The Supreme Court of the United States is hearing arguments on Obama’s unlawful amnesty. There are two arguments being presented by Obama’s administration. One is that Texas has no standing and the other is that he is not granting “lawful status” just “lawful presence”. Changing those two words might just win the case. It’s not unlike the ruse used to pass Obamacare – which was a tax and not a tax.
If this works then any president can simply change the wording to connive a way around the Congress and call it a legal technicality.
Many analysts feel the latter is such a great argument it might sway Justices Roberts and/or Kennedy, especially Kennedy.
Eight lawyers could destroy the separation of powers in the Constitution. Everyone has to know that giving illegal aliens the benefits of citizens and allowing them to stay lawfully but not legally is nothing more than a deceit.
Barack Obama’s Solicitor General Donald Verrilli told the Supreme Court during oral arguments in the amnesty battle of US v. Texas that the president can use government bureaucracy to unilaterally give amnesty to millions of foreign nationals here illegally and provide them with the ability to work and collect Social Security, disability, and Medicare.
The ruling, Verrilli said, should not hinge on immigrants’ legal status. The president won’t grant them legal status as long as he doesn’t have to deport them.
Justice Sotomayor is said to have acted as an illegal immigration advocate with a long speech. She will have no problem violating the spirit of the Constitution in this case and making Congress irrelevant and at least three other Justices won’t either.
The Chicago Tribune reported that the Bloomberg View analyst believes Justices Roberts and Kennedy can be swayed to vote in favor of this lawless argument.
The 26 states suing the administration, Verrilli told the court, “are fundamentally wrong to claim the Guidance confers on aliens whose presence Congress has deemed unlawful the right to remain lawfully in the United States.”
“Aliens covered by the Guidance, like all aliens afforded deferred action, are violating the law by remaining in the United States, are subject to removal proceedings at the government’s discretion, and gain no defense to removal,” Verrilli said.
Changing the language, Verrilli said that the administration isn’t granting “lawful status” but rather “lawful presence.”
“Aliens with lawful status under the [Immigration and Nationality Act] are here lawfully; their presence therefore is not a basis for removal,” said Obama’s solicitor in his brief. “By contrast, mere ‘lawful presence’ occurs when the Executive ‘openly tolerate[s] an undocumented alien’s continued presence in the United States for a fixed period (subject to revocation at the agency’s discretion),’ notwithstanding that the alien lacks lawful status and is present in violation of the law.”
Therefore an “undocumented alien” who has “lawful presence” is “present in violation of the law.”
This is one exchange via CNS News:
Roberts told Verrilli that “On Page 16, you quote the Guidance that says, ‘The individuals covered are lawfully present in the United States. And less than a page later, you say, ‘Aliens with deferred action are present in violation of the law.’
‘Now that must have been a hard sentence to write,” said Roberts. “I mean … they’re lawfully present, and yet, they’re present in violation of the law.”
Verrilli responded: “I actually had no trouble writing it, Mr. Chief Justice.”
He doesn’t because he’s been twisting truth and reality without a conscience for seven years, Obamacare being his biggest success.
The audience laughed so he said the words have a different meaning in the “immigration world”.
“The reason I had no problem writing it is because that phrase, ‘lawful presence,’ has caused a terrible amount of confusion in this case; I realize it,” said Verrilli. “But the reality is … it means something different to people in the immigration world. What it means in the immigration world is not that you have a legal right to be in the United States, that your status has changed in any way. That you have any defense to removal. It doesn’t mean any of those things, and it never has … and so at that fundamental level, we are not trying to change anybody’s legal status on the immigration—”
Roberts interrupted: “Lawfully present does not mean you’re legally present in the United States.”
“Right,” said Verrilli. “Tolerated—”
Roberts interrupted again: “I’m sorry … just so I get that right … Lawfully present does not mean you’re legally present.”
“Correct,” said the solicitor general.
Justice Alito then asked if it was true that those granted this unique status “may lawfully work in the United States.”
“That’s right,” said the solicitor.
“And how is it possible,” asked Alito, “to lawfully work in the United States without lawfully being in the United States?”
Millions are doing it, the solicitor general assured the justice.
“There are millions of people, millions of people other than DAPA recipients about who this is true right now,” said Verrilli. “And this gets to the point of why their [the complaining states] reading of Section 1324 is completely wrong.”
But Alito focused on the plain English.
“I’m just talking about the English language,” Alito said. “I just don’t understand it. … [H]ow can it be lawful to work here but not lawful to be here?”
Verrilli is trying to say that if the executive order doesn’t actually change the person’s legal status, and instead just defers deporting them, albeit they will receive benefits of a citizen, then there’s nothing unconstitutional about it.
Texas Solicitor General Scott A. Keller argued that “legal presence” may not be a path to citizenship, but it is a path to opportunity in this country — a privilege that, he said, only Congress can confer.
The House of Representatives sent a young Washington lawyer, Erin E. Murphy, who also insisted that the phrase “lawful presence” meant the same thing as a congressionally conferred legal status for people who otherwise would be in line to be deported.
Obama plans to keep the illegal aliens here lawfully, give them tremendous benefits, and call it legal though they are here illegally.
Mr. Obama has been ruling by guidance memorandum since he came into office.