Senator Isakson Comments on Court’s Decision to Delay Executive Action on Immigrants

Senator Johnny Isakson’s office released the following statement in response to the Federal District Court’s decision in Texas to temporarily block President Obama’s executive action on immigration:

“The Senate has voted multiple times on the House-passed Homeland Security appropriations bill that would hold the president accountable for his unconstitutional executive amnesty. The U.S. District Court in Texas has now affirmed that the president’s executive action on immigration may be illegal. It’s time to act on the Homeland Security funding bill and to stop this executive overreach.”

President Obama’s effort to ease deportation threats for millions of illegal immigrants was legally challenged on constitutional grounds by a coalition of 26 states, including Georgia.

While the Court did not rule on the constitutional merits of the case, it ruled that the the Obama administration possibly failed to follow procedures for the way federal agencies can establish regulations.

Funding for the Department of Homeland Security is set to expire on Feb. 27th. The Senate voted on a motion to begin debate on a House of Representatives-passed Homeland Security appropriations bill on Feb. 2, Feb. 3, and Feb. 4, 2015. This motion needs 60 votes to pass, but has failed each time because of Democratic opposition. As all departmental funding must originate in the U.S. House of Representatives, Senator Isakson’s press release further argues that, “a House-passed measure is the only way to ensure funding for the Department of Homeland Security.”

24 comments

      • xdog says:

        Your link says just the opposite.

        “They objected to several provisions added to the bill by House Republicans that restrict funding to implement President Barack Obama’s executive orders”

        and

        “Democrats . . . said they would hold firmly against the bill and urged Republicans to drop the immigration provisions and pass a clean bill.”

        As to the imputed illegality of Obama’s actions, we’ll have to see. All I know is, there’s precedence.

        • saltycracker says:

          My politi-speak is not working this AM – I took Reid’s stance is pass it “clean” as written to mean leave illegal funding in. So the demos are opposed to illegals getting tax refunds ?

          • xdog says:

            “So the demos are opposed to illegals getting tax refunds ?”

            Now I’m the one who’s lost. You’ll have to tell me what you’re talking about and, regardless of the answer to your question, what it has to do with funding DHS.

              • xdog says:

                I found a snopes article that says the claim from townhall is false, especially the non-filing part. EITC monies would be paid “only to a small pool of people who have filed income tax returns for the three years during which they did not have Social Security numbers” and are otherwise eligible. The $24K number that I’ve read about seems to be mostly bs too.

                More info and some more links for us non-experts here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/amnestybonus.asp

                • saltycracker says:

                  So now we move on to spend time trying to define a “a small pool” and how “few” millions are involved ? There is enough BS to spread around. The stinky part is blaming the GOP for this “blockage” 0f passing more BS.

                  • John Konop says:

                    Salty,

                    You make a very good point….as I have said in the past the focus should be on fixing the immigration problems….The GOP could put in many fixes like this…..and look like heros….instead even with this issue they use hot button language….many hear the hot buttons over the facts…It may help fire up base, but it turns more people off….I would of added other rules….must have proper insurance, anchor babies cannot become citizens unless parents have legal status, income above poverty line for a period of time to become a citizen, limited and or no entitlments unless income above poverty line for a period of time…..The GOP should shift from the culture war, 100 percent fix on boarder…..to the best and brightest approach….The real issue is we cannot afford to be like the French, and end up importing poverty with immigration rules…

                    • saltycracker says:

                      The GOP is not trying to fix anything here, they are only blocking a bs move. For the 100th time, where is the GOP immigration reform bill ? Absent one the demos will embed crap in every bill going and the more important the primary idea of the bill the worse the GOP will look.

                      Fact is exploiting illegals is just too profitable for both sides. Throwing our money at them builds socialists and corrupts their idea of opportunity. It’s the most acceptable human trafficking program going.

  1. John Konop says:

    GOP is taking the bait…..this will be an ugly fish hook in their mouth….polls already show this is a real bad fight….The GOP is playing checkers….not thinking about future moves….This is Obama giving a gift to Hillary….for “Big Bill”….who sparked his re-election campaign….They know this will bring out the ugly side of the immigration debate….ie culture war, nasty calls/letters focused on race……The Phil Kent side of the party will be all over the hate speech….it will put money in their pockets….As they scream and yell…while collecting cash….it will be an anchor on the neck of the GOP….

    The Dems are hoping this issue does not go away….Hillary campaign will be an our time for “women”, combined with an appeal to people who do not like nasty side of the immigration debate, throw in some BS populism (LOL via her being the Wall Street candidate)…it will be ugly for the GOP….

Comments are closed.