No surprise here….The Obama Administration will do whatever is necessary to further its executive amnesty policies including contradicting itself. In a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case, the Obama Administration filed an amicus brief arguing that Arizona is obligated to provide Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) recipients with driving privileges, even though the entire issue is within the purview of the “core police powers” of the state. Ironically, this is the exact opposite position that the Obama Administration will take on April 18 in the United States v. Texas case. The Administration will argue before the Supreme Court that Texas has no standing to challenge the DACA amnesty. They rely on the argument that the state does not have a legitimate grievance or interest because it doesn’t have to issue driver’s licenses to DACA recipients.
While the arguments presented in the Arizona and Texas cases are contradictory to each other, these cases do have something in common. The attorney listed on the Arizona case is the same one listed on the Texas one – Joyce Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division. It is clear that the Obama Administration is willing to be irrational if the end result advances its immigration priorities.
2 Comments
If Obama is so desperate to have more South Americans in this country, I assume because they think they will keep the democrats in power, why don’t they just open up legal immigration to South America ? Or is that double talk also because they know they can’t pass criminal vetting and or find jobs. Allowing illegals rights without being citizens or paying taxes keeps wages low and helps put legal businesses out of business because the can’t compete with non tax paying business. I also don’t understand how allowing foreign children to stay here isn’t against international laws of human trafficking and kidnapping. Obama is like the candy man luring children here with candy and a drivers license.
Hmmm. They certainly can’t claim that one hand does not know what they other is doing if the exact same government attorney is involved in both cases. On one hand arguing in an Appeals Court that Arizona, which refuses to give driver’s licenses to illegals, is required to do so, and on the other hand saying to the Supreme Court that Texas has no standing to challenge executive amnesty orders because they don’t have to give illegals licenses.
I would have to think that the lawyers for the states would be pointing this out to the Supreme Court. Because this, after all, is the argument that many have been making, which is that there are no guiding legal or constitutional principles behind what this administration decides to do. It’s all based on political expediency.