Article Image

IPFS News Link • Immigration

The President and the Rule of Law

• Lew Rockwell - Andrew Napolitano

Critics had argued and two federal courts have now agreed that the orders effectively circumvented federal law and were essentially unconstitutional.

Though the injunction on its face restrains officials in the Department of Homeland Security, it is really a restraint on the president himself. Here is the back story.

President Obama has long wished to overhaul the nation's immigration laws to make it easier for people who are here illegally to remain here and to make it easier for them eventually to acquire the attributes of citizenship. He may have a bighearted moral motivation, or he may have a partisan political motivation. I don't know which it is, but his motivation has driven him to use extraconstitutional means to achieve his ends.

During his first term in office, he attempted to have federal laws changed — quite properly at first — by offering proposals to Congress, which it rejected. That rejection left in place a complex regulatory scheme that is partially administered by DHS and partially by the Department of Justice. It left about 11.3 million people unlawfully present in the United States.

The conscious decision of Congress not to change the law in the face of such a large number of undocumented people here left those people, adults and children, exposed to deportation. It also left them entitled to financial benefits paid for by the states in which they reside.

Deportation is a lengthy and expensive process. The courts have ruled that all people subject to deportation are entitled to a hearing, with counsel paid for by the government. If they lose, they are entitled to an appeal, with counsel paid for by the government. The government has teams of prosecutors, defense counsel and judges who address only deportations. The highest number of people the government has successfully deported in a year is about 250,000, which was done in 2013. If you add removals without trial (many are voluntary) and rejections at the border, the number swells to 438,000 a year.

While awaiting deportation, those people here unlawfully and not confined are entitled to the social safety net that states offer everyone else, as well as the direct benefits states make available to citizens, such as public schooling, access to hospital emergency rooms, and housing and personal living assistance.

1 Comments in Response to

Comment by PureTrust
Entered on:

What's interesting is that there are loads of people who claim they want to crash the U.S. Government. Seems to me that I have heard and seen some of them right here in Freedom's Phoenix. I don't think we should. Here's why.

There is nothing in the law that makes any person liable for any of the laws. The closest thing to liability is when someone signs a contract with Government. At the same time, the founding documents suggest just the opposite, that the rights are inherent in the people, not the government.

The Government is good in may ways. But when Government people use the laws in ways that are illegal or trample our rights, it is time to stand up and litigate the people who harm us... not their Governmental position or office.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_misconduct_allegations_against_Bill_Clinton: 'Paula Jones brought a sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton while he was president. Clinton argued that as a sitting president, he should not be vulnerable to a civil suit of this nature. The case landed in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that "Deferral of this litigation until petitioner's Presidency ends is not constitutionally required."

In other words, when a person in Government is indicted by a man-to-man common law claim, even the President must respect it.

Isn't it time we find the man or woman in Government who are issuing orders that harm us or damage or cause us loss of property, and make the claim man-to-man? If we do it right, they don't have any more protection than any other human being for their harmful acts.

Keep the Constitution. But bypass it as necessary to obtain justice.



www.universityofreason.com/a/29887/KWADzukm