SyracuseNYmayortoObama:Sendthoseimmigrant

Syracuse NY mayor to Obama: Send those immigrant kids up here!

posted at 1:01 pm on July 19, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Even as Congress struggles with the ongoing crisis at the border and the President plans some sort of meeting with Central American leaders, there seems to be no shortage of elected officials who want to get in on the action. Of course, if you’re looking for help with a huge problem on the Texas border, your first thought might not be to ask somebody in upstate New York. But that won’t stop the city’s mayor, Stephanie Minor. (Go ahead… say “Mayor Minor” five times fast.)

The mayor’s latest pitch came in a letter to President Obama.

“We have a network of people who are used to dealing with refugee issues. And we have, most importantly, a compassionate community that wants to welcome these children and give them a safe place while these issues are worked out,” said Miner.

The Mayor is not alone in offering a helping hand.

“They’re somebody’s children. They’re loved. Parents made a great sacrifice, let them go, sent them here. I think that the parent that sends a child in a situation like that is hoping that their child will be received warmly and welcomed. Treated hospitably, and shown compassion,” said Bishop Robert Cunningham, Syracuse Roman Catholic Diocese.

The general idea is to house any incoming illegal aliens at the vacant campus of Maria Regina College, and the local reporters are eating it up. I’ve dealt with the media up here for some time, having had to work a couple of campaigns for Republicans, so it’s no surprise that the articles give very little coverage to the people who showed up at the proposed site to protest the plan. But they were out in numbers and saw things differently.

“You can tell the community is more behind us just by the honks,” said Carol Lucey, the New York State leader of Overpasses for America.”

Carrying signs and American flags, those opposed to housing the children said they came to protect America.

“We need to take care of our own first,” said Michelle Coon, of Constantia, and an Overpasses member. “There’s hungry children here in Syracuse. There are homeless children here in Syracuse.”

This is clearly not the first case where somebody thought of sending the incoming children to nearly the opposite ends of the continental United States rather than keeping them close to the deportation point. And the media is quick to note that “no local or state money” will be required to house them. (No mention seems to be made of the fact that the federal money which will be used is coming out of the citizens’ pockets also.) One of the oddest claims being made by the Mayor and her media allies, however, is this one:

How long will they stay?
The average stay is less than 35 days.

That seems odd, since one of the most liberal sources on the web admits that the current backlog of cases stands at more than 375,000 and the average wait time is currently 587 days. But Syracuse is going to clear them out in an average of 35 days? Is anyone buying this?

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: Barack Obama, border security, illegal immigration, New York

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

JoseAntonioVargashasbeenreleased.Nowwhat?

Jose Antonio Vargas has been released. Now what?

posted at 10:41 am on July 16, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

As you have doubtless heard by now (and as Noah already covered) illegal immigrant Jose Antonio Vargas was taken into custody by the Border Patrol yesterday. Whether or not this was prompted in part by my call over the weekend for ICE to do something about this guy shall remain a mystery. Judging by the response in the comments to my suggestion, it no doubt came as a pleasant surprise to most of us that he was picked up at all. But by yesterday evening it seemed that our congratulations to law enforcement were a bit premature, as Vargas was back on the street in less than eight hours.

Jose Antonio Vargas, the former journalist who has spent the past few years crusading on behalf of fellow undocumented immigrants, was detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents Tuesday and held for much of the day after trying to leave a Texas border town without a valid U.S. visa.

Vargas was taken into custody Tuesday morning at McAllen-Miller International Airport and was held for about eight hours until his early-evening release. He received a notice to appear before an immigration judge.

The last sentence is the key bit of news here, since it turns out that authorities didn’t entirely cave and simply let the fish off the hook as they did in Minnesota back in 2012. Vargas was released on his own recognizance, but will have to appear before an immigration judge in the days, months (or years?) to come. I haven’t heard yet how long this process will take, but presumably it would be difficult for Vargas to simply go to ground and disappear, so we can expect that he’ll show up. (And given his history of drawing attention to himself, I doubt he could avoid the temptation of the spectacle.)

So what will happen then? One might naively assume that a criminal who has been flaunting his disregard for the law for this long would almost automatically be deported to his native country, but that might be a bit hasty. Judges are not immune to public sentiment, and to avoid the media backlash over one of their own tribe having to actually face the consequences of his actions the judge may find it easier to simply let him go. This could be accomplished with some sort of generic, judicial legerdemain wherein they claim that Vargas isn’t really “one of the dangerous illegal immigrants” and our resources would be better spent going after drug dealers and terrorists.

This, of course, is nonsense. As I wrote in the original piece, Vargas represents a powerful talisman to potential illegal border jumpers, demonstrating how easy it is to not only flaunt the laws of this country, but to prosper in the land where the streets are paved with gold in spite of them. But such realities frequently fail to overcome politics, so I’m not putting any money on Vargas being sent back home any time soon.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: crime, illegal immigration, Jose Antonio Vargas

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

ICE has the chance to catch Jose Antonio Vargas RIGHT NOW

ICEhasthechancetocatchJoseAntonio

Poll:PublicholdsObamaresponsibleforbordercrisis,

Poll: Public holds Obama responsible for border crisis, Iraq and the IRS scandal

posted at 1:31 pm on July 2, 2014 by Bruce McQuain

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

As the crisis at our southern border continues to stagger on, a recent IBD/TIPP poll found that a majority of Americans hold President Obama and his administration responsible for the problem:

The public largely blames President Obama for the flood of children who have poured over the border in recent weeks, creating a growing humanitarian crisis, according to the latest IBD/TIPP Poll released Monday.

[...]

The poll found that 59% of those closely following the immigration crisis agree that “current administration policies and lack of focus on securing the border” are behind the human tide of illegal crossings. Six in 10 say that the children should be ordered to leave the country. (The survey found that 73% of Americans are following this story closely.)

The responsibility for the border crisis is one Obama can’t duck or deny – it is a crisis of his own making.  His refusal to enforce the laws of the land and his permissive policies and rhetoric all but invited this to happen.  Now that it has, he’s “frustrated” with Congress – his personal candidate for being tossed under the blame bus, and is asking for 2 billion in emergency funds to address the crisis he created.  As you can see, most Americans aren’t buying the White House spin.

He doesn’t get a pass on Iraq either.  Per the poll, 56% believe his decision to withdraw troops in 2011 had a direct bearing on the crisis there today.

What’s more, 55% say that Obama wasn’t being honest when he claimed that Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was entirely responsible for the decision to bring the troops home.

Meanwhile, 55% say that the administration’s failure to contain the Syria conflict contributed to the rise of the militant forces in Iraq. Just 27% give Obama high marks for his handling of the Iraq situation.

Finally, the IRS scandal is considered anything but a “phony scandal” by the public:

The IBD/TIPP poll found that 65% believe that the lost IRS emails are an attempt by the administration to “hide evidence that the IRS deliberately targeted conservative groups” prior to the 2012 presidential election.

The lost emails are the latest twist in a more than year-long saga that erupted when an inspector general report detailed how the IRS held up Tea Party groups’ applications for tax-exempt status before the 2012 elections.

[...]

Obama dismissed the IRS scandal earlier this year, saying there was not “even a smidgen of corruption.” Congressional Democrats argue that the IRS wasn’t singling out right-wing groups.

Those defenses aren’t flying with most Americans who’ve been tracking this story. Among independents, 66% think the lost emails were an attempt to cover up wrongdoing. Even 36% of Democrats say it was a cover-up.

These are three very hot topics that Americans are following  closely and a majority doesn’t believe the administration’s side of the story.  As Mr. Obama’s favorite preacher would say, it appears as if the Obama chickens “are coming home to roost”.

~McQ

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: IBD/TIPP, illegal immigration, Iraq, IRS

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Obamatoaskfor$2Btotoughenup

Obama to ask for $2B to toughen up border control

posted at 9:31 am on June 29, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

I’m guessing that this wasn’t exactly what the President’s Democrat allies had in mind when they were thinking about “comprehensive immigration reform.” Both the NY Times and the Washington Post are reporting that President Obama will, this week, request a two billion dollar slug of emergency cash to stem the tide of children and other illegal aliens crossing into the country. The list of potential uses has a few items.

The Obama administration, in a dramatic escalation of its border control strategy, will seek $2 billion in emergency funds to help stem an influx of Central American women and children entering the country illegally and new measures to more quickly deport those already here, the White House confirmed Saturday.

President Obama intends to notify Congress of his request on Monday, and the administration also will ask lawmakers to modify existing statutes to make it easier to return unaccompanied children to their home countries, an administration official said.

There aren’t a lot of specifics being offered yet, but they include sending more immigration judges to Texas and building new detention facilities for those who have been caught already and are awaiting a court hearing. There was no mention of additional enforcement personnel, border strengthening or electronic surveillance improvements.

The announcement, surprising as it was, seemed to catch the GOP off guard, at least for the moment.

A spokesman for House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said his office had no comment until it receives the proposal and has time to review it.

It’s a bit early to say, because this could either be a serious proposal or window dressing in response to yet another political crisis. But if the money will honestly go to catching more illegals as they cross, processing them faster and speeding them on their way back home, then this may wind up being one of those rare moments when we can applaud the President for his actions. Call me foolish for offering the benefit of the doubt here, but Barack Obama has been on the receiving end of plenty of criticism from his own supporters for quite some time over his allegedly “aggressive” deportation policies. It could be one policy area where his heart may be in the right place, at least in terms of enforcing existing law. (His willingness to discard those laws and embrace amnesty is another question entirely.)

Assuming the full request is as advertised, I hope that the House GOP will seriously consider granting it and find at least one area where they can agree with the White House. Maybe their collective approval rating could crawl back into double digits if they did.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: Barack Obama, border security, illegal immigration, Mexico

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Illegalaliensarefedupwithpoliticiansor

Illegal aliens are fed up with politicians or something

posted at 2:31 pm on June 7, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Ruben Navarrette is a frequent opinion columnist for CNN and the man has a lot to say on subjects involving race relations and immigration reform (among other topics). This week he turns his attention back to the subject of “undocumented” immigrants to our nation and finds that some of the most high profile members of this elite criminal class are pretty “fed up” with politicians and their handling of the subject. One case in point who attracts his attention is Erika Andiola.

Andiola is one of the most famous DREAMers in the country. In 2012, she appeared with nearly three dozen other undocumented immigrants — including journalist Jose Antonio Vargas — on the cover of Time magazine.

In September 2013, she began an eye-opening adventure when she went to Washington to work for Rep. Kyrsten Sinema. She lasted four months.

She left after concluding from conversations with other congressional aides that Democrats would prefer not to solve the immigration problem because they would rather use it a club to bludgeon Republicans.

She wrote about her experience and observed that Washington was driven by “political games — games that are causing too much pain in our community.” She also declared that the immigrant community and the American people have more power to affect change than “politicians inside the beltway.”

Truth-telling won’t make you popular. And for some in the immigrant advocacy movement, Andiola is now persona non grata.

She is attacked on social media, and — while she used to be a frequent guest at the White House for policy meetings on immigration — she has recently been yanked out of line several times while waiting to enter for one event or another.

Navarrette makes two points here which deserve attention, though for different reasons. The first is one which appears to have been obvious to conservatives and those concerned with national security for a long time: Democrats, by their actions rather than their words, really don’t care about immigration reform as a goal. To the extent they are willing to address the immigration question, it’s far more valuable as a talking point to bash the GOP in the hopes of glomming on to the coat tails of a perceived demographic shift taking place in the nation. Actually solving the perceived immigration problem would actually be self-defeating for the Donkey Party, as it would remove a powerful piece from the chess board. But is it really that powerful?

This Democrat inaction, of course, leaves people like Andiola disillusioned with Nancy Pelosi and all her ilk (as well as a president setting records for deportations), though it doesn’t necessarily drive them into the arms of the Republicans. But when you add those numbers to the many legal immigrants who resent the idea of others getting head of the line privileges at the stroke of a Washington pen when they had to work so hard to earn their citizenship, it may turn this issue into a wash rather than the electoral goldmine they’d hoped for. The Left loves to refer to the GOP as the Party of No (action) – unjustly in most regards – but in this case the facts above make a strong case for doing nothing beyond insisting on better border control and more stringent enforcement of existing laws.

The other point which Navarrette makes – without intending it – is found back in that opening paragraph. This woman is famous. She was on the cover of Time magazine. She got a job working for a member of congress. And yet she was actively engaged in criminal behavior until she received a two year waiver under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. I understand that she – and many others – would like to see the laws changed, but they haven’t been changed yet. And though we’ve discussed it before, it bears repeating: even understanding that it’s impossible for ICE to find every illegal in the country and get them on buses.. surely they could have found her.

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: aliens, DREAM Act, illegal immigration, illegals

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Shocker: seven in ten favor voter ID laws

Shocker:sevenintenfavorvoterIDlaws

ATrojanHorseonamnestyinthedefense

A Trojan Horse on amnesty in the defense bill?

posted at 10:01 am on April 19, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

I’m not sure if this is one of the things that John Boehner was talking about when he said he was hell bent on passing some immigration legislation, but there is more controversy surrounding the upcoming defense authorization bill on a related subject. Over at The Corner, Mark Krikorian raises the alarm over a meeting which just took place between two unlikely figures in the immigration debate.

In related news, President Obama is meeting with the National Commander of the American Legion this morning. Ordinarily, that would mean little, but the meeting comes just days after the Legion came out against a plan to amnesty illegal aliens who join the military. The number of people who would benefit from such an amnesty is miniscule (and there’s already a statutory means of allowing them to enlist), so why would the president take time out to summon the head of the Legion for a tiny, redundant immigration provision?

Here’s the article where the American Legion comes out against this policy. It’s fairly obvious that the Legion’s leadership isn’t trying to step on the fingers of anyone who serves, but simply wants to keep the two issues each in their own space.

“The NDAA needs to stand alone, and I think attaching an issue as contentious and complex as immigration and recruitment policy would only stall the NDAA,” said John Stovall, director of the American Legion’s national security division. “Immigration policy needs to be debated on its own outside the debate of NDAA.”

I’ve written about the pros and cons of granting citizenship to those who serve in the military here before, and it’s clearly a topic which generates some controversy. But whether you support it or not, Krikorian raises the point that perhaps the “must pass” defense spending authorization bill isn’t the place to ram it through. And he’s already hearing from some insiders on the hill that plans are afoot which could turn it into a larger headache. (Emphasis mine.)

Because it’s a Trojan Horse — if it’s included in the must-pass defense authorization bill when it’s sent to the Senate, Harry Reid can expand it into a larger amnesty confident in the knowledge that it would have to be passed. I’ve been told by a Republican House member that the Democrat (and, presumably, “hellbent” House leadership) plan is to add the entire DREAM Act to the defense bill once it gets to the Senate

I may still be living in denial, but that simply doesn’t make sense. I understand why Boehner is gauging the political realities of getting something done on immigration this year. (And more importantly, during the glide path to November 2016) But I’m expecting to see some specific, individual pieces of legislation dealing with stronger border security, E-verify or tougher penalties for employers of illegals. I can’t believe that the House leadership would even consider backing inclusion of the entire DREAM Act in the defense bill.

Either way, it sets the stage to have some interesting questions answered. First, the concern of a Trojan Horse here is real, so we’ll need to find out if the GOP is smart enough to not allow that door to be cracked open on the NDAA. And second – whether it happens here or in some stand-alone legislation – we’ll find out just how far the House is willing to go down this road in the name of getting their names on something with the word immigration on it. But it’s going to start yet another revolt among the conservative base if something like the DREAM Act makes it’s way through, and this one may start a fire too big for Boehner to put out.

Tags: amnesty, defense spending, illegal immigration

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

NancyPelosi:IthinkIknowwhythe

Nancy Pelosi: I think I know why the Republicans won’t bring up immigration

posted at 8:51 pm on April 10, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

Three guesses, ya’ll.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday blamed racial issues for the GOP’s failure to act on comprehensive immigration legislation.

“I think race has something to do with the fact that they’re not bringing up an immigration bill,” the California Democrat told reporters at her regular weekly press conference. “I’ve heard them say to the Irish, ‘If it were just you, this would be easy.’”

Pelosi was responding to a question about whether race factors into how Republicans deal with members of the Obama administration. She accused Republicans of being generally disrespectful to members of the administration and to women.

Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill later clarified that the reported GOP comment about the Irish has been relayed to Pelosi a number of times by Irish immigration activists she’s met with.

I realize she was asked a specific question about the made-up racial implications of Holder-Gohmert exchange earlier this week, but whyyy did she have to immediately respond with the other ways in which she pretends to think Republicans are oh so racist and sexist? …I suppose relentlessly demagoguing the crap out of Republicans is practically in her job description, and we’ve long established that intellectual honesty isn’t really her thing — and since illegal immigration is the next big-ticket item on her pre-midterm docket with which to hammer Republicans while distracting from ObamaCare and energizing a blasé base, why not take every opportunity to make Republicans look as morally repugnant as possible despite the availability of other, more valid criticisms? Makes sense.

The California Democrat does not wield the speaker’s gavel anymore, but she’s hitting the road to bring attention to immigration, which she calls her top legislative priority. In recent weeks, she’s pitched an overhaul to audiences from Miami to Los Angeles to Laredo, Texas.

The Pelosi immigration road show is unfolding as the issue remains on the back burner in the Republican-controlled House. …

“It’s the biggest thing that we can do, and that’s why I’ve said to the speaker, to the press, to these groups, I would rather pass [a] comprehensive immigration reform bill than win the elections in November,” Pelosi said during the 30-minute interview. “There’s nothing we could accomplish in winning that would be as big as passing immigration reform.”

Tags: Democrats, illegal immigration, Nancy Pelosi, racism, Republicans

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Bush:Illegalimmigrationan“actoflove,”not

Bush: Illegal immigration an “act of love,” not a felony

posted at 9:21 am on April 7, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

“I’m going to say this, and it’ll be on tape,” former Florida Governor Jeb Bush told an audience at his father’s presidential library this weekend, adding with a shrug, “So be it.” Asked about immigration policy at the forum, Bush responded that the US has to implement a system to find illegal immigrants and ask them to leave, along with better border controls, but that we should not overreact to illegal immigration when it occurs. It’s “an act of love,” Bush argued, “not a felony”:

On immigration, he said that many of those who illegally come to the United States do so out of an “act of love” for their families and should be treated differently than people who illegally cross U.S. borders or overstay visas. He said that a bipartisan bill passed by the Senate last year made “a good effort” at proposing ways to ensure that people overstaying visas leave the country.

“A great country ought to know where those folks are and politely ask them to leave,” he said, adding later that properly targeting people who overstay visas “would restore people’s confidence” in the nation’s immigration system.

But most people who illegally enter the United States do so “because they couldn’t come legally, they come to our country because their families — the dad who loved their children — was worried that their children didn’t have food on the table,” Bush said. “And they wanted to make sure their family was intact, and they crossed the border because they had no other means to work to be able to provide for their family. Yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony. It’s an act of love. It’s an act of commitment to your family. I honestly think that that is a different kind of crime that there should be a price paid, but it shouldn’t rile people up that people are actually coming to this country to provide for their families.”

The proposal last year did make a good effort at finding a middle ground. The problem wasn’t the bill as much as it was who it trusted to enforce it. The problem for those supporting a staged system of comprehensive immigration reform is the Obama administration, which has proven its disregard for statutory law in ObamaCare — the bill it promoted — especially when it comes to statutory deadlines and enforcement. If we can’t trust this White House to stick with deadlines for mandates it really wants, how can we trust it to stick with the phased-in approach to normalization based on objective border- and visa-security metrics, even if those involve Congressional approval? After all, the employer mandates and IRS penalties were hard-wired into the ObamaCare statute, and Obama had no problem using his phone and his pen to ignore those.

Republicans aren’t going to get border and visa reform without coming up with ways to normalize those who have lived in the US for a significant period of time, and Democrats won’t get the latter without the former — unless Obama is still President when reform passes. That’s the issue even for those who support a compromise. The GOP trusted Democrats in 1986 when there was a lot more reason to do so, and got stiffed on the border and visa reforms. They’re not going to offer that level of trust with an executive branch that has demonstrated its untrustworthiness repeatedly over the last four years on ObamaCare, and Barack Obama’s declared ambitions to govern through EOs and regulation while bypassing Congress.

Bush says he will decide on whether to run for President by the end of the year, which means that … he’s just like everyone else in that regard. Whether he chooses to run depends on whether he can try running a different kind of campaign:

In a rambling answer that suggested he has given serious thought to the prospects of running for a job once held by his father and brother, Bush said he would decide whether to run for president by the end of this year. He appeared to bemoan the thought of having to spend time attending political cattle calls in early-primary states, suggesting that some candidates might devote too much time to questions such as, “How am I going to get to win the Muscatine Pork Roast straw poll, or something like that.”

Bush said he ultimately would base his decision on whether a candidate can “run with a hopeful, optimistic message, hopefully with enough detail to give people a sense that it’s not just idle words and not get back into the vortex of the mud fight.”

Good luck on that score.  The last innovator in a presidential primary was Rudy Giuliani, who thought he could skip over some of the traditional “here and now” states to win big in Bush’s Florida backyard, and that … didn’t work out so well.

Tags: 2016 election, illegal immigration, Jeb Bush

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Killingtheruleoflawsoftlyonimmigration

Killing the rule of law softly on immigration

posted at 4:31 pm on March 29, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

At the Corner, Mark Krikorian catches John Sandweg (previously of Immigration and Customs Enforcement) in the act of putting forward proposals which would effectively eliminate his own former job.

Sandweg, a criminal defense attorney and Arizona crony of Janet Napolitano, wrote in relation to President Obama’s directive that ICE reexamine enforcement policies with an eye toward making them more “humane.” To that end, he says ICE “should eliminate ‘non-criminal re-entrants and immigration fugitives’ as a priority category for deportation.”

What that means is that people who have been formally deported and then sneak back in should be exempted from further attempts at removing them, even though re-entry after deportation is a felony. Also, he wants to exempt from deportation the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who have been ordered deported but ignored the order and simply absconded. He says, in the obligatory “to be sure” paragraph, “To be sure, those who repeatedly cross our borders illegally or abscond from the immigration court bear culpability” — but if they’re exempt from being taken into custody and removed from the country, what does that culpability mean? It’s not like they’re going to be prosecuted, even though reentry after deportation and absconding from court are both criminal offenses.

He’s not just blue-skying this idea; it’s clearly the next step being considered in the administration’s unilateral amnesty push. It wouldn’t confer legal status on any illegal aliens (unlike the president’s illegal DACA/DREAM amnesty) but would solidify the status of immigration violations as secondary offenses. An example of a secondary offense is not wearing your seatbelt (in many states, anyway) — the police can’t stop you just for that, but if they stop you for, say, speeding, and find you’re also not wearing your seatbelt, they can ticket you for that as well.

Sandweg’s editorial may be found here.

This is yet another layer of the onion which makes any rational discussion of immigration policy essentially futile when attempting to deal with the pro-amnesty crowd. More than a year ago, I raised the question of whether the Democrats and their pro-amnesty allies would be willing to settle the issue once and for all as to whether or not illegal immigration was a crime. It seemed to me that until you could answer that fundamental question, there was really no path forward to discuss anything else. Clearly, I was mistaken.

Sandweg highlight’s something which is already going on to some extent in the Justice Department and could clearly be taken much further. If you can’t gain any ground in getting the Legislative branch to decriminalize entry by illegal aliens, apparently you can just leave the current laws on the books but fail to enforce them. Or, on a related note, treat the crime as such an afterthought that there is no longer any disincentive to violating the law.

That leads us to the larger question – one which has been debated over a number of presidencies. At what point does a government divided into three ostensibly equal branches break down in effectiveness if they refuse to play their part in the overall contract? What does the Supreme Court do if it issues a ruling but can find no strong arm to enforce its decision? What recourse does the Legislative branch have if the duly elected members pass laws, but the judicial wing of the Executive fails to hold violators to account? It seems that this particular dodge exposes the reality that the White House has much stronger cards to play if the three branches come into conflict.

We’ll close with one of Krikorian’s observations on the subject.

This administration is engaged in executive nullification on a scale that threatens the constitutional order. Rather than trying to bamboozle voters into accepting an amnesty, the Republican leadership should be devoting itself to soberly and calmly making the case to the public that this administration is setting precedents that our children will come to regret.

And probably sooner rather than later.

Tags: Barack Obama, Eric Holder, illegal immigration, immigration reform, rule of law

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

DHSproposesanationaltrackingdatabasefor…

DHS proposes a national tracking database for … license plates

posted at 8:41 am on February 19, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Let’s see if this sounds familiar. A federal agency with national-security responsibilities wants access to a vast database that tracks the actions of citizens, but promises only to use it when they really really really think they need to do so. Even though it intrudes on privacy and collects data without warrants, the agency swears it will be necessary to keep Americans safe.

The NSA and phone data? Well, sure, but now we have the DHS asking to track our license plates, too. What could go wrong … Winston?

The Department of Homeland Security wants a private company to provide a national license-plate tracking system that would give the agency access to vast amounts of information from commercial and law enforcement tag readers, according to a government proposal that does not specify what privacy safeguards would be put in place.

The national license-plate recognition database, which would draw data from readers that scan the tags of every vehicle crossing their paths, would help catch fugitive illegal immigrants, according to a DHS solicitation. But the database could easily contain more than 1 billion records and could be shared with other law enforcement agencies, raising concerns that the movements of ordinary citizens who are under no criminal suspicion could be scrutinized.

A spokeswoman for DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) stressed that the database “could only be accessed in conjunction with ongoing criminal investigations or to locate wanted individuals.”

A few years ago, I would have accepted that. Today, I’m not as sanguine. Would that require a warrant? Who gets to access the data, which would be collected and stored by a private company? What constitutes a threat to public safety that would justify the mass collection of data on all Americans just to provide data-mining capabilities to DHS?

The Electronic Frontier Foundation raises the obvious point:

But civil liberties groups are not assuaged. “Ultimately, you’re creating a national database of location information,” said Jennifer Lynch, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “When all that data is compiled and aggregated, you can track somebody as they’re going through their life.”

It’s the same as strapping a GPS locator on every vehicle in America and collecting the route information from it in perpetuity. Sure, this would help solve a few crimes, and maybe find illegal aliens, which is the reason why DHS asked for this in the first place. But it also gives government a powerful store of information about everyone else. Perhaps at some point, DHS might want to look at the movement of a critic or a potential whistleblower to see whether there’s anything embarrassing in their routine, as a means of applying pressure. Those trips to the mistress’ house would just remain our little secret, comrade … as long as you keep ours, no?

Paranoid? Yes, probably, and I’m being deliberately hyperbolic — to make a point. Why put that tool in the hands of government at all, especially one that seems to have grown increasingly in love with its own unilateral power, even where it lacks authority? At this point, we should be looking for options at limiting executive-branch power rather than expanding opportunities for its abuse.

Tags: DHS, illegal immigration, NSA, privacy

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Amilitarypathtocitizenship?Notsofast.

A military path to citizenship? Not so fast.

posted at 8:31 am on February 8, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

Another day, another poll on immigration reform… and one which probably proves what Allahpundit was saying yesterday regarding the need to examine how the questions are phrased. As was demonstrated, you can get a (bare) majority of people to support some form of broad immigration reform (amnesty) if you offer them a choice between mass deportation and a path to citizenship for those illegals who “have jobs.” Rasmussen has a new set of numbers which flip parts of the previous poll on its head while opening up a whole new can of worms.

Voters continue to put tougher border control well ahead of creating a pathway to citizenship for most illegal immigrants, but they‘re all for citizenship for children brought here illegally who are succeeding in America. Most also see citizenship as an effective recruiting tool for the military.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 80% of Likely U.S. Voters believe a child who is brought here illegally but later earns a college degree or serves honorably in the military should be given a chance to obtain U.S. citizenship. Just 10% disagree, while 10% are not sure.

First of all, their phrasing of the question regarding border security vs a path to citizenship is clearly different. And American respondents answered differently in kind, finding a secure border preferable to a gift to those living here illegally. But it’s the second question which was even more interesting. There is clearly a more sympathetic tone across the nation for offering some citizenship advantages to those who have managed to somehow earn it in our collective opinions. But how do they merit this generosity? 80% – which is a huge margin – are in favor if the illegal immigrant has either “earned a college degree” or served our nation in uniform.

Why would you group those two together? It seems to me that if there are to be any head of the line privileges being handed out, they would be far more likely to go to those who have taken the oath, put on the uniform, taken up arms and served a tour in combat defending the nation. Compare that to those who were living here illegally, received possible scholarships or grants and blended in at college with the children of citizens to obtain a degree and a pathway to a top notch job. I’d guess that the former would be far, far more popular in terms of special treatment than the latter. Let’s split those two groups out and run the poll.

And finally, how is the process working for immigrants to get into the military in the first place? Granted, once they are in and have served the nation honorably on the field of battle, even I find myself thinking… yeah.. I can see putting them up toward the head of the line. I’d be shocked if many people wouldn’t give this group a bit more credit than any other subset of those seeking citizenship. But aren’t we screening our applicants to join the military a bit more closely than that and finding which ones are completely outside the system? You can be rejected for all sorts of criminal convictions before being allowed on the bus to boot camp. Are we just not checking closely enough or is there some sort of loophole to allow illegals to join? It would appear that there is not.

A non-citizen must meet certain requirements to be eligible to join the military. The must have an Alien Registration Receipt Card (stamped I-94 or I-551 Green card/INS Form 1-551) as well as a bona fide residence established with an established record of the U.S. as their home. If the non-citizens comes from countries with a reputation of hostility towards the U.S, they may require a waiver. The federal government cannot petition on behalf of an illegal immigrant so that they can obtain legal status and be able to enlist in the military. In order for an immigrant to join the United States military, they must first go through the immigration process of the USCIS (previously known as the INS) and then begin the enlisting process. Another requirement is that the Green Card and/or visa of the immigrant desiring to join the military must be valid for the entire period of their enlistment. Undocumented immigrants may not enlist in the U.S. military.

So if an illegal immigrant gets into the military, they must have done so surreptitiously and in violation of the law. If we were only talking about men and women with legal green card status joining and perhaps getting a bump up toward the head of the line for full citizenship, I’m pretty much in favor of it. If you were already in the legal pipeline and made that sort of sacrifice, it’s worth giving you some benefit on the back end. But if you lied about your status to join and were actually in the country illegally, then you were committing yet another crime (fraud?) when you signed up to enlist. I’m not seeing how this gives you a pass to a green card.

But perhaps I’m wrong here. What do you think? If they join and serve honorably, should they just get a green card by default?

Tags: illegal immigration, immigration reform, military

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Iknow…let’sforgetaboutObamacareandstart

I know… let’s forget about Obamacare and start a big immigration reform fight!

posted at 12:31 pm on February 2, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

Allahpundit brought up the waffling issue, demonstrating that this isn’t anywhere near a done deal yet, but the continuing trend seems to be Republicans marching out on camera to talk about working on a “comprehensive” immigration reform plan. This is more than a little disappointing on a couple of levels. There have already been some sacrifices made to keep the train on the tracks which have gotten the blood of many conservatives boiling. Avoiding a bloodbath on the debt ceiling and the budget deal was a big give, but it kept the focus on Obamacare (an issue where Republicans are finally winning and looking to knock several Senate seats back into the red column.) In terms of media wars, if we can get the Christie bridge story off the front page one way or the other, things should settle back into the long predicted train wreck taking place before everyone’s eyes. And yet… well, I’ll let Andrew McCarthy explain.

Now, with the Obamacare debacle getting worse by the day and teeing up as the defining issue of the 2014 midterm elections, Republican leadership has decided this is the perfect time to roll out an immigration-reform proposal (i) that has nothing to do with Obamacare and is certain to detract attention from its failure; (ii) that fraudulently proclaims “enforcement first” while actually prioritizing legal status for law-breakers, thereby encouraging more law-breaking and ensuring that enforcement never happens; (iii) that depends for enforcement on a president who has demonstrated that he will not enforce the immigration laws; and (iv) that will be deeply offensive to the GOP’s already disgruntled conservative base, ensuring that droves of them will sit out the 2014 midterms.

McCarthy describes this as sheer genius with tongue planted firmly in cheek. I really don’t understand what Boehner is even debating. (Unless, of course, he actually has no intention of moving on any immigration bills and is just paying lip service to keep the media interested.) There’s not going to be comprehensive immigration Big Bill on the floor without his approval, so the solution in this case should be to simply do nothing. And isn’t that supposed to be the one thing Congress is good at anyway? For face saving purposes, a series of small bills which toughen border security (though that still looks like a finger in the leaking dike scenario), give employers the tools to verify the immigration status of applicants and significantly toughen penalties for those who hire illegals could pass the House. Then, when Harry Reid or Barack Obama try the you won’t work on immigration reform line, you just remind them that you’ve already sent three bills over awaiting their signature, followed by, so… how’s that Obamacare thing working out?

Will they have the discipline to stay on course or are we going to round up the circular firing squad again? Place your bets.

Tags: House Republicans, illegal immigration, immigration reform, John Boehner

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

California grants right for illegal immigrant to be a lawyer

Californiagrantsrightforillegalimmigranttobe

D.C.backsoffonvoteondriverslicenses

D.C. backs off on vote on drivers licenses for illegals

posted at 8:41 am on November 5, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

In case you missed it previously, the DC Council was planning on a special vote today, though it had nothing to do with the general election going on. They planned to hold a final vote to approve drivers licenses for illegal immigrants which were identical to the licenses which citizen drivers receive. But even in a place like DC, that raised a few eyebrows, and now the vote has been delayed.

The D.C. Council was set to take a final vote Tuesday on a bill allowing illegal immigrants to apply for District driver’s licenses for the first time. But the vote was delayed at least two weeks after the member shepherding the bill through the council said details remained to be worked out with federal authorities.

Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) said the two-week delay would allow the language of the bill to be perfected, in part to allay concerns that the measure could run afoul of federal law. Allowing undocumented residents to hold licenses indistinguishable from those held by legal residents could run afoul of the yet-to-be-implemented REAL ID Act, which sets tough standards for state ID cards.

In an interview Monday, Cheh said she has met with high-ranking officials at the Department of Homeland Security who, while not taking an official position on the legislation, raised some concerns with it.

Raised some concerns is putting it mildly. Even leaving aside the REAL ID Act, this proposal was bound to be one of the bigger lightning rods to hit the city in a while. The bill was allegedly going to provide the licenses “only to drive” which would seem to rely on the nearly foolproof honor system to ensure people didn’t use them in ways for which they weren’t intended. Other options also under consideration are to give the documents a “different color border” on the edges. (How could that possibly confuse anyone?) A second, horribly restrictive and undoubtedly raaaacist idea would have them include a small stamp saying, “not for federal identification purposes.” But nobody wants anything like that.

But immigrant advocates have opposed doing that in the District, calling it a ”scarlet letter” that would serve to alert law enforcement that the person bearing the license is in fact undocumented.

Well, heavens to Betsy! We certainly wouldn’t want a license that you might have to show to a policeman which might alert them that the person holding it was in the country illegally, would we? I mean, if you’re going to do that, you might as well just… arrest them.

It’s really getting hard to tell where the punch lines end and the real news stories begin these days.

Tags: D.C., illegal immigration, voter-ID, Washington

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair