Are these valid arguments for rewriting the law and sticking the taxpayers with the tab?

U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. has petitioned the Supreme Court on behalf of the Obama administration in an attempt to overturn lower court decisions barring enforcement of Obama’s executive orders that basically rewrite immigration law and grant by fiat amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

Nevada is one of the 26 states that successfully sued to enjoin Obama’s amnesty.

“The Secretary (of the Department of Homeland Security) faces resource constraints that require the exercise of enforcement discretion. More than 11 million removable aliens are estimated to live in the United States. But Congress has appropriated the funds to remove only a fraction of that population in any given year,” the petition states. “The number of removals has varied depending on circumstances, but DHS has not been able to remove more than four percent of the estimated removable population in any year.”

Supreme Court asked to hear immigration amnesty case. (Getty Images via WSJ)

So? Remove the 4 percent, use discretion as to which are priorities and ask for more funding. That is no reason to ignore the law.

The petition uses language that is more suited to arguing for a change in existing law than an argument that Obama has to power to arbitrarily change the law. “For decades, DHS has engaged in ‘a regular practice * * * known as “deferred action,”‘ in which the Secretary ‘exercis[es] [his] discretion’ to forbear, ‘for humanitarian reasons or simply for [his] own convenience,’ from removing particular aliens from the United States for a designated period of time. Deferred action thus memorializes a decision ‘[t]o ameliorate a harsh and unjust outcome’ through forbearance,” Verrilli argues.

Harsh and unjust? Entering the country illegally violates the law as written by Congress and that decision was knowingly made the illegal immigrants.

Robbing banks can get you locked in jail, which is pretty harsh and I’m sure the robbers consider it unjust.

The petition goes on to argue for an immediate review of the lower court injunctions, saying that leaving the injunctions in place “will force millions of people — who are not removal priorities under criteria the court conceded are valid, and who are parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents — to continue to work off the books, without the option of lawful employment to provide for their families. And it will place a cloud over the lives of hundreds of thousands of people who came to the United States as children, have lived here for years, and been accorded deferred action under the 2012 DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) policy, which respondents have never challenged. The decision warrants immediate review.”

OK, immediate review seems reasonable since Obama has given those millions the false hope that he can change law with a wave of his pen and grant them amnesty. End the limbo status one way or the other. While we’re at it, perhaps a few states or members of Congress should challenge Obama’s DACA policy.

In January, Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt explained why he decided to join the litigation in which Texas was the lead plaintiff. “Our immigration system is broken and clearly needs to be fixed. But just as clearly, the solution is not for the president to act unilaterally disregarding the U.S. Constitution and laws,” he wrote. “The solution must be a permanent, legal result that includes, not ignores, the other branches of government and their constitutional roles. Anything less is a false hope undermining the rule of law that injures millions of people in America, including many in Nevada.”

One of the arguments presented by the states in the suit is that they have to pay tab for providing services for illegals — such as education and medical care and welfare benefits.

Nevada will be among the hardest hit, because Nevada has by far the highest percentage of illegal immigrants of any state and the level has gone up in recent years. According to a Pew Research report, in 2012 Nevada’s population included 7.6 percent illegals, its workforce was 10.2 percent illegals and its school enrollment included 17.7 percent whose parents are not in the country legally, all the highest levels in the nation, and those figures are up from two years prior.

Verrilli makes as many humanitarian arguments as legal ones, ignoring the impact on the economic well being of legal citizens.

“The nationwide injunction also has far-reaching and irreparable humanitarian impact. It bars approximately 4 million parents — who have lived in this country for years, would pass a background check, are not priorities for removal, and have ‘a son or daughter who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident,’ from requesting deferred action under the Guidance and receiving authorization to work lawfully,” the petition says. “In so doing, it has a profound effect not only on those parents but also on their children. One study estimated that ‘there are 6.3 million children who live in a household with a DAPA eligible mom or dad, and of that, 5.5 million are U.S. citizens.’”

Again, who made the decision to violate U.S. law, but now wishes to avoid the consequences of those decisions and who has to pay the piper?

In the most recent injunction U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerry Smith explained, “Deferred action … is much more than nonenforcement: It would affirmatively confer ‘lawful presence’ and associated benefits on a class of unlawfully present aliens. Though revocable, that change in designation would trigger (eligibility for federal and state benefits) that would not otherwise be available to illegal aliens.”







31 comments on “Are these valid arguments for rewriting the law and sticking the taxpayers with the tab?

  1. Nyp says:

    Glad to see that you agree with the Obama administration that the Court should grant the cert petition.

  2. Resolve it one way or the other.

  3. Steve says:

    In these tough times for the President let us all pray for him I suggest Psalm 109:8


  4. Rincon says:

    You can blame Obama, but he couldn’t have done it without Congress’ help. It failed to do its job.

  5. nyp says:

    So your wish for the President of the United States is that his days be numbered, that his wife be left a widow and his children fatherless.

    And Thomas Mitchell says “Amen” to that.

  6. Not what it says, petey.

  7. nyp says:

    “Let his days be few; and let another take his office.Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children.”

    That is what you wish for President Obama, the First Lady, and their children.

    Very nice

  8. Only the first sentence was cited.

  9. nyp says:

    Very cute. But unconvincing, since it is clear from the folllowing sentence that “let his days be few” means that the writer of the psalm — and those who, like you, cite it for inspiration — are wishing for the quick death of the subject of the verse.

    Don’t be insincere. Don’t be cute. Don’t be a bullshitter. Apologize for trafficking in such ugliness over the internet. It is unworthy of someone who was once the editor of a major metropolitan newspaper.

    You may strenuously disagree with the President’s policies. Approvingly citing verses which clearly look forward to his early death, the widowhood of his wife and the bereavement of his children is completely out of bounds.

    Do the decent thing and retract your statement.

  10. And why don’t you grow a sense of humor?

  11. Steve says:

    Haven’t you heard?

    Today’s liberal establishment outlawed humor, replacing it with “safe zones” currently at universities and soon to be in your living room!

  12. nyp says:

    That is very funny. Citing a Psalm that hopes for the speedy death of one’s opponent and the bereavement of his wife and children is side-spltting hilarious. How politically correct of me to find that to be revolting.

    But it is of a piece, I suppose, with this week’s conservative turn against homeless refugees from jihadiast terrorism and the Assad regime — a turn all too reminiscent of natiivist opposition to refugees from Nazi Germany in the 1930s. The people responsible for those anti-refugee policies are the forebearers of today’s Tea Party conservatives.

    Mr. Mitchell: I am not surprised when your followers think it light-hearted to cite scriptures calling for the speedy death of President Obama. I do not expect much of them. But you have reputation and legacy to maintain. Your stubborn refusal to acknowledge a grevious error in judgment speaks very poorly of you. Very poorly. Is this the sort of thing for which you wish to be remembered?

  13. Nyp says:

    That is stupid. How am I a hypocrite?

  14. Steve says:


    I can feel the crocodile tears from here.

  15. And the constant sniveling & whining of the little nyper is growing increasingly trite and tiresome at best. For one who loves to shovel it out…you sure have a thin skin when it’s time to take a little.

  16. nyp says:

    I don’t “shovel out” prayers for the early death of people with whom I disagree.

    Why don’t you just admit a terrible error of judgement and move on? Weren’t you raised to own up to your errors when you had done something grossly offensive?

  17. I’ve stated this numerous times here little nyper…the LAST thing I would want to happen is for ANYTHING to happen to this President or any of his family. I want him to finish out his term…go back to Chicago or Hawaii…and listen to the debates about how bad his lackluster administration and his leadership was for the next forty some odd years. The last thing I want…is to make a martyr of this impudent, stubborn, self absorbed (IMHO) President.

  18. Steve says:

    Like I said, humorless.
    Unless its about a conservative. Then it’s laughing all the way.

  19. nyp says:

    You don’t get it — making a “joke” about wishing for the speedy death of the President is not funny. It is gross and offensive. You should show some character by doing what Thomas Mitchell will not do — apologizing.

  20. Sure thing…right after you have a piece of humble pie.

  21. Steve says:

    Nothing of the sort, nyp simply doesn’t recognize the use of one of his liberal playbook moves.
    Or, maybe, nyp’s just angry at conservatives when they use it.

  22. nyp says:

    I have never wished someone I disagree with to be dead. I have certainly never wished a Republican President a speedy death.

    That is what distinguishes me from you and from Thomas Mitchell.

  23. Steve says:

    The playbook specifically allows taking things out of context then assigning a new meaning to them, nyp.

    You are especially good at it.

    Political license!

  24. Psalms 109:2-8

    O God, whom I praise, do not be silent,
    for wicked and treacherous mouths attack me.
    They speak against me with lying tongues;
    with hateful words they surround me,
    attacking me without cause.
    In return for my love they slander me,
    even though I prayed for them.
    They repay me evil for good,
    hatred for my love.
    Appoint an evil one over him,
    an accuser to stand at his right hand,
    That he may be judged and found guilty,
    that his plea may be in vain.
    May his days be few;
    may another take his office.

  25. nyp says:

    As you know, the lines refer to a wish for the speedy death of the subject of the verse. You know that, because the preceeding lines speak of the need for “an evil one” to stand over him and judge him guilty, and the following lines (which you choose not to quote) speak longingly of the widowhood of his wife: “May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow! May his children wander about and beg, seeking food far from the ruins they inhabit! May the creditor seize all that he has; may strangers plunder the fruits of his toil! Let there be none to extend kindness to him, nor any to pity his fatherless children! May his posterity be cut off; may his name be blotted out in the second generation! May the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the Lord, and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out! Let them be before the Lord continually, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth!”

    You think you are being cute, Mr. Mitchell, but you are merely harming your own reputation by refusing to apologise for this gross and offensive exercise in wishing physical violence upon President Obama.

  26. May another take his office. Just not Joe Biden.

  27. nyp says:

    very disappoining

  28. Steve says:

    typical liberal, it’s ok for you to change meanings…..

    very disappointing indeed.

  29. […] will be among the hardest hit, because Nevada has by far the highest percentage of illegal immigrants of any state and the level […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s