Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a motion with the federal court reviewing President Obama’s executive action on amnesty challenging Obama’s handling of the court case and asking for proof Obama’s government is no longer violating the court-ordered stay.
“In today’s filing with the federal district court, the states argued for increased oversight of the administration’s compliance with the court’s injunction, and for the opportunity to look into whether the defendants should be sanctioned for their misrepresentations to the court,” said a statement from Paxton’s office.
According to Paxton, “the newly-revealed admission that even more expanded work permits were granted to 2,000 illegal immigrants raises serious questions about the Obama Administration’s reliability moving forward. Increased oversight is needed to hold the federal government accountable for its apparent inability to report accurate information to the court.”
The filing alleges the “bureaucracy—so large and complex that not even Defendants have a full grasp of what their machinery is doing.”
Paxton’s brief challenges all the phony declaration of privilege Obama is claiming. For the most part, the Obama Administration is not turning over requested documents and is erroneously invoking claims of attorney/client or presidential decision making privilege.
In addition, as the brief notes, Obama has been less than forthcoming with information about the “accidental” issuance of thousands of work permit which were covered by the temporary injunction.
“The facts regarding Defendants’ compliance seem to be constantly evolving,” wrote Paxton. “From injunction compliance (March 3 advisory), to 55 recipients of three-year terms after the injunction (disclosed at the March 19 hearing), and now 72 recipients of such terms after the injunction plus “approximately” 2,000 more—with Defendants still “refin[ing]” their understanding through “ongoing” efforts (May 7 advisory and supplemental declarations). And this is in addition to more than 108,000 pre-injunction beneficiaries of the Directive.”
