STRIKE 2: Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Deals Another Blow to Barack Obama’s Executive Amnesty

STRIKE 2: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals today told Barack Obama where he can stick his pen …

Today, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States has dealt Barack Obama’s Executive order on Amnesty a tremendous blow. Two of three judges on a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans sided on the rule of law and the US Constitution. Judges Jerry E. Smith and Jennifer Elrod both ruled and refused to lift an injunction against President Obama’s deportation amnesty and said the president’s new program, known as Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA), is a binding policy that should have gone through the usual public notice and comment period instead of being announced unilaterally by Mr. Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson late last year

A federal appeals court on Tuesday denied the Obama administration’s request to lift a hold on the president’s executive actions on immigration, which would have granted protection from deportation as well as work permits to millions of immigrants in the country illegally.

Two of three judges on a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, left in place an injunction by a Federal District Court judge in Brownsville, Tex. The ruling comes in a lawsuit filed by Texas and 25 other states against actions President Obama took in November. Many of the initiatives were scheduled to take effect this month.

The appeals court found that the states had sufficient legal grounds to bring the lawsuit and that the administration had not shown that it would be harmed if the injunction remained in place and the programs were further delayed.

Also denied was a request by the administration to limit the injunction to the states bringing the lawsuit. The ruling is a second setback for programs the president hoped would be a major piece of his legacy, raising new uncertainty about whether they will take effect before the end of his term and casting doubts on the confidence of administration lawyers that their case was very strong.

Remember when Obama said he didn’t have the power to pass such amnesty and then did it anyhow?

Daily Commentary – Tuesday, May 12, 2015 – I’ve Been Wondering What Hillary’s Position Would Be on Immigration

• We found out last week that she would create a path to citizenship and that she was ready to use executive action to shield many more

Daily Commentary – Tuesday, May 12, 2015 Download

Jamiel Shaw Sr.’s Son was Murdered By an Illegal Alien (Dreamer & DACA Recipient) Pedro Espinoza from Mexico in 2008 … Do Black Lives Really Matter, or Does It Matter Only If You are Shot By a White Person or White Police Man?

JAMIEL SHAW ASKS A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION THAT BARACK OBAMA AND ERIC HOLDER NEED TO ANSWER … “DO BLACK LIVES MATTER, OR DOES IT MATTER ONLY IF YOU ARE SHOT BY A WHITE PERSON OR A WHITE POLICE OFFICER?

Jamiel Shaw Sr. testified in front of a subcommittee Wednesday, chaired by Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL). All should watch and take notice of what happened to Mr. Shaw’s son, 17 year old Jamiel Shaw II, who was violently gunned down by Pedro Espinoza in 2008. Pedro Espinoza is a member of the 18th Street gang,  a DREAMer, a DACA recipient, and a child brought to this country by no fault of his own. Hardly the harmless and innocent people that Obama, Democrats and gutless Republicans have told us what DREAMer’s are. Espinoza was convicted and sentenced to death in November 2012.

However, this is greater than just a senseless killing. Below is a must watch VIDEO … Do black lives matter? Well, for Barack Obama, only when it fits his political agenda. If a black person is killed by another black person, and especially an illegal, even a gang banger with multiple arrests, the answer is probably not.

“My son, Jamiel Andre Shaw II, was murdered by a DREAMer, a DACA recipient, a child brought to this country by no fault of his own. My family’s peace and freedom was stolen by an illegal alien from Mexico. He was brought here by his illegal alien parents and allowed to grow up as a wild animal.

He continued: “Some people believe that if you are brought over by no fault of your own that it makes you a good person. They want you to believe that DREAM Act kids don’t murder. I am here to debunk that myth.”

THIS IS A MUST WATCH VIDEO … DO BLACK LIVES MATTER? DO AMERICAN LIVES MATTER?

VIDEO

Jurors deliberated for less than 4 hours on May 2, before finding Pedro Espinoza, 23, guilty of 1st degree murder for the 2008 shooting death of 17-yaer-old football star Jamiel Shaw Jr. in Los Angeles. They have suggested that he receive the death penalty, reports NBC Los Angeles.

IRS Commissioner Koskinen Says Illegals Are Now Eligible for Tax Credits Under Obama’s Amnesty (even for years past) Without Having Paid a Dime of Taxes

UNBELIEVABLE … ILLEGALS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR TAX CREDITS UNDER OBAMA’S ILLEGAL AMNESTY …

When is enough, enough America? Last week we learned from Legal Insurrection that IRS Commissioner John Koskinen’s testimony about the shocking tax consequences of Obama’s executive amnesty plan.

Koskinen explained that illegal immigrants who were granted amnesty would be eligible to receive back-refunds in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)—but only if they had registered with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN.) This means that, although the person was here illegally, they were still working and paying taxes and thus eligible for a refund. It’s a bogus loophole, but it stems from an existing IRS interpretation of their own rules, so at the end of the day it was a “fix this now” situation rather than an “end of the world” scenario.”

That was bad enough and a big enough kick in the gut for those who are in America legally and paying taxes. But wait, it gets worse, much worse. From The Washington Times come the following clarification from IRS commissioner Koskinen. As it turns out, illegals are now eligible for Earned Income Tax Credits, retroactively, even though they may have never paid a dime in taxes. WTF has happened to this country? The rule of law means nothing for this class of people. Absolutely nothing. Meanwhile, lawabiding, tax paying citizens have to follow the rules, or else.

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen told Congress on Wednesday that even illegal immigrants who didn’t pay taxes will be able to claim back-refunds once they get Social Security numbers under President Obama’s temporary deportation amnesty.

The revelation — which contradicts what he told Congress last week — comes as lawmakers also raised concerns Mr. Obama’s amnesty could open a window to illegal immigrants finding ways to vote, despite it being against the law.

“While we may disagree about whether your deferred action programs were lawfully created and implemented, we are confident that we can all agree that these programs cannot be permitted to impair the integrity of our elections,” Republican members of Congress from Ohio wrote in a letter to Mr. Obama Wednesday, ahead of a hearing on the issue in the House on Thursday.

He also clarified his testimony to the Senate last week, where he acknowledged illegal immigrants who had paid taxes using substitute Social Security numbers but who gain real Social Security numbers when they are approved for the amnesty can apply for back-refunds of the Earned Income Tax Credit.

On Wednesday, he said even illegal immigrants who didn’t pay taxes will be able to apply for back-credits once they get Social Security numbers.

The EITC is a refundable tax credit, which means those who don’t have any tax liability can still get money back from the government.

“Under the new program, if you get a Social Security number and you work, you’ll be eligible to apply for the Earned Income Tax Credit,” Mr. Koskinen said.

He said that would apply even “if you did not file” taxes, as long as the illegal immigrant could demonstrate having worked off-the-books during those years.

That expands the universe of people eligible for the tax credit by millions. He said only about 700,000 illegal immigrants currently work and pay taxes using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, but as many as 4 million illegal immigrants could get a stay of deportation and work permits under the temporary amnesty, which would mean they would be eligible to claim back-refunds if they worked those years.

Federal Court in Pennsylvania Declared President Obama’s Executive Actions on Immigration Policy Unconstitutional

IMAGINE THAT, A FEDERAL COURT RULES THAT IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR OBAMA TO BE AN EMPEROR …

U.S. District Court Judge Arthur Schwab has ruled that parts of Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration policy unconstitutional. It’s a start, even though any one with any common sense or grasp of the Constitution knows Obama’s executive order was Unconstitutional. Although this decision was part of a criminal case, look for this case to make it’s way through the federal court system and ultimately to the Supreme Court.

Earlier Tuesday, a federal court in Pennsylvania declared aspects of President Obama’s executive actions on immigration policy unconstitutional.

According to the opinion by Judge Arthur Schwab, the president’s policy goes “beyond prosecutorial discretion” in that it provides a relatively rigid framework for considering applications for deferred action, thus obviating any meaningful case-by-case determination as prosecutorial discretion requires, and provides substantive rights to applicable individuals.  As a consequence,  Schwab concluded, the action exceeds the scope of executive authority.

The full opinion can be read HERE.

Judge Arthur Schwab stated that Obama’s executive order violated separation of powers.

“President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore, is unconstitutional,” Schwab wrote in his 38-page opinion (posted here). “President Obama’s November 20, 2014 Executive Action goes beyond prosecutorial discretion because: (a) it provides for a systematic and rigid process by which a broad group of individuals will be treated differently than others based upon arbitrary classifications, rather than case-by-case examination; and (b) it allows undocumented immigrants, who fall within these broad categories, to obtain substantive rights.”

The Pittsburgh-based judge rejected a Justice Department legal opinion arguing that Obama’s actions fall within the traditional realm of the executive’s  discretion about which cases to pursue and which to overlook. Schwab, a George W. Bush appointee, also quoted in detail from a series of public statements Obama made in recent years about the limits on his executive authority to make sweeping changes in immigration enforcement.

As Q and A opines, if this case goes to the SCOTUS, will the “ObamaCare is a tax” court manage to actually rule as this judge has, that the executive has unconstitutionally exceeded his power? Who knows anymore at this point. After Justice Roberts bent over backwards for Obamacare, one can only wonder whether the SCOTUS will get this one right.