Google+

Tags: Illegal Immigration

Obama Insists Old System of Deporting Illegals Is the Real Amnesty



Text  



Perhaps the most galling line in last night’s speech:

I know some of the critics of this action call it amnesty. Well, it’s not. Amnesty is the immigration system we have today — millions of people who live here without paying their taxes or playing by the rules.

Yes, but before last night, they feared deportation. Which is the opposite of an amnesty! Obama said this in a speech right after he boasted of increasing the number of deportations of illegal immigrants for criminal offenses.

Last night Obama insisted that the previous system that attempted to deport people who enter the country illegally is “amnesty,” and letting them stay and giving them work permits isn’t amnesty.

This clearly ranks among the all-time most Orwellian statements by an American president. 

Tags: Illegal Immigration

The Democrats’ Giant Bet on Voters’ Short Memories



Text  



From the last Morning Jolt of the week:

The Democrats’ Giant Bet on Voters’ Short Memories

The Democrats’ plan: Hope that Latino voters love the the executive order quasi-amnesty and “middle-of-the-road” voters forget about it:

The president’s decision to use his executive powers to protect some 5 million undocumented immigrants from deportation is bound to draw a backlash from middle-of-the-road white voters. Republicans assailed Obama’s handling of immigration in the midterm elections, catering to a conservative and notably less diverse electorate with ads in states such as Arkansas and New Hampshire. Early polling shows significant suspicion of Obama’s unilateral action: An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found 48 percent of Americans preemptively opposed to the executive actions, versus 38 percent ready to endorse them.

As a political matter, then, the president’s wager is this: that the voters with the longest memories will be those in the rapidly-growing, next-generation national electorate, heavily inflected by socially progressive young people and a growing Latino population.

Will those middle-of-the-road white voters forget? Note the concession by Politico that one doesn’t have to be an “extreme” “right-wing” “xenophobic” voter to object to this policy.

Mo Elleithee, the Democratic National Committee’s communications director, vowed that the GOP would pay a price for its heated attacks on the White House’s policy: “The rhetoric coming out will come back to haunt them. We are capturing every bit and will make them answer for it. They are not just alienating, they are offending, the [Hispanic] community.”

Republicans believe that Obama is inviting deep punishment with his actions this week. Not only does the GOP sense genuine anger among voters about the ongoing mess on the border, but party leaders say that Obama’s orders will look like pure arrogance, the brazen actions of a discredited president.

Though the GOP has struggled to assemble a viable, diverse coalition in national elections, the party is on a hot streak in large, traditionally Democratic states across the Midwest – big, blue-collar battlegrounds like Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan, where a certain segment of Democratic-leaning, populist white voters may recoil from what they perceive as overreach on the border.

How confident are they that union members and African Americans will be such long-term fans of this plan? How certain can the administration be that these 3.7 million adult newly not-so-illegal immigrants will find jobs?

A few other points to throw in here. Obama promises:

So we’re going to offer the following deal: If you’ve been in America for more than five years; if you have children who are American citizens or legal residents; if you register, pass a criminal background check, and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes – you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily, without fear of deportation.

How many illegal immigrants will be able to get the documents they’ll need to make their case about length of time in the United States, or ties to family in the United States? How many are literally “undocumented” and came here with the shirts on their backs, or lost their documents during their journeys or life in the U.S.?

For those immigrants who qualify, Salas said it will be important for them to begin securing original copies of documents that will prove how long they have been in this country as well as establish legal family ties that may be important to their case. They may need to go to the consulate of their country of origin, or to their school districts or places of former residence to obtain proof.

Supporting evidence that may be required include birth certificates, family and adoption records, legal guardianship records, school records, passports and other official documents, Salas says.

They may need to prove continuous residency over a period of years, which can be established with pay stubs, utility bills, rental agreements or other ordinary records.

Yes, this decision occurs in the context of the rebuke to the president in the midterms. But this also comes after the president’s promises have been proven to be worthless — if you like your plan you can keep your plan, if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, your premiums will go down, the “red line” in Syria, al-Qaeda is “decimated” and ISIS is the “jayvee team”, and so on. (Michael Graham identifies some of Obama’s “if you like your plan” moments in last night’s speech.)

How many illegal immigrants want to come out of the shadows and identify themselves to law enforcement based upon this promise?

Then the question of unforeseen complications arises. After the stimulus, Obamacare, our alleged breakthrough with Iran, our coalition against ISIS and so on, we see a pattern with this administration dealing with complicated problems with an even more complicated solutions. These solutions rarely proceed exactly as planned, and the administration seems blindsided by the surprise complications and problems. They set up the executive-order DREAM Act, then are surprised by droves of unattended children crossing the border. They pass Dodd-Frank; we learn in June, “regulators still haven’t completed key parts, including standards for the mortgage-securities market and tougher regulations for credit-rating firms,” four years after passage. They make grand promises about taking care of veterans and then are shocked to learn about widespread hidden delays and unreported problems. We pledge a few months of “advise and assist” to the Iraqi army, hoping that will change the equation in the fight against ISIS.

What’s going to be the unforeseen consequence of this decision?

Tags: Illegal Immigration , Barack Obama , amnesty

Hillary Clinton’s Deafening Silence on Obama’s Immigration Executive Order



Text  



Boy, Hillary Clinton has been quiet since the midterms, huh?

Hillary’s past comments on illegal immigration indicate that she is the champion of spectacularly generic comments:

Hillary Rodham Clinton had just finished telling the crowd that North Carolina families could count on Senator Kay Hagan when the chants of Oliver Merino — a 25-year-old whose mother, an undocumented Mexican immigrant, faces deportation — grew louder. He held a sign that read, “Hillary, do you stand with our immigrant families?” and shouted that his mother lives in constant fear of deportation. “I have to say that I understand immigration is an important issue, and we appreciate that,” Mrs. Clinton said. “We thank you for your advocacy.”

Earlier this year, in a “town hall” on CNN, hosted by Christiane Amanpour, Hillary Clinton boldly staked out a position opposing child abandonment as a consequence of deportation policy. On immigration, she pronounced:

The horror of a father or a mother going to work and being picked up and immediately whisked away and children coming home from school to an empty house and nobody can say where their mother or father is, that is just not who we are as Americans.

Her hesitation may be driven by the fact that her spectacular collapse from her position of heavy favorite in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary was triggered in part by her sudden reversal in her position supporting giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. She said the policy proposed by then-governor of New York Eliot Spitzer to give illegal immigrants licenses “made a lot of sense,” and then said, moments later, “I did not say that I thought it should be done.”

UPDATE: Hillary Clinton issued a supportive statement last night.

Tags: Hillary Clinton , Barack Obama , Illegal Immigration

What if Employers Don’t Want to Hire the 5 Million Illegal Immigrants?



Text  



Hugh Hewitt offers an unexpected argument: The quasi-amnesty the president offers tonight may actually make it tougher for illegal immigrants to find jobs:

The people in the country illegally will know shortly that this stunt tonight does not help them and may in fact hurt them — badly. The collision of what is in essence a letter of recommendation from the president to employers with their genuine worries about liabilities under state law and about their fiduciary duties to their customers is going to be instant, and not to the good of the illegal population. Employers are going to flee the president’s testimonial that, if he were king of the forest, not queen, not duke, not earl, he’d let this person have a green card. Because he’s not king, he cannot bless this person’s employment in the real world of tort liability and state law. He cannot solve the issue of Social Security and unemployment insurance withholding. What he can [do] — and will do tonight — is mark the illegal as someone not worth the trouble of hiring.

The president simply cannot bestow a green card. Just a blessing. An Obama blessing. The blessing of a cheater.

The president’s lawless act will have the apparently contradictory impact of both making life harder for “those in the shadows” by increasing the reluctance of employers to hire the obviously illegal, while at the same time attracting millions more north across the fenceless border. Employers are simply going to be less willing to hire the obviously illegal because of a host of other laws the president cannot change.

Separately, we have to wonder how much of an illegal immigrant’s value to a unscrupulous employer comes from their inability to go to government authorities and complain about mistreatment or unjust employment contracts. They are also much less likely to ever make workman’s-compensation claims, take their entitled meal breaks, or complain about illegal deductions from their pay for work-related tools or materials or transportation, harassment, and other violation of workplace laws.

This 2008 survey found that 37 percent of illegal immigrants were paid wages that violated minimum-wage law; nearly 85 percent of illegal immigrants were not paid the legally required overtime rate by their employers.

Giving a worker this new quasi-legal status also gives them the incentive to complain about low wages, employer mistreatment, and so on. An illegal immigrant who comes forward to take the quasi-amnesty may find himself no longer wanted at his old employer, while the boss keeps using his buddy who didn’t take the quasi-amnesty.

Tags: Barack Obama , Illegal Immigration

Obama to Unilaterally Rewrite Immigration Policy With 38 Percent Support



Text  



From the Thursday Morning Jolt:

Obama to Announce Plan to Vastly Expand National Pool of Legal Low-Skilled Labor

John Boehner’s office collected 22 times President Obama said he couldn’t ignore Congress and/or create his own immigration law. A couple of the most glaring and sweeping declarations:

“I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with [the president] 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.” (3/31/08)

“I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books. . . . Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.” (7/25/11)

That one’s particularly vivid, because President Obama appears to tee up his own impeachment, declaring that changing the laws on his own violates the Constitution and would represent a high crime or misdemeanor. Of course, Obama would welcome that; he could play the victim, it would awaken and stir a depressed Democratic base, and there’s just no way the two-thirds of the Senate would vote to remove President Obama from office. If, as you suspect, President Obama wants Republicans to try to impeach him, this raises the disturbing prospect that the next two years will feature Obama attempting to provoke an impeachment fight by committing more and more acts that violate the Constitution.

“This is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency. 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. And Congress right now has not changed what I consider to be a broken immigration system. And what that means is that we have certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place even if we think that in many cases the results may be tragic.” (2/14/13)

In light of this, it is not the least bit outrageous for critics of Obama to accuse him of acting like an emperor.

Plus, you know, he’s starting to walk around in black robes with an ominous John Williams score behind him.

The Oval Office remodeling is finished.

Moving along . . . 

What I’ve said in the past remains true, which is until Congress passes a new law, then I am constrained in terms of what I am able to do. What I’ve done is to use my prosecutorial discretion, because you can’t enforce the laws across the board for 11 or 12 million people, there aren’t the resources there. What we’ve said is focus on folks who are engaged in criminal activity, focus on people who are engaged in gang activity. Do not focus on young people, who we’re calling DREAMers. . . . That already stretched my administrative capacity very far. But I was confident that that was the right thing to do. But at a certain point the reason that these deportations are taking place is, Congress said, ‘You have to enforce these laws.’ They fund the hiring of officials at the department that’s charged with enforcing. And I cannot ignore those laws any more than I could ignore, you know, any of the other laws that are on the books. (3/16/14)

Paraphrasing something Jonah said on the cruise, the motto of progressives when it comes to political power is that they always run for daylight — whatever avenue to enacting their desired policies is the proper one. If they can get what they want through a referendum, they’ll tout that as the most natural expression of the popular will. If they can get what they want through legislation, they’ll do it legislatively. If they can get what they want through a president’s executive orders, they’ll do it that way. If all of those avenues are blocked, they’ll try to do it through the courts. If none of those work, they’ll do it through bureaucratic regulations.

The silver lining: All of this can be undone by an executive order from the next president. And just as the White House seemed to have no idea of the kind of Republican wave they would experience in the midterms, they are walking around with way too much confidence about the popularity of this move:

Forty-eight percent oppose Obama taking executive action on immigration — which could come as soon as later this week — while 38 percent support it; another 14 percent have no opinion or are unsure.

This decision will get less popular after dominating a news cycle.

If this were really a good idea, Obama would have done it before the election. He knows this is going to invite a backlash, which is why he had to wait.

Republicans an issue that we can use to drive a wedge right down the middle of the Democratic coalition — liberals on one side, unions and African-Americans on the other. While some Republicans want a path to citizenship and some don’t, just about everybody on the Right loathes the idea of the president doing this by fiat. They have a ready-made argument, that President Obama and his allies took action to make life easier for illegal immigrants, while they make life harder for you.

Also note this detail in NBC News poll:

A majority of Americans (56 percent) want Congress to take the lead role in setting policy for the country, versus those who prefer President Obama to do so (33 percent).

. . . 39 percent support creating legal status for immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally…

That’s not likely voters, that’s not registered voters; that’s respondents.

Tags: Barack Obama , Illegal Immigration

Obama on Unilateral Amnesty in 2011: ‘That’s Not How Our Democracy Functions. That’s Not How Our Constitution Is Written.’



Text  



President Obama, speaking to the National Council of La Raza, July 25, 2011:

Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. (Applause.) And believe me, right now dealing with Congress –

AUDIENCE: Yes, you can! Yes, you can! Yes, you can! Yes, you can! Yes, you can!

THE PRESIDENT: Believe me — believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. (Laughter.) I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. (Laughter.) But that’s not how — that’s not how our system works.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Change it!

THE PRESIDENT: That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.

When did unilateral executive action become “how our system works” or “how our democracy functions”? When was the Constitution rewritten?

Tags: Barack Obama , Illegal Immigration , Immigration Reform

Joe Wilson’s ‘YOU LIE!’ Wasn’t Wrong. It Was Prescient.



Text  



President Obama, back in September 2009: “There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false — the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”

Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C.: “YOU LIE!”

Fact-checkers: How terrible Wilson shouted this! “Obama can make a pretty thorough case that reform doesn’t apply to those here illegally.”

Fast-forward to 2014, and lo and behold, the Secretary of Health and Human Services Sylvia Burwell “called for extending Obamacare benefits to DREAM-eligible illegal immigrants.”

Burwell was speaking on a public Google hangout with prominent Latina bloggers to promote Saturday’s opening of the Obamacare enrollment period when she shifted to her thoughts on immigration reform.

“DREAMers are not able to be covered in the marketplace. And this is an issue that I think is more than a health care issue — it is an immigration issue,” Burwell said in response to a question about whether families with mixed immigration statuses can get coverage.

“And I think everyone probably knows that this administration feels incredibly strongly about the fact that we need to fix that. We need to reform the system and make the changes that we need that will lead to benefits in everything from health care to economics to so many things — a very important step that we need to take as a nation.”

Only legal immigrants are eligible for Obamacare benefits, but liberal and pro-immigration groups have asked that Obamacare benefits be extended to illegal immigrants as well. Several groups have also advocated for the Obama administration to mandate Obamacare exchange eligibility for DREAMers, a term used to describe  illegal immigrants who are granted Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status.

Wilson wasn’t wrong. He was prescient.

Tags: Joe Wilson , Barack Obama , Obamacare , Illegal Immigration

The Silver Lining of Any Senate Race Runoffs



Text  



Assuming either or both Senate races go to a runoff, how do you think voters in Louisiana and/or Georgia will respond to President Obama issuing an executive-order quasi-amnesty for illegal immigrants? Do you think Mary Landrieu and Michelle Nunn are hoping Obama will announce it quickly? Do you think Bill Cassidy and David Perdue would appreciate the extra passion and fury added to the Republican grassroots?

Note that at least so far, the form of executive-order-amnesty discussed has been to issue “safe harbor from deportation and work permits” for one million to four million illegal immigrants, not full citizenship so it would not change the makeup of the electorate in Louisiana and Georgia for the runoffs. The number of illegal immigrants voting in those states would be . . . well, no more than usual.

“Not now, Mr. President!”

Tags: Illegal Immigration , Runoffs , Georgia , Louisiana

The Pro-Illegal-Voting Advocates Begin to Speak



Text  



Also in today’s Jolt, a quick look at the coming argument that illegal immigrants voting in United States elections in violation of the law is a good thing:

The Pro-Illegal-Voting Advocates Begin to Speak

A letter to the editor in the Arizona Republic:

Mona Charen is worried about non-citizen immigrants voting fraudulently and tipping the scales of close elections, probably in favor of Democrats (“Voter ID laws help address election fraud,” Opinions, Thursday).

Even if the one study she references is correct, where’s the harm?

Considering the pitiful voter turnout among ID-holding voters, these “frauds” should be commended for risking prison time to participate in an election process that their citizen counterparts don’t care enough about to get off the couch or lick an envelope.

Those election criminals pay taxes and work low-wage jobs, their children attend our schools, and they join us in church. They are vested in the community, and if they vote, it shows.

And if their votes should change election results, fine. The citizen couch potatoes have no right to complain.

Let’s concede a molecule of agreement here, in that I can’t stand people who complain about government but don’t vote for the candidate they deem least contrary to their interests.

But . . . we, as American citizens, have the right to not vote. It can be interpreted as an assent to the status quo, or a disavowal of all of the options. If I move to a new community, and they’re holding local elections, and I know none of the candidates or issues, am I being a “couch potato” by not voting? Or simply responsible in choosing to not weigh in when I wouldn’t make an informed choice?

As for “where’s the harm?” — a gentle reminder that it’s against the law. And if non-citizens can vote, then we might as well outsource our governance to the United Nations. A core element of sovereignty is that the leadership of a particular country is chosen only by the citizens of that country — otherwise you might as well allow Russians to cross the border and vote in Ukrainian elections. For that matter, if there is no benefit to citizenship — i.e., the right to vote, a right that non-citizens do not get — then there is no value to it.

And if there’s no value to it . . . why be a citizen of the United States?

Tags: Illegal Immigration , Voter Fraud , Elections

Are You a U.S. Citizen? Take Your Time on This Question.



Text  



Also in today’s Jolt, a key update to Friday’s story about a study suggesting that large numbers of non-citizens vote in U.S. elections:

Maybe Not Quite So Many Non-Citizen Votes After All?

The Washington Post’s Monkey Blog returns to the topic of non-citizen voting, and collects the evidence suggesting that the shocking report from Friday may be inaccurate. Apparently it is surprisingly easy for some people to forget whether they’re U.S. citizens or not.

Nearly one-fifth of CCES panelists who said that they were not American citizens in 2012 actually reported being American citizens when they were originally surveyed for the 2010 CCES. Since it’s illogical for non-citizens in 2012 to have been American citizens back in 2010, it appears that a substantial number of self-reported non-citizens inaccurately reported their (non)citizenship status in the CCES surveys.

Even more problematic, misreported citizenship status was most common among respondents who claimed to be non-citizen voters. The second table below shows that 41 percent of self-reported non-citizen voters in the 2012 CCES reported being citizens back in 2010. The table goes on to show that 71 percent of respondents, who said that they were both 2012 non-citizens and 2010 voters, had previously reported being citizens of the United States in the 2010 CCES.

How does one forget something like that?

Is it that the respondents aren’t taking the survey seriously? Do they check one box when they meant to check another?

And even if the error rate among respondents is considerable, it doesn’t explain all of the respondents who said they were non-citizens who voted in either 2008 or 2010. (Also remember that this only counts people who admitted to the pollster that they were non-citizens and voted illegally; it’s quite possible some non-citizens did so and didn’t want to admit they did.)

The survey said it had 339 non-citizen respondents in 2008 and 489 in 2010. Assume that half of the respondents are confused about their citizenship status, joking, or marking the wrong response, and this would halve the numbers in their conclusions: about 7 percent of non-citizens registered to vote, 3.2 percent of non-citizens voting in 2008 and and 1.1 percent of non-citizens voting in 2010.

That’s still a lot. The commonly cited figure is that there are 11 to 12 million illegal immigrants in this country, and 13.1 million legal permanent residents living in the U.S. (green-card holders).

If 3.2 percent of those 24 million non-citizens are voting in a presidential year, that amounts to 768,000 votes that are illegal and should not be counted.

If 1.1 percent of those 24 million non-citizens are voting in a midterm election year, that amounts to 264,000 votes that are illegal and should not be counted.

Tags: Illegal Immigration , Voter Fraud

Obama Administration Released Illegal Immigrants Charged With Homicide



Text  



The opening section of the Morning Jolt spells out why Republicans would be fools to even consider any “comprehensive immigration reform” in the lame-duck session . . . or before the end of the Obama administration, really . . . 

Obama Administration Released Illegal Immigrants Charged With Homicide

This administration lies, and lies, and lies:

New records contradict the Obama administration’s assurances to Congress and the public that the 2,200 people it freed from immigration jails last year to save money had only minor criminal records.

The records, obtained by USA TODAY, show immigration officials released some undocumented immigrants who had faced far more serious criminal charges, including people charged with kidnapping, sexual assault, drug trafficking and homicide.

The release sparked a furor in Congress. Republican lawmakers accused the Obama administration of setting dangerous criminals free. In response, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said it had released “low-risk offenders who do not have serious criminal records,” a claim the administration repeated to the public and to members of Congress.

The new records, including spreadsheets and hundreds of pages of e-mails, offer the most detailed information yet about the people ICE freed as it prepared for steep, across-the-government spending cuts in February 2013. They show that although two-thirds of the people who were freed had no criminal records, several had been arrested or convicted on charges more severe than the administration had disclosed.

Notice how many advocates of “comprehensive immigration reform” will ignore this inconvenient story and continue insisting the administration can be trusted to sort through the 11 million or so illegal immigrants and sort out the ones who are a danger to Americans.

This is actually the administration’s second lie on the matter:

The director of U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, John Morton, said his agency had released 2,228 illegal immigrants during that period for what he called “solely budgetary reasons.” The figure was significantly higher than the “few hundred” immigrants the Obama administration had publicly acknowledged were released under the budget-savings process. He testified during a hearing by a House appropriations subcommittee.

The allegedly cruel, xenophobic, and ignorant border-security crowd said that if we stopped deporting children who came to the United States illegally, it would create an incentive for more of them — and this summer they were proven right. Those same critics, mostly but not entirely on the right, argued that the administration saw illegal immigrants as a source of future votes, and put that goal over all other priorities and considerations. For this claim, they were mocked and derided; administration defenders insisted our government would never do that.

Shortly after his administration told this lie, Obama went to Ohio State and told the graduates to “reject” cynical voices telling them that government was the problem, that it was incompetent, and that it couldn’t be trusted.

Tags: Illegal Immigration , Barack Obama

Blue Oregon . . . Strongly Opposed to Driver’s Permits for Illegal Immigrants



Text  



Something to keep in mind for future immigration debates: Oregon — deep-blue, heavily Democratic, crunchy, progressive, let-me-pour-you-another-organic-quinoa-microbrew Oregon — appears set to decisively reject a proposal to provide driver’s permits to individuals who cannot prove legal residence in the state.

The driver cards would be issued by the Driver and Motor Vehicle Services Division. As with a driver’s license, the recipient would have to pass the state’s written driver knowledge test and behind-the-wheel driver test, provide proof of residence in Oregon for more than one year, proof of identity and date of birth.
Unlike a license, the recipient would not have to prove legal U.S. residency.

The pro-measure Yes on Oregon Safe Roads political action committee has raised about $421,000, a relatively small amount for a statewide campaign. Meanwhile, the main opposition group has raised just over $37,000.

Despite the lop-sided fundraising, recent polling suggests the ballot measure will lose, heavily. Sixty percent of likely voters polled by Oregon Public Broadcasting earlier this month said they firmly or tentatively opposed a driver card. Only 31 percent firmly or tentatively supported the measure, OPB said. The margin of error was 4.3 percentage points.

It appears a wide swath of the population does not like the idea of giving driver’s licenses to people in the country illegally. Even if someone doesn’t necessarily approve of mass deportation, they may be wary — or downright staunchly opposed to the idea of changing existing laws to make life easier for illegal immigrants.

You may recall that journalist Jose Antonio Vargas, who is not in the U.S. legally, recieved his first driver’s license in Oregon, applying there because the requirements for proof of residency were least strict in that state at the time. The state changed its laws in 2008.

Tags: Oregon , Illegal Immigration , Driver's Licenses

No Obama Immigration Action Until After November Elections



Text  



A new GOP message for the midterms: November is your last chance to send a message to President Obama to not unilaterally rewrite America’s immigration policy!

If this is such a great idea, why wait until after the elections? Perhaps it’s not such a good idea!

In fact, if 74 percent of Americans oppose the president doing this unilaterally… maybe it’s a terrible idea, hm?

Allahpundit, on why Obama’s waiting: “Once the people have been safely duped and the votes are in, Obama will announce his mega-amnesty in November or December. The point is to ensure that voters aren’t making a fully informed choice when they go to the polls this fall. That might turn out badly for the left, so the king is once again exercising his royal prerogative to shield them from political difficulty. Just like he did repeatedly in moving statutory deadlines around for ObamaCare.”

Tags: Barack Obama , Illegal Immigration

How Many Unaccompanied Minors Did HHS Release to Sponsors in Your County?



Text  



Also in today’s Jolt:

How Many Unaccompanied Minors Did HHS Release to Sponsors in Your County?

Here’s a nice way to localize a national issue:

Congressman Bill Cassidy (R-LA) denounced the Obama Administration’s practice of sending illegal immigrants to Louisiana. The Obama Administration released state-by-state and county-level breakdowns of the number of illegal immigrants, showing there were 1,275 UAC released to sponsors in Louisiana between January 1 to July 31, 2014.

Parish-level breakdown of UAC in Louisiana:
East Baton Rouge Parish (Baton Rouge) — 173
Jefferson Parish (Southwest of NOLA) — 533
Lafayette Parish (Lafayette) — 51
Orleans Parish (New Orleans) — 237
St. Tammany Parish (Slidell, N. of NOLA) — 54
Total in Louisiana — 1,275

Cassidy released the following statement:

“The Obama Administration announced that more than 1,200 illegal immigrants have been placed in Louisiana. This highlights how President Obama’s failure to secure the borders and properly enforce our immigration laws has impacted Louisiana. This crisis has further highlighted the inability of President Obama to lead on important issues. Senate Democrats are equally responsible. They left Washington without taking action. We must secure our borders and stop President Obama’s executive amnesty.”

That’s aspiring senator Cassidy, of course.

See how many unaccompanied border children HHS released to sponsors in your county here. For example, HHS announced they released 1,023 unaccompanied border children to sponsors in Fairfax County, Virginia.

Morning Jolt reader William Perry Pendley, an attorney and president of Mountain States Legal Foundation, writes in to point out that the government is not actually legally obligated to provide a free education to children who come here illegally.

The administration contends it is simple:

Under Federal law, State and local educational agencies (hereinafter “districts”) are required to provide all children with equal access to public education at the elementary and secondary level. Recently, we have become aware of student enrollment practices that may chill or discourage the participation, or lead to the exclusion, of students based on their or their parents’ or guardians’ actual or perceived citizenship or immigration status.

Not so, says Pendley:

“The Obama administration is asserting that a Supreme Court decision in 1982, Plyler v. Doe, mandates that all schools in the country educate kids who are here illegally free of charge,” he said. “They’re taking it a step further and saying you can’t even ask about a student’s citizenship. They are also saying the Civil Rights Act says we have to educate people regardless of their citizenship, but that’s untrue, what the Civil Rights Act says is that we cannot discriminate on the basis of national origin, but what that means is ethnicity.”

Pendley said times have changed drastically since the Plyler decision, and government policies should reflect that.

U.S. taxpayers pay taxes to create public-school systems to educate American children. While it may be nice or generous or charitable to educate children here illegally, it is hard to conclude that it would be criminal for a school system to bar children who entered the country illegally. A school system does not have unlimited resources. (There are more than a million children on the wait lists for charter schools nationwide.) Our lax border-security policies are adding tens of thousands of children — most of whom are ESL — to America’s school systems.

Tags: Illegal Immigration , Public Schools , Border Security , Bill Cassidy

The Border Crisis: Forgotten, But Not Gone



Text  



The news cycle shifts, but the once-heavily-covered problems — like the humanitarian crisis on America’s southern border – remain.

The good news, of a sort, is that the number of children crossing our border is declining; the Department of Homeland Security said it detained 5,508 children caught crossing the border in July, down from 10,628 in June. (Perhaps Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatamala are running out of children.) 

But the current off-peak rate still amounts to a lot of children, The Daily Beast notes: “The number of unaccompanied minors coming across the border is fewer now than it was several weeks ago—perhaps down by as much as two-thirds. But there are still 100 of these kids crossing the border every day, down from 300 in June. That’s 3,000 kids a month that the federal government doesn’t have a clue what to do with.”

USA Today: “Public schools are preparing for up to 50,000 border children to enroll this fall.”

MSNBC: “With the border crisis showing no sign of abating anytime soon, potential Republican candidates are already positioning themselves in very different ways to try and win over prospective voters on this critical, politically divisive issue.”

ABOVE: Gov. Rick Perry of Texas greets President Barack Obama in Dallas, July 9, when the president visited the state for a pair of political fundraising events.

Tags: Border Crisis , Illegal Immigration

Our Political Elites’ Deadly Lack of Interest in a Secure Border



Text  



From the Thursday Morning Jolt:

Another Fatal Consequence of Our Political Class’ Disinterest in a Secure Border

Awful, predictable, and awfully predictable:

Two illegal immigrants from Mexico who were charged with first-degree murder in the shooting death of an off-duty U.S. Border Patrol agent in front of his family in Texas have been arrested and deported numerous times, police sources told FoxNews.com.

One suspect has been arrested no fewer than four times for entering the U.S. illegally, according to federal court records. The other has been deported twice after entering the U.S. illegally, sources said.

Gustavo Tijerina, 30, and Ismael Hernandez, 40, were arraigned Tuesday afternoon inside the Willacy County jail library. They were ordered held without bail after being charged with capital murder of a peace officer, attempted murder, and a variety of lesser charges.

The pair, who have been living in Texas illegally, confessed after being interviewed multiple times Monday to killing Border Patrol agent Javier Vega Jr. in front of his wife and two kids and his parents Sunday night while they were fishing in Santa Monica, Sheriff Larry Spence told FoxNews.com. The National Border Patrol Council, the union that represented Vega, has set up a memorial fund on behalf of his widow and three young children.

Let’s face it, a murdered U.S. Border Patrol agent isn’t necessarily something new for this administration.  We’ll have to wait and see if the gun used in this crime was one from Fast & Furious.

The lack of a secure border is an entirely theoretical problem for most of our political class. Lawmakers rarely if ever encounter illegal immigrants, much less dangerous ones, on Capitol Hill, or at their high-dollar fundraisers. Illegal immigrants don’t climb over the fence of Camp David or the White House.  The President isn’t likely to run into many illegal immigrants in his upcoming two-week vacation at Martha’s Vineyard.

This administration likes to brag about the number of deportations going up, but as the example of these men show, a deportation doesn’t mean much if, after they arrive in their home country, they can just turn around and cross the border into the United States. We need a border that is difficult to breach; otherwise our deportation policy amounts to a revolving door. 

Tags: Border Crisis , Illegal Immigration

Tom Cotton, Scott Brown Hit Democratic Rivals on Illegal Immigration



Text  



In Arkansas, GOP Rep. Tom Cotton hits incumbent Democrat Sen. Mark Pryor for “voting for amnesty”, “voting for citizenship for illegals” and “voting against a border fence” in a new television ad.

Scott Brown also focused on illegal immigration in a new television ad:

Tags: Scott Brown , Tom Cotton , Mark Pryor , Jeanne Shaheen , Illegal Immigration

‘Legal Protections and Work Permits’ For Up to Five Million Illegal Immigrants



Text  



National immigration policy is not supposed to be set by one man:

Obama aides have discussed a range of options that could provide legal protections and work permits to a significant portion of the nation’s more than 11 million undocumented residents, said Democratic lawmakers and immigrant advocates who have met recently with White House officials. Ideas under consideration could include temporary relief for law-abiding undocumented immigrants who are closely related to U.S. citizens or those who have lived in the country a certain number of years — a population that advocates say could reach as high as 5 million.

Aren’t we all glad we elected and re-elected a constitutional law professor who could unilaterally decree he’s decided Congress has no role in setting immigration policy?

Tags: Barack Obama , Illegal Immigration

Watch Tucker Carlson and Kirsten Powers Go Mano-A-Mano Over Immigration, Jesus



Text  



Who[m] would Jesus deport? That was the question in a pulverizing pileup of powerhouse pundits Thursday as Fox News panjandrums Tucker Carlson and Kirsten Powers went toe-to-toe over the crisis of unaccompanied Central American minor illegal immigrants.

In a heated exchange on Outnumbered, veteran journalist and Daily Caller co-founder Carlson, filling the #OneLuckyGuy position, debated the nature of America, the duties of the church militant, the function of political asylum and even the Jewish Question with Powers, a columnist and former Clinton-administration staffer.

Powers opened by calling the Republican position on immigration “the opposite of humanitarian” and Americans’ popular opposition to receiving immigrants fleeing distressed countries “un-American.”

When Carlson objected, Powers hit back by citing the Statue of Liberty (which was made in France) and suggesting that helping out undocumented immigrants is a Christian duty. Carlson noted that the world is full of countries with much worse problems than Honduras and Nicaragua, from which many of the unaccompanied children have been arriving at the United States border.

“So I have an obligation to share my earnings and my country with people I’ve never met because they are suffering?” Carlson asked.

“Yes,” Powers responded. “You absolutely do. Are you a Christian? Have you read the Bible? Because the Bible is crystal clear.”

“This is not a theocracy,” said Carlson. “The country is not run on Christian precepts.”

The shouting match ranged into the distinction between voluntary Christian charity and the public duties of government, with Powers invoking Ronald Reagan’s citation of John Winthrop’s phrase “City On a Hill” (modified to “Shining City On a Hill”) and Carlson criticizing Christian activists for encouraging immigrants to go on the public dole.

Though Powers brought up The Jews, she avoided Godwin’s law by comparing Honduran immigrants to shtetl Jews of Eastern Europe rather than the victims of the Nazi Holocaust.

“You don’t think Jewish people fleeing pogroms should have been allowed into this country?” she said.

“Oh come on now,” Carlson responded. “That’s completely silly.”

Liberal commentator Powers has won the hearts of many conservatives with her rueful countenance and sharp criticisms of the Obama administration (last year she announced that her own insurance had been canceled due to Obamacare), while Carlson is widely acknowledged to have the best hair in Washington (male division).

Outnumbered co-hosts Kimberly Guilfoyle and Jedediah Bila took Carlson’s side, arguing that U.S. rule of law should prevail and that the government’s first duty should be to American citizens.

Tags: Illegal Immigration , Tucker Carlson , Kirsten Powers , Fox News , Immigration Bill

George Will: ‘The Idea That We Can’t Assimilate These Eight-year-old Criminals with Their Teddy Bears Is Preposterous’



Text  



Columnist George Will Sunday downplayed concerns about chaos at the border over the surge in underage illegal immigrants without adult guardians.

“We ought to say to these children, ‘Welcome to America. You’re going to go to school, get a job, and become Americans,’” Will said during an appearance on Fox News Sunday.

Will dismissed objections that the country can’t assimilate the 57,000 unaccompanied children from Central America who have been appearing at the U.S. border with Mexico.

“We have 3,141 counties in this country,” he said. “That would be 20 per county. The idea that we can’t assimilate these eight-year-old criminals with their teddy bears is preposterous.”

Calling the North American Free Trade Agreement “Bill Clinton’s greatest act . . . which put the Mexican economy on the road to prosperity,” Will suggested something similar for Honduras and Nicaragua, and said American needs to curtail consumption of drugs illegally imported from these countries.

Tags: Illegal Immigration , Mexico , George Will , Free Trade , Sunday Shows July 27 2014

Pages

Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

Subscribe to National Review