You Probably Didn’t Know How Obama’s Immigrant Amnesty Will Cost Billions Supporting Illegals.
The Immigration battle is raging on, with a lawsuit from 25 U.S. states pending, things seem to be just warming up for Inmigración Battle Royale 2015. In one corner, our illustrious leftist President that seems hellbent on defying the law and opening the illegal immigration flood gates, and 25 states that do not want to pay for the onslaught of illegal immigrants.
Many lefties will be quick to drop the 'R' bomb, but debt has no nationality. An 1,100 page legal document explains that “billions of dollars” in costs will be levied against the state by President Obama's executive action(or order, for those put off by sleight of hand re-phrasings). In Texas, the state leading the lawsuit, estimated that they would face costs of $130 per illegal immigrant simply for driver's licenses alone.
Wisconsin's, also among the 25 states, illegal immigrants in their state would be eligible for concealed weapons permits. The cost of these permits would be paid for by the state, ipso facto, the taxpayers. In another state, Indiana, the taxpayers would be on the hook for unemployment benefits for illegal immigrants in Indiana.
Arizona and Pennsylvania have also duked it out with the President's unconstitutional amnesty. The famous, or infamous, “Sheriff Joe” Arpaio already took this to a DC courtroom only to end in failure. He is appealing the ruling. The federal judge in Pennsylvania rightly found the Obama's executive order 'Unconstitutional', but this was only in a specific case of an illegal immigrant. Even though the Obama Administration seems to deny the idea that states are being forced to provide Illegal immigrants driver's licenses, court documents say otherwise.
The Texas case will convene today in Brownsville. The mere fate of the President's illegal amnesty hangs in the balance today. According to the Washington Times, the outcome hinges on two main points.
The 25 states prove the financial burden is a clear and present danger. The Executive Amnesty has broader implications, rather than specific case-by-case basis that Obama and left allege. Hell has frozen over. The head of a Texas labor union, Kenneth Palinkas, backed the claim that the Obama Administration has hurt its case because it has repeatedly stood in the way of immigration enforcement leading up to his Executive Amnesty.
“Leadership has intentionally stopped proper screening and enforcement and, in so doing, it has guaranteed that applications will be rubber-stamped for approval, a practice that virtually guarantees widespread fraud and places public safety at risk.”
Obama's lefty lawyers, as if there were any other kind, argue that previous Presidents' have used “deferred action”. So, two wrongs make a right. Essentially.
The Cato Institute sees things differently. According to a piece by Ilya Shapiro on Cato.org, the argument that crazy,power grabbing commie Obama Administration can use past decisions as a precedent is deeply flawed.
“But these deferred actions, to the extent they’re relevant here, served as temporary bridges from one legal status to another, not tunnels that undermine legislative structure or detours around the law to hitherto unknown destinations. Moreover, they were several orders of magnitude smaller than DAPA, in the tens of thousands not the millions. Most significantly, they were all approved by Congress.”
The new Republican congress is allegedly trying to halt the program by removing funding, but that remains to be seen, and Obama does have the ability to simply veto the entire bill. I know that is massive “duh”. It is worth mentioning when you consider, if the Republican congress grows a pair, they could either override his veto or find another way to block this effort. However, with the new congress off to an Establishment start, it is not clear if the virtue of “constitutional will” can overcome “political will”. If what we have seen so far is any indication, and the court challenges fail, expect to be receiving bill with a memo stating “for Illegals”.