest that the federal government did not need to go through the time-consuming process, which is used to ensure transparency and enforce government accountability. If Obama could do DAPA without notice-and-comment, then a future president could similarly enact other multi-billion-dollar programs with enormous national consequences without undergoing the process, such as EPA cap-and-trade programs, creating LGBT rules, or fundamental challenges in labor laws, education policy, or military policy.

So the ultimate fate of immigration amnesty and a host of other issues will ultimately be decided by November’s election and the Supreme Court that America’s next president will create.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presid...ether-restart/

Illegal alien groups are angry and flipping out about our victory today

http://www.alipac.us/f12/i-c-e-can-u...aliens-316141/

So a bunch of illegal aliens filled out DAPA and DACA paperwork and wrote down their names, date of birth, place of birth, address, phone number, height, weight, color of hair, parents names, siblings names, etc. Then they got driver's license and got their picture taken and fingerprint, etc. And now all of that info will help locate them for deportation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

So a bunch of illegal aliens filled out DAPA and DACA paperwork and wrote down their names, date of birth, place of birth, address, phone number, height, weight, color of hair, parents names, siblings names, etc. Then they got driver's license and got their picture taken and fingerprint, etc. And now all of that info will help locate them for deportation?

---

I can't think anything sweeter than that. Why wouldn't it be used for deportation?

They got suckered in to giving all of their info and now it gets used against them.

That is just so funny. :cool:

Hugh Fitzgerald: “That’s Who We Are”

JUNE 24, 2016 11:40 AM BY HUGH FITZGERALD

On June 23, Barack Obama expressed some unhappiness with the Supreme Court. By a vote of 4-4, a tie that effectively upheld a lower court’s ruling, the Court blocked Obama’s attempt, through Executive Orders, to protect from deportation millions of illegal immigrants who were the parents of U.S. citizens, or permanent residents, and to institute a program providing similar protections for young undocumented aliens.

Here is part of his speech, its tone borrowed from the Higher Peevery:

Quote:

---

Because being an American is about something more than that. What makes us Americans is our shared commitment to an ideal that all of us are created equal, all of us have a chance to make of our lives what we

will. And every study shows that whether it was the Irish or the Poles, or the Germans, or the Italians, or the Chinese, or the Japanese, or the Mexicans, or the Kenyans — whoever showed up, over time, by a

second generation, third generation, those kids are Americans. They do look like us — because we don’t look one way. We don’t all have the same last names, but we all share a creed and we all share a

commitment to the values that founded this nation. That’s who we are. And that is what I believe most Americans recognize.

---

The secular bomfoggery is par for Obama’s banal course, but still there are things in this paragraph that are worth noting. Obama is under the impression that “what makes us Americans” is our “shared commitment” to an ideal, the ideal that we are “created equal.” But is this true? Is it possible that at least a subset of “all of us” does not believe, and cannot believe, as a matter of deep faith, that we are all “created equal”? And what’s more, it isn’t true that we – “all of us” — “share a commitment” to the “values that founded this nation.”

Which brings me – you knew it would – to Islam. Does Islam share that “commitment to an ideal” that we are all “created equal”? Islam is based on a division of humanity into Believer and Unbeliever, just as the physical world is split between dar al-Islam (the Domain of Islam, where Islam dominates, and Muslims rule) and dar al-Harb (the Domain of War or Chaos, where Islam does not as yet prevail). The Qur’an teaches that Muslims are the “best of peoples”: “Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong.” (3:110) And non-Muslims are, by contrast, the “vilest of creatures” (98:6).

Of course, it is true that there is one way — only one way — for non-Muslims to become “equal” to Muslims, which is to become Muslims themselves. But non-Muslims, from birth, are “unequal” until they accept Islam. This is not what Obama had in mind when he assured us about how “all of us” have this “shared commitment” to the ideal of equality.

Then there was Obama’s second assumption, that “we all share a creed and we all share a commitment to the values that founded this nation.” Well, what are the values that founded this nation? One of the most important surely is that our government’s legitimacy depends upon the extent to which it reflects the will of the people as expressed, however imperfectly, in elections. But that’s not what legitimizes a government for Muslims. In Islam, legitimacy is ascribed to a ruler if he reflects the will of Allah, as set down in the Qur’an. That Islamic ideal explains the greater tolerance for despots in Muslim states; what matters is whether or not the ruler is a good Muslim.

What are the other values of greatest importance to Americans? Surely the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech would be at the top of anyone’s list. By freedom of religion we mean both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. There is no official state religion, favored over all others, and the government will not abridge the right to the free exercise of any religion. But there is hardly a single Muslim-majority country where Islam is not favored over all other faiths (some might argue that Lebanon is one exception), and the exercise of those faiths other than Islam subject to various restrictions, including such things as limits on the building or repairing of places of non-Muslim worship, forbidding any public worship (try finding a church in Saudi Arabia), and creating a climate of permanent fear for individual worshippers (e.g., Hindus and Christians in Pakistan). Nor can the disaffected, that is ex-Muslims, publicly reveal their change or lack of faith; in Islam, the prescribed punishment for apostasy is death.

The other important value which Obama apparently believes we all share is that of the freedom of speech. But in Islam, the freedom of speech is severely limited: speech that is held to blaspheme Muhammad, or to call Islam in any way into question, is punishable and has so often been punished, both by Muslim governments and by Muslim vigilantes. We shouldn’t have to remind Obama about Lars Vilks, Molly Norris, Robert Redeker, the staff of Charlie Hebdo, and many others, but obviously he needs it. Or perhaps one could simply remind him of what the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights, the so-called “Islamic” Declaration, offers as its carefully-curtailed version of “freedom of speech”:

Art 22 (a), “Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such a manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Sharia,” and

Art 22 (c) “Information…may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets”

Obama likes to tell us, superciliously, when there’s a policy he wishes to push, it’s because “that’s who we are,” and, about some outer-darkness alternative he wants us to shun, “that’s not who we are.” It would be wonderful if some interviewer were able to put Obama on the spot and make him explain how he reconciles the Islamic constraints on freedom of religion and speech, the Islamic understanding of what constitutes political legitimacy, the Islamic views on gender equality, the Islamic views on equality (of Muslims and non-Muslims), with the very different views of all of these as enshrined in the American Constitution. At the moment, few journalists have seemed to think it useful or necessary to cross-question Obama about his misunderstanding of Islam. Apparently, we are not to deviate from the party line, to dare to suggest that there is some permanent and irreducible difference between Islam and the West, or Islam and All The Rest. So for the moment, we will have to endure Obama’s self-satisfied mantra of “that’s not who we are” until, mugged by Islamic reality, enough Americans become so fed up that they publicly question the pollyannish people-are-the-same-the-whole-world-over view of Islam that Obama promotes, and not a moment too soon, because, at long last, “that’s who we are.”

Hugh Fitzgerald: “That’s Who We Are”

Barack Obama has no idea "who we are".

DACA Beneficiary Sues to Exempt N.Y.ers from Injunction Blocking Exec. Amnesty

SCOTUS Refuses to Rescue Obama on Executive Amnesty

U.S. Supreme Court won't rehear DAPA/DACA immigration case