Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on November 12, 2014, 05:15:13 PM
-
>:(
Source: Obama to announce 10-point immigration plan via exec action as early as next week
By Lucas Tomlinson
Published November 12, 2014
FoxNews.com
EXCLUSIVE: President Obama is planning to unveil a 10-part plan for overhauling U.S. immigration policy via executive action -- including suspending deportations for millions -- as early as next Friday, a source close to the White House told Fox News.
The president's plans were contained in a draft proposal from a U.S. government agency. The source said the plan could be announced as early as Nov. 21, though the date might slip a few days pending final White House approval.
Obama was briefed at the White House by Homeland Security officials before leaving on his Asia-Pacific trip last week, Fox News has learned.
The plan contains 10 initiatives than span everything from boosting border security to improving pay for immigration officers.
But the most controversial pertain to the millions who could get a deportation reprieve under what is known as "deferred action."
The plan calls for expanding deferred action for illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children -- but also for the parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents.
The latter could allow upwards of 4.5 million illegal immigrant adults with U.S.-born children to stay, according to estimates.
Another portion that is sure to cause consternation among anti-"amnesty" lawmakers is a plan to expand deferred action for young people. In June 2012, Obama created such a program for illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children, entered before June 2007 and were under 31 as of June 2012. The change would expand that to cover anyone who entered before they were 16, and change the cut-off from June 2007 to Jan. 1, 2010. This is estimated to make nearly 300,000 illegal immigrants eligible.
One of the architects for the president's planned executive actions at DHS is Esther Olavarria, the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's former top immigration lawyer.
Under the changes, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers also would see a pay raise in order to "increase morale" within the ICE workforce.
DHS also is planning to "promote" the new naturalization process by giving a 50 percent discount on the first 10,000 applicants who come forward, with the exception of those who have income levels above 200 percent of the poverty level.
Tech jobs though a State Department immigrant visa program would offer another half-million immigrants a path to citizenship. This would include their spouses as well.
The other measures include calls to revise removal priorities to target serious criminals for deportation and end the program known as "Secure Communities" and start a new program.
The planning comes as immigrant advocates urge Obama to act. As lawmakers returned for a lame-duck session, Democrats in Congress on Wednesday implored Obama to take executive action.
"We're begging the president. Go big. These [illegal immigrants] are a plus to our nation. Mr. President, please. You said you were going to do something. Do it. Act now," said Rep. Juan Vargas, D-Calif.
House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer said: "I join with my colleagues in urging the president to take action. What he needs to do is give immediate relief to families who are being wrenched apart and living in fear."
Angela Maria Kelley, vice president for immigration policy at the Center for American Progress, touted deferred action as a "tried and true component of immigration policy used by 11 presidents, 39 times in the last 60 years."
She said for many undocumented immigration who have been here for years, "there is no line for people to get into."
Obama has vowed to act in the absence of congressional action and has claimed that congressional action could still supersede his executive steps.
In a recent op-ed in Politico, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said Congress would stop Obama from taking executive action by adding language explicitly barring money from being used for that purpose. "Congress has the power of the purse. The President cannot spend a dime unless Congress appropriates it," Sessions wrote. He also pointed out that similar language in the past has prevented the president from closing the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/12/source-obama-to-announce-10-point-immigration-plan-via-exec-action-as-early-as/
-
Impeach his punk ass. NOW.
shit, public support was behind impeachment months ago. Now we all sit around and complain and whine. He said it months ago, this was coming. But nooooooooooooo we can't impeach.
I'm seriously pissed about amnesty, but the only GOP solution is to run another RINO in 2016, who can't reverse this, even if he/she wins?
Unreal. Obama sucks but he's a lib, you knew it was coming and nobody is surprised today.
-
He needs to impeached and jailed
-
He needs to impeached and jailed
you cannot jail/charge/try a sitting president. He has to be impeached first.
-
GOP warns of ‘explosion’ if Obama rushes immigration executive action
Published November 13, 2014
FoxNews.com
Republican lawmakers blasted the White House on the heels of a Fox News report that President Obama is planning to unveil a 10-part plan for overhauling U.S. immigration policy via executive action as early as next week – with one GOP leader warning there will be “an explosion” if the president moves too soon.
A source close to the White House told Fox News that Obama could announce as early as next Friday. The president's plans were contained in a draft proposal from a U.S. government agency – it includes a plan to suspend deportations for millions.
As Democratic lawmakers and immigrant advocacy groups urge Obama to act as soon as possible, Republicans bristled at the apparently looming announcement.
"He will make the issue absolutely toxic for a decade,” Rep. David Schweikert, R-Ariz., said Thursday.
One concern is that Obama would act before a Dec. 11 deadline for passing a new spending bill. Doing so could thrust the immigration debate into the budget process, with conservatives threatening to yank money from the immigration effort – and potentially triggering another showdown that could result in a partial government shutdown.
Indeed, Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., already has gathered dozens of signatures on a letter calling for no funding for “the President’s reported intentions to create work permits and green cards for undocumented immigrants currently in the United States.”
House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers, R-Ky., said Thursday if Obama acts before the spending bill is done, there will be an “explosion.”
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., meanwhile, reiterated his concerns that the president would be acting outside the law.
“The president has no authority to do this. It's against the law,” he told Fox News.
The draft plan contains 10 initiatives that span everything from boosting border security to improving pay for immigration officers. But the most controversial pertain to the millions who could get a deportation reprieve under what is known as "deferred action."
The plan calls for expanding deferred action for illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children -- but also for the parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents.
The latter could allow upwards of 4.5 million illegal immigrant adults with U.S.-born children to stay, according to estimates.
Sessions voiced concerns that illegal immigrants could simply fib in order to meet the criteria for the program. Further, he said millions more people would then be “entitled” to U.S. privileges including health care.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, traveling with the president in Burma, stressed that the president “has not made a final decision at this point about exactly what will be included in the administrative steps that he will take.”
He would not specify the timing, but reiterated that Obama plans to make an announcement before the end of the year. “That should be an indication to you that the president is nearing a final decision,” he said.
Earnest also said that Obama would “retract” his executive actions if the House passes an immigration overhaul previously passed by the Senate.
The planning comes as immigrant advocates and Democratic lawmakers urge Obama to act.
Rep. Rubén Hinojosa, D-Texas, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, said in a statement to Fox News Latino that they are urging the president to “go big and bold.”
He said “White House senior officials have assured our Caucus that the President will announce executive actions before the end of the holiday season.”
Angela Maria Kelley, vice president for immigration policy at the Center for American Progress, touted deferred action as a "tried and true component of immigration policy used by 11 presidents, 39 times in the last 60 years."
She said for many undocumented immigrants who have been here for years, "there is no line for people to get into."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/13/gop-warns-explosion-if-obama-rushes-immigration-executive-action/
-
Obama trying to send this country into a civil war and chaos.
-
Impeach his punk ass. NOW.
shit, public support was behind impeachment months ago. Now we all sit around and complain and whine. He said it months ago, this was coming. But nooooooooooooo we can't impeach.
I'm seriously pissed about amnesty, but the only GOP solution is to run another RINO in 2016, who can't reverse this, even if he/she wins?
Unreal. Obama sucks but he's a lib, you knew it was coming and nobody is surprised today.
You not only voted for him but convinced your "whole family" to vote for him, in addition to you knee-padding for him non-stop for the last 6 years makes your above outrage meaningless as you are partly responsible for this.
You helped hire him Rob, so if you are truly outraged, then go look in the mirror for someone to blame.
My whole family - all Republicans - are voting Obama. i'm driving them to the station later - buying everyone dinner - making it a real family event.
-
"Look, I believe it is an impeachable offense," Krauthammer told Kelly.
"If the circumstances were different, if we were at the beginning of a presidency, if we hadn't had years when the Congress has been supine and unresponsive at other grabs of their authority by the executive--like Obama unilaterally changing Obamacare after it was passed about 30 times with no response from the Congress--the same as Obama essentially re-writing some of the drug laws.
"This idea of prosecutorial discretion is really a travesty. It is intended for extreme cases. For a case where you want to show mercy for an individual or two where it's unusual incident, unusual circumstances and you say, okay, we're going to give this person a pass. It was never intended to abolish a whole class of people subject to a law and to essentially abolish whole sections of a law. And that's exactly what's happening here."
-
"Look, I believe it is an impeachable offense," Krauthammer told Kelly.
"If the circumstances were different, if we were at the beginning of a presidency, if we hadn't had years when the Congress has been supine and unresponsive at other grabs of their authority by the executive--like Obama unilaterally changing Obamacare after it was passed about 30 times with no response from the Congress--the same as Obama essentially re-writing some of the drug laws.
"This idea of prosecutorial discretion is really a travesty. It is intended for extreme cases. For a case where you want to show mercy for an individual or two where it's unusual incident, unusual circumstances and you say, okay, we're going to give this person a pass. It was never intended to abolish a whole class of people subject to a law and to essentially abolish whole sections of a law. And that's exactly what's happening here."
Very wise words from Krauthammer.
Look, RINOs, it's not going to be easy to change positions, but it is completely acceptable. Reince Preibus, Mcconnell, Boehnner - They're all ESTABLISHMENT republicans. This whole "impeachment is off the table" went out the window long ago. The BASE of the repub party wants obama out. Many in congress/senate want it too.
Suddenly, it's becoming OKAY to support impeachment. It's OKAY to abandon the moderate/RINOs that brainwashed you into thinking it's off the table. Krauthammer taking this position is HUGE. Come on RINOs, come jump on the idea - it makes sense - Obama is 46% into his term... He can do PLENTY of damage still. Put him on defense, and even if there's only a 1% chance impeachment works, that's a 1% chance you stop his evil agenda.
-
Georgia Democrat compares Obama's executive amnesty to Emancipation Proclamation (Hurl!!!)
Examiner ^ | November 13, 2014 | Joe Newby
Posted on 11/14/2014 9:37:05 AM by BradtotheBone
During a media gathering on President Obama's plan to grant executive amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, Rep. Hank Johnson, the Georgia Democrat who once wondered if Guam would tip over from overpopulation, compared the plan to the Emancipation Proclamation, the Daily Caller reported Thursday. According to Bloomberg's Dave Weigel, Johnson also "speculated about which of its defenders would star in a movie adaptation of the struggle."
But the comparison is hardly fitting, since the Emancipation Proclamation -- signed nearly 152 years ago by the nation's first Republican president -- did not free all the slaves, but only those in the Confederacy. Moreover, Johnson's claim falsely assumes that illegal immigrants are bought and sold the same way slaves were in the years prior to the Civil War.
Johnson was not the only Democrat to make an over-the-top statement at the meeting, Alex Griswold said. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, the Texas Democrat once dubbed the 'Congressional boss from Hell," said, “We will circle the president on fire. We will be on fire for rightness and justice.”
Democrats, Weigel said, did all they could to encourage Obama to "go big" on amnesty. Republicans, meanwhile, had nothing new to add.
"We'll not be shutting the government down, threatening to default on the national debt," said incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., despite some talk Republicans would use every means available -- including a partial shutdown -- to stop Obama's executive action. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, refused to rule out a shutdown on Thursday and said House Republicans would “fight the president tooth and nail.” Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., suggested using impeachment as a way to stop executive amnesty.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
-
Is there anyone left who will still deny this guy is a leftist radical to the core?
-
She said for many undocumented immigrants who have been here for years, "there is no line for people to get into."
What?
Total BS. The line begins with deporting them.
-
Obama is blatantly defying both congress AND the will of the american people.
He is literally siding with foreigners, foreign interests and foreign invaders over siding with the american people.
IF THIS ISNT THE VERY DEFINITION OF TREASON, WHAT IS???
-
Obama is blatantly defying both congress AND the will of the american people.
He is literally siding with foreigners, foreign interests and foreign invaders over siding with the american people.
IF THIS ISNT THE VERY DEFINITION OF TREASON, WHAT IS???
Opposing free birth control for Sandra fluke is treason
Opposing ISIS and the spread of sharia law is treason
Opposing that fat ghetto C$%T Michelle Obama dictacting food choices to your kid is treason
Opposing Obamacare is treason
Opposing communism is treason
See - this is the USA in 2014 under Kenyan Law
-
She said for many undocumented immigrants who have been here for years, "there is no line for people to get into."
What?
Total BS. The line begins with deporting them.
All Libs + All RINOs disagree with you. That's probably 65% of the country right there. :(
-
LISTEN....
Whether you agree with this policy or not..... EITHER freakin' way you have to say WTF?????
How any one person can take "executive action" on something like this completely bypassing our "checks and balances" system is grounds not only for impeachment but for treason and death penalty..
WTF?? I dont care if you are for this policy or not.... the method COMPLETELY undermines everything this country was founded on.
-
Obama and his fellow communist travelers see destruction of this nation into a 3rd world Kenyan hut and flophouse as their life long mission - so rules and laws be damned - only two years left fo them do it.
LISTEN....
Whether you agree with this policy or not..... EITHER freakin' way you have to say WTF?????
How any one person can take "executive action" on something like this completely bypassing our "checks and balances" system is grounds not only for impeachment but for treason and death penalty..
WTF?? I dont care if you are for this policy or not.... the method COMPLETELY undermines everything this country was founded on.
-
Obama State Dep't. Creates New Program to Import Children from Latin America
CNSNews ^ | November 14, 2014 | Brittany M. Hughes
Posted on 11/14/2014 12:10:47 PM by jazusamo
(CNSNews.com) - The Obama administration announced on Friday a plan to create a new refugee/parole program for children in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras whose parents are legal residents of the United States.
“This program will allow certain parents who are lawfully present in the United States to request access to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for their children still in one of these three countries,” the State Department said in a news release. The department added that “[c]hildren who are found ineligible for refugee admission but still at risk of harm may be considered for parole on a case-by-case basis.”
The State Department said the new, in-country program is a “safe, legal, and orderly alternative to the dangerous journey that some children are currently undertaking to the United States.”
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, refugee status is reserved for people fleeing their home country due to “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”
But under the new program, a child who doesn’t qualify as a refugee might still come to the United States.
“Applicants found by DHS to be ineligible for refugee status in the United States will be considered on a case-by-case basis for parole, which is a mechanism to allow someone who is otherwise inadmissible to come to the United States for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit,” the State Department said.
“Humanitarian parole” is a category found under Section 212.5 of the INA that allows a non-U.S. citizen entrance into the United States on a temporary basis due to “urgent humanitarian reasons” or “significant public benefit.” In the past, this status has been granted to persons with serious medical needs, pregnant women and to some Cuban citizens.
“An individual considered for parole may be eligible for parole if DHS finds that the individual is at risk of harm, he/she clears all background vetting, there is no serious derogatory information, and someone has committed to financially support the individual while he/she is in the United States,” the State Department said in the news release.
Under the new program, parents of a “paroled” child will need to pay the cost of the child’s medical clearance and travel to the United States.
“Parole is temporary and does not confer any permanent legal immigration status or path to permanent legal immigration status in the United States,” the State Department said, adding that these children “are not eligible for medical and other benefits upon arrival in the United States, but are eligible to attend school and/or apply for employment authorization.”
Parole is granted on an initial period of two years with an option to renew, the State Department added.
In order to be considered for the new program, the child must undergo a pre-screening interview, DNA testing to confirm parentage and an interview to determine if he or she qualifies for refugee status, the State Department said. They must also undergo “security checks” and a medical screening.
If the child is approved for admission into the U.S., the child’s parent(s) must sign a form agreeing to repay the cost of his or her travel to the United States, according to the State Department.
“Approved refugees will be eligible for the same support provided to all refugees resettled in the United States, including assignment to a resettlement agency that will assist with reception and placement, and assistance registering children in school,” the news release said.
The State Department emphasized that the new program will not be available to illegal alien parents who are currently in the United States.
“The refugee/parole program will not be a pathway for undocumented parents to bring their children to the United States, but instead, the program will provide certain vulnerable, at-risk children an opportunity to be reunited with parents lawfully resident in the United States.”
-
He previously acknowledged halting deportations would be unconstitutional. What did he do? "Evolve"?
-
He previously acknowledged halting deportations would be unconstitutional. What did he do? "Evolve"?
Clear as day.
-
LISTEN....
Whether you agree with this policy or not..... EITHER freakin' way you have to say WTF?????
How any one person can take "executive action" on something like this completely bypassing our "checks and balances" system is grounds not only for impeachment but for treason and death penalty..
WTF?? I dont care if you are for this policy or not.... the method COMPLETELY undermines everything this country was founded on.
Exactly...
Especially when it is something that both congress AND the american people agree on and both strongly oppose
-
We need to agree that NO PRESIDENT needs this kind of power. Bush had it, libs went batshit when Bush did it. Now obama is doing it, and repubs are going batshit.
IMO, we need to cut exec power in a big way. not to stop obama, not to stop the next repub... but because it completely WRECKS the system of checks and balances.
There is ZERO way an amnesty bill would get thru congress OR thru a national vote on it. YET it's going to pass because of executive order.
-
Defiant Obama: I will use my power
The Politico ^ | November 14, 2014 | Josh Gerstein
Posted on 11/14/2014 4:00:06 PM by 2ndDivisionVet
YANGON, Myanmar — President Barack Obama on Friday defended his plans to use executive power to bypass Congress, signaling that he’s determined to move on issues like immigration and climate change, especially when lawmakers have failed to act.
“They have the ability to fix the system. What they don’t have is the ability to do is expect me to stand by with a broken system in perpetuity,” Obama said on immigration reform at a joint news conference here with Myanmar dissident leader Aung San Suu Kyi. “It’s way overdue. We’ve been talking about it for 10 years now and it’s been consistently stalled.”
Obama said he’s determined to grant relief to illegal immigrants in the coming weeks if Congress doesn’t produce a bill first.
“I gave the House over a year to at least give a vote on the Senate bill. They failed to do so,” the president said. “I indicated to Speaker Boehner several months ago that if Congress failed to act, I would use all lawful authority that I possess … That’s going to happen. And that’s going to happen before the end of the year.”
Obama also suggested that the deal he cut with China to reduce greenhouse gas emissions was proper because he has to take into account longer-term interests than do lawmakers who have resisted such actions....
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
He needs to be impeached and removed from office - he is a tyrant and a doped up wannabe
-
He needs to be impeached and removed from office - he is a tyrant and a doped up wannabe
I can't wait for Cruz to take over Senate. America needs leadership that isn't lib, isn't rino, isn't the same old, same old.
-
I can't wait for Cruz to take over Senate. America needs leadership that isn't lib, isn't rino, isn't the same old, same old.
How is Cruz going to take over the Senate when McConnell was unanimously elected to be Senate Majority Leader??
-
How is Cruz going to take over the Senate when McConnell was unanimously elected to be Senate Majority Leader??
Five things to expect in a GOP Senate takeover
November 5, 2014 by NCC Staff
When the Republican Party moves to take over control of the United States Senate in January, life will be different in Washington in some significant ways as a Congress controlled fully by the GOP will need to deal with a lame-duck President.
While it’s impossible to predict what will happen in the next two years, experts who track the often difficult relationship between President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans expect a few certainties in coming months.
Here’s a quick look at five issues to follow as the Republicans get their chance to run the Senate:
1. Mitch McConnell becomes the new Senate Majority Leader. That seems to be a near certainty that McConnell will run for the position with Senator John Cornyn of Texas poised to become the Senate Majority Whip. However, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas hasn’t backed McConnell’s campaign.
2. Ted Cruz will draw lots of attention. Cruz told the Washington Post on Sunday that he will go on the attack against President Obama in the coming year. Cruz wants to hold hearings on “the abuse of power, the executive abuse, the regulatory abuse, the lawlessness that sadly has pervaded this administration.” With Cruz seeking to promote an agenda on his terms, many experts already expect a conflict with McConnell. Interestingly, fellow Tea Party stalwart Rand Paul is a McConnell supporter.
3. Obamacare (or the Affordable Care Act) will come under attack. Cruz already has vowed to take down Obamacare in an extension of Republican tactics used in the House. But with a total repeal of Obamacare problematic at best (see the next item in this list), the Republicans could target specific provisions within Obamacare that they can gain some support from Democrats, too. These targets could include excise taxes on medical devices and the employer mandate fine.
4. President Obama will veto some bills. President Obama has vetoed just two bills in six years, the fewest number of vetos issued since President James Garfield’s brief time in office. The President will most likely have a chance to veto any attempted total repeal of Obamacare and any other core programs he championed in the past six years. The GOP would need a two-thirds supermajority to override any veto.
5. Federal Court nominees will have a tough time getting a nomination vote. Last November, then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid gutted the Senate’s filibuster rules to get President Obama’s federal court nominees confirmed. But with the GOP controlling the nomination process, it’s unlikely any future Obama nominees will make it far enough for a vote.
One other interesting dynamic pointed out by political observers is that while the GOP had a favorable political map in 2014 for the Senate, the situation could be much different in two years.
In this year’s election, the Democrats defended 21 Senate seats, including six in states that GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney won easily in 2012. In 2016, the Republicans must defend 24 seats, compared to 10 for the Democrats. GOP incumbents are up for re-election.
-
Ok. And? How is he going to take over the Senate when McConnell was unanimously elected Senate Majority leader? "Unanimous" means Cruz voted for him.
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
DHS chief: Obama immigration order 'in final stages'
The Hill ^ | November 15, 2014 | Rachel Huggins
Posted on November 15, 2014 10:48:46 PM EST by jazusamo
Video at link.
Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson on Saturday reiterated that President Obama's expected action on immigration is in its final planning stages.
"We’re in the final stages of developing some executive actions," Johnson said. "We have a broken immigration system. The more I delve into it, the more problems I see," Reuters reported.
Speaking at the Reagan Presidential Library in California, Johnson told the crowd that the current immigration system has serious problems and to expect comprehensive changes by the end of the year as promised by the president.
Johnson provided few details but said Obama's overhaul would strengthen border security. Republicans, who now control the Senate, have warned Obama that unilateral action on immigration would "poison the well" for bipartisan cooperation.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/opinion/sunday/ross-douthat-the-great-immigration-betrayal.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
Good article
FUBO you worthless communist tyrant and skell
-
so what exactly is the incentive to come here legally now? ??? ???
-
You not only voted for him but convinced your "whole family" to vote for him, in addition to you knee-padding for him non-stop for the last 6 years makes your above outrage meaningless as you are partly responsible for this.
You helped hire him Rob, so if you are truly outraged, then go look in the mirror for someone to blame.
Hahaha. The best owning I've seen here for months :D
-
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/16/shock-flashback-obama-says-illegal-immigration-hurts-blue-collar-americans-strains-welfare-video/?advD=1248,657950
I have nothing but contempt for this asshole on so many levels
-
SHOCK FLASHBACK: Obama Says Illegal Immigration HURTS ‘Blue-Collar Americans,’ STRAINS Welfare [VIDEO]
11:17 PM 11/16/2014
11086
1173
Neil Munro
White House Correspondent
See All Articles
Send Email
Subscribe to RSS
President Barack Obama once declared that an influx of illegal immigrants will harm “the wages of blue-collar Americans” and “put strains on an already overburdened safety net.”
“[T]here’s no denying that many blacks share the same anxieties as many whites about the wave of illegal immigration flooding our Southern border—a sense that what’s happening now is fundamentally different from what has gone on before,” then-Senator Obama wrote in his 2006 autobiography, “The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.”
”Not all these fears are irrational,” he wrote.
“The number of immigrants added to the labor force every year is of a magnitude not seen in this country for over a century,” Obama noted. “If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole—especially by keeping our workforce young, in contrast to an increasingly geriatric Europe and Japan—it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and put strains on an already overburdened safety net.”
If these feel like the words of one of Obama’s opponents, it’s because they’re the exact argument the president’s critics have been making as he now rushes to announce a sweeping executive order that would give work permits to millions of illegal immigrants in the country.
In the passage, Obama also reveals that he personally feels “patriotic resentment” when he sees Mexican flags at immigration rallies.
Must Have Cars For 2015
FORBES
Cornbread Chili Casserole
Wolf Brand Chili
eTherapy: A New Way of Getting Help
CNNMoney - TalkSpace
8 Famous Lesbians Who Were Married To Men
MadameNoire
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
“Native-born Americans suspect that it is they, and not the immigrant, who are being forced to adapt” to social changes caused by migration, he said.
“And if I’m honest with myself, I must admit that I’m not entirely immune to such nativist sentiments,” Obama wrote. “When I see Mexican flags waved at pro-immigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When I’m forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.”
Obama’s frank statements were written in 2006, as he was eying a run for the presidency.
Those worries are mainstream, according to recent polls. Obama now presides over a very porous southern border, and he’s allowed 130,000 Central American migrants across since October 2013.
Via executive order, he is also about to provide work permits to at least 3 million illegal immigrants, allowing them to compete against the very Americans — black, white, Latino and Asian — who he once said would be harmed by such a move.
The new work permits would be in addition to the 600,000 work permits given to younger illegals under the 2012 “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” program.
Roughly 4 million Americans will enter the job market this year.
Careful observers of Obama’s modern-day immigration rhetoric will note that he does not discuss the impact millions of formerly-illegal immigrants would have on the wages of American workers. Rather, Obama has repeatedly declared, “It’s the right thing to do.”
Obama has even justified his planned unilateral amnesty as a border control measure.
“In terms of immigration, I have consistently said that it is my profound preference and interest to see Congress act on a comprehensive immigration reform bill,” he said Nov. 5, at his post-defeat press conference in the White House.
That bill, he said, “would strengthen our borders; would streamline our legal immigration system so that it works better and we’re attracting the best and the brightest from around the world; and that we give an opportunity for folks who’ve lived here, in many cases, for a very long time, may have kids who are U.S. citizens, but aren’t properly documented.”
Obama’s plan reportedly would also allow companies to hire up to 500,000 foreign professionals to compete for jobs sought by the roughly 800,000 Americans who will graduate from universities in 2015, often carrying heavy debts, with degrees in medicine, business, science, math, engineering or architecture.
Back in 2006, Obama dismissed the current guest worker programs as unfair to Americans.
A 2006 immigration bill “included a guest worker program that would allow two hundred thousand foreign workers to enter the country for temporary employment,” he wrote.
“The guest worker provision of the bill troubled me,” Obama wrote, “it was essentially a sop to big business, a means for them to employ immigrants without granting them citizenship rights—indeed, a means for business to gain the benefits of outsourcing without having to locate their operations overseas.”
Obama is already expanding those guest worker programs by at least 100,000 jobs, and he backed the Senate’s 2013 bill that would have boosted the number of guest workers above 1 million each year.
Under current law, the U.S. accept 1 million immigrants and 650,000 non-agricultural guest workers each year. Many of the guest workers stay for six years.
Follow Neil on Twitter
-
so what exactly is the incentive to come here legally now? ??? ???
None. :-\
-
Hahaha. The best owning I've seen here for months :D
:)
-
"Tearing at the very fabric of the Constitution." He is right.
-
"Tearing at the very fabric of the Constitution." He is right.
Obama does not care! He is trying to collapse this nation
-
Most Voters Still Veto Obama’s Immigration Plan
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
President Obama is reportedly about to announce that up to five million illegal immigrants will no longer be subject to deportation, but most voters oppose his plan. The majority, in fact, continue to believe the federal government already isn’t doing enough to send illegal immigrants back home.
Fifty-six percent (56%) of Likely U.S. Voters think the U.S. government is not aggressive enough in deporting those who are in this country illegally, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. That’s up slightly from 52% in April but down from a high of 60% a year ago. Just 16% believe the government’s deportation policy is too aggressive, while 17% say the number of deportations is about right. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Fifty-three percent (53%) oppose the president’s plan to protect up to five million illegal immigrants from deportation and give many of them legal work permits. Thirty-four percent (34%) favor that plan, while 13% are undecided.
Sixty-two percent (62%) of voters already have signaled that they oppose the president granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants without the approval of Congress, and 55% think Congress should challenge that action in court.
But opposition is lower when voters are asked about specifics of Obama’s anticipated plan. For example, voters are evenly divided when asked if illegal immigrants who have lived in this country for five years or more without breaking the law should be exempt from deportation: 40% say yes; 41% say no, but a sizable 20% are undecided.
Thirty-eight percent (38%) believe illegal immigrants who have American-born children should be exempt from deportation. Forty-two percent (42%) disagree and think they still should be deported. But again 20% are not sure.
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on November 16-17, 2014 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Republicans have been highly critical of the president’s use of executive orders like the one he is considering on deportation policy, claiming many of them are unconstitutional because he has not gotten congressional approval. House Republicans are already suing the Obama administration for making changes in the national health care law without Congress’ okay.
In late June, a plurality (44%) of voters said the president has been less faithful to the U.S. Constitution than most other presidents. Twenty-two percent (22%) felt Obama has been more faithful to the Constitution than most of his predecessors, while 30% said he has followed the Constitution about the same as other presidents have.
Interest in illegal immigration remains high. Seventy-nine percent (79%) of voters say they have been following recent news reports about the topic, with 40% who are following Very Closely.
Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans and 56% of voters not affiliated with either of the major political parties believe the federal government’s current deportation policies are not aggressive enough. But just 33% of Democrats agree.
By a 52% to 31% margin, voters in the president’s party favor his plan to end the deportation threat for up to five million illegal immigrants and to give many of them legal work permits. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of Republicans and unaffiliated voters by a 52% to 35% margin are opposed.
Opposition among Republican and unaffiliated voters falls when specifics are on the table. Still, most GOP voters and pluralities of unaffiliateds oppose ending deportation for those who have been here illegally for five years or more without breaking the law and those who have American-born children.
Support among Democrats for both exemptions is only slightly higher than their overall approval of the president’s projected plan.
Most voters have said in surveys for several years that a child born to illegal immigrants should not automatically be a citizen of the United States as is the current policy.
Forty-eight percent (48%) of Americans think limiting or ending automatic U.S. citizenship for children born to those who enter the United States illegally will reduce future illegal immigration a lot. Twenty-four percent (24%) say it will help a little, while 20% believe limiting or ending this practice will not reduce illegal immigration at all.
An increasing majority of voters believes gaining control of the border is the most important immigration reform needed, but they think the federal government encourages illegal immigration instead.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/november_2014/most_voters_still_veto_obama_s_immigration_plan
-
Top Republican floats new attack plan for Obama’s immigration action
Published November 18, 2014
FoxNews.com
Add "rescission" to the glossary for the looming immigration fight between congressional Republicans and President Obama.
No need to run to the dictionary -- it's a way for Congress to take back money that it's authorized through legislation. It's also the newest gambit being proposed by a top Republican hoping to undermine the president's expected executive action on immigration, and at the same time avoid a budget fight.
"I don't think any of you folks ever saw a rescission bill, have you?" Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, asked reporters on Tuesday, underscoring how rarely it is employed.
Rogers is pushing the rarely used parliamentary procedure as a middle ground option that essentially would allow lawmakers to pass a spending bill next month -- with a Dec. 11 deadline -- but then allow them to go back later on and strip out any money allocated for Obama's immigration plan.
But the idea has its pitfalls for Republicans, and already has prompted some pushback among conservatives.
While "rescission" would allow Republicans to propose a bill to repeal Obama's immigration funding, like any other bill, it would need to pass both chambers -- including a likely 60-vote threshold in the Senate -- and survive a presidential veto.
Even with control of the House and Senate next year, Republicans likely would not have the votes to override a veto.
"Umm, glaring problem here," a Senate Republican aide told Fox News, in response to Rogers' idea. "A rescission bill isn't some sort of special bill. It's just like most bills. The president would still have to sign a rescission bill. If he vetoed, we'd need 67 votes to defund executive amnesty. So what's being proposed here is giving the president the money and we wouldn't be able to take it back. Nice try."
The aide said the plan would amount to a "capitulation" to the president.
Democrats, meanwhile, immediately rejected the idea.
"Of course I would be against" retroactive spending cuts, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday, when asked about the plan.
Asked about Republican plans to potentially cut funding for immigration changes, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said they "haven't seen any specific proposals" but would not view it "very favorably."
He would not say when the president might act on immigration. But he reiterated the president's pledge that if the House were to ever approve the Senate-passed immigration bill, it would effectively negate Obama's executive action.
"There is a trump card that Republicans hold right now," he said, referring to that scenario.
Meanwhile, Democrats continued to press Obama on Tuesday to take a major step with his immigration actions.
Sens. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., urged the president in a letter on Tuesday to take "bold, decisive action" on immigration.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/18/top-republican-floats-new-attack-plan-for-obamas-immigration-action/
-
http://nypost.com/2014/11/18/democrats-to-obama-go-big-on-immigration-executive-action
Democrat = communist
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/11/18/obamas-flip-flop-on-using-executive-action-on-illegal-immigration
-
Exclusive -- Report: Obama's Executive Amnesty Will Give Illegal Aliens Public Benefits
Brietbart ^ | November 17, 2014 | Matthew Boyle
Posted on November 18, 2014 8:15:37 AM EST by Zakeet
Illegal aliens who get President Barack Obama’s likely forthcoming executive amnesty will have immediate access to welfare and other public benefits, according to a new report from the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR) exclusively provided to Breitbart News ahead of its public release shows.
“Obama’s executive amnesty isn’t only unconstitutional but costly; from day one it opens up federal and state benefits to individuals who are still illegal aliens, regardless of the label the President puts on them,” FAIR executive director Julie Kirchner told Breitbart News.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
-
My local FOX host was actually praising lawrence odonnell today. He said Odonnell (a lawyer) has been bashing dems for the past 3 straight days - Obama should NOT be able to create a new working, protected class of workers without congressional legislation. And that's exactly what happens when he decides no deportation on the offspring of illegals or worse than that, legalizing 5 million people.
A little surprising to see ODonnell on the conservative side of this issue. Dems have been blasted on his show all week, according to my FOX host, who was using this to show no Dem could answer how this is even legally constitutionally. Because it's not.
Frankly, I'm SHOCKED at the lack of outrage from the RIGHT On this issue. Not on getbig very much, not from congress very much. At the very least politically - He's about to invite 5 million new voters in (most of them low education, poor, and cetainly dem voters).
If nothing else, he's buying a SHITLOAD of new voters. How in the world aren't yall screaming about this? (RINOs, dont answer, you are just gonna accept it anyway). Conservatives - listen, the dems WILL gain a TON of new voters with this. Why are you cool with it? When I heard "I like it" from so many repubs on the other thread - HUH?
-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-obama-sign-executive-amnesty-friday-vegas_819591.html
HERE WE GO - ROT IN HELL YOU AFRICAN COMMUNIST TYRANT AND WORTHLESS FAG
-
The Las Vegas Review-Journal confirms Obama's visit to Las Vegas on Friday:
President Barack Obama is expected to visit Las Vegas on Friday, stopping here after Republicans swept all top state offices and took control of the Legislature in the Nov. 4 election. ...
Nevada is a battleground state and Obama needs to boost the Democratic Party before the 2016 election where voters will determine who will succeed Obama in the White House. At this point former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is leading the pack even before announcing whether she’s running.
Nevada reporter Jon Ralston suggests the event will be at a local high school:
Hearing POTUS coming to Vegas on Friday for speech at Del Sol High School. I wonder what the topic could possibly be at DEL SOL high school.
-
You old white people. It is your duty to die.” -Cebada
PRO-ILLEGAL ALIEN AMNESTY ACTIVISTS SPEAK OUT!
Augustin Cebada, Brown Berets; “Go back to Boston! Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out! We are the future. You are old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you. Leave like beaten rats. You old white people. It is your duty to die … Through love of having children, we are going to take over. ”
Richard Alatorre, Los Angeles City Council. “They’re afraid we’re going to take over the governmental institutions and other institutions. They’re right. We will take them over … We are here to stay.”
Excelsior, the national newspaper of Mexico, “The American southwest seems to be slowly returning to the jurisdiction of Mexico without firing a single shot.”
Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, University of Texas and La Raza founder; “We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. The explosion is in our population … I love it. They are shitting in their pants with fear. I love it.”
Art Torres, Chairman of the California Democratic Party, “Remember 187 — proposition to deny taxpayer funds for services to non-citizens — was the last gasp of white America in California.”
Gloria Molina, Los Angeles County Supervisor, “We are politicizing every single one of these new citizens that are becoming citizens of this country … I gotta tell you that a lot of people are saying, “I’m going to go out there and vote because I want to pay them back.”
Mario Obledo, California Coalition of Hispanic Organizations and California State Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare under Governor Jerry Brown, also awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Bill Clinton, “California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who doesn’t like it should leave.”
Jose Pescador Osuna, Mexican Consul General , “We are practicing ‘La Reconquista’ in California.”
Professor Fernando Guerra, Loyola Marymount University; “We need to avoid a white backlash by using codes understood by Latinos …”
-
Yet this criminal is going to open the flood gates in Vegas to illegals
Rot in Hell Obama you pos
-
Needs to go.....Fox should just send reporters down to Guatemala city and Tegucigalpa Honduras...just walk around and film. That's what you get when u let 8 million retards into your country. And before you fucks say anything about past immigration...walk around Rome, Dublin, Budapest and Berlin.....big friggen difference.
-
Skip to comments.
Rep. Luis Gutierrez Thinks Obama Will Mandate 5-10 Year Residency on Immigration Order
Pajamas Media ^ | 11/19/2014 | Bridget Johnson
Posted on 11/19/2014 11:54:20 AM by SeekAndFind
Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), who leads the Immigration Task Force in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, offered some clues as to what could be in President Obama’s executive order.
“I think the president is going to choose between five and 10 years, that is that you have to be in the United States for five to 10 years and you have to be working here and you are going to pay for a background check,” Gutierrez said on Fox last night. “You’re going to submit your fingerprints and they come back clear. He is going to give you a work authorization for two years and a Social Security card. He’s going to put you on the books paying taxes. And I think he is going to include that before you submit for an application you have roots in America. And I think that’s what he is going to do.”
“But that’s only going to be part. That’s going to be the largest part what he does in the number of people that’s about three million people. But I think what he’s going to do — even he’s going to do stuff for agricultural, farmers in this country, they need a million.”
Gutierrez said “there is no citizenship” in the plan.
“The president has no authority. Only through an act of Congress can they ever be granted citizenship,” he said. “Think of it this way. Here is how I look at it, like is he going to set them aside and say ‘I’m not going to prosecute these people, I’m not going after them so I get to — so I can go after the really bad guys and use the power of the government, the deportations will continue, but go after another.’”
Gutierrez said they won’t be able to sign up for welfare, food stamps and other federal benefits.
“And they can’t get a Pell grant to go to college. They cannot. Obviously we are raising money in our own community to help them, but from private sector,” the congressman said. “No, there won’t be any government benefits. And I just want to make clear to the American public — even the background check, they have to pay. The processing of their documentation, in order to get that work permit, probably will be around $500. There cannot be a cent of tax dollar money used even in granting them the work authorization. They must pay for it out of their pocket.”
He estimated four to five months from the period of Obama’s announcement to when illegal immigrants can start applying for legal status under the order.
Gutierrez suggested locking Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) in a room together until they arrive at a compromise immigration bill. “Let them come back in 45 days,” he said.
“They control the House. They control the Senate,” he said of Republicans in the next Congress. “Tell them to stop whining. Get the legislation done and put it on the president’s desk. That will stop everything.”
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
-
Sounds fair right...all the onus is on the illegal to do the right thing....no citizenship etc. This is how it starts.....not one inch
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/19/jeh-johnson-us-could-face-new-surge-illegals/
-
sickening. libs/rinos.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/20/us/politics/obamacare-unlikely-for-undocumented-immigrants.html?_r=0
Yeah whatever - ofagget - even middle class people cant afford obamacare - you think illegals are going to pay for it?
-
amnesty = 5 million more people on obamacare. And probably 4+ million of them voting Dem in 2016, let's be honest there.
RINOs, why the fck don't you impeach? Seriously, there is no "undo" once these illegal alien criminals are given green card, you know that, right? Repubs sure as shit won't benefit in elections. Obama is less than HALFWAY done with this term - plenty of time.
-
The Emperor of the United States will be acting soon.
Report: Obama to Announce Immigration Order Friday in Las Vegas
Wednesday, 19 Nov 2014
With reports indicating that President Barack Obama could issue his executive order on immigration on Friday, Republicans have been lining up a response strategy while activists are managing their expectations.
CNBC, citing sources, said Obama would lay out his immigration plan during the visit. He also could give an outline of the order on Thursday and add details in Las Vegas on Friday, the network said.
Under the executive action plan, Obama would ease immigration rules on millions of undocumented immigrants, a source familiar with White House deliberations, has told Reuters.
The order, which will set up a showdown between the White House and Republicans in Congress, would give relief from deportation to millions of undocumented immigrants who are parents of U.S. citizens or of permanent legal residents, according to the source, who asked not to be identified.
According to Politico, congressional leaders and potential Republican presidential candidates are preparing legislation and arguments to deploy an effective public offensive, while attempting to avoid turning off Hispanic voters.
Former, and possibly future, presidential candidate Rick Santorum said the party should focus on the negative economic impact of a policy that could give as many as five million illegal immigrants access to work permits.
"Is this a constitutional crisis? Yes," the former Pennsylvania senator told Politico. "But we have to put it in terms of … what it means to average working Americans. At a time when the economy is struggling and wages are stagnant, you're dumping 5 million people into the workforce."
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, also a potential 2016 contender, has said the GOP should emphasize that unilateral action ignores the will of the people who voted against the Democrats in the midterm elections.
"The American people overwhelmingly rejected his policies all across the country," Jindal told Politico. "In previous cycles, he said elections have consequences. Talk about arrogance."
The Republican National Committee will likely focus on the contradictory messages the president has made about the scope of his authority to act in changing immigration law.
"We don’t know how far he'll go," RNC spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski, told Politico.
"But we do know it's always been about politics and we're going to make sure Americans know that Obama himself said the action he's contemplating 'would be very difficult to defend legally' just two years ago."
It was not yet clear which parents of citizens or permanent residents would be included, the source said, and the Obama administration had been looking at options including those parents who have been living in the United States for five years or 10 years.
The reported trip would come after a top Obama aide is scheduled to meet with Senate Democrats on Thursday. White House chief of staff Denis McDonough, who is likely to be pressed on the immigration issue in the closed-door luncheon.
Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have been urging Obama to move quickly on immigration. Some have pointed to his failure to take executive action on the issue as costing Democrats votes in this month's congressional elections and setting up a Republicans sweep of congressional election earlier this month.
Obama has warned Republicans in Congress that he would act unilaterally if they continue to block comprehensive immigration legislation.
But, Congressional lawmakers, meanwhile, are considering piecemeal legislation to try to demonstrate that the party has its own strategic plan beyond simple opposition to the president's, Politico reported.
One bill could focus on border security while another could center on expanding the number of high-tech visas. Other measures could try to defund the president's proposals or require Obama to enforce existing immigration laws.
Appearing on Newsmax TV on Monday, former U.S. attorney general Alberto Gonzales urged the president to engage Congress in hammering out an immigration deal instead of just issuing his own executive order.
"Even assuming that in fact he has the authority I don't think it's the right thing to do at this juncture," Gonzales said on "The Steve Malzberg Show."
"It's a temporary solution to a very serious problem. It makes it more difficult to get comprehensive immigration reform in the future going forward."
Story continues below video.
Meanwhile, immigration rights activists are trying to manage their expectations about the scope of the president's plans after administration officials began prepping them in calls on Tuesday, The Hill reported.
"They're setting expectations, making it clear he has the legal authority to do what he's going to do, but that he's not going beyond his authority, as some advocates would like," one source familiar with the calls told The Hill.
The White House has still not revealed any specifics of the president's planned action and White House domestic policy council director, Cecelia Munoz, said Obama was still making decisions about the content and timing of his announcement, The Hill said.
"He's going to go as far as he can under the law," Munoz told MSNBC, according to The Hill.
Sources have said Obama is expected to take actions to allow some undocumented people to live here at least temporarily without the threat of deportation and to hold jobs in the United States. Obama's executive order could also include further border security steps, they said.
Obama also is expected to stress that he wants to focus efforts on deportations of illegal residents with serious criminal backgrounds.
http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-Immigration-executive-order/2014/11/19/id/608303/#ixzz3JXRjCv7g
-
I agree there are no easy answers. I would love to send all of them (illegals) home, but I know that isn't realistic. We don't have the resources to round them all up and deport them.
What is the answer? I don't really know, except I don't like the amnesty approach.
I'd start with amending the Constitution to get rid of anchor babies. That's more of a prospective solution, but it would probably deter a lot of them from coming here illegally.
Your friend's situation is outrageous.
You CAN send them home. You don't have to round them up. Just fine the landlords and employers who allow ilelgals. They'll leave on their own.
-
You CAN send them home. You don't have to round them up. Just fine the landlords and employers who allow ilelgals. They'll leave on their own.
::)
-
Obama Is Not a Monarch
The president cannot act alone; the Constitution requires compromise.
By SEN. TED CRUZ November 19, 2014
The Constitution designs a system of checks and balances for our nation, and executive amnesty for illegal immigrants unilaterally decreed from the White House would seriously undermine the rule of law.
Our founders repeatedly warned about the dangers of unlimited power within the executive branch; Congress should heed those words as the President threatens to grant amnesty to millions of people who have come to our country illegally.
To be clear, the dispute over executive amnesty is not between President Obama and Republicans in Congress; it is a dispute between President Obama and the American People. The Democrats suffered historic losses in the midterm elections largely over the prospect of the President’s executive amnesty.
President Obama was correct: His policies were on the ballot across the nation in 2014. The elections were a referendum on amnesty, and the voters soundly rejected it. There was no ambiguity.
Undeterred, President Obama appears to be going forward. It is lawless. It is unconstitutional. He is defiant and angry at the American people. If he acts by executive diktat, President Obama will not be acting as a president, he will be acting as a monarch.
Thankfully, the framers of our Constitution, wary of the dangers of monarchy, gave the Congress tools to rein in abuses of power. They believed if the President wants to change the law, he cannot act alone; he must work with Congress.
He may not get everything he wants, but the Constitution requires compromise between the branches.
A monarch, however, does not compromise. As Alexander Hamilton explains in Federalist 69, a monarch decrees, dictates, and rules through fiat power, which is what President Obama is attempting.
When the President embraces the tactics of a monarch, it becomes incumbent on Congress to wield the constitutional power it has to stop it.
Congress, representing the voice of the People, should use every tool available to prevent the President from subverting the rule of law.
When the President usurps the legislative power and defies the limits of his authority, it becomes all the more imperative for Congress to act. And Congress should use those powers given to it by the Constitution to counter a lawless executive branch—or it will lose its authority.
If the President announces executive amnesty, the new Senate Majority Leader who takes over in January should announce that the 114th Congress will not confirm a single nominee—executive or judicial—outside of vital national security positions, so long as the illegal amnesty persists.
This is a potent tool given to Congress by the Constitution explicitly to act as a check on executive power. It is a constitutional power of the Majority Leader alone, and it would serve as a significant deterrent to a lawless President.
Additionally, the new Congress should exercise the power of the purse by passing individual appropriations bills authorizing critical functions of government and attaching riders to strip the authority from the president to grant amnesty.
President Obama will no doubt threaten a shutdown—that seems to be the one card he repeatedly plays—but Congress can authorize funding for agencies of government one at a time. If the President is unwilling to accepting funding for, say, the Department of Homeland Security without his being able to unilaterally defy the law, he alone will be responsible for the consequences.
A presidential temper tantrum is not an acceptable means of discourse.
Of course, these confrontations are not desirable, and it is unbecoming for an American president to show such condescension towards the voters.
The American people, however, are not powerless. They have elected a new Congress full of members who have promised in their campaigns to stand up to this lawless President and stop the amnesty. We must honor our commitments.
If the President will not respect the people, Congress must.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/president-obama-is-not-a-monarch-113028.html#ixzz3JXorSBL8
-
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/the-weak-argument-defending-executive-amnesty/382906
More left wing bullshit put to bed
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/19/obama-immigration-action-slap-face-gop-lawmakers/
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/11/19/obama-to-dine-with-top-lawmakers-tonight/ >:(
-
Posted on November 19, 2014 at 8:15:23 PM EST by PROCON
The White House is exasperated with the major broadcast networks – ABC, CBS and NBC -- for skipping out on President Barack Obama’s Thursday primetime address on his executive actions on immigration.
“In 2006, Bush gave a 17 minute speech that was televised by all three networks that was about deploying 6000 national guard troops to the border. Obama is making a 10 minute speech that will have a vastly greater impact on the issue. And none of the networks are doing it. We can’t believe they were aggrieved that we announced this on Facebook,” a senior administration official told POLITICO.
When the president wants to make a primetime address, White House officials will reach out to the big networks like ABC, NBC, and CBS, to gauge whether they would consider running the speech live before putting in a formal request for airtime.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/11/19/usa-today-capital-download-with-tom-coburn/19263969
-
GOP senator warns of violence after immigration order
Susan Page, USA TODAY 5:54 p.m. EST November 19, 2014
Sen. Tom Coburn shares that he thinks civil disobedience will happen after President Obama's expected order on immigration. Kelly Jordan, Sean Dougherty
XXX _CAPDOWN COBURN_2214.JPG A USA DC
(Photo: Sean Dougherty, USA TODAY)
3735
CONNECT
542
TWEET
4
LINKEDIN
566
COMMENT
EMAIL
MORE
WASHINGTON — Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn warns there could be not only a political firestorm but acts of civil disobedience and even violence in reaction to President Obama's executive order on immigration Thursday.
"The country's going to go nuts, because they're going to see it as a move outside the authority of the president, and it's going to be a very serious situation," Coburn said on Capital Download. "You're going to see — hopefully not — but you could see instances of anarchy. ... You could see violence."
Coburn, 66, is a conservative Republican but one who has a personal relationship with Obama. They entered the Senate in the same class, elected in 2004, and the new senators from opposite ends of the political spectrum and their spouses immediately hit it off at an orientation dinner. Last year, the president wrote a tribute in Time magazine to Coburn as "someone who speaks his mind (and) sticks to his principles."
"I really like the guy," Coburn, 66, told USA TODAY's weekly video newsmaker series Wednesday. "I thought he's neat, and I think Michelle's a neat lady."
USATODAY
Capital Download - Conversations with Washington's biggest newsmakers
That history gives Coburn's stark assessment a special sting. On immigration, he accuses Obama of acting like "an autocratic leader that's going to disregard what the Constitution says and make law anyway." He says changes in immigration policy require passage by Congress, not just the president's signature — a charge the White House disputes and on which legal experts disagree.
"Instead of having the rule of law handling in our country today, now we're starting to have the rule of rulers, and that's the total antithesis of what this country was founded on," Coburn says. "Here's how people think: Well, if the law doesn't apply to the president ... then why should it apply to me?"
USA TODAY
Obama to announce immigration plan Thursday
Coburn, who also served three terms in the House of Representatives, is retiring two years before his second Senate term is up as he battles a recurrence of cancer. He has been a leading deficit hawk, nicknamed "Dr. No" for his steadfast opposition to spending and his blunt-spoken manner.
Though he says both parties deserve some of the blame for Washington's dysfunction, he argues that the president has the ability to chart a different path. Solid Republican control of Congress in the wake of this month's midterm elections could make it easier to deal with an issue such as the structural problems associated with the deficit. Making the compromises necessary for that "requires divided government," he says.
"If I were in his office, I'd say, if you want to have a successful second term, dig down, swallow your pride, get what you can get, compromise on everything you can for the best interests of the country," he says. "Bring us back together."
-
Rick Perry: Texas might sue Barack Obama
The Politico ^ | November 19, 2014 | Jake Sherman
Posted on 11/19/2014 7:33:32 PM by 2ndDivisionVet
BOCA RATON, Fla. — Texas Gov. Rick Perry said the Lone Star State might sue Barack Obama’s administration over the president’s planned executive order to grant relief to as many as 5 million undocumented immigrants.
“I think that’s probably a very real possibility,” Perry said during a panel here at the Republican Governors Association’s annual meeting.
Perry, who is considering another presidential bid in 2016, said the cost of illegal immigration is “extraordinary.” He said his state spends $12 million a month on securing the border.
Perry remarked that state Attorney General Greg Abbott, who was recently elected governor, has described his current job like this: “I go to the office, I sue Obama and I go home.”
Obama is a jihadi potus
-
Skip to comments.
His Own Words: Obama Said He Doesn't Have Authority For Executive Amnesty 22 Times
Townhall.com ^ | November 19, 2014 | Katie Pavlich
Posted on 11/19/2014 8:09:45 PM by Kaslin
According to a report in POLITICO, President Obama is expected to make good on his executive amnesty threat on Friday during an event in Las Vegas, despite saying repeatedly over the years that he does not have the authority to change immigration laws from the Oval Office.
House Speaker John Boehner, who warned the President shortly after the 2014 midterm elections that acting alone on immigration would "poison the well," has taken notice of Obama's past statements. After some research, his office found President Obama directly claimed 22 times he couldn't take executive action on immigration because he doesn't have the authority.
Over the weekend President Obama was questioned during an overseas trip about his change in position with executive action looming and tried to argue his position on the extent of his authority to change immigration law hasn't changed at all.
"Actually, my position hasn’t changed. When I was talking to the advocates, their interest was in me, through executive action, duplicating the legislation that was stalled in Congress," Obama told reporters.
When Obama says he was speaking with "advocates," he's referring to radio interviews on programs with open-border hosts, at La Raza events and during a number of interviews conducted by Univision and Telemundo. Here are a few examples:
October 2010: Obama on Immigration Reform "I am Not a King"
“My cabinet has been working very hard on trying to get it done, but ultimately, I think somebody said the other day, I am president, I am not king,” Obama told Univision in October 2010, when asked why he had yet to achieve comprehensive immigration reform.
March 2011: Remarks by the President Univision Townhall
"America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don't have a choice about that. That's part of my job. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.”
“I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books …. Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that's not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written.”
January 2013: Pres. Obama Defends Deportation Record: ‘I’m Not A King’
“I’m not a king. My job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law,” Obama told Telemundo. “When it comes to enforcement of our immigration laws, we’ve got some discretion. We can prioritize what we do. But we can’t simply ignore the law.”
February 2013: Obama: ‘I Am Not a Dictator’
“I can’t do these things just by myself.” He reiterated that sentiment in a February 2013 interview with Telemundo. “I’m not a king,” he said.
FactCheck.org, The New York Times, and The Washington Post aren't buying Obama's argument and make it clear the President has in fact changed his position.
This is a flagrant untruth: “In fact, most of the questions that were posed to the president over the past several years were about the very thing that he is expected to announce within a matter of days,” reported The New York Times. “[T]he questions actually specifically addressed the sorts of actions that he is contemplating now,” The Washington Post’s Fact Checker agreed, awarding President Obama the rare “Upside-Down Pinocchio,” which signifies “a major-league flip-flop.” Even FactCheck.org piled on.
Obama's argument that his "position hasn’t changed" and that "when I was talking to the advocates, their interest was in me, through executive action, duplicating the legislation that was stalled in Congress," falls far short of explaining away his statement about a lack of authority. Not to mention, regardless of whether legislation is stalled in Congress, the President still doesn't have the authority to rewrite or issue an executive order mirroring pending legislation.
Yesterday ABC's Jon Karl asked White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest if President Obama still doesn't view himself as the "emperor" of the United States as he refuses to work with Congress on illegal immigration reform. From MRC:
ABC’s Jon Karl Grills W.H. About Obama’s Flip-Flop On Immigration Plans
“Does the President still stand by what he said last year when he said, ‘I am not the emperor of the United States; my job is to execute laws that are passed.’ Is that still operative?” asked Jonathan Karl, reporter for ABC, during Tuesday’s White House press briefing.
“Absolutely,” replied White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest.
“Not a king either?” asked Karl, to audience chuckles.
“That’s right,” said Earnest flatly.
There are a few explanations for President Obama moving forward to change illegal immigration law despite his own statements and objections from Congress and even liberal attorneys like Jonathan Turley. The first is that the President is an ideologue with nothing to lose politically at this point. Obama isn't up for re-election, he only has two years left and Democrats just lost in huge numbers at every level of government across the country. There's no longer anything to save. Obama is interested in his legacy with the Left, not with the country as a whole. Second, the President is interested in fighting with Republicans, not working with them, and his latest move on illegal immigration proves it. The President is essentially daring Republicans to look at ways to address executive action and is hoping to get impeachment on the table in order to suck up all of the media oxygen and hysteria for the remainder of his term. Further, Obama knows if Republicans choose to address his executive action through the courts, he'll be out of office before the legal fight is over. Obama doesn't have much, if anything to lose and has made it clear he doesn't care much about the constitutionality of what he's about to do, despite claiming his coming action doesn't fall within his constitutional authority over the past six years.
Conn has your rundown on what Republicans will do after Obama goes through with executive action on Friday.
I'll leave you with this:
Yikes RT @mmurraypolitics: Tease from our new NBC/WSJ poll: 48% oppose Obama taking executive action on immigration, while 38% support it— Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) November 19, 2014
FUBO!!!!!
-
Don't Be Fooled -- Obama Thinks He's an Emperor
Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | November 19, 2014 | Rush Limbaugh
Posted on 11/19/2014 7:50:58 PM by Kaslin
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here is Obama, February 14, 2013, fireside hangout...
This was on Google+. He's talking with a bunch of different citizens including authors, engineers, bloggers. An LGBT and immigration activist, Jackie Guerrido, wanted to know why Obama just doesn't do amnesty. Why are you deporting people? What do you mean? Why don't you let people of color into this country? Why don't you shape up? "What I'd like to know is what you're going to do now until the time immigration reform is passed to ensure that more people are not being deported and families aren't being broken apart."
OBAMA: This is something that I've struggled with throughout my presidency. The problem is that, y'know, I'm the president of the United States. I'm not, eh, uhhh, the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed. And Congress right now has not changed what I consider to be a broken immigration system.
RUSH: So he was telling people a year ago, "Hey, chill! I'm not an emperor. I can't do it." What he didn't say was, "I don't care about any of that. The only thing stopping me is there's an election coming up, and, when the election's over, that's when I'll do it. But I'm not gonna do it before that because that will hurt my party and maybe me." He should have just told them to be patient and wait until after the election, because he doesn't believe he's not an emperor.
He is an emperor, and he's gonna prove it.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, I know there are all kinds of examples of Obama telling audiences that he's not an emperor, that he's not a dictator, that he can't just universally implement or write a law. There are all kinds of examples. We've played them on the program. He said that to a Spanish-language television network. He was just buying time.
For those of you who think that, "Hey, this is a gotcha! We can show Obama lied. Get that audio where Obama said he's not a dictator. Now he's doing it. He lied!" That isn't gonna change anything. Obama knows everything he's doing. He knows who he lies to, he knows why he lies, and he knows he's going to get away with it. He knows he's not gonna be called on it.
He already won the Liar of the Year Award and he got a Nobel Peace Prize for lying about doing some things with people. You're not gonna stop Obama by pointing out his hypocrisy, and you're not gonna change people's minds about him. It's fun to do, don't misunderstand, you all already know. The point is much larger than Obama is a hypocrite. He is exactly what he claims that he is not.
He knows the American people are not ready for a dictator or an authoritarian or a statist. He knows the American people wouldn't support that. That's why he's gotta lie. That's why he's gotta claim, "Oh, Reagan did it," as though that clears the decks. That gives him permission to do whatever he wants to do, because Reagan was beloved. Reagan was respected. Reagan did have integrity.
Reagan was universally loved and respected, and that's why Obama and the Democrats cite him whenever they need credibility on something. Even his supporters know what he's gotta do. They know he's gotta lie and why he's gotta lie. But, as I say, there are countless examples of Obama... See, he knows what he's doing. He knows he's violating the Constitution -- and he's happy to do it, by the way.
END
-
the POTUS is just a puppet doing the owners of this country's bidding....
you really think he gives a crap about amnesty or anything else??
the owners of this country, the owners of the world want what they want.... and GET what they want PERIOD
-
Michael Steele slaps his GOP team on immigration: 'Get a grip'
Former Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele ripped his party for pushing back hard on President Obama’s immigration plans with a firm demand that they “get a grip.” Appearing on MSNBC, he said he would advise the GOP to work with the previously passed Senate comprehensive immigration reform bill. “Get a grip, because you’re sounding tone deaf here as I think the president is as well but we can talk about that in a moment. Number two, you have the solution already in front of you – the Senate in a bipartisan effort passed an immigration bill...
-
NBC poll: Executive amnesty is… pretty unpopular with just about everybody
On Monday, USA Today released a poll that might have buoyed the spirits of those who support President Barack Obama’s planned executive order which will enact portions of the Senate’s failed immigration reform bill. That survey found that an executive order was only slightly unpopular, with 46 percent disapproving and 42 percent approving.
Today, it seems that poll may have given Democrats false hope. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey released on Wednesday revealed that an immigration executive order from Obama would not be that popular at all, even with the demographics the president surely hoped to please.
NBC/WSJ found that only 38 percent of the public are happy with the president’s planned immigration order, while a full 48 percent disapprove. 11 percent of Republicans approve of the move and 37 percent of self-described independents agree. Shockingly, only 63 percent of Democrats in that survey expressed support for an executive order.
Even more surprisingly, that poll found that immigration reform via executive order is not especially popular with even Hispanic voters. Just 43 percent of Hispanics polled support an executive action creating legal status for millions of illegal immigrants while 37 percent disapprove.
-
POLL: Just 38% Of Americans Want Obama To Take Executive Action On Immigration
Business Insider ^ | 11/19/14 | Hunter Walker
Posted on 11/20/2014 9:52:08 AM by SoFloFreeper
An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Wednesday found 48% of Americans don't want President Barack Obama to take executive action on immigration. According to the poll, 38% would support executive action from the president and 14% have no opinion or are unsure....
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
-
Coincidence? Obama to Announce Executive Amnesty on National Revolution Day in Mexico
Gateway Pundit ^ | November 20, 2014 | Jim Hoft
Posted on 11/20/2014 10:49:04 AM by Cincinatus' Wife
Obama will announce his Executive Amnesty Plan tonight.
Today is National Revolution Day in Mexico–
The Mexican Revolution, began on November 20, 1910, and continued for a decade. The United States, Mexico’s northern neighbor, was significantly affected by the human dislocation that resulted: if someone did not want to fight, the only alternative was to leave the country—and over 890,000 Mexicans did just that by legally emigrating during the second decade of the 20th century.
The Obama administration and minions in the media insist President Reagan also used executive amnesty to allow illegals in the country.
As Rush Limbaugh explained, “This is a bald-faced flat-out lie.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
-
I'm seeing "Happy Amnesty Day" on social media.
Disgusting that people from both sides let obama stay in office this long.
Start Impeachment earlier this year and Obama doesn't pull this crap. Everything he does now is only because moderate repubs let him stay in office. they own it. Even libs like Lawrence odonnell say this amnesty is illegal as shit.
-
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/obama-doesnt-bother-solicit-english-speaking-networks-coverage
-
The networks dissed reagan too, on some speeches he wanted to give the nation after midterms.
-
The networks dissed reagan too, on some speeches he wanted to give the nation after midterms.
::) Still kneepadding are we?
Obama is not Regan. Regan screwed up signing ther Simpson Mazzoli bill and its regarded as a failure. But this is not the same - this is tyranny and communism and lawleness
The funny part is how black leftists - the dumbest voting block in the country - support o-fag in this when its literally a knife in the back
-
This is a huge fuck u to blacks
-
::) Still kneepadding are we?
Dude, I can discipline my kid without being a child abuser. I can say my Bucs blow on defense this year without being a buccs hater. And I can say things that don't kneepad repubs, without being a dem kneepadder.
Geez, do you say this in real life? Anytime a person says the weather is nice, suddenly he's an Al Gore kneepadder? lol
-
Four pages and only one lib posting in it. Straw, lurker, jag, blacken, etc avoiding this thread like the plague. We warned you assholes back in 08' about the bastard.
-
Four pages and only one lib posting in it. Straw, lurker, jag, blacken, etc avoiding this thread like the plague. We warned you assholes back in 08' about the bastard.
Libfags love Obama dominating over them.
-
Obama’s Amnesty Will Add As Many Foreign Workers As New Jobs Since 2009
Daily Caller ^ | November 20, 2014 | By Neil Munro
Posted on 11/20/2014 11:50:05 AM by Jim Robinson
resident Barack Obama’s unilateral amnesty will quickly add as many foreign workers to the nation’s legal labor force as the total number of new jobs created by his economy since 2009.
The plans, expected to be announced late Nov. 20, will distribute five million work permits to illegal immigrants, and also create a new inflow of foreign college graduates for prestigious salaried jobs, according to press reports.
Obama has already provided or promised almost one million extra work permits to foreigners, while his economy has only added six million jobs since 2009.
Under the president’s new amnesty plan, “up to four million undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States for at least five years can apply. … An additional one million people will get protection from deportation...
-
22 Times President Obama Said He Couldn’t Ignore or Create His Own Immigration Law
November 19, 2014
Matt Wolking
With the White House poised to grant executive amnesty any day now despite the American people’s staunch opposition, on Sunday President Obama was asked about the many, many statements he made in the past about his inability to unilaterally change or ignore immigration law. His response was astonishingly brazen: “Actually, my position hasn’t changed. When I was talking to the advocates, their interest was in me, through executive action, duplicating the legislation that was stalled in Congress.”
This is a flagrant untruth: “In fact, most of the questions that were posed to the president over the past several years were about the very thing that he is expected to announce within a matter of days,” reported The New York Times. “[T]he questions actually specifically addressed the sorts of actions that he is contemplating now,” The Washington Post’s Fact Checker agreed, awarding President Obama the rare “Upside-Down Pinocchio,” which signifies “a major-league flip-flop.” Even FactCheck.org piled on.
President Obama is once again trying to mislead Americans, but he can’t run from what he’s said over and over (and over) again. Not only are Americans not stupid – they can read:
“I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with [the president] trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.” (3/31/08)
“We’ve got a government designed by the Founders so that there’d be checks and balances. You don’t want a president who’s too powerful or a Congress that’s too powerful or a court that’s too powerful. Everybody’s got their own role. Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it or he can sign it. … I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.” (5/19/08)
“Comprehensive reform, that's how we're going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how this town works.” (5/5/10)
“[T]here are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally.
Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship. And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)
“I do have an obligation to make sure that I am following some of the rules. I can't simply ignore laws that are out there. I've got to work to make sure that they are changed.” (10/14/10)
“I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” (10/25/10)
“America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don't have a choice about that. That's part of my job. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.” (3/28/11)
“I can't solve this problem by myself. … [W]e're going to have to have bipartisan support in order to make it happen. … I can't do it by myself. We're going to have to change the laws in Congress, but I'm confident we can make it happen.” (4/20/11)
“I know some here wish that I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how democracy works. See, democracy is hard. But it’s right. Changing our laws means doing the hard work of changing minds and changing votes, one by one.” (4/29/11)
“Sometimes when I talk to immigration advocates, they wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how a democracy works. What we really need to do is to keep up the fight to pass genuine, comprehensive reform. That is the ultimate solution to this problem. That's what I’m committed to doing.” (5/10/11)
“I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books …. Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that's not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written.” (7/25/11)
“So what we’ve tried to do is within the constraints of the laws on the books, we’ve tried to be as fair, humane, just as we can, recognizing, though, that the laws themselves need to be changed. … The most important thing for your viewers and listeners and readers to understand is that in order to change our laws, we’ve got to get it through the House of Representatives, which is currently controlled by Republicans, and we’ve got to get 60 votes in the Senate. … Administratively, we can't ignore the law. … I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true. … We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it. And if all the attention is focused away from the legislative process, then that is going to lead to a constant dead-end. We have to recognize how the system works, and then apply pressure to those places where votes can be gotten and, ultimately, we can get this thing solved.” (9/28/11)
In June 2012, President Obama unilaterally granted deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA), allowing “eligible individuals who do not present a risk to national security or public safety … to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization.” He then argued that he had already done everything he could legally do on his own:
“Now, what I’ve always said is, as the head of the executive branch, there’s a limit to what I can do. Part of the reason that deportations went up was Congress put a whole lot of money into it, and when you have a lot of resources and a lot more agents involved, then there are going to be higher numbers. What we’ve said is, let’s make sure that you’re not misdirecting those resources. But we’re still going to, ultimately, have to change the laws in order to avoid some of the heartbreaking stories that you see coming up occasionally. And that’s why this continues to be a top priority of mine. … And we will continue to make sure that how we enforce is done as fairly and justly as possible. But until we have a law in place that provides a pathway for legalization and/or citizenship for the folks in question, we’re going to continue to be bound by the law. … And so part of the challenge as President is constantly saying, ‘what authorities do I have?’” (9/20/12)
“We are a nation of immigrants. … But we're also a nation of laws. So what I've said is, we need to fix a broken immigration system. And I've done everything that I can on my own[.]” (10/16/12)
“I'm not a king. I am the head of the executive branch of government. I'm required to follow the law. And that's what we've done. But what I've also said is, let's make sure that we're applying the law in a way that takes into account people's humanity. That's the reason that we moved forward on deferred action. Within the confines of the law we said, we have some discretion in terms of how we apply this law.” (1/30/13)
“I’m not a king. You know, my job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law. And, you know, when it comes to enforcement of our immigration laws, we’ve got some discretion. We can prioritize what we do. But we can’t simply ignore the law. When it comes to the dreamers, we were able to identify that group and say, ‘These folks are generally not a risk. They’re not involved in crime. … And so let’s prioritize our enforcement resources.’ But to sort through all the possible cases of everybody who might have a sympathetic story to tell is very difficult to do. This is why we need comprehensive immigration reform. To make sure that once and for all, in a way that is, you know, ratified by Congress, we can say that there is a pathway to citizenship for people who are staying out of trouble, who are trying to do the right thing, who’ve put down roots here. … My job is to carry out the law. And so Congress gives us a whole bunch of resources. They give us an order that we’ve got to go out there and enforce the laws that are on the books. … If this was an issue that I could do unilaterally I would have done it a long time ago. … The way our system works is Congress has to pass legislation. I then get an opportunity to sign it and implement it.” (1/30/13)
“This is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency. The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed. And Congress right now has not changed what I consider to be a broken immigration system. And what that means is that we have certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place even if we think that in many cases the results may be tragic.” (2/14/13)
“I think that it is very important for us to recognize that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative. I can do some things and have done some things that make a difference in the lives of people by determining how our enforcement should focus. … And we’ve been able to provide help through deferred action for young people …. But this is a problem that needs to be fixed legislatively.” (7/16/13)
“My job in the executive branch is supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed. Congress has said ‘here is the law’ when it comes to those who are undocumented, and they've allocated a whole bunch of money for enforcement. And, what I have been able to do is to make a legal argument that I think is absolutely right, which is that given the resources that we have, we can't do everything that Congress has asked us to do. What we can do is then carve out the DREAM Act folks, saying young people who have basically grown up here are Americans that we should welcome. … But if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that's not an option. … What I've said is there is a there's a path to get this done, and that's through Congress.” (9/17/13)
“f, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws. That’s part of our tradition. And so the easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like I can do something by violating our laws. And what I’m proposing is the harder path, which is to use our democratic processes to achieve the same goal that you want to achieve. … It is not simply a matter of us just saying we’re going to violate the law. That’s not our tradition. The great thing about this country is we have this wonderful process of democracy, and sometimes it is messy, and sometimes it is hard, but ultimately, justice and truth win out.” (11/25/13)
“I am the Champion-in-Chief of comprehensive immigration reform. But what I’ve said in the past remains true, which is until Congress passes a new law, then I am constrained in terms of what I am able to do. What I’ve done is to use my prosecutorial discretion, because you can’t enforce the laws across the board for 11 or 12 million people, there aren’t the resources there. What we’ve said is focus on folks who are engaged in criminal activity, focus on people who are engaged in gang activity. Do not focus on young people, who we’re calling DREAMers …. That already stretched my administrative capacity very far. But I was confident that that was the right thing to do. But at a certain point the reason that these deportations are taking place is, Congress said, ‘you have to enforce these laws.’ They fund the hiring of officials at the department that’s charged with enforcing. And I cannot ignore those laws any more than I could ignore, you know, any of the other laws that are on the books. That’s why it’s so important for us to get comprehensive immigration reform done this year.” (3/6/14)
“I think that I never have a green light [to push the limits of executive power]. I’m bound by the Constitution; I’m bound by separation of powers. There are some things we can’t do. Congress has the power of the purse, for example. … Congress has to pass a budget and authorize spending. So I don’t have a green light. … My preference in all these instances is to work with Congress, because not only can Congress do more, but it’s going to be longer-lasting.” (8/6/14)
President Obama should listen to President Obama, drop his plan to “expand the authority of the executive branch into murky, uncharted territory,” and work with Congress rather than insisting on his stubborn, “my way or the highway” approach.
http://www.speaker.gov/general/22-times-president-obama-said-he-couldn-t-ignore-or-create-his-own-immigration-law#sthash.8HvrDgIZ.dpuf
-
>:(
(http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608029857508560102&w=294&h=185&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.7)
-
Four pages and only one lib posting in it. Straw, lurker, jag, blacken, etc avoiding this thread like the plague. We warned you assholes back in 08' about the bastard.
Yea, where is all the die hard liberals?
Maybe they'll come out next week and agree with amnesty
-
All of this is an example of cynical politics at its worst. All of this is for more votes. Obama doesn't care about Hispanics.
-
>:(
Obama’s Amnesty Will Add As Many Foreign Workers As New Jobs Since 2009
11/20/2014
President Barack Obama’s unilateral amnesty will quickly add as many foreign workers to the nation’s legal labor force as the total number of new jobs created by his economy since 2009.
The plans, expected to be announced late Nov. 20, will distribute five million work permits to illegal immigrants, and also create a new inflow of foreign college graduates for prestigious salaried jobs, according to press reports.
Obama has already provided or promised almost one million extra work permits to foreigners, while his economy has only added six million jobs since 2009.
Under the president’s new amnesty plan, “up to four million undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States for at least five years can apply. … An additional one million people will get protection from deportation through other parts of the president’s plan,” according to a Nov. 19 report in The New York Times.
The five million total was attributed to “people briefed on his plans,” the Times reports.
The five million work permits will add to Obama’s prior giveaways, which have provided work permits to almost one million foreigners.
Since 2009, the U.S. economy has added only six million jobs, according to the International Monetary Fund.
The total number of jobs rose from 139,894,000 in 2009, to 145,871,000 in 2014, according to the IMF. That’s an increase of 5,977,000 jobs in five years.
Obama’s administration claims it has helped create 10 million jobs. If so, he is giving out one work permit for every two jobs created since his inauguration.
Not all the five million illegal immigrants who get permits will work, and many are already working under fake names or for cash. However, their new work permits will allow them to compete for jobs now held or sought by blue-collar Americans, including the many African-Americans and Latinos who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012.
Polls show that the public is hostile to the amnesty plan and want Obama to work with Congress on immigration.
Currently, less than one percent of the nation’s population of 12 million illegal immigrants are repatriated each year. Obama’s policy will likely shrink the repatriations, while providing millions with work permits.
Obama’s total of six million extra work permits does not include the normal inflow of legal immigrants.
Each year, the nation accepts one million new immigrants, or roughly five million since 2009. That total includes roughly 3.5 million working-age immigrants, which is slightly less than the number of Americans — 4.3 million — who turn 18 each year.
Also, companies annually hire roughly 450,000 blue-collar guest workers and roughly 200,000 white-collar guest workers. Most of these guest workers stay for less than a year, but many stay for six years.
That current population of roughly 600,000 foreign graduates is expected to increase, if, as reported, Obama’s plan allows American universities to offer green cards to foreign tuition-paying students who will then compete for the well-paying jobs or the prestigious jobs sought by the offspring of the nation’s influential upper middle class.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/20/obamas-amnesty-will-add-as-many-foreign-workers-as-new-jobs-since-2009/
-
And guess who all this competition is going to effect? It won't be you or I.
-
This is a great idea. Legalize 5mil illegals then take screw with our gun rights. Looks like I'll be stocking up on the fire arms.
-
'We're Not Going To Deport You': Obama Announces Amnesty For Millions Of 'Anchor Baby' Parents….
Daily Mirror (UK) ^ | November 20, 2014 | DAVID MARTOSKO
Posted on November 20, 2014 9:14:04 PM EST by Steelfish
'We're Not Going To Deport You': Obama Announces Amnesty For Millions Of 'Anchor Baby' Parents And Illegal Immigrant Children – as long as they've been in US for five years Obama addressed the nation to outline a new executive order that will allow millions of illegal immigrants to remain in the country
President acknowledges that it's a temporary fix and demands help from Congress to make it permanent Anyone who takes advantage of the program will have to pass criminal and national security background checks, pay their taxes, pay a fee and prove their eligibility Two Republican aides complained about an 'amnesty' for people who came to the US illegally and then had children here – calling their children 'anchor babies' By DAVID MARTOSKO 20 November 2014
President Obama announced a plan Thursday night to mainstream millions of illegal immigrants with an executive order allowing them to stay instead of facing deportation, bringing howls from Republicans who complained about so-called 'anchor babies' helping their illegal parents remain in the U.S. The president calmly explained in a 15-minute speech – subtitled in Spanish – the parameters of what angry Republicans are calling a lawless 'amnesty.'
'We’re going to offer the following deal,' he said: 'If you’ve been in America for more than five years; if you have children who are American citizens or legal residents; if you register, pass a criminal background check, and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes – you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily, without fear of deportation.' 'You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law.'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Obama's immigration action divides Minn. delegation
mprnews.org ^ | November 20, 2014 | Brett Neely
Posted on November 20, 2014 9:34:38 PM EST by Tailgunner Joe
President Barack Obama will address the nation tonight to announce an executive action that could allow 5 million unauthorized immigrants to remain in the United States without fear of deportation.
In doing so, he will set in motion a bruising Congressional battle that has been two years in the making, one that will draw Minnesota's delegation into the fray.
Although the Senate passed a bipartisan immigration overhaul in the spring of 2013, one that Democratic U.S. Sen. Al Franken helped craft in the Judiciary Committee, immigration hardliners in the House blocked all efforts to pass a bill. Efforts by departing Republican U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota' 6th District and others led to many of the Senate bill's Republican supporters to reverse themselves.
In light of the president's action, Bachmann and her allies want to use a must-pass government spending bill to defund the immigration initiative — a fight that could result in a government shutdown.
"This is about altering, fundamentally, the social contract between our government and the American people," said Bachmann, who, like other Republicans, considers the president's action unlawful.
With memories of last year's shutdown in mind, Republican U.S. Rep. John Kline and other House GOP leaders are warning against such a move. It would create the kind of ill will that would make progress on other fronts difficult, he said.
"But I also think it's important that we clear the table of as many things as we can here in the lame duck and that would include providing funding for the government through the end of September," said Kline, who represents Minnesota's 2nd District.
Kline, who chairs the Education Committee, wants to work with the administration to rewrite the 2002 No Child Left Behind law next year.
But he has warned U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan that if the administration acts on its own on immigration all bets are off.
"I think it makes it tougher for us to work on other issues," Kline said.
Some Democrats, including U.S. Rep. Tim Walz of Minnesota's 1st District, say Republicans aren't being sincere about cooperation given their track record.
"The well was poisoned by not bringing it forward when we waited 18 months after the Senate passed a bipartisan bill," Walz said.
Many in his party are happy about President Obama's move, among them U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota's 5th District.
"It's going to unite families," Ellison said of he executive action. "It's responsive government and maybe it would prompt the Congress to actually put something on the floor that we can vote on."
Walz, however, would rather the president give Congress one more chance to act on immigration rather than provoke Republicans with executive actions.
"Give us just a bit of time here, see if there is going to be anything," Walz said. "And I know people who are ... saying they're not going to do anything. Well, we've waited 18 months, we could wait a couple weeks more, see if we get it and then move forward."
But neither Walz's nor Kline's factions of their respective parties appears likely to prevail. With the president poised to issue an executive action, Bachmann is using her final weeks in office to rally the conservative grassroots with some pretty strong claims about the president's intentions.
"He's looking at new voters for 2016," Bachmann said. "Even though the president says they won't be able to vote, we all know that many in all likelihood will actually be able to vote."
There's no evidence that's true. The action does not include a path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants.
Bachmann also thinks U.S. taxpayers will be burdened with the "social costs" of "unskilled, illiterate foreign nationals coming into the United States who can't speak the English language."
She later insisted that she was not using a pejorative term, but merely repeating what U.S. Hispanics who live near the U.S.-Mexico border told her.
One bipartisan point of agreement is that Obama's actions are big and dramatic.
Ellison said presidents often have been compelled to take action on behalf of the powerless by a divided Congress. The executive action, Ellison said, will make a big difference for the people affected.
"It was President Truman who issued an executive order to end discrimination in the U.S. military," he said. "The Emancipation Proclamation is an executive order. Presidents have taken bold steps in the past when Congress wouldn't act."
-
Absolutely outrageous.
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Amnesty For Illegals Is Importing Poverty Into The U.S.
investors.com ^ | November 20, 2014
Posted on November 20, 2014 9:39:18 PM EST by Tailgunner Joe
Rep. Michele Bachmann warned that the immigrants about to be amnestied have high illiteracy rates and may vote. The left howled, but the reality is she understated it. The hard data tell the story.
Commenting on President Obama's amnesty of 5 million illegals, the Minnesota Republican told reporters at the Capitol, "The social cost will be profound on the U.S. taxpayer — millions of unskilled, illiterate, foreign nationals coming to the United States who can't speak the English language."
She added that many will vote illegally, too.
An outraged, politically correct reporter from the Washington Post then asked Bachmann just what she meant by "illiterate," according to a report in Politico.
Bachmann cited the firsthand information she had gathered from U.S. citizens on the front lines of the immigration surge and those inside Latin American countries she's visited, in what was a heck of a lot more homework than the reporters would ever do.
She was on hard factual ground: According to the CIA World Factbook, illiteracy in Guatemala, a top supplier of illegals, stands at 24.1%. In El Salvador it's 15.5%, in Honduras it's 14.9% and in Mexico 6.5%.
As a corollary indicator, note that these countries' governments spend very little on their nationals' education as a percent of their GDP. In Guatemala it's 3%, El Salvador 3.4%, and Mexico 5.1%.
Don't imagine those are the only ills that plague these amnesty beneficiary nations.
Latin America is also tops globally in teen pregnancy, with some 30% of teenagers age 15 to 19 pregnant, the majority "underprivileged" and without husbands, "which fosters the reproduction of poverty," according to a study by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) released just last week.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
-
Nancy Pelosi: ´The Emancipation Proclamation Was an Executive Order´
Caroline May ^ | 11/20/14 | Caroline May
Posted on November 20, 2014 8:40:13 PM EST by Nachum
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi argues President Barack Obama has ample authority to take executive actions as many presidents before him have done, including President Abraham Lincoln. “Does the public know the Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order?” Pelosi asked reporters Thursday. “People have to understand how presidents have made change in our country, Congress catching up, and in the case of Ronald Reagan, improving what Congress has done.” Obama is poised to announce his long-anticipated executive actions on immigration Thursday night. Reports indicate he will move to grant legal status to about five million illegal immigrants.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
-
Amnesty For Illegals Is Importing Poverty Into The U.S.
He's also importing people that will vote Dem.
Repubs were willing to pass on impeachment because "we'll do better politically in midterms".
Um, Obola just invented almost 5 million Democrat voters. Short term win, but long-term, these illiterate illegals aren't going to come here and just stop reproducing babies that will vote dem. Given legal status, they can now get welfare. Suddenly 4 kids grows to 9 kids. All future dem voters, too.
Repubs just invented millions of dem voters.
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Obama huddles with civil rights leaders
thehill.com ^ | November 20, 2014 | Justin Sink
Posted on November 20, 2014 9:48:35 PM EST by Tailgunner Joe
President Obama met with more than a dozen prominent civil and immigration rights activists Thursday ahead of his speech debuting a series of new steps that will extend deportation relief and work permits to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants.
Attendees at the meeting included AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka, NAACP president Cornell Brooks and Al Sharpton. The MSNBC host has come under fire in recent days after The New York Times reported he and his companies were at one point subject to $4.5 million in state and federal tax liens.
Also in attendance was Janet Murguía, the head of the National Council of La Raza. Murguía made waves earlier this year when she blasted Obama as the “deported in chief” during a speech at her organization’s annual convention, ratcheting up pressure on the president to act.
She struck a different tone Thursday during an appearance on MSNBC following the address.
“I thought it was very compelling, very powerful and very reaffirming,” Murguía said. “For us, this moment is a milestone moment I think for so many. It’s a victory for so many American families who have lived in the shadows with the burden of what that means in this country.”
The meeting also comes as a Missouri grand jury appears poised to reach a decision as early as Friday on whether a white police officer will face criminal charges in the shooting death of an unarmed black Ferguson teenager. Lawmakers and activists have warned that violence could follow the announcement, and Sharpton told the Times that he and Obama had discussed the possibility of unrest earlier this month.
The White House, for its part, said the meeting was to discuss the immigration actions Obama unveiled Thursday night.
“The president thanked the leaders for their dedication to immigration reform and looks forward to working together in the future to fully implement his actions as well as passing commonsense immigration reform,” a White House official said. “The leaders praised the president’s bold and decisive executive actions that will uphold our values as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.”
-
King Obama has spoken. We are so screwed.
-
FACT CHECK: Obama's claims on illegal immigration
Associated Press By ALICIA A. CALDWELL and ERICA WERNER
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama made some notable omissions in his remarks about the unilateral actions he's taking on immigration.
A look at his statements Thursday and how they compare with the facts:
OBAMA: "It does not grant citizenship, or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive. Only Congress can do that. All we're saying is we're not going to deport you."
THE FACTS: He's saying, and doing, more than that. The changes also will make those covered eligible for work permits, allowing them to be employed in the country legally and compete with citizens and legal residents for better-paying jobs.
___
OBAMA: "Although this summer, there was a brief spike in unaccompanied children being apprehended at our border, the number of such children is now actually lower than it's been in nearly two years."
View galleryA group of Hispanic people watch a television broadcast …
A group of Hispanic people watch a television broadcast of President Barack Obama's speech on im …
THE FACTS: The numbers certainly surged this year, but it was more than a "brief spike." The number of unaccompanied children apprehended at the border has been on the rise since the 2011 budget year. That year about 16,000 children were found crossing the border alone. In 2012, the Border Patrol reported more than 24,000 children, followed by more than 38,800 in 2013. In the past budget year, more than 68,361 children were apprehended.
___
OBAMA: "Overall, the number of people trying to cross our border illegally is at its lowest level since the 1970s. Those are the facts."
THE FACTS: Indeed, in the 2014 budget year ending Sept. 30 the Border Patrol made 486,651 arrests of border crossers, among the fewest since the early 1970s. But border arrests have been on the rise since 2011.
The decline in crossings is not purely, or perhaps even primarily, due to the Obama administration. The deep economic recession early in his presidency and the shaky aftermath made the U.S. a less attractive place to come for work. The increase in arrests since 2011 also can be traced in part to the economy — as the recovery improved, more people came in search of opportunity.
___
OBAMA: "When I took office, I committed to fixing this broken immigration system. And I began by doing what I could to secure our borders."
THE FACTS: He overlooked the fact that he promised as a candidate for president in 2008 to have an immigration bill during his first year in office and move forward on it quickly. He never kept that promise to the Latino community.
___
Associated Press writers Calvin Woodward and Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.
EDITOR'S NOTE _ An occasional look at political claims that take shortcuts with the facts or don't tell the full story
http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-obamas-claims-illegal-immigration-081111776.html
-
(http://s28.postimg.org/4ntjzij4t/nixob.gif)
-
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/after-obama-action-dhs-sets-new-immigration-rules-drunk-drivers-sex-abusers-drug-dealers-gun-offenders-not-top-deportation-priorities/article/2556517
:(
-
Many Amnestied Immigrants Could End Up Receiving Government Checks
Breitbart's Big Government ^ | November 21, 2014 | Caroline May
Posted on November 21, 2014 8:34:46 PM EST by 2ndDivisionVet
President Barack Obama and his surrogates argue that the president’s executive actions will hold illegal immigrants accountable and force them to pay their “fair share of taxes.” However there is a big question as to whether these illegal immigrants will be a net gain or loss to the Treasury.
Thursday night, President Obama announced a series of executive actions on immigration, including providing legal status to nearly five million illegal immigrants.
While part of Obama’s argument for legalizing millions of immigration law breakers is that they will now have to pay taxes, Fox Business’ Stuart Varney, Avik Roy at Forbes, and others point out that in fact many will actually be receiving money from the government because their income is so low.
“The president says you can stay and work if you pay taxes. Here’s the problem: Many of the people who are now allowed to stay do not earn enough to pay federal or state income taxes,” Varney said Friday on Fox News. “In fact they earn so little that they may be eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit. That’s a check from the taxpayer to them in January because they earn so little.”(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
-
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/25/Obama-Puzzled-By-Illegal-Hecklers-I-Just-Took-An-Action-To-Change-The-Law
“What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.
Article II of the U.S. Constitution: the president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . . ."
-
Jeb Bush Condemns Obama Immigration Order
Monday, 01 Dec 2014
Hinting that a decision on his presidential ambitions is coming "in short order," former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush on Monday condemned President Barack Obama's recent immigration order for going "way beyond" what other presidents have done — including Bush's own father.
Bush, the son of one president and brother of another, also reiterated his support for a pathway to legal status for immigrants in the U.S. illegally, but said Obama may have exceeded his constitutional authority by unilaterally lifting the threat of deportation from millions of such immigrants last month.
"The idea that, well, Reagan did it, my dad did it — they did it on a much smaller scale and they did it with consent of Congress. There are a lot of differences," Bush said Monday night at the Wall Street Journal's CEO Council, an invitation-only event in Washington featuring some of the nation's most powerful CEOs.
Obama's move "makes it harder" for Congress to adopt lasting immigration reform, Bush said, speaking publicly about the order for the first time. "It's a shame."
The former Florida governor is seen as the early favorite of business-minded Republicans eager to reclaim the White House in 2016. While he would be a force in the Republican presidential primary, Bush would face criticism from the party's conservative wing unhappy with his positions on immigration and education reform. Those who attended Monday's event, however, include many political donors and Republican business leaders who support a more forgiving immigration policy.
Bush was seen chatting with News Corp. head Rupert Murdoch, who has urged lawmakers to adopt a pathway to legal status for immigrants who are in the country illegally.
Two of the last three Republican presidents — Ronald Reagan and Bush's father, George H.W. Bush — also extended amnesty to family members of immigrants who were not covered by the last major overhaul of immigration law in 1986.
Obama's executive order has drawn a withering response from Republicans, but also has laid bare divisions within the GOP over how to deal with immigration. The issue is seen as critical for the GOP ahead of the in 2016 presidential contest as party officials works to attract more Hispanic voters.
Bush reiterated his interest in a presidential run on Monday.
"I'm thinking about running for president. And I'll make up my mind in short order — not that far out in the future," he said.
"I don't know if I'd be a good candidate or a bad one," Bush continued. "I kind of know how a Republican can win, whether it's me or somebody else, and it has to be much more uplifting, much more positive, much more willing to be practical..."
The comments come as Bush works this week to keep his public profile high.
Earlier in the day, he attended a Capitol Hill fundraiser for Republican Senate hopeful Bill Cassidy, less than a week before Cassidy faces incumbent Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu in a runoff election that could increase the GOP's new majority.
On Tuesday, immigration may come up again as Bush addresses the annual luncheon on U.S. Cuba Democracy PAC in Miami. The organization is a political action committee that advocates a tough stance on Cuba.
Bush, whose wife is Mexican, told the CEO Council that he supports a nation in which people ultimately find no need to identify their cultural origin.
"That is the America we should aspire to — not the one where we're dividing ourselves up to find where we are different," Bush said, "but the fact that you're from a different place or you've got a different origin is totally irrelevant."
http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-GOP-2016-Jeb-Bush/2014/12/01/id/610436/#ixzz3KlUy3E4F
-
I think this will be a mission fail. They're likely going to beat their chests, then pass a budget that funds Obama's amnesty.
John Boehner Plots A Way Around A Government Shutdown
Posted: 12/02/2014
WASHINGTON -- House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) stepped back on Tuesday from an immediate confrontation with President Barack Obama over immigration, taxes and funding the government, deferring a showdown until a new Republican Congress is sworn in next year.
Though no plans have been formally announced, early reports suggest that House Republicans will pass the yearly massive appropriations bill to fund the government through next year, since current funding runs through Dec. 11. But they want to break out funding for the Department of Homeland Security and pass that as a continuing resolution, keeping the funding for the agency at current levels until March. Their strategy to get through the lame-duck session also includes the possibility of a disapproval vote on the president's executive action on immigration.
The decision to separate DHS funding from the rest of the budget is purely political. Republicans will control the Senate come 2015, in addition to having an increased majority in the House. That additional leverage could be funneled into a confrontation with Obama over his move to shield up to 5 million undocumented immigrants from deportation.
"No decisions have been made at this point," Boehner said in a Capitol Hill news conference after his conference met Tuesday morning, when asked if this was his game plan. The speaker added that he and his members would look at a variety of options in the lame-duck session and emphasized that they still believe that the president's move on immigration represents an egregious overstepping of his authority.
"We don't believe that the president has the authority to do what he did," Boehner said. "This is a serious breach of our Constitution. It is a serious threat to our system of government. And frankly, we have limited options and limited abilities to deal with it directly."
Should House Republicans pursue the so-called CROmnibus, or continuing resolution and omnibus, it would be a victory for the speaker, who has had difficulty keeping his fractious, tea party-driven conference in line in past budget battles.
"I think they understand it is going to be difficult to make meaningful action as long as we have Democratic control of the Senate," Boehner said, suggesting that he had, indeed, put a lid on intra-party angst. GOP leadership has also reportedly headed off an attempt to vote on the House floor on whether to censure the president for his immigration executive action.
But minutes after Boehner's statement, several more conservative members made it clear that they weren't eager to play along.
Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) characterized the Cromnibus as a "punt," and Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) said he would likely oppose the idea unless the length of the continuing resolution for DHS funding was shortened.
"Why not vote on it the first day we are back when we do get all our troops in the Senate?" he asked.
Conservatives outside Congress weren't entirely pleased with reports that a fight over the president's immigration policy would be punted until March. Dan Holler, the communications director for the influential Heritage Action Fund, called the procedural move a "blank check" for amnesty.
"Putting an expiration date on DHS funding does not do anything to block the President’s executive actions – it allows them to proceed for several months unchecked," said Holler. "It is essentially a promise to fight at a later date, but that promised has not been defined or articulated clearly. Most significantly, GOP leaders have not promised to use the appropriations process to stop the actions come March. Hard to see how any of this lines up as taking a stand against the President and preparing to block his actions."
Heritage Action, Holler added, would be communicating their disapproval with the idea to House Republican offices.
Democrats, likewise, don't seem particularly eager to give Boehner cover for such a move. Leadership was expected to address Boehner's comments later in the day. But at roughly the same time the speaker made his remarks, Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson was urging Congress to act on the administration's appropriations request instead of extending funding for the agency until March.
"That is, in my judgment, a very bad idea for Homeland Security, because during that period of the CR we do not engage in new starts," he said Tuesday morning, speaking before the House Committee on Homeland Security. "We've got some Homeland Security priorities that need to be funded now."
Johnson said should Congress only pass a short-term continuing resolution, he would be unable to hire new Secret Service agents needed ahead of the 2016 presidential elections. A funding bill that stretched only to March would also harm the agency's ability to fund its new detention facility in Texas, he said.
"I need the help of Congress to support and build upon border security that I believe all of you support," he said.
UPDATE: 1:25 p.m. -- White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters later Tuesday that Obama would oppose any bills that would undo his executive actions on immigration, though he did not say whether the president would veto a bill with short-term funding for DHS. But he said the White House wants to see government funding for the full year and for the full government.
"The administration believes that it's the responsibility of Congress to pass a full year budget for the federal government, and that is what we would like to see them do," he said. "We'd like to see them pass that full year budget for the full government. As I think I said yesterday, we're not asking them to do anything heroic, we're asking them to do their job."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/02/john-boehner-immigration-shutdown_n_6254978.html
-
Good.
Texas leads coalition of states in lawsuit against Obama immigration actions
Published December 03, 2014
FoxNews.com
Texas Gov.-elect Greg Abbott announced Wednesday that Texas is leading a 17-state coalition suing the Obama administration over the president's executive actions on immigration.
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Texas on Wednesday, and names the heads of the top immigration enforcement agencies as defendants.
Abbott, in a news conference in Austin, said the "broken" immigration system should be fixed by Congress, not by "presidential fiat."
He said President Obama's recently announced executive actions -- a move designed to spare as many as 5 million people living illegally in the United States from deportation -- "directly violate the fundamental promise to the American people" by running afoul of the Constitution.
"The ability of the president to dispense with laws was specifically considered and unanimously rejected at the Constitutional Convention," he said.
Abbott specifically cited Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution which states the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."
He said the lawsuit asks the court to require Obama to go through Congress before enforcing laws, "rather than making them up himself."
The announcement opens a new front in the roiling debate across the country over the immigration actions.
The legal action comes as a separate legislative battle plays out on Capitol Hill. Some Republicans want to use a must-pass spending bill as leverage to defund the president's immigration initiatives. But House Speaker John Boehner is trying to push off that battle until next year, when his party will control both chambers.
Under Obama's order, announced Nov. 20, protection from deportation and the right to work will be extended to an estimated 4.1 million parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents who have lived in the U.S. for at least five years and to hundreds of thousands more young people.
In the lawsuit, Texas is joined by 16 other, mostly southern and Midwestern states, including Alabama, Georgia, Idaho and Indiana.
Abbott argued Wednesday that Obama's action "tramples" portions of the U.S. Constitution.
The lawsuit raises three objections: that Obama violated the "Take Care Clause" of the U.S. Constitution that limits the scope of presidential power; that the federal government violated rulemaking procedures; and that the order will "exacerbate the humanitarian crisis along the southern border, which will affect increased state investment in law enforcement, health care and education."
Wednesday's announcement marks the 31st time the Texas attorney general has brought action against the federal government since Obama took office in 2009. The only other high-profile lawsuit against the immigration action has come on behalf of Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
Potential 2016 presidential candidate and current Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who leaves office in January, also spoke out against the executive order earlier Wednesday, saying it could trigger a new flood of people pouring across the Texas-Mexico border. Perry and Abbott also have said the order will promote a culture of lawlessness.
Perry said at a news conference that Obama's 2012 executive order delaying the deportation of children brought into the U.S. illegally by their parents triggered an unprecedented wave of unaccompanied minors and families, mostly from Central America, crossing into the U.S. this summer.
"In effect, his action placed a neon sign on our border, assuring people that they could ignore the law of the United States," said Perry, who has deployed up to 1,000 National Guard troops to the border.
The federal lawsuit involves the following states: Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/03/texas-leads-lawsuit-by-17-states-against-obama-immigration-actions/
-
24 states now suing Obama over immigration
By Ashley Killough, CNN
Wed December 10, 2014
Washington (CNN) -- Twenty-four states have signed onto the legal challenge against President Barack Obama over his executive action on immigration, incoming Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced Wednesday.
Abbott, the Texas attorney general who will assume his new role in January, is leading the coalition.
"The president's proposed executive decree violates the U.S. Constitution and federal law, circumvents the will of the American people and is an affront to the families and individuals who follow our laws to legally immigrate to the United States," he said in a written statement.
Obama drew fire from Republicans when he announced last month that he would use the executive branch to temporarily delay deportation for up to 5 million people who came to the United States illegally.
The President and his staff have long argued that Obama has the legal right to take action, saying he only acted because Congress failed to pass immigration reform.
"When members of Congress question whether I have the authority to do this, I have one answer: Yes, and pass a bill," Obama said Tuesday at an event in Nashville.
The Texas-led coalition of states in the legal challenge consist of: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/10/politics/immigration-lawsuit/index.html?hpt=po_c2
-
Great. I hope the judge hearing the challenge filed by the states gets it right too.
Federal judge: Obama immigration actions 'unconstitutional'
Published December 16, 2014
FoxNews.com
A federal judge has declared parts of President Obama's immigration executive actions unconstitutional, in the first court opinion to tackle Obama's controversial policy changes.
In an opinion filed Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Arthur Schwab, in Pennsylvania, said Obama's immigration actions are invalid and effectively count as "legislation" from the Executive Branch.
"President Obama's unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore, is unconstitutional," the judge wrote.
The opinion, though, is unique in that it did not come in response to a challenge to Obama's immigration policy announcement. It is unclear what impact, if any, the opinion might have other than to rally critics and fuel momentum behind other lawsuits.
Rather, Schwab issued his opinion in response to a criminal case against Honduran illegal immigrant Elionardo Juarez-Escobar, who was previously deported in 2005 -- and was caught in the U.S. again earlier this year.
He already has pleaded guilty to "re-entry of a removed alien," but the court subsequently examined the impact of Obama's immigration actions on the case.
For that review, Schwab left open whether the actions might apply to Juarez-Escobar but determined the executive actions themselves were unconstitutional.
He wrote that the action goes beyond so-called "prosecutorial discretion" -- which is the "discretion" the administration cites in determining whether to pursue deportation against illegal immigrants.
Obama's policy changes would give a reprieve to up to 5 million illegal immigrants, including those whose children are citizens or legal permanent residents and who meet other criteria.
Schwab, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote that this "systematic and rigid process" applies to a "broad range" of enforcement decisions, as opposed to dealing with matters on a "case-by-case basis."
Further, he wrote that the action goes beyond deferring deportation by letting beneficiaries apply for work authorization and allowing some to become "quasi-United States citizens."
He also cited Obama's argument that he was proceeding with executive action after Congress failed to act on comprehensive immigration legislation, and countered: "Congressional inaction does not endow legislative power with the Executive."
The Justice Department downplayed the significance of the opinion.
"The decision is unfounded and the court had no basis to issue such an order," a DOJ spokesperson said in a statement. "No party in the case challenged the constitutionality of the immigration-related executive actions and the department's filing made it clear that the executive actions did not apply to the criminal matter before the court. Moreover, the court's analysis of the legality of the executive actions is flatly wrong. We will respond to the court's decision at the appropriate time."
Critics of the administration's policy, though, hailed the opinion.
"The President's unilateral executive action suspending the nation's immigration laws for roughly five million illegal aliens has received its first judicial test, and it has failed," John Eastman, law professor at Chapman University, said in a statement.
Other direct legal challenges to Obama's immigration actions, including one by two-dozen states, remain pending before the federal courts.
The latest opinion was first reported by the Volokh Conspiracy blog.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/16/federal-judge-obama-immigration-actions-unconstitutional/
-
Constitution Check: Is Obama’s new immigration policy already in legal trouble?
National Constitution Center By Lyle Denniston
December 18, 2014
The National Constitution Center’s constitutional literacy adviser, Lyle Denniston, explains how a federal judge’s ruling in Pittsburgh about President Obama’s immigration orders could be a sign of things to come.
THE STATEMENTS AT ISSUE:
“[President Obama’s] Executive Action crosses the line, constitutes legislation, and effectively changes the United States’ immigration policy. The President may only ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…’; he may not take any Executive Action that creates laws….President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore, is unconstitutional.”
– Excerpts from a ruling Tuesday by a federal judge in Pittsburgh, Arthur J. Schwab, declaring that the President had no constitutional authority to act on his own to order delays of deportation for more than 4 million undocumented immigrants. This was the first court ruling on the validity of the November announcement of the sweeping new immigration regulations.
“The judge is clearly reaching beyond the bounds of the case before him to engage in constitutional scrutiny of the executive actions,” said Peter J. Spiro, a law professor at Temple University in Philadelphia, noting that the new policies had not gone into effect yet. “It involves a lot of judicial gymnastics for the judge to get to that question.”
– Comment from the Temple law professor as quoted in The New York Times on Tuesday, in a story about Judge Schwab’s decision.
WE CHECKED THE CONSTITUTION, AND…
Deeply resentful of the arbitrary actions of English kings, the Founders who wrote the American Constitution were determined to split up power in the new national government they were creating. While the three branches are not totally sealed off from each other, they do have distinct powers and they are not supposed to exercise authority given to another branch. This is part of the checks-and-balances approach. But knowing when that separation principle has been violated has been an evolving issue ever since the Founding and remains unresolved today.
In recent months, America’s governing officials in Washington have been locked in a struggle over whether President Obama has been exceeding the powers of the Executive Branch; that struggle has grown especially intense over Obama’s initiatives on immigration policy.
While Congress and the White House have been the main combatants on this issue, the courts were being slowly drawn into the middle of it, with the filing of several lawsuits contending that President Obama had exceeded his authority by deciding to allow more than 4 million undocumented immigrants, who had entered the country illegally to remain in the U.S. for perhaps three years and to get jobs.
Given how slowly the wheels of justice often turn, it had appeared that it would take months for the judiciary to take a stand on the Obama initiative; the constitutional question might not be answered by them at least until late in the Obama presidency. That expectation ended suddenly on Tuesday, when a federal judge in Pittsburgh found a way – a highly unusual way – to move into the middle of the constitutional controversy.
District Judge Arthur J. Schwab ruled that the President had crossed the line into Congress’s legislative territory, and had actually – in the judge’s view – adopted the equivalent of new legislation on immigration policy. The judge had allowed himself to raise that constitutional issue because, he said, the new policy might have a bearing on the case before him of a Honduran national who was facing deportation for having illegally entered the country after being deported earlier.
As it turned out, however, the judge did not really strike down the new Obama policy – at least not in the usual way of judicial nullification of a federal law. The judge did not order the government to abandon plans to enforce the policy, and, in fact, proceeded to write the remainder of his ruling as if the policy were valid. In the binding part of the ruling, Judge Schwab gave the Honduran immigrant a chance to drop his guilty plea and, if he wished, to try to take advantage of the new deferral of deportation that soon would be available for at least some individuals who are in the country illegally. There is a chance, the judge said, that the policy might create an opening in the Honduran’s situation.
The ruling, as it stands at this point, does not appear to be a direct constitutional threat to the President’s initiative. That is because the judge’s statements about unconstitutionality may not have been critical to the bottom line of his ruling: the Honduran may get to stay in the U.S., at least for a time.
Many readers of the judge’s opinion, however, will have difficulty reconciling its two main parts: on the one hand, there are the stern comments about the President supposedly having used constitutional power he did not have, while, on the other hand, there is the judge’s formal declaration that maybe the policy is lawful, after all.
The ruling came as a considerable surprise to the Obama Administration, because its lawyers had told Judge Schwab that the new deferred deportation policy is not supposed to apply at all to criminal cases, like the one involving the Honduran immigrant. Now, administration lawyers have to decide what stance to take when that case unfolds further, in January
If the Administration is upset by the judge’s ruling, as it very likely is, it is not yet clear just what options are available. An appeal at this point might be premature, and a plea to the judge to reconsider might well be futile.
Beyond the Administration, however, the rest of America has learned that the federal judiciary may become an obstacle to the new Obama immigration policy, and that this prospect may be unfolding much earlier than expected. That could mean that the Supreme Court will be pulled into the constitutional debate fairly soon.
The Supreme Court so far has been on the sidelines of the current White House-Congress struggle over immigration policy. The Supreme Court refused, on Wednesday, to examine even a small part of that dispute, when it turned aside – without explanation – a request by the state of Arizona seeking permission to deny driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants who will benefit from at least some aspects of the Executive Branch’s new initiatives on immigrants and their legal opportunities in the U.S. But, even in that modest judicial action, there was a glimmer of a threat to the Obama policy: three Justices dissented, indicating that they would have granted Arizona’s request.
At this point, the debate in the near term will continue to go forward when a new Congress arrives in Washington, and when the government and Judge Schwab take their next steps in the test case in Pittsburgh.
http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-check-obama-immigration-policy-already-legal-trouble-110211304.html
-
Larry Klayman's immigration arguments get skeptical hearing
Judge takes issue with arguments in lawyer’s case seeking to block Obama’s policy.
By JOSH GERSTEIN
Updated 12/23/14
A federal judge considering a lawsuit challenging President Barack Obama’s recent executive actions on immigration gave no sign Monday that she’s prepared to block the effort through which the administration plans to offer quasi-legal status to as many as 5 million undocumented immigrants.
Judge Beryl Howell allowed conservative legal activist Larry Klayman to present more than an hour’s worth of arguments against the effort at a hearing in Washington on Monday, but her quizzical looks and pointed retorts left little doubt that the legal gadfly’s effort will come up short, at least in her courtroom.
Story Continued Below
At the conclusion of the roughly 75-minute hearing, Howell promised a ruling “very soon,” but it did not sound likely she would be granting an injunction. It also seemed possible she would grant a government motion to dismiss the case on the basis that the plaintiff wasn’t harmed enough to pursue a suit.
At one point, Howell even dismissed Klayman’s arguments as suffering from a “logical fallacy,” since the key immigration policy changes Obama announced last month haven’t kicked in yet.
The Obama administration announced last month an expansion of the 2012 program for so-called DREAMers who came to the U.S. illegally as children, as well as a new program to defer deportation of parents of U.S. citizens. Many conservatives have denounced the moves as an unconstitutional expansion of executive authority, but the Obama administration insists they are legal and in line with similar moves by past presidents.
Klayman, who filed the suit on behalf of Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, said the lawman is hurt by Obama’s lax immigration enforcement policies because undocumented immigrants return to jail again and again after the federal government declines to deport them.
Howell appeared convinced that Arpaio’s complaints about costs for housing illegal immigrants who have been arrested seem to stem from broader immigration enforcement concerns or from the program for DREAMers that Obama announced in 2012. The judge said she saw no indication that those harms flow from the changes the president announced in November.
Howell — an Obama appointee — also said Klayman wasn’t being precise enough about what problems Obama’s latest actions were causing to Arpaio, the Maricopa County, Arizona, sheriff.
“That just doesn’t cut it for me when you’re asking me to enjoin from the bench, with a strike of my pen, some national program,” the judge said.
Klayman called the new moves an “exacerbation” of existing problems and warned that Obama’s move could have dire consequences.
“We are a system of laws not men,” the conservative lawyer told Howell. “The precedent here is terrible. It’s trashing our Constitution.”
At one point, Klayman’s comments earned a rebuke from the judge. “Let’s not play to the gallery, here,” she warned.
The conservative gadfly predicted the case would be heading to the Supreme Court, which he said could make Howell famous.
“In this room, I think you are the most famous person, Mr. Klayman,” the judge replied.
Howell said she did not find “at all persuasive” a Pennsylvania federal judge’s ruling last week that the Obama immigration moves are unconstitutional. She noted the ruling was issued in a criminal deportation case and said repeatedly that the judge there “reached out” to address an issue not properly before him.
A potentially more dangerous case for the administration was filed earlier this month in Brownsville, Texas. In that suit, 24 states are challenging Obama’s immigration actions.
The judge assigned to that case, Andrew Hanen, is a George W. Bush appointee who has publicly questioned the administration’s immigration enforcement policies. He set a hearing Jan. 9 on the states’ request for a preliminary injunction.
Even though Howell appeared unpersuaded by Klayman, the Obama administration seems to be taking the challenge seriously, assigning Deputy Assistant Attorney General Kathleen Hartnett rather than a lower-ranking Justice Department lawyer. Last year, Klayman won the first and only injunction against the National Security Agency’s program gathering data on billions of Americans’ telephone calls.
The administration has turned to Hartnett, a former lawyer in Obama’s White House Counsel’s Office, for politically sensitive arguments, such as those in a fight between Attorney General Eric Holder and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee relating to Operation Fast and Furious.
Asked by Howell whether the recent Obama moves amount to an “amnesty,” Hartnett said, “This does not provide legal status or a pathway to citizenship.” She said the programs simply put certain cases “to the side” while officials focus on more urgent enforcement priorities.
Hartnett also said there are numerous precedents for the Obama administration’s latest immigration actions, including a so-called “family fairness” program instituted under President George H.W. Bush. “That applied to 1.5 million people,” Hartnett said, using a figure that was referenced in congressional testimony at the time but has been widely disputed.
Amid the rhetorical flourishes, Klayman did put some substantive and even important points on the record.
Despite the government’s arguments that the most publicized immigration changes don’t kick in until February or May, the conservative activist noted that directives from Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson tell law enforcement to begin now to identify immigrants in the system who may be eligible for relief under the programs and even to take the new programs into account when encountering immigrants who might have to face deportation proceedings.
Klayman also noted that the Justice Department sought and won an injunction against key parts of an Arizona anti-illegal-immigration law before it ever took effect.
In a brief, Klayman ridiculed as “phony and disingenuous” the government’s claims that it will consider as many as 5 million applications on a case-by-case basis.
Howell said that unusually pointed language “jumped off the page,” prompting Klayman to suggest a substitute.
Paraphrasing a line from the 1971 film “Bananas,” the conservative lawyer joked: “I could’ve used Woody Allen’s expression: a sham of a sham of a sham.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/barack-obama-immigration-lawsuit-hearing-113747.html#ixzz3Mjh4tbSz
-
California DMV revs up for undocumented migrants applying for licenses
By David Hernandez
Published December 26, 2014
Fox News Latino
(http://global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/fn-latino/politics/Calif%20licenses%20undocumented%20latino%202.jpg)
FILE - In this Wednesday, April 23, 2014 file photo, California Highway Patrol officers Armando Garcia, right, and Ray Patton explain to immigrants the process of getting a drivers license during an information session at the Mexican Consulate, in San Diego. California is gearing up to start issuing driverâs licenses to immigrants in the country illegally in a bid to make the roads safer that could also give more than a million people access to state-issued identification. (AP Photo/Lenny Ignelzi,File)
California’s Department of Motor Vehicles has opened four new offices and hired more than 900 additional staff in an effort to prepare for the law that will allow undocumented immigrants to apply for a driver’s license.
The applications, which require individuals to verify their identities and show proof of California residency, will be accepted beginning Jan. 2. The department expects to process approximately 1.4 million new driver’s license applications in the next three years.
DMV opened new offices in Granada Hills, Stanton, Lompoc and San Jose to process new driver’s license applications, including those of undocumented immigrants after the law goes into effect.
In January, the DMV will extend its Saturday hours at up to 60 offices for new license applicants with appointments.
Individuals have been able to make appointments for a new license since Nov. 12. Officials say they aren’t sure if there will be an initial surge of applications, but the number of people making license appointments more than doubled to 379,000 during the first two weeks immigrants were allowed to sign up.
Alliance San Diego, a social justice non-profit, has participated in more than 30 community forums to promote the law and help immigrants prepare to apply for a license. Special projects organizer Daniel Alfaro told Fox News Latino that most immigrants have said they would apply for a driver’s license.
“For families, I think it will make life much, much easier,” he said.
But not all immigrant advocates are as encouraging.
"For the vast majority of people, getting a license is a good decision," Alison Kamhi, a staff attorney at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center told the Associated Press. "At the same time, I think it is important people are aware there is some risk."
Anyone who previously obtained a driver's license under a false name or someone else's Social Security number, for instance, or those with a prior deportation order or criminal record might want to speak first with a lawyer, Kamhi said, pointing out that federal immigration and law enforcement officials can access Department of Motor Vehicles data during an investigation.
The list of documents that will be accepted to verify an applicant’s identity includes foreign passports, consular ID cards, and a combination of documents such as birth certificate and income tax returns.
Applicants also will need to provide a thumbprint and pass a vision assessment, as well as a written and behind-the-wheel-driving test. The tests will be available in various languages including Spanish.
Individuals will also be required to pay a new license fee and show proof of insurance if they register a vehicle.
Experts don't foresee major problems with the rollout of the program because the state has had more than a year to prepare and an ample budget — $141 million spanning three years.
In Nevada, about 90 percent of immigrants failed the required written test during the first few weeks a driver authorization card was offered because they were not prepared. In Colorado, the state had no startup funding to issue licenses and couldn't keep pace with demand, leading to monthslong waits.
Jonathan Blazer, advocacy and policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, told the AP that he expects California to license as many immigrants in the country illegally as the nine other states, Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico combined.
"If California is not able to do this right with the resources it put into this, other states will take notice," Blazer said.
The new IDs will be similar to ordinary California licenses but will include the phrase “federal limits apply” on the front, and a caution on the back that the card can’t be used for “official federal purposes.”
Pro-immigration groups have argued that the differences could make immigrants more vulnerable to discrimination.
Isidro Ortiz, a professor at San Diego State University whose area of research focuses on immigration policy and reform, said some activists have referred to the licenses as scarlet letters, marking the bearers as being in the country illegally.
“I think that’s a serious concern, especially here in the border region,” Ortiz said.
He said the apprehension is tied to the number of deportations that have been carried out under President Obama as well as and the stricter border security that’s also called for under the immigration plan.
Alfaro said that Alliance San Diego is developing a hotline to allow immigrants to report discrimination they may face from law enforcement or other entities as a result of the new licenses.
Abel Rivera, a 37-year-old forklift driver, took a class to brush up on differences between driving in California and his native Mexico, where he was a truck driver for more than a decade. One thing he hadn't considered was how to drive on icy roads, said Rivera, who has an appointment for a license in mid-January.
"The sooner the better, because it will be safer to drive," he told the AP, adding that he hopes to qualify for better insurance coverage and avoid problems like those faced by his brother when he was pulled over and had his car impounded.
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2014/12/26/california-dmv-revs-up-for-undocumented-migrants-applying-for-licenses/
-
so what happens when the "undocumented immigrant" hits my car with his "valid" DL? He/she still doesnt have any freakin car insurance?
Im confused ???
-
Yeah, was watching media coverage of this. You'd never know there was even the slightest opposition to it. It's as though everyone is thrilled with the direction we're being pushed toward, to watch this shit. The clips they pick to "represent" public opinion, etc., is just sickening.
I thought FOX was supposed to be "Fair and Balanced"? Why don't they spell it out, to show how the whole "immigration reform" is a bullshit move?
-
so what happens when the "undocumented immigrant" hits my car with his "valid" DL? He/she still doesnt have any freakin car insurance?
Im confused ???
No, there are insurance companies that will write policies.
-
...but if the person decides to shag ass, instead, then good luck. (and no, the "solution" isn't further globalization, as media would have you believe)
-
The globalist assholes, living within their gated estates...FORCING THE AMERICAN TO BE A BITCH. Laughing all the way to the bank. That's the current state of the world, friends.
-
The globalist assholes, living within their gated estates...FORCING THE AMERICAN TO BE A BITCH. Laughing all the way to the bank. That's the current state of the world, friends.
but that the EXACT part I dont understand... TPTB have to live in this world too... why the fark would they want to make it worse for themselves by doing all the shit they do?
-
I thought FOX was supposed to be "Fair and Balanced"? Why don't they spell it out, to show how the whole "immigration reform" is a bullshit move?
Hannity came out 2 weeks after the 2012 landslide loss and said we need to embrace immigration reform/amnesty.
Boehnner, ryan, cantor and the other repub bigwhigs all got on board. Even rand. and yes, rubio. And of course, jeb. And yes, mitt too.
Now, Ted Cruz and maybe santorum are the only repubs that are actually against amnesty. FOX news has embraced it from the top down. Nobody can really argue it, this is fact now. Mitt went on record last week to say we should make these obama amnesty changes PERMANENT instead of a one-time thing. Amazing. outlibbing the lib! yet some "repubs" still want mitt to run again in 2016. They're dems with republican t-shirts on, that's what they are.
-
but that the EXACT part I dont understand... TPTB have to live in this world too... why the fark would they want to make it worse for themselves by doing all the shit they do?
By seeing others suffer, you mean?
-
Hannity came out 2 weeks after the 2012 landslide loss and said we need to embrace immigration reform/amnesty.
Boehnner, ryan, cantor and the other repub bigwhigs all got on board. Even rand. and yes, rubio. And of course, jeb. And yes, mitt too.
Now, Ted Cruz and maybe santorum are the only repubs that are actually against amnesty. FOX news has embraced it from the top down. Nobody can really argue it, this is fact now. Mitt went on record last week to say we should make these obama amnesty changes PERMANENT instead of a one-time thing. Amazing. outlibbing the lib! yet some "repubs" still want mitt to run again in 2016. They're dems with republican t-shirts on, that's what they are.
Yes, it didn't take much persuasion for FOX to concoct a reason to give up on common people, did it?
Sad thing is, all the morons that snapped right to. This board has many that did exactly that. They know who they are, but they'll run like hell when confronted with it.
-
Yes, it didn't take much persuasion for FOX to concoct a reason to give up on common people, did it?
Sad thing is, all the morons that snapped right to. This board has many that did exactly that. They know who they are, but they'll run like hell when confronted with it.
YES! I posted a thread containing amnesty points and guess what - most of the "repubs" that scream LIB the loudest were saying "I like this, it's reasonable"
It allowed people who have broken the US law continuously for 5 years to STAY. Like a freakin award! Like, let's let the BEST lawbreakers stay, you who got caught aren't shady enough to be here. unreal.
This whole RINO thing is WORSE than liberals - because they run canddiates like mccain or romney that hand elections to Libs when the conservative base won't settle.
-
Rupert Murdoch and everyone associated with him have been on board the entire time. He's delivered the quotes to show it. Why can't the dipshits see that?
I'd like to know why the common people turned away from what's right, for such POS ideas.
WHAT THE HELL ARE THEY THINKING?
-
Yeah, 240. And I'll tell you: NO WAY numbers will be controlled. Much, much too easy to allow an open funnel, for it not to take place. So much so, it is ridiculous.
I mean, we separated ourselves from the rest of the world for very good reason, so we need to understand the consequences of giving that up. It seems too few people get that. Globalist acts are committed for reasons of financial gain by way of devaluing people, obviously, so when you realize what an endless chase that becomes, it proposes a very grim reality. A VERY grim reality.
-
Leaked Documents Show Most Illegals Now Immune to Arrest
Monday, 12 Jan 2015
By James Morrison
New Obama administration rules make the vast majority of illegal immigrants immune to arrest and relegate border patrol agents to the role of social workers, according to Breitbart Texas.
A border agent leaked the documents to the conservative web site, explaining that the Department of Homeland Security has decided that the majority of immigrants crossing U.S. borders illegally cannot be detained or deported without approval from top officials in Washington.
The documents do not specifically order agents to let illegal immigrants pass freely into the United States, the source said. But the rules “clearly” say “don’t waste your time because the alien will not be put into detention, sent back or deported,” he said.
“There is literally no reason to arrest an illegal alien because they are specifically telling Border Patrol there will be no consequence for the illegal alien. It is a waste of time and resources to arrest someone who is off limits for detainment or deportation and the documents make that fact clear,” the source added.
“Border Patrol agents are now being trained to be social workers, not law enforcement.”
News Update
The training documents create three categories of illegal immigrants. “Priority one” includes those who “pose a threat to national security, border security or public safety.” “Priority two” would comprise those guilty of misdemeanors or “new immigration” violations. “Priority three” are simply described as “other immigration violators.”
The new rules follow a Nov. 20 directive from Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, who ordered agents to arrest only immigrants they see crossing the border or those who are wanted criminals or convicted felons.
“This is not how it was before,” the source told Breitbart. “Border Patrol used to arrest, process, and turn the illegal alien over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the courts. Under this new program, the majority of illegal aliens will be released directly from the Border Patrol with no appointments or expectation that they ever have to show up for a hearing.”
http://www.Newsmax.com/US/Border-Patrol-Homeland-Security/2015/01/12/id/618095/#ixzz3OiVPpWHY
-
Leaked Documents Show Most Illegals Now Immune to Arrest
Monday, 12 Jan 2015
By James Morrison
New Obama administration rules make the vast majority of illegal immigrants immune to arrest and relegate border patrol agents to the role of social workers, according to Breitbart Texas.
A border agent leaked the documents to the conservative web site, explaining that the Department of Homeland Security has decided that the majority of immigrants crossing U.S. borders illegally cannot be detained or deported without approval from top officials in Washington.
The documents do not specifically order agents to let illegal immigrants pass freely into the United States, the source said. But the rules “clearly” say “don’t waste your time because the alien will not be put into detention, sent back or deported,” he said.
“There is literally no reason to arrest an illegal alien because they are specifically telling Border Patrol there will be no consequence for the illegal alien. It is a waste of time and resources to arrest someone who is off limits for detainment or deportation and the documents make that fact clear,” the source added.
“Border Patrol agents are now being trained to be social workers, not law enforcement.”
News Update
The training documents create three categories of illegal immigrants. “Priority one” includes those who “pose a threat to national security, border security or public safety.” “Priority two” would comprise those guilty of misdemeanors or “new immigration” violations. “Priority three” are simply described as “other immigration violators.”
The new rules follow a Nov. 20 directive from Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, who ordered agents to arrest only immigrants they see crossing the border or those who are wanted criminals or convicted felons.
“This is not how it was before,” the source told Breitbart. “Border Patrol used to arrest, process, and turn the illegal alien over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the courts. Under this new program, the majority of illegal aliens will be released directly from the Border Patrol with no appointments or expectation that they ever have to show up for a hearing.”
http://www.Newsmax.com/US/Border-Patrol-Homeland-Security/2015/01/12/id/618095/#ixzz3OiVPpWHY
unbelievable...
-
Leaked Documents Show Most Illegals Now Immune to Arrest
that should make romney and obama happy.
-
Good. Likely going nowhere in the Senate, but at least the House has shown some cojones.
House GOP Votes To Block Protections For Undocumented Immigrants
Posted: 01/14/2015
WASHINGTON -- House Republicans voted Wednesday to fund the Department of Homeland Security, but with the requirement that millions of undocumented young people, parents and others be put back at risk of deportation.
The DHS funding bill was the opening shot in what is likely to be a contentious weekslong fight over how to deal with appropriations for the agency before its funding runs out at the end of February. For now, Republicans and Democrats have drawn lines in the sand: Most GOP House members said they would not vote to fund DHS without measures to end many of President Barack Obama's immigration policies, while Democrats and the president have vowed to oppose anything that includes those amendments.
But the vote also showed a schism in the House Republicans -- this time from moderates rather than the usual revolts by immigration hardliners. Those moderates nearly derailed an amendment to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy, or DACA, which helps undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children. Twenty-six House Republicans joined with Democrats to oppose that amendment, which narrowly passed in a 218-209 vote.
The vote on the full bill was 236-191. Ten Republicans opposed final passage, and two Democrats split with their party to support it.
"We do not take this action lightly, but simply, there is no alternative," House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a floor speech just before the vote. "It's not a dispute between the parties or even the branches of our government. This executive overreach is an affront to the rule of law and to the Constitution itself."
But what comes next is unclear. In the Senate, members such as Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) have said a DHS bill must include measures to block Obama's executive actions on immigration. But other GOP senators have expressed wariness over adding contentious measures to a must-pass bill and threatening a DHS shutdown.
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) told reporters Tuesday that the chamber would take up the House bill, but that he wasn't sure of the timing. The bill would need Democratic votes to get through the Senate, which means it could fail there. "If we can't pass the House bill, we'd have to come up with an idea of what could pass the Senate," Cornyn said.
Republican senators and House members are heading to a retreat in Hershey, Pennsylvania, for the remainder of the week and are expected to discuss a path forward on DHS funding. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) told reporters at a Wednesday morning Christian Science Monitor event that he expects it will be a "hot topic of discussion" at the retreat.
They must contend with firm opposition from Obama to bills like the one that passed the House on Wednesday. The White House issued a formal veto threat for the bill earlier this week, and officials have said Obama will veto anything that goes against his executive actions on immigration.
Obama announced a new policy in November to allow some parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents to remain in the country and receive work authorization. He also expanded DACA and created other modes of reprieve that could help up to 5 million undocumented immigrants stay in the U.S.
One approved amendment to the DHS funding bill would end DACA and block those who already have it from renewing that status, which they must do every two years. In addition to blocking those programs, the House Republican package would do away with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement priorities memos that instruct agents to focus on certain categories of undocumented immigrants, and restart a controversial program to make local law enforcement hold suspected deportable immigrants for ICE. Another amendment would require ICE to make those convicted of sexual offenses or domestic violence a top priority for deportation, which Democrats said was both redundant and potentially damaging because it could lead to the removal of domestic violence victims.
Goodlatte said Republicans don't oppose ICE prioritizing whom to target for deportation, but they do oppose policies that lead to some undocumented immigrants receiving benefits, such as work permits.
Democrats have said the Republican bill would effectively demand that ICE deport more undocumented young people, parents and others who have been living in the country for years. Though the executive action policies don't fully protect against deportation, they do grant a higher level of certainty, along with work authorization that lets undocumented immigrants work legally instead of under the table.
Democrats are pushing forward with efforts to get eligible undocumented immigrants signed up for the reprieve. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) will join fellow Democrats on a tour of cities to prepare people for the executive actions, which he predicted Tuesday will stand despite Republican opposition.
"There is no divide on the Democratic caucus on this issue," he said at a press conference. "We're going to stand with the president. Let me just say this: If any of these poison pills are attached, I expect the president of the United States to carry out his veto threat and I expect the Democrats to sustain that veto threat."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/14/house-republicans-dhs-immigration_n_6470288.html
-
Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois) is probably the biggest, most open traitor in congress today.
the main focus of his career as a United States congressman is to work tirelessly on behalf of foreign nationals while undermining actual american citizens. i mean that is literally what he does. is this not treason??
-
the house gave obama 1.1 trillion for 9 months.
They'll NEVER be accused of having balls, no worries there.
-
Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois) is probably the biggest, most open traitor in congress today.
the main focus of his career as a United States congressman is to work tirelessly on behalf of foreign nationals while undermining actual american citizens. i mean that is literally what he does. is this not treason??
There really is a disconnect with some of these people. No legislator should be advocating for amnesty.
-
There really is a disconnect with some of these people. No legislator should be advocating for amnesty.
MITT ROMNEY: REPUBLICANS SHOULD ‘SWALLOW HARD,’ PASS ‘PERMANENT’ AMNESTY BILL
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/11/26/mitt-romney-republicans-should-swallow-hard-pass-permanent-amnesty-bill/
-
MITT ROMNEY: REPUBLICANS SHOULD ‘SWALLOW HARD,’ PASS ‘PERMANENT’ AMNESTY BILL
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/11/26/mitt-romney-republicans-should-swallow-hard-pass-permanent-amnesty-bill/
I voted Romney. I've been very clear about that.
-
see, you attack me instead of saying "wow, I sure wish romney wasn't kneepadding amnesty".
I'm not running for president in 2016, beach bum. Sorry, but it's just not something I want to do. Romney, on the other hand, it's crossed his mind actually. So while my kneepadding on any issue is irrelevant, romney's opinion on the matter (left of obama, currently) could result in 5 or 10 million new liberal residents of USA.
Maybe you're cool with that. But I'm not.
-
Five Shocking “Free” Things Illegals Get Under Obama That You Don’t…
Posted on January 14, 2015 in Columns
1. Free food! The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), otherwise known as “food stamps” is widely utilized by the illegal immigrant community.
(http://rack.1.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDEzLzA5LzEyLzk4L3RoZWF2aWF0b3IuODhmYWYuZ2lmCnAJdGh1bWIJODUweDg1MD4KZQlqcGc/0b9678ac/ed2/the-aviator.jpg)
2. Free education! American taxpayers are footing the bill for educating every illegal immigrant under 18 years old who chooses to attend a public school.
(http://louderwithcrowder.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/FreeSchoolWonka-Link.png)
3. Free housing! $50 million worth of free housing, that is, courtesy President Barack Obama.
(http://louderwithcrowder.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/DanceThrust.gif)
4. Free healthcare! Yes, thousands of illegal immigrants are currently enrolled in Obamacare, and are receiving taxpayer funded benefits.
(http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/obamaohyeah.gif)
5. Free legal services! States from New York to California and many in between provide free legal services to illegals. If President Obama has his way, free legal services will soon be available for all illegal immigrants.
(http://i.imgur.com/6sXWBnp.gif)
http://louderwithcrowder.com/five-incredible-free-things-illegals-get-obama-dont/#
-
disgusting
-
DHS Sets Up Complaint Hotline for Illegal Immigrants
Feb 09, 2015
As seen on Fox and Friends
The Department of Homeland Security has set up a hotline for illegal immigrants to call and complain if they feel their rights under President Obama's amnesty program are being violated.
The president's amnesty policy prevents the deportation of up to 4 million illegal immigrants and orders Border Patrol agents and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents not to arrest other people who are in the country illegally who don’t meet the criteria for full amnesty.
A memo from U.S. Customs and Border Protection says, "If you believe you (or a family member) were apprehended and processed by a Customs and Border Protection officer or Border Patrol agent contrary to the new DHS enforcement priorities, please tell us about your experience by contacting the CBP INFO Center."
The National Border Control Council said that this is a "slap in the face" to those who risk their lives to enforce the laws. They explained this new hotline invites illegal immigrants to ridicule agents when the government should be offering those agents support.
Watch the clip above.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/02/09/department-homeland-security-sets-complaint-hotline-illegal-immigrants
-
Good decision.
Obama immigration order temporarily halted by Texas judge
By Jethro Mullen and Jeremy Diamond, CNN
February 17, 2015
(CNN)A federal judge in Texas has temporarily blocked President Barack Obama's executive action on immigration, which has drawn opposition from 26 states across the nation.
United States District Judge Andrew Hanen ruled late Monday night to block executive actions Obama took late last year to shield as many as 5 million undocumented immigrants from deportation. In delaying the ruling, Hanen halted Obama's executive action, ruling that the administration had failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, which calls for the White House to afford a longer notification and comment period before taking action.
The White House said in a statement early Tuesday that Obama's actions "are well within his legal authority" and that the Justice Department has indicated "that it will appeal that decision."
"The district court's decision wrongly prevents these lawful, commonsense policies from taking effect," the White House said in a statement. "The Supreme Court and Congress have made clear that the federal government can set priorities in enforcing our immigration laws — which is exactly what the President did when he announced commonsense policies to help fix our broken immigration system."
Attorney General Eric Holder called the ruling just an "interim step" in a legal process that will take some time to play out.
"This is a decision by one federal district court judge," Holder said Tuesday at the National Press Club, adding that the Justice Department is reviewing the ruling to determine the next step.
Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson, whose department would be responsible for implementing the executive orders, said he "strongly" disagrees with the judge's decision.
Johnson said his department would comply with the injunction while the appeals process plays out and his department will not launch the DACA expansion on Wednesday, as previously scheduled.
"We fully expect to ultimately prevail in the courts, and we will be prepared to implement DAPA and expanded DACA once we do," Johnson said.
Obama's decision to act unilaterally in November drew the ire of Republicans who immediately slammed the President's actions as unconstitutional and conservatives have now been waging a battle in Congress to tie funding for the Department of Homeland Security to killing Obama's immigration orders.
The programs at issue are deferred action programs for undocumented parents of Americans and lawful residents and expansions to the program protecting illegal immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children -- known as DAPA and DACA, respectively. Neither program had gone into effect.
Hanen issued the injunction after concluding that at least Texas has standing in federal court to pursue its lawsuit as Texas "stands to suffer direct damages from the implementation of DAPA."
He also argues that Obama's executive action goes beyond the scope of prosecutorial discretion by "bestowing benefits," which is more than "non-enforcement."
"The Court seriously doubts that the Supreme Court, in holding non-enforcement decisions to be presumptively unreviewable, anticipated that such "non-enforcement" decisions would include the affirmative act of bestowing multiple, otherwise unobtainable benefits upon an individual," Hanen wrote.
Hanen's decision Monday came after Texas led 25 other states in a federal lawsuit to stop the executive action, and officials swiftly welcomed the judge's decision.
"This decision is a victory for the rule of law in America and a crucial first step in reining in President Obama's lawlessness," Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement.
And Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who has championed efforts in Congress to undo Obama's executive action, welcomed the news on Twitter, calling the decision a "HUGE victory for rule of law."
Texas's senior Sen. John Cornyn, also a Republican, said in a statement Tuesday that the ruling "reinforces" what he and other opponents have claimed, "that President Obama acted outside the law."
"Today's victory is an important one, but the fight to reverse the President's unconstitutional overreach is not over," Cornyn said. "The President must respect the rule of law and fully obey the court's ruling."
But the Obama administration and supporters of the immigration orders were quick to counter conservative glee. Obama and his staff have long argued that the President has the legal right to take action, saying he only acted because Congress failed to pass immigration reform.
Immigration activists were quick to characterize the court injunction as a just "a bump in the road."
"We've hit a speed bump on the road to the implementation of these programs, but folks should stay the course, get their documents ready, prepare to apply, because the programs will open their doors eventually," said Karen Tumlin, Managing Attorney of the National Immigration Law Center.
Cristina Jimenez, managing director of United We Dream, insisted that the federal ruling would not stand and said Hanen, a conservative appointed by President George W. Bush,"has become known as an advocate for the harsh treatment of immigrant families."
"Executive action protecting immigrant youth and parents is solid," Jimenez said in a statement. "Judge Hanen's ruling is not permanent and we are confident that it will be repealed in a higher court."
The Texas-led coalition of states in the legal challenge are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/17/politics/texas-obama-immigration-injunction/index.html
-
Ted Cruz: White House ‘Counterfeiting Immigration Documents’
February 18, 2015
(https://cbswashington.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/462088646.jpg?w=620&h=349&crop=1)
Sen. Ted Cruz speaks to guests at the Iowa Freedom Summit on Jan. 24, 2015 in Des Moines, Iowa. (credit: Scott Olson/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) — Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, believes that the Obama administration is “counterfeiting immigration documents” under the president’s immigration plan.
Speaking to Fox News following a federal judge’s decision to temporarily halt President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration, the potential Republican presidential contender said the commander in chief is ignoring federal law.
“One of the things it points out is the president has claimed, rather absurdly, that the basis of his authority is ‘prosecutorial discretion.’ That he’s simply choosing not to prosecute 4.5 million people here illegally,” Cruz told Fox News. “But what the district court concluded, quite rightly, is they’re doing far more than that. The administration is printing work authorizations. It is affirmatively acting in contravention of federal law. Basically, what its doing is counterfeiting immigration documents, because the work authorizations its printing are directly contrary to the text of federal law. It is dangerous when the president ignores federal law.”
U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen’s decision late Monday puts on hold Obama’s orders that could spare from deportation as many as 5 million people who are in the U.S. illegally.
In a memorandum accompanying his order, Hanen said the lawsuit should go forward and that the states would “suffer irreparable harm in this case” without a preliminary injunction.
“The genie would be impossible to put back into the bottle,” he wrote, adding that he agreed that legalizing the presence of millions of people is a “virtually irreversible” action.
Talking to reporters in the Oval Office, Obama said he disagreed with the ruling by Hanen that the administration had exceeded its authority. But he said that, for now, he must abide by it.
“We’re not going to disregard this federal court ruling,” Obama said, but he added that administration officials would continue to prepare to roll out the program. “I think the law is on our side and history is on our side,” he said.
Cruz called it a “major victory for the rule of law.”
“It’s interesting, (Obama) said the law is on his side. There’s at least one person who calls himself a legal scholar who disagrees, and his name is Barack Obama,” Cruz said. “Twenty-two times President Obama has admitted he doesn’t have the authority to issue unilateral amnesty. Twenty-two times he says the constitution doesn’t allow it. He said, ‘This is not a monarchy.’ That’s his quote. And then after the last election, he said never mind and issued it anyway.”
Obama’s directives would make more than 4 million immigrants in the United States illegally eligible for three-year deportation stays and work permits. Mostly those are people who have been in the country for more than five years and have children who are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. Applications for the first phase were to begin Wednesday, when as many as 300,000 immigrants brought illegally to the country as children could begin applying for an expansion of Obama’s 2012 program aimed at the younger immigrants known as Dreamers.
Hanen’s ruling late Monday night, in a case brought by 26 states led by Texas, said that Obama and his Homeland Security Department lacked the authority to take the actions they did.
“No statute gives the DHS the discretion it is trying to exercise here,” wrote Hanen, and he issued a stay blocking the actions from taking effect. His order was not a big surprise from a Republican-appointed judge who has showed a hard line on border issues.
The Obama administration could seek a stay of his order in addition to appealing to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday that the Justice Department was deciding its next move.
He said, “I’ve always expected that this is a matter that will ultimately be decided by a higher court — if not the Supreme Court then a federal court of appeals.”
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/02/18/ted-cruz-white-house-counterfeiting-immigration-documents/
-
:)
Texas judge's immigration rebuke may be hard to challenge
BY DAVID INGRAM AND MICA ROSENBERG
NEW YORK Wed Feb 18, 2015
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama's administration faces a difficult and possibly lengthy legal battle to overturn a Texas court ruling that blocked his landmark immigration overhaul, since the judge based his decision on an obscure and unsettled area of administrative law, lawyers said.
In his ruling on Monday that upended plans to shield millions of people from deportation, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen avoided diving into sweeping constitutional questions or tackling presidential powers head-on. Instead, he faulted Obama for not giving public notice of his plans.
The failure to do so, Hanen wrote, was a violation of the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act, which requires notice in a publication called the Federal Register as well as an opportunity for people to submit views in writing.
The ruling, however narrow, marked an initial victory for 26 states that brought the case alleging Obama had exceeded his powers with executive orders that would let up to 4.7 million illegal immigrants stay without threat of deportation.
"It's a very procedural point – that he did this too quickly," said Michael Kagan, a law professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
Hanen's ruling left in disarray U.S. policy toward the roughly 11 million people in the country illegally. Obama said on Tuesday he disagreed with the ruling and expected his administration to prevail in the courts.
The U.S. Justice Department was preparing an appeal of Hanen's temporary injunction to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, Obama said. The court could consider an emergency request to block Hanen's ruling, potentially within days, although most of the 23 judges on the court were appointed by Republican presidents.
There was no consensus among lawyers with expertise in administrative law and immigration law on whether Hanen would be reversed on appeal. But they said the judge was wise to focus on an area of administrative law where legal precedent is sometimes fuzzy.
In the near term, the narrow approach allowed Hanen to issue a temporary injunction barring federal agencies from putting Obama's plans into place. An appointee of President George W. Bush, Hanen had previously criticized U.S. immigration enforcement as too lax.
BRAKE ON PRESIDENTIAL ACTION
Hanen's ruling turned on the Administrative Procedure Act's requirement that a proposed rule or regulation appear in the Federal Register so people have a chance to comment. The Federal Register is a daily journal of U.S. government proceedings.
The "notice and comment" requirement acts as a brake on all presidents, slowing their plans by months or years.
The requirement, though, does not apply to "interpretative rules" or general statements of policy, an exception that Justice Department lawyers said applied to Obama's announcement in November. Rules that must be submitted for notice and comment are sometimes known as "legislative rules."
For Hanen, the pivotal question became whether the new rules, such as granting work permits to potentially millions of illegal immigrants, was binding on federal agents or merely general guidance. He ruled that they were binding, and that Obama should have allowed for notice and comment.
Lawyers with expertise in administrative law said there was little guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court on what qualifies as a rule that needs to be published, leaving disagreement among lower courts and a grey area for Hanen to work in.
"The case law as to what qualifies as a legislative rule is remarkably unclear," said Anne Joseph O'Connell, a University of California Berkeley law professor.
LENGTHY PROCESS LOOMS
O'Connell said it was hard to predict how the appeals court would rule in the end, although she thought it was likely the court would lift Hanen's temporary injunction and allow the Obama administration to begin putting its program in place.
The subject is not strictly partisan, she said, because sometimes a liberal interest group might favor a strict requirement for notice and comment.
An appeal before the 5th Circuit could take months, as lawyers file written briefs and the court holds oral argument and comes to a decision.
The appeals court could also consider other questions, such as whether the states that brought the lawsuit had what is known as standing to sue or whether Obama violated the clause of the U.S. Constitution that requires presidents to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."
There is no chance Obama would begin the notice-and-comment period now, because U.S. immigration policy would be frozen in place during the lengthy process, said Peter Margulies, an immigration expert at Roger Williams University School of Law in Rhode Island.
He said it could delay Obama's policy for "a minimum of six to eight months, and potentially much longer."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/18/us-usa-immigration-courts-analysis-idUSKBN0LM02Y20150218
-
US seeks stay of ruling on Obama immigration action
Published February 23, 2015
FoxNews.com
The U.S. government asked a federal judge Monday to lift a temporary hold on President Obama’s executive action to protect millions of immigrants from deportation, Fox News has confirmed.
Justice Department lawyers requested a “stay” to delay a federal judge’s decision to block Obama’s immigration order, which legally allows 5 million immigrants to stay in the country.
DOJ lawyers filed the motion for a stay with the court of US District Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville, Texas. Last week Hanen issued a preliminary injunction for 26 states suing the US government to stop Obama's executive action on immigration.
The states, led by Texas, have argued Obama's action is unconstitutional and would force increased state investment in law enforcement, health care and education.
The Justice Department is asking Hanen to put his ruling on hold while the federal government appeals the decision. If the stay were to be granted, Obama's immigration action would be allowed to go forward while the lawsuit proceeds through the courts.
Obama announced the executive action in November, saying lack of action by Congress forced him to make sweeping changes to immigration rules on his own. Republicans, who say Obama has overstepped his authority, are blocking funding for the Department of Homeland Security unless Democrats agree to cancel Obama's order.
It is not unheard of for judges to delay rulings they have issued. Last year, a federal judge ruled Texas' same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional but put his decision on hold to allow the state to appeal. But legal experts say it is unlikely Hanen will put his ruling on hold, because he wrote in his 123-page court order that states would "suffer irreparable harm in this case" if Obama's actions on immigration were to proceed while the lawsuit is argued.
"Based on (Hanen's) language, it stands to reason that if you stay this order then those harms would start to accrue and that's the whole point of him enjoining the order in the first place," said Pratheepan Gulasekaram, a constitutional and immigration law professor at Santa Clara University School of Law in California.
The first of Obama's orders -- to expand a program that protects young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. illegally as children -- had been set to start taking effect Feb. 18. The other major part of Obama's order, which extends deportation protections to parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have been in the country for some years, was not expected to begin until May 19.
If Hanen denies the motion for a stay, the Justice Department was expected to take its request to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Hanen is expected to issue a ruling on the stay by 5 p.m. Wednesday.
But Lourdes Martinez, an attorney with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center in San Francisco said the 5th Circuit is known to be fairly conservative, and is likely to also deny the request for a stay. The request for a stay could ultimately end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The stay request is separate from an appeal the federal government is expected to file with the 5th Circuit over Hanen's ruling. That appeal, once filed, would likely take anywhere from four to nine months to be ruled upon, Gulasekaram said.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/23/us-seeks-stay-ruling-on-obama-immigration-action/?cmpid=cmty_twitter_fn
-
Again: Senate Democrats Filibuster DHS Funding to Protect Obama's Amnesty
Townhall.com ^ | 2/24/2015 | Guy Benson
Posted on 2/24/2015 11:52:38 AM by Servant of the Cross
For weeks, Harry Reid and his Senate Democratic minority -- with the explicit blessing of the White House -- have been blocking all debate on a House-passed bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security. The House legislation provides full appropriations for DHS, with the small exception of stripping out funds targeted for the implementation President Obama's unpopular and illegal (according to both a federal judge and Obama himself) executive amnesty fiat. Democrats in the upper chamber had already filibustered three attempts to take up, discuss, or amend the House's bill. Last night witnessed round four. Kudos to CNN for its accurate headline -- "Senate Dems Block Homeland Security Funding Bill Again:"
The Republican-led Senate voted Monday -- for the fourth time in as many weeks -- to begin debate on a stalled funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security, which faces a Friday deadline. But like the three votes before it, Senate Democrats blocked taking up the bill that passed the GOP-controlled House because it contains what they consider poison pills -- provisions that would block President Barack Obama's executive orders on immigration. On a measure that needed 60 vote to succeed, it failed with 47 voting in support to 46 against. With only four days before DHS funding ends -- when large parts of the agency will be shuttered or employees will be forced to work without pay -- the two sides are at a stalemate and there are no known serious negotiations involving congressional leaders or the White House to bridge differences. "It's time to allow this Homeland Security funding legislation to come to the floor," a visibly frustrated Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said before the vote." Democrats say they want to amend DHS funding legislation. But then they keep voting to block their own amendments. It just doesn't' make any sense."
Democrats say they're objecting to discussing the bill because it contains "poison pills." Debates and amendments could alter or eliminate some of the items they object to, but they won't even allow that debate to begin. Having lost the most recent election in historic fashion, they've adopted an our-way-or-shutdown approach. It's very simple: Obama and Reid are forcing a (very partial) DHS shutdown in order to protect the president's unilateral action that provides millions of illegal immigrant adults legal status, legal work papers, and in many cases, increased access to generous tax benefits. They are willing to precipitate a DHS shutdown to uphold a power grab that's been struck down in federal court. And they have the gall to complain about the looming DHS shutdown as if it's Republicans' fault:
Here's a crazy idea -- and I'm just spitballing here: How about voting to proceed to a debate on a DHS funding bill, rather than repeatedly filibustering it? This shouldn't be much of a problem, given that numerous Senate Democrats have raised concerns about the Constitutional and policy implication's of Obama's power grab. Senate Republicans produced a document recapping statements from eight members of Harry Reid's caucus expressing their reservations about the very policy they're now unanimously filibustering to protect. With all due respect to hawkish Republicans who are skittish about DHS funding, this is a fight worth having. It's about the Constitutional principle of separation of powers, and it's about sending a message to Democrats about future spending battles. When Republicans were the ones blocking legislation, it was easier for Democrats and the media to paint them as the "party of no." The dynamic has changed, thanks to voters. A united Republican front and message discipline can win the day. This is a decent start:
@RepBillFlores
The “Obstructionist 8”: Blocking DHS funding debate despite being
against the president’s unlawful amnesty plan.
3:14 PM - 23 Feb 2015
I'll leave you with the latest spin from the administration, which is on a credibility-destroying roll this week:
videos at link ....
-
Very interested to see how this plays out. We will find out in a few days whether the Senate GOP has stones.
-
Obama moves on immigration measures despite judge halting amnesty
By Dave Boyer - The Washington Times
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
The Obama administration moved Tuesday to carry out portions of President Obama’s executive action on immigration even as a federal judge has halted the president’s temporary deportation amnesty.
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced it is extending eligibility to dependent spouses of H1-B visa holders to obtain work permits as part of Mr. Obama’s immigration action. Starting in 90 days about 179,600 immigrants will be eligible for the benefit in the first year.
“Allowing the spouses of these visa holders to legally work in the United States makes perfect sense,” said USCIS Director Leon Rodriguez. “It helps U.S. businesses keep their highly skilled workers by increasing the chances these workers will choose to stay in this country during the transition from temporary workers to permanent residents.”
But Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, said the president was unilaterally implementing “another policy, another program that has not been authorized by law that would add several hundred thousand new workers to our country.”
“There’s been no sense at all by President Obama, the Department of Homeland Security [Secretary] Jeh Johnson, the Democratic members of this Congress, no concern about the employment prospects of lawful immigrants, green card holders and native-born Americans,” Mr. Sessions said. “The first thing we should do is be focusing on getting jobs for Americans that are unemployed. Are we going to keep Americans on welfare and benefits while we bring in more and more foreigners to take jobs when we’ve got Americans ready and willing to take those jobs?”
The move comes as Congress considers an appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security that would defund Mr. Obama’s deportation amnesty.
On Tuesday, Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican, questioned Homeland’s Mr. Johnson on whether the administration plans to comply with the court’s injunction to stop the deportation amnesty. He noted that Mr. Obama has pledged publicly to “continue in the planning” of the activities that the court ordered him to stop.
“Violating an unambiguous federal court order by defying its instructions to cease and desist a particular activity would represent a significant breach of your authority, and would be an escalation in abuse of our separation of powers,” Mr. Cruz wrote. “For a president and his cabinet to telegraph intent to violate a federal court order requires additional scrutiny from Congress.”
A federal district judge in Texas last week blocked the amnesty program from going forward. The administration is appealing the ruling, and White House aides said Tuesday they are eager to ease the concerns of illegal immigrants who don’t know whether they’ll be allowed to remain in the U.S.
“It’s important to put [the court ruling] in context, because the broader executive actions are moving forward,” said Cecilia Munoz, White House domestic policy director. “The administration continues to implement the portions of the actions that the president and the Department of Homeland Security took, which were not affected by the court’s ruling.”
Mr. Obama will hold a town hall meeting in Miami Wednesday, televised on the Spanish-language network Telemundo, where he’s expected to address concerns about the court ruling.
“The president will continue to fight both for immigration reform as well as for the implementation of these actions, because they’re the right thing to do,” Ms. Munoz said. “You will hear the president express the confidence that we will prevail at the end of the day in court.”
In addition to the work permits for certain spouses, Ms. Munoz said, the administration is moving ahead with proposed changes to legal immigration, changes in enforcement priorities “and many other elements” of Mr. Obama’s executive action that he announced last November.
USCIS is estimating that about 55,000 immigrant spouses will be eligible for the work permits annually after the first year of the program. Mr. Rodriguez said the action will allow those spouses to remain in the U.S. beyond what would otherwise be a six-year limit.
“This is important because the inability of those spouses until now to apply for employment has imposed, in many cases, significant hardships on the families of H1-B visa holders,” he said. “This will now facilitate the ability of those families to remain in the United States.”
. . .
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/24/obama-moves-on-immigration-amnesty-despite-judges-/#ixzz3SmXnTQLx
-
Rubio: I've learned lesson on immigration
February 27, 2015
By Cameron Joseph
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) told the Conservative Political Action Conference that he's learned he was wrong on his approach to immigration reform.
Rubio, a onetime Tea Party favorite whose support for a comprehensive immigration reform package hurt him with the base, told the conservative crowd that he now understands U.S. borders must be secured before anything else can be done.
"It wasn't very popular, I don't know if you know that from some of the folks here," Rubio said with a smile, earning laughs from the crowd, when asked about his earlier support for the bill by Fox News host Sean Hannity.
"You have 10 or 12 million people in this country, many of whom have lived here for longer than a decade, have not otherwise violated our law other than immigration laws, I get all that," Rubio said. "But what I've learned is you can't even have a conversation about that until people believe and know, not just believe but it's proven to them that future illegal immigration will be controlled."
That tone is a big change from his support for the 2013 bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill that badly wounded him with the GOP base, though it's a return to the views he held before he joined the bipartisan group.
Rubio said recent border issues had proven his earlier approach was wrong, calling a border security first approach "the only way forward."
"You can't just tell people you're going to secure the border, we're going to do E-Verify, you have to do that, they have to see it, they have to see it working, and then they're going to have a reasonable conversation with you about the other parts, but they're not going to even want to talk about that until that's done first. And what's happened over the last two years, the migratory crisis this summer, the two executive orders, that's even more true than it's been
Rubio's shift on the issue is the latest sign he's leaning towards a presidential run, as he looks to repair relations with conservatives. It's also a marked split from his former mentor and likely opponent, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R), who has doubled down on his support for immigration reform.
Rubio's speech itself focused on his two core messages: American exceptionalism and a need to help the working class get ahead — with Rubio's personal anecdotes getting the strongest response.
"For me America isn't just a country, it's a place that literally changed the history of my family," he said as the audience nodded along attentively. "America doesn't owe me anything, but I have a debt to America that I will never be able to repay."
Rubio kept his speech very short, using just over six minutes of the twelve he was allowed and leaving the rest for questions. The CPAC hall was mostly full despite his early speaking time, though the final few rows filled in with bleary-eyed college students a few minutes after he took the stage.
The audience's response was a bit muted compared to the one some Thursday speakers received. That's likely more because Rubio had less red-meat applause lines built into the speech and because the crowd was dragging a bit after a likely party-filled night.
Hannity joked about how many in attendance "weren't feeling well this morning, you were up late drinking," earning laughs from the crowd and pointing out he had his own water bottle with him.
Rubio also got strong cheers for slamming Democrats' foreign policy.
"Because of the Obama-Clinton foreign policy our allies no longer trust us and our enemies no longer fear us," he said to applause before ripping "a foreign policy that treats the ayatollah of Iran with more respect than the prime minister of Israel."
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/234088-rubio-to-cpac-ive-learned-on-immigration
-
Rubio: I've learned lesson on immigration
February 27, 2015
By Cameron Joseph
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) told the Conservative Political Action Conference that he's learned he was wrong on his approach to immigration reform.
Rubio, a onetime Tea Party favorite whose support for a comprehensive immigration reform package hurt him with the base, told the conservative crowd that he now understands U.S. borders must be secured before anything else can be done.
flipflopping.
He really is McCain Jr.
-
::)
Rubio: I've learned lesson on immigration
February 27, 2015
By Cameron Joseph
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) told the Conservative Political Action Conference that he's learned he was wrong on his approach to immigration reform.
Rubio, a onetime Tea Party favorite whose support for a comprehensive immigration reform package hurt him with the base, told the conservative crowd that he now understands U.S. borders must be secured before anything else can be done.
"It wasn't very popular, I don't know if you know that from some of the folks here," Rubio said with a smile, earning laughs from the crowd, when asked about his earlier support for the bill by Fox News host Sean Hannity.
"You have 10 or 12 million people in this country, many of whom have lived here for longer than a decade, have not otherwise violated our law other than immigration laws, I get all that," Rubio said. "But what I've learned is you can't even have a conversation about that until people believe and know, not just believe but it's proven to them that future illegal immigration will be controlled."
That tone is a big change from his support for the 2013 bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill that badly wounded him with the GOP base, though it's a return to the views he held before he joined the bipartisan group.
Rubio said recent border issues had proven his earlier approach was wrong, calling a border security first approach "the only way forward."
"You can't just tell people you're going to secure the border, we're going to do E-Verify, you have to do that, they have to see it, they have to see it working, and then they're going to have a reasonable conversation with you about the other parts, but they're not going to even want to talk about that until that's done first. And what's happened over the last two years, the migratory crisis this summer, the two executive orders, that's even more true than it's been
Rubio's shift on the issue is the latest sign he's leaning towards a presidential run, as he looks to repair relations with conservatives. It's also a marked split from his former mentor and likely opponent, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R), who has doubled down on his support for immigration reform.
Rubio's speech itself focused on his two core messages: American exceptionalism and a need to help the working class get ahead — with Rubio's personal anecdotes getting the strongest response.
"For me America isn't just a country, it's a place that literally changed the history of my family," he said as the audience nodded along attentively. "America doesn't owe me anything, but I have a debt to America that I will never be able to repay."
Rubio kept his speech very short, using just over six minutes of the twelve he was allowed and leaving the rest for questions. The CPAC hall was mostly full despite his early speaking time, though the final few rows filled in with bleary-eyed college students a few minutes after he took the stage.
The audience's response was a bit muted compared to the one some Thursday speakers received. That's likely more because Rubio had less red-meat applause lines built into the speech and because the crowd was dragging a bit after a likely party-filled night.
Hannity joked about how many in attendance "weren't feeling well this morning, you were up late drinking," earning laughs from the crowd and pointing out he had his own water bottle with him.
Rubio also got strong cheers for slamming Democrats' foreign policy.
"Because of the Obama-Clinton foreign policy our allies no longer trust us and our enemies no longer fear us," he said to applause before ripping "a foreign policy that treats the ayatollah of Iran with more respect than the prime minister of Israel."
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/234088-rubio-to-cpac-ive-learned-on-immigration
-
If its Rubio, Jeb, or Christie... we are doomed.
-
If its Rubio, Jeb, or Christie... we are doomed.
:)
-
I actually think all three could be good leaders, but I really hope it isn't Jeb. No more Bushes or Clintons please.
-
Very interested to see how this plays out. We will find out in a few days whether the Senate GOP has stones.
They do not.
Congress close in on short-term Homeland Security bill
Feb 27, 11:46 AM (ET)
By ERICA WERNER and DAVID ESPO
WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress closed in Friday on approving a short-term spending bill for the Homeland Security Department that would avert a partial agency shutdown hours before it was to begin.
The legislation also leaves intact Obama administration executive actions on immigration that Republicans have vowed to overturn. But Republicans insisted that passing a short-term bill preserved their ability to keep fighting them.
An early vote in the House clearing the way for final passage of the bill was approved easily, 240-183.
"The House must pass this bill in short order to keep the lights on at the Department of Homeland Security in the near term," said Rep. Harold Rogers, R-Ky. "Hopefully, this will buy us this additional time that we clearly need."
Republicans had already admitted defeat. As debate proceeded in the House, the Senate voted 68-31 to approve a full-year bill free of contentious immigration provisions. Some House Republicans predicted that they would eventually end up doing the same thing.
For now, the three-week stopgap measure would allow lawmakers to keep the Homeland Security Department running at a time of heightened threats worldwide — even if it does little more than postpone the fight for another day.
"It's the best solution that we have available to us right now," said Rep. Steve Womack, R-Ark. "Nobody wants to shut down the Department of Homeland Security."
The bill would extend current funding levels for the department until March 19. Without action, DHS would begin to shut down at midnight Friday, furloughing 30,000 workers. Another 200,000 would be deemed essential and continue to report to work, albeit without pay.
In a complicated series of votes occurring simultaneously on both ends of the Capitol, the House prepared to vote on the three-week plan and send it to the Senate, while the Senate held a series of votes including approval of a "clean" bill to fund DHS through the Sept. 30 end of the budget year, without immigration provisions.
Once the House had acted on the three-week measure, the short-term bill was expected to also pass the Senate and gain Obama's signature.
Adding an element of drama, House Democrats announced plans to oppose the three-week stopgap measure, forcing Speaker John Boehner to pass it with exclusively Republican votes. But the bill appeared to command enough support to pass, even though it faced opposition from the right and the left.
Some of the most conservative Republicans said they couldn't support the legislation because it would not stop Obama's immigration policies granting work permits and deportation stays to millions of immigrants who live illegally in the United States. The argument advanced by leadership-aligned lawmakers that a federal judge has already put those policies on hold was unpersuasive to this group.
"I am not going to vote under any circumstances to fund illegal conduct," said Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala. "It does not make any difference whether the funding is for three weeks, three months or a full fiscal year. If it's illegal, it's illegal."
Some of the more establishment-minded lawmakers, by contrast, said the House should not be wasting its time with a stopgap bill but should accept the inevitable and vote to fund the department through the rest of the year with no strings attached. Since Senate Democrats have refused to agree to a spending bill rolling back Obama's immigration policies, and Obama has threatened to veto any such legislation, these lawmakers argued the House would have to retreat in the end anyway.
"The only question is when — tomorrow or in three weeks," said Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa. "Some folks just have a harder time facing political reality than others."
Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, who has been on Capitol Hill every day lobbying lawmakers to fund his department, sent a plea to congressional leaders Thursday asking them to pass a full-year bill, not a stop-gap measure. "A short-term continuing resolution exacerbates the uncertainty for my workforce and puts us back in the same position, on the brink of a shutdown just days from now," Johnson wrote.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150227/us--congress-homeland-d09c304e78.html
-
(https://texasteapartypatriots.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/senator-ted-cruz-stop-amnesty.png)
-
I actually think all three could be good leaders, but I really hope it isn't Jeb. No more Bushes or Clintons please.
Rubio is obama lite
-
Rubio is obama lite
What makes you say that?
-
What makes you say that?
lol
-
What makes you say that?
No real experience. Talks in politcal code. Not tested. Etc.
-
No real experience. Talks in politcal code. Not tested. Etc.
plus his complete reversal on amnesty, with whatever is popular at the moment.
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/1/border-jumpers-enticed-by-legalization-debate-in-u/#ixzz3TBh0SQFd
-
No real experience. Talks in politcal code. Not tested. Etc.
I think he could use more private sector experience and would be nice if he served in the military, but he's miles ahead of where Obama was when he ran for president.
Every time I've listened to him speak I've liked him.
In terms of being tested, I guess that's debatable, but he did pretty darn well in his senate race. He beat Crist by 1 million votes, which is pretty remarkable, because Crist was running as an independent. He beat Meeks (the Democrat) by over 1.5 million votes.
-
I think he could use more private sector experience and would be nice if he served in the military, but he's miles ahead of where Obama was when he ran for president.
Every time I've listened to him speak I've like him.
In terms of being tested, I guess that's debatable, but he did pretty darn well in his senate race. He beat Crist by 1 million votes, which is pretty remarkable, because Crist was running as an independent. He beat Meeks (the Democrat) by over 1.5 million votes.
I have a much higher expectation and standard than Obama. :D ;D
-
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/03/govt-union-obamas-weak-immigration-policy-is-inviting-an-attack-worse-than-911/
-
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/03/03/obama-immigration-fix-4m-illegals-who-never-paid-u-s-tax-get-3-years-of-tax-refunds/
-
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/05/obama-amnesty-to-grant-1-7-billion-in-taxpayer-cash-to-illegals
-
‘Like an idiot I believed that’: Judge blasts DOJ over immigration claims, threatens sanctions
Published March 20, 2015
FoxNews.com
A federal judge sharply scolded a Justice Department attorney at a hearing on President Obama's immigration executive actions, suggesting that the administration misled him on a key part of the program -- and that he fell for it, "like an idiot."
The testy court hearing was held Thursday in Texas by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen. The judge suggested he could order sanctions against the administration if he finds they indeed misrepresented the facts.
At issue is whether the DOJ misled the judge into believing that a plank of the Obama program -- giving deportation reprieves to thousands of young illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children -- would not go forward before he made a ruling on a request to halt it. In fact, federal officials had given more than 108,000 people three-year reprieves before that date and granted them work permits under the program.
Obama's executive actions would spare from deportation as many as 5 million people who are in the U.S. illegally. Many Republicans oppose the actions, saying only Congress has the right to take such sweeping action. Twenty-six states led by Texas joined together to challenge them as unconstitutional. Hanen on Feb. 16 sided with the states, issuing a preliminary injunction blocking Obama's actions.
Hanen chided Justice Department attorney Kathleen Hartnett for telling him at a January hearing before the injunction was issued that nothing would be happening with regard to one key part of Obama's actions, an expansion of the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, until Feb. 18.
"Like an idiot I believed that," Hanen said.
A flustered Hartnett repeatedly apologized to Hanen for any confusion related to how the reprieves and work permits were granted.
"We strive to be as candid as possible. It truly became clear to us there was confusion on this point," she said.
Hartnett continued to insist that the 108,081 reprieves had been granted under 2012 guidelines, which were not stopped by the injunction, and that government attorneys hadn't properly explained this because they had been focused on other parts of the proposed action.
But Hanen pointed out that the 2012 guidelines only granted two-year reprieves and that three-year reprieves are being proposed under the program now on hold.
"Can I trust what the president says? That's a yes or no question," Hanen asked.
"Yes your honor," Hartnett replied.
The states asked that Hanen consider issuing sanctions because Justice Department attorneys had made "representations (that) proved not to be true or at a minimum less than forthcoming," said Angela Colmenero, a lawyer with the Texas Attorney General's Office, the lead attorney for the states.
Colmenero said the three-year reprieves that were granted might have caused the states economic harm as the states may have already issued various benefits, including driver's licenses, to immigrants who received a reprieve.
"There is absolutely no basis for sanctions here," Hartnett said. "The government is absolutely trying to do the right thing."
Hanen said he would issue a ruling "promptly" on what action, if any, he will take against the Justice Department.
The federal government has asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans to lift Hanen's injunction while the case is appealed.
The other states seeking to block Obama's orders are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/20/judge-sanctions-possible-in-obama-immigration-court-case/
-
Federal judge denies request to lift hold on Obama immigration action
Published April 08, 2015
FoxNews.com
A federal judge in Texas denied a Justice Department request Tuesday to lift his temporary hold on President Obama's executive action shielding potentially millions of illegal immigrants from deportation.
U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen refused to set aside his Feb. 16 decision granting a preliminary injunction requested by 26 states. The U.S. government wants the injunction lifted -- allowing Obama's action to proceed -- while it appeals Hanen's ruling to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court in New Orleans.
In his order Tuesday denying the government's request, Hanen said the government hasn't "shown any credible reason for why this Directive necessitates immediate implementation."
There was no immediate comment from the White House.
The Justice Department has already asked the 5th Circuit to lift the injunction. The appeals court was scheduled to hear arguments on whether the injunction should be lifted on April 17. In that case, the AFL-CIO has filed a brief in support of the administration -- though some labor groups have voiced concern about the impact illegal immigration has on U.S. jobs, the AFL-CIO and other unions also represent undocumented workers who already are here.
The coalition of states leading the challenge filed its lawsuit to overturn Obama's executive actions, which would prevent as many as 5 million people who are in the U.S. illegally from being deported. The states, led by Texas, argue that the action is unconstitutional and would force them to invest more in law enforcement, health care and education. The injunction is intended to stall Obama's actions while the lawsuit progresses through the courts.
Justice Department attorneys argue that keeping the temporary hold harms "the interests of the public and of third parties who will be deprived of significant law enforcement and humanitarian benefits of prompt implementation" of the president's immigration action.
Obama announced the executive orders in November, saying a lack of action by Congress forced him to make sweeping changes to immigration rules on his own.
Before ruling on the injunction, Hanen said he first wanted to hear from federal prosecutors about allegations that the U.S. government had misled him about the implementation of part of the immigration plan.
The first of Obama's orders -- to expand a program that protects young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. illegally as children -- had been set to take effect Feb. 18. The other major part would extend deportation protections to parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have been in the country for several years. That provision was slated to begin on May 19.
Hanen issued his initial injunction believing that neither of those orders had taken effect. About a month later, the Justice Department confirmed that more than 108,000 people had already received three-year reprieves from deportation and work permits, but DOJ attorneys insisted the moves were made under 2012 guidelines that weren't blocked by the injunction. The DOJ apologized for any confusion, but Hanen seemed unconvinced during a hearing last month and threatened to sanction the attorneys.
He wrote Tuesday that while the federal government had been "misleading" on the subject, he would not immediately apply sanctions against the government, saying to do so would not be "in the interests of justice or in the best interest of this country" because the issue was of national importance and the outcome will affect millions of people.
"The parties' arguments should be decided on their relative merits according to the law, not clouded by outside allegations that may or may not bear on the ultimate issues in this lawsuit," Hanen wrote.
Republicans hammered the administration after the latest decision.
"The Obama Administration’s blatant misrepresentations to the court about its implementation of expanded work permits for illegal immigrants under the President’s lawless amnesty plan reflects a pattern of disrespect for the rule of law in America," Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement. "As the judge has affirmed, once put into effect, President Obama’s executive amnesty program will be virtually impossible to reverse."
In a separate order Hanen, told the government it has until April 21 to file to the court and plaintiffs detailed information about its March advisory about the 108,000 three-year reprieves.
The order asks the government to produce "any and all drafts" of the advisory, including information on when each draft was written, edited or revised. Hanen also asked for a list of each person who knew about the advisory.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/08/federal-judge-denies-request-to-lift-hold-on-obama-immigration-action/?intcmp=latestnews
-
>:(
Clinton to Call For a Path to Citizenship
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=5f6fad18-17ab-4e32-88da-d187e628b93a&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Image: Clinton to Call For a Path to Citizenship (Brendan McDermid/Reuters/Landov)
Tuesday, 05 May 2015
Hillary Rodham Clinton intends to draw an early distinction with Republicans on immigration reform, pointing to a pathway to citizenship as an essential part of any overhaul in Congress.
Clinton was laying the foundation of her immigration agenda Tuesday in her first stop in Nevada since launching her presidential campaign. After years of delays in Congress, Latinos and immigration activists are watching Clinton's statements closely for signs of how she might break a legislative logjam on immigration and whether she would extend President Barack Obama's executive actions to shield millions of immigrants from deportation.
"We hope that she leans in and really issues a challenge on the issue," said Clarissa Martínez-De-Castro, deputy vice president of the National Council of La Raza.
Clinton, a Democrat, has backed Obama's unsuccessful pitch for comprehensive immigration reform, including a pathway to citizenship for immigrants in the country illegally, and supported his announcement last year of executive actions to protect certain immigrants from deportation.
The issue could be pivotal in the 2016 race. Obama received strong support from Hispanic voters during his two presidential bids and immigration turned into a stumbling block for GOP nominee Mitt Romney, who received only 27 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2012, and struggled in battleground states like Florida, Colorado and Nevada where Latinos are influential.
Clinton was holding a discussion on Cinco de Mayo with young people at Rancho High School in Las Vegas, where about 70 percent of the student body is Hispanic.
Previewing her remarks, Clinton's campaign said she would say that a true fix to the nation's immigration system would need to include a "full and equal path to citizenship" and the nation shouldn't settle for proposals that would provide hard-working people with a "second-class" status.
Many Republicans have opposed a comprehensive bill that includes a path to citizenship, saying any reforms must be made incrementally, beginning with stronger border security. Clinton' event in Nevada comes as some of her potential Republican rivals, such as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, have courted Hispanics and outlined steps to reform immigration.
At a conference of Hispanic evangelicals last week, Bush said immigrants living in the U.S. illegally should have an opportunity to attain legal status under certain conditions. Bush, who speaks Spanish fluently and is married to a Mexican-American, said such immigrants should be required to pay taxes, work and not receive government benefits.
Rubio, who is Cuban-American, worked on a failed bipartisan immigration bill that proposed a lengthy pathway to citizenship for those living in the country illegally. The measure cleared the Senate but was blocked by conservatives in the House.
Rubio has said the bill doesn't have enough support to become law and reforms should first focus on border security. The senator ultimately wants to create a process that leads to legal status and citizenship.
Obama's executive orders, meanwhile, loom large in the immigration debate. GOP presidential candidates have said they would overturn the orders, which included the expansion of a program protecting young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. illegally as children. Another provision extended deportation protections to parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have been in the country for several years.
Twenty-six states, including Nevada, have sued to block the plan, and a New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals panel heard arguments on the challenges last month. A ruling is pending.
For Clinton, "the $64 million question is will she continue the executive actions," said Marielena Hincapie, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center. Activists are also watching how she would address the opening of family detention centers by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Clinton was spending a day in Nevada before opening a three-day fundraising trip to California. Nevada holds an early contest on the Democratic primary calendar and has been a top-tier battleground state in recent presidential elections. Clinton won the 2008 Democratic caucuses in the state but Obama came away with a slight edge in the number of delegates because of his strength in rural areas.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/clinton-path-citizenship-immigration/2015/05/05/id/642578/#ixzz3ZHvXW57n
-
>:(
Clinton to Call For a Path to Citizenship
She's running as a Republican? ???
-
The board's biggest liberal here to provide cover for liberals. It's a full-time job.
-
The board's biggest liberal here to provide cover for liberals. It's a full-time job.
soooo anyone that supports amnesty is a liberal?
Maybe you're not familiar with the amnesty positions of Rand, Rubio, Jeb.... LOL
-
soooo anyone that supports amnesty is a liberal?
Maybe you're not familiar with the amnesty positions of Rand, Rubio, Jeb.... LOL
What I'm trying to say is that every time something unflattering or negative is said about a liberal, you pipe in to try and deflect attention away from liberals. The DNC should put you on their payroll.
-
With this push for amnesty, what is the incentive for people to wait in line and do it legally?
Immigrants applying to enter US legally facing longer waits
By William La Jeunesse
Published May 18, 2015
FoxNews.com
As illegal immigrants continue to seek legal status under President Obama's executive actions, the waiting list to enter the United States legally grows longer, as does the waiting time for those in the pipeline.
American born Jimmy Gugliotta, who currently lives in Santiago, Chile, with his Argentinian wife and their children, has been waiting more than a year and a half for visas to bring his family to the U.S. He doesn't understand why going through the process legally puts him behind people who sneak into the U.S. illegally.
"It's really sad to see that we've been put in the back seat," Gugliotta told Fox News via email. "What I found outrageous is people like me, a U.S. citizen, are actually being put at the back of the line, and that to me is a total outrage."
The waiting list for those trying to enter the U.S. legally now stands at 4.4 million, 100,000 more than last year. Some have been on the list for more than 15 years. Even though the spouses and children of U.S citizens are supposed to get priority, even their wait times have jumped from as little as two months to up 18 months as the administration deals with a surge of illegal immigrants given lawful status by president Obama.
"I've had people tell me, 'Why don't you just show up at the border and try to get across?'" said Gugliotta. "I say, 'No, we want to do this thing right.'"
While the State Department handles the granting of visas for those overseas, their application first has to be processed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The agency has been deluged by more than 2,000 applications a day for green cards and work permits after President Obama offered to shield some 4 million illegal immigrant children and adults from deportation using his executive authority.
"I think most Americans are upset that the legal immigration system that was set up by Congress has been completely dismemebered and distorted in this way to benefit people who came here originally illegally.
"What message does this send to people who are trying to do it the right way?" says Jessica Vaughn, of the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that favors stronger controls on illegal immigration.
Vaughn said is is not only disheartening, but unfair, when those waiting their turn and paying thousands of dollars in fees are leapfrogged by people crossing over from Mexico illegally.
Gugliotta says he's been told it could be several more months before he gets a visa for his family. In the meantime, the Administration announced a new program called the Central American Minors Refugee/Parole Program, which provides a taxpayer paid for plane ticket for the Central American children of illegal immigrants “lawfully present” in the U.S. That includes those here through executive amnesty or deferred action. Gugliotta considers the program inherently unfair, especially since the immediate relatives of U.S. citizens have historically gotten priority.
"I just find it ridiculous that we're actually bringing people to the United States - going and getting them to bring them in - while I'm very capable of working and paying huge amounts of taxes once I get back to the states," he said. "To me, it's kind of frustrating to understand that the U.S. is actually sending planes to look for people in Central America, to bring them to the U.S. and basically we've gone broke trying to abide by the system and do things right."
Last week, Fox News asked the USCIS to explain why it provided preferential status to illegal immigrant applications over those of U.S. Citizen relatives.
"We're working on it," a spokesman told Fox News.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/05/18/immigrants-applying-to-enter-us-legally-facing-longer-waits/?intcmp=latestnews
-
A federal appeals court upheld an injunction against President Obama’s new deportation in a ruling Tuesday that marks the second major legal setback for an administration that had insisted its actions were legal.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Texas, which had sued to stop the amnesty, on all key points, finding that Mr. Obama’s amnesty likely broke the law governing how big policies are to be written.
“The public interest favors maintenance of the injunction,” the judges wrote in the majority opi
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/26/appeals-court-deals-blow-obama-amnesty/#ixzz3bHATZt1E
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
-
Confirmed by IRS: Amnestied Illegals Can Claim Up To $35K in Tax Refunds Without Ever Having Filed Returns
June 4, 2015 By Colleen Conley
(http://www.tpnn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/rsz_illegal1.jpg)
Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants are crossing the southern American border every year.
If I rob a bank, do I get to deduct the cost of my gun as a business expense?
That’s essentially what Democrats and establishment Republicans have ensured as illegal immigrants granted executive amnesty can claim back tax credits for work performed illegally, even if they never filed a tax return during those years.
This was confirmed recently in a letter by IRS Commissioner John Koskinen in response to a query sent by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The new information clarifies an earlier assertion in which Koskinen stated that in order to claim the tax credits the amnestied illegal immigrant would have had to have filed returns in the past. In his written response to Grassley, he says:
“To clarify my earlier comments on EITC, not only can an individual amend a prior year return to claim EITC, but an individual who did not file a prior year return may file a return and claim EITC (subject to refund limitations under section 6511 of the Internal Revenue Code). I would note that filing new returns for prior years would likely be difficult, since filers would have to reconstruct earnings and other records for years when they were not able to work on the books,” Koskinen said in his written response.
According to the IRS, illegal immigrants granted amnesty, and with it Social Security numbers, can claim up to three years prior in back tax credits.
“Section 32 of the Internal Revenue Code requires an SSN on the return, but a taxpayer claiming the EITC is not required to have an SSN before the close of the year for which the EITC is claimed. At your request, the IRS has reviewed the relevant statutes and legislative history, and we believe that the 2000 Chief Counsel Advice (CCA) on this issue is correct,” Koskinen added.
As we reported earlier, illegal immigrants granted amnesty could up to $35,000 in tax refunds, courtesy of American taxpayers.
How is it that lawful, tax-paying citizens are beholden to pay millions of dollars in tax refunds for people who arrived to this country illegally, and who never filed tax returns? Makes one wonder who our government thinks are the real criminals.
http://www.tpnn.com/2015/06/04/confirmed-by-irs-amnestied-illegals-can-claim-up-to-35k-in-tax-refunds-without-ever-having-filed-returns/
-
Most illegal immigrants from border surge skipped court date after release, records show
By William La Jeunesse
Published June 23, 2015
FoxNews.com
Tens of thousands of illegal immigrant women and children streamed across the U.S. border last year seeking asylum and protected status, claiming a "credible fear" of going home to the violence in Central America. President Obama addressed the crisis through increased border enforcement, more detention beds, more immigration judges and pressure on political leaders in their home countries.
But a year later, new data obtained exclusively by Fox News shows the policy isn't stopping the influx. Not only are illegal immigrant women and children continuing to cross the border in large numbers, but the majority charged with crimes aren't even showing up for court.
"That strategy is obviously a complete failure because such a high percentage of these people who were not detained have simply melted into the larger illegal population and have no fear of immigration enforcement," said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies.
Statistics released by the Department of Justice Executive Office of Immigration Review show 84 percent of those adults with children who were allowed to remain free pending trial absconded, and fewer than 4 percent deported themselves voluntarily.
The data set, requested by Fox News, underscores the dilemma facing immigration officials. While the ACLU and more than 100 lawmakers on Capitol Hill want to close federal detention centers, which they consider inhumane and unacceptable on legal and moral grounds, releasing the women and children to relatives and charities virtually guarantees they will fall off the federal government's radar.
"Now that we see that 85 percent of the people who were not detained before their immigration hearings do not show up for these hearings, that illustrates the need for detention," Vaughan said.
But others disagree. After the ACLU sued, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction immediately halting the administration's policy of locking up asylum-seeking mothers and children. It cited a Department of Homeland Security survey of women and children in family detention. More than 70 percent claimed a credible fear of staying in their home country. The judge rejected the administration's argument that detention was necessary to prevent a mass influx of new immigrants.
"Many of these women and children are being terrorized in their own countries and that's the reason they are leaving," said Belen Robles, a trustee at El Paso Community College in Texas, speaking at the annual conference of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. "Once they get here, they need to be treated as human beings and not incarcerated or put in shelters."
The data set from the Department of Justice looks at all women and children detained from Central America beginning July 18, 2014, when Obama declared the immigrants to be an enforcement priority and ordered the courts to treat them on a priority basis.
Since then, ICE detained 83,385 adults and children and completed 24,842 cases. Of those, more than 64 percent, or 16,136, didn't show up for court, and fewer than 4 percent, or 908, agreed to leave voluntarily.
But compare the number of removals for women and children who were detained against those who were not. Among those families who were allowed to remain free after their initial appearance in court, 84 percent never showed up again for their case. They remain free, scattered in cities across America. By contrast, 70 percent of those detained did show up before a judge.
"These figures are very strong evidence that the Border Patrol was right all along, that these people were coming because they knew they would be allowed to stay, that they were not planning to make some kind of plea for humanitarian status such as asylum," said Vaughan.
Nevertheless, immigrant advocates are trying to close down federal government detention centers and some 130 House Democrats and 33 senators called on Immigration and Customs Enforcement to stop family detention altogether. Additionally, a federal judge in California ruled that detaining immigrant children violates an existing settlement stipulating that migrant children must be released to foster care, relatives or -- if they must be held -- in the least restrictive environment possible.
"They deserve asylum. They are human beings and they deserve to be treated that way," said Victor Lopez, the mayor of Orange Cove, Calif., a small town in the Central Valley. "They should be free, and if they want to be citizens of this country, they will appear in court."
Yet, despite "credible fear" claims of violence back home, immigration judges reject that argument 92 percent of the time for adults with children. Illegal immigrants have a better chance of staying in the U.S. by running away than showing up in court.
Here's why:
-- 103 cities, towns and counties in 33 states have sanctuary policies that protect illegal immigrants from deportation.
-- Most cities and states refuse to honor "immigration detainers" -- meaning they will no longer hold criminal aliens for deportation for 48 hours for pick-up by federal authorities.
-- Total deportations to date (117,181) are the lowest in four years and 25 percent fewer than at the same time last year.
-- Of those who are deported, 98 percent are either convicted of a felony or multiple misdemeanors, or re-entered the U.S. illegally multiple times.
-- Worksite enforcement is virtually non-existent. So far this fiscal year, ICE conducted just 181 workplace audits and brought charges against just 27 employers, down from 3,127 audits in 2013 and 179 arrests. Employer fines are also down by more than 50 percent.
-- Only eight states require employers to use E-Verify, the federal database used to determine legal status.
-- 10 states issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, and last week, for the first time, the administration required employers accept these licenses for employment verification, in violation of the Real ID Act.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/23/most-illegal-immigrants-from-border-surge-didnt-show-up-for-court-date-records/
-
MURDERER: I CHOSE SF BECAUSE IT IS A ‘SANCTUARY CITY’
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/07/San-Francisco-immigration-Justin-Sullivan-Getty-640x480.jpg)
San Francisco immigration (Justin Sullivan / Getty)Justin Sullivan / Getty
by MICHELLE MOONS
6 Jul 2015
San Diego, CA
Five-time deportee, seven-time convicted felon Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez said in a new interview Sunday with a local ABC News affiliate that he came to San Francisco because he knew the sanctuary city would not hand him over to immigration officials.
He also claimed that he was “looking for jobs in the restaurant or roofing, landscaping, or construction.”
Lopez-Sanchez has confessed to shooting Kathryn Steinle last Wednesday at Pier 14.
Had San Francisco police not refused a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer request, Lopez-Sanchez may not have been in the United States and Steinle might still be alive.
“Did you shoot Kate Steinle, the lady who was down at Pier 14?” an ABC7 News reporter asked Lopez-Sanchez in an interview exclusive to the station. “Yes,” said Sanchez.
An ICE official told Breitbart News that ICE Enforcement and Removal had begun processing the suspect for reinstatement of removal from the U.S. in March. But instead Lopez-Sanchez was transferred on March 26 from the Bureau of Prisons in another city to the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department (SFSD) because of a drug warrant. ICE then filed the detainer request to be notified prior to Lopez-Sanchez’s release from custody.
A San Francisco court dismissed Lopez-Sanchez’s drug charges on March 27.
San Francisco and SFSD policy is to deny ICE detainer requests, barring special circumstances, such as a warrant for a suspected violent offender. The ICE detainer request was denied, and on April 15, 2015 Lopez-Sanchez was released. Two and a half months later Kate Steinle was killed.
The 2013 “Trust Act,” signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, gave California cities like San Francisco more leeway in deciding whether to comply with immigration authorities.
In the ABC7 interview, Sanchez claimed that he had found sleeping pills in a dumpster and taken them before heading down to the pier. He strangely claims he found the gun on a bench wrapped in a T-shirt. In a new version of the story, he says the gun went off three times and that he kicked it into the bay. He then lit up a cigarette, walked away and claims he didn’t know he shot anyone until police picked him up.
Sanchez had initially told police he had shot the gun at sea lions ,ABC 7 reported.
“Sanchez said he knew San Francisco was a sanctuary city where he would not be pursued by immigration officials,” the report added.
The same night Steinle was shot and killed, a four-time deported illegal alien in Laredo, Texas, murdered his wife with a hammer, according to his own admission. Breitbart Texas previously reported that Laredo Police Department admitted three prior violent encounters with the man. Federal agents told Breitbart Texas that Laredo police failed to inform Border Patrol of the encounters with the illegally present foreign national.
It was suggested that the woman would still be alive today, had police reported the man to Border Patrol.
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/07/06/murderer-says-he-chose-san-francisco-because-it-is-a-sanctuary-city/
-
SHOCK: ARIZONA PAPER DECRIES BORDER FENCE AS TOO HIGH FOR MEXICANS TO SAFELY JUMP
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/07/Screen-Shot-2015-07-05-at-1.44.52-PM-640x453.png)
Border Fence in Arizona
by BRANDON DARBY
5 Jul 2015
A mainstream Arizona newspaper is decrying the small section of the Arizona-Mexico border that has a 14-foot-high primary fence because it is too high for illegal immigrants to safely cross. The article, “Border Fence Jumpers Breaking Bones,” includes the claim that sections of the border with a 14-foot-high fence are “as tall as a two or three-story house” and tells the stories of several women who broke bones and were treated extensively to healthcare and surgeries at the expense of U.S. taxpayers. The writer never mentions any lives directly lost as a result of there not being a border fence in most sections, such as when Mexican nationals crossed into the U.S. and murdered father and husband Robert Rosas, a U.S. Border Patrol agent.
The article in question was written by Perla Trevizo for the Arizona Daily Star. In the excerpt below, note the section’s subtitle and the casual mention that the foreign woman had been deported multiple times prior:
A DREAM ENDS
For some, the fence is a last resort.
Maria Ibarra, 28 and also from Oaxaca, had tried crossing through Nogales and El Paso in April, but both times she was sent back to Mexico.
This time she was determined to get through. She left her 10-year-old son with her parents in Oaxaca. He was born in South Carolina, where she lived for two years before going back to Mexico in 2006 so her parents and siblings could meet her son.
Once there, she said, her son started losing his hearing in one ear and having seizures.
“All I wanted was an opportunity to fight my case,” she said. She hoped her son could join her or maybe she could get a permit to visit the hospitals where he was first treated. But she already had a couple of deportations and a voluntary return to Mexico.
Interestingly, the part about the woman hoping her son could join her is errant in not mentioning that once her son does join her in the U.S., the woman and her son would likely be permitted to stay because they would then be an incomplete family unit.
The assertion that the border fence is as tall as a two or three-story house came from Fernando Valdez, Mexico’s deputy consul general in Nogales, Arizona. He was quoted as stating, ““What surprises us is that people continue to jump from heights that can be the equivalent of a two- or even three-story house,” he said. “But we hear they feel pressured to do it because they are holding the line or they start insulting them, telling them to jump.”
The second part of his statement appears to be directed towards U.S. Border Patrol agents, but the writer left the intended direction of the assertion ambiguous. Of course, if that be the case, the Border Patrol routinely saves illegal immigrants’ lives, as the article inadvertently makes clear. Mexican authorities routinely demonize and attack U.S. Border Patrol agents, even in cases where agents have acted in self-defense against the violent narco-traffickers or other violent individuals.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the advocacy article is that the writer did not mention why a segmented border security fence exists. The fence, which contrary to left-of-center media assertions does not encompass most of the border, was built largely to stop violent criminals from their routine entering and existing of U.S. communities. Two instances come to mind, though in both cases the “wall” has yet to be built in those specific segments.
In 2002, the FBI engaged in a sting operation in Sunland Park, New Mexico along the U.S.-Mexico Border. The effort was spurred by Mexicans routinely crossing the border and robbing trains of cargo. Mexicans would jump the small chain-link fence that served as the area’s only border security and rob the train cars. They would then simply jump back across the fence and U.S. authorities were powerless to stop them. Mexican authorities, often corrupted by the criminal organizations behind the robberies and thefts, did nothing to stop the crimes.
Two FBI special agents got separated from their group in the sting. One of them was a woman. The two agents were surrounded by dozens of Mexican nationals who beat them unconscious and caused severe injuries, including broken facial bones. A federal agent with knowledge of the incident spoke to Breitbart Texas on the condition of anonymity and said, “There were indicators that the Mexican nationals were trying to drag the unconscious body of the female FBI agent back with them into Mexico.”
This writer previously covered the issue in 2013 and wrote, “Only a few of the men were eventually prosecuted, as most were deported back to Mexico prior to prosecution. Unless something else happened or they moved, the men are still free and presumably operating in the area.”
The second case mentioned above is the murder of Border Patrol agent Robert Rosas. Border sensors went off in an area of California that has a small metal fence separating Mexico from the United States. Agent Rosas was dispatched to check on the sensors. As he arrived and walked up on a bluff, five Mexican nationals jumped him and ruthlessly beat him to death. He fought for his life, but they ultimately overwhelmed him. The Mexican nationals stole Agent Rosas’ gun and gear and then fled back into Mexico. It took years before Mexican authorities would cooperate and help Rosas’ family have peace and justice.
These are just two of the cases that encourage the building of border fences. The very nature of a fence is that it poses a difficulty or risk to unauthorized crossings in an area, such as in the recent issue of Barack Obama’s White House raising the height of their fence to keep unwanted people from crossing. In Arizona’s specific border situation, there exist two border sectors: the Tucson Sector and the Yuma Sector. Though the Yuma Sector is largely locked down with significant coverage of technology and a primary and secondary fence, the Tucson Sector is largely open. Most of the sector has no fence at all and can be freely crossed at the whim of any person in Mexico wishing to enter the United States. The video embedded below shows the reality of most of the Arizona-Mexico border.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/07/05/shock-arizona-paper-decries-border-fence-as-too-high-for-mexicans-to-safely-jump/
-
Fraud crackdown sends illegal immigrant licenses plummeting in NM
By Joseph J. Kolb
Published July 08, 2015
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/fn-latino/politics/876/493/susana%20martinez%20latino.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez has tried to repeal the state's policy of issuing driver's licenses to illegals, but has had to settle for cracking down on fraud. (AP)
A crackdown on document fraud has sent the number of driver's licenses issued to illegal aliens in New Mexico plunging by 70 percent, while revealing that the state likely issued tens of thousands of bogus licenses after becoming the first state to adopt the controversial policy a dozen years ago.
Last year, New Mexico issued 4,577 licenses to foreign nationals, down sharply from the 2010 high of about 15,000. Officials in the administration of Gov. Susana Martinez, who opposes the policy but has been unable to get it repealed, say the huge drop came as soon as new procedures were implemented to identify fraudulent documents that had been submitted to obtain licenses.
“While this is encouraging news, Gov. Martinez still sides with an overwhelming majority of New Mexicans who believe we must repeal the dangerous law of giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, which has turned our state into a magnet for criminal activity,” said Mike Lonergan, spokesman for the governor.
“These people enter the country illegally then obtain a driver’s license through fraud and lies.”
- Bill Rehm, New Mexico state lawmaker
New Mexico became the first of 10 states to issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens in 2003, under then-Gov. Bill Richardson, who claimed it would cut down on uninsured drivers in the state. But while the policy's effect on public safety has been inconclusive, critics say it launched a cottage industry for criminals to sell fraudulent documents.
Last year, federal officials broke up a five-year operation -- which extended from New Mexico to New York -- that saw illegal immigrants from Georgia paying as much as $2,000 to obtain documents to secure a New Mexico driver’s license.
A high-profile case in 2012 saw five Albuquerque residents federally indicted in a multi-state license distribution scheme. Federal investigators said 30 people from five states were involved in the ring that provided false documents to illegal immigrants who had resided in South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia to fraudulently obtain 164 New Mexico driver's licenses.
"New Mexico's driver's license policy has once again attracted criminal elements to our state in pursuit of a government-issued identification card," Martinez said at the time. "Our current system jeopardizes the safety and security of all New Mexicans and it is abundantly clear that the only way to solve this problem is to repeal the law that gives driver's licenses to illegal immigrants."
Although it is impossible to say how many licenses were issued fraudulently, Republican State Rep. Bill Rehm, a retired county sheriff's officer, said more than 100,000 driver’s licenses have been issued to illegal immigrants, but only about 17,000 have filed a state income tax.
“These people enter the country illegally, then obtain a driver’s license through fraud and lies,” Rehm said. “We sparked a whole criminal industry by allowing this.”
Rehm is among a large number of opponents who have been unable to get the law repealed, despite Martinez's support. The critics say the policy has penalized legal residents of the state, because of a 2005 federal law aimed at preventing terrorists from getting fraudulent IDs. Because the federal REAL ID Act sets forth standards stricter than New Mexico's for federal recognition of identification documents, the Department of Homeland Security will not recognize licenses from states including New Mexico as ID for getting on a plane or entering federal buildings, for example.
“Because of this policy of giving licenses to illegal immigrants we continue to be non-compliant with the federal guidelines,” Rehm said.
Vivian Juarez, director of the Mexican Consulate in Albuquerque, declined to comment on the drop in licenses issued to Mexican nationals in New Mexico.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/08/fraud-crackdown-sends-illegal-immigrant-licenses-plummeting-in-nm/?intcmp=latestnews
-
Judge orders Obama administration to release illegal immigrants from 'deplorable' facilities
Published July 27, 2015
FoxNews.com
A federal judge in California has ruled that hundreds of illegal immigrant women and children in U.S. holding facilities should be released, another apparent setback for President Obama’s immigration policy, according to The Los Angeles Times.
U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee said Friday that the conditions in which the detainees are being held are “deplorable” and violate parts of an 18-year-old court settlement that put restrictions on the detention of migrant children.
The ruling also raises questions about what the administration will do with the estimated 1,700 parents and children at three detention facilities, two in Texas and one in Pennsylvania.
Last year, tens of thousands of women and unaccompanied minors from Central America arrived at the Southwest border, with many believing a rumor that unaccompanied children and single parents with at least one child would be allowed to stay.
More than 68,000 of them were apprehended and detained while officials decided whether they had a right to stay.
Many were being released and told to appear at immigration offices until the administration eventually opened new detention centers.
Gee said in her ruling that children in the two Texas facilities had been held in substandard conditions and gave the administration until Aug. 3 to respond.
“We are disappointed with the court's decision and are reviewing it in consultation with the Department of Justice,” Marsha Catron, press secretary for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, said in a prepared statement given to The Times.
Many of the Central Americans who crossed the Southwest border illegally last summer said they were fleeing poverty and escalating gang violence.
The Texas facilities are run by private companies, while the one in Pennsylvania is run by a county government.
In February, a federal judge blocked Obama's 2012 executive action to protect millions of undocumented immigrants from being deported.
And a federal appeals court in New Orleans refused three months later to allow the program to go forward, denying an administration request to lift the lower court decision.
Gee’s decision is also seen as a victory for the immigrant rights lawyers who brought the case.
The ruling upholds a tentative decision Gee made in April and comes a week after the two sides told her that they failed to reach a new settlement agreement as she had requested.
The 1997 settlement bars immigrant children from being held in unlicensed, secure facilities. Gee found that settlement covered all children in the custody of federal immigration officials, even those being held with a parent.
The Justice Department had argued it was necessary to modify the settlement and use detention to try to deter more immigrants from coming to the border after last year's surge. The department also said it was an important way to keep families together while their immigration cases were being reviewed, but the judge rejected that argument in her decision.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/27/judge-orders-obama-administration-to-release-illegal-immigrant-women-children/
-
JERRY BROWN SIGNS BILL THAT COULD LET ILLEGAL ALIENS VOTE
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2014/11/jerry_brown_ap_629_1160x629.jpg)
by WILLIAM BIGELOW
12 Oct 2015
Brown signs California motor-voter law
KCRA - Sacramento, CA
On Saturday, California Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 1461, the New Motor Voter Act, which will automatically register people to vote through the DMV, and could result in illegal aliens voting.
Any person who renewed or secured a driver’s license through the DMV may now register to vote, or choose to opt out of doing so. Because illegal immigrants are now eligible for obtaining driver’s licenses, they could be allowed to vote in elections if the Secretary of State’s office fails to verify their eligibility properly.
Brown and the California Democratic party know exactly what they are doing; as a Public Policy Institute survey showed, among unregistered adults, 49% lean toward the Democratic Party and 22% toward the Republican Party. Any bill permitting illegal immigrants to vote would cement the Democratic Party’s hold on California.
True the Vote founder Catherine Engelbrecht stated, “This bill is terrible. It makes an already bad situation much, much worse,” adding that California’s registration databases “lack the necessary safeguards to keep noncitizens off the voter rolls.”
Election Integrity Project of California President Linda Paine echoed that AB 1461 “will effectively change the form of governance in California from a Republic whose elected officials are determined by United States citizens and will guarantee that noncitizens will participate in all California elections going forward.” The Election Integrity Project of California had joined True the Vote to demand that brown veto the bill, calling it a path to “‘state sanctioned’ voter fraud.”
Although noncitizens’ driver’s licenses in California feature the phrases “Federal Limits Apply” and “not valid for official federal purposes,” True the Vote spokesman Logan Churchwell pointed out that state officials “specifically chose not to make noncitizen license holders searchable in their DMV database.”
California Secretary of State Alex Padilla countered that the increase in voters will benefit the state, arguing, “The New Motor Voter Act will make our democracy stronger by removing a key barrier to voting for millions of California citizens. Citizens should not be required to opt in to their fundamental right to vote. We do not have to opt in to other rights, such as free speech or due process.”
California follows Oregon, where Democratic Gov. Kate Brown signed a bill in March allowing the automatic registration of all eligible Oregonians to vote when they obtain or renew a driver’s license or state identification card.
But Stephen Frank of California Political Review bluntly asserted that the bill will reduce voter turnout because voters will sniff fraud in the polls: “AB 1461 assures corruption of our elections–our elections will look like those of Mexico and other corrupt nations–and honest people will stop voting since illegal aliens will out vote them.”
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/10/12/gov-jerry-brown-signs-bill-allowing-illegal-aliens-vote/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
-
Leaked DHS memo shows Obama might circumvent DAPA injunction
By Ian M. Smith
November 02, 2015
A newly leaked internal DHS memorandum produced for an off-the-record agency conclave reveals that the Obama administration is actively planning to circumvent a federal court injunction that suspended part of last November’s deferral-based amnesty initiative. The document, apparently prepared as follow-up from a DHS “Regulations Retreat” last summer, appears sure to re-ignite concerns in Congress as well as federal judges in the Fifth Circuit. The Administration has already been criticized from the bench for handing out work permits to hundreds of thousands of deferred action beneficiaries, in direct violation of a district court’s order. With the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals deciding any day now whether to deny the Administration’s request to reverse that injunction, this public leak has come at a critical juncture for U.S. enforcement policy.
Last June, four months after Texas federal judge Andrew Hanen’s order to freeze President’s DAPA and Expanded DACA programs—disclosure: the Immigration Reform Law Institute has filed briefs in these cases—DHS’s immigration policy makers apparently held a “Regulations Retreat” to discuss “different options” for “open market Employment Authorization Document (EAD) regulatory changes.” EAD is the statutory term for work permits. From a memo recording these discussions, we now know that the Obama DHS has, rather than pausing to allow the courts to assess the constitutionality of its enforcement nullification initiatives, been gearing up to roll out one or more of four plans drawn up at the meeting, each one designed to provide EADs to millions of nonimmigrants, including those lawfully present and visa overstayers, crippling the actual employment-based visa system on the federal statute-book.
The internal memo reveals four options of varying expansiveness, with option 1 providing EADs to “all individuals living in the United States”, including illegal aliens, visa-overstayers, and H-1B guest-workers, while option 4 provides EADs only to those on certain unexpired non-immigrant visas. Giving EADs to any of the covered individuals, however, is in direct violation of Congress’s Immigration & Nationality Act and works to dramatically subvert our carefully wrought visa system.
As mentioned, the first plan the memo discusses basically entails giving EADs to anyone physically present in the country who until now has been prohibited from getting one. A major positive to this option, the memo reads, is that it would “address the needs of some of the intended deferred action population.” Although DHS doesn’t say it expressly, included here would be those 4.3 million people covered by the president’s DAPA and Expanded DACA programs whose benefits were supposed to have been halted in the Hanen decision. On top of working around the Hanen injunction, this DHS plan would also dole out unrestricted EADs to those on temporary non-immigrant visas, such as H-1B-holders (their work authorizations being tied to their employers) and another 5 to 6 million illegal aliens thus far not covered by any of the President’s deferred action amnesty programs. By claiming absolute authority to grant work authorization to any alien, regardless of status, DHS is in effect claiming it can unilaterally de-couple the 1986 IRCA work authorization statutes from the main body of U.S. visa law. While DHS must still observe the statutory requirements for issuing visas, the emerging doctrine concedes, the administration now claims unprecedented discretionary power to permit anyone inside our borders to work.
The anonymous DHS policymakers state that a positive for this option is that it “could cover a greater number of individuals.” In a strikingly conclusory bit of bureaucratese, they state that because illegal aliens working in the country “have already had the US labor market tested” it has been “demonstrat[ed] that their future employment won’t adversely affect US workers.” The labor market, in other words, has already been stress-tested through decades of foreign-labor dumping and the American working-class, which disproportionately includes minorities, working mothers, the elderly, and students, is doing just fine. Apparently, the fact that 66 million Americans and legal aliens are currently unemployed or out of the job-market was not a discussion point at the DHS “Retreat.”
Bottom line: The memo foreshadows more tactical offensives in a giant administrative amnesty for all 12 million illegal aliens who’ve broken our immigration laws (and many other laws) that will emerge before the next inaugural in January 2016. According to the authors, one negative factor for granting EADs to illegal aliens, visa-overstayers, etc., is that they’ll still “face difficulties in pursuing permanent residence due to ineligibility or being subject to unlawful presence inadmissibility for which a waiver is required.” This is in reference to the reality that an EAD isn’t a green card and that eventually the EAD-beneficiaries are supposed to apply to ‘adjust their status,’ which cannot be done without showing evidence of lawful status. But this might change, they write. The DHS “macro-level policy goal”, we’re told, is to assist individuals to stay “until they are ready and able to become immigrants.” This would seem to say that DHS, the largest federal law enforcement agency in the nation, is banking on awarding those who’ve broken our laws and violated our national sovereignty.
Will the 26 plaintiff states that have challenged the President’s DAPA program bring this memo to the Fifth Circuit’s attention, before they issue their closely-awaited decision? If this document is indeed the cutting edge of Obama’s strategy for DHS to circumvent Judge Hanen’s injunction order, it would confirm the Administration’s bad faith and contempt both for the court and the law.
Smith is an investigative associate with the Immigration Reform Law Institute.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/the-administration/258689-leaked-dhs-memo-shows-obama-might-circumvent-dapa
-
The president is checked. Again.
Appeals court rules against Obama immigration plan
Published November 10, 2015
FoxNews.com
President Obama's executive action preventing the deportation of an estimated 5 million people living in the United States illegally suffered another setback Monday after a federal appeals court upheld a federal judge's injunction blocking the measure.
The 2-1 decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans further dims the prospect of implementation of the executive action before Obama leaves office in 2017. Appeals over the injunction could take months and, depending on how the case unfolds, it could go back to the Texas federal court for more proceedings.
Republicans had criticized the plan as an illegal executive overreach when Obama announced it last November. Twenty-six states challenged the plan in court. U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen granted the temporary injunction preventing the order's implementation this past February, agreeing with the states that legalizing the presence of so many people would be a "virtually irreversible" action that would cause the states "irreparable harm."
The administration argued that the executive branch was within its rights in deciding to defer deportation of selected groups of immigrants, including children who were brought to the U.S. illegally.
"President Obama should abandon his lawless executive amnesty program and start enforcing the law today," Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said in a news release.
The administration could ask for a re-hearing by the full 5th Circuit but the National Immigration Law Center, and advocacy group, urged an immediate Supreme Court appeal.
"The most directly impacted are the 5 million U.S. citizen children whose parents would be eligible for temporary relief from deportation," Marielena Hincapie, executive director of the organization, said in a news release.
The Justice Department said in a statement that it disagreed with the court's ruling, claiming that Obama's action would "allow DHS to bring greater accountability to our immigration system by prioritizing the removal of the worst offenders, not people who have long ties to the United States and who are raising American children." The statement did not specify what the department's next steps would be.
Part of the initiative included expansion of a program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, protecting young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. illegally as children. The other major part, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, would extend deportation protections to parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have been in the country for years.
The 70-page majority opinion by Judge Jerry Smith, joined by Jennifer Walker Elrod, rejected administration arguments that the district judge abused his discretion with a nationwide order and that the states lacked standing to challenge Obama's executive orders.
They acknowledged an argument that an adverse ruling would discourage potential beneficiaries of the plan from cooperating with law enforcement authorities or paying taxes. "But those are burdens that Congress knowingly created, and it is not our place to second-guess those decisions," Smith wrote.
In a 53-page dissent, Judge Carolyn Dineen King said the administration was within the law, casting the decision to defer action on some deportations as "quintessential exercises of prosecutorial discretion," and noting that the Department of Homeland Security has limited resources.
"Although there are approximately 11.3 million removable aliens in this country today, for the last several years Congress has provided the Department of Homeland Security with only enough resources to remove approximately 400,000 of those aliens per year," King wrote.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/10/appeals-court-rules-against-obama-immigration-plan/?intcmp=hpbt1
-
Judges use Obama’s own words to halt deportation amnesty
By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
A federal appeals court said President Obama’s own words claiming powers to “change the law” were part of the reason it struck down his deportation amnesty, in a ruling late Monday that reaffirmed the president must carry out laws and doesn’t have blanket powers to waive them.
The 2-1 ruling by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals punctures Mr. Obama’s immigration plans and is the latest in a series of major court rulings putting limits on the president’s claims of expansive executive powers to enact his agenda without having to get congressional buy-in.
In an opinion freighted with meaning for the separation of powers battles, Judge Jerry E. Smith, writing for himself and Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, singled out Mr. Obama’s own claim that he acted to rewrite the law because Congress wouldn’t pass the bill he wanted.
The key remark came in a speech in Chicago just days after his Nov. 20, 2014, announcement detailing his executive actions. Fed up with a heckler who was chiding him for boosting the number of deportations, Mr. Obama fired back, agreeing that he’d overseen a spike in deportations.
“But what you are not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” the president said.
The two judges said the Justice Department failed to explain away Mr. Obama’s remarks.
“At oral argument, and despite being given several opportunities, the attorney for the United States was unable to reconcile that remark with the position that the government now takes,” Judge Smith wrote.
Whether Mr. Obama acted within the law is the crux of the case.
Texas and 25 other states, which sued to stop the amnesty, argue Mr. Obama went beyond the boundaries set in the Immigration and Nationality Act, which sets out specific instances where, on a case-by-case basis, the Homeland Security secretary can waive penalties and allow illegal immigrants to stay, granting them work permits which then entitle them to Social Security cards, tax credits and state driver’s licenses.
A federal district court in Texas agreed with the states, halting Mr. Obama’s policy, and now an appeals court has also sided with the states.
Writing in dissent on Monday, Judge Carolyn Dineen King dismissed Mr. Obama’s claim that he changed the law, saying presidents often use imprecise language when talking about laws. She said Mr. Obama wasn’t making a legal argument in his response to the heckler.
Mr. Obama’s plan, known officially as Deferred Action for Parental Arrivals, or DAPA, was intended to grant up to 5 million illegal immigrants a proactive three-year stay of deportation and to give them work permits, allowing them to come out of the shadows and join American society — though they were still considered to be in the country illegally. To qualify, illegal immigrants had to be parents of U.S. citizens or legal permanent resident children.
The president characterized his plan as a use of prosecutorial discretion, reasoning that he was never going to deport them anyway, so they should be granted some more firm status.
But the court ruled that he not only didn’t follow the usual rules in making a major policy change, but that his claims of power to grant tentative legal status to a massive class of people went beyond the waiver powers Congress granted him in the law.
Monday’s decision is already reverberating across the presidential debate, with Hispanic-rights activists insisting Mr. Obama file an immediate appeal to the Supreme Court, and vowing to make immigration an issue in the 2016 election.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/10/judges-use-obamas-own-words-halt-deportation-amnes/
-
This is the first time I've ever seen Cruz ruffled. Didn't look so good here.
Fox News anchor confronts Cruz with 2013 remarks on immigration reform
By Elliot Smilowitz
December 16, 2015
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Wednesday squared off with Fox News anchor Bret Baier over comments Cruz made in 2013 as the Senate considered an immigration reform bill.
Baier began the interview by repeating what Cruz said on the subject during Tuesday’s GOP presidential debate: “I’ve never supported legalization, I do not intend to support it.”
The anchor then played a speech Cruz made in 2013 promoting his amendment to an immigration reform measure in which he called on “people of good faith on both sides of the aisle” to pass a bill “that allows those that are here illegally to come in out of the shadows.”
Asked to respond to the clip, Cruz said his amendment would “remove citizenship.”
“The fact that I introduced an amendment to remove part of the Gang of Eight bill doesn’t mean I support the rest of the Gang of Eight bill,” he added.
But Baier replied with a series of statements Cruz made in 2013 that indicated he wanted the rest of the bill to pass. He quoted the Texas Republican calling the legislation “the compromise that can pass” and saying “if my amendment were adopted, this bill would pass.”
Cruz stammered in his response, saying that “of course I wanted my amendment to pass. ... It doesn’t mean I supported other aspects of the bill.”
In an attempt to prove his amendment wasn’t a tacit endorsement of the rest of the bill, Cruz cited the fact that Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) voted with him.
“The problem, though, is that at the time you were telling people ... this was not a poison pill,” Baier said in response. “You said you wanted it to pass at the time. Looking back at what you said then, and what you said now, which one should people believe?”
Cruz told Baier his amendment “illustrated hypocrisy of the Democrats” and “succeeded in defeating” the bill, as the interview wrapped up.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/263544-fox-news-anchor-confronts-cruz-with-2013-remarks-on-immigration
-
This is the first time I've ever seen Cruz ruffled. Didn't look so good here.
this is the 3rd time you've attacked Cruz today? ;)
I guess he is a threat to RINOs when that starts to happen.
-
This is the first time I've ever seen Cruz ruffled. Didn't look so good here.
Fox News anchor confronts Cruz with 2013 remarks on immigration reform
By Elliot Smilowitz
December 16, 2015
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Wednesday squared off with Fox News anchor Bret Baier over comments Cruz made in 2013 as the Senate considered an immigration reform bill.
Baier began the interview by repeating what Cruz said on the subject during Tuesday’s GOP presidential debate: “I’ve never supported legalization, I do not intend to support it.”
The anchor then played a speech Cruz made in 2013 promoting his amendment to an immigration reform measure in which he called on “people of good faith on both sides of the aisle” to pass a bill “that allows those that are here illegally to come in out of the shadows.”
Asked to respond to the clip, Cruz said his amendment would “remove citizenship.”
“The fact that I introduced an amendment to remove part of the Gang of Eight bill doesn’t mean I support the rest of the Gang of Eight bill,” he added.
But Baier replied with a series of statements Cruz made in 2013 that indicated he wanted the rest of the bill to pass. He quoted the Texas Republican calling the legislation “the compromise that can pass” and saying “if my amendment were adopted, this bill would pass.”
Cruz stammered in his response, saying that “of course I wanted my amendment to pass. ... It doesn’t mean I supported other aspects of the bill.”
In an attempt to prove his amendment wasn’t a tacit endorsement of the rest of the bill, Cruz cited the fact that Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) voted with him.
“The problem, though, is that at the time you were telling people ... this was not a poison pill,” Baier said in response. “You said you wanted it to pass at the time. Looking back at what you said then, and what you said now, which one should people believe?”
Cruz told Baier his amendment “illustrated hypocrisy of the Democrats” and “succeeded in defeating” the bill, as the interview wrapped up.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/263544-fox-news-anchor-confronts-cruz-with-2013-remarks-on-immigration
Lol at you posting this 3 minutes after msnbc discussed it.
Hmmmmm
-
this is the 3rd time you've attacked Cruz today? ;)
I guess he is a threat to RINOs when that starts to happen.
::)
-
Lol at you posting this 3 minutes after msnbc discussed it.
Hmmmmm
You are a lying turd.
-
Supreme Court agrees to review Obama immigration plan
Published January 19, 2016
FoxNews.com
The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to review President Obama’s plan to shield up to 5 million illegal immigrants from deportation, after lower courts blocked the president’s sweeping executive actions from taking effect.
The decision sets up an election-year clash over the controversial plan that many Republicans have likened to “amnesty.”
The justices said Tuesday they will consider undoing lower court rulings that blocked the plan from taking effect. The Obama administration had appealed to the Supreme Court last fall.
The decision to review the case may be welcome on both sides of the aisle. Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, of Utah, issued a statement praising the court for taking it on – and urging the justices to rule against the administration.
"President Obama’s executive action is an affront to our system of republican self-government,” Hatch said. "The Constitution vests legislative authority in Congress, not the President. With his actions, President Obama has attempted to bypass the constitutionally ordained legislative process and rewrite the law unilaterally.”
The White House voiced confidence their policies would be upheld.
"Like millions of families across this country – immigrants who want to be held accountable, to work on the books, to pay taxes, and to contribute to our society openly and honestly – we are pleased that the Supreme Court has decided to review the immigration case,” spokeswoman Brandi Hoffine said in a statement.
The case probably will be argued in April and decided by late June, about a month before both parties' presidential nominating conventions. The issue of illegal immigration has taken a center-stage role in the Republican primary battle, as Donald Trump calls for a wall between the U.S. and Mexico and candidates spar over who is toughest on the issue.
The immigrants who would benefit from the Obama administration's plan are mainly the parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.
But more than two-dozen mostly Republican-led states challenged Obama’s executive actions after they were rolled out in 2014, and the plan has been tied up in litigation ever since.
Critics say the plan is unconstitutional. Shortly before the administration took the case to the Supreme Court, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the states in early November.
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. later said in a court filing that allowing those rulings to stand would force millions of people "to continue to work off the books, without the option of lawful employment to provide for their families."
At issue is the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program, which Obama said would allow people who have been in the United States more than five years and who have children who are in the country legally to "come out of the shadows and get right with the law."
Texas is leading 26 states in challenging the immigration plan.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/19/supreme-court-agrees-to-review-obama-immigration-plan.html?intcmp=hpbt3
-
>:(
Four illegal immigrants charged in rape, beating; two were previously deported
Published March 21, 2016
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/us/2016/03/21/four-illegal-immigrants-charged-in-rape-beating-two-were-previously-deported/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1458572035771.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
The alleged rape occurred at this Framingham apartment complex. (Google Street View)
Four illegal aliens from Guatemala are charged in the rape of a Massachusetts woman and the vicious beating of her boyfriend, and one of the suspects was arrested less than a month before the attack -- but he was not reported to immigration authorities.
Federal immigration officials have requested detainers on Elmer Diaz, 19, Ariel Diaz, 24, Adan Diaz, 32, and Marlon Josue Jarquin-Felipe, 27, following their arrests in the March 13 incident in Framingham, The Boston Herald reported. The three Diaz men are brothers.
Adan had previously been arrested for drunken driving on Feb. 22 and Ariel was arrested for drunken driving in December, but immigration officials told The Herald they were never made aware that either was in custody. Ariel was also convicted of drunken driving and disorderly conduct and sent back to Guatemala in May 2014, but he re-entered the U.S. at some point, Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman Shawn Neudauer told The Herald. Jarquin-Felipe was also deported to Guatemala in 2014, but managed to again cross the border to the U.S. undetected.
The quartet has been saddled with a slew of charges: Elmer is charged with rape, kidnapping, threatening to commit a crime and assault with a dangerous weapon; Ariel is charged with unarmed robbery, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, indecent assault and battery, kidnapping and witness intimidation; Adan and Jarquin-Felipe were charged with indecent assault and battery and kidnapping. All four have pleaded not guilty.
The man and the woman, who have not been identified, were walking on Claflin Street on the night of March 13 when they were allegedly approached by the men. One offered them a beer, while another took out a condom, officials said, according to The Metro West Daily News. Soon, officials said, the men grabbed the woman and physically detained the man.
“They began carrying her against her will,” prosecutor Susan Harris said during the men’s arraignment. “She said she tried to stop them and had her feet down, but one of them picked her legs up and they carried her into an apartment.”
Ariel, Elmer and Jarquin-Felipe then allegedly began groping the woman in one room as her boyfriend, who was calling police, entered the home. Ariel is accused of head-butting the boyfriend multiple times and trying to stab him with a knife to prevent him from stopping the alleged sexual assault.
“[Ariel Diaz] said, ‘I’m going to carve you up and rape your girl,’” Harris said.
But the boyfriend smashed Diaz with a beer bottle and then escaped the apartment with the woman, officials said.
“After we got out, we got down to the street and she was screaming, ‘Police! Police!’ and I was like, ‘Don’t stop, just keep running,’” the man told The Herald.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/03/21/four-illegal-immigrants-charged-in-rape-beating-two-were-previously-deported.html?intcmp=trending
-
More PC garbage.
Library of Congress to stop using 'illegal' and 'alien' to describe immigrants, group says
By Daniella Diaz, CNN
Wed March 30, 2016 | Video Source: CNN
Washington (CNN) — The Library of Congress will no longer use the words "illegal" and "alien" to describe undocumented immigrants after Dartmouth College students petitioned for the change, the group said Wednesday.
Instead, the Library of Congress will use the terms "non-citizen" and "unauthorized immigrants" in subject headings to refer to undocumented immigrants.
Students, faculty and librarians with the Dartmouth Coalition for Immigration Reform, Equality and DREAMers, or CoFIRED, petitioned for the change for two years, according to a press release by the group. The acronym DREAMer comes from the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, which, if enacted, would allow immigrants who were brought to the United States as children to be granted residency in the country.
"We call on both politicians and media outlets to follow the precedent set by the Library of Congress," Dennise Hernandez, co-director of CoFIRED, said in the release. "We call on both politicians and media outlets to follow the precedent set by the Library of Congress. It is way past time that we all recognize that referring to immigrants as 'illegal' is an offensive, dehumanizing term and that there is no excuse to continue using it."
The Library of Congress did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/30/politics/library-of-congress-illegal-alien/index.html
-
Arizona college imposes mandatory fee to fund scholarship for illegal immigrants
By Malia Zimmerman
Published April 06, 2016
FoxNews.com
A private college in Arizona is charging all students a mandatory fee to fund a scholarship for illegal immigrants, a controversial move supporters say gives a hand to those who need it but anti-illegal immigration advocates call irresponsible.
Prescott College is tacking a $30 annual fee onto its $28,000 annual tuition to establish an annual scholarship for “undocumented” students, as part of a policy first proposed by students and faculty from the undergraduate and Social Justice and Human Rights Master of Arts divisions. Backers say it helps reverse what they call Arizona’s reputation as a “national example of discriminatory politics.”
“I am proud that our students take on the role of scholar activists,” said school President John Flicker, adding that the university is committed to “broaden access to higher education for a diverse group of students” and “mobilize its resources towards social justice.”
“It is beyond absurd that this college is going to force all the students to subsidize the education of a student who is in the country illegally,” Vaughan
- Jessica Vaughan, Center for Immigration Studies
Supporters note that illegal immigrants are allowed to attend state and private colleges in Arizona, but in most cases cannot legally work or receive government grants or loans.
Making legal residents enrolled at the school pay for illegal immigrants’ education is a slap in the face to a generation already facing its post-college years saddled with enormous debt, said Andrew Kloster, legal Fellow for the Center for Legal & Judicial Studies at Heritage Foundation.
Prescott College President John Flicker is proud his students are supporting illegal immigrant classmates. (Prescott College)
“At a time when student loan debt is over $1 trillion it is irresponsible for Prescott College to offer this privilege at the expense of other students,” Kloster said. “While the dollar amount seems small per student, the fee does send a message to potential donors to Prescott College that the administration is less concerned with sound financial management than it is with making a political statement,” Kloster added.
Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies, said poor students in the country legally should take precedence.
“It is beyond absurd that this college is going to force all the students to subsidize the education of a student who is in the country illegally,” Vaughan said. “It’s a shame these students and faculty don’t have the same drive to help some of their fellow citizens who can’t afford college and who are forced to compete with illegal workers for job opportunities.”
The program, which likely will be expanded beyond a single scholarship beginning next year, will help celebrate “Coming Out Day,” an annual event hosted by United We Dream in support of undocumented students, the school’s web site said.
Arizona has an estimated 65,000 undocumented high school graduates in the state, with as many as 6,500 pursuing higher education, Prescott College officials said. The college, which has 400 undergraduate students on campus, maintains undocumented students “are not expressly prohibited by law from admission to state colleges and universities” and “no federal statutes require disclosure and proof of immigration status and citizenship for students to enter higher education.”
The new scholarship can go full or part-time undocumented students in undergraduate or graduate programs that demonstrate financial need – even students set for deferred removal action under federal immigration law. Applicants may not be a legal permanent resident and may not possess a green card, visa, or other legal documentation.
Miriel Manning, founder of the Freedom Education Fund and a student in Prescott College’s Social Justice and Human Rights Master of Arts program, said students were inspired by “courageous leadership and organizing of undocumented leaders across the country.”
“Within the current political landscape of Arizona it is critical that Prescott College shows our commitment to education as a human right,” Manning said.
Only one other school in the nation, Chicago’s Loyola University, is known to have a similarly funded scholarship. Students there pay an extra $2.50 to pay for tuition for illegal immigrants.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/04/06/arizona-college-imposes-mandatory-fee-to-fund-scholarship-for-illegal-immigrants.html?intcmp=hpbt3
-
CNS' Jeffrey: Obama Aims to Grant Federal Benefits to Illegal Immigrants
By Sandy Fitzgerald | Thursday, 07 Apr 2016
President Barack Obama says he has the power to allow illegal immigrants to be eligible for federal benefits through the guise of "prosecutorial discretion," and that he will not enforce the law against them for being in the country, CNS News Editor-in-Chief Terence Jeffrey says in an editorial.
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli plans to use that argument before the Supreme Court, where he will argue that Obama "can make millions of people in this country illegally eligible for Social Security, disability and Medicare," Jeffrey writes in the Wednesday piece.
The court will hear the arguments in a case filed by Texas and other states that complains the administration's Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program, or DAPA, goes against Congress' framework that determines who may enter and stay in the country.
And in the Obama administration's response, Verrilli says DAPA would legalize immigrants, and that the administration can remove them from the United States "at any time." But still, he said the administration can allow people to stay under a "deferred" status.
While Verrilli says the deferred action status makes an illegal immigrant ineligible for federal public benefit programs, they are still eligible for "earned-benefit" programs like Social Security and Medicare.
Meanwhile, since such immigrants are not given lawful immigration status and can be removed at any time, that puts Obama in violation of breaking a Constitutional law that requires he "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," Jeffrey writes.
"The Obama administration has taken care of just one thing here: It has constructed a convoluted — and unconvincing argument — it hopes will provide the activists on the Supreme Court with a cover story to explain why this president need not faithfully execute the nation's immigration laws," Jeffrey concluded.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-constitutional-laws-DAPA/2016/04/07/id/722786/#ixzz45B7YcLsD
-
Supreme Court Appears Split Over Obama's Immigration Plan
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=60d06b3a-152c-4c5f-b0d8-1b79eaaa25e3&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Image: Supreme Court Appears Split Over Obama's Immigration Plan
Monday, 18 Apr 2016
The U.S. Supreme Court appeared closely divided on Monday as it weighed whether to revive President Barack Obama's plan to spare from deportation roughly 4 million immigrants in the country illegally, raising the possibility of a 4-4 deadlock that would block the program.
Based on questions asked during the 90-minute oral argument in a case that tests the limits of presidential powers, the court's four liberal justices seemed poised to back Obama while the four conservatives were more skeptical.
The court is evenly divided with four liberals and four conservatives following the February death of conservative Antonin Scalia. That raises the possibility of a 4-4 split that would leave in place a 2015 lower-court ruling that threw out the president's executive action that bypassed the Republican-led Congress.
If the court is to avoid a 4-4 split, Chief Justice John Roberts could be the most likely member of the conservative bloc to join the liberals in voting to reinstate the program. One possible compromise outcome would be that the court could uphold Obama's plan while leaving some legal questions unresolved, including whether the government can provide work authorization to eligible applicants.
The case, one of the biggest of the court's current term ending in June, pits Obama against 26 states led by Texas that filed suit to block his immigration plan.
Roberts seemed to doubt the Obama administration's argument that Texas lacked the legal "standing" to launch the challenge. The administration had argued that the state would not be hurt by Obama's plan.
Conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy, who frequently casts the deciding vote in close cases, expressed concern that the administration had exceeded its authority by having the executive branch set immigration policy rather than carry out laws passed by Congress.
Obama's plan was tailored to let roughly 4 million people - those who have lived illegally in the United States at least since 2010, have no criminal record and have children who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents - get into a program that shields them from deportation and supplies work permits.
On a sunny spring day in the U.S. capital, more than a thousand demonstrators, most supporting Obama's action, gathered outside the white marble courthouse. The lively music of a mariachi band and chants of "We're home and here to stay, undocumented and unafraid," filled the air.
Zaira Garcia, 23, a recent graduate of the University of Texas at Austin, recalled on the court's front steps how her Mexican father's employers would sometimes withhold pay because they knew he was not in the country legally.
"It's inhumane, the way people who are undocumented can be taken advantage of," Garcia said.
John Moorefield, 81, of Statesville, North Carolina, participated in a rally organized by the conservative Tea Party Patriots group.
"They need to come here legally," Moorefield said of illegal immigrants. "Why should I pay taxes to bring someone here who's not legal? They broke the law. I didn't."
OBAMA'S PLAN BLOCKED
Obama took the action after House of Representatives Republicans killed bipartisan legislation, billed as the biggest overhaul of U.S. immigration laws in decades and providing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, that was passed by the Senate in 2013.
Obama's program is called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA).
Shortly before the plan was to take effect last year, a federal judge in Texas blocked it after the Republican-governed states filed suit against the Democratic president's executive action. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision in November.
The Supreme Court's ruling is due by the end of June.
Obama's action arose from frustration within the White House and the immigrant community about a lack of action in politically polarized Washington to address the status of people, mostly Hispanics, living in the United States illegally.
The court will decide the case at a time when immigration has become a contentious issue in the U.S. presidential campaign, with leading Republican candidates calling for all of the estimated 11 million people in the country illegally to be deported.
Obama, who has seen many of his major legislative initiatives stifled by Republican lawmakers, has drawn Republican ire with his use of executive action to get around Congress on immigration policy and other matters including gun control and healthcare.
On the immigration action, the states contend Obama exceeded the powers granted to him by the Constitution by usurping the authority of Congress.
The Obama administration called Obama's action mere guidance to federal immigration
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/supreme-court-split-obama-immigration/2016/04/18/id/724485/#ixzz46CXMkdgO
-
Supreme Court justices seem divided on Obama immigration actions; Roberts the wild card
By Bill Mears Published April 18, 2016
FoxNews.com
The Supreme Court appeared split along ideological lines Monday as justices took up one of the most significant challenges yet to President Obama’s use of executive power -- an election-year dispute over his bid to shield millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation and make them eligible to work in the U.S.
The justices’ questions and comments over the course of the 90-minute arguments left the possibility of a 4-4 tie -- which would represent a defeat for the Obama administration. A split decision also would set no guiding precedent on the use of presidential authority moving forward.
Still, comments by Chief Justice John Roberts helped keep a final decision in doubt, as he suggested a possible quick-fix in a key part of the policy. In doing so, he gave possible hope to the White House and its allies, even if a split decision still appears the most likely outcome.
"We believe at the end of the day, that even though there are only eight justices, there will be enough justices to uphold” the policies, said Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., who is backing the White House.
But Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who was also inside the court, warned, "If we allow a president … to make changes in the law without congressional approval, then we will end up with a perverted Constitution."
Texas is leading 26 states dominated by Republicans in challenging the programs Obama announced in 2014 and that have been put on hold by lower courts.
At issue is whether as many as 5 million illegal immigrants can be spared deportation -- including those who entered the U.S. as children, and the parents of citizens or legal residents. The programs -- known as Deferred Action for Parents of American Citizens and Permanent Residents (DAPA) and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) -- effectively went around the Republican-led Congress. The court is expected to decide by late June whether the efforts can move forward in the waning months of Obama's presidency, amid a presidential campaign marked by tough Republican rhetoric over immigration.
The justices on Monday were considering a fundamental question: how much power does the president truly have?
But the 90-minute public session dealt mostly with a more mundane question -- whether the states have legal authority, or "standing," to even bring their case.
Some liberal justices seemed to reject Texas' claim of great financial and sovereign harm by voluntarily using taxpayer dollars to subsidize drivers licenses given to undocumented workers.
"Those nearly 11 million unauthorized aliens are here in the shadows. They are affecting the economy whether we want to or not," said Justice Sonia Sotomayor. "The answer is, if Congress really wanted not to have an economic impact, it would ... allot the amount of money necessary to deport them, but it hasn't."
But Justice Anthony Kennedy questioned Obama's authority. "That's the whole point, is that you've talked about discretion here. What we're doing is defining the limits of discretion. And it seems to me that that is a legislative, not an executive act," he said. "That seems to me to have it backwards. It's as if the president is setting the policy and the Congress is executing it. That's just upside-down."
Only Roberts among the conservative bloc seemed open to a compromise.
At issue was a two-word phrase in the Obama-issued policies -- "lawful presence" -- which opponents say gives undocumented aliens greater access to benefits than was intended by Congress.
Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito pointed out the confusion, wondering what the difference was between "lawfully present" and "legally present," which the Justice Department said were two separate things.
"How can it be lawful to work here but not lawful to be here?" asked Alito.
The chief justice -- who years ago helped preserve ObamaCare -- later said "crossing out" the "lawfully present" phrase might keep the executive action intact, a suggestion the Justice Department lawyer eagerly embraced, saying it would be "totally fine."
The coalition of states calls the presidents immigration actions an executive power grab. But the White House contends this authority is clear, and the policies humane and reasonable. Obama has promoted his program as a plan to "prioritize deporting felons not families."
A federal appeals court earlier had struck down DAPA, which has yet to go fully into effect. The Justice Department then asked the high court for a final review. The immigrants who would benefit from the Obama administration's plan are mainly parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.
However, as with other high-profile Supreme Court appeals this term -- on ObamaCare, abortion rights and affirmative action -- the outcome here likely will be affected by the death in February of Justice Antonin Scalia, which left a 4-4 bench split along conservative-liberal lines.
A 4-4 ruling would effectively scuttle the issue until after Obama leaves office in nine months, and mean at least a temporary setback to his domestic policy legacy. The justices also could rule narrowly on procedure, finding a compromise on a technical issue not directly related to the larger policy questions.
On the legal side, the GOP-controlled House filed an amicus brief supporting the states, telling the high court, "the Executive does not have the power to authorize -- let alone facilitate -- the prospective violation of the immigration laws on a massive class-wide scale."
The case is U.S. v. Texas (15-674).
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/18/supreme-court-justices-seem-divided-on-obama-immigration-actions-roberts-wild-card.html?intcmp=hpbt1
-
>:(
California lawmakers try to extend ObamaCare to illegal immigrants
Published June 06, 2016
FoxNews.com
California is on the brink of becoming the first state in the nation to offer illegal immigrants the chance to buy insurance on an ObamaCare exchange -- testing what's being described as a "loophole" in the law.
The Affordable Care Act technically bars illegal immigrants from the insurance exchanges.
But the California bill, which last week passed the state legislature and was sent to Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk, would allow the state to apply for a federal waiver to open its exchange -- Covered California -- to undocumented residents.
There's no guarantee that will happen. Brown first would have to sign the bill and the Obama administration then would have to green-light the waiver. Even if that is granted, it wouldn't necessarily give illegal immigrants access to insurance subsidies.
Critics, though, say it’s a slippery slope and yet another example of how the federal government has hoodwinked Americans into getting behind the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare.
“This is the first step in another misrepresentation of the Affordable Care Act,” Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform told US News & World Report. “It was sold to the American people on the fact that you wouldn’t have to subsidize health care for illegal immigrants.”
During his monthslong public pitch for the health care overhaul, President Obama had promised repeatedly the benefits that come with the federal and state health care exchanges would not be made available to illegal immigrants.
Currently, it is illegal under ObamaCare for undocumented immigrants to buy into the ACA.
According to HealthCare.gov, “undocumented immigrants aren’t eligible to buy Marketplace health coverage, or for premium tax credits and other savings on Marketplace plans.”
However, a provision in the law called the “innovation waiver” allows states like California to change portions of the law as long as the state makes coverage available to more people and as long as the federal government doesn’t get stuck footing the bill.
The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Ricardo Lara, a Democrat, says if Brown signs the bill, 390,000 illegal immigrants would be eligible to receive health insurance.
“We are talking about our friends. We are talking about our neighbors and our families who are denied basic health care in the richest state of this union,” Lara, the son of an undocumented worker, said during Senate negotiations last June.
While the California waiver would be the first of its kind on a large scale, 18 states already have offered subsidies for prenatal care for undocumented women and health insurance for all undocumented children, according to Think Progress.
Requests for comment to Brown's office and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, as well to Lara's office, were not immediately returned.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/06/california-lawmakers-try-to-extend-obamacare-to-illegal-immigrants.html?intcmp=hplnws
-
>:(
California lawmakers try to extend ObamaCare to illegal immigrants
states rights. sucks, but that is what the libs of cali want.
-
states rights. sucks, but that is what the libs of cali want.
This sounds like Donald Trump trying to talk about public policy. This doesn't have squat to do with "state's rights." You don't even know what that phrase means.
-
I would vote against it sure as hell.
I don't mind illegals being "here", I've been pretty supportive that they should be able to become citizens easier than has been in the past.
That said, there is no way that someone who is not a citizen and not paying taxes should be able to join into one of the exchanges. Should be shut down pretty easily at the legislature.
Just because some super liberal law maker wants to start the conversation does not mean that it will or should happen.
-
Next thing you know they will be trying to allow them to vote.
-
Slippery slopes they say... :-\
-
3rd time a charm? San Francisco to try yet again to give illegal immigrants voting rights
By Malia Zimmerman
Published June 08, 2016
FoxNews.com
After two failed bids to grant voting rights to illegal immigrants, some San Francisco officials believe they have found the man who can make it happen: Donald Trump.
A proposed charter amendment drafted by Board of Supervisors member Eric Mar would give illegal immigrants with kids in the public school system the right to vote in school elections. Voters have rejected two previous ballot proposals, but Mar is betting on anti-Trump sentiment to carry the pro-illegal immigrant proposal if he can get it on the November ballot.
“With Donald Trump’s racist and anti-immigrant sentiments, there is a reaction from many of us who are disgusted by those politics," Mar said. "I think that’s going to ensure there is strong Latino turnout as well as other immigrant turnout.”
A key promise in Trump's campaign for the Republican nomination for president has been to build a wall on the Mexican border. This week, Trump claimed a federal judge overseeing a lawsuit against Trump University wouldn’t be impartial because he is of Mexican heritage.
Mar staffers confirmed the measure will go before the rules committee within weeks, and could then be presented to the full board of supervisors. If a majority support it, the charter amendment will be on the ballot Nov. 8 when the city and nation votes for president.
“The time is right for San Francisco to make history, to pave the way for immigrant parents to have a say in the policy decisions that impact their child’s education and who gets to sit on the Board of Education,” Mar said in a written statement.
In 2004, voters narrowly rejected the same proposal. A similar measure, introduced by California Assemblymember David Chiu, D-San Francisco, failed in 2010 with just 46 percent of the vote.
Chiu believes Trump's presence on the ballot, and the fact that one of every three children in the system is now the child of an immigrant parent could make the third time a charm.
“With the anti-immigrant rhetoric from Donald Trump, it is more important than ever that we come together as San Franciscans to stand up for our immigrant communities and support their civic engagement,” Chiu said in a written statement.
The plan is “bad public policy,” according to Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation and former Federal Elections Commission member.
“It is wrong to extend the vote to individuals who have not entered the American social compact or made a commitment to the our Constitution, our law, and our cultural and political heritage by becoming citizens,” von Spakovsky said. “It is even worse to extend the franchise to illegal aliens whose very first act is to violate our laws; that encourages contempt for the law.”
While laws in all 50 states bar noncitizens from voting in state elections, and federal law makes it a felony for noncitizens to vote in federal elections, there is an opening in local elections, von Spakovsky acknowledged.
Seven jurisdictions - including 6 in Maryland and one in Chicago – afforded voting rights to noncitizens, Ron Hayduk, a political science professor at Queens College of the City University of New York, told the Chronicle.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/08/3rd-time-charm-san-francisco-to-try-yet-again-to-give-illegal-immigrants-voting-rights.html?intcmp=hpbt2
-
President Obama checked yet again.
Supreme Court blocks Obama immigration plan
Published June 23, 2016
FoxNews.com
The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked President Obama’s immigration executive actions, in a tie decision that delivers a win to states challenging his plan to give a deportation reprieve to millions of illegal immigrants.
The justices' one-sentence opinion on Thursday marks a major setback for the administration, effectively killing the plan for the duration of Obama's presidency.
The judgment could have significant political and legal consequences in a presidential election year highlighted by competing rhetoric over immigration. As the ruling was announced, pro-immigration activists filled the sidewalk in front of the court, some crying as the ruling became public. Critics of the policy touted the decision as a strong statement against "executive abuses."
"The Constitution is clear: The president is not permitted to write laws—only Congress is. This is another major victory in our fight to restore the separation of powers," House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement, adding that the ruling rendered Obama's actions "null and void."
Obama, though, said the decision “takes us further from the country that we aspire to be.”
He stressed that earlier changes his administration made to immigration policy are not affected, but acknowledged his most recent 2014 changes cannot go forward and additional executive actions are unlikely.
While Obama accepted the ruling, he also made his own full-court press, saying the split decision underscores the importance of the current court vacancy and the appointment of a successor to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, to "break this tie." So far, Senate Republicans have not considered Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland.
"The court's inability to reach a decision in this case is a very clear reminder of why it's so important for the Supreme Court to have a full bench," he said Thursday at the White House.
The 4-4 tie vote sets no national precedent but leaves in place the ruling by the lower court. In this case, the federal appeals court in New Orleans said the Obama administration lacked the authority to shield up to 4 million immigrants from deportation and make them eligible for work permits without approval from Congress.
Texas led 26 Republican-dominated states in challenging the program Obama announced in November 2014. Congressional Republicans also backed the states' lawsuit.
The decision lands in the middle of a heated election season in which immigration is a central issue. Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, won the primaries while railing against Obama administration immigration policies as dangerous.
Democrats have, in turn, called his rhetoric racially divisive while defending the administration's move to expand existing programs that would effectively give temporary legal status to some undocumented residents.
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton countered Ryan's statement saying the decision was "purely procedural" and leaves "no doubt" the programs were within the president's authority. Referencing the 4-4 split on the court, she again urged the Senate to give Obama's nominee to fill the remaining court vacancy a vote.
"Today’s deadlocked decision from the Supreme Court is unacceptable, and show us all just how high the stakes are in this election," Clinton said in a statement.
The immigration case dealt with two separate Obama programs. One would allow undocumented immigrants who are parents of either U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents to live and work in the U.S. without the threat of deportation. The other would expand an existing program to protect from deportation a larger population of immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children.
Obama decided to move forward after Republicans won control of the Senate in the 2014 midterm elections, and the chances for an immigration overhaul, already remote, were further diminished.
The Senate had passed a broad immigration bill with Democratic and Republican support in 2013, but the measure went nowhere in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives.
The states quickly went to court to block the Obama initiatives.
Their lawsuit was heard initially by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville, Texas. Hanen previously had criticized the administration for lax immigration enforcement. Hanen sided with the states, blocking the programs from taking effect. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled for the states, and the Justice Department rushed an appeal to the high court so that it could be heard this term.
Texas officials hailed the decision Thursday.
“The action taken by the President was an unauthorized abuse of presidential power that trampled the Constitution, and the Supreme Court rightly denied the President the ability to grant amnesty contrary to immigration laws," Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said in a statement. "Today's ruling is also a victory for all law-abiding Americans—including the millions of immigrants who came to America following the rule of law."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/23/supreme-court-blocks-obama-immigration-plan.html
-
Obama Admin Ordered Jailed Illegals Be Freed in 2013
By Joe Crowe | Wednesday, 10 Aug 2016
The Obama administration told immigration officials to release over 5,000 jailed illegal immigrants, some of whom had been accused of terror threats, drunk driving, drug and gun possession, and sexual assault, according to the Washington Examiner.
The Immigration Reform Law Institute made the findings after a Freedom of Information Act request, the Examiner reports.
The administration was forced to cut spending in 2013 under the congressional sequester at that time. Pressure to move quickly resulted in some criminals being released, in an attempt to cut $84 million from the budget.
Federation for American Immigration Reform spokesman Dave Ray said that it appears that "political theater" led to criminals being released. "These emails make it crystal clear that the administration was more concerned with the political optics of its immigration enforcement efforts than with its duty to keep American safe from criminal and illegal aliens."
The emails show that a reduction of 5,432 illegals was ordered. In the emails, officials called the immigrants "bodies."
Contents of the emails had large parts redacted, according to the Examiner. One official called the forced reductions, "BS." A top official in the emails said that releasing criminals was not a cause for worry. "Stay calm. You have not done anything wrong," the official wrote.
In another email, an official wrote, "We must decrease our population by COB (close of business) today. Let's do this now."
In 2014, The Washington Post reported that immigration officials released more than 600 undocumented immigrants with criminal convictions.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-administration-illegal-immigrants-free/2016/08/10/id/743037/#ixzz4GxgqxoM8
-
Do we retire this issue now?
Trump will enforce obama laws on amnesty 'with more energy'.
Obama has deported more immigrants than any other president. Now he’s running up the score.
http://fusion.net/story/252637/obama-has-deported-more-immigrants-than-any-other-president-now-hes-running-up-the-score/
-
President Obama checked yet again.
Supreme Court blocks Obama immigration plan
Published June 23, 2016
FoxNews.com
The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked President Obama’s immigration executive actions, in a tie decision that delivers a win to states challenging his plan to give a deportation reprieve to millions of illegal immigrants.
The justices' one-sentence opinion on Thursday marks a major setback for the administration, effectively killing the plan for the duration of Obama's presidency.
The judgment could have significant political and legal consequences in a presidential election year highlighted by competing rhetoric over immigration. As the ruling was announced, pro-immigration activists filled the sidewalk in front of the court, some crying as the ruling became public. Critics of the policy touted the decision as a strong statement against "executive abuses."
"The Constitution is clear: The president is not permitted to write laws—only Congress is. This is another major victory in our fight to restore the separation of powers," House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement, adding that the ruling rendered Obama's actions "null and void."
Obama, though, said the decision “takes us further from the country that we aspire to be.”
He stressed that earlier changes his administration made to immigration policy are not affected, but acknowledged his most recent 2014 changes cannot go forward and additional executive actions are unlikely.
While Obama accepted the ruling, he also made his own full-court press, saying the split decision underscores the importance of the current court vacancy and the appointment of a successor to the late Justice Antonin Scalia, to "break this tie." So far, Senate Republicans have not considered Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland.
"The court's inability to reach a decision in this case is a very clear reminder of why it's so important for the Supreme Court to have a full bench," he said Thursday at the White House.
The 4-4 tie vote sets no national precedent but leaves in place the ruling by the lower court. In this case, the federal appeals court in New Orleans said the Obama administration lacked the authority to shield up to 4 million immigrants from deportation and make them eligible for work permits without approval from Congress.
Texas led 26 Republican-dominated states in challenging the program Obama announced in November 2014. Congressional Republicans also backed the states' lawsuit.
The decision lands in the middle of a heated election season in which immigration is a central issue. Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, won the primaries while railing against Obama administration immigration policies as dangerous.
Democrats have, in turn, called his rhetoric racially divisive while defending the administration's move to expand existing programs that would effectively give temporary legal status to some undocumented residents.
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton countered Ryan's statement saying the decision was "purely procedural" and leaves "no doubt" the programs were within the president's authority. Referencing the 4-4 split on the court, she again urged the Senate to give Obama's nominee to fill the remaining court vacancy a vote.
"Today’s deadlocked decision from the Supreme Court is unacceptable, and show us all just how high the stakes are in this election," Clinton said in a statement.
The immigration case dealt with two separate Obama programs. One would allow undocumented immigrants who are parents of either U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents to live and work in the U.S. without the threat of deportation. The other would expand an existing program to protect from deportation a larger population of immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children.
Obama decided to move forward after Republicans won control of the Senate in the 2014 midterm elections, and the chances for an immigration overhaul, already remote, were further diminished.
The Senate had passed a broad immigration bill with Democratic and Republican support in 2013, but the measure went nowhere in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives.
The states quickly went to court to block the Obama initiatives.
Their lawsuit was heard initially by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville, Texas. Hanen previously had criticized the administration for lax immigration enforcement. Hanen sided with the states, blocking the programs from taking effect. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also ruled for the states, and the Justice Department rushed an appeal to the high court so that it could be heard this term.
Texas officials hailed the decision Thursday.
“The action taken by the President was an unauthorized abuse of presidential power that trampled the Constitution, and the Supreme Court rightly denied the President the ability to grant amnesty contrary to immigration laws," Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said in a statement. "Today's ruling is also a victory for all law-abiding Americans—including the millions of immigrants who came to America following the rule of law."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/23/supreme-court-blocks-obama-immigration-plan.html
US Supreme Court Denies Obama Request to Rehear Major Immigration Case
Monday, 03 Oct 2016
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to rehear a bid by President Barack Obama's administration to revive his plan to spare from deportation millions of immigrants in the country illegally, a case in which the justices split 4-4 in June.
In a brief order, the court rejected the administration's long-shot request, meaning the justices' June 23 decision is final. That ruling left in place a lower court decision that had blocked the plan, which Obama announced in 2014 but never went into effect.
The court remains one justice short following the February death of Antonin Scalia.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Supreme-court-obama-immigration-rehear/2016/10/03/id/751366/#ixzz4M2ewMKyd
-
10-times deported Mexican man accused of raping a child on a Greyhound bus
Published October 17, 2016
Fox News Latino
A man from Mexico who had been deported 10 times in the last six years is behind bars on charges of raping a child on a Greyhound bus.
Hays Post reported Tomas Martinez-Maldonado, 41, sexually abused a 12-year-old girl while on Interstate 70, in Kansas' Geary County, late last month.
“A Greyhound bus had made a stop in Kansas City and there was an alleged rape that occurred on the bus, however they had no idea where this rape took place,” Geary County Sheriff Tony Wolf told Hays Post.
Martinez-Maldonado also had a 2013 federal felony conviction for illegal re-entry into the country, according to information provided by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to The Kansas City Star.
The criminal complaint on the rape was filed on Sept. 30, the paper said.
He was arrested by the Kansas Bureau of Investigation in Missouri and was turned over to ICE until charges were filed, the paper said.
Martinez-Maldonado remains jailed on $100,000 bond.
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2016/10/17/10-times-deported-mexican-man-accused-raping-child-on-greyhound-bus/
-
LAPD Chief: We Won't Assist Feds in Deporting Immigrants
By Solange Reyner | Monday, 14 Nov 2016
Los Angeles police officers will not assist the federal government in deporting immigrants according to a report in The Los Angeles Times.
"I don’t intend on doing anything different," LAPD Chief Charlie Beck told the L.A. Times Monday. "We are not going to engage in law enforcement activities solely based on somebody’s immigration status. We are not going to work in conjunction with Homeland Security on deportation efforts. That is not our job, nor will I make it our job."
President-elect Donald Trump ran his campaign on the premise that he would be very strict on immigration and build a wall between the Mexican and U.S. border. He also said he would deport millions of undocumented immigrants, clearing up that notion Sunday when he told CBS’ Lesley Stahl on ’60 Minutes’ that his administration would focus on deporting immigrants with criminal records first.
The LAPD has for a long time separated itself from federal immigration procedures. Officers cannot approach people with the objective of discovering if the person is an immigrant and, under Beck, the department has stopped turning people over to federal agents if they are arrested for low-level crimes.
http://www.newsmax.com/US/charlie-beck-chief-lapd-wont-deport/2016/11/14/id/758856/
-
Illegal Immigrant Deported 8 Times Charged in Fatal Hit-and-Run Crash
Dec 09, 2016 // 10:43am
As seen on The Kelly File
An illegal immigrant who has been deported eight times is wanted in the hit-and-run deaths of two women in Louisville, Ky.
The Department of Justice announced that Mexican national Miguel Angel Villasenor-Saucedo, 40, was driving the truck that killed the women on Oct. 22 and then fled the scene.
A warrant has been issued for his arrest, and he faces no more than a maximum of two years in prison if captured, the announcement stated.
Laura Wilkerson, whose son Josh was killed by an illegal immigrant in 2010, reacted on "The Kelly File," saying she's "enraged" by the report.
Officials said Villasenor-Saucedo repeatedly crossed into Texas by wading or rafting across the Rio Grande. Wilkerson said she supports President-elect Donald Trump's hardline stance on combating illegal immigration.
"Now is the perfect time for him to do what he says he would do, which is build the wall, enforce law and get out illegals who are here committing crimes," said Wilkerson, who chairs Enforce the Law, an organization opposed to sanctuary cities.
Wilkerson said the border is wide open right now and that the country cannot assess who is here until the flow of illegal immigrants is stopped.
Watch the full interview above.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/12/09/illegal-immigrant-deported-8-times-hit-and-run-suspect-kentucky
-
Do we retire this issue now?
Trump will enforce obama laws on amnesty 'with more energy'.
Obama has deported more immigrants than any other president. Now he’s running up the score.
http://fusion.net/story/252637/obama-has-deported-more-immigrants-than-any-other-president-now-hes-running-up-the-score/
I know this post was from a while ago, but..............
The definition of what "Deportation" means, i.e. what counts as a "deportation" was largely changed by the Obama Administration around 2010. They include more things under the "Deportation" umbrella. Hence the bigger number.
You should have known this.
-
I know this post was from a while ago, but..............
The definition of what "Deportation" means, i.e. what counts as a "deportation" was largely changed by the Obama Administration around 2010. They include more things under the "Deportation" umbrella. Hence the bigger number.
You should have known this.
Specifically, the Obama Administration started counting people turned away at the border as "deportations," which grossly inflated the actual deportation numbers.
-
Los Angeles plans $10-million for immigrant legal aid in wake of Trump election
By: Jeffrey Thomas DeSocio
Posted: Dec 19 2016
LOS ANGELES, Calif. (FOX 11 / AP) - Los Angeles elected officials and community leaders say they are setting up a $10 million fund to provide legal services to immigrants facing deportation in the wake of Donald Trump's election.
Mayor Eric Garcetti's office said Monday about half the money will come from public funds and about half from private foundations.
It was not immediately clear how the funds will be allocated.
The move comes as major cities and counties in Democratic strongholds across the country are beefing up legal services for immigrants to combat Trump's promises to boost deportations.
Los Angeles county supervisors are expected to consider on Tuesday a proposal to set aside $3 million to provide lawyers for immigrants.
http://www.foxla.com/news/local-news/224505164-story
-
Sanctuary City Status ‘A Great Way to Start New Year’, Says Mayor
by BOB PRICE
27 Dec 2016
Boulder, CO
Boulder, Colorado is rushing to formalize its status as a sanctuary city in the weeks leading up to the inauguration of President-Elect Donald Trump.
“That seems to be a meaningful goal post to shoot for,” Mayor Suzanne Jones told Boulder’s Daily Camera newspaper.
“A great way to start the new year.”
The local news outlet reported the move is largely symbolic as Boulder already follows the policies of other jurisdictions classified as “sanctuary” jurisdictions. The decision appears to be an “in your face” move in response to the incoming president’s threat to defund similar cities.
The mayor and city council of Boulder directed the city attorney’s office to draft an ordinance for either the council’s January 3 or 17 meeting. It was not confirmed if the draft would contain the word “sanctuary.”
The Daily Camera reported:
Councilwoman Mary Young said that Boulder might do better to keep “sanctuary” out of any action it takes so as to at least try to minimize attention of the Trump administration. She also said that immigration workers she’s spoken to believe that action is more important than words, and that a city calling itself a sanctuary is not as meaningful as some believe.
“What matters is that we have the force of law behind it,” Young said. “That we walk the walk was more important to them than talking the talk.”
The City of Boulder appears to already be in violation of federal law requiring local officials to cooperate with immigration authorities.
The Boulder police chief, Greg Testa, told the local news outlet, “We do not detain anybody based on immigration status and we do not report immigration status to the federal government.”
The sanctuary policy would likely put the City in violation of Section 1373 of Title 8 of the United States Code. The law was passed in 1996 during the administration of President Bill Clinton to force local and state jurisdictions to cooperate with immigration officials or risk losing federal funding, Breitbart Texas reported in November. Part of the process requires the federal agency’s office of inspector general to certify that a jurisdiction is not in compliance in order to block funding.
The previously unenforced law could now become the tool for the Trump Administration to use to quickly force sanctuary cities into compliance, U.S. Representative John Culberson told Breitbart Texas earlier this month.
“The law requires cooperation with immigration officials 100 percent of the time,” Culberson told Breitbart Texas. In February, Culberson provided Attorney General Lynch with a list of more than 300 sanctuary cities compiled by the Center for Immigration Studies.
Since that time, the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General has certified 10 of these jurisdictions as sanctuary jurisdictions and the top ten have been notified they will not be eligible for federal law enforcement grants in the coming year.
The City of Boulder is not currently on the list of 300 sanctuary jurisdiction, but Boulder County is. The Boulder County sheriff has, along with other Colorado sheriff’s announced they will not honor immigration detainers issued by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. Between January 2014 and September 2015, Boulder County officials refused to honor 19 immigration detainers, eight of which were for illegal aliens with prior criminal histories, CIS reported.
The Daily Camera reported a Colorado law passed in 2013 allowed the state’s sheriff’s to not notify ICE when there was probable cause to believe the inmate was an illegal alien. That law could place the State of Colorado in the same status as the States of California and Connecticut who have already been certified by the DOJ as not being in compliance with the law.
Since the Colorado law was passed in 2013, “the state’s sheriff’s declared they would not honor Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers,” the local newspaper reported.
“The critical steps (for cutting federal funding to sanctuary cities) have already been taken,” Chairman Culberson stated previously. “President Trump and Attorney General Sessions will, on day one, be able to strip the funding from these sanctuary jurisdictions simply by enforcing existing law.”
“The timing on this action by the DOJ is perfect,” Culberson told Breitbart Texas. “The new administration can go right to work to force these jurisdictions to comply or simply choose to stop receiving federal money.”
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/12/27/sanctuary-city-status-great-way-start-new-year-says-mayor/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
-
Mexican man charged with rape had 19 deportations, removals
BY ROXANA HEGEMAN
Associated Press
DECEMBER 30, 2016 1
WICHITA, KAN.
A Mexican man accused of raping a 13-year-old girl on a Greyhound bus that traveled through Kansas had been deported 10 times and voluntarily removed from the U.S. another nine times since 2003, records obtained by The Associated Press show.
Three U.S. Republican senators — including Kansas' Jerry Moran and Pat Roberts — demanded this month that the Department of Homeland Security provide immigration records for 38-year-old Tomas Martinez-Maldonado, who is charged with a felony in the alleged Sept. 27 attack aboard a bus in Geary County. He is being held in the Geary County jail in Junction City, which is about 120 miles west of Kansas City.
U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, from Iowa and chairman of the judiciary committee, co-signed a Dec. 9 letter with Moran and Roberts to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, calling it "an extremely disturbing case" and questioning how Martinez-Maldonado was able to re-enter and remain in the country.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said it has placed a detainer — a request to turn Martinez-Maldonado over to ICE custody before he is released — with Geary County. ICE declined to discuss his specific case beyond its October statement regarding the 10 deportations.
Court filings show Martinez-Maldonado has two misdemeanor convictions for entering without legal permission in cases prosecuted in 2013 and 2015 in U.S. District Court of Arizona, where he was sentenced to serve 60 days and 165 days respectively.
A status hearing in the rape case is scheduled for Jan. 10. Defense attorney Lisa Hamer declined to comment on the charge, but said, "criminal law and immigration definitely intersect and nowadays it should be the responsibility of every criminal defense attorney to know the possible ramifications in the immigration courts."
Nationwide, 52 percent of all federal prosecutions in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 were for entry or re-entry without legal permission and similar immigration violations, according to Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.
It's not unusual to see immigrants with multiple entries without legal permission, said David Trevino, a Topeka immigration attorney who has provided legal advice to Martinez-Maldonado's family. Most of Martinez-Maldonado's family lives in Mexico, but he also has family in the United States, and the family is "devastated," Trevino said.
"(President-elect Donald Trump) can build a wall 100 feet high and 50 feet deep, but it is not going to keep family members separated. So if someone is deported and they have family members here ... they will find a way back — whether it is through the air, under a wall, through the coast of the United States," Trevino said.
He declined to comment on Martinez-Maldonado's criminal history and pending charge.
Records obtained by AP show Martinez-Maldonado had eight voluntary removals before his first deportation in 2010, which was followed by another voluntary removal that same year. He was deported five more times between 2011 and 2013.
In 2013, Martinez-Maldonado was charged with entering without legal permission, a misdemeanor, and subsequently deported in early 2014 after serving his sentence. He was deported again a few months later, as well as twice in 2015 — including the last one in October 2015 after he had served his second sentence, the records show.
ICE said in an emailed statement that when it encounters a person who's been deported multiple times or has a significant criminal history and was removed, it routinely presents those cases to the U.S. attorney's office for possible criminal charges.
Cosme Lopez, spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in Arizona, declined comment on why prosecutors twice dismissed felony re-entry after deportation charges against Martinez-Maldonado in 2013 and 2015 in exchange for guilty pleas on misdemeanor entry charges.
Arizona ranks third in the nation — behind only the Southern District of Texas and the Western District of Texas — for the number of immigration prosecutions among the nation's 94 federal judicial districts for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse records show.
Moran told the AP in an email that the immigration system is "broken."
"There must be serious legislative efforts to address U.S. immigration policy, and we must have the ability to identify, prosecute and deport illegal aliens who display violent tendencies before they have an opportunity to perpetrate these crimes in the United States," he said.
http://www.kansas.com/news/nation-world/article123768739.html#storylink=cpy
-
Illegal immigrant in upstate NY allegedly raped young girl
Published July 25, 2017
Fox News
An illegal immigrant living in New York allegedly raped a girl several times when she was 12 and 13 years old -- including once in front of a baby.
Fernando Alvarado-Perez, 37, was charged with first-degree rape, criminal sexual act and four counts of endangering the welfare of a child, the Livingston County News reported.
The Genessee Sun reported Alvarado-Perez had sex with the girl while in front of a baby, however, additional information surrounding the case was not available. It’s unclear when the alleged rapes occurred.
NORTH CAROLINA MAN ACCUSED OF SEXUALLY ABUSING 7-YEAR-OLD GIRL
Alvarado-Perez told police he had come to the United States illegally about 10 years ago, officials said, adding that Border Patrol and immigration officials were notified. An immigration detainer was issued by the Department of Homeland Security to the Livingston County Jail where Alvarado-Perez is being held without bail.
The Livingston County News reported a new policy dictating how Geneseo police officers are supposed to interact with individuals who may be illegal immigrants did not come into play when investigating and arresting Alvarado-Perez.
Geneseo Police Chief Eric Osganian told the Livingston County News in an email Monday: “Our officers were concerned about investigating this incident and assisting the family the best we could with referral services to other agencies. His immigration status wasn’t a priority to us.”
The police department adopted the policy in May after a traffic stop in March involving two adult women and six children suspected of being in the country illegally.
Renda Cole, a resident of Geneseo, launched a GoFundMe page to aid Alvarado-Perez’s alleged victim in finding “the help she will need for the rest of [her] life professionally and emotionally in the form of counselling and anything medically.”
“Anyone affected by rape knows how difficult it can be and how physically draining it is on a family,” Cole wrote on the fundraiser page.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/25/illegal-immigrant-in-upstate-ny-allegedly-raped-young-girl.html
-
Survivors of Texas truck where 10 immigrants died seek to trade testimony for visas
Jon Herskovitz and Mica Rosenberg
JULY 25, 2017
AUSTIN, Texas/NEW YORK (Reuters) - Some of the illegal immigrants who survived a deadly human-smuggling journey into Texas are seeking visas to stay in the United States in exchange for testimony against those responsible for an operation that killed 10 people on a sweltering truck, a lawyer said on Tuesday.
There is precedent for such visas and it could help U.S. authorities bring more people to justice, experts said. So far, only one person has been charged, the driver of the truck who said he was unaware of the human cargo aboard until he took a rest stop in San Antonio. He could face the death penalty if convicted.
The case could also provide a test for the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump, which has promised to crack down on illegal immigration and the criminal syndicates responsible for human trafficking.
Silvia Mintz, an attorney representing the Guatemalan Consulate in Houston, said she has contacted the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to see if it would consider granting "U visas," available to victims of crimes such as human trafficking who have pertinent information to provide law enforcement.
At least 100 illegal immigrants, mainly from Mexico and Guatemala, were crammed into the back of the truck after crossing the U.S. border.
"If we are able to establish the case, we will go ahead and seek the U visa," Mintz said in a telephone interview.
Shane Folden, special agent in charge for Homeland Security Investigations in San Antonio, said most of the people found alive at the scene are still in local hospitals. He said it was too early to talk about possible visas.
"There are a number of paths toward immigration relief for situations such as this," he said in a telephone interview, adding, "we are not at that point yet."
Of the 39 people found at the scene, 10 have died, 22 were in hospitals and seven have been released and were being questioned, he said.
Most of those aboard the truck fled before authorities could capture them.
Death in Victoria
U.S. law enforcement has granted temporary visas previously for immigrants who provided testimony in what is considered the worst illegal immigrant-smuggling case in U.S. history, when 19 people died after traveling in an 18-wheeler truck through Victoria, Texas, in 2003.
Temporary visas for about 40 people aboard that truck helped U.S. prosecutors charge more than a dozen people with conspiracy in the case, prosecutors said at the time.
Alonzo Pena, a former deputy director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said witnesses in the San Antonio case can be released into the community under strict conditions that could include wearing electronic monitoring devices.
Authorities would likely repatriate the others, said Pena, who runs a San Antonio consulting business, in a telephone interview.
A U-visa is valid for four years and offers a path to apply for permanent residency status. Congress limited the number to 10,000 a year, and the program is heavily oversubscribed.
Those on the truck may also try for a T-visa for victims of human trafficking.
Agent Folden said U.S. authorities want to topple the criminal groups responsible for human trafficking.
"Our primary goal is to disrupt and dismantle these organizations," he said.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-texas-bodies-immigrants-idUSKBN1AA2SX
-
Portland man accused of sexually assaulting 65-year-old had been deported 20 times
Published July 30, 2017
A Portland man accused of brutally attacking a 65-year-old woman has a history of arrests, at least 20 deportations and was released by local authorities in defiance of a federal immigration hold.
Sergio Jose Martinez, 31, was taken into custody Monday night on charges that include robbery, kidnapping, burglary and sexual abuse involving two victims.
Martinez allegedly assaulted a woman in the basement of a parking garage while armed with a knife, police said. The woman kicked him in the stomach and pressed the panic button in her car, and Martinez fled when authorities arrived.
The suspect has been a transient in the Portland area for more than a year and has five probation violations for re-entering the United States.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) lodged an immigration detainer against Martinez in December 2016, asking local authorities to notify them before releasing Martinez. However, he was released into the community and ICE was not notified.
It is illegal for cities in Oregon to use their resources to help enforce federal immigration laws; in March, Portland declared itself a "sanctuary city" for undocumented immigrants.
Multnomah County leaders and Sheriff Mike Reese wrote a letter to the community earlier this year saying, “The sheriff’s office does not hold people in county jails on ICE detainers or conduct any immigration enforcement actions,” reports KGW Portland.
Detectives also were able to connect Martinez to another assault that occurred blocks away.
Martinez allegedly entered the woman’s home through an open window, used scarves and socks to blindfold her, then tied her up, gagged her and sexually assaulted her -- slamming her head into the wood floor, reports Fox 12.
The woman told police that Martinez left with her keys, cellphone, credit cards and stole her car. She was able to reach a neighbor’s home to call 911.
Prior to being admitted into jail, Martinez was treated for meth-induced psychosis, according to court documents.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/30/portland-man-accused-sexually-assaulting-65-year-old-had-been-deported-20-times.html
-
Every once in a while, a little sanity in DC.
Gregg Jarrett: Trump, in DACA decision, restores constitutional sanity to immigration laws
By Gregg Jarrett Published September 05, 2017
Fox News
By executive fiat, President Obama granted amnesty to immigrants living illegally in the United States.
It was an unconstitutional act, to be sure. Obama had previously admitted he had no authority to end deportations of illegal aliens when he said, “The notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true.” Then he went about doing it anyway, conjuring a new breadth of hypocrisy.
His successor, President Trump, is now taking the first step toward restoring sanity to the rule of law as it applies to the Constitution and immigration.
By rescinding the Obama-created Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) program that gave a deportation reprieve to illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children, Trump is returning legislative authority to the legislature. He is reinstating the separation of powers that are fundamental to our democracy.
Usurping Legislative Authority
Under the Constitution, congress is vested with writing laws and the president is charged with executing those laws. This is especially true when it comes to immigration.
At the end of the 19th century, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that congress has “plenary power” (meaning full and complete) to regulate immigration. Derived from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, the doctrine is based on the concept that immigration is a question of national sovereignty, relating to a nation’s right to define its own borders and restrict entrance therein.
As the high court observed,“Over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete.” (Oceanic Stem Navigation Co. v. Stranahan, 214, U.S. 320)
Nevertheless, Obama decided to usurp this power by unilateral directive, unconstrained by established checks and balances. In so doing, he granted himself extra-constitutional authority and upset the carefully balanced separation of powers. He also subverted the nucleus of our constitutional design: the rule of law.
The only exception to the power of congress in dictating immigration is the 1952 statute in which the legislative branch transferred its authority to the president in cases involving national security. The president is specifically empowered to restrict foreigners from entering the country to protect the safety and security of Americans. This law formed the basis for President Trump’s travel ban.
In all other immigration matters, only congress is authorized to make laws which the president must enforce.
Distorting Prosecutorial Discretion
Those who supported Obama’s actions not to enforce the law argued that he was merely engaging in “prosecutorial discretion”. It is one of those wonderfully fungible phrases in the law. Elastic because it is vague and ambiguous. Useful because it can be easily abused.
Obama appropriated this doctrine to justify his near boundless discretion to amend, revise, waive or suspend the execution of immigration laws. As chief executive, he empowered himself to decide what laws may be enforced or ignored and what persons may come or go across our southern border irrespective of what the law actually states.
In past decisions, the Supreme Court cautioned the executive branch that its prosecutorial discretion, while broad, is not “unfettered.” (U.S. v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114) It is subject to restrictions. The doctrine may not be used to adopt a sweeping policy of non-enforcement of the law. It applies only to decisions not to prosecute or expel specific individuals or small groups of people, typically for exigent reasons like war, civil unrest or political persecution.
By contrast, Obama bestowed a wholesale, blanket amnesty for an entire class of people. He did so not for the reasons allowed by law, but for purposes that were purely political. It was a flagrant abuse of prosecutorial discretion.
The centerpiece of Obama’s 2014 amnesty program was the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, widely known as “DAPA”. But this law never went into effect because a federal judge blocked it, declaring that the program was a likely abuse of executive powers. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed, and that decision was left intact by the Supreme Court.
With several states vowing a similar challenge to DACA, it was destined for the same judicial fate. That is, an unconstitutional order.
Breaching His Sworn Duty
Obama insisted he was forced to act because “congress failed to act.” It was an appealing political argument, but utterly untrue. Congress did act by passing a law in 1996 requiring federal agents to deport illegal immigrants, with few exceptions. The statutory language is mandatory. That law remains in effect today. Yet, Obama breached his sworn duty by failing to enforce the law. Instead, he ordered immigration agents, in effect, to break the law.
Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Nowhere is it written that the chief executive is granted the latitude to pick and choose which laws he wants to enforce. He cannot ignore or nullify laws he does not like because the Constitution gives him no power not to execute laws.
To infer such latitude would invite an authoritarian rule anathema to our Founding Fathers’ vision. Obama admitted as much when he said, “The fact of the matter is, there are laws on the books that I have to enforce.” He was specifically referring to immigration laws. The Constitution does not permitted a president to engage in a de facto repeal of an existing law. To do so is, quite simply, lawlessness and a dereliction of duty.
If a president can refuse to enforce a valid federal law, are there any limits to his powers? What is to stop a president from rewriting other laws with which he disagrees? Or to act where congress has declined or refused to act? Why even have a legislative branch of government at all? What is the point of a Constitution which enumerates and circumscribes powers and duties?
President Trump will be criticized for revoking his predecessor’s immigration program. But his decision bears fidelity to the Constitution and the rule of law.
Only congress is empowered to alter immigration laws that affect those who are here in the U.S. illegally. It can either pass a new law or decline to do so. A determination not to act is, by itself, a deliberate act. This is how the Framers constructed our system of government.
Congress considers and debates a great many bills. Not all of them pass. This is not a “failure” in a conventional sense, but a decision by declination. It constitutes a prudent and calculated process.
Obama twisted the law, ignored the Constitution, and abdicated his primary responsibility as chief executive.
President Trump is moving in a different direction.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/09/05/gregg-jarrett-trump-in-daca-decision-restores-constitutional-sanity-to-immigration-laws.html
-
On a regular basis, loads of insanity from politicians.
Rahm Emanuel creates ‘Trump-free zone’ for students at Chicago schools
By Jessica Chasmar
- The Washington Times -
Tuesday, September 5, 2017
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel on Tuesday assured incoming high schoolers that they need not to worry about President Trump ending the “Dreamers” program, saying Chicago Public Schools are a “Trump-free” sanctuary for young illegal immigrants.
“To all the Dreamers that are here in this room and in the city of Chicago: You are welcome in the city of Chicago. This is your home. And you have nothing to worry about,” Mr. Emanuel told a group of freshman on the first day of classes at Solorio Academy High School, the Chicago Sun-Times reported.
“Chicago, our schools, our neighborhoods, our city, as it relates to what President Trump said, will be a Trump-free zone. You have nothing to worry about,” Mr. Emanuel said. “And I want you to know this, and I want your families to know this. And rest assured, I want you to come to school … and pursue your dreams.”
Chicago Public Schools CEO Forrest Claypool said the school system is a “sanctuary” for undocumented students.
“We do not allow federal agents on these grounds and in this building,” he said, the Sun-Times reported. “You are safe and secure here to learn, to grow and to pursue your dreams and we hope that you do so.”
The Trump administration announced Tuesday it is ending former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, which allowed illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children to be shielded from deportation.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/5/rahm-emanuel-tells-students-chicago-schools-are-tr/
-
On a regular basis, loads of insanity from politicians.
Rahm Emanuel creates ‘Trump-free zone’ for students at Chicago schools
By Jessica Chasmar
- The Washington Times -
Tuesday, September 5, 2017
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel on Tuesday assured incoming high schoolers that they need not to worry about President Trump ending the “Dreamers” program, saying Chicago Public Schools are a “Trump-free” sanctuary for young illegal immigrants.
“To all the Dreamers that are here in this room and in the city of Chicago: You are welcome in the city of Chicago. This is your home. And you have nothing to worry about,” Mr. Emanuel told a group of freshman on the first day of classes at Solorio Academy High School, the Chicago Sun-Times reported.
“Chicago, our schools, our neighborhoods, our city, as it relates to what President Trump said, will be a Trump-free zone. You have nothing to worry about,” Mr. Emanuel said. “And I want you to know this, and I want your families to know this. And rest assured, I want you to come to school … and pursue your dreams.”
Chicago Public Schools CEO Forrest Claypool said the school system is a “sanctuary” for undocumented students.
“We do not allow federal agents on these grounds and in this building,” he said, the Sun-Times reported. “You are safe and secure here to learn, to grow and to pursue your dreams and we hope that you do so.”
Um.... isn't that treasonous? just sayin'
The Trump administration announced Tuesday it is ending former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, which allowed illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children to be shielded from deportation.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/5/rahm-emanuel-tells-students-chicago-schools-are-tr/
-
How the heck did people stay here for up to 20 years based on a temporary visit??
Trump orders 200,000 Salvadorans to leave U.S.
Alan Gomez, USA TODAY
Published Jan. 8, 2018
The Trump administration will end temporary legal immigration status for 200,000 Salvadorans who have been living in the U.S. for nearly two decades, the Department of Homeland Security announced Monday.
Salvadorans who currently have Temporary Protected Status (TPS) must return to their homeland by September 2019 or become undocumented immigrants if they remain without legal protections.
Salvadorans were first granted TPS in 2001 after a pair of devastating earthquakes that killed nearly 1,000 people and destroyed more than 100,000 homes in the Central American country.
Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen concluded that El Salvador has rebuilt and recovered enough so the emergency declaration is no longer necessary.
"The substantial disruption of living conditions caused by the earthquake no longer exist," Homeland Security said in a statement.
The decision runs counter to those made by Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, who extended TPS protections for El Salvador every 18 months. Their administrations said the country had not fully recovered from the quakes and also had raging violence from drug cartels that made it impossible for so many people to return to the unstable nation.
The State Department issued a travel warning to U.S. travelers last February about widespread violence throughout that country. "El Salvador has one of the highest homicide levels in the world and crimes such as extortion, assault and robbery are common," the warning said.
Homeland Security said Monday that its decision was based on recovery from the earthquakes and not on the current state of gang violence in El Salvador.
The moves comes after months of lobbying by El Salvador's government, a bipartisan group in Congress and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, all urging Washington to find a way that allows Salvadorans to remain in the United States.
El Salvador's embassy in Washington estimates that 97% of Salvadorans on TPS over age 24 are employed and pay taxes, and more than half own their homes. Salvadorans on TPS have also given birth to 192,000 children, all U.S. citizens, according to the Center for Migration Studies.
"To disregard the contributions that El Salvadorans have made in communities across this country by stamping an expiration date on their lives here is inhumane," said Amanda Baran of the Immigrant Legal Resource Center. "El Salvador is one of the world’s most dangerous countries and will be unable to absorb the return of these thousands of people whose lives are inextricably intertwined with those of ours here in the United States."
The decision pleased immigration groups that advocate for lowers levels of immigration, noting the TPS program, created by Congress in 1990, was a short-term fix abused by repeated extensions.
“By ending the Salvadoran TPS, Secretary Nielsen has taken a major step toward saving the TPS program so it can be used for future emergencies,” Roy Beck, executive director of NumbersUSA, said in a statement. “The past practice of allowing foreign nationals to remain in the United States long after an initial emergency in their home countries has ended has undermined the integrity of the program."
The administration has been phasing out temporary protected status granted by Republican and Democratic administrations to 437,000 people from 10 countries that have suffered armed conflicts, earthquakes and other natural disasters, according to the Congressional Research Service.
In November, Homeland Security announced it was ending TPS for about 59,000 Haitians living legally in the U.S. since the powerful 2010 earthquake decimated the country. They must return home by July 2019.
The department also eliminated TPS status for 5,300 Nicaraguans first granted in 1999 after Hurricane Mitch. They must leave by January 2019.
While the department extended TPS for 86,000 Hondurans affected by Mitch for six more months, the administration indicated those people may ultimately be eliminated from the program.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/08/will-democrats-run-on-impeachment-in-2018-midterms-dont-count-it-out.html
-
The president offering amnesty to 1.8 illegals, and not this? One giant middle finger after another to the American people.
Democrats Bringing More Than Two Dozen Illegal Aliens to Trump’s SOTU
by JOHN BINDER
30 Jan 2018Washington, D.C.
More than two dozen illegal aliens are expected to attend President Trump’s “State of the Union” (SOTU) address with Democrats to demand an immediate large-scale amnesty.
. . . .
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/30/democrats-bringing-more-than-two-dozen-illegal-aliens-to-trumps-sotu/
-
California Dems agree to full health benefits for many low-income illegal immigrants, in swipe at Trump
Frank Miles By Frank Miles | Fox News
Attorney and host of the 'Hidden Truth Show' podcast Jim Breslo says California politicians can learn a thing or two from President Trump's 'America First' slogan.
In a stance to distance itself from President Trump’s administration, California is set to become the first state in the country to pay for tens of thousands of illegal immigrants to have full health benefits.
Under an agreement between Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democrats in the state legislature, low-income adults between the ages of 19 and 25 living in California illegally would be eligible for California’s Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal. The deal emerged as part of a broader $213 billion budget.
The plan would take effect in January 2020, the Sacramento Bee reported.
HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS ALONG CALIFORNIA LEVEES MAY BE WEAKENING THEM, OFFICIALS WARN
State officials have estimated the benefits would be available to about 90,000 low-income illegal immigrants at a cost of $98 million per year.
“While it’s not all we sought, it will provide a real tangible difference for people, especially for those around and below poverty and for middle income families who don’t get any help under the federal law,” Anthony Wright, executive director of advocacy group Health Access, said. Indeed, a family of four earning as much as six times the federal poverty level -- or more than $150,000 a year -- would be eligible to get about $100 a month from the government to help pay their monthly health insurance premiums.
To pay for part of it, the state agreed to start taxing people who don’t have health insurance. It’s a revival of the individual-mandate penalty that had been on the books nationwide under former President Barack Obama’s health-care law until Republicans in Congress eliminated it as part of the 2017 overhaul to the tax code.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
The budget agreement still must be approved by the full state legislature; a vote is expected this week. State law requires lawmakers to enact a budget by midnight on June 15. If they don’t, lawmakers would lose their pay.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/california-democrats-full-health-benefits-illegal-immigrants-trump
-
Insane.
California Dems agree to full health benefits for many low-income illegal immigrants, in swipe at Trump
Frank Miles By Frank Miles | Fox News
Attorney and host of the 'Hidden Truth Show' podcast Jim Breslo says California politicians can learn a thing or two from President Trump's 'America First' slogan.
In a stance to distance itself from President Trump’s administration, California is set to become the first state in the country to pay for tens of thousands of illegal immigrants to have full health benefits.
Under an agreement between Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democrats in the state legislature, low-income adults between the ages of 19 and 25 living in California illegally would be eligible for California’s Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal. The deal emerged as part of a broader $213 billion budget.
The plan would take effect in January 2020, the Sacramento Bee reported.
HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS ALONG CALIFORNIA LEVEES MAY BE WEAKENING THEM, OFFICIALS WARN
State officials have estimated the benefits would be available to about 90,000 low-income illegal immigrants at a cost of $98 million per year.
“While it’s not all we sought, it will provide a real tangible difference for people, especially for those around and below poverty and for middle income families who don’t get any help under the federal law,” Anthony Wright, executive director of advocacy group Health Access, said. Indeed, a family of four earning as much as six times the federal poverty level -- or more than $150,000 a year -- would be eligible to get about $100 a month from the government to help pay their monthly health insurance premiums.
To pay for part of it, the state agreed to start taxing people who don’t have health insurance. It’s a revival of the individual-mandate penalty that had been on the books nationwide under former President Barack Obama’s health-care law until Republicans in Congress eliminated it as part of the 2017 overhaul to the tax code.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
The budget agreement still must be approved by the full state legislature; a vote is expected this week. State law requires lawmakers to enact a budget by midnight on June 15. If they don’t, lawmakers would lose their pay.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/california-democrats-full-health-benefits-illegal-immigrants-trump
-
Insane.
Newsom, former Mayor of Shitfrisco ran on this crap and was still voted in as Governor. ::)
(https://242358-745360-raikfcquaxqncofqfm.stackpathdns.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/gavin.jpg)
Highly punchable face
-
New York Law Gives Illegals ‘Ability to Vote’ After Obtaining Driver’s License
JOHN BINDER19 Jun 2019
A New York state law that allows illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses is likely to also enable them to vote in elections, according to state officials.
The law, supported by state Democrats and the big business lobby, allows the 725,000 illegal aliens to be eligible for driver’s licenses when they are of age. State officials, even a Democrat state Senator, say the law will effectively allow illegal aliens to vote in elections.
“Theoretically, they could have the ability to vote,” Democrat state Sen. Luis Sepúlvedahe (D) said, according to the New York Post.
In New York, U.S. citizens only need a driver’s license to register to vote and though applicants are required to swear that they are eligible to vote, state election officials told the Post that “it’s basically an honor system.”
State Senate Minority Leader John Flanagan (R) told the Post:
[A] major concern is that many states, including New York, use their DMVs to enroll voters. Since New York does not have voter-identification laws like the majority of other states do, this bill increases the potential for voter fraud. [Emphasis added]
This means that New York will soon have the most radical, open-ended law in the entire nation. [Emphasis added]
In California, where illegal aliens are allowed to obtain driver’s licenses as well, voter fraud has become common across the state. Last year, the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) admitted that it had registered 1,500 non-eligible voters, including noncitizens, over the course of just six months.
Government Accountability Institute (GAI) research director Eric Eggers told Breitbart News last year that California’s laws giving driver’s licenses to illegal aliens and its latest law known as “ballot harvesting” — which allows political operatives to collect voters’ ballots and deliver them to polling stations — is potentially contributing to mass voter fraud across the state.
Though Democrat Gov. Andrew Cuomo, state Democrats, and the business lobby have helped to pass the driver’s licenses for illegal aliens initiative into New York law, upstate New Yorkers and suburban voters have revolted against the plan.
The latest Siena College poll revealed that a majority of all New York voters, 53 percent, oppose giving driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, including 62 percent of upstate New Yorkers and more than 5-in-10 suburban voters in the state.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/06/19/new-york-law-gives-illegals-ability-to-vote-after-obtaining-drivers-license/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR2DPrtqYZs7H_hOXspvnlUFz8O1EXsAXZtc1KUz8HhkCMnS5B-ThrhfMzA
-
This is nuts.
Northern Virginia Officer On Leave After Alerting Feds to Immigrant's Traffic Stop
"This matter damages our reputation," Fairfax Co. Police Chief Edwin Roessler said in a statement
By The Associated Press and NBC Washington staff
Published Oct 2, 2019
A Northern Virginia police officer was put on leave after authorities say he violated policy by alerting federal immigration authorities he was detaining a driver who missed his deportation hearing.
Since 2007, Fairfax County Police policy bars officers from alerting the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement when they encounter someone wanted on administrative immigration violation, provided that the individual is not otherwise being taken into custody.
Chief Edwin Roessler issued a statement Tuesday saying one of his officers responded to a Sept. 21 traffic crash and learned one person involved was wanted by ICE on an administrative warrant for failure to appear at a deportation hearing.
That person was given a summons for driving without a license, a violation in Fairfax County. Then, the officer kept the individual in custody before turning them over to an ICE agent.
"This matter damages our reputation," Roessler said in a statement.
The officer was put on administrative leave with pay and underwent remedial training, the police department told News4. He is expected to return to work on Friday, then the department will complete its internal investigation.
It's not the first time that a D.C.-area police officer was accused of erroneously cooperating with ICE. In July, Prince George's County, Maryland, police clarified their policy after finding that officers wrongfully referred immigrants to the agency.
Chief Hank Stawinski said that some officers mistook administrative warrants for criminal warrants.
Correction (Oct. 2, 2019, 1:33 p.m.): The Associated Press reported the officer was suspended. This story has been updated to reflect that the officer was put on administrative leave with pay.
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Northern-Virginia-Officer-Suspended-After-Alerting-Feds-to-Immigrants-Traffic-Stop-561957861.html
-
This is nuts.
Northern Virginia Officer On Leave After Alerting Feds to Immigrant's Traffic Stop
"This matter damages our reputation," Fairfax Co. Police Chief Edwin Roessler said in a statement
By The Associated Press and NBC Washington staff
Published Oct 2, 2019
A Northern Virginia police officer was put on leave after authorities say he violated policy by alerting federal immigration authorities he was detaining a driver who missed his deportation hearing.
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Northern-Virginia-Officer-Suspended-After-Alerting-Feds-to-Immigrants-Traffic-Stop-561957861.html
The guy should be commended and given a medal.
-
The guy should be commended and given a medal.
Right?
-
Elizabeth Warren Confirms Her Medicare for All Plan Will Cover Illegal Immigrants
HANNAH BLEAU
8 Nov 2019
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) confirmed Friday that her $52 trillion Medicare for All plan will cover illegal immigrants.
Warren attended a “Latinx town hall” in Raleigh, North Carolina, on Friday and confirmed during a Q&A session that her Medicare for All plan will, in fact, cover the 11-22 million illegal immigrants residing in the United States.
An attendee asked:
We know that you have included undocumented people in your plans to provide Medicare for All, so my question is why did you decide to include people regardless of immigration status, and would this include obtaining subsidies like the ACA’s – Affordable Care Act’s – affordability subsidies?
“Would you also support access to the children’s health insurance program without regard to immigration stuff?” he added.
Warren immediately praised the question and gleefully reiterated that her Medicare for All plan covers “everyone,” including illegal immigrants.
“I’m really glad you asked this. Medicare for All, as I put this together, covers everyone, regardless of immigration status, and that’s it,” Warren said to applause:
Notably, Warren said she will fund her $52 trillion Medicare for All proposal, in part, by driving up immigration levels, but she failed to explain how the influx – granting amnesty to 11-22 million illegal aliens – would affect what some fear would already be an overextended program.
“I support immigration reform that’s consistent with our values, including a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and expanded legal immigration consistent with my principles,” Warren detailed in her plan.
“That’s not only the right thing to do – it also increases federal revenue we can dedicate to Medicare for All as new people come into the system and pay taxes,” she added.
https://www.si.com/nba/scoreboard?date=2019-11-08
-
We already pay for illegal immigrants' and indigents' medical care.
Where Can Undocumented Immigrants Go for Health Care?
-Hospital emergency rooms. Under federal law, hospitals that receive federal funding – and most do – are required to care for patients who need emergency care, regardless of their immigration status or whether they are insured, Ehlke says. Hospital officials must provide care until the patient is stabilized, but not beyond that point. Hospitals also must develop a release plan for such patients.
https://health.usnews.com/wellness/articles/2016-11-02/where-can-undocumented-immigrants-go-for-health-care
-
We already pay for illegal immigrants' and indigents' medical care.
Where Can Undocumented Immigrants Go for Health Care?
-Hospital emergency rooms. Under federal law, hospitals that receive federal funding – and most do – are required to care for patients who need emergency care, regardless of their immigration status or whether they are insured, Ehlke says. Hospital officials must provide care until the patient is stabilized, but not beyond that point. Hospitals also must develop a release plan for such patients.
https://health.usnews.com/wellness/articles/2016-11-02/where-can-undocumented-immigrants-go-for-health-care
P.Nancy, who is pushing your wheelchair around :
a) illegal Mexican
b) fake Afghan refugee
c) illegal Guatemalan
d) fake Somali refugee
-
We already pay for illegal immigrants' and indigents' medical care.
Where Can Undocumented Immigrants Go for Health Care?
-Hospital emergency rooms. Under federal law, hospitals that receive federal funding – and most do – are required to care for patients who need emergency care, regardless of their immigration status or whether they are insured, Ehlke says. Hospital officials must provide care until the patient is stabilized, but not beyond that point. Hospitals also must develop a release plan for such patients.
https://health.usnews.com/wellness/articles/2016-11-02/where-can-undocumented-immigrants-go-for-health-care
They're trying to change it so that your gardeners can go in for every sniffle they feel like, not just emergencies. ::)
-
P.Nancy, who is pushing your wheelchair around :
a) illegal Mexican
b) fake Afghan refugee
c) illegal Guatemalan
d) fake Somali refugee
Ha, ha....nobody - I don't need a wheelchair yet.
-
They're trying to change it so that your gardeners can go in for every sniffle they feel like, not just emergencies. ::)
Interestingly enough, the folks who did the new landscape and are now doing the landscape maintenance here are white, non-hispanic. Considering what this landscape cost, they make more money than I do and can well afford to buy health insurance coverage. The owner has a French name, but he looks more Scandinavian.
-
Supreme Court sharply divided over Trump's DACA repeal
BY JOHN KRUZEL - 11/12/19
The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared sharply divided over President Trump's move to end Obama-era protections for undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children, as the justices heard oral arguments in one of the most closely watched cases of the term.
At issue is the fate of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which grants deferral from deportation to nearly 700,000 undocumented young adult immigrants.
The justices seemed divided on two overlapping issues they are being asked to resolve: whether the courts have the power to second-guess Trump's action, and if Trump's DACA repeal was lawful.
The justices’ questions during oral arguments suggested that the court may break down along familiar ideological lines in the case.
Members of the court’s conservative wing appeared wary of allowing courts to review the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to begin phasing out the program. Their questions during oral arguments also suggested many conservative justices appeared to think the administration had supplied legally sound reasons for eliminating DACA.
Chief Justice John Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee, was perhaps the most closely watched in the case as a potential swing vote.
Both Roberts and Justice Stephen Breyer, a Clinton appointee, also seemed unsure about the question of whether the court had to power to review the decision.
“I’m saying honestly,” Breyer said, “I’m struggling.”
But some of the court’s liberal members seemed inclined to view the DACA repeal as falling within the court's purview, and they questioned whether the Trump administration had provided an adequate justification for their decision to terminate the program.
Theodore Olson, a former George W. Bush solicitor general and one of two lawyers arguing to preserve DACA, seemed to gain ground with members of the court’s liberal wing during arguments.
He told the justices that the Trump administration’s earliest stated reason for the rollback — that DACA was illegal — let administration officials upend the lives of hundreds of thousands of people who relied on the deportation relief program.
The politically charged case sparked a day of drama in Washington, with immigration rights advocates gathering on the steps of the court, where they urged the justices to save the program.
Trump also weighed in on the case just hours before the justices met, blasting DACA recipients, commonly known as "Dreamers."
“Many of the people in DACA, no longer very young, are far from ‘angels.’ Some are very tough, hardened criminals,” Trump said in a tweet.
And the president told the justices that if they let his repeal stand he would work with Congress to pass legislation to address the issue. “If Supreme Court remedies with overturn, a deal will be made with Dems for them to stay!"
The oral arguments were only the latest front in a long contentious fight over the program.
The case traces back to 2012, when former President Obama established DACA through executive action. Roughly 660,000 people are now enrolled in the program, which grants a renewable two-year deferral from deportation, and makes applicants eligible for work permits, driver’s licenses and health insurance.
President Trump, who campaigned on a promise to end Obama’s “illegal executive amnesties,”
Announced plans in in fall 2017 to rescind the program. The move was met with swift legal challenges. Federal lower court judges in three cases sided against the Trump administration.
Before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, lawyers for the Trump administration said the lower courts erred. Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued that the courts lack jurisdiction to review the repeal, and that their decisions should be vacated. If the justices decide the repeal is reviewable, Francisco argued, the administration's decision should be upheld as based on legally justified reasons.
Francisco sought to persuade the court that the Trump administration rescinded DACA not only because it believed the program was illegal, but also for policy reasons.
The agency's rationale was spelled out in two Department of Homeland Security memos, he said, the first of which argued that Obama engaged in “an unconstitutional exercise of authority” when he set up the program in 2012 through executive action. A second memo provided additional policy reasons, including the administration's stance that a repeal of DACA would deter future illegal immigration.
One question that arose during arguments was whether the second Trump administration memo was an after-the-fact effort to rationalize the controversial decision.
The Supreme Court’s decision will be guided by a federal statute that concerns how much decisionmaking power federal agencies have, the Administrative Procedure Act. The justices will weigh if the courts have jurisdiction, and if Trump's repeal is legally justified, or if it was “arbitrary and capricious,” and thus illegal under the act.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/470075-supreme-court-sharply-divided-over-trumps-daca-repeal
-
Regardless of which way the justices go, it will have very little impact on me or anyone I know. For this reason, I am skipping this as a cause to take up.
-
Regardless of which way the justices go, it will have very little impact on me or anyone I know. For this reason, I am skipping this as a cause to take up.
Well, for those of us that pay taxes you can sit out voting then. ;D
-
Well, for those of us that pay taxes you can sit out voting then. ;D
This is not something we taxpayers get to vote on, so your comment makes no sense.
-
Every once in a while, a moment of sanity. How in the world did the 9th Circuit get it so wrong? All 9 justices disagreed with them.
Encouraging Illegal Aliens To Remain In The US Is A Crime, Supreme Court Rules
JASON HOPKINS
IMMIGRATION AND POLITICS REPORTER
May 08, 2020
The Supreme Court unanimously upheld a federal statute that forbids encouraging illegal aliens to remain in the U.S. unlawfully in a decision Thursday.
The Supreme Court justices voided an earlier decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had ruled that a federal anti-harboring statute was unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment by restricting free speech. The ruling by the nation’s highest court Thursday upholds the law.
The Supreme Court not only vacated the appeals court’s decision, but also criticized the judges for “drastically” straying from judicial norms.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal stalwart of the bench, wrote the high court’s opinion.
“[T]he appeals panel departed so drastically from the principle of party presentation as to constitute an abuse of discretion,” Ginsburg wrote, and later stated that “a court is not hidebound by the precise arguments of counsel, but the Ninth Circuit’s radical transformation of this case goes well beyond the pale.” (RELATED: Trump’s Win With Appeals Court Prevents Release Of 250 ICE Detainees)
The decision brings to a close a court battle that lasted roughly 10 years.
A grand jury indicted California immigration consultant Evelyn Sineneng-Smith in 2010 for multiple violations of anti-harboring laws, which make it a felony to “encourag[e] or induc[e] an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.”
Sineneng-Smith encouraged illegal alien clients to apply for a certification that would allow them to remain legally in the country, despite them not qualifying for the certification, according to the indictment. She would charge her clients a fee for this service, and allegedly made millions off of the scheme.
Sineneng-Smith earned more than $3.3 million off of her clients, legal affairs outlet Jurist reported.
In a challenge to the decision, Sineneng-Smith argued that the law violated her right to free speech. The Ninth Circuit reversed her conviction, finding that the entire law was invalid as an over broad restriction of speech.
The Ninth Circuit’s reversal however, was not based on arguments presented by her defense, but by third party arguments submitted to the panel of judges.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Ninth Circuit overstepped its authority by injecting an argument not made by the defendant herself. The decision ultimately reaffirms that parties — not the courts — shape issues in a court case.
The case is now to be sent back to the Ninth Circuit “for reconsideration … bearing a fair resemblance to the case shaped by parties.”
The decision was hailed by immigration hawks.
“We applaud the Court’s well-reasoned decision,” Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of Immigration Reform Law Institute, said in a statement.
“Unfortunately, the Court did not have to reach the issue of whether this important statute is constitutional, but it did keep the law in place. When and if the overbreadth issue is brought up properly by a defendant in the future, we will be there,” Wilcox said.
https://dailycaller.com/2020/05/08/supreme-court-ruth-bader-ginsburg-encouraging-immigration/?utm_source=wnd&utm_medium=wnd&utm_campaign=syndicated
-
Every once in a while, a moment of sanity. How in the world did the 9th Circuit get it so wrong? All 9 justices disagreed with them.
Encouraging Illegal Aliens To Remain In The US Is A Crime, Supreme Court Rules
JASON HOPKINS
IMMIGRATION AND POLITICS REPORTER
May 08, 2020
The Supreme Court unanimously upheld a federal statute that forbids encouraging illegal aliens to remain in the U.S. unlawfully in a decision Thursday.
The Supreme Court justices voided an earlier decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had ruled that a federal anti-harboring statute was unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment by restricting free speech. The ruling by the nation’s highest court Thursday upholds the law.
The Supreme Court not only vacated the appeals court’s decision, but also criticized the judges for “drastically” straying from judicial norms.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal stalwart of the bench, wrote the high court’s opinion.
“[T]he appeals panel departed so drastically from the principle of party presentation as to constitute an abuse of discretion,” Ginsburg wrote, and later stated that “a court is not hidebound by the precise arguments of counsel, but the Ninth Circuit’s radical transformation of this case goes well beyond the pale.” (RELATED: Trump’s Win With Appeals Court Prevents Release Of 250 ICE Detainees)
The decision brings to a close a court battle that lasted roughly 10 years.
A grand jury indicted California immigration consultant Evelyn Sineneng-Smith in 2010 for multiple violations of anti-harboring laws, which make it a felony to “encourag[e] or induc[e] an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.”
Sineneng-Smith encouraged illegal alien clients to apply for a certification that would allow them to remain legally in the country, despite them not qualifying for the certification, according to the indictment. She would charge her clients a fee for this service, and allegedly made millions off of the scheme.
Sineneng-Smith earned more than $3.3 million off of her clients, legal affairs outlet Jurist reported.
In a challenge to the decision, Sineneng-Smith argued that the law violated her right to free speech. The Ninth Circuit reversed her conviction, finding that the entire law was invalid as an over broad restriction of speech.
The Ninth Circuit’s reversal however, was not based on arguments presented by her defense, but by third party arguments submitted to the panel of judges.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Ninth Circuit overstepped its authority by injecting an argument not made by the defendant herself. The decision ultimately reaffirms that parties — not the courts — shape issues in a court case.
The case is now to be sent back to the Ninth Circuit “for reconsideration … bearing a fair resemblance to the case shaped by parties.”
The decision was hailed by immigration hawks.
“We applaud the Court’s well-reasoned decision,” Dale L. Wilcox, executive director and general counsel of Immigration Reform Law Institute, said in a statement.
“Unfortunately, the Court did not have to reach the issue of whether this important statute is constitutional, but it did keep the law in place. When and if the overbreadth issue is brought up properly by a defendant in the future, we will be there,” Wilcox said.
https://dailycaller.com/2020/05/08/supreme-court-ruth-bader-ginsburg-encouraging-immigration/?utm_source=wnd&utm_medium=wnd&utm_campaign=syndicated
So when can I expect an arrest warrant to be issued for the Governors/Mayors or Sanctuary States/Cities?
-
So when can I expect an arrest warrant to be issued for the Governors/Mayors or Sanctuary States/Cities?
That be nice and fun to watch.
-
So when can I expect an arrest warrant to be issued for the Governors/Mayors or Sanctuary States/Cities?
When it snows in Honolulu.
-
Sanctuary State Colorado to Give Professional Licenses to Illegal Aliens
JOHN BINDER
2 Jun 2021
The sanctuary state of Colorado will begin allowing illegal aliens to obtain professional licenses, funneling them into white-collar American jobs.
This week, Gov. Jared Polis (D) signed into law a plan that will give out professional licenses for jobs in education and health care, among other industries, to illegal aliens. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s FWD.us had lobbied state lawmakers to pass the legislation.
Now, Colorado’s state agencies will not require an applicant to certify their legal status in the U.S. to secure a professional license.
“The bill eliminates the requirement that the department of education … verify the lawful presence of each applicant before issuing or renewing a license,” the law reads:
The bill also specifies that lawful presence is not required of any applicant for any state or local license, certificate, or registration. The bill affirmatively states that the bill is a state law within the meaning of the federal law that gives states authority to provide for eligibility for state and local public benefits to persons who are unlawfully residing in the United States. [Emphasis added]
FWD.us Colorado State Immigration Director Marissa Molina praised the legislature’s passage and Polis’ signing, claiming it will help fill “worker shortages” even as the state’s unemployment rate is 6.4 percent as of April — above the national unemployment rate, which is 6.1 percent.
“As our state continues to face worker shortages, particularly in education and health care, we have opened the door for a new generation of nurses, teachers, and other essential workers to fill labor gaps needed to support our continued health response and long-term economic recovery,” Molina said in a statement.
New Jersey passed similar legislation last year, and illegal aliens in the state are now applying for and receiving professional licenses.
Today, there are anywhere between 11 million to 22 million illegal aliens living in the U.S., costing Americans about $134 billion annually, with about eight million holding American jobs. Nearly 200,000 illegal aliens reside in Colorado.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/06/02/sanctuary-state-colorado-professional-licenses-illegal-aliens/
-
Oregon lawmakers pass bill to make illegal immigrants eligible for Medicaid, Dem gov expected to sign into law
The bill is likely to be signed by Brown, a Democrat, who had previously expressed support for the 'Cover All People' proposal
By Adam Shaw | Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/oregon-lawmakers-pass-bill-make-illegal-immigrants-eligible-medicaid-dem-gov-expected-sign-law
-
Oregon lawmakers pass bill to make illegal immigrants eligible for Medicaid, Dem gov expected to sign into law
The bill is likely to be signed by Brown, a Democrat, who had previously expressed support for the 'Cover All People' proposal
By Adam Shaw | Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/oregon-lawmakers-pass-bill-make-illegal-immigrants-eligible-medicaid-dem-gov-expected-sign-law
Some of theses States ::)
-
Some of theses States ::)
For the life of me I cannot understand how they get away with violating federal immigration law.
-
Ilhan Omar says every illegal immigrant in US should have 'pathway to citizenship'
CBP reported 178,622 border encounters in April alone
By Houston Keene | Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ilhan-omar-illegal-immigrants-pathway-citizenship
-
For the life of me I cannot understand how they get away with violating federal immigration law.
It just amazes me, like there is not even a Federal law.
-
Biden administration opens border exemptions to pregnant moms
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement will not hold or deport illegal migrants who are pregnant, women who have had a child within the past year, or those who are nursing.
Libby Emmons
Brooklyn, NY
July 9, 2021
https://thepostmillennial.com/biden-administration-opens-border-exemptions-to-pregnant-moms?utm_campaign=64469
-
AOC Urges Illegal Aliens to Apply for Biden’s Child Tax Credit
by Matt PalumboPosted: July 9, 2021
https://bongino.com/aoc-urges-illegal-aliens-to-apply-for-bidens-child-tax-credit/
-
Newsom signs bill granting taxpayer funded healthcare to elderly illegal immigrants
The move is expected to cost taxpayers over $1 billion
By Andrew Mark Miller | Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/newsom-signs-bill-granting-taxpayer-funded-healthcare-to-elderly-illegal-immigrants
-
Newsom signs bill granting taxpayer funded healthcare to elderly illegal immigrants
The move is expected to cost taxpayers over $1 billion
By Andrew Mark Miller | Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/newsom-signs-bill-granting-taxpayer-funded-healthcare-to-elderly-illegal-immigrants
meanwhile I can't afford health insurance so I go without...lol
-
meanwhile I can't afford health insurance so I go without...lol
It is just such BS. I have some expensive insurance with a damn 4,900 deductible, does not pay shit. I just had a Skin cancer removed from my neck. I sure it is going to cost me at least 3k.
-
It is just such BS. I have some expensive insurance with a damn 4,900 deductible, does not pay shit. I just had a Skin cancer removed from my neck. I sure it is going to cost me at least 3k.
If you have one of those high deductible plans you need to have an emergency fund for the deductible.
You are self-insuring for the deductible amount.
Otherwise you have to pay for a higher cost plan to get a low deductible.
Remember that study that said the average American has $400 in their bank account for emergencies?
If these same people have a high deductible health plan they can get hammered.
-
Scoop: 50,000 migrants released; few report to ICE
Stef W. Kight
Stef W. Kight
https://www.axios.com/migrant-release-no-court-date-ice-dhs-immigration-33d258ea-2419-418d-abe8-2a8b60e3c070.html
A Border Patrol agent is seen walking toward migrants who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border illegally.
A law enforcement officer walks to meet migrants crossed the Rio Grande River illegally last month. Photo: Brandon Bell/Getty Images
About 50,000 migrants who crossed the southern border illegally have now been released in the United States without a court date. Although they are told to report to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement office instead, just 13% have shown up so far, Axios has learned.
Why it matters: The sizable numbers are a sign of just how overwhelmed some sectors of the U.S.-Mexico border continue to be: A single stretch covering the Rio Grande Valley had 20,000 apprehensions in a week. The figures also show the shortcomings of recent emergency decisions to release migrants.
It's unprecedented for agents to release migrants without an official notice to appear in court. Where it has occurred recently, migrants have instead been given a list of addresses and contacts for ICE offices across the country and told to report to one of them.
The hope has been for migrants to show up at these offices after reaching their final destination, to get work permits.
By the numbers: Just 6,700 migrants who crossed between mid-March and mid-July showed up at ICE offices as of Monday, one source briefed on Department of Homeland Security data told Axios.
16,000 have not showed up and passed the 60-day reporting window they were given. That's 2.4 no-shows for every one that has checked in.
Another roughly 27,000 migrants who crossed and were released during the same time frame have yet to turn up, but remain within the 60-day window for reporting. One DHS official emphasized that nearly 70% of migrants are within the 60-day window or have reported to ICE.
Meanwhile migrants continue to be released. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) told Axios that as of Monday, 7,300 migrants in the Rio Grande Valley sector had been released during the past week without court dates.
Cuellar said the total number of migrants released since March was up to 55,000.
The big picture: The new data come as immigration agents in the Rio Grande Valley highlight over 20,000 apprehensions made in just one week, as noted on Sunday in a tweet by the chief Border Patrol agent for that sector.
It's a sign of the continued surge in people attempting to illegally cross the U.S.-Mexico border.
That's after months of higher-than-normal border crossings, record months for encounters with migrants and more than 1 million apprehensions for the year.
The White House's emphasis on root causes in Central America, focus on critiques of former President Trump's harsh border policies and insistence that the inflated numbers are just seasonal are falling flat.
What they're saying: "We will always be a nation of borders, and we will enforce our immigration laws in a way that is fair and just. We will continue to work to fortify an orderly immigration system," the White House said in a fact sheet released Tuesday morning.
“While individuals have 60 days to check in with ICE, many are proactively reaching out to ICE to begin their official immigration processing, including by receiving a Notice to Appear," DHS spokesperson Meira Bernstein told Axios. "Those who do not report, like anyone who is in our country without legal status, are subject to removal by ICE.”
Editor’s note: Due to a calculation error, an earlier version mistakenly stated that were 25 no-shows for every migrant who checked in with ICE, rather than 2.4.
-
Biden looks to have federal government provide lawyers for migrants at border
by Anna Giaritelli, Homeland Security Reporter | | August 01, 2021
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/biden-to-cover-cost-lawyers-migrants-at-border
-
Elections have consequences.
Mayorkas announces 212,672 migrant encounters in July, says border is 'one of the toughest challenges we face'
The numbers mark a 13% increase over June
By Adam Shaw | Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mayorkas-migrant-encounters-july-border-toughest-challenges
-
Elections have consequences.
Mayorkas announces 212,672 migrant encounters in July, says border is 'one of the toughest challenges we face'
The numbers mark a 13% increase over June
By Adam Shaw | Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mayorkas-migrant-encounters-july-border-toughest-challenges
They want this. >:(
-
They want this. >:(
They sure do. It is so clear.
-
What's going to be awesome is when they lock down the country for citizens but leave the southern border open...LOL
-
NYC Democrats Grant Voting Rights to Nearly 1 Million Noncitizens
SIMON KENT
9 Jan 2022
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/01/09/nyc-democrats-grant-voting-rights-to-nearly-1-million-noncitizens/
-
Minnesota to provide illegal immigrants with free college tuition
Under Minnesota’s free tuition program, illegal immigrants will have their full tuition paid for if they enroll in a two or four-year program.
By Reagan Reese -June 1, 2023
https://alphanews.org/minnesota-to-provide-illegal-immigrants-with-free-college-tuition/
-
California Senate Approves $300 Weekly Checks for Unemployed Illegals
Susannah Luthi
May 31, 2023
https://freebeacon.com/california/california-senate-approves-300-weekly-checks-for-unemployed-illegals/
-
Thousands of Inadmissible Migrants Enter U.S. Through Biden Program
BY CATHERINE SALGADO 3 JULY 02, 2023
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/catherinesalgado/2023/07/02/thousands-of-inadmissible-migrants-enter-u-s-through-biden-program-n1707831
-
Illinois to Require Landlords Rent to Illegal Aliens as Housing Costs Surge
JOHN BINDER 7 Jul 2023
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Fpolitics%2F2023%2F07%2F07%2Fillinois-to-require-landlords-rent-to-illegal-aliens-as-housing-costs-surge%2F
-
Biden Admin Has Allowed ‘Unprecedented’ 500,000 Migrants to Come to America Through Expanded Entry Programs: Report
by Star News Staff | Jul 19, 2023
https://thestarnewsnetwork.com/2023/07/19/biden-admin-has-allowed-unprecedented-500000-migrants-to-come-to-america-through-expanded-entry-programs-report/
-
Ah, a non citizen underclass...the democrat party just repeating slavery.
-
Keep them broke, keep them working...
-
I don't think people realize how many illegals have been allowed into the country by Democrats. I was in Beaver Dam, Wisconsin a few years ago, population 20k. Was in the store and there were a bunch of Hispanics who I'm pretty sure could not speak English. Pretty sizable population. They are everywhere.
-
Try coming out to LA, a sanctuary city where it's not only acceptable but encouraged to be an illegal. :D
-
Illinois legislation would allow non-U.S. citizens to become police officers
BY CBS CHICAGO TEAM
JUNE 20, 2023
https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/illinois-legislation-would-allow-non-u-s-citizens-to-become-police-officers/
-
Migrant arrested 6 times for 14 crimes in first two months in NYC
By Tina Moore
September 2, 2023
https://nypost.com/2023/09/02/newly-arrived-immigrant-arrested-7-times-court-records-show/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=nypost_metro
-
Biden’s DHS let 200,000 illegal immigrants fly directly into 43 cities
by Paul Bedard, Washington Secrets Columnist
September 21, 2023
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/bidens-dhs-let-200-000-illegals-migrants-fly-direct-into-43-cities
-
Biden’s DHS let 200,000 illegal immigrants fly directly into 43 cities
by Paul Bedard, Washington Secrets Columnist
September 21, 2023
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/bidens-dhs-let-200-000-illegals-migrants-fly-direct-into-43-cities
Worst pos this country has seen. Obama didn’t even do this.
-
Worst pos this country has seen. Obama didn’t even do this.
Obama is doing it.
-
>:(
WATCH: 95-Year-Old Veteran Booted From Nursing Home To Make Way For New York City Migrants
by: Sterling Mosley 09.27.2023 Source: DC Enquirer
https://dcenquirer.com/watch-95-year-old-veteran-booted-from-nursing-home-to-make-way-for-new-york-city-migrants
-
Obama is doing it.
Him and his people are running the show.
-
Him and his people are running the show.
His third term.
-
Governor Hochul Announces 18,000 Jobs Available to Asylum Seekers and Migrants as Part of Statewide Initiative to Move Individuals Out of Shelter and Into Independent Living
OCTOBER 2, 2023
Albany, NY
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-announces-18000-jobs-available-asylum-seekers-and-migrants-part-statewide
-
Chicago Gives Illegal Migrants $9,000 EACH to Cover Housing Costs
By: Jason Walsh
October 17, 2023
https://www.dailyfetched.com/chicago-gives-illegal-migrants-9000-each-to-cover-housing-costs/
-
Chicago Gives Illegal Migrants $9,000 EACH to Cover Housing Costs
By: Jason Walsh
October 17, 2023
https://www.dailyfetched.com/chicago-gives-illegal-migrants-9000-each-to-cover-housing-costs/
We deserve to be invaded.
-
Chicago Gives Illegal Migrants $9,000 EACH to Cover Housing Costs
By: Jason Walsh
October 17, 2023
https://www.dailyfetched.com/chicago-gives-illegal-migrants-9000-each-to-cover-housing-costs/
[/quote Lets just reward them with money for breaking the law. That will stop them from coming here.
-
Report: Border crisis could cost U.S. taxpayers $451 billion
By Steve Wilson | The Center Square Nov 13, 2023
https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/article_26583728-826e-11ee-ac63-eb1a26b4f9db.html?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
-
Report: Border crisis could cost U.S. taxpayers $451 billion
By Steve Wilson | The Center Square Nov 13, 2023
https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/article_26583728-826e-11ee-ac63-eb1a26b4f9db.html?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
We need to toss all these aholes out. FJB!
-
-
Illegal Alien Crosses Border, Immediately Declares ‘I Love You, Joe Biden’ – WATCH
By: Jason Walsh
December 6, 2023
https://www.dailyfetched.com/illegal-alien-crosses-border-immediately-declares-i-love-you-joe-biden/
-
This is criminal.
Mayorkas tells Border Patrol agents that ‘above 85%’ of illegal immigrants released into US: sources
There were over 300,000 migrant encounters in December alone
By Adam Shaw, Bill Melugin, Griff Jenkins Fox News
Published January 8, 2024
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mayorkas-tells-border-patrol-agents-illegal-immigrants-released-into-us-sources
-
Arizona Allows Noncitizens to Vote in Federal Elections (With a Wink and a Nod)
DAVID STROM January 09, 2024
https://hotair.com/david-strom/2024/01/09/arizona-allows-noncitizens-to-vote-in-federal-elections-with-a-wink-and-a-nod-n603825
-
This is criminal.
Mayorkas tells Border Patrol agents that ‘above 85%’ of illegal immigrants released into US: sources
There were over 300,000 migrant encounters in December alone
By Adam Shaw, Bill Melugin, Griff Jenkins Fox News
Published January 8, 2024
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mayorkas-tells-border-patrol-agents-illegal-immigrants-released-into-us-sources
This is an invited invasion. FJB! The worst this country has ever seen.
-
Arizona Allows Noncitizens to Vote in Federal Elections (With a Wink and a Nod)
DAVID STROM January 09, 2024
https://hotair.com/david-strom/2024/01/09/arizona-allows-noncitizens-to-vote-in-federal-elections-with-a-wink-and-a-nod-n603825
Gets more ridiculous by the day. Lefty Libs have one goal and that's to destroy America. We need Trump more than ever. He has a lot of work ahead of him.
-
Gets more ridiculous by the day. Lefty Libs have one goal and that's to destroy America. We need Trump more than ever. He has a lot of work ahead of him.
And their replacement theory has totally backfired. Hispanic support for Biden and Democrats has plummeted since they started their open borders policy.
-
Migrants turn New York into a crime pit -- Report
Red State ^ | 01/16/2024 | Monica Showalter
Posted on 1/16/2024, 10:17:39 AM
Celebrate diversity.
In New York, they're getting diversity of morals all right, and lots of migrant cultural enrichment, too, while we're at it.
According to the New York Post, which did some authentic street reporting on the impact of 2,000 illegal migrants in Brooklyn's Floyd Bennett Field:
Since mid-November, new lawlessness has plagued the area, with shoplifting, panhandling, gutter scams, and, according to some, signs of street prostitution.
And the once-serene, federally-run site — a historic former airfield off Flatbush Avenue near the Marine Parkway Bridge — has itself become an eyesore, where vicious brawls and pot-puffing are common, those living there said.
“This sh-t is out of control,” said a 20-year veteran NYPD cop when asked about the migrants at Floyd Bennett Field, a fraction of the 164,000 illegal border crossers bused to New York since spring 2022 — and 68,000 currently in the city’s care.
“That’s all these people do is rob and steal. They should feel lucky that they’re here, but they’re out there committing crimes. We don’t know anything about them. We don’t know what they’ve done in these other countries.”
They found hard police data to support the sentiment they found from the angry locals:
NYPD records from Nov. 27 through Jan. 7 show upticks in car thefts (37.5%), robberies (29.4%), and petit larceny (8.2%) in the 63rd Precinct, which covers the neighborhoods near Floyd Bennett Field, compared to the same period a year earlier.
It's important to note that high as those figures are, they are very likely underreported, as nothing is being done to stop migrant crime.
The kind of migrant crime coming in is pretty spectacular, of the kind that you see in the hillside shantytowns of Caracas or Medellin.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
-
Migrants turn New York into a crime pit -- Report
Red State ^ | 01/16/2024 | Monica Showalter
Posted on 1/16/2024, 10:17:39 AM
Celebrate diversity.
In New York, they're getting diversity of morals all right, and lots of migrant cultural enrichment, too, while we're at it.
According to the New York Post, which did some authentic street reporting on the impact of 2,000 illegal migrants in Brooklyn's Floyd Bennett Field:
Since mid-November, new lawlessness has plagued the area, with shoplifting, panhandling, gutter scams, and, according to some, signs of street prostitution.
And the once-serene, federally-run site — a historic former airfield off Flatbush Avenue near the Marine Parkway Bridge — has itself become an eyesore, where vicious brawls and pot-puffing are common, those living there said.
“This sh-t is out of control,” said a 20-year veteran NYPD cop when asked about the migrants at Floyd Bennett Field, a fraction of the 164,000 illegal border crossers bused to New York since spring 2022 — and 68,000 currently in the city’s care.
“That’s all these people do is rob and steal. They should feel lucky that they’re here, but they’re out there committing crimes. We don’t know anything about them. We don’t know what they’ve done in these other countries.”
They found hard police data to support the sentiment they found from the angry locals:
NYPD records from Nov. 27 through Jan. 7 show upticks in car thefts (37.5%), robberies (29.4%), and petit larceny (8.2%) in the 63rd Precinct, which covers the neighborhoods near Floyd Bennett Field, compared to the same period a year earlier.
It's important to note that high as those figures are, they are very likely underreported, as nothing is being done to stop migrant crime.
The kind of migrant crime coming in is pretty spectacular, of the kind that you see in the hillside shantytowns of Caracas or Medellin.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Good stuff. Hope the illegals fuck some Libs up and there are plenty of c unty Libs in NY. Isn't it great to be a sanctuary city NY, LOL, dumb bastards!
-
One of the rarely discussed side effects of our open borders/illegal immigration crisis.
Migrant crisis plunges Denver's main public hospital deep into the red after patients received $130 MILLION of treatments they were unable to pay for
Denver's main hospital has provided care worth $136 million that they have no received compensation for, putting the institute at a 'critical' stage
A total of 8,000 migrants who came to the city from Central America have made around 20,000 visits to the health system, causing problems for Denver Health
These included trips for dental emergencies, mental health counseling and childbirth
By JOE HUTCHISON FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
UPDATED: 18 January 2024
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12976873/Denver-migrant-crisis-hospitals-critical-funding.html
-
San Francisco Appoints First Noncitizen to Serve on Elections Commission
Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman
Feb 15, 2024
https://www.kqed.org/news/11976026/san-francisco-appoints-first-non-citizen-to-serve-on-elections-commission
-
One of the rarely discussed side effects of our open borders/illegal immigration crisis.
Migrant crisis plunges Denver's main public hospital deep into the red after patients received $130 MILLION of treatments they were unable to pay for
Denver's main hospital has provided care worth $136 million that they have no received compensation for, putting the institute at a 'critical' stage
A total of 8,000 migrants who came to the city from Central America have made around 20,000 visits to the health system, causing problems for Denver Health
These included trips for dental emergencies, mental health counseling and childbirth
By JOE HUTCHISON FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
UPDATED: 18 January 2024
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12976873/Denver-migrant-crisis-hospitals-critical-funding.html
"unable to pay for" I mean, duh.
POTUS promised everything paid for if you get here, who expects otherwise with a straight face?
-
BREAKING: NYPD RELEASED GA MURDER SUSPECT BEFORE ICE COULD PLACE A DETAINER
BREANNA MORELLO
FEB 25, 2024
https://breannamorello.substack.com/p/breaking-nypd-released-ga-murder
-
One of the rarely discussed side effects of our open borders/illegal immigration crisis.
Migrant crisis plunges Denver's main public hospital deep into the red after patients received $130 MILLION of treatments they were unable to pay for
Denver's main hospital has provided care worth $136 million that they have no received compensation for, putting the institute at a 'critical' stage
A total of 8,000 migrants who came to the city from Central America have made around 20,000 visits to the health system, causing problems for Denver Health
These included trips for dental emergencies, mental health counseling and childbirth
By JOE HUTCHISON FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
UPDATED: 18 January 2024
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12976873/Denver-migrant-crisis-hospitals-critical-funding.html
At some point around 20 years ago, over 15 Los Angeles County ERs closed because of illegal aliens seeking treatment. This is all so predictable.
-
BREAKING: NYPD RELEASED GA MURDER SUSPECT BEFORE ICE COULD PLACE A DETAINER
BREANNA MORELLO
FEB 25, 2024
https://breannamorello.substack.com/p/breaking-nypd-released-ga-murder
Lees than 25% of illegal aliens subject to a detainer are turned over to ICE. The rest are released.
-
At some point around 20 years ago, over 15 Los Angeles County ERs closed because of illegal aliens seeking treatment. This is all so predictable.
And intentional.
-
Lees than 25% of illegal aliens subject to a detainer are turned over to ICE. The rest are released.
Thank you for using the proper terminology. :)
For the life of me, I don't understand how "sanctuary" cities and states get away with this crap. And people are literally dying as a result.
We probably have terrorist cells on our soil who entered through the southern border.
-
New California bill would make illegal immigrants eligible for first time homebuyer loans
A California Democratic assemblymember's new bill states that an individual's immigration status can't disqualify an applicant from the program
By Alba Cuebas-Fantauzzi Fox News
Published March 2, 2024
https://www.foxnews.com/media/new-california-bill-make-illegal-immigrants-eligible-first-time-homebuyer-loans
-
New California bill would make illegal immigrants eligible for first time homebuyer loans
A California Democratic assemblymember's new bill states that an individual's immigration status can't disqualify an applicant from the program
By Alba Cuebas-Fantauzzi Fox News
Published March 2, 2024
https://www.foxnews.com/media/new-california-bill-make-illegal-immigrants-eligible-first-time-homebuyer-loans
I am not worried about this. How many illegal immigrants do you suppose could qualify for the CalHFA first-time home buyer loan programs? What does it take to get to a 620 credit score? Not a lot, but likely a lot more than most illegal immigrants can muster.
Consider this, the median home price across California in November 2023 reached $822,200.
https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/mortgages/california-first-time-home-buyer-programs
-
I am not worried about this. How many illegal immigrants do you suppose could qualify for the CalHFA first-time home buyer loan programs? What does it take to get to a 620 credit score? Not a lot, but likely a lot more than most illegal immigrants can muster.
Consider this, the median home price across California in November 2023 reached $822,200.
https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/mortgages/california-first-time-home-buyer-programs
The issue isn't how many will qualify. The issue is that not a single illegal alien should be permitted to buy a home in our country. They should be deported.
-
Thank you for using the proper terminology. :)
For the life of me, I don't understand how "sanctuary" cities and states get away with this crap. And people are literally dying as a result.
We probably have terrorist cells on our soil who entered through the southern border.
Obama’s acronym DACA used “arrivals” for the last letter.
Now Biden is calling them “newcomers.”
What's next - "fresh faces?" ::)
-
Absolutely insane
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13155765/biden-illegal-migrant-flying-program-national-security-vulnerability.html
-
Absolutely insane
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13155765/biden-illegal-migrant-flying-program-national-security-vulnerability.html
Now this is an impeachable offense. They used our tax dollars to secretly fly illegal aliens into the country for almost an entire year to numerous U.S. cities. >:(
-
Illegal Mexican migrant allegedly kills Washington state trooper in high-speed crash after drinking, smoking weed
By Yaron Steinbuch
Published March 6, 2024
https://nypost.com/2024/03/06/us-news/illegal-mexican-migrant-allegedly-kills-washington-state-trooper-in-crash-after-drinking-smoking-weed/
-
>:(
Joe Biden Owns the Open Mexico Border, 9+ Million Illegals So Far, and All the Problems We'll Pay For
By Andrew Malcolm | March 19, 2024
https://redstate.com/andrewmalcolm/2024/03/19/never-forget-joe-biden-owns-the-open-border-with-mexico-n2171575
-
>:(
Joe Biden Owns the Open Mexico Border, 9+ Million Illegals So Far, and All the Problems We'll Pay For
By Andrew Malcolm | March 19, 2024
https://redstate.com/andrewmalcolm/2024/03/19/never-forget-joe-biden-owns-the-open-border-with-mexico-n2171575
Outrageous on so many levels! And this disgusting pos promised this!
-
New York City begins giving illegal immigrants prepaid debit cards as part of $53 million pilot program
The first batch of debit cards were reportedly handed out Monday to a handful of migrants who recently arrived in the city
By Kyle Morris Fox News
Published March 26, 2024
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-york-city-begins-giving-illegal-immigrants-prepaid-debit-cards-part-53-million-pilot-program