Obama trying to break the law again…..

A two-judge majority of a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion on Monday ruling that an injunction issued by a U.S. District Court in Texas against President Barack Obama’s plan to amnesty approximately 4.3 million illegal aliens should stand.

The court determined that what Obama was trying to do was contrary to the existing immigration laws of the United States that were duly enacted by Congress.

“In June 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) implemented the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (“DACA”),” said the court.

“At least 1.2 million persons qualify for DACA, and approximately 636,000 applications were approved through 2014,” it said.

“In November 2014, by what is termed the ‘DAPA Memo,’ DHS expanded DACA by making millions more persons eligible for the program and extending ‘[t]he period for which DACA and the accompanying employment authorization is granted…to three-year increments, rather than the current two-year increments.’ The Secretary also ‘direct[ed] USCIS to establish a process, similar to DACA,’ known as DAPA, which applies to “individuals who…have, [as of November 20, 2014], a son or daughter who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident’ and meet five additional criteria.”

“Of the approximately 11.3 million illegal aliens in the United States, 4.3 million would be eligible for lawful presence pursuant to DAPA,” said the court.

In total, by unilateral action not approved by Congress, President Obama may have granted 5.5 million illegal aliens “lawful presence” in the United States, giving them the right to work here and take government benefits.

The appeals court ruled that the injunction issued against DAPA by the district court should stand because the executive did not have the lawful power to do what the administration did.

“In summary, the states have established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their procedural claim,” the court said. “We proceed to address whether, in addition to that likelihood on the merits, the states make the same showing on their substantive APA claim.”