Rep. Steve King to File Lawsuit to Block Obama’s Amnesty for 1 Million Illegals

Stand With Arizona ^ | 06-15-2012 | John Hill

[montag813]

by John Hill
Stand With Arizona

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) announced in a radio interview that he is planning to file suit to block Obama from bypassing Congress to implement his amnesty plan for 1 million (and possibly far more) illegal aliens.

King, the vice-chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement, and a good friend of SWA, has been a stalwart opponent of illegal immigration and amnesty. King last year introduced the "Birthright Citizenship Act" (H.R. 140) which would adjust Federal immigration and naturalization guidelines to prevent the "anchor babies" of illegal aliens from obtaining American citizenship.

Today, on the Mike Huckabee Show, King said he would sue to stop the new Obama amnesty plan, and that he successfully sued his own state’s governor — and won — over a similar separation-of-powers issue.

“I will tell you that — I’m not without experience on this — I’m prepared to bring a suit and seek a court order to stop implementation of this policy,” King said “I have done it once in the past successfully when then-Governor Tom Vilsack thought he could legislate by executive order — and the case of King vs. Vilsack is in the books. 

Huckabee followed up, asking King: “You plan to sue this administration for implementing something that you believe should have required legislative process and approval?” “That is correct,” King replied

Obama's order grants virtual amnesty to all illegal aliens who were "under the age of 16" when "brought here" illegally; who have resided here for 5 years; and who attended college or serve in the military. The media is parroting Administration talking point that this would affect "at most 800,000" individuals, but House GOP data shows this deals with well over 1 million illegal aliens.

And as we earlier noted, this figure is irrelevant if the criteria of the twice-defeated DREAM Act - which Obama has adapted - would permit new border crossers, those who came here from 17-35 years old, and those presenting phony documents, to apply for amnesty under this order, and would be granted an immediate stay of deportation. This stay could then be extended indefinitely by the DHS Secretary at her own discretion and NOT subject to Congressional approval.

As a result of these ridiculous lax rules, we will likely see an immediate rush to cross the border in order to obtain fraudulent "documents" and get in on the new Obama amnesty.

Indeed, one look at the DREAM Act Facebook page shows you they are already looking across the border...

Cynthia Vela Huete : Does anyone know if this will apply or benefit the ones that have been banned and have been in Mexico since banned in Cuidad Juarez??? Thanks

We also salute Rep. King for calling out Marco Rubio for his "DREAM Nightmare" alternative plan which has exposed Rubio as a rather naive and useful tool for Obama in his pimping of this shameless amnesty.

H/T to DailyCaller for the entire King-Huckabee exchange (Audio link here).

[DoughtyOne]

Did you know that years back San Antonia clamped down on their border crossing. When they did auto thefts dropped by 50%.

I may be a little fuzzy on the town, but I’m almost certain it was San Antonio. The in excess of 50% figure is accurate.

[Carry me back]

Let’s get a grip. He doesn’t have the power to do this. Don’t be afraid of this cowardly, desperate act of a traitor. Well I don’t think he can be a traitor except to his puppet masters. He isn’t a real American anyway.

[SaraJohnson]

I’m very thankful that King is doing this.

About time the Republicans stood up for at least their own constitutional rights in Congress. They must sue him every time he sticks his big fat toe over the separation of powers and Congress’ power.

Now if they would re-discover the bill of rights in their headlong crush to protect America from Islamic terroists, I would feel somewhat safe again in this supposedly free country.

[cradle of freedom]

And we should be calling them racists at the top of our lungs. They are the ones who call Arizonans Nazis, they call Governor Brewer- Governor Bruha, which means witch in Spanish, they photoshop pictures of Gov. Brewer, Sheriff Arpaio, Rep. Sessenbrenner and Gov. Schwarzennegar wearing Nazi uniforms and they photoshop pictures of Sheriff Arpaio dressed as the KKK. They have also made pinatas that looked like Sheriff Arpaio’s head and then proceeded to bash it with a stick. They frequently carry large signs that tell white people to go back to Europe. A large group of Latino highschool students went nuts when they saw two men counter-protesting. They all began throwing full water bottles at the two men and the two police officers who had to flee for their safety. During the massive demonstrations several years back, a group of highschool students took down the American flag in front of their school, replacing it with the Mexican flag and placing the American flag upside down beneath the Mexican flag. The outrageous and hateful comments that come from them never end. They have threatened to kill the gringo, they promissed that they would take over California back in the nineties and they certainly have in a very short time. These people are not our friends and they have done a lousy job of running their own corrupt country so why should we want them voting in our elections and crossing out each vote from our own children. This reminds me of the conflict between Isaac and Ishmael in the Bible, no good can come of this.

If you want to get daily updates on illegal immigration go to: www.americanpatrol.com. I like to read the website frequently, I also like to donate to www.teamamericapac.org which was started by Tom Tancredo. This pac gives money to candidates who are good on immigration issues both illegal and legal immigration. We have to give whatever we can afford to keep our country for the future of our children.

[cradle of freedom]

All you had to do was to get pregnant without getting married. If this isn’t Gramscian Marxist social engineering, I don’t know what is.

[cradle of freedom]

I have posted this here before but I know a woman who lived in Texas very close to the border for many years. When she moved up here she couldn’t believe how people left things out of doors without having them stolen. Along the Texas border you couldn’t leave anything outside, it would disappear very quickly. What a culture! My family comes from poor European immigrants but no one is a thief.

[DoughtyOne]

I’ve seen it myself. When we protest in L. A., there are some real malcontents out there on the other side.

The image of these folks just wanting to get along, is completely false.

[DoughtyOne]

I hear ya.

[cradle of freedom]

I think I’m going to be sending Steve King a check along with a thank you letter.

[DoughtyOne]

I hope he jumps on this right away. I also hope he is joined by many Congress and Senate critters. We have a presidential candidate that wants our support this fall.

This is the time to show you’ve got backbone Mr. Romney.

[MHGinTN]

Riiight, step right into the trap set for him, to divert from what can get him elected. It is the RESPONSIBILITY of the elected House to impeach the bastard who issued this illicit EO. Period.

[TsonicTsunami08]

Help me here. Did Obama sign an executive order or is he just talking?
Illegals are all over the place and are rarely deported now days. And if they are deported they just come right back through the porous border.
More talk from the stuttering P*ick to change the subject and put jobs and the economy on the back burner.

HE’S TOAST!

If he writes an EO to end run Congress and break existing laws I think then he would be open for IMPEACHMENT!
IF HE WRITES IT , IMPEACH HIM!

AMERICAN’S ARE 80% - 20% AGAINST HIS INTENT TO DO THIS!

[MHGinTN]

IF he already wrote this EO then the House should impeach immediately. If, on the other hand, he is merely telling the fifth column media that he is about to do this, then Representative King’s suit to block the illicit act is more reasonable, since the pubby lead House hasn’t the courage to actually impeach the illegal sonofabitch.

[DoughtyOne]

...but it’s impossible to be in violation of the Constitution if that clause exists there and the interpretation is incorrectly applied.

I don’t even understand what you are trying to say here.  I don't think it's that complex or confusing.  It seems you are saying something is not unconstitutional as long as you appeal to some part of the Constitution to justify it, even if you are doing so incorrectly? By that logic, Roe v. Wade is not unconstitutional.

Your and my interpretation may be that something is unconstitutional.  We may be right, and we may be wrong.  Until it has been challenged before the SCOTUS, it's an academic argument.  Even if the SCOTUS rules it constitutional, we may still view it as unconstitution, but our view will not prevail until a new SCOTUS review after the members have changed.

I'm sure we both consider ObamaCare to be unconstitutional.  Until the SCOTUS rules, it is by default considered to be officially constitutional.  We're just lucky to have it under review.  With the spineless Republicans, I wasn't sure it would be reviewed.

If you wish to see the amendment containing the clause repealed, I think that’s a reasoned goal.

The Commerce Clause isn’t an amendment, but regardless, I don’t want it to be repealed, since it is a necessary part of the Constitution. It’s simply been misapplied by the courts and Congress to justify anything that they want to.

I agree with your conclusion.  Above I stated that "IF you wish to see the amendment containing the clause repealed, it would be a reasoned effort to work toward that goal.  I also think that the clause is a necessary part of the constitution.  I should have used a different word than reasoned above, because it reflects an agreement with such a movement.  I don't think it's reasoned to strike it down.

LOL, you follow the logic trail quite well, recognize the problem and then tell me I’m the one who is mistaken.

Yes, because your “logic trail” is illogical. It might appear logical on its face, but you are relying on fallacious reasoning.

Oh well, as you said in your other post, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. Once we’ve solved the other 1001 problems in the country that we agree on, we can all duke it out over this one.

I don't think that you actually fail to see a problem if some states decide to legalize everything, and neighboring states don't.  I don't think recognizing this is evidence of fallacious reasoning.

This is a thorny issue.  I think there will continue to be problems no matter what we do.

Later...

[MHGinTN]

Word of FRiendly advice: using grey to write passages makes them very difficult to read, so I for one just skip the texct I can’t see clearly. HAve a nice day

[MHGinTN]

Word of FRiendly advice: using grey to write passages makes them very difficult to read, so I for one just skip the text I can’t see clearly. Have a nice day

[DoughtyOne]

Over time I have had one person tell me this. I have been using the tactic for most of the time I’ve been here. You may be the second person, or you may be the same person. Honestly, I’m not sure.

I’m not trying to cause problems for anyone, but I do want to provide comments I’m responding to, right next to my response. That’s especially true for longer posts with many points, but if I am carrying on a long back and forth with someone, I will employ the tactic in hopes it will help make my points clearer.

The more I darken up the light gray text, the closer it comes to the shade of the blue text I use. For that reason, I have stayed with the lighter gray.

If you are having problems, I would suspect others are too. It may be your monitor, or it may something that is much more broad-spread than I realize. I have been reading this text on as many as ten computer screens, numerous phones, and an iPad. I’ve never had a hard time reading it.

I am truly sorry you have a problem with it. Not having a more broad-spread similar reaction to yours, I’ll be sticking with it. I will tell you, that you can still read what is included in that light text, but going back to the original post I am responding to.

Take care.

[DoughtyOne]

BTW: It just came to mind what I have suggested to one other person who had difficulty with the light gray text.

I told them to highlight the light text, and it could easily be read. They said it worked great.

That may work quite well for you.

[MHGinTN]

Black and royal blue make a friendly contrast. Your posts remind me of one of my favorite aunts, who told me she lowered her voice when she wanted to be taken very seriously because folks had to listen more attentaively to understand what she was saying. That seemed rather arrogant to me at the time she explained it.

[MHGinTN]

Black and royal blue make a friendly contrast. Your posts remind me of one of my favorite aunts, who told me she lowered her voice when she wanted to be taken very seriously because folks had to listen more attentatively to understand what she was saying. That seemed rather arrogant to me at the time she explained it. I just repeat myself ;^) sometimes acceidentally.