No, Trump can’t get a Mexican American judge recused just because Trump wants to ‘build a wall’ to exclude illegal immigrants By Eugene Volokh

[Luis Gonzalez]

Counselor. IT IS ILLEGAL under federal law and federal law preempts State law. That means if Trump becomes president and enforces the federal laws involving illegals this Judge could become personally liable. That's a direct conflict of interest.

Illegal under Federal law for States to give financial aid to illegal alien students?

You should mention that to the Federal government:

1. As an undocumented student or DACA student, am I eligible for federal student aid?

No. Undocumented students, including DACA students and Dreamers, are not eligible for federal student aid. However, you may be eligible for state or college financial aid. Most states and colleges use information collected on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA®) to determine whether you are eligible for aid. If you have a Social Security number, you may complete the FAFSA, and we encourage you to do so at fafsa.gov. However, we first recommend that you check with your high school counselor or your college or career school financial aid office to see what types of financial aid you may be eligible to receive and whether completing the FAFSA is the way to apply for that aid.

2. As an undocumented student or DACA student, am I eligible for in-state tuition?

It depends. In some states, undocumented students, or specifically DACA students, are eligible to receive in-state tuition. Please check with your high school or your college or career school financial aid office.

That's from a Federal government document.

You're entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

https://studentaid.ed.gov/sites/default/files/financial-aid-and-undocumented-students.pdf

How about we now discuss the illegalities pertaining to Trump U?

[Mechanicos]

Illegal under Federal law for States to give financial aid to illegal alien students?

You should mention that to the Federal government:

1. As an undocumented student or DACA student, am I eligible for federal student aid?

No. Undocumented students, including DACA students and Dreamers, are not eligible for federal student aid. However, you may be eligible for state or college financial aid. Most states and colleges use information collected on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA®) to determine whether you are eligible for aid. If you have a Social Security number, you may complete the FAFSA, and we encourage you to do so at fafsa.gov. However, we first recommend that you check with your high school counselor or your college or career school financial aid office to see what types of financial aid you may be eligible to receive and whether completing the FAFSA is the way to apply for that aid.

2. As an undocumented student or DACA student, am I eligible for in-state tuition?

It depends. In some states, undocumented students, or specifically DACA students, are eligible to receive in-state tuition. Please check with your high school or your college or career school financial aid office.

That's from a Federal government document.

You're entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

https://studentaid.ed.gov/sites/default/files/financial-aid-and-undocumented-students.pdf

How about we now discuss the illegalities pertaining to Trump U?

Federal Immigration and Nationality Act
Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)

"Any person who . . . encourages or induces an alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):

A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:

    * assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or

    * encourages that alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or

    * knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.

Penalties upon conviction include criminal fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture of vehicles and real property used to commit the crime. Anyone employing or contracting with an illegal alien without verifying his or her work authorization status is guilty of a misdemeanor. Aliens and employers violating immigration laws are subject to arrest, detention, and seizure of their vehicles or property. In addition, individuals or entities who engage in racketeering enterprises that commit (or conspire to commit) immigration-related felonies are subject to private civil suits for treble damages and injunctive relief.

You were saying?
Trump as President can have the Judge arrested under that LAW.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Federal Immigration and Nationality Act
Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)

"Any person who . . . encourages or induces an alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):

A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:

    * assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or

    * encourages that alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or

    * knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.

Penalties upon conviction include criminal fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture of vehicles and real property used to commit the crime. Anyone employing or contracting with an illegal alien without verifying his or her work authorization status is guilty of a misdemeanor. Aliens and employers violating immigration laws are subject to arrest, detention, and seizure of their vehicles or property. In addition, individuals or entities who engage in racketeering enterprises that commit (or conspire to commit) immigration-related felonies are subject to private civil suits for treble damages and injunctive relief.

You were saying?
Trump as President can have the Judge arrested under that LAW.

The Federal government is telling illegal aliens that their State may give them financial aid. Is the Federal government going to then arrest people for giving illegal aliens financial aid?

The Judge belongs to an organization that awards financial aid to Hispanic students. Under California State laws, illegal aliens can get financial aid to go to college, so the judge (and the organization in question) have no legal need to ascertain the immigration status of any of the students receiving those scholarships, so he is not knowingly assisting illegal aliens because he doesn't know the immigration status of the kids he's helping, because in California, he doesn't have to ask them that.

Dude... get a grip.

Your dog won't hunt.

The Judge and his group have done nothing wrong under any laws.

[RoosGirl]

What is the date on the gov't instructions for illegals applying for student aid?  If the current regime is telling illegals to apply for gov't aid, even though it is technically against federal law, I would not be surprised.  We know what their goal is, and they are not going to prosecute anyone for breaking that law they don't like.  I have no problem believing that both @Luis Gonzalez and @Mechanicos is correct with regards to FedGov telling illegals to go ahead and apply for student aid even though it is technically against the law.

[Mechanicos]

The Federal government is telling illegal aliens that their State may give them financial aid. Is the Federal government going to then arrest people for giving illegal aliens financial aid?

The Judge belongs to an organization that awards financial aid to Hispanic students. Under California State laws, illegal aliens can get financial aid to go to college, so the judge (and the organization in question) have no legal need to ascertain the immigration status of any of the students receiving those scholarships, so he is not knowingly assisting illegal aliens because he doesn't know the immigration status of the kids he's helping, because in California, he doesn't have to ask them that.

Dude... get a grip.

Your dog won't hunt.

The Judge and his group have done nothing wrong under any laws.

Louis I posted the LAW that Trumps everything you have argued. You keep gong back to an Obama EO which s not law, and a State violating the LAW.  Look up the Supremacy clause. When Obama is gone his EO's are gone. The State had no legal authority to do what it did. Not only does my dog hunt, its a pack of wolves. The State is violating law and can also be held liable under that Statute hence the "punish the sanctuary cities" Trump does not need Congress for any  part of this.

The Judge violated the United States Code, which under the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution TRUMPS everything you argued. including State law. The Judge knows about the  USC. Only Law higher then the USC is the US Constitution in this area. Nothing you have cited is legit law. There is a Direct conflict. As well as several appearances of conflict. You have been Trumped.

[Mechanicos]

What is the date on the gov't instructions for illegals applying for student aid?  If the current regime is telling illegals to apply for gov't aid, even though it is technically against federal law, I would not be surprised.  We know what their goal is, and they are not going to prosecute anyone for breaking that law they don't like.  I have no problem believing that both @Luis Gonzalez and @Mechanicos is correct with regards to FedGov telling illegals to go ahead and apply for student aid even though it is technically against the law.

Yes Obama is violating law. what else is new? This is his pen and phone causing the problem. Hes soon to be gone. So will his Unconstitutional EO's here. United States Code under the Supremacy clause of the Untied States Constitution Trumps everything Louis argued.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Louis I posted the LAW that Trumps everything you have argued. You keep gong back to an Obama EO which s not law, and a State violating the LAW.  Look up the Supremacy clause. When Obama is gone his EO's are gone. The State had no legal authority to do what it did. Not only does my dog hunt, its a pack of wolves. The State is violating law and can also be held liable under that Statute hence the "punish the sanctuary cities" Trump does not need Congress for any  part of this.

The Judge violated the United States Code, which under the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution TRUMPS everything you argued. including State law. The Judge knows about the  USC. Only Law higher then the USC is the US Constitution in this area. Nothing you have cited is legit law. There is a Direct conflict. As well as several appearances of conflict. You have been Trumped.

Yes, you are correct. The Constitution is the Suprteme Law of the Land, and the States are acting under the sanction of Obama's EO's when passing legislation allowing illegal alien students to receive financial aid.

However, the Supreme Law of the land does not allow either the Federal or State governments to pass laws which retroactively punish people for behavior or actions in which they engaged in which were legal at the time they engaged in that behavior or action.

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 3: "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: "No State shall...  pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law."

Simply stated, the Judge and his group are acting legally under both Federal and State current laws (Obama's EO and California laws) and whatever we may think of the EO's legality, Executive Orders are and have been considered law by every administration.

The gist of all this is that the Judge is not breaking any laws, and even if the next administration (I sincerely doubt that the Clinton admin will overturn Obama's EO's) overturn said EO's AND somehow gets California to change their policy toward awarding financial aid to illegal alien students, it would be then, at that point when the EO's are overturned and California law reversed, that the Judge and his group would be guilty of breaking a law should they continue to award grants and scholarships to illegal alien students, contingent of course, on the government meeting the burden of proof in deciding that they knowingly did it.

In short, you've come up wrong again, and your own argument that the Constitution is the Supreme Law proves that you are incorrect.

The judge and his group have done no wrong under California Law or under Federal Law and they are protected from any reprisal for their past or current activities by the U.S. Constitution.

[Oceander]

Louis I posted the LAW that Trumps everything you have argued. You keep gong back to an Obama EO which s not law, and a State violating the LAW.  Look up the Supremacy clause. When Obama is gone his EO's are gone. The State had no legal authority to do what it did. Not only does my dog hunt, its a pack of wolves. The State is violating law and can also be held liable under that Statute hence the "punish the sanctuary cities" Trump does not need Congress for any  part of this.

The Judge violated the United States Code, which under the Supremacy clause of the US Constitution TRUMPS everything you argued. including State law. The Judge knows about the  USC. Only Law higher then the USC is the US Constitution in this area. Nothing you have cited is legit law. There is a Direct conflict. As well as several appearances of conflict. You have been Trumped.

Executive orders do not just disappear when the president who issued them leaves office.  There are still EOs from the 1950s that are still in place. 

The judge didn't break the law, didn't violate the canons of conduct, and didn't violate 28 USC sec. 455, as I schooled you in earlier.  Do you need a second lesson?

[Luis Gonzalez]

What is the date on the gov't instructions for illegals applying for student aid?  If the current regime is telling illegals to apply for gov't aid, even though it is technically against federal law, I would not be surprised.  We know what their goal is, and they are not going to prosecute anyone for breaking that law they don't like.  I have no problem believing that both @Luis Gonzalez and @Mechanicos is correct with regards to FedGov telling illegals to go ahead and apply for student aid even though it is technically against the law.

If any POTUS were to issue an EO that allowed the sale of marijuana in every State, and under the umbrella of that EO States passed regulatory laws concerning the commercial aspects of selling weed, no one can be prosecuted if the EO and the laws are overturned because they weren't doing anything illegal at the time they did it.

Mechanicos wants to make the argument that the Judge is guilty of some kind of inappropriate/illegal behavior by having something to do with something which he was legally allowed to do at the time that he did it.

That's simply wrong.

[Oceander]

If any POTUS were to issue an EO that allowed the sale of marijuana in every State, and under the umbrella of that EO States passed regulatory laws concerning the commercial aspects of selling weed, no one can be prosecuted if the EO and the laws are overturned because they weren't doing anything illegal at the time they did it.

Mechanicos wants to make the argument that the Judge is guilty of some kind of inappropriate/illegal behavior by having something to do with something which he was legally allowed to do at the time that he did it.

That's simply wrong.

Mechanicos seems rather assiduous in ensuring that nothing right passes his lips or his fingertips (assuming he types with more than one finger).

[txradioguy]

You did neither.  U.S. v. Bayless, 201 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2000); Macdraw, Inc. v. CIT Group, 157 F.3d 956 (2d Cir. 1998).

Now sit down like a good little toddler and stfu.

Gotta remember this is the same guy who told me he personally knew lawyers for companies run by billionaires then couldn't back it up.

[Mechanicos]

Yes, you are correct. The Constitution is the Suprteme Law of the Land, and the States are acting under the sanction of Obama's EO's when passing legislation allowing illegal alien students to receive financial aid.

However, the Supreme Law of the land does not allow either the Federal or State governments to pass laws which retroactively punish people for behavior or actions in which they engaged in which were legal at the time they engaged in that behavior or action.

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 3: "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: "No State shall...  pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law."

Simply stated, the Judge and his group are acting legally under both Federal and State current laws (Obama's EO and California laws) and whatever we may think of the EO's legality, Executive Orders are and have been considered law by every administration.

The gist of all this is that the Judge is not breaking any laws, and even if the next administration (I sincerely doubt that the Clinton admin will overturn Obama's EO's) overturn said EO's AND somehow gets California to change their policy toward awarding financial aid to illegal alien students, it would be then, at that point when the EO's are overturned and California law reversed, that the Judge and his group would be guilty of breaking a law should they continue to award grants and scholarships to illegal alien students, contingent of course, on the government meeting the burden of proof in deciding that they knowingly did it.

In short, you've come up wrong again, and your own argument that the Constitution is the Supreme Law proves that you are incorrect.

The judge and his group have done no wrong under California Law or under Federal Law and they are protected from any reprisal for their past or current activities by the U.S. Constitution.

The problem is they were never legal laws in the first place, The only thing the  Unconstitutional laws which were void from their passage can do is mitigate the Knowledge element. Here the Judge does not have that advantage since its presumed he knows the law here.  An average person could rely  on a void law for that excuse. This judge and former prosecutor cannot.

So none of what you wrote apply.

[Mechanicos]

Executive orders do not just disappear when the president who issued them leaves office.  There are still EOs from the 1950s that are still in place. 

The judge didn't break the law, didn't violate the canons of conduct, and didn't violate 28 USC sec. 455, as I schooled you in earlier.  Do you need a second lesson?

I suggest you stay in tax. Because you are way out of your league. An EO or state law made unconstitutionally is void from its inception. The ONLY thing it helps is people who did not know it was a void law and then only as to mitigating the mens rea. Here this Federal Judge and former prosecutor does not have that excuse.  EO's are not law. This is Constitution 101 stuff. You are embarrassing yourself.
And your opinion of if he violated Judicial canon 2 and Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii) is not worth the pixels on the screen. You are not the one who makes that call.

[Mechanicos]

If any POTUS were to issue an EO that allowed the sale of marijuana in every State, and under the umbrella of that EO States passed regulatory laws concerning the commercial aspects of selling weed, no one can be prosecuted if the EO and the laws are overturned because they weren't doing anything illegal at the time they did it.

Mechanicos wants to make the argument that the Judge is guilty of some kind of inappropriate/illegal behavior by having something to do with something which he was legally allowed to do at the time that he did it.

That's simply wrong.

He was never "legally" allowed to do it. The law was still in force and not repealed thus any laws made in conflict with it were void from their inception. EO's are not law. Unlike a regular innocent person this Judge knew the law was still in force and cannot claim ignorance for his actions.  The choice to not prosecute does not repeal the law. If An EO came out to make weed legal nation wide it only means the Feds were not going to enforce the law not that there is law says you can do it.

[Mechanicos]

Gotta remember this is the same guy who told me he personally knew lawyers for companies run by billionaires then couldn't back it up.

I call you out on that since its a personal attack. Produce the text you claim supports it.

[catfish1957]

I call you out on that since its a personal attack. Produce the text you claim supports it.

Doesn't sound like a personal attack to me. 

[driftdiver]

I suggest you stay in tax. Because you are way out of your league. An EO or state law made unconstitutionally is void from its inception. The ONLY thing it helps is people who did not know it was a void law and then only as to mitigating the mens rea. Here this Federal Judge and former prosecutor does not have that excuse.  EO's are not law. This is Constitution 101 stuff. You are embarrassing yourself.
And your opinion of if he violated Judicial canon 2 and Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii) is not worth the pixels on the screen. You are not the one who makes that call.

@Oceander   Quite a simplistic way of thinking about EO, Mechanicos.    Of course EOs aren't a law, thats kinda the point.   What EOs do is instruct Government Agencies to do something.   Within that they do have the force of law because they are instructions issued by the President, who has legal authority to tell the Government Agencies what to do.    Most Presidents use them sparingly because they have never really been tested or ruled upon by the Courts and presidents like it that way.

In practice we can see the effects of an Executive Order in many areas today.   Obama issues an executive order instructing the Agencies to enforce social justice.   That 'Order" has no power on anything outside of the Government Agency.  Until of course the Government Agency rewrites Government Regulations which everyone has to comply with.  So now suddenly a small business has to start paying people more to meet the new interpretation of overtime wage rules.   Or they have to do a million other things which aren't required by law but are required by REGULATION.   Failure to meet those regulations can result in very stiff fines.

EO's are not a good thing, regardless of who is President.

[Jazzhead]

This article is 

in this thread

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,210154.msg913195.html#new

is more then enough ammunition to trigger:

The Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which states explicitly that “Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities.” It isn’t necessary that the judge is actually behaving with impropriety. It is sufficient that his conduct appears improper, something that impairs confidence in the judiciary as a whole, regardless of the judge’s actual motives and conduct.

Both poster and source busted.

 Having a white litigant's case tried by a Hispanic judge does not create an appearance of impropriety.    Stop with your despicable alt-right shilling. 

[Oceander]

@Oceander   Quite a simplistic way of thinking about EO, Mechanicos.    Of course EOs aren't a law, thats kinda the point.   What EOs do is instruct Government Agencies to do something.   Within that they do have the force of law because they are instructions issued by the President, who has legal authority to tell the Government Agencies what to do.    Most Presidents use them sparingly because they have never really been tested or ruled upon by the Courts and presidents like it that way.

In practice we can see the effects of an Executive Order in many areas today.   Obama issues an executive order instructing the Agencies to enforce social justice.   That 'Order" has no power on anything outside of the Government Agency.  Until of course the Government Agency rewrites Government Regulations which everyone has to comply with.  So now suddenly a small business has to start paying people more to meet the new interpretation of overtime wage rules.   Or they have to do a million other things which aren't required by law but are required by REGULATION.   Failure to meet those regulations can result in very stiff fines.

EO's are not a good thing, regardless of who is President.

It was a simple statement because that was all that was required. EOs do not simply disappear when the issuing president leaves office.  Unless they've been rescinded, expressly, impliedly, or by their own terms, they stick around.  No, they aren't law, but they can have legal consequences, particularly if the order is issued pursuant to broad, generalized powers Congress granted to the president.  In that respect they are neither good nor bad, they simply are. 

But I don't need to get into a deeper discussion of them to simply point out that they don't automatically disappear like snow in the spring.

[Oceander]

I suggest you stay in tax. Because you are way out of your league. An EO or state law made unconstitutionally is void from its inception. The ONLY thing it helps is people who did not know it was a void law and then only as to mitigating the mens rea. Here this Federal Judge and former prosecutor does not have that excuse.  EO's are not law. This is Constitution 101 stuff. You are embarrassing yourself.
And your opinion of if he violated Judicial canon 2 and Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii) is not worth the pixels on the screen. You are not the one who makes that call.

Slow down there kiddo.  I said nothing about whether an EO was unconstitutional, that's an EO by EO question, I simply said they don't magically vanish when the issuing president leaves office.  Try reading the CRS publication "Executive Orders:  Issuance, Modification, and Revocation" then come back and see if you can manage an adult conversation.

EOs are not categorically law - I never said they were - but since you bring it up, if they are issued pursuant to broad authority granted the president by Congress, then they will have legal effect and upheld.  Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1982) (upholding, inter alia, executive orders).

I didn't express my naked opinion about whether Judge Curiel violated the canons, I provided an argument based on existing, binding, law.  Under that law, on the facts as presented, there is no violation.  The fact that you, a hyper-partisan Trump supporter, thinks you see the appearance of impropriety does not make it so and, in point of fact, the courts have expressly disavowed your perspective as the correct one from which to evaluate a judges conduct.  That's the law, not my opinion.  I'm sorry if you can't deal with the law. 

There's actually a really simple solution: file an ethics complaint against the judge and see where it gets you.  If you won't, then you don't have even the courage of your own convictions. 

Furthermore, if Trump really believes this judge is not being sufficiently impartial, why hasn't he filed a motion for the judge to recuse himself under sec. 455?   Since he hasn't that proves this is all empty political theater, that Trump doesn't believe a single word coming out of his mouth, and that the only ones who do are his gullible supporters.  Come back when Trump has filed such a motion and has appealed the denial of the motion.  Until then, go back to your crib. 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Not that I really want to step into the middle of this, but....

If any POTUS were to issue an EO that allowed the sale of marijuana in every State,

I thought an EO was directed solely at actions taken by federal employees.  Essentially, it is the President directing federal employees to proceed in a certain way.  But that still doesn't overturn any pre-existing law, or make anything legal that was previously illegal by statute.   So I don't think that an EO allowing the sale of Marijuana in every state makes those sales legal.  What he would really be doing is ordering federal officials not to enforce that law, but it doesn't actually take it off the books.

But I don't think we need to go that far in this instance.  With immigration, there are certain waiver authorities that the President has, so the prohibition on helping people who are here illegally is not as absolute as the law suggests, because the definition of "illegal" is not hard and fast.  But in any case, I think the Feds experessly saying it is okay for states to give tuition assistance to illegals absolutely clears any moral/ethical hurdles for individuals who want to assist in that manner.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The problem is they were never legal laws in the first place, The only thing the  Unconstitutional laws which were void from their passage can do is mitigate the Knowledge element. Here the Judge does not have that advantage since its presumed he knows the law here.  An average person could rely  on a void law for that excuse. This judge and former prosecutor cannot.

So none of what you wrote apply.

Most executive orders are issued under specific statutory authority from Congress and have the force and effect of law. Such executive orders usually impose sanctions, determine legal rights, limit agency discretion, and require immediate compliance. Federal courts consider such orders to be the equivalent of federal statutes. In addition, regulations that are enacted to carry out these executive orders have the status of law as long as they reasonably relate to the statutory authority. An administrative action that is carried out under a valid executive order is similar to an agency action that is carried out under a federal statute. In each case, the agency's authority to enact rules and to issue orders comes from Congress.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Executive+Order

[RoosGirl]

Not that I really want to step into the middle of this, but....
I thought an EO was directed solely at actions taken by federal employees.  Essentially, it is the President directing federal employees to proceed in a certain way.  But that still doesn't overturn any pre-existing law, or make anything legal that was previously illegal by statute.   So I don't think that an EO allowing the sale of Marijuana in every state makes those sales legal.  What he would really be doing is ordering federal officials not to enforce that law, but it doesn't actually take it off the books.

But I don't think we need to go that far in this instance.  With immigration, there are certain waiver authorities that the President has, so the prohibition on helping people who are here illegally is not as absolute as the law suggests, because the definition of "illegal" is not hard and fast.  But in any case, I think the Feds experessly saying it is okay for states to give tuition assistance to illegals absolutely clears any moral/ethical hurdles for individuals who want to assist in that manner.

"clears any moral/ethical hurdles for individuals who want to assist in that manner."  This is the portion of your statement I disagree with.  It might mean that FedGov isn't going to prosecute them, but relying of FedGov to be our definition of what is moral/ethical is quite dangerous IMO.

As far as this issue goes, it looks to me like current federal law prohibits the assistance of illegals.  Prez O has made it clear that his administration will not prosecute anyone that violates that law and as such his administration is issuing these pamphlets (or whatever they are) that are essentially instructing the law breakers on how to continue breaking the law.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Most executive orders are issued under specific statutory authority from Congress and have the force and effect of law....An administrative action that is carried out under a valid executive order is similar to an agency action that is carried out under a federal statute. In each case, the agency's authority to enact rules and to issue orders comes from Congress.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Executive+Order

That is actually the entire issue on the case pending regarding Obama's immigration EO's.  Did he exceed the authority granted by Congress, or not?  But again, that really doesn't have anything to do with state's permitting in-state tuition.  That is not part of the court challenge.

[Mechanicos]

Slow down there kiddo.  I said nothing about whether an EO was unconstitutional, that's an EO by EO question, I simply said they don't magically vanish when the issuing president leaves office.  Try reading the CRS publication "Executive Orders:  Issuance, Modification, and Revocation" then come back and see if you can manage an adult conversation.

EOs are not categorically law - I never said they were - but since you bring it up, if they are issued pursuant to broad authority granted the president by Congress, then they will have legal effect and upheld.  Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1982) (upholding, inter alia, executive orders).

I didn't express my naked opinion about whether Judge Curiel violated the canons, I provided an argument based on existing, binding, law.  Under that law, on the facts as presented, there is no violation.  The fact that you, a hyper-partisan Trump supporter, thinks you see the appearance of impropriety does not make it so and, in point of fact, the courts have expressly disavowed your perspective as the correct one from which to evaluate a judges conduct.  That's the law, not my opinion.  I'm sorry if you can't deal with the law. 

There's actually a really simple solution: file an ethics complaint against the judge and see where it gets you.  If you won't, then you don't have even the courage of your own convictions. 

Furthermore, if Trump really believes this judge is not being sufficiently impartial, why hasn't he filed a motion for the judge to recuse himself under sec. 455?   Since he hasn't that proves this is all empty political theater, that Trump doesn't believe a single word coming out of his mouth, and that the only ones who do are his gullible supporters.  Come back when Trump has filed such a motion and has appealed the denial of the motion.  Until then, go back to your crib.

I do not know Trumps mind. But I can speculate. He has millions of followers. The Judge's name is known publicly now and many are curious. A little bit of looking shows the La Raza connection  with the judge. what also will be noticed is the complete and total absence of the media mentioning it and instead focusing on race. The way its also being played its drawing out people who would stab him in the back going forward. They should know better.

as far as why hes not filing a motion. From what I read he does not have to do anything for many months on this case and the judge is prevented from issuing a gag order here by the position Trump holds. So this is a Trump card can be played pretty much anytime for the next few months. But until then it helps with millennials and independents who do not trust media, are social and moderately tech savvy.   

I suspect hes playing Rope a dope again. Hes done it before.

And on EO's Trump has promised to repeal most of Obama's EOs almost immediately.