Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Immigration Tag

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on March 03, 2015 28 Comments
After almost two months of funding drama, Congress is no closer to resolving the Department of Homeland Security's funding in a dispute over President Obama's immigration executive action. In a Ground Hog-esque day turn of events, we're right back where we started. Thanks, Democrats. Speculation that Pelosi and company agreed to support a one week bill because Boehner was considering a "clean" funding bill akin to the Senate, found its way into more than one mainstream media write up of the DHS debacle this weekend. Because we'd rather not take someone else's word for it, we inquired independently. This weekend, Speaker Boehner's office assured us House Republicans had no plans to capitulate to the demands of Senate Democrats. As to the speculation that there was some kind of a deal with Pelosi? "There is no such 'deal' or promise," says Boehner Spokesman Michael Steel. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise echoed the sentiments saying, “There is no such deal and there’s no such bill,” Scalise said on “Fox News Sunday." “On Friday, there was a bill on the House floor to pass a clean funding bill. We rejected that because we said we’re fighting the president on what he’s doing illegally on immigration," according to The Hill. "We are not giving in to Senate Democrats’ blackmail," Boehner said, "Will keep fighting Obama’s unilateral action on immigration to protect Constitution."

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on February 28, 2015 7 Comments
Which means Congress gets to have this same fight all over again next week. Joy. The Senate passed a clean funding bill late yesterday afternoon, placing efforts to combat President Obama's executive overreach in a separate piece of legislation. Last night it looked as though a DHS shutdown was imminent. Democratic lawmakers in the House were actively whipping votes against the three week stopgap appropriations bill, resulting in the bill's failure---even though the White House indicated President Obama would've signed the bill to prevent an agency shutdown. The Washington Post reported (emphasis added):
The House passed a measure earlier Friday afternoon to go to conference with the Senate to hash out the differences between their long-term bills. No Democrats voted for it. Senate Democrats oppose a conference. Senate Democratic aides acknowledged that the bill would probably have passed their chamber if it had cleared the House.
Just two hours before the shutdown deadline, Democratic hold outs caved and agreed to pass a temporary funding bill that will only fund the agency for one week. According to USA Today:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., rallied Democrats to support the one-week extension before funding expired. She said that voting for the seven-day measure would put Democrats on a path toward possible passage next week of a $40 billion spending bill that would fund the agency through the end of September.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on February 27, 2015 31 Comments
What a mess this has become. Hell bent on pursuing legislation that would allow for the dissolution of Congressional powers (a.k.a. Obama's Executive immigration overreach), House Democrats refused to pass a short term funding bill for DHS. The bill would've funded DHS through March 19 and prevented an agency shut down. Unless a deal is reached and an appropriations bill is passed by midnight tonight, agency shutdown is imminent. Some 200,000 of DHS's 231,000+ are deemed 'essential' and would remain in place in the event of a shut down (as they did in the shut down of 2013), as NRO noted. Weeks ago, the House passed a DHS appropriations bill that sought to curb Obama's immigration overreach. Since the House bill's passage, Senate Democrats have continually filibustered, thus disallowing any Senate debate on the the House bill. Then, a judge in Texas issued a temporary injunction, preventing implementation of Obama's Executive immigration action; the same executive action Democrats insist on implementing. In an attempt to build a bridge across the impasse, the Senate passed a clean funding bill, creating a separate bill to address the president's Constitutional curb stomp.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 24, 2015 27 Comments
Yesterday the U.S. government filed an Emergency motion to stay the U.S. District Court's temporary injunction putting Obama's immigration executive action on hold. In its Emergency Motion, the Feds threatened that if U.S. District Court Judge Andrew S. Hanen did not grant the stay by the close of business on Wednesday, February 25, the Feds would seek an emergency stay from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiff States argued that that was too short of a time for them to respond, considering the Feds took a week to bring the Emergency motion. Judge Hanen just ruled that the States had until Monday, March 2, to respond. (Order below). [Update: Changed to March 3 - see Amended Order below.] Will the Feds now run to the Appeals Court? Or wait until Judge Hanen rules next week? Normally, a litigant has to request relief from the trial court first.  I'm not sure, as I write, whether a modest delay in the trial court would cause the 5th Circuit to refuse to hear an emergency motion until the trial court rules. As of this writing, there has been no stay motion filed in the 5th Circuit according to the electronic docket.)

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 23, 2015 10 Comments
The federal government has filed in U.S. District Court an Emergency Expedited Motion for a Stay of the Temporary Injunction putting a stop to Obama's executive immigration action. The successful plaintiff states have filed a letter opposing expedited treatment. If the District Court denies the stay, or does not rule by the close of business on Wednesday, February 26, the feds will go to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals seeking emergency relief. Both documents are embedded below. Discussion and analysis to follow. Here's part of the Intro to the government's motion and brief:
A stay pending appeal is necessary to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS” or “Department”) is able to most effectively protect national security, public safety, and the integrity of the border. Specifically, the Deferred Action Guidance enjoined by this Court is an integral part of the Department’s comprehensive effort to set and effectuate immigration enforcement priorities that focus on the removal of threats to public safety, national security risks, and recent border crossers, thereby best securing the Homeland in the face of limited resources. Absent a stay, DHS will sustain irreparable harm—harm that would not be cured, even if Defendants ultimately prevail on that appeal....

Posted by Mike LaChance on February 21, 2015 12 Comments
In the new edition of Firewall, Bill Whittle provides a glimpse into how far we've come on immigration. Not only is Obama now saying he can grant executive amnesty, a position he claimed was illegal for years, some people in government leadership positions think illegal immigrants have special rights. Very special rights. Transcript and video via Truth Revolt:
First, if there are no such things as illegal aliens, as the advocates for open borders proclaim – then where does it stop? If seven million people can sneak across the border at night and be granted the same status, and the same benefits as US Citizens – social security, medicare, and the right to vote – then where do we stop? Why only seven million? Why not all seven billion people currently on planet Earth? If three hundred and twenty million Americans are having money taken from them at gunpoint through taxation in order to GUARANTEE the RIGHT of one transgendered illegal alien to hormone therapy once they cross the border, then there is no line – none. None! – between that and them having to pay through their hard work and taxes the health care of any one of the seven billion people on planet earth who can manage to cross a two thousand mile long line on a map. Second, if the candidate for the chief law enforcement position in the land says that someone entering the country by breaking the law is not only not going to be arrested and deported, but rather has the same right to take a job from US citizen or a legal immigrant on a work visa and condemning them to unemployment and dependency on the government, then what does that tell you about the person who nominated her to that office?
Watch the whole thing:

Posted by Amy Miller on February 21, 2015 10 Comments
Well, that was predictable. Yesterday, Judicial Watch revealed that in spite of an injunction barring implementation, the Obama Administration is preparing for a full-scale rollout of Obama's controversial plans for immigration executive amnesty. Nobody expected the Administration to take the injunction lying down---amnesty's best chance for survival is a friendly judge---so the continued preparation was less of a scandal and more of continuing proof of Obama's confidence in his ability to shove these terrible policies down our throats, one way or another. Similarly, yesterday's announcement that the White House will ask for an emergency order authorizing the amnesty programs' rollout was no shock. More via Politico:
With pressure building from immigrant rights activists for swift action to overturn the injunction a federal judge in Texas issued Monday night, White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters that the administration decided to seek a stay that could lift the order. The action could buy time as an appeal Obama promised plays out. At a daily briefing, Earnest said Department of Justice lawyers will file legal papers by “Monday at the latest.” But pending further legal developments, the Department of Homeland Security’s plans to start taking applications this week for an expanded program for immigrants who arrived in the U.S. illegally as children remain suspended indefinitely. “Once we have taken some additional steps through this legal process, we may be in a position to give you an update,” Earnest added.

Posted by Amy Miller on February 20, 2015 48 Comments
Earlier this week a federal court in Texas issued a temporary injunctive order preventing implementation of Obama's immigration executive action. Following the order, the Obama Administration made it appear as though they were prepared to put their agenda on hold and take the fight over executive power to the courts. I say "appear" because, in spite of the injunction, DHS is still making moves to award multi-million dollar contracts to the firms tasked with handling the processing of millions of illegal immigrants' requests for amnesty. An anonymous source has described the deal as being rushed through at a "full throttle pace," and a Request for Proposal filed by the USCIS details how the agency expects to pull off its latest bait-and-switch. Judicial Watch has the details:
The RFP estimates that the population of potential requesters for the president’s deferred action will be “approximately four million people” and that USCIS anticipates the initial filing of “approximately five to six million forms” related to the amnesty order which also covers the illegal immigrant parents of U.S. citizens and lawful residents. The work is to begin in mid-March, the document reveals, and the contractor will operate out of a new center in Arlington, Virginia because there is no current facility with available space or staff to accommodate the “additional volume of work.” The center will be dedicated to processing deferred action for illegal immigrant parents of citizens, employment authorization and correspondence management. The pricing spreadsheets are astounding and list tens of thousands of work hours—for tasks such as program management, file operations and maintenance as well as Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) scanning—that will undoubtedly end up costing American taxpayers enormous sums. The contractor that lands this monstrous government deal must also be able to respond on short notice to growth in volume due to urgent events and requirements. “The growth is more than normal overtime and cannot be completed with overtime,” the government documents state.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on February 18, 2015 16 Comments
You gotta love The Imperial City -- everyone is an obstructionist and no one is ever responsible. In this particular tale of drama and woe, the previous Congress passed appropriations bills lasting one fiscal year for every major government entity save the Department of Homeland Security. The idea being that once the newly elected Republican majorities took their seats in January, they'd have a strategic advantage in pushing reforms and curbing President Obama's executive immigration overreach as conditions for continued agency funding. Currently, DHS is only funded through the end of February. The House passed an appropriations bill that was heavy on the enforcement (well done, House Republicans). Senate Democrats keep filibustering the House Bill so the Senate hasn't even had a chance to duke it out. Back at the House, Speaker Boehner told Senate Democrats to "get off their asses" and stop obstructing (there's that magic word again) the bill the House passed. All the while, Senate Democrats continue to cry "unfair!" Meanwhile, down in Texas, a judge was all, "yeah, no Obama." Meaning that the fit the Senate Democrats are pitching is over an Executive Order that cannot be legally implemented. Or as Senator Sessions put it, "Congress cannot fund the very action which dissolves its own powers." And DHS is tweeting on their own behalf: Which brings us to now.

Posted by Amy Miller on February 18, 2015 16 Comments
President Obama's executive amnesty is now in the hands of the courts. Earlier this week we reported that a federal court had sided with a 26 state coalition against Obama's plans for sweeping immigration reform. The court issued a temporary injunctive order barring the President from implementing his immigration executive action---and almost immediately upon hearing the news, we set up a 5th Circuit watch, waiting for the Administration to file a stay on the ruling. It never happened. More from the AP:
"We're not going to disregard this federal court ruling," Obama said, but he added that administration officials would continue to prepare to roll out the program. "I think the law is on our side and history is on our side," he said. On Capitol Hill, the Homeland Security Department stood 10 days away from losing funding, but Hanen's ruling made a compromise on that dispute look more distant than ever. Republicans are blocking funding for the agency unless Democrats agree to cancel Obama's immigration orders, and they seized on the ruling as validation for their position. "Congress must reassert its waning power. We must re-establish the constitutional principle that the people's representatives control the purse," said Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, a leading immigration hardliner. Yet Senate Democrats, who have been blocking a House-passed bill that would fund the department but also undo Obama's actions, said the ruling from Hanen did nothing to budge them. "Democrats remain united in our belief that funding for the Department of Homeland Security should not be used as a ransom by Republicans, period," said Chuck Schumer of New York.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 17, 2015 54 Comments
In a decision which is to have a profound impact on both the immigration debate and the currently stalled funding of the Department of Homeland Security, a federal court judge in Texas has issued a Temporary Restraining Injunctive Order preventing implementation of Obama's Immigration executive action. The Order and 123-page Opinion are embedded in full below. From a political perspective, if Obama is enjoined from enforcing his immigration executive action, how can Congress fund an illegal act? Or if it were funded, thereby relieving the current continuing resolution stalemate, Obama could not enforce it. Either way, this may provide Congress a way out of the jam just days before the funding deadline. What this allows Republicans to do, is pass a 30 day spending bill without any limitations on the argument that the immigration plan cannot be acted upon anyway, and wait and see how the courts rule. IF the courts refuse to put the injunction on hold, or if the courts uphold the injunction on the merits, then there is no need to worry about defunding the executive action. If an appeals court reverses, then the Republican leadership can say that it has already been upheld as lawful so there is no legal basis for the claim it is unconstitutional. This could be a victory at least to get over the current impasse, although it may not be a long term solution. The case involves 26 states (originally 17) led by Texas. Here is part of the TRO:
The United States of America, its departments, agencies, officers, agents and employees and Jeh Johnson, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; R. Gil Kerlikowske, Commissioner of United States Customs and Border Protection; Ronald D. Vitiello, Deputy Chief of United States Border Patrol, United States Customs and Border Protection; Thomas S. Winkowski, Acting Director of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Leon Rodriguez, Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services are hereby enjoined from implementing any and all aspects or phases of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents ("DAP A") program as set out in the Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson's memorandum dated November 20, 2014 ("DAPA memorandum"), pending a final resolution of the merits of this case or until a further order of this Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit or the United States Supreme Court.
The Court frames the issue in the case as follows:
The ultimate question before the Court is: Do the laws of the United States, including the Constitution, give the Secretary of Homeland Security the power to take the action at issue in this case? [Opinion, at 4]
It took the court over 100 pages to get to the answer: No.

Posted by New Neo on February 15, 2015 12 Comments
Is there anyone on Earth who is surprised at this news?
President Obama’s temporary deportation amnesty will make it easier for illegal immigrants to improperly register and vote in elections, state elections officials testified to Congress on Thursday, saying that the driver’s licenses and Social Security numbers they will be granted create a major voting loophole. While stressing that it remains illegal for noncitizens to vote, secretaries of state from Ohio and Kansas said they won’t have the tools to sniff out illegal immigrants who register anyway, ignoring stiff penalties to fill out the registration forms that are easily available at shopping malls, motor vehicle bureaus and in curbside registration drives.
The article contains quotes from various Democrats with the usual disclaimers, such as the idea that no one will actually do this so there's nothing to worry about. But it seems odd to assume that those who've already lived here illegally for years would all be so very loathe to risk breaking another law, especially if someone with an interest in their doing so were to offer them some cash for their troubles. Not to mention the fact that there are probably some amnesty recipients who might misunderstand the law and think that their new status confers on them the bona fide right to vote. Is the chance to register to vote really an unintended "loophole" through which the purpose of the amnesty order can be evaded? It is certainly possible it's a feature rather than a bug as far as Obama and the Democrats are concerned. In any event, there was and will be no effort by the Democratic Party or Obama to make it impossible for illegals with amnesty to vote, although this could have been done. The fact that the secretaries of state "don't have the tools to sniff out illegal immigrants who register" is no accident; they've been kept from having them.

Posted by Amy Miller on February 12, 2015 18 Comments
Last week, we covered IRS Commissioner John Koskinen's testimony about the shocking tax consequences of Obama's executive amnesty plan. In previous testimony before Congress, Koskinen explained that illegal immigrants who were granted amnesty would be eligible to receive back-refunds in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)---but only if they had registered with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN.) This means that, although the person was here illegally, they were still working and paying taxes and thus eligible for a refund. It's a bogus loophole, but it stems from an existing IRS interpretation of their own rules, so at the end of the day it was a "fix this now" situation rather than an "end of the world" scenario." That was scandal enough, though, considering the divisive nature of illegal immigration itself; but this week's testimony from Koskinen just made things a whole lot worse. That's right---we've had a "clarification." From the Washington Times:
On Wednesday, he said even illegal immigrants who didn’t pay taxes will be able to apply for back-credits once they get Social Security numbers. The EITC is a refundable tax credit, which means those who don’t have any tax liability can still get money back from the government. “Under the new program, if you get a Social Security number and you work, you’ll be eligible to apply for the Earned Income Tax Credit,” Mr. Koskinen said. He said that would apply even “if you did not file” taxes, as long as the illegal immigrant could demonstrate having worked off-the-books during those years. That expands the universe of people eligible for the tax credit by millions. He said only about 700,000 illegal immigrants currently work and pay taxes using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, but as many as 4 million illegal immigrants could get a stay of deportation and work permits under the temporary amnesty, which would mean they would be eligible to claim back-refunds if they worked those years.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on February 11, 2015 13 Comments
Senate Democrats continue to block the Department of Homeland Security funding bill passed by the House. As we've reported, the House DHS appropriations bill is enforcement-heavy and seeks to squash President Obama's executive overreach. Not amused, Speaker Boehner held a press conference and minced no words:
“The House did its job. We won the fight to fund the Department of Homeland Security and to stop the President’s unconstitutional actions. Now, it’s time for the Senate to do their work. You know, in the gift shop out here [in the Capitol], they’ve got these little booklets on how a bill becomes a law. Alright? The House has done its job. Why don’t you go ask the Senate Democrats when they’re going to get off their ass and do something other than to vote ‘no.’”

Posted by Amy Miller on February 05, 2015 4 Comments
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:

Posted by Amy Miller on February 04, 2015 7 Comments
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.

Posted by Amy Miller on February 03, 2015 8 Comments
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?

Posted by Amy Miller on February 03, 2015 17 Comments
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:
Accessibility by WAH