Author Topic: Immigration issues  (Read 615917 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69439
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #800 on: September 14, 2014, 10:05:14 AM »
BTW, the syllogism here is one that Dick Morris recommends for Rep electoral success:

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2014/09/14/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69439
    • View Profile
Dems show allegiance to Mexico during parade
« Reply #801 on: September 15, 2014, 09:41:22 AM »
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/09/15/democrats-show-allegiance-to-mexico-during-parade/

==============================

Also see this:

Keeping Immigration Political
 

Another summer is over, and another Barack Obama pledge is broken. Remember when he vowed to address immigration reform by summer's end? Instead, the president announced last week that he will defer his action on deferred action for illegal immigrants until after the November election, hoping to stave off election losses for Democrat senators in difficult re-election fights. Since public perception on the issue is shifting in favor of the GOP, those desperate to hold the Senate prevailed on Obama to wait.

Of course, by playing to one side of the political arena, Obama has to soothe the bruised egos on the other side, the ones who believed he would follow through on their dream of allowing millions of undocumented Democrat voters across the border. So last week, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough was dispatched to a meeting of members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to listen to their complaints and try and convince them whatever is up Obama's sleeve will be worth the wait, saying the president would “go as far as he could under existing law."

But at least one member was unconvinced. “I don’t want to go down this path come November and then for some other reason find that the immigrant community and the Latino community get thrown in the heap again,” grumbled Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ).

Signs abound that Obama is already placating the pro-amnesty side, though. For example, deportations continue to decline in part because the overwhelmed system cannot keep up with the demand of illegal immigrants for non-existent “permisos.” Out of an estimated 59,000 in the latest wave of border-crashers, just 319 have been returned to Central America, according to the Associated Press. There's no question word of this lax enforcement has spread to those countries.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department recently warned Yuma County, Arizona -- which has had a successful “get-tough” policy on illegals called Operation Streamline -- that it would no longer prosecute first-time border crossers. (Interestingly enough, Rep. Grijalva represents a portion of Yuma County, which is in the southwest corner of the state.) These actions further cement the pro-amnesty reputation Obama has earned thanks to his lack of action on securing the border.

Over the last half-century, multiple bipartisan attempts have been made to address the immigration issue, with the most radical being the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which eliminated quotas by nation in favor of the current family-based approach, and the Simpson-Mazzoli Act of 1986 that granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants who could prove they had been here and otherwise law-abiding since 1982. Those changes led to the current situation.

Earlier this summer, immigration looked like the biggest issue for November, but ISIL's entry into the Long War, Russian aggression and a stagnant economy also will have an impact.

Yet as we look forward to 2016, pushing back any executive action on amnesty beyond this year's midterms will obviously affect the presidential race, and a number of Democrats may be seeing this political football as one worth keeping around. It's another example of how our government works: Solving problems only means your reason for existence disappears, so the best course of action is to perpetuate your justification.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2014, 09:44:02 AM by Crafty_Dog »

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
High-tech Companies pushing hard for "Immigration Reform"...
« Reply #802 on: September 16, 2014, 05:41:53 AM »
Here is a very interesting fact that is being almost wholly ignored by the establishment media - the billionaire leaders of Silicon Valley's high-tech companies are pushing for what is essentially amnesty because linked to this is the TRIPLING OF THE NUMBER OF H-1B VISAS - these allow foreign workers with advanced degrees to get green cards and work here in the U.S. - typically for MUCH LOWER wages than American workers.  In fact - often times these companies (and I know because I work for a software company here in GA) require these foreign workers to sign NON-HIRE AGREEMENTS - which essentially state that the worker agrees to indefinite "contract worker" status - never to be hired as a regular employee - and by design - never to command native U.S. wages.  I also agree that Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) is an American hero.  See below:


Jeff Sessions vs. the ‘Masters of the Universe’

Posted By Michael Cutler On September 16, 2014 @ frontpagemag.com

On September 12, 2014 Breitbart posted an infuriating report, “Facebook’s Marc Andreessen: Jeff Sessions ‘Clinically Insane’ for Supporting U.S. Workers.”

The title of the report made it clear that at best, Andreessen lacks respect or compassion for his fellow Americans and those who support unfortunately all-too-rare politicians such as Senator Jeff Sessions, whose unwavering support of American citizens through effective enforcement of America’s already existent immigration laws have evoked such a vile and outrageous response from Andreessen.

If Andreessen believes that “supporting U.S. workers” is indicative of mental illness, it must be presumed that Andreessen believes that sanity involves betraying American workers.

It has been said that you can judge a person by his enemies and his friends. Anyone who is so hated by Andreessen should be seen as an American hero and, indeed, Senator Sessions is an American hero — a title that is far too uncommon among our members of Congress.

Here is an important excerpt from the Breitbart article that makes Senator Sessions’ position crystal clear and perhaps should cause Americans irrespective of political affiliation to seek to convince Sessions to run for President:

A Sessions aide told Breitbart News that “it’s clear that a few mega-millionaire and mega-billionaire activists are calling the shots for Democrats on immigration.”

“The question at hand is pretty straightforward: who should get preference for American IT work – the 11.4 million Americans with STEM degrees but no STEM jobs, or the citizens of foreign countries now living overseas?” the aide told Breitbart News. “It appears that Democrat politicos and their super-elite patrons believe the answer is the latter.”

After criticizing “young Mr. Zuckerberg” for blasting America’s laws in a foreign capital, Sessions singled out Zuckerberg’s FWD.us, largely because the pro-amnesty lobby has spent millions of dollars trying to ram through a comprehensive amnesty bill that would give the tech lobby massive increases in guest-worker visas at a time when there is a surplus of American high-tech workers and a record number of Americans out of work.

In fact, as Sessions noted, the comprehensive amnesty bill that the tech industry wants and pro-amnesty advocates have spent $1.5 billion over the last decade pushing would “double the supply of low-wage foreign workers brought into the United States.” Silicon Valley companies, which have even been notoriously accused of trying to keep wages down with “no-hire” agreements, believe they will get a good return on their investment if Congress grants them massive increases in guest-worker visas.

After pointing out that Microsoft is laying of 18,000 workers, Sessions posed “a question to Mr. Zuckerberg” if he wanted to expand Facebook’s workforce by 10 percent.

The harsh reality is that Andreessen is so driven by greed that he seeks to amass even greater wealth, than he already possesses, by robbing from struggling middle class families who are increasingly losing their tenuous grasp on their standing as members of the middle class.

Andreessen’s obvious goal — a goal clearly shared by Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates and the other self-proclaimed “Masters of the Universe” — is to not only loot American workers and their families by driving down their wages, but also looting the future of their children who are acquiring STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) degrees at great financial expense and effort.

These American students have run up student loan payments that resemble mortgage payment, worked tirelessly to graduate with high averages and yet, as the saying goes, many are “all dressed up with nowhere to go.” For these hapless Americans, through no fault of their own, the “American Dream” will never come any closer to reality than an elusive dream.

On November 20, 2013 Fox News Latino published a report that must be considered, “The Billionaire And The Immigrant — Mark Zuckerberg And Carlos Vargas Join Forces In Silicon Valley For Immigration Reform.”

Here is how this report begins:

They were born one year apart, into vastly different worlds.

Carlos Vargas, 28, began life in poverty in Puebla, Mexico, where he shared one small bedroom with his widowed mother and three siblings. His mother, who crossed the U.S.-Mexican border illegally in 1990 with her four children, held multiple jobs here to make ends meet.

Mark Zuckerberg, 29, started his life in Dobbs Ferry, an affluent New York suburb of tree-lined streets and meticulously tended lawns rimming million-dollar homes. Zuckerberg, also one of four children, is the son of a dentist and a psychiatrist.

But if countless circumstances separated Vargas and Zuckerberg, a mastery of technology and a keen interest in seeing U.S. immigration laws overhauled created a bond.

On Wednesday, the two men will join forces in Silicon Valley, where Zuckerberg is hosting a hackathon in which the Facebook chief executive, as well as other kings of the Internet – Dropbox’s Drew Houston, Groupon founder Andrew Mason and LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman – will work with undocumented high-tech wiz kids on building tools to help immigrants and the push for immigration reform.

(Hackathon is the term given to a marathon event in which programmers collaborate on software projects.)

Vargas is one of 20 people chosen from hundreds of applicants across the country to be part of the two-day event at LinkedIn headquarters. They are scheduled to work with some of Silicon Valley’s best and brightest coders to develop tech tools relating to immigration causes.

“It caught me by surprise to be chosen,” Vargas said in an interview with Fox News Latino days before his flight to California. “Here I am, and in just a few days, I’m going to be speaking with Mark Zuckerberg about Facebook and immigration. This moment, the hackathon, could be history, we could create something that helps the push for immigration reform.”

Why on earth is Zuckerberg not willing to offer this incredible opportunity to American students especially American children living in poverty to help lift them from poverty and potentially a life of crime by providing them with an incredible chance to excel? Why on earth is Zuckerberg not offering this opportunity to returning members of America’s armed forces — especially those who may have been injured in combat protecting our nation and, point of fact, protecting him?

In December 2011 “Dan Rather Reports” aired a disconcerting hour-long report, “Rather Reports: No thanks for everything,” on how highly educated and experienced American computer programmers are being replaced by programmers from India.

On May 15, 2007 a four-minute infuriating video was aired on “Lou Dobbs Tonight” on CNN. It features an immigration lawyers’ conference in which lawyers were being coached to “not find qualified U.S. workers.” The lecturer is identified in the video as being Lawrence M. Lebowitz, the vice president of marketing for the firm of Cohen & Grigsby.

I have written about this outrageous betrayal of hard-working Americans and our nation itself by these greed-driven enemies of America in several recent articles. On July 22, 2014 FrontPage Magazine published my article, “Immigration ‘Reform’: Engineered Destruction of the Middle Class.”

On June 9, 2014 Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS) posted my commentary, “Betrayal of the American Dream.”

The Winter 2014 Edition of “The Social Contract” published my paper, “American Dream Being Sold at Auction – America’s Middle Class to Be Put on Endangered Species List.”

Andreessen, Zuckerberg, Gates and their cohorts are in an ever-increasing feeding frenzy and the organism that they most closely resemble is a super-aggressive malignant cancerous tumor that seeks to bathe itself in nutrients. Such cancers generally secrete hormones that facilitate the growth of large numbers of blood vessels to deliver those nutrients to that tumor so that it can rapidly grow — generally starving the surrounding healthy tissue.

Andreessen and the others are societal cancers that seek to bathe themselves in wealth, literally and figuratively, at the expense of America and Americans. These foes of American workers are already billionaires, many times over, who are driven to acquire even greater wealth.

It is worth noting that Andreessen was born in Cedar Falls, Iowa and raised in New Lisbon, Wisconsin. Gates and Zuckerberg are also citizens of the United States who were born in the United States yet are quick to show abject contempt for their fellow Americans, pumping more than 1.5 billion dollars into pushing Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

Most people understand Comprehensive Immigration Reform as an ill-conceived legislative initiative that would provide unknown millions of illegal aliens with lawful status and identity documents — even though there would be no realistic way of determining the true identities and backgrounds of these aliens who evaded the inspections process that is supposed to prevent the entry of, among other categories of aliens, terrorists and criminals.

What is not generally known, however, is that this legislation would also have tripled the number of H-1B visas for high tech workers. Additionally, it would have, for the very first time, provided dependent family members of H-1B visa holders with lawful authority to work in the United States on any job they are qualified to do, even if it placed them in direct competition of available and qualified American workers.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform would provide for a huge increase in foreign high tech workers and would no longer protect American workers from unfair foreign competition. This is precisely what Alan Greenspan called for when he testified before a 2009 hearing convened by the Senate Immigration Subcommittee chaired by Senator Chuck Schumer, chief advocate for Comprehensive Immigration Reform and one of the “Gang of Eight” on the topic: Comprehensive Immigration Reform in 2009, Can We Do It and How?

During his prepared testimony Greenspan stated, in part:

“The second bonus (in accelerating the influx of skilled immigrant workers) would address the increasing concentration of income in this country. Greatly expanding our quotas for the highly skilled would lower wage premiums of skilled over lesser skilled. Skill shortages in America exist because we are shielding our skilled labor force from world competition. Quotas have been substituted for the wage pricing mechanism. In the process, we have created a privileged elite whose incomes are being supported at non-competitively high levels by immigration quotas on skilled professionals. Eliminating such restrictions would reduce at least some of our income inequality.”

It is beyond belief that Greenspan would have the chutzpah to refer to American middle class workers who are highly skilled and educated as the “privileged elite” and that the goal should be to reduce “wage inequality.” This is not about enhancing the wages of hard working educated American workers but about lowering their wages to narrow the gap between the middle class and America’s growing number of citizens who now live below the poverty line.

On September 11, 2013 Newsmax published a report about a meeting scheduled to be conducted on September 19, 2013 by Zuckerberg and Republican Congressional leaders to persuade them to support Comprehensive Immigration Reform. The article was titled: “Facebook’s Zuckerberg to Meet With GOP House Leaders.”

Here is how this report began:

The meeting, scheduled for Sept. 19, will include House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, Whip Kevin McCarthy, and Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, the head of the Republican conference, according to two leadership aides who weren’t authorized to speak publicly.

Topics of discussion will include a range of issues such as Internet privacy, the economy, a revision of the tax system, and changes to immigration law, according to one of the aides.

Zuckerberg has joined other technology companies to create the pro-immigration advocacy group Fwd.us.

On August 30, 2013 “Business Insider” published a Reuters news article, “Poverty Stresses The Brain So Much That It’s Like Losing 13 IQ Points”

The title of that alarming report makes it clear that poverty often becomes self-perpetuating.

Notwithstanding these facts, Andreessen, Zuckerberg, Gates and the other “usual suspects continue to push for importing huge numbers of foreign high-tech workers to lower wages and increase corporate profits.

It is beyond belief that proponents for Comprehensive Immigration Reform talk about “compassion” as a justification for admitting ever greater numbers of aliens into the United States while blithely ignoring the obvious — that today Americans have never been in greater need some of that “compassion.”

What no one seems to have noticed is that they themselves are all native-born American citizens. Additionally, while Elon Musk, the founder of Pay-Pal, the Tesla car company and Space-X, was born in South Africa, he was provided with lawful status in the United States, providing clear evidence that this component of the immigration system already in place works for so-called “extraordinary” foreign professionals.

On May 7, 2014 ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) issued a news release about the enrollment of foreign students in the United States, “SEVP report provides snapshot of international students studying in US international student enrollment up 2 percent at US schools, 75 percent of students from Asia.”

Here is the key paragraph from that press release:

As of April 1, almost 1.02 million international students were enrolled in nearly 9,000 U.S. schools using an F (academic) or M (vocational) visa. This marks a two percent increase from January. Seventy-five percent of all international students were from Asia, with 29 percent from China. Saudi Arabia and India had the greatest percentage increase of students studying in the United States at 10 and eight percent, respectively, when compared to January statistics. The top 10 countries of citizenship for international students included: China, India, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, Mexico and Brazil.

We need to be extremely concerned about the vetting process for these students and those 9,000 schools. Note that Saudi Arabia is among the top ten countries of citizenship for foreign students.

While it would be wrong-headed to blame all citizens of Saudi Arabia for the terror attacks of 9/11, it is worth noting that on December 20, 2-13 ABC News posted the report, “9/11 Families ‘Ecstatic’ They Can Finally Sue Saudi Arabia”

It is remarkable that the average American has been duped into believing the lies and rhetoric of the politicians who regularly chant the same false phrases repeatedly. Think about the (false) claim that we must import many more high-tech workers because American schools are incapable of providing effective education where the STEM courses are concerned. Consider that the very same politicians who make that claim have also stated that we must “Staple Green Cards onto the diplomas of the foreign students who acquire their educations in the United States.” If our schools are that inept and incapable, why in earth should we seek to employ those foreign students once they get their degrees?

In point of fact, on September 3rd, I was a guest on the NewsMax-TV news program, “America’s Forum” hosted by JD Hayworth to discuss yet another troubling story about yet another screwup by the DHS, an agency I have long referred to as the Department of Homeland Surrender.

The focus of my interview was that fact that the DHS conceded that some 6,000 foreign students had gone “missing” in the United States. ABC News reported on this in its report, “Lost in America: Visa Program Struggles to Track Missing Foreign Students.”

I urge you to read the entire fact-filled, hard-hitting report.

Here is how this truly disturbing report begins:

The Department of Homeland Security has lost track of more than 6,000 foreign nationals who entered the United States on student visas, overstayed their welcome, and essentially vanished — exploiting a security gap that was supposed to be fixed after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.

“My greatest concern is that they could be doing anything,” said Peter Edge, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement official who oversees investigations into visa violators. “Some of them could be here to do us harm.”

Homeland Security officials disclosed the breadth of the student visa problem in response to ABC News questions submitted as part of an investigation into persistent complaints about the nation’s entry program for students.

ABC News found that immigration officials have struggled to keep track of the rapidly increasing numbers of foreign students coming to the U.S. — now in excess of one million each year. The immigration agency’s own figures show that 58,000 students overstayed their visas in the past year. Of those, 6,000 were referred to agents for follow-up because they were determined to be of heightened concern.

“They just disappear,” said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. “They get the visas and they disappear.”

Coburn said since the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, 26 student visa holders have been arrested in the U.S. on terror-related charges

The infamous bank robber, Willie Sutton, when asked why he robbed banks said simply, “That’s where the money is!” Today Andreessen and his playmates seek to find employees oversees in Third World countries because that is where the cheap labor is. When Sutton robbed a bank he stole from a relatively small number of people. Andreessen and company are stealing from an entire generation of their fellow Americans and do so with utter disregard to the future of their victims or the future of their own country.

America’s middle class has been at the heart of America’s strength and the “American Dream” and made America the role model for countries around the world. The success of our middle class encouraged countries to embrace democracy and free enterprise. As the saying goes, “Nothing succeeds like success!”

America’s middle class is in a very real sense in danger of becoming extinct. This would do serious harm to the United States.

There is a cautionary message to be considered. Cancers tend to be the most successful organisms in its victim’s body — right up until the day that the victim of that cancer stops breathing. The cancer dies when its victim dies. Weakening America, especially in this especially perilous era is an exceedingly dangerous course of action with potentially catastrophic consequences for Americans and, indeed, people around the world.
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18525
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #803 on: September 16, 2014, 07:39:58 AM »
Objectivist,

I agree with you.  I see in health care what you see in IT.  Not only from a state where half of doctors are born in another country but my many patients in IT most of whom are also born somewhere else.
Only when one gets squeezed by the competition does one wonder what is going on.

  I don' think many on this board will agree with us.

The Cans are foolish if they don't see the great political opportunity this opens up in reaching out to new groups of voters.  Jeff Sessions might.  Even Marc Levin who is a promoter of capatilism sees this.

But the rest of the Republicans seem to be too timid or in bed with the likes of Andressen and are more concerned about promoting their business fortunes with cheap labor than the offering jobs to Americans.

I am not a union guy but this is about undercutting Americans - not about unions.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69439
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #804 on: September 16, 2014, 09:06:48 AM »
AS I mentioned somewhere on the board here recently, I first ran across this analysis, and suggested line of attack, by Dick Morris.   It makes sense to me.  That said, the argument that we are competing with cheap labor elsewhere and thus need some here is not without force.  For example, the Los Angeles region has a surprising amount of light manufacturing due to the abundance of cheap labor here-- some of which is illegal. 

Can not a similar argument be made in the tech sector?  That having some cheap hi-tech labor here, companies who otherwise might feel compelled to go offshore (and they face tremendous tax code driven reasons to do so as well!) stay?

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18525
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #805 on: September 16, 2014, 09:23:23 AM »
"Can not a similar argument be made in the tech sector?  That having some cheap hi-tech labor here, companies who otherwise might feel compelled to go offshore (and they face tremendous tax code driven reasons to do so as well!) stay?"

No.  The second assumption about tax codes does not make it ok to incessantly undermine the middle class by bringing in those from around the world who will work for less.   What needs to be done is to make the tax code less rigorous.


Admin

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 244
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #807 on: September 25, 2014, 03:48:49 PM »
Posted on behalf of Crafty Dog

In The Out Door

« Last Edit: September 25, 2014, 03:51:56 PM by Bob Burgee »
Forum Admin

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69439
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #808 on: September 26, 2014, 10:37:17 AM »


Another Surge of Illegals Coming Our Way?
Just a few days ago, the Obama administration assured us the flood of illegal minors across the southern border was largely over. There are plenty of reasons to doubt this claim. The Weekly Standard's Jeryl Bier reports, "The Rio Grande Valley sector of the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) is looking to buy 40,000 emergency Mylar blankets. The silvery, polyester blankets are often used in detention facilities where those caught illegally crossing the border into the United States are held. ... The USBP seems anxious to have the blankets on hand relatively quickly." And National Review's Ryan Lovelace adds another wrinkle: "After the number of families arriving and being apprehended at the southern border surged this year to levels never seen before, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials are opening a fourth detention facility for illegal-immigrant families apprehended in the area, and its capacity will dwarf the three existing family detention centers." It seems the administration expects another surge in border crossers.
===================================


Pentagon Gives Illegal Immigrants Opportunity to Serve in Military
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/25/policy-to-allow-undocumented-immigrants-in-military/16225135/


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18525
    • View Profile
#1  As pointed out today on Mark Levin that Mexico has for centuries had a white minority rule and indian majority subservient  class has a lot of nerve calling us racist when millions of his people run here to escape HIS country and do not return.  Where does this guy get off?

#2  If Fareed Hillaria would spend less time worrying about his racial insecurities and stop pointing out he is black maybe fewer people would notice, all the while he has his own show, his own column, hobnobs with many of the highest Harvard Echelons and certainly makes more money than 99 % of America

#3 I wish we had a President who would call out this Mexican.  Hey how come they have the most strict immigration policy.  How come most Latin countries are run by lighter skins while the darker skins get lower wage jobs or are in poverty?

How come your country was one of the 15 or so that was built on a system of white land ownership with squatters who were never able to own land while North of the border we have anyone who could own property and that is why we thrive more than you?

We need a leader who will stand up for us not stand up for those who are against us.

We won't get it with Hillary either.
 

 
 
 





Breitbart Mexican President: Anti-Immigration Americans Are Racist

on Breitbart TV  5 Oct 2014  1003  post a comment 


Sunday on CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS," Mexico's President Enrique Peña Nieto said the anti-immigration views of many Americans is racist.

Zakaria asked, "When you hear some of the anti-immigrant language, the rhetoric, do you think it's racist?"

Nieto answered, "I think it's discriminatory, yes, and I think it's unfortunate for a country whose formation and historic origin relies so much on the migration flows of many parts, Europe and Asia, for instance. I think this is a country whose origin to a great extent is one of migration and that's why it's unfortunate to hear this exclusionary and discriminatory tones regarding migration flows into the United States."

"Today we have to recognize that the migration that comes from Mexico to the United States has fallen. There is a lower number of migrants to balance between those who are coming to the United States and that's going back to Mexico is practically a zero balance today, and that reflects the fact that in Mexico we are opening greater opportunities for those who don't want to leave their country or those who have no need to go looking for a new opportunity of personal or professional growth," he added.


on Breitbart TV  5 Oct 2014  1003  post a comment 


Sunday on CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS," Mexico's President Enrique Peña Nieto said the anti-immigration views of many Americans is racist.

Zakaria asked, "When you hear some of the anti-immigrant language, the rhetoric, do you think it's racist?"

Nieto answered, "I think it's discriminatory, yes, and I think it's unfortunate for a country whose formation and historic origin relies so much on the migration flows of many parts, Europe and Asia, for instance. I think this is a country whose origin to a great extent is one of migration and that's why it's unfortunate to hear this exclusionary and discriminatory tones regarding migration flows into the United States."

"Today we have to recognize that the migration that comes from Mexico to the United States has fallen. There is a lower number of migrants to balance between those who are coming to the United States and that's going back to Mexico is practically a zero balance today, and that reflects the fact that in Mexico we are opening greater opportunities for those who don't want to leave their country or those who have no need to go looking for a new opportunity of personal or professional growth," he added.

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN





 
 

 

   

advertisement
 
Breitbart Video Picks











Late-Night Highlight: Jimmy Fallon And will.i.am’s ‘Ew’ Song Is Pretty Catchy

TIME Magazine
 
 
 

Dashcam Captures Young Cyclist Hit By Car, And She Walks Away

Inform News
 
 
 

First Ebola Patient Diagnosed in U.S. Has Died in Dallas

Bloomberg
 
 
 

Matheny leads Cardinals to 4th straight NLCS

Fox Sports
 
 
 

Kendall Jenner Flaunts Her Incredible Body

Splash News
 
 
 

"Blood moon" eclipse turns eyes to the sky

Reuters
 
 
 

Late-Night Highlight: Jimmy Fallon And will.i.am’s ‘Ew’ Song Is Pretty Catchy

TIME Magazine
 
 
 

Dashcam Captures Young Cyclist Hit By Car, And She Walks Away

Inform News
 
 







More videos:



 



 


 



 


 



 


 



 


 



 


 



 


 



 


 



 


 



 


 



 


 



 


 

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18525
    • View Profile
If we get rid of Reid we can defund the bamster
« Reply #811 on: October 22, 2014, 05:00:49 PM »
Just be ready for the howls of discrimination and racism in advance.  Get the rest of us to stand up against this phony back lash.  This is our country not yours. 
And I mean all people of all races and languages who are here *legally*.  Not difficult.  Very straight forward.  But we have to get rid of Reid.

******End Most Illegal immigrationStop Amnesty

Updated: Tue, August 5, 2014
On August 1, 2014, the House of Representatives approved H.R. 5272 introduced by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) that would defund future executive amnesties issued by Pres. Obama and from granting work permits to illegal aliens. A large majority of House Republicans and a few Democrats voted to secure our border and end the executive amnesty known as DACA.

In September, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) motioned to bring the Blackburn bill to the Senate floor for a vote, but the motion was defeated 50-to-50. Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia sided with all 45 GOP Senators in supporting the Sessions motion. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid allowed 4 other Democratic Senators who face tough re-election bids to also vote in favor of the motion.

Pres. Obama has announced that he will expand his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program to an estimated 5-6 million illegal aliens after the mid-term elections. The DACA program granted amnesty and work permits to approximately 500,000 illegal aliens.

OCTOBER RECESS

Congress has formally adjourned for the weeks leading up to the November mid-term elections. See a comparison of all Congressional candidates on our Election Pages.

For the pre-midterm recess, we're asking all activists to pressure candidates to answer the following question:

WHO SHOULD GET THE NEXT JOB: AMERICANS AND LEGAL IMMIGRANTS ALREADY HERE, OR SOMEONE IN THE COUNTRY ILLEGALLY WHO WOULD BENEFIT FROM AN EXECUTIVE AMNESTY?

KEY POINTS:

The Washington Post editorial board opposes an expanded executive amnesty: "Congress is a mess. But that doesn't grant the president license to tear up the constitution." LINK.

USA Today editorial board opposes executive amnesty: "That's too dramatic a policy change to be undertaken without Congress' involvement. ... Not before the election. And not after it." LINK.

74% of Americans support Pres. Obama working with Congress and not acting alone on immigration. LINK.

EARLIER THIS YEAR

On January 30, 2014, the House GOP Leadership presented a set of immigration principles during the party's annual retreat. The principles are not legislation and are vague and ambiguous, but the leaders are hoping that the House can pass bills that accomplish the principles. The principles clearly state that S.744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, will not be brought to the floor for a vote. However, there are countless similarities between the principles and S.744, including the concept of enforcement triggers that would begin an amnesty for most of the 11 million individuals residing illegally in the United States.

GOP Standards for Immigration Reform

PREAMBLE
Our nation’s immigration system is broken and our laws are not being enforced. Washington’s failure to fix them is hurting our economy and jeopardizing our national security. The overriding purpose of our immigration system is to promote and further America’s national interests and that is not the case today. The serious problems in our immigration system must be solved, and we are committed to working in a bipartisan manner to solve them. But they cannot be solved with a single, massive piece of legislation that few have read and even fewer understand, and therefore, we will not go to a conference with the Senate’s immigration bill. The problems in our immigration system must be solved through a step-by-step, common-sense approach that starts with securing our country’s borders, enforcing our laws, and implementing robust enforcement measures. These are the principals guiding us in that effort.

Border Security and Interior Enforcement Must Come First
It is the fundamental duty of any government to secure its borders, and the United States is failing in this mission. We must secure our borders now and verify that they are secure. In addition, we must ensure now that when immigration reform is enacted, there will be a zero tolerance policy for those who cross the border illegally or overstay their visas in the future. Faced with a consistent pattern of administrations of both parties only selectively enforcing our nation’s immigration laws, we must enact reform that ensures that a President cannot unilaterally stop immigration enforcement.

Implement Entry-Exit Visa Tracking System
A fully functioning Entry-Exit system has been mandated by eight separate statutes over the last 17 years. At least three of these laws call for this system to be biometric, using technology to verify identity and prevent fraud. We must implement this system so we can identify and track down visitors who abuse our laws.

Employment Verification and Workplace Enforcement
In the 21st century it is unacceptable that the majority of employees have their work eligibility verified through a paper based system wrought with fraud. It is past time for this country to fully implement a workable electronic employment verification system.

Reforms to the Legal Immigration System
For far too long, the United States has emphasized extended family members and pure luck over employment-based immigration. This is inconsistent with nearly every other developed country. Every year thousands of foreign nationals pursue degrees at America’s colleges and universities, particularly in high skilled fields. Many of them want to use their expertise in U.S. industries that will spur economic growth and create jobs for Americans. When visas aren’t available, we end up exporting this labor and ingenuity to other countries. Visa and green card allocations need to reflect the needs of employers and the desire for these exceptional individuals to help grow our economy.

The goal of any temporary worker program should be to address the economic needs of the country and to strengthen our national security by allowing for realistic, enforceable, usable, legal paths for entry into the United States. Of particular concern are the needs of the agricultural industry, among others. It is imperative that these temporary workers are able to meet the economic needs of the country and do not displace or disadvantage American workers.

Youth
One of the great founding principles of our country was that children would not be punished for the mistakes of their parents. It is time to provide an opportunity for legal residence and citizenship for those who were brought to this country as children through no fault of their own, those who know no other place as home. For those who meet certain eligibility standards, and serve honorably in our military or attain a college degree, we will do just that.

Individuals Living Outside the Rule of Law
Our national and economic security depend on requiring people who are living and working here illegally to come forward and get right with the law. There will be no special path to citizenship for individuals who broke our nation’s immigration laws – that would be unfair to those immigrants who have played by the rules and harmful to promoting the rule of law. Rather, these persons could live legally and without fear in the U.S., but only if they were willing to admit their culpability, pass rigorous background checks, pay significant fines and back taxes, develop proficiency in English and American civics, and be able to support themselves and their families (without access to public benefits). Criminal aliens, gang members, and sex offenders and those who do not meet the above requirements will not be eligible for this program. Finally, none of this can happen before specific enforcement triggers have been implemented to fulfill our promise to the American people that from here on, our immigration laws will indeed be enforced.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ACTION

The House Judiciary Committee has already marked up and passed four bills. These bills would require the mandatory use of E-Verify by all businesses, increase interior enforcement efforts, increase the number of high-skilled worker visas, and restructure the current agriculture guest-worker program. The Homeland Security Committee has also marked up and passed a bill that would "increase" border security.

The question going forward is how the House will define a "step-by-step" process. Does a "step-by-step" approach mean the House will pass enforcement bills and hold off on anything that deals with the illegal-alien population or legal immigration increases until they see the enforcement provisions faithfully executed? Or, does a "step-by-step" approach mean passing a series of bills and then combining them into one comprehensive bill that's filled with "triggers" and resembles the Schumer-Rubio-Obama amnesty bill before shipping it off to the Senate? The "step-by-step" comprehensive approach was first introduced by House Speaker John Boehner's immigration staffer Becky Tallent when she served as Director of Immigration Policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Here are the five bills already passed by House Committees:

Mandatory E-Verify - H.R. 1772, the Legal Workforce Act
High-Skilled Visas - H.R. 2131, the SKILLS Act
Agriculture Guest Worker Reform - H.R. 1773
Interior Enforcement - H.R. 2278, the SAFE Act
Border Security - H.R. 1417, "Border Security" Results Act of 2013
S.744, The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act

S.744, as introduced
S.744, Schumer Substitute Amendment
Amendments considered by Senate Judiciary Committee
S.744 reported out of Senate Judiciary Committee
Schumer-Corker-Hoeven Amendment to S.744
Sponsor
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Cosponsors
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.)
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.)
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)
The FACTS on S.744
33 Million Green Cards in First Decade
S.744 - Bad for America
S.744 -- 4 Big Problems
Heritage: Amnesty will cost taxpayers $6.3 trillion
National poll finds little support of Gang of Eight Bill
FAIR: Top Reasons to Oppose S.744
12 Reasons to Oppose S.744
Marco Rubio: "First comes the Legalization"
Gang of Eight opposes Enforcement First
CIS: S.744 doubles guest-worker flows
USCCR Commissioner Peter Kirsanow op-ed: S.744 hurts low-skilled workers
S.744: More than 400 waivers and exemptions
S.744: Gang of Eight's Broken Promises
State-by-state U-6 unemployment rates
Opposition to S.744
S.744 Dear Colleague Letter
Congressional Opposition to the Gang of Eight's bill
Law Enforcement Letter to Congress Opposing Gang of Eight Amnesty bill
USCIS Union opposes S.744
Law Enforcement Organizations Opposed to Gang of Eight's bill
Conservative Coalition Opposes Gang of Eight's bill
National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers statement on Schumer-Corker-Hoeven amendment
USCIS Letter of opposition to Corker-Hoeven amendment
Letter of opposition from Evangelicals for Biblical Immigration
Tags:  amnesty

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18271
    • View Profile
Re: If we get rid of Reid we can defund the bamster
« Reply #812 on: October 23, 2014, 04:34:42 AM »
If we had a backbone, we could have already de-funded operations tied to Fast and Furious, IRS targeting, Benghazi coverup, EPA over-reach and unlegislated amnesty.  We could de-fund his golf trips too.  The guy had his credit card declined in NYC, he hadn't used it in so long.

If he had faced serious and united opposition (and a watchdog media), it would have helped this President govern within his constitutional role as President.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 06:42:52 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69439
    • View Profile
Using Psychometrics to filter out undesirables
« Reply #813 on: November 03, 2014, 09:22:14 AM »

Guest Column: Going Dutch - The Psychometric Tool Against Jihadism in the West
by Esam Sohail
Special to IPT News
November 3, 2014
http://www.investigativeproject.org/4642/guest-column-going-dutch
 
The famed laissez faire liberalism of the Dutch is only matched by their flinty commonsense. Two years after the brutal 2004 murder of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh at the hand of Islamist jihadists in Amsterdam, the Dutch government quietly introduced a form of personality testing for immigrants from certain backgrounds who wished to make the Netherlands their permanent abode. By showing a set of short video clips highlighting the culture of diversity, secularism, free speech, and gender equality to potential migrants from very different cultures and then allowing responsible officers to evaluate reactions of the audience, the Dutch government made a very business-like decision to ensure a proper fit for a person to his/her new home. The government of the Netherlands continues to monitor this new screening tool which went into effect as a pilot project in 2006 and will likely be rolled out on a larger scale in the years ahead.

Immigration, especially of people with high education and in their prime working years, remains vital to the economic prowess and social welfare systems of most developed countries. That said, that necessity is better coupled with wisdom. With tens of thousands of people from the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia moving to the Anglophone countries every year, the United States, Canada, Britain, and Australia do not have the luxury of waiting to institute large scale and focused immigrant testing that small Holland does. While security safeguards have been heightened in all of these desired immigration destinations, the common flaw remains the same across the board in the English speaking democracies: all potential immigrants are treated to the same battery of standardized screening procedures which often evaluate the Christian fleeing victimization in Bangladesh and Pakistan along the same lines as an Islamist engineer wishing to plant the flag of Islam for himself and his children in Canada. Neither the standard questions of the type "have you ever been part of a terror group" nor the routine check of law enforcement agency reports is going to do much diagnostic good in this regard. The Dutch figured this out finally and, instead, decided to tentatively use the science of psychometrics to detect potential trouble before it becomes actual trouble.

Let us be brutally honest about immigration from countries where Muslims are in big majorities. Almost all of these countries have cultures where Salafi Islamism is ascendant, where free speech and gender equality are increasingly dismissed as parts of some Western plot, and anti-Semitism is a staple for the most popular conspiracy theories. Not all immigrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Somalia, Malaysia, or the Arab world adhere to such Islamist tendencies. But many, including quite a few professional and educated types, do. And these are the ones that can quickly become the transmitters, organizers, sympathizers, funders, and even purveyors of jihadism in the civilized world (remember Palestinian Islamic Jihad board member Sami Al-Arian and would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad?). In the age of shadowy ISIS sympathizers in Chicago, jihadist murderers on London streets, and Muslims converts on rampage in Ottawa, it only make sense to quarantine the Islamist virus at the entry point whether it is dormant, passive, or active. The Dutch have shown the path to do so; the rest of the civilized world should improvise.

Psychometrics is not an exact science and no psychological evaluation or personality test is fool proof. On top of such uncertainty, these things cost time and money which are realistic constraints for visa evaluators and Customs agents. Yet, these tools are increasingly sophisticated and used in human resourcing decisions by growing number of major businesses and public entities; at the disposal of well-trained immigration professionals who have the flexibility of discretion and a relatively narrow focus, such psychometric instruments can be vital weapons against potential jihadist terror.

Potential long term immigrants from certain areas should be instructed – even provocatively so – on the fundamental importance of free speech, dissent, apostasy, equality before the law regardless of religion or gender, and basic personal liberties. They should be evaluated on their reactions through well developed and professionally benchmarked tests and such evaluations should be allowed to inform an immigration official's decision to about a residency application. Indeed this kind of approach could lead to the penalization of certain beliefs; but if such beliefs include the rectitude of killing apostates and punishing women for wearing short skirts, should we be shedding too many tears? And even if we were to shed some tears at such scrutiny of those desiring to live in a pluralist society, isn't it better than the shedding of blood that could happen otherwise?

Esam Sohail is an educational research analyst and college lecturer of social sciences. He writes from Kansas, USA

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18525
    • View Profile
Too late; The angriest President in history will achieve his goal.
« Reply #814 on: November 14, 2014, 09:15:39 AM »
We know Obama will grant amnesty for 5 million.  Another ten million in the next two years.  That added to the 50 million Spanish in the US now (half of California) will make 65 million.  In another decade that could be 75 million. 

We know the Republicans will not be able to do anything about it.  Forget lawsuits.  Forget them turning it back '16 even if they win.  Forget impeachment.  Too late for any of it. 

So how do we win these people over when competing against "free" benefits paid for by taxpayers?

Winning their hearts and minds:

https://patriotpost.us/articles/28775/print

Not much detail.  Vague as always, on everything I ever read about this.   Truthfully there is no easy answer.  Certainly Republicans have to start securing the border or lest we will have another even bigger flood of people.  We have to make it clear it is NOT Spanish we are enforcing our laws against but protecting us from peoples coming in from all over the world and protecting the Spanish and the rest of us who are here.

Beyond that it is "check" against the Republicans with potential for check mate - until - of course the whole thing comes crashing down.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69439
    • View Profile
Immigration issues" Obama vs. Congress
« Reply #815 on: November 14, 2014, 08:48:19 PM »
A Dictatorial President Obama versus the American People's Congress

One of the great ironies of this administration is that President Obama, who ran promising to end wars in the Middle East and to usher in unity domestically, is now preparing to start a political war in America.

In this month’s elections, Republicans, independents and a few Democrats united to defeat Democrats at every level from state legislatures to the U.S. Senate. Many Democrats indicated their disappointment with the Obama Administration by staying home and refusing to vote.

As I wrote earlier this week, however, President Obama is behaving as if his side won the elections and he has a resounding mandate to impose his policies on the country by presidential fiat.

It is important to understand that President Obama is not taking on "the Republicans" as he and his allies want to describe it. He is declaring war on the Congress, the elected representatives of the American people, as an institution.
Both the language of the Constitution and the explanations in the Federalist Papers make clear the Founding Fathers intended Congress, not the President, to have the primary role in making laws and setting public policy. The president is supposed to execute laws rather than make them.

Article I, Section I of the Constitution begins: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress". The term "all legislative powers" is pretty definitive. Federalist 51 asserts that "legislative authority necessarily predominates." In Federalist 69, a series of distinctions are made between the absolute powers of the British King and the limited powers of the American president.

The Constitution gives the Congress a surprising range of tools to defend itself and to challenge a president who seeks to impose his will upon the country.

The ultimate power is impeachment, but as a political matter impeachment requires the American people to render absolute judgment against the president. It has been tried twice unsuccessfully (against Presidents Johnson and Clinton), although the threat of it drove President Nixon to resign. In this case it’s very clear that the country does not want an impeachment process against President Obama.

The second greatest power of Congress is the spending power, the power of the purse. Money can only be spent if the Congress permits it and either directly or indirectly appropriates it. Taxes, fees, etc. exist only at the sufferance of Congress and can be repealed or limited.

Some people are so furious at President Obama's various threats that they would like to attach a spending limitation provision to the continuing resolution necessary to keep the government open, thus forcing the President to shut the entire government to defend his right to take unilateral action.

There is no question that a spending limitation amendment is legitimate, Constitutional, and effective. It is the tool Speaker Tip O’Neill used to limit President Reagan on Nicaragua with the Boland Amendment in 1982.

The question is whether the first step in the effort to reassert Congress’s authority should provoke a full-on crisis.

I think it would be better to set up a series of limitations which cripple the President but don't hurt the American people.

The current “lame-duck” session should pass a relatively short-term Continuing Resolution which will preserve the new Congress’s ability to use spending provisions as a negotiating tool if the President does not change his behavior.
Then, Senator McConnell could announce that no presidential appointment will be considered by the new Senate until the President agrees to behave within the bounds of his Constitutional authority. Since this would include the new Attorney General and other important presidential appointments, the threat would be real and immediate.

Second, the Appropriations Committee should announce that it will block virtually all executive branch requests for reprogramming (the term for routine reshuffling and rejiggering of budget appropriations) except for on national security issues. The executive branch is constantly having to ask Congress for small adjustments to keep the bureaucracy functioning. Holding up these requests would rapidly increase the pain level to the executive branch.

Third, a spending limitation could be attached to every bill (with rare exceptions) that Congress sends the President. How many bills can he veto to defend his right to run over the vast majority of Americans and the Congress?

Fourth, once the Republicans are in control of the Senate, they can divide the next continuing resolution in two, fund everything the American people care about for the rest of the year in one resolution, and seperate the activities the President values most, attaching them to a spending limitation rider in a second, smaller resolution.

Let the President veto spending for his pet programs over an argument he can’t win. Such a selective spending limitation would be very difficult to arouse the American people against but would strike at the heart of the President's ability to achieve his goals.

Finally, the Appropriations Committee should start targeting individual presidential perks and limit his ability to function by methodically cutting out staff, travel funding, etc.

The Founding Fathers were vividly aware of the dangers of tyranny. They had rebelled against a British King who they felt was tyrannical. They fought a desperate war for eight years against almost hopeless odds to win their independence. They thought freedom was worth the cost.

They designed the Constitution to enable the American people to maintain their freedom. They sought a balance of power between the legislative, executive and judicial branches (defined in that order with the legislature first). They would be appalled at the arrogance and hubris of a president who thought he could impose his will against the Congress.

They would also stand up to the presidential power-grab at all costs, considering it a profound threat to our system of government. The precedent of such unrestrained executive cannot be allowed to stand.

If President Obama wants to declare war on the American people's Congress, he will presently find himself as isolated and defeated as King George III. This is the dangerous path he is on.

Your Friend,
Newt

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69439
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
Republican Leadership: Lily-livered Wimps...
« Reply #818 on: November 17, 2014, 06:16:27 AM »
As Matthew Vadum points out here - the last government shutdown (caused by the President, not Republicans) led to the recent landslide victory of Republicans.  HOW ON EARTH WAS THAT A DISASTER THAT MUST BE AVOIDED AGAIN AT ALL COSTS???  WHAT PLANET DO THESE PEOPLE LIVE ON?

Washington Braces for Amnesty

Posted By Matthew Vadum On November 17, 2014 @ frontpagemag.com

Republicans in Congress are struggling to put together a strategy to combat President Obama’s expected unilateral immigration amnesty as the administration moves closer to pulling the amnesty trigger by year’s end.

Their deliberations came as Vice President Joe Biden met Saturday with Guatemalan President Otto Perez Molina, Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, and Salvadoran President Salvador Sanchez Ceren. One of the topics was how to facilitate even more immigration from those poor Third World countries to the United States.

Biden said next month the U.S. would create what the White House called “an in-country refugee/parole program in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, to allow certain parents who are lawfully present in the United States to request access to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for their children still in one of these three countries.”

Although fighting President Obama’s unprecedented threatened power grab by allowing a shutdown of the federal government is a possibility, Republican lawmakers acknowledge they haven’t warmed to the idea.

“It doesn’t solve the problem,” Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, said on “Fox News Sunday.”

“But look, we’re having those discussions… We’re going to continue to meet about this. I know the House leaders are talking about, the Senate leaders are talking about it,” he said. “Republicans are looking at different options about how best to respond to the president’s unilateral action, which many people believe is unconstitutional, unlawful action on this particular issue.”

On ABC’s “This Week” House Deputy Majority Whip Tom Cole (R-Okla.) was cool to the idea of a shutdown. “I think the president wants a fight. I think he’s actually trying to bait us into doing some of these extreme things that have been suggested. I don’t think we will.”

U.S. Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas) is opposed to a shutdown. “There’s a wide diversity of thought as to how effective that would be,” he said. A shutdown “is not a good solution.”

One of the less appealing suggestions is to sue Obama. There is a huge problem with legal standing and is it by definition an abdication of the constitutionally-stipulated power of the purse held by Congress. Lawmakers don’t have to go to court to stop Obama.

Many House conservatives want Congress to ban the funding needed to implement Obama’s executive amnesty. Others would attempt to keep the agencies implementing the amnesty on a short leash by appropriating funding for them on a short-term basis, theoretically allowing them to withhold immigration funds without shutting down the government.

“The power of the purse is what’s given to the House,” said Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.). “That’s the check that we have against the White House. To the extent that that’s the lever we have, that’s the lever we’ll use.”

Most elected Republicans still seem blissfully unaware that the the last shutdown in October 2013 was an unmitigated public relations success for Republicans even though it might not have felt that way at the time. Setting aside the relentless media propaganda that falsely painted the shutdown as a massive Democratic tactical victory, the episode sent the unmistakable message that GOPers were champions of freedom of choice in health care.

The shutdown boosted GOP public approval numbers all the way through the election this month, helped to revive the fight against Obamacare as millions of Americans were having their health insurance policies abruptly canceled, and helped to set the stage for the Republicans’ historic trouncing of the Democrats in congressional elections. The shutdown was an extended, cost-free infomercial for the GOP that reminded Americans that Republicans were on their side on an issue that mattered to them. In other words, it derailed what had seemed like an unstoppable leftist narrative that the always-unpopular Obamacare was a done deal and that resistance to it was futile.

Those gun-shy Republicans who oppose a government shutdown at all costs are never quite able to explain why, if the shutdown was so bad for the GOP, Republicans are now on the march.

On Nov. 4 the GOP flipped control of the 100-seat U.S. Senate, winning at least 53 seats as of this writing. The House GOP increased its majority, winning at least 244 out of 435 seats. In the new year Republicans will control at least 31 state governors’ mansions and at least 68 of the 99 state legislative chambers across the country (Nebraska’s legislature has only one chamber). In at least 23 states Republicans will control the governorship and both houses of the state legislature. Democrats can make the same claim about only 7 states.

Republican leaders have been talking out of both sides of their mouths on the amnesty issue for months.

Acting unilaterally on immigration would be “a big mistake” akin to “waving a red flag in front of a bull,” McConnell said. Such action “poisons the well for an opportunity to address a very important domestic issue.”

But McConnell also said he’s not willing to use Congress’s spending power to stop amnesty. Right after the election he seemed adamant that he would not abide a  government shutdown.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), whose speakership is likely to be challenged by conservative lawmakers in January, also said unilateral action would “poison the well.” Boehner warned Obama, “when you play with matches, then you take the risk of burning yourself, and he’s going to burn himself if he continues to go down this path.

On the weekend Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson confirmed that planning for Obama’s executive amnesty, along with other changes to the immigration system, is almost complete.

“We’re in the final stages of developing some executive actions,” Johnson said. “We have a broken immigration system. The more I delve into it, the more problems I see.”

Of course, it is a leftist lie to say that the immigration system is broken. When progressives say the system is broken, they mean it is functioning in a less than optimal manner, failing to capture every single prospective illegal alien welfare case available to wade across the Rio Grande or walk across the nation’s largely undefended border with Mexico. To them, immigration policy is a taxpayer-subsidized get-out-the-vote scheme for Democrats and the best reform they could imagine would be to abolish America’s borders altogether.

The system is doing what it was designed to do: Flood America with people who don’t share Americans’ traditional philosophical commitment to the rule of law, limited government, and markets, in order to force changes in society. The radicals’ goal today is to use immigration to subvert the American system, just as it was in the 1960s when the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) shepherded leftist reforms of that era’s immigration laws through Congress.

The current immigration system is congested, overwhelmed, and under attack by the sheer volume of illegal aliens that Democratic policies have been bringing to the U.S. The problem isn’t so much the legal regime governing immigration but the years of non-enforcement at the border, coupled with Obama’s brazen attempts to recruit illegals from Latin America, luring them with promises of government largesse such as food stamps.

Most analysts haven’t noted that if Obama acts unilaterally on immigration, he is likely to do long-term damage to the electoral prospects of the Democratic Party. The voters of Oregon, a longtime Democrat stronghold, delivered a stark warning on illegal immigration to the president’s party in the election a fortnight ago.

Even as Oregonians easily approved Measure 91, a ballot proposition legalizing possession, cultivation, and recreational use of marijuana, and added to Democrat majorities at the state level, they overwhelmingly rejected Measure 88 which would have sustained a state law giving driver’s licenses to illegal aliens.

The vote to legalize pot was 55.6 percent in favor to 44.4 percent against but the vote to overturn the statute providing driver’s licenses was a lopsided 66.4 percent to repeal compared to just 33.6 percent to uphold the law. The statute was approved last year without much opposition by state lawmakers and signed into law by Gov. John Kitzhaber, a Democrat.

As of a month ago, the illegal alien lobby had outspent the other side by a 10-to-1 margin.

“It was really the epitome of a grassroots effort,” Cynthia Kendoll, an activist for the successful “No” side told reporters. “There’s such a disconnect between what people really want and what’s happening.”

Mark Krikorian of the respected nonpartisan Center for Immigration Studies said the thumping voters gave Measure 88 was proof that the groups supporting endless accommodations for the illegal aliens invading this country are hopelessly out of touch. “It really highlights how this issue is not a Republican-liberal issue like, say, taxes and abortion, but an up-down issue, elites versus the public.”

As if on cue, left-wing elitist Marshall Fitz of the Center for American Progress (CAP), dropped by to smear those who voted against Measure 88 as racist, monobrowed, dimwits.

“Is there an instinct toward security, hunkering down and against welcoming the other?” Fitz said. “That’s part of human nature. But that doesn’t mean instincts can’t be overcome by reason.”

Decent, patriotic Americans are infuriated by the kind of smugness and condescension exuded by open-borders radicals like Fitz and Obama who glibly equate opposition to illegal immigration to xenophobia and racism. They are intensely angered when they are told by the leftists of the media day in and day out that if you support enforcement of immigration laws you’re a bad person. The accusation grates because Americans are among the most tolerant and generous in the world, and beyond any doubt the most accepting of immigrants.

People like Fitz and his former boss CAP founder John Podesta, who is now a senior advisor in the Obama White House, seem unable to fathom just how disgusted law-abiding Americans, including legal U.S. immigrants, are by illegal immigration and the coddling and granting of special privileges to illegals.

The issue of illegal immigration isn’t a powder keg ready to blow both major political parties to bits. It’s more like a stage coach in an old Western movie loaded with liquid nitroglycerin. One bad bump on the road and — kaboom! — those guiding it across the frontier are vaporized. Obama’s hugely unpopular executive amnesty threatens to render Democrats a spent force for decades. Whether Republicans will be smart enough to stay clear of the Obama-created debacle-in-waiting remains to be seen.

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18271
    • View Profile
Re: Republican Leadership: Lily-livered Wimps...
« Reply #819 on: November 17, 2014, 07:55:02 AM »
Obj,  You have two points in there that I also wanted to bring forward.  One is that, "the last government shutdown (caused by the President, not Republicans) led to the recent landslide victory of Republicans." - Obj     "The episode sent the unmistakable message that GOPers were champions of freedom of choice in health care." - FrontPage

Yes.  Republicans like Lee and Cruz and the House majority took a hard stance in defense of principles.  The immediate reaction was outrage and false blame, but the lasting effect was that, for a moment, we ended the blurred lines and lit up a clear distinction between our votes and their failed policies.  Unlike Republicans supporting federal mortgage agencies, Republicans writing Romneycare, Republicans expanding the federal Department of Education and increasing spending overall, we drew a clear line for the public to see on a crucially important matter and gained immensely from it.


Secondly, this is an amazing shift in public opinion on immigration reform brought on by the over-reaches of power by Pres. Obama:

"Oregon, a longtime Democrat stronghold, delivered a stark warning on illegal immigration to the president’s party ... the vote to overturn the statute providing driver’s licenses [to illegals] was a lopsided 66.4 percent to repeal compared to just 33.6 percent to uphold the law."
-------------------------------

All of that said, I don't see why an opinion piece about Democrats ready to obliterate the constitution for political gain has to be written as a hit piece on Republicans.   

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
Re: Republican leadership...
« Reply #820 on: November 17, 2014, 08:23:51 AM »
Doug,

Matthew's piece is not a hit piece on Republicans - far from it.  He's simply saying the Republicans need to stand their ground and let the blame fall where it belongs - on the Democrats and Obama.  The American people are vastly in favor of stopping Obama in his tracks - despite the fact that the media - even most pundits at Fox News - don't freakin' get it!  These idiot Republicans are so afraid of the media that they can't see this landslide victory right in front of their faces for what it is:  an unmistakable, unequivocal mandate to STOP THE OBAMA AGENDA NOW!!!
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #821 on: November 17, 2014, 08:57:34 AM »
The mainstream/party structure of the GOP sucks.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69439
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #822 on: November 17, 2014, 09:06:35 AM »
Here is my understanding:

58% of Americans oppose how Obama apparently is going to go about this.  58% of the American people are sympathetic to something like he is proposing getting done.

The class in question (illegals with American children) is chosen with politics in mind.  The question I anticipate being presented to Republicans is this:  When you deport these illegals, what happens to the children?  Do you tear families apart?  Do you deport these American citizens?

Again I ask for help on the legal/Constitutional aspect of Obama's threatened course of action.  Apparently there is a more plausible case for it being legal than I had realized.  http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/11/13/right-wing-media-wrong-about-the-legality-of-th/201553#discretion  

In addition to the general argument it makes about prosecutorial discretion (please address) to not pursue deportation, as best as I can tell there is the additional matter of the DACA "Program" giving work papers?  Where the hell did/does DACA come from.  Does "Program" mean it is of bureaucratic origin, or is it of statutory origin?  Perhaps our GM can help us out here with his wondrous google fu skills?


PS:  IMHO the Reps got their collective ass kicked on the last shut down.  That this was due to dishonest reporting from the Pravdas I don't dispute, but let us not kid ourselves on the political consequence.  If the same dynamics were to occur again (Reps fund everything except the matter in question and Obama chooses to let govt shut down occur instead and Pravdas blame Reps) what do you think will happen politically when Obama says

"When you deport these illegals, what happens to the children?  Do you tear families apart?  Do you deport these American citizens?"

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18271
    • View Profile
Re: Republican leadership...
« Reply #823 on: November 17, 2014, 09:50:18 AM »
Doug,

Matthew's piece is not a hit piece on Republicans - far from it.  He's simply saying the Republicans need to stand their ground and let the blame fall where it belongs - on the Democrats and Obama.  The American people are vastly in favor of stopping Obama in his tracks - despite the fact that the media - even most pundits at Fox News - don't freakin' get it!  These idiot Republicans are so afraid of the media that they can't see this landslide victory right in front of their faces for what it is:  an unmistakable, unequivocal mandate to STOP THE OBAMA AGENDA NOW!!!

Thanks.  I get it that 'lilly-livered wimps' wasn't his characterization.  :wink:

It is certainly time to discuss the options available to stop the Obama agenda.  But in public and on these shows, Republicans don't need to overstate their recent win or over-reach their own new power.  That was the error made by Bush after reelection in 2004, by Obama after reelection in 2012, and by the Democratic congress when they seated their 60th Senator, all causing the pendulum of power to keep swinging back and forth.  When Obama makes his next over-reach, the story should be about Obama's over-reach, not about Republicans making scary, empty threats.  Our job is to govern soberly and responsibly, whatever that entails, and to stop his agenda mostly by winning the public and winning the next election.  Cutting back on unforced errors is part of that.  Moving forward on own positive agenda is the biggest part of that.  Investigating, answering and thwarting Obama and the Democrats is the least pleasant part of the job of governing.  

We can take unconstitutional acts by the President to the courts and to the people.  The power of the purse is a fact that does not need to be accompanied with talk of a total shutdown.
---------------------------------

Crafty asks: "When you deport these illegals, what happens to the children?  Do you tear families apart?  Do you deport these American citizens?"

In the first place, we are deporting nearly no one before or after this coming action so the point seems hypothetical if not moot.  If you did send adults back home and THEY want their families intact, presumably they would take their children with them.  We, who support some kind of border control and rule of law, are NOT the ones splitting up families.  It would take some level of credibility and compassion on the issue to make a reasonable case of that.  To just shout, send them all home, or, to hell with their families, is to lose all Hispanic- and Asian-American votes.

Obama spells it out with  a clearer incentive than a welfare application.  Father a child while you are here and you are in forever.  And as this wave looks at getting legalization, the next wave starts rolling in.  Very hard to stop.  That's why we look for comprehensive reform.  If it doesn't end with a rule we would enforce, why change any rules?

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #824 on: November 17, 2014, 10:49:56 AM »
And furthermore - I must disagree with Crafty that the Republicans "got their asses kicked" with the last shutdown.  According to WHOM?  Yes - obviously the establishment media did and always will blame the Republicans, but what of it?  Did Republicans not just kick the Democrats' asses soundly?  I fail to see the horrible consequence that followed their half-hearted shutdown.  Someone please show me how that devastated the Republican Party.  If they had stuck to their guns, as they need to do now, and present this as STOPPING the President from IGNORING the Constitution - fund everything else - they can make that case quite well.  Taking the most important weapon in their arsenal off the table - the power of the purse - is simply moronic and ensures their defeat.  Obama knows they won't impeach him - if he also knows they will back down and fund his lawlessness, there are no limits to what he can get away with.   What is so damn hard to understand about this???
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #825 on: November 17, 2014, 11:32:57 AM »
When people break laws and go to jail/prison, they don't take their children with them. Why do those who violate immigration laws deserve special consideration?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: November 17, 2014, 12:26:44 PM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69439
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #827 on: November 17, 2014, 12:31:31 PM »
Thank you GM.

So, this is what I have mentally so far:

"DACA was designed to exercise prosecutorial discretion for law-abiding immigrants who came to this country as children, and it "did not provide an across-the-board change in legal status. , , , You may request DACA if you:   

"1.Were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012;
"2.Came to the United States before reaching your 16th birthday , , ,"


"UCLA Law Professor Motomura: DACA Was "Clearly Within [The President's] Discretionary Power." As The Washington Post's Wonkblog reported, professor Hiroshi Motomura was the principal author of the 2012 memo that outlined the legal rationale for temporary administrative relief like DACA. According to Wonkblog, Motomura explained that the president could build upon the program as is being reported, which is essentially "a list to prioritize who should be deported first.  Nevertheless, conservatives have falsely characterized as "amnesty" this deferred action and similar relief, which seeks to continue to prioritize the deportation of those "who had committed felonies or were seen as safety or security risks":"

Question that occurs to me:

Is Team Obama arguing the the 4.5 million in question meet the criteria of DACA? and thus get work papers while their status is pending?

Please help me read this closely.

« Last Edit: November 17, 2014, 12:40:06 PM by Crafty_Dog »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #828 on: November 17, 2014, 12:43:03 PM »
The President does not have the power to grant citizenship without a change in the law.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69439
    • View Profile
WSJ: The Missing Immigration Memo
« Reply #829 on: November 17, 2014, 01:25:55 PM »
But, unless I am mistaken, that is not what he is doing here , , ,

=========================

The Missing Immigration Memo
Has Obama asked the Office of Legal Counsel for its legal opinion?
Attorney General Eric Holder European Pressphoto Agency
Nov. 16, 2014 6:31 p.m. ET


If the White House press corps wants to keep government honest, here’s a question to ask as President Obama prepares to legalize millions of undocumented immigrants by executive order: Has he sought, and does he have, any written legal justification from the Attorney General and the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) for his actions?

This would be standard operating procedure in any normal Presidency. Attorney General Eric Holder is the executive branch’s chief legal officer, and Administrations of both parties typically ask OLC for advice on the parameters of presidential legal authority.

The Obama Administration has asked OLC for its legal opinions on such controversial national security questions as drone strikes and targeting U.S. citizens abroad. It was right do so even though the Constitution gives Presidents enormous authority on war powers and foreign policy.

But a Justice-OLC opinion is all the more necessary on domestic issues because the President’s authority is far more limited. He is obliged to execute the laws that Congress writes. A President should always seek legal justification for controversial actions to ensure that he is on solid constitutional ground as well as to inspire public confidence in government.

Yet as far as we have seen, Mr. Obama sought no such legal justification in 2012 when he legalized hundreds of thousands of immigrants who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children. The only document we’ve found in justification is a letter from the Secretary of Homeland Security at the time, Janet Napolitano, to law enforcement agencies citing “the exercise of our prosecutorial discretion.” Judging by recent White House leaks, that same flimsy argument will be the basis for legalizing millions more adults.

It’s possible Messrs. Obama and Holder haven’t sought an immigration opinion because they suspect there’s little chance that even a pliant Office of Legal Counsel could find a legal justification. Prosecutorial discretion is a vital legal concept, but it is supposed to be exercised in individual cases, not to justify a refusal to follow the law against entire classes of people.

White House leakers are also whispering as a legal excuse that Congress has provided money to deport only 400,000 illegal migrants a year. But a President cannot use lack of funds to justify a wholesale refusal to enforce a statute. There is never enough money to enforce every federal law at any given time, and lack of funds could by used in the future by any President to refuse to enforce any statute. Imagine a Republican President who decided not to enforce the Clean Air Act.

We support more liberal immigration but not Mr. Obama’s means of doing it on his own whim because he’s tired of working with Congress. His first obligation is to follow the law, which begins by asking the opinion of the government’s own lawyers.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69439
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #830 on: November 17, 2014, 02:53:38 PM »
second post

Why Dems Lack Working Class Appeal: It's Immigration, Stupid
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on November 17, 2014
After their massive defeats in the midterm elections, many Democrats are calling for the party to move away from its emphasis on social issues and embrace a call for higher wages and an end to stagnant working class incomes.  But they miss the point.  Both in fact and in perception, their pro-immigration stance puts them on the wrong side of the issue.

AFL-CIO President Richard L. Trumka called on Hillary to "run on a raising-wages agenda and not cater to Wall Street but to everyday people."

The New York Times notes that as Democrats sift through the returns, they see that "lower-income voters either supported Republicans or did not vote." The paper said that "liberals argue that without a more robust message about economic fairness, the party will continue to suffer among working-class voters, particularly in the South and Midwest."

But both Trumka and the Times miss the key point: You can't be for raising downscale wages and opening the doors of our nation to millions of low income immigrants at the same time.  They are mutually contradictory both economically and politically.

Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, an ultra-leftist, came closer to the mark when he said that "Too many Democrats are too close to Wall Street" and that "too many Democrats support trade agreements that outsource jobs, and too many Democrats are too willing to cut Social Security -- and that's why we lose elections."

But Brown's argument collapses when he leaves immigration off his list. 

Under Obama, three out of every four newly created jobs went to people not born in the United States according to the Census Bureau.  The resultant downward pressure on wages makes income inequality worse.  Proposals to raise the minimum wage are largely beside the point -- only ten percent of those at this wage level are in poverty, the rest are second and third incomes in their families.

To raise the wages of the heads of households, the left cannot continue to force them to compete with newly arrived immigrants who are willing to work for next to nothing.

The liberal agenda of tougher regulation of banks, student loan forgiveness, and even revisions in trade policy simply won't address the problem sufficiently. 

In one stroke of the pen, President Obama will justify working class angst about the Administration's economic policy when he ends deportations of illegal immigrants.

Message to Obama and the left: Immigration is the economic issue of our time.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18525
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #831 on: November 17, 2014, 03:21:28 PM »
The labor leaders have to be selling out their members (again).   Allow millions and millions of potential new labor union members in the country and then lock in a stronger Democratic party majority and then push for more union benefits.

That has to be their strategy.  They may not have the choice with Obama they thought they would now.  So play for the long game.  They are not going to become Republicans.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #832 on: November 17, 2014, 05:25:39 PM »
Many if not most of the illegals are incapable of doing much but manual labor, crime and voting democratic.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69439
    • View Profile
Amending the 14th's definition of "Citizen"?
« Reply #833 on: November 19, 2014, 08:52:10 AM »


I forget on which thread, but we discussed this matter a few years ago:

http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/11/17/ingraham-urges-gop-to-enforce-immigration-laws/201587 

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69439
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #834 on: November 19, 2014, 09:06:42 AM »
"[T]he people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion." --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, 1787

=================
An Obama supporter with integrity:

Barack Obama claims to be a "professor of constitutional law," but a genuine constitutional scholar, George Washington University's Jonathan Turley, a self-acknowledged liberal Obama supporter, has offered severe criticism of Obama's "über presidency," his abuse of executive orders and regulations to bypass Congress.

When asked by Fox News host Megyn Kelly how he would respond "to those who say many presidents have issued executive orders on immigration," Turley responded, "This would be unprecedented, and I think it would be an unprecedented threat to the balance of powers."

In July, Turley gave congressional testimony concerning Obama's abuse of executive orders: "When the president went to Congress and said he would go it alone, it obviously raises a concern. There's no license for going it alone in our system, and what he's done is very problematic. He's told agencies not to enforce some laws [and] has effectively rewritten laws through active interpretation that I find very problematic."

He continued: "Our system is changing in a dangerous and destabilizing way. What's emerging is an imperial presidency, an über presidency. ... The president's pledge to effectively govern alone is alarming but what is most alarming is his ability to fulfill that pledge. When a president can govern alone, he can become a government unto himself, which is precisely the danger that the Framers sought to avoid in the establishment of our tripartite system of government. ... Obama has repeatedly violated this [separation of powers] doctrine in the circumvention of Congress in areas ranging from health care to immigration law to environmental law. ... What we are witnessing today is one of the greatest challenges to our constitutional system in the history of this country. We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis with sweeping implications for our system of government. There could be no greater danger for individual liberty. I think the framers would be horrified. ... We are now at the constitutional tipping point for our system. ... No one in our system can 'go it alone' -- not Congress, not the courts, and not the president."

Turley reiterated this week: "[Obama has] become a government of one. ... It's becoming a particularly dangerous moment if the president is going to go forward, particularly after this election, to defy the will of Congress yet again. ... What the president is suggesting is tearing at the very fabric of the Constitution. We have a separation of powers ... to protect Liberty, to keep any branch from assuming so much authority that they become a threat to Liberty. ... The Democrats are creating something very, very dangerous. They're creating a president who can go it alone -- the very danger that are framers sought to avoid in our Constitution. ... I hope he does not get away with it."


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69439
    • View Profile
Some points herein I had not seen before
« Reply #836 on: November 19, 2014, 12:17:08 PM »
Immigration Executive Order -- All Smoke and Mirrors
The Demos' REAL "Immigration Reform" Strategy
By Mark Alexander • November 19, 2014     
"The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment." --George Washington (1783)
 

So, the Imperial President claims that, because Republicans are not passing the immigration "reform" legislation that best suits the Democratic Party's political agenda, he is going to bypass Congress and issue an executive order (EO).

Don't believe it.

Oh, Barack Obama is going to center stage Thursday night to set up his EO play, and sign that diktat Friday in Las Vegas -- a fitting venue for a gutless gamble by a "big hat, no cattle" dude rancher. But what is the Demos' real strategy?

In leftist parlance, "immigration reform" means providing a jackpot to illegal aliens -- giving them official status so they can work and receive all associated taxpayer-subsidized services like housing, schooling and medical care. Once integrated, the second step is to provide a fast-track to citizenship. In other words, for Democrats, immigration reform means, first and foremost, seeding a large constituency.

But is Obama really attempting to give millions of illegal immigrants worker status?

In 2008, then President-elect Obama declared, "I can guarantee that we will have, in the first year, an immigration bill that I strongly support." In 2009 and 2010, Obama had the benefit of Democrat Party control of both the House and Senate, however, his congressional Demos never passed an amnesty bill and thus he did not sign one.

Why?

Because he and his fellow Democrats were just pandering to Latinos; they had no intention of passing legislation to provide worker permits for five to 10 million illegal immigrants.

Why?

Because another larger and more critical Democrat voter constituency is composed of low-income Americans, whom the Left baits with class warfare rhetoric centered on issues like "living wages" and increasing the minimum wage.

As my daughter, a university student working toward a business degree, framed this issue, "Labor inflation results in wage deflation." In other words, the Democrats really don't want to dump millions of immigrant laborers, who are willing to take low wages, onto their dependable American low-income constituency, because that will, in effect, drive wages even lower.

This is a fundamental supply-and-demand equation.

Just before Democrats were shellacked during the midterm "Republican wave," Obama borrowed a line from The Gipper for a national campaign interview: "Ronald Reagan used to ask the question, 'Are you better off than you were four years ago?' In this case, are you better off than you were in six? And the answer is, the country is definitely better off than we were when I came into office." But according to BO, the problem is the American people "don't feel it," and he insisted, "The reason they don't feel it is because incomes and wages are not going up."

Of course, the reason for wage stagnation is that Obama's economic "recovery" policies have been a colossal failure. On top of that, the influx of cheap illegal immigrant labor effectively caps any increase in wages for unskilled workers.

Democrats argue raising the minimum wage will protect their low-wage constituents, but that is a fabrication. As the Congressional Budget Office made clear, artificially increasing wages will decrease employment.
 

The issue of immigrant labor undermining the ability of low-income earners to achieve a "living wage" is nothing new. A primary reason Abraham Lincoln did not emancipate slaves at the onset of the War Between the States is that the influx of black labor into northern markets competing for jobs held by white laborers would have undermined Lincoln's political support from the latter.

The great abolitionist Frederick Douglass was so angry with Lincoln for delaying the liberation of some slaves that he scarcely contacted him before 1863, noting that Lincoln was loyal only "to the welfare of the white race." Apparently, more than a few Latino politicos are equally disenchanted with Obama's failure to provide immigrant work permits.

So what of Obama's EO?

The Demo strategy is to craft that EO in such a way that Republicans can successfully chip away at it, primarily by defunding and de-authorizing key components of its implementation, as well as by issuing legal challenges. Thus, Democrats will receive credit from both their legal and illegal Latino constituencies for, ostensibly, attempting to provide them with nine million Permanent Residency or Employment Authorization cards. Then they can blame those "obstructionist" Republicans for blocking them.
This week, Senate Democrats, in a letter to Obama supporting his EO plan, made clear their intent to share in the political fruits of this charade.

Obama, as we've often noted, is a master of the BIG Lie, and, just like the litany of lies that he and his party used to deceive Americans into supporting ObamaCare, they are
also deceiving millions of Americans into believing Democrats support both "living wages" and "immigration reform."

Apparently, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) got it right when he interrupted Obama's 2009 introduction of ObamaCare to a joint session of Congress and the nation. "You lie! You lie!" Wilson memorably yelled.

Indeed, "lack of transparency" and "the stupidity of the American voter," in the words of ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber, are also applicable to Obama's low-wage and Latino constituencies in regard to amnesty by EO. Of course, there is plenty of evidence that Obama constituents are too ignorant to know they're being duped -- after all, they elected him. Twice.

 

Not only do Democrats assume their constituents are too stupid to understand Obama's amnesty EO subterfuge, but Obama is willing to, once again, turn constitutional Rule of Law on end to accomplish this deceit.

Last week, Obama declared his intent to issue the immigration EO: "I indicated to Speaker Boehner several months ago that if in fact Congress failed to act I would use all the lawful authority that I possess to try to make the system work better."

Of course, "lawful authority" is whatever Obama defines it to be at a given time. He was against unlawful executive orders before he was for them.

On March 31, 2008, candidate Obama said, "I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we are facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that's what I intend to reverse when I'm president of the United States of America."

But having failed to pass immigration reform in his first two years in office when he owned the House and Senate, and then having lost control of the House in the 2010 midterm election, Obama repeatedly pleaded in Latino forums that he had no power to implement the changes he'd promised. Rebuffing calls that he legislate by executive order, Obama insisted, "I am not a dictator. I'm the president. ... If in fact I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress then I would do so. ... I'm not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed."

Obama may not have implemented his immigration policies by EO, but he certainly suspended enforcement of immigration laws with an executive order.
But by 2014, with his singular centerpiece legislation -- ObamaCare -- falling apart, and Democrats putting as much distance between him and them as possible, Obama believed the only way his party could stave off a resounding defeat in the midterm election was if he delivered Latino votes.

He began the year promising, "Where Congress isn't acting, I'll act on my own. ... I've got a pen ... and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward." In other words, when Republicans don't give Obama what he wants on immigration, he will pull an executive order end run.
 

Obama has broadly demonstrated his willingness to end-run our Constitution via EO, most notably his so-called "climate change" policies and his repeated rewrites of ObamaCare.

Asked about his revised position to implement amnesty by executive order, Obama regurgitated this spin: "Well, actually, my position hasn't changed. When I was talking to the advocates, their interest was in me, through executive action, duplicating the legislation that was stalled in Congress. ... There are certain limits to what falls within the realm of prosecutorial discretion in terms of how we apply existing immigration laws."

Of course, that is just more constitutional obfuscation.

Despite his faux devotion to our Constitution, Obama has wantonly violated his oath to "to Support and Defend" it.

Though Obama claims to be a "professor of constitutional law," a genuine constitutional scholar, George Washington University's Jonathan Turley, a self-acknowledged liberal Obama supporter, has issued severe criticism of Obama's "über presidency," his abuse of executive orders and regulations to bypass Congress.

According to Turley, "When the president went to Congress and said he would go it alone, it obviously raises a concern. There's no license for going it alone in our system, and what he's done, is very problematic. He's told agencies not to enforce some laws [and] has effectively rewritten laws through active interpretation that I find very problematic."
He continued: "What's emerging is an imperial presidency, an über presidency. ... When a president can govern alone, he can become a government unto himself, which is precisely the danger that the Framers sought to avoid in the establishment of our tripartite system of government. ... Obama has repeatedly violated this [separation of powers] doctrine in the circumvention of Congress in areas ranging from health care to immigration law to environmental law. ... What we are witnessing today is one of the greatest challenges to our constitutional system in the history of this country. We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis with sweeping implications for our system of government. ... We are now at the constitutional tipping point for our system. ... No one in our system can 'go it alone' -- not Congress, not the courts, and not the president."

When asked by Fox News host Megyn Kelly how he would respond "to those who say many presidents have issued executive orders on immigration," Turley responded, "This would be unprecedented, and I think it would be an unprecedented threat to the balance of powers. ... I hope he does not get away with it."

Over on Obama's MSNBC network, even leftist commentator Lawrence O'Donnell finds the prospect of Obama's executive amnesty diktat daunting. He asked Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) about Obama's authority to issue an EO giving work permits to millions of illegal immigrants: "No one at the White House has been able to give me the legal justification for the following component of the president's plan. ... Has the White House told you -- what is the legal justification for the president to create a new category of beneficiaries for work documents? How can that be done without legislation?"

Of course, Welch could not answer O'Donnell, because there is no such authority.
 

Before the midterm election, Obama declared, "Make no mistake, [my] policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them." Make no mistake: The American people resoundingly rejected his policies on November 4.

That notwithstanding, Obama has dismissed the election results. Perhaps he believes his immigration EO artifice will deliver enough Latino voters to Democrat candidates in 2016 to hold the presidency and regain the Senate, and somehow that will restore his "Dear Leader" status. After all, more than a million illegal immigrants were unlawfully registered to vote in the midterm election, particularly in states where Democrats have thwarted efforts to require voter IDs.

The bottom line for Republicans is that they need to drive home four points.

First, the "immigration reform" pledges by Obama and his Democrats are disingenuous because they would undermine the Left's entire "living wage" platform. But Democrats believe their low-income and Latino constituencies are too stupid to understand this ruse. Remember: "Labor inflation results in wage deflation."

Second, as Dr. Turley noted, Obama is willing to trash the Constitution in order to advance his ruinous policies. Republicans need to use his abject abuse of power and the threat it poses to Liberty as a constitutional teachable moment.

Third, any debate about immigration is useless unless it begins with a commitment to securing our borders first. As Ronald Reagan declared, "A nation without borders is not a nation." Likewise, it must address the issue of so-called "birthright citizenship," which is a gross misinterpretation of our Constitution's 14th Amendment.

And last, Republicans need to embrace the fact that Liberty is colorblind. It's not a "white thing." Essential Liberty is timeless. And because it transcends all racial, ethnic, gender and class distinctions, it will appeal to all freedom-loving people when properly presented.

Time to see what the incoming House and Senate Republican majorities are made of!

Pro Deo et Constitutione -- Libertas aut Mors
Semper Fortis Vigilate Paratus et Fidelis

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
Ted Cruz: Obama Is Not A Monarch...
« Reply #837 on: November 19, 2014, 12:58:35 PM »
Obama Is Not a Monarch

The president cannot act alone; the Constitution requires compromise.

By SEN. TED CRUZ November 19, 2014

The Constitution designs a system of checks and balances for our nation, and executive amnesty for immigrants here illegally unilaterally decreed from the White House would seriously undermine the rule of law.

Our founders repeatedly warned about the dangers of unlimited power within the executive branch; Congress should heed those words as the President threatens to grant amnesty to millions of people who have come to our country illegally.

To be clear, the dispute over executive amnesty is not between President Obama and Republicans in Congress; it is a dispute between President Obama and the American People. The Democrats suffered historic losses in the midterm elections largely over the prospect of the President’s executive amnesty.

President Obama was correct: His policies were on the ballot across the nation in 2014. The elections were a referendum on amnesty, and the voters soundly rejected it. There was no ambiguity.

Undeterred, President Obama appears to be going forward. It is lawless. It is unconstitutional. He is defiant and angry at the American people. If he acts by executive diktat, President Obama will not be acting as a president, he will be acting as a monarch.

Thankfully, the framers of our Constitution, wary of the dangers of monarchy, gave the Congress tools to rein in abuses of power. They believed if the President wants to change the law, he cannot act alone; he must work with Congress.

He may not get everything he wants, but the Constitution requires compromise between the branches.

A monarch, however, does not compromise. As Alexander Hamilton explains in Federalist 69, a monarch decrees, dictates, and rules through fiat power, which is what President Obama is attempting.

When the President embraces the tactics of a monarch, it becomes incumbent on Congress to wield the constitutional power it has to stop it.

Congress, representing the voice of the People, should use every tool available to prevent the President from subverting the rule of law.

When the President usurps the legislative power and defies the limits of his authority, it becomes all the more imperative for Congress to act. And Congress should use those powers given to it by the Constitution to counter a lawless executive branch—or it will lose its authority.

If the President announces executive amnesty, the new Senate Majority Leader who takes over in January should announce that the 114th Congress will not confirm a single nominee—executive or judicial—outside of vital national security positions, so long as the illegal amnesty persists.

This is a potent tool given to Congress by the Constitution explicitly to act as a check on executive power. It is a constitutional power of the Majority Leader alone, and it would serve as a significant deterrent to a lawless President.

Additionally, the new Congress should exercise the power of the purse by passing individual appropriations bills authorizing critical functions of government and attaching riders to strip the authority from the president to grant amnesty.

President Obama will no doubt threaten a shutdown—that seems to be the one card he repeatedly plays—but Congress can authorize funding for agencies of government one at a time. If the President is unwilling to accept funding for, say, the Department of Homeland Security without his being able to unilaterally defy the law, he alone will be responsible for the consequences.

A presidential temper tantrum is not an acceptable means of discourse.

Of course, these confrontations are not desirable, and it is unbecoming for an American president to show such condescension towards the voters.

The American people, however, are not powerless. They have elected a new Congress full of members who have promised in their campaigns to stand up to this lawless President and stop the amnesty. We must honor our commitments.

If the President will not respect the people, Congress must.

Ted Cruz is a U.S. senator from Texas.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/president-obama-is-not-a-monarch-113028.html#ixzz3JYAlJtAM
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69439
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69439
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #839 on: November 19, 2014, 11:18:26 PM »
second post-- good content here to shoot down the latest bullexcrement progressive meme about Reagan and Bush:

Sorry, liberals: Reagan and Bush 41 did not defy Congress with executive amnesty
Published by: Dan Calabrese
 
Nice try.

Every time President Obama does something, or is about to do something, that has conservatives up in arms - especially if the protest is based on abuse of his constitutional authority - you can count on the left doing one thing: Finding a supposed example of a past Republican president or presidents doing the exact same thing.

Oh, I guess it was OK when a Republican did it!

They've been all over that argument the last couple of days with Obama's soon-to-be-announced executive order granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, claiming that both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush did the exact same thing. This argument is just clever enough that people who don't really understand the issue or don't really know the history might buy it.

But when you really look into it, as Hans von Spakovsky did today for the Daily Signal, you'll find that the liberals' claim here is a complete load of crap:

In 1986, Congress passed the Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA), which provided a general amnesty to almost three million illegal immigrants.  According to the Associated Press, Reagan acted unilaterally when his Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner “announced that minor children of parents granted amnesty by [IRCA] would get protection from deportation.”  In fact, in 1987 former Attorney General Ed Meese issued a memorandum allowing the INS to defer deportation where “compelling or humanitarian factors existed” for children of illegal immigrants who had been granted amnesty and, in essence, given green cards and put on a path towards being “naturalized” as citizens.  In announcing this policy, Reagan was not defying Congress, but rather carrying out the general intent of Congress which had just passed a blanket amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants.

As the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website itself explains, the children of individuals who become citizens through naturalization have a relatively easy process for also becoming naturalized citizens to avoid breaking up families. And as Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies points out, the INS was, as a practical matter, going to “look the other way under certain circumstances with regard to minor children both of whose parents received amnesty.”   This was well within the authority delegated to the executive branch and a “legitimate exercise of prosecutorial discretion.”

The Bush administration relaxed these technical requirements under a “Family Fairness” policy to defer deportation of the spouses and children of illegal immigrants who were allowed to stay in this country and seek naturalization through the IRCA amnesty. Shortly thereafter, Bush worked with Congress to pass the Immigration Act of 1990, which made these protections permanent.  Significantly, the Bush policy and the 1990 Act affected only a small number of immigrants–about 180,000 people –in comparison to Obama’s past (his 2012 implementation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival program) and anticipated unilateral actions that will affect millions of immigrants.

Some supporters of Obama’s unilateral actions on immigration have also pointed to other actions by past presidents that allowed immigrants such as Afghans and Nicaraguans to stay in the U.S. But those limited actions were based on very special circumstances such as the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, the Communist-driven civil war in Nicaragua or the Chinese massacre of students in Tiananmen Square that led Bush to granted deferred departure to threatened Chinese nationals.

What Obama is getting ready to do has nothing at all in common with what Reagan or Bush did. Both of these past Republican presidents made fairly run-of-the-mill administrative decisions on the implementation of bills Congress had passed, and that they had signed. That is entirely uncontroversial, and would be so if Obama did it too.
What Obama is proposing to do here is to act action on his own specifically because Congress has not given him authorization to act. That is about as unconstitutional as a thing can be, and it bears no similarity to the examples liberals are trying to put forward as its equivalent.

Nice job on von Spakovsky's part doing the work to expose the fraud that is this argument.

Of course, the most galling thing about all this is that, if Obama really wants immigration reform, he could wait until the new Congress is sworn in and then work with them on it. But he doesn't want that because the new Republican Congress is not going to pass a bill that's designed solely to serve the electoral objectives of Democrats. So suddenly, after getting nothing out of Congress on this score for six years, he suddenly has to act now because it's a huge emergency.

No wonder the left has to go to such ridiculous lengths to construct a rationalization. When you actually take an honest look at what he's about to do, you realize it's completely indefensible.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18271
    • View Profile
Immigration, Senate Bill, Executive Order
« Reply #840 on: November 20, 2014, 08:11:43 AM »
http://goodlatte.house.gov/pages/Top-10-Concerns-With-The-Senate-Immigration-Bill

Is there a "comprehensive" bill out there that does satisfy these concerns?

It is unfortunate that when America elected a constitutional law lecturer, they got a guy that would govern within the cracks and crevasses between the articles of the constitution instead of following its words, meaning and and intent.

Kids used to be taught in school that for a bill to become law it must first pass with majority votes in both the House and Senate, and then go to the President to be signed signed or vetoed, etc.

The president has discretion to prioritize enforcement based on limited personnel and resources, but not to unilaterally make or change laws passed by congress. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The President is not required to take care that the laws be completely executed. That would be impossible given finite resources. The President does have power to make enforcement choices. However, he must make them faithfully.
   - Georgetown University law professor Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg85762/html/CHRG-113hhrg85762.htm


Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales:
Anyone who intends to sue the president over his anticipated executive action on immigration will have to overcome "two significant hurdles." The plaintiffs will have to show that the president has abused his discretion; and the plaintiff must have standing to bring a legal challenge.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/alberto-gonzales-obama-doesnt-have-authority-amend-repeal-suspend-law

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
Schlafly: Obama could launch another civil war...
« Reply #841 on: November 20, 2014, 08:12:42 AM »
SCHLAFLY: OBAMA COULD LAUNCH ANOTHER CIVIL WAR

Describes president's amnesty plan as modern-day 'Fort Sumter'


By Paul Bremmer

President Obama’s looming executive action on immigration reform represents a Fort Sumter-type moment, according to conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly.

Schlafly at first considered comparing the Obama amnesty to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor but decided that Obama’s plan is much more subtle.

“With Pearl Harbor, the American people knew what was happening,” she said.

But Fort Sumter, where the opening shots of the Civil War were fired, represented the beginning of a ruinous conflict, and Schlafly, like fellow conservative luminary Richard Viguerie, speculates that an executive amnesty might touch off a sort of modern-day conflagration.

Obama plans to announce his unilateral immigration reform proposal in a televised address Thursday night. While no details are being released by the White House until then, analysts widely expect it to include delaying deportation and issuing work permits to up to 5 million people currently in the U.S. illegally.

However, it could be just the beginning. Last month, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services began searching for a contractor capable of producing up to 34 million blank green cards over the next five years.

Obama’s executive order is expected to include some parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents. The Washington Post reported the plan will broaden visa programs for highly skilled technology workers.

Two components of the plan would seem to appease immigration-control advocates. At the National Press Club Wednesday, Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson claimed the president’s order would include steps to secure the southern border of the United States. And “an official familiar with the administration’s deliberations” told the New York Times the newly authorized illegal aliens would not be eligible for subsidized health insurance plans under Obamacare.

Schlafly, whose recently published book “Who Killed the American Family?” came out just days before she turned 90, is not at all reassured by the latter two parts of the plan.

Asked whether she trusts Obama to secure the nation’s southern border, she replied: “No. I don’t trust him.”

She pointed out that politicians have been promising to secure the border for years, but it remains wide open. She remembers when Obama’s predecessor failed to deliver on a promised border fence.

“I remember seeing George W. Bush’s photo-op,” Schlafly said. “He was signing the law to build the fence. And they never built it.”

She is also skeptical of the idea that beneficiaries of Obama’s amnesty will be barred from receiving health-care subsidies.

“No, I don’t think he will deny them Obamacare,” she said.

So is the president lying?

“I think he lies about everything,” Schlafly said.


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/schlafly-obama-could-launch-another-civil-war/#VhPrOIz5dfULc291.99
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18525
    • View Profile
I wouldn't expect anything more than this. Feel lucky if this even happens
« Reply #842 on: November 20, 2014, 10:48:00 AM »
And I would add figure a way to stop Obama from finishing his goal of legalizing millions more:

immiigration
Republicans Can Trump Obama on Immigration

Lanhee Chen
comments icon61 time iconNov 20, 2014 12:36 PM EST
By  Lanhee Chen   

Let's be clear: The executive action President Barack Obama is scheduled to announce tonight isn’t a real fix for the broken U.S. immigration system.

It is a naked political maneuver that he hopes will shore up support for Democrats among Latino voters and re-energize the party's base after its beating in the elections this month.

Obama might not be wrong to think that this is good politics. Whether he’s right depends on how Republicans respond to his announcement. So, they should tread carefully.

First, Republicans should remind Americans that the president's executive action is nothing more than another short-term patch that arguably makes it less, not more, likely that Congress will ever pass permanent reforms. 

In accounts of Obama’s proposed executive action, there has been no clear plan for truly boosting border security; no effort to hold employers who hire illegal immigrants accountable; no repair of our broken visa system for these seeking to come here legally; and, perhaps most significant, no permanent resolution of the legal status of the 11 million people who came to the U.S. unlawfully. In fact, the next president could easily wipe away whatever relief illegal immigrants may receive through any Obama executive action.

Second, Republicans should do everything they can to avoid a government shutdown in response to the president’s announcement. They are right to express, through the legislative process, their concerns over the legal issues and policies in the president’s action. But they shouldn’t hand him a political victory by failing to finance the government.

A more targeted effort -- such as the alternative floated this week by House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers of Kentucky -- would be the better approach. Rogers suggested that Congress could first pass an omnibus funding bill that would ensure the government remains open, and then pass “rescissions” bills in the next Congress that would defund specific agencies or government operations directly related to carrying out the president’s plan.

Another option, which my Bloomberg View colleague Ramesh Ponnuru discussed in a recent column, would be to pass two separate funding bills -- omnibus legislation to finance the vast majority of the federal government's operations and a measure focused only on the few offices responsible for carrying out the president's order. The narrower bill would include an explicit prohibition on implementing Obama’s executive action. This division would force Democrats into a corner: either accept the prohibitions on carrying out the president’s executive order, or get blamed for a government shutdown.

Regardless of the approach, Republicans should see to it that spending levels specified in any omnibus legislation are responsible ones. But either of these options enables Republicans to avoid a shutdown while also undercutting Obama's efforts.

Finally, Republicans shouldn't abandon the idea of passing some immigration legislation early in the 114th Congress next year. There is disagreement within their ranks on how to handle the immigrants who are here illegally. But on policies where agreement exists, Republicans should act. By putting permanent changes in place, they would be offering a welcome contrast to the president’s temporary action.

If border security is a prerequisite, Republicans can start there, putting stricter measures in place. They can then move to further increase the number of visas for high-skilled workers and improve the current guest-worker laws. There is also likely agreement on granting legal status to some of the “Dreamers” who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

 While I continue to believe it is in Republicans’ best long-term interest to reach consensus on the status of illegal immigrants currently in the U.S., the party's leaders shouldn't allow disagreement on this issue to derail legislation on other important policies. Obama has made his move, and Republicans should respond by enacting reforms. By doing this, they place the onus on Obama, daring him to use his veto power to reject sensible measures that rationalize the process of coming here legally, protect the U.S. economy and preserve the rule of law.

By deciding to move ahead with executive action on immigration, the president is jeopardizing the possibility of bipartisan cooperation in the next Congress. But Republicans have the opportunity to demonstrate that they can and will govern, regardless of what Obama does.

The accomplishments that result from their efforts could cause the president’s cynical, go-it-alone maneuver to backfire -- and help Republicans win back the White House in 2016.

 

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69439
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #843 on: November 20, 2014, 11:39:53 AM »
Here's my suggestion for the Reps:

The underlying hold up is that the border is not protected , , , so PROTECT THE BORDER.

Pass a bill that genuinely closes the border.  Make Obama face signing or vetoing it.

This seems to me a good tip of the spear for everything else.

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #844 on: November 20, 2014, 11:47:04 AM »
Crafty,

Such legislation has been signed multiple times and has been consistently ignored - first by the Bush administration, then by this one.  Obama will NEVER enforce a sealing of the border or completion of the fence.  He's ignored it for these first 6 years.
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18525
    • View Profile
Geraldo again
« Reply #845 on: November 20, 2014, 02:49:08 PM »
I saw Geraldo's rant on how Republicans "deserve" this.  This guy can sit there all he wants and call himself a Republican (which I saw him do twice) to impress Fox News viewers and probably management.  He ain't no Republican.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18271
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #846 on: November 20, 2014, 04:39:17 PM »
Here's my suggestion for the Reps:

The underlying hold up is that the border is not protected , , , so PROTECT THE BORDER.

Pass a bill that genuinely closes the border.  Make Obama face signing or vetoing it.

This seems to me a good tip of the spear for everything else.

Proposing to add to Crafty's proposal.

1. "Pass a bill that genuinely closes the border."

2.  People also come here legally and then overstay their temporarily legal status.  Add genuine enforcement of that to the bill.

3. The 14th amendment begins:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

That does not mean foreigners can drop in for an anchor baby, but it needs to be clarified which can only be done through the constitutional amendment process.  Pass that separately.

4. (Updating my post, there is no need for Republicans to make any deal with those who are here until the constitutional crisis of the President's orders is resolved.)

« Last Edit: November 21, 2014, 08:29:26 AM by DougMacG »

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1048
    • View Profile
Jeff Sessions: We Must Stop Imperial Obama...
« Reply #847 on: November 21, 2014, 07:00:30 AM »
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) reacts to last night's speech by Obama:

USA Today - Friday, November 21, 2014

Americans defeated President Obama's disastrous amnesty plans both in Congressand at the voting booth. Tonight, President Obama defied an entire nation and declared that he will impose his rejected amnesty through the brute force of executive order.

President Obama's executive amnesty will provide an estimated 5 million illegal immigrants with the exact benefits Congress rejected, in violation of federal law. His order will grant them social security numbers, government-issued ID's, legal status and work permits. Illegal immigrants will now be able to take jobs and benefits directly from struggling Americans in a time of high unemployment and low wages. They will be able to take jobs from Americans in all occupations, ranging from truck drivers to power company workers to jobs with city government. Many illegal immigrants will also be able to obtain green cards and become permanent residents, allowing them access to almost all federal programs, to receive citizenship and sponsor foreign relatives to join them in the U.S.

In addition to providing formal amnesty benefits for 5 million illegal immigrants, President Obama has also eliminated virtually all enforcement with respect to the other nearly 7 million illegal immigrantsin the United States. As the president's own former ICE Director, John Sandweg said: "if you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close to zero."

All you have to do is get into the country from anywhere on globe — whether through the border or by overstaying a visa — and you are free to remain, take jobs and receive benefits. This year alone, the White House has released into the United States more than 100,000 illegal immigrants who simply showed up at the border and demanded entry.

And now, with a single pen stroke, President Obama is obliterating what little remains of Americans' immigration protections. Not only will millions of low-wage illegal immigrants rush into the labor market, but they will collect billions in taxpayer dollars as well. These costly government benefits range from child tax credits, to public housing to the likelihood that amnestied immigrants will rely on taxpayers for medical and retirement benefits.

Only a short time ago, President Obama himself admitted this action would be illegal and unconstitutional: "I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own" he explained, adding "that's not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written." President Obama also said that: "The problem is that I'm the president of the United States, I'm not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed."

Apparently, America now has its first emperor.

And he has issued an imperial order to dissolve America's borders. Millions more will enter and demand the same amnesty benefits as those who came before. The entire moral foundation and consistency of our laws will have been eviscerated. Law enforcement officials have repeatedly warned that the president's new amnesty will unleash a "tidal wave" of illegal immigration. The impact on our jobs, wages, hospitals, schools, police departments and neighborhoods will be crushing.

A second hammer blow will be dealt by the president's unilateral increase in foreign worker programs for large corporations, including technology corporations. Currently, two-thirds of all new jobs in the IT industry are being filled by foreign workers — and yet the president wants to dramatically surge foreign worker admissions even further. This at a time when the Census Bureau tells us more than 11 million Americanswith science, technology, engineering and math degrees don't have jobs in those fields.

President Obama is auctioning off America's middle class to the highest bidders.

Immigration already stands at record levels and is rising quickly. Between 2000 and 2014 — a period during which the government issued nearly 30 million lawful visas to foreign workers and permanent immigrants — all net employment gains among the working-age went to imported labor. Now the president is planning to unilaterally increase immigration even further — all to placate a few billionaire lobbyists and open border extremists.

The great task before the nation now is to resist this imperial decree and return control of this nation to its own citizens — as our Constitution established.

That task begins with Congress refusing to allow a dime of money to be spent executing this unlawful amnesty. This a routine, constitutional and crucial application of congressional power.

If Democrat lawmakers join Republicans in blocking funds for his unlawful plan, the president will be stopped. Americans must ask their representatives this one question: do you serve the citizens of this country and their Constitution — or not?

Sen. Jeff Sessions is the ranking member of the U.S. Senate Budget Committee and a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18271
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues
« Reply #848 on: November 21, 2014, 08:24:48 AM »
"That task begins with Congress refusing to allow a dime of money to be spent executing this unlawful amnesty. This a routine, constitutional and crucial application of congressional power."

I agree with Sen. Sessions.

From National Review:
House Republicans should consider a bill to fund the government except for Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS), the agency in the Department of Homeland Security responsible for implementing the president’s order, and perhaps a few other selected portions of the administration. They could then propose a bill funding these agencies, including in it a prohibition against executing the president’s amnesty. Democrats would have little excuse not to pass the former bill, and, were the president to sign it, both sides could proceed to a focused argument on immigration funding. If the president were to veto the larger bill, or Democrats to block it, a shutdown might occur — but the White House, or congressional Democrats, might end up shouldering the blame.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/393114/constitutional-crisis-editors


I have been reading and listening to the Republican side play defense on this issue the whole time Obama has floated and then delivered it.  The Republicans should stay focused on their own issues.  When the new congress convenes, pass these budget measures without fanfare and put the spotlight back on the issues on which they just ran and won, and the issues they want to win on in 2016.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18271
    • View Profile
Re: Immigration issues, Michael Ramirez
« Reply #849 on: November 21, 2014, 08:35:36 AM »