Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Immigration Tag

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 16, 2014 35 Comments
One of the most frequent questions I get is "How can we stop Obama from ...." The ellipses reflects that there are a variety of issues on which people want Obama stopped. The answer to most of those questions is, as Obama himself suggested, to go out and win some elections. And that is exactly what just happened earlier this month. In what appropriately could be termed a legal insurrection, voters around the country rejected the Party of Obama and his policies. So much so that Republicans in the House have a historic majority even beyond what the 2010 wave brought in, and Republicans regained control of the Senate by a comfortable margin. That will go a long way towards stopping Obama, but only if Obama respects the boundaries of his constitutional power. By tradition, a President respects the constitutional powers of the other branches of government, although there always is tension. When that respect is breached, there is precious little constitutional enforcement power. Congress can write laws, but it cannot execute those laws; for that Congress depends on the Executive Branch, which is given some level of enforcement discretion since no legislation can be so specific as to delineate who does what and when. Similarly, the Courts are loathe to get involved in refereeing political disputes between Congress and the President, and there even are questions as to whether Congress has "standing" to sue to demand enforcement. The Supreme Court has no army, other than the public expectation that its decisions will be respected. On the flip side, Congress has no power, for example, to conduct its own foreign policy, appoint its own ambassadors and operate its own embassies. The bonds that keep our constitutional system working are not through the barrel of a gun, but through the core good faith of each branch respecting constitutional boundaries.

Posted by Mike LaChance on November 15, 2014 21 Comments
Charles Krauthammer appeared on Megyn Kelly's show this week to discuss Obama's plans for amnesty by executive order. Kelly, who is a lawyer, pointed out that we're entering "uncharted waters" and that even Reagan's famous amnesty was done with congress. Krauthammer concurred and pointed out that it's an impeachable offense. Transcript and video by the Washington Free Beacon:
Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer said President Obama’s plan to grant amnesty to 4.5 million illegal immigrants was “an impeachable offense.” Krauthammer said that prosecutorial discretion, which Obama is invoking to justify his executive action, is only meant for extreme cases in which one or two individuals are prevented from being deported. “I believe it is an impeachable offense,” Krauthammer told Fox News host Megyn Kelly on Thursday.
“This idea of prosecutorial discretion is really a travesty. It is intended for extreme cases. for a case where you want to show mercy for individual or two where it’s unusual incident unusual circumstances and you say, okay, we’re going to give this person a pass. it was never intended to abolish a whole class of people subject to a law and to essentially abolish whole sections of a law.”
Krauthammer said Obama’s executive action threat resembles a South American dictator more than an American president.
“That’s the way the system is in Venezuela. If the the caudillo isn’t able to get stuff done through congress, he issues a decree and that’s it, and he’ll arrest anybody who gets in the way,” Krauthammer said. “The whole American system is designed that it has to be a collaboration between the Congress and the president. Congress has to pass it, he has to sign it. That’s the way the damn thing works.”
Watch the exchange: Senator Ted Cruz has also been outspoken about Obama's plan.

Posted by Amy Miller on November 15, 2014 28 Comments
Brace yourselves...executive action on immigration policy is coming. Next week, President Obama is scheduled to reveal a 10-point, comprehensive immigration reform plan through executive action. The plan's most controversial provisions would expand deferred action and halt deportations for millions of illegal immigrants. Although Republicans have repeatedly warned Obama against going over the heads of the House and Senate on the issue of immigration, the President has vowed "not to wait" for Congress to act. Republican warnings don't seem to have as much persuasive power as donor dollars, and Obama has those flowing in by the bucket. Immigration reform has become a pet project of the left, and over the last decade left wing organizations and NGOs have pumped millions into groups backing radical immigration reform---and now those groups are expecting Obama to keep his promise to stop deportations.
The calls started shortly after President Obama’s news conference on the day after the midterm elections. He had said he would go ahead with action on immigration before year’s end, in spite of warnings from Republicans that he could wreck relations with the new Congress they will control. White House officials were calling immigrant advocates to talk strategy and shore up their support. The officials wanted to reassure them, several activists said, that the president, after delaying twice this year, was ready to take the kind of broad measures they had demanded to shield immigrants here illegally from deportation. The White House calls — and the president’s decision itself — reflected the clout the immigrant movement has built up in recent years, as it grew from a cluster of scattered Washington lobbying groups into a national force. A vital part of that expansion has involved money: major donations from some of the nation’s wealthiest liberal foundations, including the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Open Society Foundations of the financier George Soros, and the Atlantic Philanthropies. Over the last decade those donors have invested more than $300 million in immigrant organizations, including many fighting for a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on November 10, 2014 45 Comments
President Obama is once again threatening to enforce immigration reform through Executive Order. Obama threatened immigration "reform" (a term no one seems to be able to define exactly) via Executive Order this summer. As midterms drew closer and Democrats were getting hammered on the issue, he backed off the subject. As NPR reported, ""The reality the president has had to weigh is that we're in the midst of the political season," a White House official says, noting that Obama "believes it would be harmful to the policy itself and to the long-term prospects" for reform if he acted before November." In an interview with Face the Nation that was taped Friday, President Obama indicated, "I'm going to do what I need to do" concerning immigration reform. More concerning is that Obama seems to understand that his actions are easily remedied by Congressional action, which would also seem to indicate that he's aware Executive Action is not the proper procedure for what should be a legislative decision. Saying, "the minute they [the House] pass a bill that addresses the problems with immigration reform,  I will sign it and it supersedes whatever actions I take and I'm encouraging them to do so." Although he made no mention of what the "problems with immigration reform" might be.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 08, 2014 32 Comments
As expected, on Saturday Obama nominated Loretta Lynch to replace Eric Holder as Attorney General. I'm not sure how many more times I'll make this disclosure -- but for the second time I'll note that I'm biased in favor of my law school classmate. I remember Loretta as a very nice person, not something that can be said about some of my classmates. Loretta's career, to the extent I've followed it, seems pretty straight forward as a prosecutor:
President Clinton first appointed Lynch to be a U.S. Attorney in 1999. She left for private practice in 2001 before being appointed a second time by Obama in 2010. In her years in the post, Lynch's office in Brooklyn has handled a wide-ranging caseload — cutting-edge cybercrime, high-stakes financial fraud and dramatic Mafia busts straight out of a Martin Scorsese movie. The office also helped convict the masterminds of the thwarted al Qaeda plot to attack the New York subway system. This year, Lynch's office announced it would indict Rep. Michael Grimm, R-N.Y., on federal fraud, tax evasion and perjury charges. Grimm, who won his re-election bid Tuesday, has pleaded not guilty. Lynch has also prosecuted several Democratic public officials, including State Sen. John L. Sampson, former State Sen. Pedro Espada Jr. and Assemblyman William F. Boyland Jr.

Posted by Mike LaChance on October 26, 2014 80 Comments
Non-citizens, who should not be voting, wield significant influence in American elections according to a new report from the Washington Post. Can you guess which party they typically vote for? Jesse Richman and David Earnest reported, here are some highlights:
Could non-citizens decide the November election? In a forthcoming article in the journal Electoral Studies, we bring real data from big social science survey datasets to bear on the question of whether, to what extent, and for whom non-citizens vote in U.S. elections. Most non-citizens do not register, let alone vote. But enough do that their participation can change the outcome of close races... Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.
That's kind of a big deal, isn't it? Oh, and then there's this:

Posted by Mike LaChance on September 18, 2014 11 Comments
Luis Gutiérrez is a Democratic representative from Illinois who frequently attacks anyone who is not for amnesty. As an example, here he is on Sean Hannity's show claiming that securing the U.S. border would be a dereliction of his duty. Transcript and video via Real Clear Politics:
Gutierrez: Voting to Secure Border First "Would Be Derelict In My Duty to Protect America" SEAN HANNITY: Last word. You can pass a bill, secure the border first, would you support that? REP. LUIS GUTIERREZ (D-IL): No. Because it would be folly. It would be derelict in my duty to protect America. HANNITY: In the mean time, every day you don't pass that bill -- you're demanding amnesty. GUTIERREZ: I would be derelict to my duty. [CROSSTALK] GUTIERREZ: It sounds great. It sounds good. HANNITY: It doesn't sound great. GUTIERREZ: It sounds good, but it isn't an effective -- HANNITY: If you don't do it, it's a dereliction of duty, sir.
Here's the video:

Posted by Prudence Paine on September 09, 2014 12 Comments
When it comes to red-meat quotes on immigration and calls for President Obama to use Executive Orders to bypass Congress and grant amnesty to millions, news networks know there is one go-to guy: Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL). Just last year, he urged caution and bipartisanship. Not anymore. Yesterday, Gutierrez expanded his political enemies list and went after all "conservatives," of any party. Transcript:
Luis Gutierrez: So the problem here, it seems to me, is that we keep negotiating with conservative Democrats which led us not to do anything when we were in the majority in 2006 and 2008 and had a majority in the Senate. We let conservative Democrats lead the way. And we can't let conservative Democrats and--and Republicans--dictate the pace of justice that we're gonna take for our immigrant [CROSSTALK] make a mistake in doing that and we confuse the public.

Posted by Amy Miller on September 06, 2014 11 Comments
Today, Barack Obama formally declined to commit electoral suicide on behalf of every democrat running for higher office in a "leans Republican" state. Speaking under the condition of anonymity, a White House official told the Associated Press today that President Obama has abandoned his pledge to implement immigration reform by the end of the summer. Via Fox News Latino:
"Because of the Republicans' extreme politicization of this issue, the president believes it would be harmful to the policy itself and to the long-term prospects for comprehensive immigration reform to announce administrative action before the elections," a White House official said, asking for anonymity. Nonetheless, he added that Obama wants reform carried out in a "sustainable" way, and for that reason will take action "before the end of the year." ... "The president is confident in his authority to act, and he will before the end of the year. But again, nothing will replace Congress acting on comprehensive immigration reform and the president will keep pressing Congress to act," the official said.
As one blogger in Texas put it,, President Obama allowed this leak "early on a Saturday morning, ripe with the possibility of the least amount of Americans noticing." He claims that he's putting off comprehensive reform to save future efforts, but with 60 days to go until the election, we know that "not wanting to politicize the issue" is really code for "not wanting to lose the Senate to Republicans in 6 swing states."

Posted by Amy Miller on August 15, 2014 12 Comments
The news is full of stories and interviews detailing the failure of the Obama Administration to enforce immigration law, the cost to taxpayers because of this failure, and what this means for the state of electoral politics in the run up to November. None of these stories, however, address the human element of what Texans are dealing with every single day. Women like Doctor Corrine Stern, who serves as a medical examiner in Webb County, Texas, sees every day the brutal consequences of an Administration who refuses to enforce the law. Bloomberg News has published a searing exposé of what it truly means to cede power to lawlessness. Doctor Stern's jurisdiction covers the vast border lands surrounding Laredo, where she spends at least 25% of her office's resources in the examination and identification of the abandoned dead:
Her struggle to put names to the bodies offers a glimpse into how intractable the border crisis is as it strains the services of South Texas’s counties. Stern, who estimates that the task takes up 25 percent of her office’s resources, is dealing with migrants from at least six countries, confronting bureaucratic and linguistic hurdles all along the way. She has conducted at least 400 autopsies of immigrants since becoming Webb’s medical examiner in 2006. On any given day, Stern plays the role of forensic expert, homicide detective or even diplomat, asking the governments of Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala and other nations for help in naming the dead and getting their remains home.
Journalists and pundits tend to focus on the costs of apprehending, housing, evaluating, and deporting illegal immigrants, but the real story--and a good portion of the real scandal--lies in how much time and effort American doctors and other officials spend in either repatriating or laying to rest the bodies of those who die during ill-fated border crossings.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on August 08, 2014 45 Comments
I remember the dread of exiting the Queens-Midtown tunnel into Manhattan from Long Island before I left for Rhode Island in the early 1990s. Would we make the first traffic light, or get stuck at a red light and be subjected to the squeegee men? The squeegee men would either spray something on your windshield then demand payment to clean it off, or just start cleaning the windshield figuring you'd pay them rather than risk a confrontation. It set the tone for the city, along with graffiti and other petty hooliganism. It was one of the realities of life in NYC until Rudy Giuliani was elected Mayor and cleaned it all up. It was the broken window theory:
Social psychologists and police officers tend to agree that if a window in a building is broken and is left unrepaired, all the rest of the windows will soon be broken. This is as true in nice neighborhoods as in rundown ones. Window-breaking does not necessarily occur on a large scale because some areas are inhabited by determined window-breakers whereas others are populated by window-lovers; rather, one unrepaired broken window is a signal that no one cares, and so breaking more windows costs nothing.
The squeegee men and similar public displays of lawlessness were held in check even after Rudy left office -- until now. The election of uber-liberal Bill DeBlasio ushered in a new era of the bad old days, as The NY Post reports: NY Post Squeegee Men
They were the ultimate symbol of the lawlessness and blight of the 1980s and early 1990s — and now they’re making a comeback. Squeegee men are menacing motorists across New York City, including spots near the Holland, Lincoln and Queens-Midtown tunnels, as well as the Queensboro Bridge, The Post has learned.
Accessibility by WAH