Watch LIVE

Federal judge indicates he might revive Obama’s DAPA amnesty

Conservative Review

Could a federal judge pave the road to reviving Obama’s DAPA amnesty in most of the country? Are we about to see a mass judicial amnesty on top of Obama’s existing executive amnesties that are still in operation?

As we reported in August, an illegal alien recipient of Obama’s DACA status sued in federal court to have Obama’s DAPA amnesty (which renewed DACA applications for three years) reinstated. The illegal alien, represented by the Soros-funded National Immigration Law Center (NILC), is asking the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of New York to ignore the Fifth Circuit’s injunction on Obama’s amnesty because, in their estimation, the injunction should not apply outside of the 26 states that sued the administration, given that the Supreme Court was deadlocked at a national level. The consequence of this decision would open up DAPA for New York City and potentially in many other states.

At the time, we suggested that it would be absurd for a judge to grant standing to an illegal alien to sue for affirmative citizen privileges on an illegal executive amnesty that even the administration is no longer pursuing. It’s bad enough to rule that Obama has the authority to override the sovereignty of the nation and the plenary power of inviolable congressional statutes. But to proactively order the administration to revive its executive amnesty — at the behest of an illegal alien — would be mind-blowing to even liberal justices of previous generations, as I demonstrate in chapter 4 of Stolen Sovereignty.  

Sadly, the men in robes on the federal bench ain’t your grandfather’s judicial activists. They literally believe that the Constitution and statutes are amendable to their geopolitical world view. It now appears that Judge Nicholas Garaufis, a Clinton appointee, is not only willing to grant Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal, an illegal alien from Mexico, standing to sue for citizen rights, but he indicated his personal sympathies and inclination to rule in Vidal’s favor.

Here is the report from Law360 (subscription required) on the initial hearing:

A New York federal judge has indicated a willingness to break from a Texas court on Thursday in a case seeking to exempt certain New York residents from the block against the president’s executive actions on immigration, saying he had “no intention” of “marching behind in the parade,” according to a transcript. […] 

“I don't know what's going on out there [in] Texas on the border, but I know what's going on in New York,” said Judge Garaufis, according to a transcript of an initial hearing held Thursday. “And I'm very concerned about it, and I have absolutely no intention of simply marching behind in the parade that's going on out there in Texas, if this person has rights here.”

What right does a judge have to be concerned with illegal aliens? Ironically, the plaintiff is actually suing the Obama administration for NOT following through with its own egregious executive action in the other states. Yet, when the lawyer for the DOJ complained to Judge Garaufis about their untenable situation, the judicial tyrant responded, “I sympathize with your problem, but I do not sympathize with the idea that I am hamstrung in dealing with an issue involving individual rights and including the right to go make a living and have a life as an immigrant in the United States.”

Freeze frame right there!

This is the constitutional crisis we face. Courts think that they have the power to not only change the Constitution and statutes, but force an executive to enact a revolutionary executive action and grant standing to an illegal in order to tickle their social sensibilities. Who are we to “hamstring” them from getting what they want by any means?!

It would be scandalous enough for a judge to grant standing to a plaintiff in order to force the Executive Branch to enact any executive action, even as it relates to American citizens. But to grant such standing to an illegal alien to sue for affirmative benefits who, under the most settled aspect of American law and sovereignty must be deported, is beyond comprehension. Yet, this judge believes this man has individual rights and calls him an “immigrant” as if he’s here with the consent of the citizenry. If transgenderism could be applied to jurisprudence, it would look something like this.

Moreover, as Dale Wilcox of the Immigration Reform Law Institute points out, the injunction has to be applied nationwide because “nothing would stop the millions of illegal aliens in Texas (and Louisiana and Alabama) going out of state to apply for and receive DAPA-benefits” in a state like New York (if the judge reinstates the program). That alien could then return home and force one of the state’s that received injunctive relief to issue a driver’s license.  

To make matters worse, consider the following warped juxtaposition: sovereign states, law enforcement, and individual taxpayers are denied standing to sue the administration when it manifestly violates Congressional immigration statutes. States, towns, communities, civil services, and the criminal justice system are then flooded with illegal aliens, often violent ones. Yet, individuals in this country without the consent of the people can obtain standing to sue the administration for NOT taking action to violate Congress’ plenary power over immigration. 

Stolen Sovereignty, indeed!

As I warn in my book, if the courts are not stripped of their power to adjudicate cases granting illegal aliens rights, there are already enough lower court judges who would create an affirmative right to immigrate and nullify our national sovereignty  — the most profound manifestation of what Justice Scalia called “social transformation without representation.”

The courts are engaging in nullification and civil disobedience. That Congress sits idly while lower court judges, which are created and controlled by Congress, subvert our system of governance, enlarge their role, nullify congressional statutes, ignore 200 years of case law, and shred the preamble of the Declaration of Independence — which calls for governance by the consent of the government (citizenship by consent) — is something our Founders could never have envisioned in their worst nightmares.

If Congress refuses to use Article III Sec. 2 to take immigration away from the courts or use the power of the purse to defund adjudication that violates our sovereignty, the people and the states must rise up and ignore the courts. As Robert Bork said 20 years ago, “[T]o the objection that a rejection of a court’s authority would be civil disobedience, the answer is that a court that issues orders without authority engages in an equally dangerous form of civil disobedience.” And at the time, Bork wasn’t even confronted with the stolen sovereignty and mandated transgenderism we face today.     

Keep reading... Show less
Most recent
All Articles