Obama BOXES IN GOP On Immigration: 'Only One Thing' Will Stop EXECUTIVE ORDER

[Segami]

16. ReTHUGS are fighting Obama on one front..

...while warding off the Ted Cruz 'stop-Obama-at-any-cost' mumblers of the party on another front. Turtle has his shell filled.


if reTHUGS can't stop Obama (legally), they will forever be tagged & preserved like pickles as the Anti-Immigrant Party......not good for 2016.

One quasi-challenge does stand out. Kris Kobach, the Kansas secretary of state, once represented a group of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in a suit against the program, but the case was ultimately dismissed on procedural grounds. It was never appealed.

Kobach’s lawsuit—like his work behind Arizona’s SB 1070 and other immigration laws across the United States—was especially engineered to bring down DACA on constitutional and federal law grounds, under the guise that the program somehow forced law-abiding immigration officers to violate their oath to uphold the laws of the United States.

A venerable argument, but it went nowhere in court.

This may explain why Boehner never bothered to sue Obama over DACA. Like his beleaguered lawsuit challenging the Obama administration over the implementation of the Affordable Care Act—which he hasn’t even filed—a separate DACA lawsuit probably would’ve failed big time in court.

It would’ve failed because courts do not like to entertain political questions. Political questions are those involving the elected branches—Congress and the president. And DACA, a program involving Obama’s broad discretion in enforcing immigration laws, has everything to do with Obama’s powers as the nation’s top executive. But DACA is also related to Congress’ powers to pass immigration laws.

So who’s right and who’s wrong? That’s a dispute a federal judge would likely never settle, because a judge’s only task is to say what the law is—not to referee a power dispute between co-equal branches of government. That’s how separation of powers works.

And that’s precisely why Obama’s plan to use executive action on immigration—within the parameters of existing immigration law—poses no constitutional problems. So long as he acts in a manner consistent with his prosecutorial discretion to enforce or not enforce the laws, the courts won’t get involved.

http://fusion.net/story/26225/analysis-executive-action-on-immigration-is-perfectly-legal/

“If he doesn’t move soon, his legacy is going to be one that is antithetical to human rights,” Matos said. “That moniker of ‘deporter-in-chief’ will forever be stuck on him.”