“I am pro-immigration (its free trade and morally right given we are a Country of immigrants), but the ends (no matter how right and just we believe they to be) do not justify an illegal means. We can’t bend or ignore the Constitution and “The Rule of Law”, because we don’t like what they say. If we don’t like a part of the Constitution or a particular law, do the hard political work to change them…
…In fact, following the Constitution and “The Rule of Law” is so important that whenever they are found to have been violated by our government, it seems to me that those politicians and government bureaucrats involved should be required to resign and those who provided the incorrect legal advice/support should be reprimanded or disbarred. In this way, there is some accountability and our politicians and government officials won’t constantly try to go right up to the edge and over.”,Mike Perry
Notable & Quotable: Immigration Ruling
‘The United States has not made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits.’
From the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision on Tuesday maintaining an injunction that prevents President Obama from changing the immigration system while 26 states sue to overturn his executive order (footnotes omitted):
In summary, the United States has not made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits. We proceed to examine the remaining factors of the test for obtaining a stay pending appeal.
The remaining factors also favor the states. The United States has not demonstrated that it “will be irreparably injured absent a stay.” . . . It claims that the injunction offends separation of powers and federalism, but it is the resolution of the case on the merits, not whether the injunction is stayed pending appeal, that will affect those principles. The government urges that [the Department of Homeland Security] will not be able to determine quickly whether illegal aliens it encounters are enforcement priorities, but even under the injunction, DHS can choose whom to remove first; the only thing it cannot do is grant class-wide lawful presence and eligibility for accompanying benefits as incentives for low-priority aliens to self-identify in advance. . . . The states have shown that “issuance of the stay will substantially injure” them. A stay would enable [Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents] beneficiaries to apply for driver’s licenses and other benefits, and it would be difficult for the states to retract those benefits or recoup their costs even if they won on the merits. That is particularly true in light of the district court’s findings regarding the large number of potential beneficiaries, including at least 500,000 in Texas alone.