A federal judge in Texas issued a temporary injunction earlier this week against President Obama’s executive amnesty for illegal immigrants. Twenty-six states are suing the administration over the unilateral amnesty.
In his decision, Judge Andrew Hansen had harsh words for the Obama administration, as Heritage legal expert Hans von Spakovsky writes:
The most crucial decision made by Judge Hanen in this early stage of the lawsuit is that, contrary to the Justice Department’s claim, the states are legally allowed to bring this lawsuit because they are going to suffer concrete, measurable costs from the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program, that is to say, they have standing…
Hanen’s lengthy opinion provides an extensive, well-researched, well-written review of the history of the Obama administration’s actions in the immigration area and points out the many problems caused by its lack of enforcement and overriding of federal immigration law. Hanen agrees that Homeland Security does have discretion “in the manner in which it chooses to fulfill the expressed will of Congress” in federal immigration law. But it cannot “enact a program whereby it not only ignores the dictates of Congress, but actively acts to thwart them.” In fact, the Homeland Security secretary “is not just rewriting the laws; he is creating them from scratch.
The Obama administration is expected to fight the decision. Meanwhile, Senate Democrats are filibustering a bill that would fund the Department of Homeland Security without funding amnesty.
What do you think of the court’s decision to halt Obama’s executive amnesty?