Author Topic: Amnesty Coming to a Town Near You  (Read 64753 times)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Amnesty Coming to a Town Near You
« Reply #175 on: October 13, 2015, 09:39:33 AM »
JERRY BROWN SIGNS BILL THAT COULD LET ILLEGAL ALIENS VOTE

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

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Amnesty Coming to a Town Near You
« Reply #176 on: November 03, 2015, 09:00:43 AM »
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

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Amnesty Coming to a Town Near You
« Reply #177 on: November 10, 2015, 09:02:19 AM »
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

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Amnesty Coming to a Town Near You
« Reply #178 on: November 11, 2015, 10:00:29 AM »
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/

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Amnesty Coming to a Town Near You
« Reply #179 on: December 17, 2015, 04:37:01 PM »
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


240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Amnesty Coming to a Town Near You
« Reply #180 on: December 17, 2015, 11:11:44 PM »
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.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Amnesty Coming to a Town Near You
« Reply #181 on: December 18, 2015, 12:04:31 AM »
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

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Amnesty Coming to a Town Near You
« Reply #182 on: December 18, 2015, 10:59:09 AM »
this is the 3rd time you've attacked Cruz today?   ;)

I guess he is a threat to RINOs when that starts to happen.

 ::)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Amnesty Coming to a Town Near You
« Reply #183 on: December 18, 2015, 10:59:32 AM »
Lol at you posting this 3 minutes after msnbc discussed it.
Hmmmmm

You are a lying turd. 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Amnesty Coming to a Town Near You
« Reply #184 on: January 19, 2016, 12:46:07 PM »
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

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Amnesty Coming to a Town Near You
« Reply #185 on: March 24, 2016, 10:48:38 AM »
 >:(

Four illegal immigrants charged in rape, beating; two were previously deported
Published March 21, 2016 
FoxNews.com

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

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Amnesty Coming to a Town Near You
« Reply #186 on: March 31, 2016, 12:26:11 PM »
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

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Amnesty Coming to a Town Near You
« Reply #187 on: April 06, 2016, 12:56:21 PM »
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

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Amnesty Coming to a Town Near You
« Reply #188 on: April 07, 2016, 02:27:09 PM »
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

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Amnesty Coming to a Town Near You
« Reply #189 on: April 18, 2016, 10:45:10 AM »
Supreme Court Appears Split Over Obama's Immigration Plan

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

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Amnesty Coming to a Town Near You
« Reply #190 on: April 18, 2016, 02:32:12 PM »
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

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Amnesty Coming to a Town Near You
« Reply #191 on: June 06, 2016, 02:06:24 PM »
 >:(

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

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Amnesty Coming to a Town Near You
« Reply #192 on: June 06, 2016, 03:17:14 PM »
>:(

California lawmakers try to extend ObamaCare to illegal immigrants


states rights.   sucks, but that is what the libs of cali want.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Amnesty Coming to a Town Near You
« Reply #193 on: June 06, 2016, 03:27:36 PM »
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. 

TuHolmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5563
  • Darkness is fated to eventually be destroyed...
Re: Amnesty Coming to a Town Near You
« Reply #194 on: June 06, 2016, 04:07:51 PM »
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.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Amnesty Coming to a Town Near You
« Reply #195 on: June 06, 2016, 04:18:32 PM »
Next thing you know they will be trying to allow them to vote. 

TuHolmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5563
  • Darkness is fated to eventually be destroyed...
Re: Amnesty Coming to a Town Near You
« Reply #196 on: June 06, 2016, 04:23:44 PM »
Slippery slopes they say...  :-\

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Amnesty Coming to a Town Near You
« Reply #197 on: June 08, 2016, 05:05:53 PM »
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

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Amnesty Coming to a Town Near You
« Reply #198 on: June 23, 2016, 11:42:20 AM »
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

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63575
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Amnesty Coming to a Town Near You
« Reply #199 on: August 10, 2016, 01:06:01 PM »
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