Twenty-five states have filed suit challenging the president’s immigration amnesty plan. Who shall rise to defend our chief executive?
A goat farmer from Palatka, Fla. No, really.
On December 29, Mitchell Williams filed a pro se motion to intervene on behalf of President Obama in Texas v. United States.
According to the motion, President Obama’s plan to provide “deferred action” (which is basically amnesty) to over 4 million illegal aliens would be good for the farmer’s business because “persons from abroad are much more likely to want to buy a goat for special occasions or feast than long resident Americans.”
Mr. Mitchell admits that he had not read the complaint filed by the states because he has “no taste for B.S. legal briefs whether it comes out of a bull or a cow.” He is, however, concerned over more than state opposition to Mr. Obama’s plans.
The goat farmer’s motion also laments the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s supposed effort to “massively deport undocumented migrants” and asks the court to “look at exactly HOW the INS is doing this.” Mr. Mitchell believes that when an illegal immigrant is caught, “everything he owns is taken away from him, but the cloths [sic] he is wearing [including] cell phone, money, identification, address books, jewlry [sic], watchs [sic], chewing gum and Yo-Yo.” When the illegal immigrant is put on a bus and deported “back to Mexico he is only given a check for the money he had. Without any kind of identification it is nearly impossible to cash the check. As well, the loss of the chewing gum and Yo-Yo are a great embarrasment [sic].”
Mr. Mitchell not only believes that the president’s plan should be upheld as constitutional, but that all “undocumented migrants” in the country should be given green cards by the INS according to a monthly quota “until there are no more undocumented migrants in the country.” If an INS agent fails to meet that monthly quota, it should be “grounds for immediate firing.”
The motion also urges that all of the state officials involved in filing this lawsuit be “very quietly arrested by the U.S. Marshalls, chained together and marched off to Alaska to pick up trash on the Alaskan Highway.”
So those are the views of President Obama’s latest ally in his fight with Congress and the states over his immigration policy. It’s good to know our commander-in-chief will not have to go it alone on this one.
On a more serious note, federal Judge Andrew Hanen has set January 9 for a hearing on the states’ request for an injunction. On Christmas Eve, the administration filed a motion opposing the injunction request and asking the court to dismiss the complaint, claiming the states do not have standing to file suit because they cannot “demonstrate that they will suffer a cognizable injury traceable to the deferred action guidance.”