Obama Says Immigration Case May Force State Fights on Courts

Laurel Brubaker Calkins, Bloomberg, May 18, 2015

President Barack Obama warned that courts will be stuck deciding immigration disputes between states if his plan to let as many as 5 million undocumented migrants stay in the U.S. remains on hold.

The Obama administration asked the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans Monday to set aside a court order blocking the program while 26 states fight to throw it out completely. The White House repeated its insistence that the president has exclusive authority to enforce immigration laws and can adjust policies as he sees fit.

Fourteen states have sided with the White House in the case, arguing the benefits of immigration outweigh its costs. {snip}

{snip}

The appeals court is already considering an earlier White House request to lift Hanen’s temporary hold so immigration agents can start processing paperwork immediately. Obama’s latest bid doubles down by asking the appeals court to throw out Hanen’s ruling or at least allow the program to begin in states that aren’t suing to stop it.

The White House urged the court to reject the states’ complaints that, if Obama’s immigration initiative is later overturned, they’ll be forced to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in benefits and services to people in the country illegally, with little hope of recovering those expenditures.

The Obama administration argued in Monday’s filing that any increased spending would be offset by an estimated $845 million yearly increase in state and local taxes paid by immigrants who “come out of the shadows” and enter the legal workforce.

Without a provable injury, the states have no legal basis to sue, the U.S. said.

{snip}

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • LHathaway

    “Fourteen states have sided with the White House in the case, arguing the benefits of immigration outweigh its costs”.

    Right, as long as the financial benefits outweigh the costs, what else matters? Correction: As long as the financial benefits that they claim will arise outweigh the costs, what else could possibly matter?

    • Sick of it

      Yeah, something tells me that people making minimum wage aren’t going to pay in as much as they take out.

      • LHathaway

        Actually, those would be the ultimate, or those who benefit the system to the ultimate amount. That is, if they work for minimum wage, yet receive no benefits from government.

        • Sick of it

          Non-whites will always receive benefits from this system.

      • Alden

        Speaking of immigrants the Eiffel Tower has been closed at least for a day because of the swarms of pickpockets

        Thug is American code for black pickpocket is European code for gypsy

        The tower is not just a tourist attraction. It was built as an example of structural steel it was the highest metal structure in the world at the time and the first structure built with Eiffel’s new process

        Like the radio computer etc it us an example of what the mechanical and scientific brains of Europeans can do
        And the rest of the world cannot do

        30 years ago the police would have cleared the gypsies out but nowadays the SOS Racisme movement and the French equivalent of ADL would Imprison the police for hate crime if they tried to clean the gypsy pickpockets out of the tower and park

        • Sick of it

          The “French” equivalent of the ADL is run by the same ethnic group I’m sure. Who are also called gypsies by many French folks by the way.

    • Alden

      I don’t think one has to pay income taxes if earnings are under $14,000. Anyway, immigrants come here knowing to claim 10 dependents in the payroll form and don’t have to pay income taxes for the first $20.000 and then practically nothing

      A lot of employers of illegals deduct the payroll taxes from the pay checks but don’t send the payroll taxes into the various govt agencies

    • Charles Vairin

      Estimates of costs and savings by the federal government are notoriously inaccurate. In this case, they don’t know the number of illegals or what they make and they are ignoring the number of currently employed native Americans that will become unemployed and a burden to the state. In addition, the states will incur additional costs due to health and education additional costs. There is no doubt that their claim is of no cost is just vapor with no backup.

      • HE2

        1. 40% of all workers in L. A. County (L. A. County has 10.2 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. They are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green card.
        2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
        3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
        4. Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
        5. Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.
        6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
        7. The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
        8. Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
        9. 21 radio stations in L. A. are Spanish speaking.
        10. In Los Angeles County, 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak Spanish. (There are 10.2 million people in L. A. County.)
        (All 10 of the above facts were published in the Los Angeles Times.)
        Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare.
        Over 70% of the United States ‘ annual population growth (and over 90% of California , Florida , and New York ) results from immigration.
        29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens .
        We are fools for letting this continue, yet we feel we can do nothing. The occupation government is in complete control.

  • Susannah

    I have no doubt that King Obama will get his illegals one way or another. He won’t be denied.

  • Chip Carver

    Well, we can hope that one day we’ll all see Barry Soetoro on the witness stand, telling us how he was only following orders. It would be fitting.

    • Xerxes22

      Not only how he was following orders but also the names of the people who were giving the orders. Let us see who is hiding behind the curtain and pulling the strings.

      • Alden

        We all know who is behind Obama and who has been behind every president since FDR except for Kennedy

  • JohnEngelman

    Courts have too much power in the United States.

    • Jason Lewis

      California voted not to give illegals welfare. Courts said no.
      38 states voted no to gay marriage. Courts said no.
      Somehow any issue can be spun to be a violation of rights.

    • LHathaway

      Depends on which side of the issue they fall! Or how they rule in your case.

      • JohnEngelman

        My candidates often lose elections. Nevertheless, I trust the voters more than the judges.

    • Light from the East

      Obama likes to use African Americans to control the whole justice system.

      • Dr. Rieux

        How so? By clogging the system with his sons’ nonstop criminal trials?

    • Alden

      That is true but the law schools legal profession and courts obey the orders of They Who Cannot Be Named

  • Who Me?

    “Fourteen states have sided with the White House in the case, arguing the benefits of immigration outweigh its costs”.
    ****************
    Which anybody who finished second grade knows full well means that 36 states are against it, and that 36 is a vast majority in a total of 50. But that would be using common sense and logic, which as we all know is totally absent in the ruling class.

    • GB101

      The number of states on each side is not relevant.

  • SentryattheGate

    Make sure you call “your” politicians in DC, about this and about the (secretive) TTIP and TTP trade treaties coming up for a vote real soon. Remember Buchanan’s article yesterday warning that those treaties would open US up to the free mobility of workers=NO BORDERS! Nothing could be more important; don’t let them give our home away!

    • journey

      Believe the trade treaties were passed by the Senate by a slim margin.

    • Alden

      Feinstein Boxer and my congress critter is the unspeakable Karen Bass a younger version of Maxine Waters

      What a crew 2 They Whi Cannot Be Named and one of their puppets
      Feinstein’s multi billionaire husband went to China for cheap labor and absence of pollution controls as soon as Nixon and his handler Kissenger opened China for the U.S.

  • journey

    “Without a provable injury, the states have no legal basis to sue” So, those states have no current stats to prove that illegals take out than they put in? Some of those illegals have been here for quite some time.

    • Deacon Blue

      The states have no standing unless they can 1) prove injury and 2) prove that
      the injury can be rectified by the courts.

      • journey

        But surely, most states can especially CA (in favor of illegals due to the need for cheap labor at the expense of the taxpayers). It is a given Hispanics whether legal or illegal take out more than they put in. They do not earn enough.

        “Without a provable injury, the states have no legal basis to sue” is what little barry is using as a defense argument.

        • Deacon Blue

          Look, I am against brown/black illegal immigration as much as the next AMREN’er. No doubt. But if civil suits were allowed without standing there would be all sorts of nonsense litigation even beyond what there is now. It would be a real legal quagmire. In order to survive a Motion to Dismiss a civil case requires that the Plaintiff be able to show demonstrable injury that can be rectified in some manner by the court. “Cheap labor” is not a demonstrable injury to the rights of the state. Now a citizen who lost a job to an illegal based on wage compression would have standing to sue for sure. Taking out more than you put in is also not standing. A disabled White person might take out more than he puts in. Children, while minors, take out more than they put in. Does not constitute standing. You would need to show how the state at the “state level” is harmed or has it’s rights infringed. And you need to show that a court can remedy this which is not as easy as it sounds sometimes. However, all this said and done, I do think there are many arguments that the Solicitors Generals of various states – mostly border states – might make in federal court which would indeed, survive both requirements to make a case stick. If a state like New Mexico or Texas could show – and I am sure they can – that they are being forced to do LEO activity that is a federal responsibility that the feds abrogated then for sure they have standing. Sheriff Joe probably is being overrun with criminaliens he has to hold while their federal trials are pending. He could make a case that if the number of such criminaliens is very high and its a fiduciary burden to the county or state and its only because federal ICE people are not doing their jobs? I think that survives. And if for sure could be remedied by an Order from the Court.

          • journey

            I did not use “cheap state” as pertaining to the 26 states. Those 26 states are suing based on irreparable harm due to financial reasons from illegals taking out more than they put in, at many different levels. And, yes, the 26 states are asking the courts to rectify this issue. And no, the case has not been thrown out but rather the reverse. This case just might have a good chance of surviving in comparison to past cases.

            CA tired in the past but was blocked by the courts. Now, the Hispanics are the majority with a high poverty and welfare rate.

          • Deacon Blue

            Hope you are correct and I am incorrect to be honest.
            My experience with civil litigation has been extensive on
            both sides of the aisle. Just remember, if its allowed “in” they
            still need to win the case too.

  • mobilebay

    I can’t think of any other hackneyed phrase that drives me screaming into the night than “come out of the shadows.” THEY have yet to be in the shadows, Mr. President. You’ll find them at the welfare offices, schools, on jobs, in the ER, lined up at the checkout counter, their EBT cards on the ready, and any other place they can spend the gift cards they picked up at the border when they sneaked in.

  • ekwaykway

    When the ANC in America consolidates, all will be lost. Forever…they will form a party that will crush us…already did. They hold the power, not us.

  • GB101

    Fourteen states have sided with the White House in the case, arguing the benefits of immigration outweigh its costs.

    I wonder if the 14 states are really making this argument, or if the reporter is misstating their position. It is of course irrelevant whether the benefits of immigration outweigh its costs. It is irrelevant whether the benefits of ILLEGAL immigration outweigh its costs. The cost/benefit analysis is not the issue. The issue is (obviously) whether the president has the authority to do what he has done.

  • GB101

    The Obama administration argued in Monday’s filing that any increased spending would be offset by an estimated $845 million yearly increase in state and local taxes paid by immigrants who “come out of the shadows” and enter the legal workforce.

    And this is just as irrelevant. It is very discouraging to see the cost/benefit analysis being treated as if it matters.

  • Eagle1212

    Enforce our immigration laws and keep on detaining and deporting all illegals along with their anchor babies and extended families and friends.

  • Rob

    I hate any article that begins with ‘Obama says….’