Sign Help Save Maryland’s Petition To Tell Governor Larry Hogan of Maryland, “NO TO OBAMAS EXECUTIVE AMNESTY”


In January 2015, before the swearing in for Governor-elect Larry Hogan, Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh took it upon himself to set immigration policy for the new Hogan Administration.

Acting alone, AG Frosh signed on to an amicus curiae or “friend of the court” brief with 11 other states in support of President Obama’s controversial executive amnesty for illegal aliens. This questionable brief was submitted in opposition to the formal legal challenge filed by the State of Texas and 25 other states which argued that the President’s unconstitutional amnesty would be a financial burden on the states.

During the 2014 Maryland campaign for governor, Candidate Hogan stated on multiple occasions that he opposed illegal immigration in Maryland. And Maryland citizens fully understand that Governor Hogan was not in office when AG Frosh signed on to the original January court brief supporting Obama’s executive amnesty.

But on March 12, 2015, AG Brian Frosh did it again! This time signing on to another “friend of the court” brief demanding that the Federal Court of Appeals overturn a lower court action delaying implementation of the President’s amnesty.   This was done without so much as a peep from Governor Hogan’s office.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

Obama’s Executive Amnesty means 5 million more immigrant lawbreakers will take additional jobs, healthcare and social services from deserving Maryland families. With a social security card illegal aliens will obtain federal and state tax refunds, “earned income tax credits”, access to even more government services and the ability to register to vote in Maryland elections. Maryland taxpayers already spend nearly $2 billion annually for the education, healthcare and incarceration costs of illegal aliens.

Please sign the Help Save Maryland Petition. Tell Maryland Governor Larry Hogan to:

  • Immediately withdraw the State of Maryland from the “friend of the court” briefs signed by Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh. Maryland citizens are tired of paying for illegal aliens in our communities.
  • Put our state on record with the federal courts and the American People that the law-abiding citizens of Maryland refuse to support President Obama’s Executive Amnesty.
  • Order Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh to cease and desist from providing any further verbal or written support for the unconstitutional Executive Amnesty being promoted by the White House.  

This past November, Maryland citizens voted for dramatic “Change” through the election of Larry Hogan as Governor. Eliminating blatant support for Maryland policies and programs that promote illegal immigration was a key component of the expected “Change”.

Tell Governor Larry Hogan to stop Attorney General Frosh and Maryland’s immigration lawlessness! Even New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has stepped up to oppose Obama’s executive amnesty. It’s now time for Governor Hogan to do the right thing.




FacebookTwitterGoogle+TumblrStumbleUponRedditLinkedInAOL MailBlogger PostDeliciousShare
Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments





Federal Panel Lets Injunction Against Obama’s Immigration Actions Stand

A federal appeals court on Tuesday denied the Obama administration’s request to lift a hold on the president’s executive actions on immigration, which would have granted protection from deportation as well as work permits to millions of immigrants in the country illegally.

Two of three judges on a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, left in place an injunction by a Federal District Court judge in Brownsville, Tex. The ruling comes in a lawsuit filed by Texas and 25 other states against actions President Obama took in November. Many of the initiatives were scheduled to take effect this month.

The appeals court found that the states had sufficient legal grounds to bring the lawsuit and that the administration had not shown that it would be harmed if the injunction remained in place and the programs were further delayed.

Also denied was a request by the administration to limit the injunction to the states bringing the lawsuit. The ruling is a second setback for programs the president hoped would be a major piece of his legacy, raising new uncertainty about whether they will take effect before the end of his term and casting doubts on the confidence of administration lawyers that their case was very strong.

Demonstrators outside federal appeals court in New Orleans last month. A panel of the court decided Tuesday not to lift a hold on President Obama’s immigration executive actions. Credit Gerald Herbert/Associated Press
The lawsuit was filed in December, and on Feb. 16, Judge Andrew S. Hanen of Federal District Court in Brownsville ordered a preliminary injunction on the programs while he ruled on the constitutional issues in the suit.

In a statement, Ken Paxton, the attorney general of Texas, said Mr. Obama had tried to impose “a drastic change in immigration policy” without the consent of Congress. The appeals court decision is “a victory for those committed to preserving the rule of law in America,” Mr. Paxton said. “We will continue to fight the brazen lawlessness that has become a trademark of the Obama administration.”
White House officials said the ruling was not surprising, but they declined to discuss the next legal move for the administration.

“Today, two judges of the Fifth Circuit chose to misrepresent the facts and the law,” a White House spokeswoman, Brandi Hoffine, said. “The president’s actions were designed to bring greater accountability to our broken immigration system, grow the economy and keep our communities safe. They are squarely within the bounds of his authority, and they are the right thing to do for the country.”
The Justice Department could appeal the ruling on the emergency stay to the full appeals court, but legal experts said it was more likely that the administration would skip that conservative court and ask the Supreme Court to allow the programs to proceed.
The legal wrangling suggests that Mr. Obama and his aides may have underestimated the legal and political challenges to offering protections to more than four million illegal immigrants without a congressional vote.
In the 70-page opinion, two judges wrote that Texas had shown it would incur significant costs in issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants who would be allowed to stay in the country. The judges, Jerry E. Smith and Jennifer Elrod, also rejected the administration’s argument that the programs could not be reviewed by the courts because they stemmed from policy decisions by the president on how to enforce the immigration laws.

Judge Stephen A. Higginson disagreed. He wrote that the administration was “adhering to the law, not derogating from it.”
Immigrant advocates supporting the president worried that the longer the initiatives are held up, the harder it could be to persuade immigrants to come forward to sign up.
Marielena Hincapie, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, said that part of the intent of the lawsuit was “to delay, to confuse and to instill fear” among immigrants. “The consequences are devastating,” she said. “Our communities suffer every single day.” She acknowledged that carrying out the programs would be “a harder challenge for our communities” after long delays.

The decision by the Fifth Circuit to leave the Texas judge’s injunction in place does not necessarily mean the Obama administration will lose the larger case. Aside from the emergency stay, the Fifth Circuit is considering the administration’s appeal of the injunction, which takes more time. The Fifth Circuit tentatively scheduled oral arguments on the appeal the week of July 6.
Stephen H. Legomsky, a professor of immigration law at Washington University, said the appeals court panel had denied the administration’s request for an emergency stay “because it feels that a delay would cause no irreparable harm.” But he said, “The panel that ultimately decides the appeal could well agree with the government’s position and reverse Judge Hanen’s injunction.” Professor Legomsky, formerly the top lawyer for the federal immigration services agency, has submitted documents to the court supporting the administration.

In earlier opinions, Judge Hanen had been an unusually expressive critic of the Obama administration’s immigration policies. In his decision to impose the injunction, he said the president’s initiatives amounted to an abdication of immigration enforcement. The two appeals judges who upheld the injunction are also conservatives.

Judge Smith, who was nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, sparred publicly with Mr. Obama over the scope of judicial review during a case involving the health care law in 2012. Judge Elrod was nominated by President George W. Bush in 2007. Judge Higginson was nominated by Mr. Obama in 2011.

Legal analysts point to two other recent federal court rulings in similar cases that favored the administration. In December, a federal judge in Washington dismissed a lawsuit against the president’s actions by Joe Arpaio, the outspoken sheriff of Maricopa County, Ariz. The judge said the sheriff’s dispute with the administration was political, not legal.

A potentially more significant decision came on April 7 from judges on the Fifth Circuit. They dismissed a lawsuit by federal immigration agents against deportation protections Mr. Obama gave in 2012 to young undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children. The president used the same legal justification for that program as he did for the recent initiatives.

The appeals court found that the state in that lawsuit, Mississippi, had failed to show that it would face any burdensome costs because of the 2012 program. The court also agreed with the administration’s argument that the secretary of Homeland Security has broad authority to decide how to enforce the immigration laws.

The Texas lawsuit has divided the country. While 26 states want to stop the president’s initiatives, 14 states and the District of Columbia filed papers in the appeals court saying Texas and its allies had failed to consider the benefits the programs would bring in increased tax revenues and economic growth.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Help Save Maryland – Hillary Promises It All! Special Event in Rockville June 4

Hillary is going for the Gold with the Hispanic illegal alien vote and their pandering supporters. She is promising to go even further than Obama’s Executive Amnesty (currently tied up in federal court) in granting more categories of illegals Amnesty, nixing internal enforcement of immigration laws and leaving the southern border wide open to whoever can make it across. Hillary’s statements are so radical and to the left of Obama, she is even making the President blush and the White House issue statements that legally (in their warped minds) the President has gone as far as possible.

“Clinton Pledges to go further on Obama amnesty”

What a shock. The Feds are not doing their due diligence in screening and processing illegal aliens for executive amnesty.

“New Report Strikes Serious Blow Against Obama Administration’s Defense in Executive Amnesty Lawsuit” utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=saturday&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRojsqnJZKXonjHpfsX67e8vWKOzhokz2EFye%2BLIHETpodcMRMZlNq%2BTFAwTG5toziV8R7jHKM1t0sEQWBHm

“Cameron unveils tougher new rules on immigration”

The Brits are getting the message and finally taken action on illegal immigration. When will the U.S. Government?



Mark your calendars for Thursday, June 4, 7pm – 9pm as the MCGOP First Thursday Series:

Meet Frank Gaffney, President, Center for Security Policy who will talk about radical Islam, illegal immigration and Jihad in America.

Frank Gaffney is the Founder and President of the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C. Under Mr. Gaffney’s leadership, the Center has been nationally and internationally recognized as a resource for timely, informed and penetrating analyses of foreign and defense policy matters.

Mr. Gaffney is the host of Secure Freedom Radio, a nationally-syndicated radio program heard weeknights throughout the country. On Secure Freedom Radio, Mr. Gaffney addresses current and emerging threats to national security, sovereignty and our ways of life. Featured guests have included Newt Gingrich, John Bolton, Donald Rumsfeld and many current and former policymakers and elected officials.

Ted’s 355 Diner
(Wintergreen Shopping Center)
Back Room
895 Rockville Pike
Rockville, Maryland 20852
$5.00 Cover charge collected at door.


Full food and drink menu and ‘table checks’ will be available. No individual checks.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

New Report Strikes Serious Blow Against Obama Administration’s Defense in Executive Amnesty Lawsuit

Hans von Spakovsky /  / 

The Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general, John Roth, has dealt a serious blow against the Obama administration’s defense in the lawsuit filed by 26 states against the immigration amnesty plan announced by President Barack Obama on Nov. 20, 2014.

That plan is currently on hold due to a preliminary injunctionorder issued by Federal District Court Judge Andrew Hanen, an order now being appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals by the administration.

The crux of the defense asserted by Justice Department lawyers in multiple briefs filed in the litigation is that the president’s actions in this regard are simply an exercise of traditional prosecutorial discretion by executive branch officials.

For example, in its opposition to the motion by the plaintiff states for a preliminary injunction, the Justice Department claimed that exercising prosecutorial discretion by deferring action on millions of illegal aliens allows the Department of Homeland Security to “focus limited resources on higher priority aliens.” Those “higher priority aliens” are aliens who pose “threats to national security, border security, and public safety.”

However, in a report published on May 4, Inspector General Roth says that the Department of Homeland Security “does not gather and analyze prosecutorial discretion data.” Therefore, Homeland Security does not have the ability “to fully assess its current immigration enforcement activities and to develop future policy.” Because the Department of Homeland Security is not collecting this data and “does not have a mechanism to continuously monitor its use of prosecutorial discretion,” it lacks the ability to “improve future policy.”

In fact, because the Department of Homeland Security is notactively monitoring the use of prosecutorial discretion, Roth concludes that Homeland Security may “be missing opportunities to strengthen its ability to remove aliens who pose a threat to national security and public safety.”

Even when the Department of Homeland Security knows about serious criminal violations by illegal immigrants in this country, it is still refusing to deport large numbers of them.

So the very reason that the administration is using to justify exercising prosecutorial discretion to grant what amounts to executive amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants—the ability to focus on and remove the most dangerous illegal immigrants—seems to be misleading at best and specious at worst because the Department of Homeland Security is not even collecting the information needed to adequately engage in this type of prioritization of its enforcement efforts.

Even worse, the inspector general identified another “potential issue that could affect DHS employees’ ability to make well-informed decisions when exercising prosecutorial discretion.” Homeland Security field personnel in its Immigration and Customs Enforcement division told the inspector general that they don’t always “have access to an individual’s criminal history in his or her country of origin.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment