So now the Justice Department is claiming that our national security will be “irreparably harmed” if a federal judge does not lift his injunction blocking Barack Obama’s illegal amnesty program. What a crock! The administration’s arguments here are as false as the ones being spouted in Congress over funding the Department of Homeland Security.
I’ll get into that second one in a moment. But for now, let’s concentrate on the hysterical reaction to the injunction U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen issued last week, blocking implementation of Obama’s executive amnesty order. Hanen was responding to a lawsuit filed by 26 states contending that Obama’s executive order allowing an estimated four million illegal aliens to remain in this country and receive work permits was unconstitutional. It’s hard to disagree with the judge’s decision, since the president himself admitted on at least 22 previous occasions that he lacked the authority to change the law unilaterally.
{modulepos inner_text_ad}
In its motion, the Justice Department said: “A stay pending appeal is necessary to ensure that the [Department of Homeland Security] is able to most effectively protect national security, public safety, and the integrity of the border.”
Yeah, right. As though DHS has been doing such a good job protecting “the integrity of the border.”
The DOJ then piles it on even deeper: “Absent a stay, DHS will sustain irreparable harm,” it contends, “harm that would not be cured, even if Defendants ultimately prevail on that appeal.”
I doubt very much if Hanen will agree to stay his own injunction. So the next step will be for the Administration to go to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. No matter what that court decides, the issue is virtually certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court. So don’t look for any quick settlement here.
Meanwhile, time is running out for Congress to reach some sort of compromise on funding the Department of Homeland Security for the coming year. You’ll remember that when Congress passed a continuing resolution in November to fund the federal government for the coming year, it funded DHS only through February 27.
Now the deadline is quickly coming for that game of kick the can. The House has already passed a bill to fund DHS for the rest of the year. But the measure specifically excludes any funds to implement President Obama’s amnesty program.
Thus far, Democrats in the Senate have refused on four separate occasions to permit a vote on the measure. That may not even matter, since the president has said he would veto any appropriation that tries to defund his amnesty program.
What kind of catastrophe will the country face if a spending bill isn’t approved by Friday? Despite the hysteria being reported by the mainstream media, the answer is … absolutely none.
The truth of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of DHS’s 226,000 employees are considered “essential personnel.” Some 85 percent of them are required by law to remain on their jobs, even if Congress has not agreed to fund them.
Yes, the Secret Service will still protect the president and his family. Agents from Customs and Border Protection will remain on the job. And Transportation Security Administration officials will continue to frisk elderly grandmothers and seize water bottles at our nation’s airports.
Oh, and don’t worry about the current immigration program, such as it is, coming to halt because of this impasse. Most of the costs of the Citizenship and Immigration Service are paid for by fees collected from applicants, not by the DHS budget.
So all that talk about our country being “irreparably harmed” is just a bunch of baloney. Still, it may be all the excuse some Republicans need to surrender (again!) on the issue … just as they have in the past.
In other words, despite all the hype and hoopla, it’s business as usual in Washington, D.C.
Until next time, keep some powder dry.
Chip Wood was the first news editor of The Review of the News and also wrote for American Opinion, our two predecessor publications. He is now the geopolitical editor of Personal Liberty Digest. This article first appeared on PersonalLiberty.com and has been reprinted with permission.
