Justice Department sharply scolded by Federal Court Judge
A federal judge sharply scolded a Justice Department attorney at a hearing on President Obama’s immigration executive actions, suggesting that the administration misled him on a key part of the program — and that he fell for it, “like an idiot.”
The testy court hearing was held Thursday in Texas by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen. The judge suggested he could order sanctions against the administration if he finds they indeed misrepresented the facts.
At issue is whether the DOJ misled the judge into believing that a plank of the Obama program — giving deportation reprieves to thousands of young illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children — would not go forward before he made a ruling on a request to halt it. In fact, federal officials had given more than 108,000 people three-year reprieves before that date and granted them work permits under the program.
Obama’s executive actions would spare from deportation as many as 5 million people who are in the U.S. illegally. Many Republicans oppose the actions, saying only Congress has the right to take such sweeping action. Twenty-six states led by Texas joined together to challenge them as unconstitutional. Hanen on Feb. 16 sided with the states, issuing a preliminary injunction blocking Obama’s actions.
Hanen chided Justice Department attorney Kathleen Hartnett for telling him at a January hearing before the injunction was issued that nothing would be happening with regard to one key part of Obama’s actions, an expansion of the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, until Feb. 18.
Please don’t misunderstand me or my position. Based on what I wrote last night this DACA program is allegedly for “those who were brought here as not fault of their own.” In other words, they were either brought here against their will, or as very young children did not have an opportunity to protest or otherwise. We are to believe that they ended up in this country “not on their fault” but rather being on the fault of their parents or similar relatives who brought them.
It is at this juncture where politics comes in and what these illegal’s are being offered is far too much to compromise. Furthermore, what I have learned since May of 2014 is typical of President Barack Obama’s pathological misrepresentations that have the potential of blowing this nation to smithereens. (Remember this unsettled person is negotiating with the Iranian’s involving the arms race!)
Just for the sake of empirical research, how many of my reader’s were aware that the individuals who are really gaining from Obama’s executive action are the very same people who originally broke the law by coming to and bringing with them their children? Deferred action granted under Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program or DAPA and the expanded DACA is valid for three years and can be renewed. A grant of deferred action is temporary. However, a person granted deferred action is considered by the federal government to be lawfully present in the U.S. for as long as the grant of deferred action status.
Clearly there has been a breach in Obama’s plans and perhaps they are due to misrepresentations of the facts. Does this surprise anyone? “In fact federal officials had given more than 108,000 people three-year reprieves before that date and granted them work permits under the program.” However and don’t be defensively alarmed, but just as Obama’s playing with the immigrate deportation numbers, why should anyone of us take any of this information lightly?
But by far the most egregious attack on the American people in my mind is how did The DREAM Act get addressed and sanctioned into this Executive Order? There are plain misrepresentations in that Act; so much in fact, that it has been defeated every time it comes to the House and Senate for approval. They don’t like it; furthermore, everyone who has taken the time to read the DREAM Act disapproves it.
“Like an idiot I believed that,” Hanen said. A flustered Hartnett repeatedly apologized to Hanen for any confusion related to how the reprieves and work permits were granted. “We strive to be as candid as possible. It truly became clear to us there was confusion on this point,” she said.
Hartnett continued to insist that the 108,081 reprieves had been granted under 2012 guidelines, which were not stopped by the injunction, and that government attorneys hadn’t properly explained this because they had been focused on other parts of the proposed action.
“Can I trust what the president says? That’s a yes or no question,” Hanen asked. “Yes your honor,” Hartnett replied.