Sheriff Joe Arpaio Wins Round One in Amnesty Battle

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Wins Round One in Amnesty Battle

Despite talking a good ball game about not funding Obama’s Executive Order legalizing roughly 5 million illegal aliens, the House of Representatives, Thursday night, narrowly approved a  $1.1 trillion spending package to keep most government agencies operating through next summer.

The Senate late Thursday approved a two-day extension of current funding in order to give them more time to work through arcane procedural rules, pass the bill and cap the least productive congressional session in modern history.  However, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is relentless in his pursuit of justice on many fronts, the battle over Amnesty being  just one.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Wins First Battle Against Obama’s Amnesty!

In the first of what is believed to be many court battles over the lawlessness of Barack Obama’s Executive Amnesty, which he has yet to actually write, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio scored a victory. The judge in the case ruled in Arpaio’s favor and put case arguments and hearings on a fast track, in spite of Obama Justice Department attorneys asking until the end of January to submit their initial response

According to the complaint filed by attorney Larry Klayman on behalf of Arpaio, “This unconstitutional act will have a serious detrimental impact. Specifically, it will severely strain our resources. Among the many negative [e]ffects of this executive order, will be the increased release of criminal aliens back onto streets of Maricopa County, Arizona, and the rest of the nation.”

WND reports:

U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell in Washington, D.C., granted a motion by Arpaio’s attorney, Larry Klayman of FreedomWatch, to move things along quickly.

Howell ordered Obama to respond to Arpaio’s motion for a preliminary injunction – to protect the U.S. while the court considers the constitutionality of Obama’s actions – by Dec. 15. A full preliminary injunction hearing is set for Dec. 22.

Arpaio was the first to file a complaint regarding the immigration actions Obama announced to the nation Nov. 20, which effectively granted amnesty to up to 5 million illegal aliens by delaying deportation.

“We are very pleased that Judge Howell has ordered an expedited hearing on our motion for preliminary injunction which asks to preserve the status quo and stop the implementation of President Obama’s executive order,” Klayman said. “The executive order violates the Constitution, as it seeks to circumvent the powers which the Framers delegated to Congress.”

Klayman argued Obama’s executive action “thwarts Sheriff Arpaio’s duties and responsibilities as the chief law enforcement officer of Maricopa County, Arizona.”

DOJ attorneys Adam Kirschner and Brad Cohen argued that they needed more time because of Christmas holidays approaching.

While Klayman acknowledged that Obama’s promised executive action on amnesty for illegal aliens had not been signed, he pointed to the fact that both federal programs and procedures were being altered in order to comply with his amnesty agenda.

Klayman wrote that Obama’s amnesty plan “orders direct DHS personnel including the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and ICE to immediately suspend enforcement of immigration laws with regard to any who appear to be eligible for the new deferred action programs, even though such persons might not yet be able to apply for formal recognition.”

Law enforcement officers have also been told to begin “immediately” identifying illegal aliens who could benefit from Obama’s unlawful amnesty policies.

Mr. Klayman also recalled what has happened this year in the Obama administration’s orchestrated illegal alien invasion at the southern border of the United States, noting that this kind of illegal action would result in more illegal aliens flooding into the US for their own amnesty.

“America witnessed the tragedy and the shock as thousands of ‘unaccompanied minors’ rushed across the nation’s southern border shared with Mexico in the summer of 2014,” he said. “Some of these ‘unaccompanied minors’ were middle-aged men with gray hair claiming to be 17 years old without identity documents, some intact families but misreported among the news, but some children as young as four (4) years old. Young men and middle-aged men – lacking any documentation but ­­­­­­­­claiming to be 17 years old – were placed in high schools next to 16 and 17 year old girls.”


Leave a Reply

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