Appeals Court Rules W/ States Over Obama Immigrati

Appeals court rules with states challenging Obama's immigration action

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday in favor of 26 states challenging President Barack Obama's executive action on immigration, potentially paving the way for a Supreme Court decision on the issue.

Two judges on the three-judge panel ruled that the executive action, which would grant an estimated 4.7 million undocumented immigrants relief from deportation, should remain on hold while the government appeals its blocking.

The immigration order was first put on hold by Texas Judge Andrew Hanen in February after the states, all led by Republican governors, alleged that taking in migrants would be overly burdensome.

"The President’s attempt to bypass the will of the American people was successfully checked again today," Texas Governor Greg Abbott said in a news release.

The case has become the focal point of Obama's efforts to change U.S. immigration policy.

Seeing no progress on legislative reform in Congress, Obama announced in November he would take executive action to help immigrants. He has since faced criticism from Republicans who say the program grants amnesty to lawbreakers.

The White House said the two judges who ruled against the administration on Tuesday chose to "misinterpret the facts and the law."

"The president's actions... are squarely within the bounds of his authority and they are the right thing to do for the country," White House spokeswoman Brandi Hoffine said.

The Justice Department is evaluating the ruling and considering next steps, a U.S. official said on the condition of anonymity.

The 5th Circuit will rule again in the coming months on whether the Obama administration can appeal the block to the executive order. That decision may be made by a new panel of judges and will take into account more evidence.

Immigration advocates have been wary of the prospect that the 5th Circuit, known as one of the most conservative in the nation, would rule with the administration.

"We are disappointed, but this is not unexpected at all," Marielena Hincapie, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, said on a conference call with reporters.

Hincapie said the immigration advocate community is still optimistic the executive order will prevail, even if it means waiting until the Supreme Court can rule on it.

ELECTION RAMIFICATIONS

If it is denied an appeal, the Obama administration may ask the Supreme Court to consider the case, potentially delaying the launch of the immigration programs until June 2016.

That could bring up the issue at a politically important time, said Marshall Fitz, vice president of immigration policy at left-leaning Washington think tank Center for American Progress.

"If the programs go into effect next June, there will be real electoral consequences," Fitz said. "There is a clear contrast between (Democratic front-runner Hillary) Clinton and any Republican in the current field."

Clinton has said she would like to see Obama's action expanded to shield even more immigrants from deportation.

Source

The only precedent is how many orders have been challenged for no reason besides partisan posturing.

Now if only a Republican president was there to sign the bill into law....

too bad we have Obama instead, who would rather not do anything for the last 2 years of his term except to sign executive orders....

Because the position party had been eager to put things on his desk worth signing or at all for the last 6..

Wait, you mean to tell me he wasn't excited when he signed Obamacare into law? Or Dodd-Frank? Or any of the other laws he signed in the first 2 years of his term?

I bet you sweat like crazy trying to think of a third thing to say to explain away half a decade of brinksmanship. Can you name one? Can you name a single bill worth signing that's even made it to his desk since then?

Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014.

Would you like more? How about the other 600 or so bills he signed into law since the Republicans won the House back in 2010?

You make it sound like he never seen a bill since his party lost badly in 2010....

Massive budget shortfalls and you're crying about a bill that extended tax breaks for foreign workers programs and subsidies to drug and oil companies?

That's what you got from that bill? Do you even know what that bill was?

I'm guessing not, it requires you to have some sort of business knowledge....

But hey, keep asking Congress to pass a bill that allows for single-payer health system like you want. I'm sure they won't get right on it.

extended caps on capital gains taxes

high caps for overpriced ivy league tuition

provisions for race horse credits

investment tax credits

Wow, so you have no idea what's in the bill. Here, let me help you out a little.

Now, point to us the following:

I'll give you Sections 168(k) and 179, because I'm sure you heard of those before. Maybe the owner of the McDonalds you work at talked about it in passing, who knows. Maybe you remember me mentioning it a few times. You certainly don't even know what's in those sections anyway...

Hell, I'll give you a little respect if you can even tell us what Section 168 is. Or even give us the form number it applies to.

So, before you shoot off your mouth, maybe, you know, read about a bill mentioned next time? I highly doubt it though.

Dear god I come back into P/R and all I can look at is the same *** people fighting over the same ***.

Get real people, Obama abused his power, and the other branches of our government had the right to repeal it. It's a democracy, not a dictatorship.

It's funny really, Obama isn't the president to use the executive power most, in fact he's used it the least in the last century

When you don't have a defensible position, just spit out a bunch of numbers and keywords, that'll prove you're an expert...

In the context of the subject: no, he didn't.

It's also not a democracy, it's a republic.

As for your first line: yes, and you participate in it too.

Said the person who stated that there's extended caps on capital gains (there is no such thing), high caps for ivy league tuition (again, there is no such thing), provisions for race horse credits (again, there is no such thing), and investment tax credits (again, there is no such thing).

I gave you the *** law, and you accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about?

You, sir, are worse than a certain poster who gets all bitchy when you mention his name and cries harassment all the time. Why do you bother with even posting in this section is beyond me.

Extension of classification of certain racehorses as 3 year property

According to an NTRA release, the bonus depreciation on purchases of race horses was reinstated at 50%, which was the 2012 rate. The expense allowance was increased to $500,000 for this year and retroactively increased from $125,000 to $500,000 for horses purchased in 2012.

Said Joel Turner, a member of Frost Brown Todd attorneys in Louisville, Kentucky, and a specialist in equine legal services, “These incentives are real.”

While conceding that the announcement of the retroactive provisions wasn’t great for tax planning, he said their beneficiaries will be “rewarded for legitimate reasons” and that the aggregate of benefits will mean that in some cases, 80% of the purchase price of a horse can be deducted in the first year.

“The ability to expense the first $500,000 and take depreciation on the next $500,000 means that essentially you’re almost getting a 100% write-off in the first year,” he explained.

Well it's a good thing the Republican-controlled Congress is on top of immigration reform. Otherwise, we'd just be getting nowhere with this.

We should cap immigration for at least a decade. Slow things down to a tiny crawl, and give everyone time to assimilate.

Yes, let's start an armed conflict where the battlegrounds will be in California and Texas (mostly).

I'm all for erasing California, but not Texas. We already have our own border patrol agents getting shot/killed by the Mexican Mafia, we don't need to include the Mexican Army killing them too....