Image 01 Image 03

Immigration Tag

Obstruction from the left? Must be a day ending in -y. For the third time in a row, Senate Democrats have blocked floor debate on a bill that would fund the Department of Homeland Security after February 27. The problem? The piece of legislation Republicans are trying to pass contains provisions blocking Obama's 2012 and 2014 amnesty plans from being implemented. Senate Republicans have pushed multiple times for a vote on the controversial House bill, highlighting their commitment both to keeping DHS funded, and preventing executive amnesty from becoming reality. Via CNN:
One reason for the multiple votes is so Senate GOP leaders can showcase for House Republicans that despite their efforts to pass the House bill, it can't get enough Democratic votes to pass in the Senate as long as it carries the immigration provisions. That might force House Republicans to rethink their position on immigration and decide to take that fight up later. "Part of coming to a solution is going to be showing that we're doing our best to fight for the House position," said Sen. John Cornyn, the No. 2 Senate Republican told reporters on Wednesday after the second vote. It remains unclear how House and Senate Republican leaders will reach a solution that can meet the differing political needs of each chamber. Multiple House Republican members told CNN the focus now is to increase the pressure on the Senate to figure out a way to pass the measure.
Important point: Reid's caucus didn't just vote against this bill---they blocked it from even coming to the floor to be discussed. When it comes to immigration, Democrats don't want to talk about it unless they can guarantee a winning message they can splash across the top of their fundraising e-mails. This makes sense, considering former immigration officials have now come out to blast the amnesty plans as a death sentence for agencies tasked with making sure things run smoothly. Who wouldn't want to force the focus on a radical Republican agenda, as opposed to the impending implosion of progressive immigration policy? This isn't just about getting a vote on a bill; it's about making any progress at all on funding DHS, and rolling back Obama's executive amnesty:

From the "are you KIDDING me?!" department, a new development in Obama's plans to grant executive amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Yesterday, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen told Congress that under the President's plan, immigrants granted deportation amnesty will be eligible to collect an additional tax refund. They'll do this by backtracking through paperwork and claiming an Earned Income Tax Credit on earnings (read: money made while in the country illegally) from as far back as 2011. The Washington Times explains the loophole:
“This is the problem you get into,” said Sen. Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican who demanded a solution to the loophole. “The IRS’s interpretation of the EITC eligibility requirements undermines congressional policy for not rewarding those working illegally in the United States.” The loophole stems from the way the IRS handles illegal immigrants. While the immigrants are not authorized to work in the U.S. legally, the IRS still wants to be paid taxes on the earnings of those who do work, and so it has issued millions of Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers, or ITINs, to illegal immigrants, enabling them to pay up. Some tax credits are only eligible to those with a valid Social Security number. Those who get valid numbers, however, can go back and claim them.
Although only those who previously registered for an ITIN and are granted a Social Security number will be able to amend their returns, this could still amount to billions, according to the Times report.

Democrats threw up a roadblock today when they filibustered a GOP bill that would fund the Department of Homeland Security while neutering years' worth of Obama Administration policies favoring deportation amnesty. As I said earlier today, GOP leadership had to have known this was coming. The Dems have been apoplectic over Republican challenges to executive amnesty ever since they lost the majority, so a challenge to this aggressive change in policy is no surprise. What is surprising is how one of the Senate's most aggressive members addressed the possibility that the House bill would fail to make it to a vote. Via National Review:
Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas) and Senator Susan Collins (R., Maine) argued during a Senate GOP lunch that if Democrats filibuster the Department of Homeland Security funding bill — which blocks implementation of Obama’s 2012 deferred action program and his November 2014 “adult amnesty” — Republicans should respond by blocking only the 2014 orders. The thinking, according to a GOP senator who was in the lunch, is that Senate Democrats will have a harder time staying unified for a filibuster if Republicans have a narrower focus. “What I have said for months now is the central focus of Republicans should be stopping President Obama’s unconstitutional amnesty,” Cruz tells National Review Online when asked to confirm the details of his case. “That’s what Republican candidates promised the voters in November and that’s the promise we need to fulfill.”
That's...new. And huge. Back in January, Senator Cruz released a glowing statement, praising the House bill and its amnesty defunding provisions, saying that it was up to the Senate "to take up the House bill, preserving those key provisions, and send it to the President..." What happened?

Senate Democrats didn't learn much from their stunning defeat in the midterms, did they? This afternoon, Reid and Durbin led their caucus on an obstructionist crusade to shut down progress on a necessary Homeland Security funding bill; Democrats managed to prevent the bill from reaching the floor for debate, which means that GOP leadership is going to have to circle back on a new attempt to keep the department funded while blocking Obama's 2012 and 2014 plans to grant deportation amnesty. From the Washington Times:
GOP leaders, who have said they will not let the department run out of money, will now have to come up with a Plan B to try to overcome the objections of Democrats, who are trying to defend President Obama’s 2012 and 2014 deportation amnesties. “The only way to finish a bill is to start a bill, and today they voted to refuse to start that process,” said Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican. Democrats, though, countered that they won’t debate any bill that tries to undo Mr. Obama’s amnesties, saying the focus should be on giving money to the department, not an effort to try to overturn the president. “They’re mad at President Obama because they want to deport Dreamers,” said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.
GOP leadership had to have seen this coming from a mile away. During today's media roundup, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) lashed out irrationally against the Republican plans to fund Homeland Security while blocking President Obama's executive immigration actions:

Many moons ago, all the way back in 2013, The Wasau Daily Herald published an article. That article contained an interview with the Wisconsin Governor. Among the many topics discussed was federal immigration reform. "People want to come here and work hard and benefit, I don't care whether they come from Mexico or Ireland or Germany or Canada or South Africa or anywhere else, I want them here." Walker told the Wasau Daily Herald editors. At a time when the loudest voices on the right were screaming for border security while ignoring the major issues with our current immigration infrastructure, Walker took a somewhat different approach and one more akin to Senator Rubio's attitude on immigration reform. Walker explained that restructuring our immigration system should help mitigate the constant flow of undocumented aliens.
"I think there's got to be a way, not only do they need to fix things for people who are already here or find some way to deal with that, there's got to be a larger way to fix the system in the first place, because if it wasn't so cumbersome, if it wasn't so long of a wait, if it wasn't so difficult to get in, you wouldn't have the other problems that we have with people who don't have legal status here in the first place. the 11 million," he said. "You hear some people talk about border security and a wall and all that, to me, I don't think you need any of that if you have a better, saner way to let people into the country in the first place."
One of the reporters then asked, "Can you envision a world where with the right, penalties, and waiting periods, and meet the requirements. where these people could get citizenship?"

Do you enjoy long wait times at the Department of Motor Vehicles? If you live in California, you're in luck. So many illegal immigrants are now applying for driver's licences that wait times are absurd. CBS News in Los Angeles reported (h/t Weasel Zippers):
Some Motorists Wait Months For DMV Appointments After Immigrants Law Goes Into Effect The Department of Motor Vehicles is so overwhelmed with requests for new driver’s licenses and vehicle registrations that it can take up to three months to get an appointment or a half-day wait in the lobby. A DMV spokesman told KCAL9 Political Reporter Dave Bryan there has been a crush of applications for new licenses for undocumented immigrants, a program that began earlier this month. The spokesman said the DMV is working to address the problems, but some people are having to take a day off of work to handle a 15-minute transaction. At the Hollywood DMV office, where they handle drivers license issues, the long lines outside and packed waiting areas inside are testimony to the long, grueling process that California drivers have to endure before getting service. For example, Jose Quiroz’s DMV ordeal spanned two days of waiting patiently with his family to have his license renewed. “Yesterday, I was here for four hours standing outside, and when I got to the front line they said that they were not taking us in no more,” Quiroz told Bryan. “And now I am back here again, because I am here to fix my license, and I have been here five or six hours.”
Here's the video report:

This morning, Speaker Boehner announced he's working with House members to finalize a plan authorizing legal action against the President for his immigration executive overreach. This latest effort is in addition to the work the House has already done to rein in immigration. The House tried to limit the president's executive overreach with the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. The bill diverted funds to beef up immigration enforcement. Additionally, the House Department of Homeland Security Committee recently released the Secure Our Borders First Act, one of, if not the toughest border security bill considered by Congress. Yet as Boehner pointed out this morning, much of the latest executive sidestep falls outside of the jurisdiction of the House Homeland Security Committee.

Earlier this month, twelve states joined forces to file an amicus curiae in support of President Obama's immigration executive overreach. Now, a group of mayors are organizing their own campaign to support the president's executive overreach. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Los Angeles's Eric Garcetti are leading a group of more than 30 big city mayors, the National League of Cities, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, who plan to file a similar amicus brief on behalf of the president. Like the states supporting the president via amici in Texas v. United States, the mayoral amicus brief states that, "public interest across the country is served clearly and overwhelmingly by implementing immigration reform by executive action," according to a statement released from de Blasio's office. “Our mission is urgent. Delaying implementation of the President’s executive action will further hurt our families, negatively impact our economies, and create unnecessary insecurity in our communities,” said Mayor Bill de Blasio. “Cities are where immigrants live, and cities are where the President’s executive action will be successfully executed. We are organized, and we will fight for the changes this nation needs and deserves, and fight those who oppose immigration reform, be it in the courtroom, in Congress, or in our communities. Our voices will be heard.” Participating mayors include those from Atlanta, Baltimore, Buffalo, Chicago, Denver, Newark, Philadelphia, and Houston. Houston's Annise Parker is the only Texas mayor currently supporting the initiative.

Congress now under Republican control is working on immigration reforms one bill at a time. Their latest endeavor is the Secure Our Borders First Act. The bill was released from the House Homeland Security Committee this week and has sister legislation being considered in the Senate. Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas is the Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. Some reports indicate the bill actually removes border fencing. We reached out to Chairman McCaul's office who indicated reports of fence removal were, "simply wrong." Further, we read the bill and also found no indication of fence removal. So what does the border security bill do about fencing? The bill does not require the building of a wall or fence along the entirety of America's southern border. Rather, it mixed security measures depending on the location. The southern border (for the purposes of implementing security) have been divvied up into multiple sectors. Security in each sector vary depending on severity of threat and include areal surveillance, tower watch, manned patrols, and other tactics. The bill requires regular assessment of each sector in order to shift tactics as needed.

The House Homeland Security Committee passed the Secure Our Borders First Act of 2015 yesterday. The Act will be introduced in the House today. "This is probably the strongest border security bill ever presented to the Congress," Homeland Security Committee Chairman, Rep. Michael McCaul, told Fox News yesterday. The bill's stated purpose is, "to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to gain and maintain operational control of the international borders of the United States." The Homeland Security Committee released the following to promote the bill: "It's the fundamental responsibility of the government to ensure the territory of this nation is secure against any illicit entry and concealed threats, and on that account the government has failed consistently. Despite billions of dollars and decades of policy debates, the border is not secure," McCaul said in a statement.

Holding DHS Accountable

Facing numerous roadblocks to thwarting President Obama's executive immigration overreach by tightening the purse strings, the Secure Our Borders First Act seems to have found a way to force accountability, at least on the border. The bill seeks to hold the Department of Homeland Security accountable by imposing penalties for noncompliance.

Just when you may have given up entirely on the Golden State, news comes about a newspaper in one of the deepest blue enclaves fighting political correctness.
A California newspaper will continue to use the term "illegals" to describe people who enter the U.S. without permission, despite an attack on its building by vandals believed to object to the term. The Santa Barbara News-Press's front entrance was sprayed with the message "The border is illegal, not the people who cross it" in red paint, sometime either Wednesday night or early Thursday, according to the newspaper's director of operations, Donald Katich. The attack came amid wider objections to a News-Press headline that used the word "illegals" alongside a story on California granting driver's licenses to people in the country illegally. ....In addition to the writing on the building, graffiti espousing a no-borders mentality was scribbled on the walkway through Storke Placita and the sidewalk near Santa Barbara City Hall. Police were braced for a protest in front of the paper later this week. Jan said hundreds could show up, and the Police Department is aware of the call for a protest.
Here's the offending paper: You may recall that another of California's newspapers, the Los Angeles Times, jettisoned the phrases “illegal immigrant,” “illegal immigration” and even "undocumented immigrant."

Have you been struggling to talk to your kids about immigration? Worried they might not understand our immigration policy? Have you been pacing back and forth at night wondering how to explain that America is a nation of immigrants; and oh god, what about this whole "melting pot" thing or is it a "salad bowl" these days? Worry no more. TIME has you covered.
News stories about the debate over the DREAM act, the tens of thousands of children who arrive unaccompanied in the U.S. each year and even the backlash against immigrants in Europe after the Charlie Hedbo killings can raise all kinds of questions and stir up all kinds of emotions for kids. This is especially true when they involve children being separated from their parents.
I distinctly remember laying in bed after an arduous day at German kindergarten, wondering how the President's immigration policy, and Euro-Arab relations would affect me. Not really, but if I had, this article would've undoubtedly improved my entire childhood. To bring clarification to the matter of immigration, children, and communication, TIME chatted with what appears to be a completely and totally unbiased, objective, and nonpartisan source, Professor of Education at Claremont Graduate University and author of Americans By Heart: Undocumented Latino Students and the Promise of Higher Education, William Perez who made the following suggestions:

The ink hasn't even dried on the House bill on immigration reform, and already there is a significant new challenge to address, one which seems designed to help implement Obama's new immigration status plan. The development hasn't come from the White House, but from Mexico, which has just started issuing birth certificates to its citizens at consulates throughout this country.
The Mexican government on Thursday will start issuing birth certificates to its citizens at consulates in the United States, seeking to make it easier for them to apply for US work permits, driver’s licenses and protection from deportation. Until now, Mexico has required citizens to get birth certificates at government offices in Mexico. Many of those living in the US ask friends and relatives back home to retrieve them, which can delay their applications for immigration or other programs.
The reason for the new policy? It makes it more convenient for Mexico to deal with poverty and unemployment in its own country.
Mexico is trying to help millions of immigrants living illegally in the U.S. apply for programs that would allow them to remain temporarily in the country and continue sending money to relatives across the border, despite Republicans in Congress trying to quash President Obama's immigration reform plan. "It is a huge help. It helps individuals really begin to formulate their formal identity in this country," said Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles. About half of the 11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally are from Mexico, and immigration experts estimate that roughly 3 million Mexicans could be eligible to apply for work permits and protection from deportation under the administration's plan.
KATV - Breaking News, Weather and Razorback Sports

As Congress struggles to fight Obama's executive immigration overreach, Speaker Boehner compiled a list of 22 times Obama said he couldn't create his own immigration law. March 31, 2008: “I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with [the president] trying to … not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President...” May 19, 2008: “I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States.”

Last year 17 states took a stand against President Obama and his plans to use an executive order to remove nearly 5 million illegal immigrants from the bounds of existing immigration law. The coalition, now made up of 25 states and led by Texas' new Governor Greg Abbott, will present oral arguments today advocating both to suspend implementation of Obama's immigration plan, and for the life of the lawsuit crafted to stop it. This type of lawsuit is unprecedented in scope. We know that the President holds certain powers of prosecutorial discretion; but do those powers extend so far as to allow a blanket amnesty without any sort of Congressional approval or legislatively-based change to existing law? And if it does, how should the law account for disparate financial impact to the various states? All novel questions that the court will have to consider. Via the San Antonio Express-News:
Legal scholars say the issues of deferred action and executive discretion on matters of immigration have been upheld in court many times before, and yet predicting the outcome of this lawsuit is difficult because of its unprecedented scale. “Under current case law, there is no basis to find this action illegal,” Chishti said. “But there has never been a case of 5 million, and therefore one might argue that prior cases don’t apply.” Abbott has said Texas shouldered the financial brunt of Obama's 2012 executive action on deferred action, costing taxpayers tens of millions of dollars for an increased police presence on the border, along with health care and education costs.

John Boehner gave a speech today that I could have written for him about Obama's lawless immigration actions. The speech hit all the right notes in connection with passage of a House funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security which blocks using funds for Obama's executive immigration plan. That plan, devised by the White House, unilaterally creates a new class of people effectively exempt from being penalized for immigration violations by inventing a process to obtain legal status found nowhere in the immigration laws. It is not executive or prosecutorial discretion as to better implementing current law---it is a rejection of current law.

In December, 4 governors and 14 states filed suit, requesting a preliminary injunction from President Obama's executive overreach. Lead by then Texas AG (now Governor) Abbott, the complaint stated, "This lawsuit is not about immigration. It is about the rule of law, presidential power, and the structural limits of the U.S. Constitution." The Abbott lead complaint cited numerous damning examples of the President's insistence on circumventing Congress, beginning with the his most recent venture in bypassing Congress to unilaterally implement immigration reform:
"On November 20, 2014, the President of the United States announced that he would unilaterally suspend the immigration laws as applied to 4 million of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. The President candidly admitted that, in so doing, he unilaterally rewrote the law: “What you’re not paying attention to is, I just took an action to change the law.”
Equipped with reinforcements, House Republicans will debate a Department of Homeland Security (the agency responsible for immigration) appropriation bill Wednesday that if passed with the current amendments, would obliterate Obama's immigration executive overreach. Disarming the President's immigration action through funding was the brain child of Rep. Price.