Ann Coulter has a new book coming out, “Adios America“.  Essentially a full throated point of advocacy outlining the inherent danger of illegal immigration.  As part of her pre-release publicity tour Ms. Coulter is making media rounds to advocate her positions for the arguments within it.
With that in mind – she walks into the lions den of amnesty support in an interview with Jorge Ramos. (The full interview will air on Fusion TV tomorrow):

“I have a little tip. If you don’t want to be killed by ISIS, don’t go to Syria. If you don’t want to be killed by a Mexican, there’s nothing I can tell you,” Coulter said in an interview Tuesday with Fusion’s Jorge Ramos. (link)

Now it might seem, at least initially, that most conservatives would align with the presented arguments of Ms. Coulter as she opines about the inherent danger caused by the borderless global leftists and their dangerous immigration policies.
However, her latest position, while indeed an argument I personally would agree with, highlights something even more dangerous to our Republic and provides an example of something almost NO-ONE pays attention to. Ms. Coulter is like an arsonist amid the fire department. (more…)

Texas Judge Hanen previously blocked Obama’s unconstitutional “Executive Action on immigration” which expanded deferred deportation and granted employment status for illegal aliens.  The DOJ appealed the injunction to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Today Hanen’s injunction was upheld by the appellate court, the DOJ lost.

BREAKING: Texas just won the Executive Amnesty case at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The constitution wins. #tcot #txlege

— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) May 26, 2015

Update 2: Here’s the 68 page ruling:
[scribd id=266696824 key=key-gShHzOi8BVMvRMMbzqAg mode=scroll]

UPDATE 1: Fox’s Shannon Bream has a great video explanation HERE. 

(Via FOX) Two out of the three judges voted Tuesday to deny the government’s request, as the underlying case is argued.  The majority opinion reasoned that lifting the temporary hold — known in judicial parlance as a “stay” — could cause serious problems for states should they ultimately win their challenge. It said the states have shown that “issuance of the stay will substantially injure” them. (more…)

The DOJ filed their admission motion at midnight (Friday) in an attempt to hide the substance from media scrutiny

In November of 2014 when President Obama made his announcement of a sweeping “Immigration Executive Order”, his proposals included more than just deferred amnesty for illegal aliens, his proposal included “work authorization”.
Because the Presidential decree went beyond mere prosecutorial discretion regarding deportation of illegal aliens, the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) quickly modified the verbiage of the decree from “executive order” to “executive action”.

The executive action went beyond deportation discretion and included granting work authorization. That specific aspect is what immediately became the poison pill within the Obama action.
If all Obama was doing is “not deporting” people, ergo he’s using his executive authority of prosecutorial discretion, and that’s the claim of those who say this is constitutional; well, how or what part of ‘non-deportation’ includes granting “work/employment authorization”?
That specific aspect is where President Obama overreached and initiated an unconstitutional change in labor/employment law. That action clearly violated the separation of powers. That aspect is what also initiated a Federal Judge in Texas to issue an injunction to block implementation. (more…)

There has been some professional parseltongue from the Rubio camp in response to their candidate being caught on camera pledging to retain Obama’s executive amnesty (DACA) if he were President.  They’ve even argued a “lost in translation” approach, and should be embarrassed.
However, this should clear it up for those who are following Rubio’s proposals, and calling him the “pragmatic” candidate.

(Via Breitbart) The chief spokesman for the presidential campaign of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said in an on-record interview with Breitbart News that the senator, if elected president, would not require a secured border before he gives legislative and permanent amnesty to recipients of President Barack Obama’s first executive amnesty, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

“No,” Alex Conant said when asked if the border would need to be secured before a President Rubio’s legislative amnesty for recipients of Obama’s 2012 DACA would replace that executive amnesty.

Rubio intends to, if elected to the White House—as he laid out in a Spanish-language interview with Univision’s Jorge Ramos this weekend and was subsequently confirmed by Conant—eventually undo DACA. But he would not do so until there is a legislative replacement that provides the legal status—or amnesty—to DACA recipients on a permanent basis.  (read more)

For what it’s worth no candidate is proposing a solution to the problem, they each are trying to find a way to navigate through the minefield of being called “heartless” etc. (more…)

Until substantive and factual information reveals something divergent I’m sticking to my initial researched opinion that Marco Rubio’s campaign bid is purely a decepticon maneuver to plow through the field, and aid his mentor Jeb Bush.
(Via Allan Wall) Republican candidate Marco Rubio, in a chat with Jorge Ramos, in Spanish, made it clear that, on this issue, any differences between a President Rubio and President Obama would be insubstantial.
Matthew Boyle of Breitbart (a valuable source on immigration issues) has written up a report on the interview:

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), a 2016 GOP presidential candidate, said he believes that President Barack Obama’s first executive amnesty for so-called DREAMers—the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)—is “important” and he won’t reverse it himself if elected president. He delivered these remarks in a Spanish-language interview he gave to Univision’s Jorge Ramos.

So here is Rubio, speaking in Spanish to Jorge Ramos, a principal proponent of the Hispanicization of the U.S., telling him this. (more…)

Texas Judge Hanen previously blocked execution of President Obama’s “executive action”, the DOJ now seeking to eliminate the injunction….  Hanen is well positioned to have his decision upheld.  However, like all Obama action – nothing is ever actually safe, just because the law is being followed.

(Via Associated Press) Federal appeals judges on Friday peppered lawyers on both sides with questions in a fight over President Barack Obama’s move to shield millions of immigrants from deportation.

A 5th Circuit Court of Appeals panel held a special hearing in a closely watched case that is holding up Obama’s immigration action.

A coalition of 26 states, led by Texas sued to block the plan. The hearing was on an appeal of a Texas judge’s injunction.

The Justice Department argued that Texas has no legal standing in the matter. Texas’ solicitor general countered that granting legal status to immigrants will be costly for Texas.

The judges did not rule and took the case under advisement. (more…)

Those following the Obama Immigration Executive Action legal battles will note yesterday Congressman Young  was asking Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director Saldana the exact same point outlined in Judge Hanen’s rebuke of the White House.

From the ruling:

[Judge Hanen continues…] The President’s message, specifically to those law enforcement officials employed within the Executive Branch, and more generally to the nation, is clear. First, immigration laws (INA), which those officials are charged with enforcing, are not to be enforced when those laws conflict with the 2014 DHS Directive. Second, the criteria set out in that Directive are mandatory. Third, if DHS officials (or other Executive Branch officials) fail to follow the specified criteria, there will be consequences for this failure.

Just as there would be consequences if they were in the military and disobeyed an order from the Commander in Chief. In summary, the Chief Executive has ordered that the laws requiring removal of illegal immigrants that conflict with the 2014 DHS Directive are not to be enforced, and that anyone who attempts to do so will be punished.  (link)

So yesterday ICE Director Saldana is on Capitol Hill answering questions when Republican David Young asks Mrs. Saldana about the conflict between the law, and the rules imposed by President Obama that force border patrol agents to: a.) break the law, or b.) break Obama’s executive action rules.

How Saldana replies is, well, JAW DROPPING.  – Watch video below: (more…)

Two judicial rulings yesterday, one in Obama’s favor and one against. However, the ruling released late last night shows a crafty piece of judicial chess.

The first ruling yesterday was a 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Mississippi VS DHS (more here). The 5th circuit ruled against the State of Mississippi, and in favor of the Obama DOJ, by essentially ruling the State failed to prove a burden of harm.

The second aspect inherent within the same 5th CCA ruling disregarded concerns of ICE/DHS retaliation -against border patrol enforcement- by asserting DHS rules forbid the retaliation; ergo the concerns were unfounded.

In the second issue, the ICE agents’ argument that they would receive retribution if they detained an illegal immigrant eligible for DACA, the court sided with ICE and DHS referencing handbooks and rules which forbid the administration from retribution.  (link)

However, in the second case, the ruling late last night, Texas vs DHS, under the authority of Judge Andrew Hanen, the expanded Obama Executive Action was blocked from implementation in February.

Judge Hanen issued an emergency injunction stopping the expanded deferment authorization as  outlined in President Obama’s November 2014 executive action.

Since the initial ruling the DOJ was now arguing for a lifting of that injunction, and Judge Hanen was having none of it.

A significant statement from Judge Hanen toward the DOJ attorneys was his admonishment for their prior misrepresentations to the court regarding implementation taking place.  The DOJ had previously stated in court that DHS was not implementing the new “expanded executive action” yet, and any injunction would stop any adverse action.

It was later discovered –by an admission to the court– that DHS had, in actuality, already begun to implement the November “executive action”. Judge Hanen was understandably angered by the misrepresentation. (more…)

The Fifth District Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit against an Obama administration DACA program – delaying deportations of illegal aliens who came to the U.S. as children. This is a different case than the challenge as to whether President Obama’s expanded immigration executive actions can proceed.

In today’s decision the court ruled plaintiffs’, the state of Mississippi and agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), did not provide enough evidence to prove they were harmed by the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that allows qualifying illegal immigrants to apply for work permits. (more…)

This is a follow-up to an ongoing issue within the Obama illegal alien executive action. Backstory HERE.

(Via Fox News) A federal judge sharply scolded a Justice Department attorney at a hearing on President Obama’s immigration executive actions, suggesting that the administration misled him on a key part of the program — and that he fell for it, “like an idiot.”

The testy court hearing was held Thursday in Texas by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen. The judge suggested he could order sanctions against the administration if he finds they indeed misrepresented the facts.

At issue is whether the DOJ misled the judge into believing that a plank of the Obama program — giving deportation reprieves to thousands of young illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children — would not go forward before he made a ruling on a request to halt it. In fact, federal officials had given more than 108,000 people three-year reprieves before that date and granted them work permits under the program.

Obama’s executive actions would spare from deportation as many as 5 million people who are in the U.S. illegally. Many Republicans oppose the actions, saying only Congress has the right to take such sweeping action. Twenty-six states led by Texas joined together to challenge them as unconstitutional. Hanen on Feb. 16 sided with the states, issuing a preliminary injunction blocking Obama’s actions. (more…)