Larry Klayman
December 9, 2014
Will federal court block Obama's amnesty?
By Larry Klayman

Will a federal court block President Barack Obama's new "executive action" amnesty for illegal aliens? Readers may recall that an injunction against the National Security Agency (NSA) and other federal agencies was issued by U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in my lawsuit against warrantless telephone surveillance. That injunction ordering the NSA and others to stop their mass surveillance is currently on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Like the NSA injunction, Freedom Watch is asking the federal court to stop Barack Obama's amnesty of around 6 million illegal aliens. (See freedomwatchusa.org.) Thursday afternoon – on behalf of Sheriff Joe Arpaio – I filed a motion for preliminary injunction. The motion occurs in the lawsuit Freedom Watch brought against Obama and officials of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) exactly one week earlier, Civil Action Number 1:14-cv-01966.

A sworn affidavit from Sheriff Arpaio and attached documents, which were filed with the motion, explain how amnesty will directly harm the resources, finances and burden upon the Maricopa County, Arizona, sheriff's office. Arpaio released the stunning results of a study of the 4,000 illegal aliens that have been booked into the sheriff's jails. About 36 percent of those illegal aliens are repeats, after Arpaio had previously handed them over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It appears that the Obama administration is not deporting illegal aliens even after they are caught committing state-law crimes in the United States, taken into custody and handed to DHS on a silver platter for deportation.

If our motion is granted, the federal court would prevent Obama and the DHS from taking any action to implement the programs until the court can decide. Our motion asks for an injunction to halt what Obama calls his "executive action" grant of amnesty to approximately 5 million illegal aliens. The motion also asks the judge to halt Obama's 2012 "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals" (DACA) program, which granted amnesty to roughly 1 million so-called "Dreamers" who entered the country illegally as children. (Hence the total of 6 million I reference.)

Immediately that same day, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell issued an order for the parties to confer, agree and file by Tuesday, Dec. 9, 2014, at 5 p.m. a "joint proposed schedule to govern the preliminary injunction proceedings." Because the defendants have not yet filed a response, Judge Howell is ordering a scheduling plan. Judge Howell seems intent to ensure fast action on the preliminary injunction motion.

Still, Obama is defiant. The Washington Times now reports that the Obama administration has already posted job openings – formal requests for applications – for 1,000 new government workers with salaries up to $157,000 per year to process amnesty requests for approximately 6 million illegal aliens. DHS has already leased space in Arlington, Virginia, for these 1,000 new bureaucrats to hand out the right to stay in the United States, along with an "Employment Authorization Card" (work permit) that can be used to get a driver's license as well as take a job from a U.S. citizen.

Because the Employment Authorization Card will not identify whether a person got their status in the United States the honorable and legal way or is an illegal alien, these 6 million people could use their new driver's license to register to vote under the "Motor Voter" procedure. These heretofore "undocumented illegals" could vote immediately, unlawfully. Our voting registration system operates largely on the honor system, since no one investigates until there is a complaint.

Meanwhile, it is shocking how Republicans in Congress are waffling about fighting Obama's actions. Reports continue to suggest that despite strong words at first, Republicans in Congress will not take any real action to block Obama. The Washington Post reports, "Obama Has Already Won the Immigration Fight" (Dana Milbank, Dec. 2). And Talking Points Memo taunts "The GOP's War on Obama's Executive Action Lasted About 5 Minutes" on Dec. 3.

Obama has lost the support of even the Washington Post, yet Republicans lack courage. It is telling that even the Dec. 3 Washington Post editorial titled "President Obama's unilateral action on immigration has no precedent" rejects nearly all of Obama's arguments. The Post editorial board sums up with: "In fact, it is increasingly clear that the sweeping magnitude of Mr. Obama's order is unprecedented." The paper takes apart Obama's arguments one by one.

Our motion for preliminary injunction obviously focuses mainly on the constitutional arguments. It is encouraging that those constitutional arguments are so well-understood and self-evident across the board, even by some liberals. They hardly need to be explained to the public. But in court, our motion has to pin them down with legal precision. Whereas a lawsuit's opening complaint is supposed to just place the other side on notice, our motion now gets in to the legal details. Even non-lawyers may find it interesting reading.

Rather than having to argue strenuously to Judge Howell of the law at issue, Freedom Watch's motion is more likely to succeed since the U.S. Department of Justice, which represents Obama, has already conceded his illegal actions. The motion uses many of Obama's statements against him as "admissions by a party opponent." The statements from a legal opinion about the programs issued by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), are also used to show that the programs are in fact illegal. The OLC opinion argues that the programs would be valid if designed in certain ways. However, Obama's "executive action" programs actually do not meet the standards that the OLC legal opinion lays out as necessary to be legal.

President Obama's form of amnesty violates the U.S. Constitution, plain and simple. The President does not have the authority to rewrite immigration laws as legislation, and national policy is enacted by Congress, not the president. This most recent violation of the U.S. Constitution is just another example of how We the People must legally fight back with all our might to save this great nation – and that time is short.

From the myriad of Obama's so-called "phony scandals," to his igniting what has sadly become a war between the races, to his stifling socialist economic policies and his pro-Muslim foreign policy and weakness generally, the nation is in a free fall. Now is the time to act, and we at Freedom Watch, along with brave clients like Sheriff Joe Arpaio, are doing all we can to help save the nation from total collapse.

© Larry Klayman

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Larry Klayman

Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, is known for his strong public interest advocacy in furtherance of ethics in government and individual freedoms and liberties... (more)

Subscribe

Receive future articles by Larry Klayman: Click here

More by this author