BREAKING NEWS: Injunction Filed To Prevent Amnesty, By Joe Arpaio And Freedom Watch, Full Injunction Here

BREAKING NEWS: Injunction Filed To Prevent Amnesty, By Joe Arpaio And Freedom Watch, Full Injunction Here

AUN-TV has just found out that minutes ago an injunction was filed against President Obama’s Illegal Alien Amnesty program by Freedom Watch on behalf of Sherriff Joe Arpaio. We have reviewed the key points and believe that Freedom Watch (Larry Klayman) has an exceptionally good case as the Obama Administration has set themselves up, due to the reasoning they have presented as to why “discretion” is warranted in this case. Obama has claimed they have to do it because they do not have enough money to process all the illegal aliens.

However Congress not only gave Obama all the money he requested for this issue, they gave him more and Obama never asked for more.  So the  legal foundation Obama claims is easily proven as bogus.

We have asked a lawyer to review and this is what he says about the injunction: 

A Federal Court has been asked to block implementation of President Barack Obama’s new “Executive Acton” amnesty program for illegal aliens.  At about 3:30 PM EST, Attorney Larry Klayman, on behalf of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction.  The motion is in the lawsuit against Obama and officials of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) exactly a week earlier.   

Larry Klayman’s motion asks for an injunction from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to halt what Obama calls his “Executive Action” grant of amnesty to approximately 5 million illegal aliens.  The motion also asks for the Federal 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.   

If the motion is granted, the Federal Court would prevent Obama and DHS from taking any action to implement the programs until the Court can analyze and decide whether they are constitutional and legally valid.  At the same time, however, Republicans in Congress are waffling about whether to try to defund Obama’s November 20, 2014, program.  Reports continue to suggest that despite brave words at first, Republicans in Congress will not take any real action to block Obama.

 

This is the PDF file of the entire injunction:

MotionPrelminaryInjunctionArpaioObamaFiled

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JJOSEPH ARPAIO, Plaintiff,v.BARACK OBAMA, ET AL. Defendants. Case 1:14-cv-01966

 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT THEREON

I. INTRODUCTION

President Barack Obama announced on November 20, 2014, that he, on his own authority, is granting legal status in the United States and the legal right to work in the United States to approximately 4.7 million nationals of other countries who have entered the country illegally or have illegally remained in the United States. This is in addition to the approximately 1.5 million illegal aliens eligible for President Obama’s prior June 15, 2012, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Under these two programs, some whom are eligible may not choose to apply and thus the programs collectively offer a form of amnesty to approximately 6 million illegal aliens.1

1 Defendants did not announce a name for the November 20, 2014, programs, but refer to them collective as “Executive Action.” Plaintiff attempts to refer to them as “Executive Order Amnesty.”

Simultaneously with making his November 20, 2014 announcement, and before and after, the President has offered to withdraw and cancel these programs if Congress passes the type of

Case 1:14-cv-01966-BAH Document 7 Filed 12/04/14 Page 1 of 39 2

immigration legislation that he favors. Thus, the programs are not grounded in the specialized expertise of government agencies but in the political horse-trading of lobbying Congress.

The Executive Branch under the Administration of President Obama has changed the law of the United States with regard to immigration and the presence of aliens who are working in the country, by giving a speech followed by “guidance” Memoranda being issued by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. It appears that no other department or agency has taken any action or issued any guidance on the subject, including the U.S. Department of Justice or U.S. Department of State; though they may in the future.

The parties are in agreement – or at least the Plaintiff and the Office of Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice agree – that Defendants’ Executive Order Amnesty is unlawful and invalid unless it qualifies as valid prosecutorial discretion. Plaintiff argues it does not qualify and therefore it is legislation or regulation affecting broad categories of approximately 6 million illegal aliens. Defendants recite that they will consider applicants on a case-by-case basis. Plaintiff rejects this claim as phony and disingenuous because there is nothing remaining for a Departmental official to decide, and no standards or criteria to guide any further decision.

The Memoranda establish complex and detailed rules governing broad categories of persons and circumstances. The very nature of the programs is to create a standardized approach which produces exactly the same result in each and every case. There is only one possible outcome which is granted to all whom meet the general criteria. Replacing individual consideration with one sweeping, standardized result is Defendants’ goal.

These abuses by the Executive Branch are not limited to the Administration of the current President. The current President justifies these programs largely on the claim that prior Presidents established a practice which the current Defendants now continue. Plaintiff contests

Case 1:14-cv-01966-BAH Document 7 Filed 12/04/14 Page 2 of 39 3

those practices regardless of which Presidential Administration originated them.

“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” – Article I, Section 1, U.S. Constitution. “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Article II, Section 1, U.S. Constitution.

As a result, legislation and national policy are enacted by Congress, not by the President. The President’s executive responsibilities are to execute, that is implement, the laws enacted by Congress. In some limited cases, the Congress delegates quasi-legislative authority to the Executive Branch. However, the exercise of delegated authority requires compliance with a variety of restrictions and limitations.

II. REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

Plaintiff, by counsel, respectfully requests oral argument upon the motion.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Obama Administration’s June 15, 2012, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)—-

The entire 39 page  PDF is available here: MotionPrelminaryInjunctionArpaioObamaFiled

Freedom Watch Website: http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *