This article detailed how some “Sanctuary” colleges will not cooperate with immigration authorities.
Consider this excerpt from this article:
“Faculty at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, who would like to see the school become a sanctuary campus, met on Monday with administrators to “have a better sense of what their expectations are for a sanctuary campus,” said Joanne Berger-Sweeney, the school’s president. Her faculty expressed interest in the school declining to pass immigration information to federal authorities, and in establishing a network of alumni who are willing to offer pro bono legal help to undocumented students.”
Napolitano — who served as Secretary of Homeland Security under the Obama administration, charged with protecting the nation’s borders — put out a statement Wednesday that her office will “vigorously protect the privacy and civil rights of the undocumented members of the UC community and will direct its police departments not to undertake joint efforts with any government agencies to enforce federal immigration law.”
The announcement comes as students in the country illegally and their peer allies are distraught that there might be mass deportations of undocumented students under a Donald Trump presidency. Many student leaders have announced their schools are “sanctuary campuses.” Now campus leaders are essentially following suit.
According to Napolitano’s office, there are about 2,500 undocumented students enrolled across the 10-campus UC system.
“While we still do not know what policies and practices the incoming federal administration may adopt, given the many public pronouncements made during the presidential campaign and its aftermath, we felt it necessary to reaffirm that UC will act upon its deeply held conviction that all members of our community have the right to work, study, and live safely and without fear at all UC locations,” Napolitano stated.
The article went on to report:
With that, the University of California also issued its “Statement of Principles in Support of Undocumented Members of the UC Community,” outlining measures they will take to protect DACA students:
The University will continue to admit students consistent with its nondiscrimination policies so that undocumented students will be considered for admission under the same criteria as U.S. citizens or permanent residents.
It is important to consider Napolitano’s statement about all members of the community “living safely and without fear at all UC locations.”
How safe are students and faculty members on campuses where illegal aliens are shielded from detection by federal authorities?
Napolitano stated that all members of the community have the right to work. Illegal aliens, however, are forbidden, by law, from working in the United States.
When Napolitano was the Secretary of Homeland Security, she was in charge of the DHS agencies responsible for the enforcement and administer of the immigration laws yet she now equates immigration laws with discrimination.
The DHS was created in the wake of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. The enforcement and administration of our immigration laws were moved from the Justice Department to the DHS because it was understood that border security and the enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws were matters of national security.
Our immigration laws are oblivious about race, religion or ethnicity but seek to prevent the entry or continued presence of foreign nationals (aliens) whose presence would pose a threat to national security or public health or public safety.
Title 8, United States Code, Section 1182 enumerates the categories of aliens who are to be excluded from entering the United States. This includes aliens who suffer from dangerous communicable, diseases or extreme mental illness, are convicted felons, human rights violators, war criminals, terrorists and spies.
Aliens who enter the United States without inspection may have evaded that critical vetting process at ports of entry because they have criminal histories, may be fugitives or know that their names are listed on counter-terrorism watch-lists.
Some aliens who are subject to deportation (removal) were lawfully admitted into the United States but subsequently violated their terms of admission. Some of these aliens are now subject to deportation because the have, since entry, have been convicted of committing felonies.
Janet Napolitano must certainly be aware of this yet she seeks to harbor illegal aliens who may well be criminals, fugitives or even terrorists on college campuses, including the campuses of the University of California she presides over.
Yet the article noted that “The University will not cooperate with any federal effort to create a registry of individuals based on any protected characteristics such as religion, national origin, race or sexual orientation.”
Schools that admit foreign students are required to notify the DHS when foreign students fail to maintain their status as students.
On August 30 2016 the ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) website posted a news release, “ICE releases quarterly international student data” that reported that more than 1.1 million foreign students are currently enrolled in more than 8,000 schools and universities across the United States.
Thousands of foreign students have gone missing in the United States. How many are being harbored today on “Sanctuary campuses?”
The Department ofHomeland Security has lost track of more than 6,000 foreign nationals who entered the United States on student visas, overstayed their welcome, and essentially vanished — exploiting a security gap that was supposed to be fixed after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.
“My greatest concern is that they could be doing anything,” said Peter Edge, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement official who oversees investigations into visa violators. “Some of them could be here to do us harm.”
Homeland Security officials disclosed the breadth of the student visa problem in response to ABC News questions submitted as part of an investigation into persistent complaints about the nation’s entry program for students.
ABC News found that immigration officials have struggled to keep track of the rapidly increasing numbers of foreign students coming to the U.S. — now in excess of one million each year. The immigration agency’s own figures show that 58,000 students overstayed their visas in the past year. Of those, 6,000 were referred to agents for follow-up because they were determined to be of heightened concern.
“They just disappear,” said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. “They get the visas and they disappear.”
Coburn said since the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, 26 student visa holders have been arrested in the U.S. on terror-related charges.
Tightening up the student visa program was one of the major recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission, after it was determined that the hijacker who flew Flight 77 into the Pentagon, Hani Hanjour, had entered the U.S. on a student visa but never showed up for school.
The official report, “9/11 and Terrorist Travel – Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States” focused specifically on terrorists entered the United States and ultimately embedded themselves as they went about their deadly preparations.
Page 47 of this report noted:
“Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.” Mohammed Salameh, who rented the truck used in the bombing, overstayed his tourist visa. He then applied for permanent residency under the agricultural workers program, but was rejected. Eyad Mahmoud Ismail, who drove the van containing the bomb, took English-language classes at Wichita State University in Kansas on a student visa; after he dropped out, he remained in the United States out of status.
For starters, any school that declares itself to be a “Sanctuary” for illegal aliens should have its authority to issue the form I-20 to foreign students summarily revoked.
Foreign students must present that form (I-20) to the U.S. embassy or consulate in order to be issued a student visa so that they may be admitted into the United States to attend school.
Foreign student advisors at each and every school are responsible for notifying DHS about foreign students who fail to attend those schools for which they were granted visas. Clearly “Sanctuary Schools” cannot be trusted to cooperate fully with the DHS and make proper notification to the DHS.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/sanctuary-campus-protest-e1481192814947.jpg360640Michael Cutlerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMichael Cutler2016-12-08 05:27:172016-12-09 05:56:13SANCTUARY CAMPUSES: How the safety of students and faculty are compromised to achieve the leftist agenda
Unfortunately it is the man in charge of deporting illegal aliens in the country who has the defeatist attitude and he should be fired! What do you think those in DHS think when the man in charge says we can’t do the job? He is easy to spot with his head cocked back, staring down his nose and spewing condescending remarks. Is he really the best we can do in the way of having someone in charge of our safety and security?
Somebody should relate to him the huge number deported back to Mexico in 1954 authorized by former President Eisenhower and with only 1,054 officers in what was known as OPERATION WETBACK! Those men certainly didn’t hear the general say we can’t do it! How many are employed today to do what the general did with 1,054 officers?
Has anybody taken the time to introduce the Secretary of DHS to a program called E-VERIFY that was promised by Congress in 1986 in order for all employed to be legal workers?
Secretary Johnson would be amazed if E-VERIFY were passed and enforced the lines heading out of the country would be as long as those ever were coming here by taking away the major magnet for illegal aliens and visa over stayers to be here. The reduction in costs to American Taxpayers would be dramatic as the burden to educate, medicate and incarcerate them would be diminished and it would jump start the economy as legal workers would replace illegal workers and the money earned here would be spent here.
By the way, is there currently a bill in either the House or Senate to implement mandatory E-Verify? I know the answer and SHAME ON YOU for saying you support American workers while not protecting them.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/operation-wetback-1954.jpg354640George R. Fullerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngGeorge R. Fuller2015-03-05 18:07:362015-03-06 06:17:36Who said we can’t deport 11 million people — Remembering Operation Wetback
It was supposed to be a phone call for Obama administration ears only. But hear it the radio host did, she says. And what she heard should make your blood run cold — and perhaps your rage hot. Obama’s amnesty plan is to use illegal aliens as “seedlings,” said the federal officials. They will “navigate, not assimilate,” as they “take over the host,” create a “country within a country” and start “pushing the citizens into the shadows.”
Welcome to the “fundamental transformation” of America.
The above was alleged by WCBM radio co-host Sue Payne in an interview with talk giant Mark Levin last Thursday. Payne says that while at an immigration rally, she became privy to three conference calls in which 16 Obama administration officials — including Cecilia Muñoz, director of Obama’s White House Domestic Policy Council — discussed plans for what could only be called the final destruction of traditional America and the cementing of leftist hegemony. Muñoz, by the way, is perfectly suited to this task; she was once a senior vice president for the anti-American Hispanic lobbying organization the National Council of La Raza.
Oh, la raza means “the race” (I guess the whole “‘Hispanic’ is an ethnicity” thing doesn’t cut much ice with them).
Payne opened the interview by explaining that what Obama actually did on November 21 — the day he signed his supposed executive amnesty — was create the “Task Force on New Americans” (TFNA) for the purposes of implementing his legalization scheme. And it won’t be applied to just 5 million illegals, but “13 to 15 million to give protection [to] and move…on to citizenship,” reports Payne.
Payne then said that the illegals, labeled “seedlings,” would eventually “take over the host.” She continued, “And the immigrants will come out of the shadows, and what I got from the meetings was that they would be pushing the citizens into the shadows. They would be taking over the country; in fact, one of the members of the task force actually said that we would be developing a country within a country.”
To this nefarious end, the goal of the TFNA is to create a “welcoming feeling” in illegal-seeded localities, which would be redesignated “receiving communities.” They’d subsequently be transformed (fundamentally, I suppose) into what are labeled “emerging immigrant communities” — or as some would say, México Norte.
The officials also said, reports Payne, that for the seedlings to “grow” they needed “fertile soil” (a.k.a. your tax money). The officials stated that the legalized aliens needed to be redesignated as “refugees” and be given cash, medical care, credit cards for purchasing documents and — since many illegals will be older — Social Security so they can “age successfully within their country within a country,” to quote Payne. As she then put it, it’s “as if we were funding our own destruction here.”
Some may point out that Payne has no smoking gun (that we know of) in the form of, let’s say, a recording of the calls. But Levin vetted her and found her credible, calling the scheme “stunning” and reflective of “Mao’s China.” I believe her as well, but it doesn’t even matter. She simply confirms what I’ve been warning of for yearsandyearsoverandoveragain: The Left is importing their voters, engaging in demographic warfare and authoring the death of the republic.
Mind you, legal immigration itself is a sufficient vehicle for this. Ever since the Immigration Reform and Nationality Act of 1965, 85 percent of our immigrants have hailed from the Third World and Asia, thus growing leftist constituencies that vote for socialistic Democrats by approximately a four-to-one margin; in contrast and as Pat Buchanan pointed out, “[N]early 90 percent of all Republican votes in presidential elections are provided by Americans of European descent.” This, along with hatred and bigotry, is a major reason why Obama and his ilk want to destroy white America.
But liberals crave immediate gratification, and amnesty greatly accelerates this process. Legalize 15 million socialist voters clamoring for handouts, have them bring in relatives via chain migration — give them Social Security numbers which they can use to vote (as is Obama’s plan) — and tomorrow’s leftist dystopia is today. I predicted this in 2008, by the way, writing:
The coup de grace Obama will use against rightist opposition is mostly embodied in one word: amnesty. This, along with some other measures, will both grow the Hispanic voting block and ingratiate Obama to it. This will enable him to create a powerful coalition of blacks, young voters and Hispanics that, along with the older whites he will be able to retain, will constitute an insurmountable electoral force. And this is why amnesty has long been a dream of the Democrats. Even easier than brainwashing new voters (which the media and academia specialize in) is importing them.
Admittedly, I can be criticized since the above article is titled “How Obama Will Ensure His Victory in 2012.” But titles are hooks as much as anything else. And since I don’t have a crystal ball, just a not yet crystallized brain, I’d never claim to be able to perfectly predict timing. It also turned out that Obama and the 2009 to 2011Democrat House and Senate were preoccupied with instituting ObamaCare, and that the liberal legislators were perhaps too cowardly to face re-election having passed amnesty. Regardless, I have another prediction, one I hope you’ll take seriously:
The chances are slim to nil that Obama’s amnesty will be stopped legislatively.
Obama against John Boehner is the Beltway Brawler vs. the Beltway Bawler. Moreover, I suspect establishment Republicans — who just refused to defund Obama’s scheme — want executive amnesty. Why? Because the issue has been an albatross around their necks. And while they don’t have the guts or desire to really stand against Invasion USA, they also know voting for amnesty would mean electoral disaster. So, let Obama act unilaterally, huff and puff a bit with a wink and a nod while doing nothing of substance, and “Voila!” The issue is off the table with plausible deniability of complicity.
And the courts? They may uphold the recent injunction against Obamnesty, but there’s no saying Obama won’t ignore the courts (he assuredly understands that judicial review is a jurist invention). And, anyway, amnesty was always only a matter of time with today’s cultural trajectory. Yet this cloud does have a silver lining.
The Left was very successful boiling the frog slowly with the legal importation of socialist voters and the gradual transformation of our culture via entertainment, the media and academia. But liberals’ childish haste may have led to a tactical error. By going all in on executive orders and amnesty — by transitioning from evolutionary to revolutionary change and turning the burner up high — the Left risks rousing that frog from his pan. And how should it jump?
Obama said after the November Republican victory that it was his “profound preference and interest to see Congress act on a comprehensive immigration reform bill” (emphasis added), but otherwise he’ll work via executive orders. He also offered the GOP a deal: “You send me a bill that I can sign, and those executive actions go away.”
Translation: My preference is to follow the Constitution.
But my will be done — one way or the other.
How to respond? Question: what do you do when someone says “My preference is to follow the game’s rules, but if I can’t win that way, I’ll have to cheat”? You can:
Continue losing; be a Charlie Brown sucker who keeps thinking that this time Lucy won’t pull the football away.
Cheat right back (hard to do without judges in your pocket).
Stop playing the game.
Now, conservatives, consummate ladies and gentlemen that they are, consistently choose option one. Far be it from them to violate the “law” even when it’s unconstitutional and therefore lawless. But I prefer option three.
This means nullification. Note that the Constitution is the contract Americans have with each other. And what happens when one party subject to a contract continually violates it in order to advantage itself, aided and abetted by corrupt judges?
The contract is rendered null and void.
Remember, cheaters don’t stop cheating until forced to. Governors and their legislatures need to man-up and tell the feds, “You like acting unilaterally and unconstitutionally? Two can play that game.” And this means not just ignoring Obama’s amnesty dictates, but nullifying a multitude of other things as well.
The other option is demographic and cultural genocide and the politics attending that. The Left knows this, too. Obama noted that growing “diversity hinders conservative priorities,” wrote the DC last month. Congressman Kurt Schrader (D-OR) said recently that amnesty “will decide who is in charge of this country for the next 20 or 30 years.” And an ex-advisor to former Prime Minister Tony Blair confessed in 2009 that the goal of the British Labour Party’s massive culture-rending immigration was to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”
Do you get it yet?
Defy and Nullify.
The alternative is to walk legally and quietly into that good night, going out not with a bang but a whimper, muttering something about 2016, the Supreme Court and pixie dust.
RELATED AUDIO: Mark Levin interviews Sue Payne on Feb. 26, 2015. The clip sheds light on the White House strategy with regards to “amnesty” and introduces terms like “White House Task Force on New Americans”, “Receiving Communities” and “Emerging Immigrant Communities”.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/illegal-europeans.jpg360640Selwyn Dukehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSelwyn Duke2015-03-05 05:46:382015-03-06 07:34:48Obama Amnesty Plan: Legalize Foreigners, “Take Over the Host,” Push “Citizens into the Shadows”
President Obama is set to announce his unconstitutional attempt to circumvent and subvert the constitutional powers of Congress on the night of November 20, 2014, as he attempts to single-handedly grant millions of illegal aliens defacto amnesty and then head off to Las Vegas to party with Harry Reid.
A little past noon Wednesday the 19th, the White House posted a Facebook announcement that reads as follows;
“It’s time to fix our broken immigration system. Tomorrow night (November 20th), President Obama will address the nation on new commonsense steps he’s taking to fix as much of it as he can. Tune in tomorrow at 8pm ET on http://WhiteHouse.gov/Immigration-Action #ImmigrationAction”
Does Obama have any constitutional authority to alter U.S. Immigration and Naturalization laws or rules via Executive Order?
The answer is not just NO, absolutely not!
Article I – Section 8, under the enumerated powers of Congress, the U.S. Constitution assigns all legal authority to establish rules and regulate United States Immigration and Naturalization solely to the U.S. Congress, which has indeed established a uniform set of rules for immigrating to the United States and becoming a United States citizen.
Article II relative to the Executive powers of the Oval Office makes no mention of any law-making authority whatsoever, any powers to regulate Immigration or Naturalization rules, or any power to circumvent or subvert the Laws of the United States as established by Congress. There is also no mention of Executive Orders or special executive powers in Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
Therefore, Obama has NO constitutional legal authority whatsoever to alter, circumvent, subvert or otherwise ignore the standing laws of the United States concerning Immigration and Naturalization.
Article I – Section I – “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
Article I – Section 8 – The Enumerated Powers of CONGRESS – “To establish a uniform rule of naturalization…”
The Executive Branch has one constitutional authority, and that is “to faithfully execute the laws of our land,” the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and our Immigration and Naturalization laws. Obama and all Democrats have openly and purposefully refused to do so and now, they threaten to run roughshod over congressional authority in broad daylight, expecting both Congress and the American people to lay down and silently take it.
Under Article II – Section I of the U.S. Constitution, “Before he (Obama) enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:–“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Contrary to popular modern “expert legal” opinions from lawyers never taught constitutional law or American history, the President of the United States is not granted any power of dictatorship. The Oval Office does not have any legal authority to rule the nation in any unilateral method.
As a result, any such effort on the part of any Oval Office occupant is a blatant effort to circumvent, subvert, undermine and destroy the Rule of Constitutional Law and the Constitutional Republic.
The power of Executive Orders are limited to items under the legal purview of the Executive Branch and they are limited to “executing the laws” established by Congress. Executive powers do not extend to law-making authority, nor do they extend to subverting or circumventing the laws of our land.
Further, Executive Orders can only stand with the approval of Congress. Congress has the constitutional authority to override any Executive Order that is beyond the legal purview of the Executive Branch under the U.S. Constitution.
NOT A DICTATORSHIP
The United States Constitution does not form a dictatorship, nor does it form a nine member unelected oligarchy called the Supreme Court, nor does it create a government of, by and for La Raza and millions of illegal aliens.
For Obama to successfully commit treason against the United States by aiding and abetting known criminal invaders of our nation, against the overwhelming will of legal American citizens and taxpayers, Congress will have to stand down and abdicate all constitutional congressional authority to the Executive or Judicial branches, rendering the US Congress complicit in the treason and worthy of total destruction by the American people.
WHAT CAN CONGRESS DO?
First, I state for the record – REPUBLICANS HAVE ALL THE POWER THEY NEED TO STOP EXECUTIVE ORDER AMNESTY DEAD, RIGHT NOW!
This means that for Obama to get away with what he is about to attempt, Congressional Republicans will have to allow him to get away with it. It means that Congressional Republicans want amnesty too, but want to be able to use Obama’s unilateral move as a political hammer later…
Second, although many Congressional Democrats are too ignorant to know or care that what Obama is about to attempt is both unconstitutional and illegal, Obama himself does know, which is why he has not already done it, before being bullied into doing it now.
So, if Republicans care to represent their constituents by upholding the Rule of Constitutional Law and protecting and defending the sovereignty and security of the United States, they will have to STOP OBAMA AMNESTY dead in its tracks. Or, they become complicit in Obama’s treason…
Now, the how…
Obama will attempt Executive Amnesty during this lame duck session of congress, before Republicans take control of both houses in January. He will do this because Republicans can hide behind not yet having control of the Senate, which they will falsely claim they must have in order to stop Obama.
However, because the issue is black and white, the power to regulate and make rules concerning Immigration and Naturalization resting in the sole legal purview of Congress, House Republicans can act right now to block Obama amnesty.
House Republicans can immediately move to pass a House Resolution declaring that President Obama has no constitutional authority to regulate Immigration and Naturalization rules, delegated as a sole authority of the U.S. Congress in Article I – Section 8 enumerated powers of Congress, nor any power to circumvent or subvert the Rule of Constitutional Law via Executive Order. This resolution will render any Executive Order on amnesty “null and void” on arrival, making it an illegal act for Immigration and Naturalization officials to act on that illegal order.
House Republicans can immediately file Article of Impeachment in the House Judiciary Committee, naming all Democrat co-conspirators to include Vice President Joe Biden, Senate Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, making it impossible for any of them to succeed Obama in the constitutional line of succession to the Oval Office.
A Senate impeachment trial can begin after the 114th Congress is sworn in on January 3rd, 2015.
There are more steps that can and should be taken by Congress after the first three steps identified above, but there is no point in discussing those steps until House Republicans have taken action on the above items.
In short, the American people do not have to sit back and tolerate the abuses of the executive office that have defined the Obama Administration for the past six years.
The people do not have to quietly accept illegal amnesty via executive fiat and neither does Congress.
I hope that President Obama does take this suicidal step, as it will bring about the end of his tyrannical despotic and fraudulent reign over America and begin the process of holding all of his co-conspirators fully and criminally accountable for their many acts of treason against the United States and the American people.
My only concern is what lies ahead for Congressional Republicans if they fail to faithfully execute the oaths of their offices and allow Obama to render Congress, the Constitution and our Republic extinct.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/President-Obama-3.jpg354630J.B. Williamshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJ.B. Williams2014-11-20 06:27:342014-11-20 09:04:04Republicans can stop Obama’s Executive Order Amnesty Dead, Right Now!
People really need to read the U.S. Constitution. It says, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.”
The Constitution makes no reference whatever to executive orders (EO). George Washington started the practice mostly because he had to. Traditionally executive orders have been treated by Congress as having the legal status of legislation, but only insofar as they apply to the management of how the government operates.
The Constitution makes it quite clear that the President has no power to enact laws, but as long as an EO does not unilaterally alter or negate existing legislation or run counter to the Constitution Congress usually accords it legitimacy. Those that do not honor the separation of powers have been struck down by the courts or by legislation that opposed them.
As is widely rumored and reported, if President Obama does attempt to issue amnesty to illegal aliens he would be over-riding or altering existing immigration law. He does not have the power to do that.
Such an executive order would be immediately challenged in the courts and if power in the Senate passes to the Republicans in the midterm elections, Congress would oppose it. With an eye on the 2016 elections, incumbent Democrats might not be willing to go along with an Obama amnesty EO.
Recent polls all demonstrate opposition to amnesty. In a September Investors Business Daily/TIPP poll 73% of the public said that Obama should work with Congress on immigration reform. After the invasion of an estimated 150,000 young people and others from Guatemala and San Salvador earlier this year, comprehensive immigration reform went from 54% approval last year to 48%.
When word leaked that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency had requested bids on a minimum of four million blank work permits and green cards a year for the next five years, there was an outcry in political and immigration policy circles. “There aren’t enough federal employees from here to Pluto to do adequate background checks on 34 million,” said Bob Dane, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
In September, the Census Bureau released new data on the U.S. population finding that the nation’s immigrant population (legal and illegal) hit a record 41.3 million in July 2013, an increase of 1.4 million since July 2010. Since 2000, the immigrant population is up 10.2 million and double the number in 1990, nearly triple the number in 1980, and guadruple that in 1970, which it stood at 9.6 million.
It’s no secret President Obama has wanted to get as many immigrants as possible, especially those from south of the border, into America. He has winked at the laws that determine immigration and citizenship. In 2011 many believed he had “enacted” the Dream Act by EO, but he had not. His administration instead adopted a policy regarding the deportation of illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, granting them the option of applying for two-year work permits. Even conservatives could find some merit in this, allowing them to gain legal status and apply for citizenship.
The amnesty issue would play havoc prior to the November 4 midterm elections, so Obama will wait until after them to announce his intentions. I doubt he thinks an executive order will go unchallenged, but at that point it will not matter to him since he will not be running for reelection in 2016. His indifference to constitutional restraints on his power as President is well known.
On October 22 Iowa Rep. Steve King, a Republican, predicted Obama will “violate the Constitution, break the law and grant executive amnesty.”
“If the President takes this action,” said Rep. King, “ (that) he’s threatened to take we will have abandoned every pretext of the Constitution of the United States and if the American people take that setting down or lying down, then our constitutional republic has been destroyed.”
Rep. King is right, but the Obama EO will be challenged in the courts and in Congress. If that effort is opposed by Democrats in Congress, their midterm losses will barely rival what the 2016 election will hold for them.
Their report found that, “While Florida has been among the states with the most job growth in both the short and long terms, much of the increase has gone to immigrants (legal and illegal).”
“Immigrants accounted for 52 percent of the net increase in employment among the working-age (16 to 65) since 2000, while accounting for only 33 percent of population growth among the working-age. The labor force participation rate of Florida’s working-age natives has fallen significantly since 2000 and remains low relative to other states. Despite these long-term trends, both of Florida’s senators supported the Gang of Eight bill (S.744), which would have roughly doubled future legal immigration and granted legal status to illegal immigrants,” note Camarota and Zeigler.
Specific findings include:
Relative to other states, Florida ranked second in the nation in employment growth among 16- to 65-year-olds over the last 14 years, but most of these gains have gone to immigrant workers (legal and illegal).
From the first quarter of 2000 to the first quarter of 2014, 52 percent of the net increase in employment among Florida’s working-age (16 to 65) population has gone to immigrants (legal and illegal), even though they accounted for only 33 percent of population growth.
Since the jobs recovery began in 2010, 64 percent of net employment growth among the state’s working-age population has gone to immigrants.
Even though the state ranked high in employment growth, Florida still ranked 34th in 2014 in terms of the labor force participation of its native-born population (16 to 65).
Among young natives 16 to 29 years of age, Florida ranked 35th in labor force participation.
In 2000, two million working-age natives were not working (unemployed or out of the labor market entirely); by 2014 it was nearly 3.3 million — a 62 percent increase.
Perhaps most striking, through the first quarter of this year, the labor force participation rate of natives shows no improvement in Florida, even after the jobs recovery began in 2010.
If the employment rate of natives (16 to 65) in the first quarter of 2014 were what it was in 2000, 768,000 more natives would be working.
New immigrants took jobs across Florida’s labor market, including lower-skilled jobs such as maintenance and construction, middle-skilled jobs such as sales and office support, and higher-skilled jobs such as management and health care professions.
While agriculture gets a lot of attention in the state, it employs a tiny share of immigrant workers — less than 1 percent.
The supply of potential workers in Florida is enormous: half a million native-born college graduates were not working in the first quarter of 2014, as were one million with some college and 1.4 million with no more than a high school education.
The labor force participation of black, Hispanic, young, and less-educated workers in Florida show the biggest declines.
In September 2013, many of Florida’s biggest employers including Disney, American Airlines, UPS, and Honeywell, along with a number of other companies, jointly signed a letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) arguing that there are not enough workers in the country — skilled and unskilled. The letter read in part that, “many of our companies continue to have difficulty finding sufficient American workers.”Both of Florida’s senators supported the Gang of Eight bill (S.744), which would roughly double legal immigration as well as grant legal status to illegal immigrants. In fact, Republican Sen. Marco Rubio was one of the bill’s chief architects. However, the employment picture for Florida’s native-born population continues to look bleak.
Janelle Irwin from WMNF Radio reports that more refugees from Syria are on their way to Florida. Irwin writes:
Nearly 30,000 refugees come into Florida every year from countries all over the world.
With ongoing violence in Syria, Simon Henshaw from the State Department says very few Syrian refugees have arrived in the U.S., but that’s about to change.
“We have pledged to take a significant number and we will start interviewing Syrian refugees soon. But it takes about 18-24 months for someone to run through our system. So, we will not, as a country, see a significant amount of Syrian refugees come into the U.S. until the end of next year and then into 2016.”
Henshaw works in the bureau of population, refugees and migration. He’s visiting Tampa on World Refugee Day to see how Tampa is integrating refugees. Most are from places like Haiti and Cuba where refugees have been displaced for years.
“Despite how horrific the Syria situation is, it’s really just reaching the point where refugees have been out of their countries for a long enough time to consider a resettlement program.”
During the 2014 legislative session the Republican controlled Florida Senate and House rewarded illegals with in-state tuition. Additionally, lawyers who are here illegally now have the right to practice law in the sunshine state. Guess who these lawyers are going to represent? Any questions on why?
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/florida-job-creation.jpg345640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2014-08-14 09:05:402014-08-14 09:20:35Florida: Since 2000 52% of jobs went to legal immigrants and illegal aliens
An email to supporters from the Julio Gonzalez campaign states, “Richard DeNapoli, candidate for District 74 State Representative, has been formally asked by the Florida Chamber Political Institute to discontinue the use of confidential information that he and his supporters have been using to attack Dr. Julio Gonzalez.”
So the Florida Chamber is angry that its information is being used against a candidate that it supports and endorses. It that a bad thing?
The Florida Chamber of Commerce joined with our partners at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers and the American and Florida Farm Bureau Federations in urging Congress and the administration to work together to enact immigration reform during a Day of Action – an effort that included events in Washington, DC and in more than 60 congressional districts across 25 states.
The Florida Chamber supports a comprehensive, federal approach to immigration reform – one that serves our nation’s best interest and is crucial for Florida as we position ourselves to win the global race for talent and jobs.
Comprehensive federal immigration reform is code for “amnesty.”
The campaign website for Dr. Julio Gonzales states, “Julio’s conservative pro-growth policies have earned him the endorsement of the Florida Chamber of Commerce.” There is no mention of immigration in the issues section of the Gonzales campaign website. Gonzalez has been endorsed by both the pro-amnesty Florida Chamber and Senator Marco Rubio, who is the Republican face for amnesty. What does that tell you about Gonzalez?
In stark contrast, Richard DeNapoli has these positions on immigration posted on his campaign website:
No Amnesty – period,
E-verify for all employers to ensure the jobs magnet for illegal aliens is turned off,
Oppose all Obama efforts to house illegal immigrants in Sarasota County jails,
Demand Congress act to secure the border,
Support completion of the border fence,
Shift taxpayer funding from benefits for illegal aliens to helping keep our commitment to caring for our Veterans.
It is clear where DeNapoli stands on immigration. It is not clear where Gonzalez stands, except that he stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the Florida Chamber of Commerce.
The August 26th Republican primary is upon us. Voters need to understand where the candidates stand on important issues like immigration.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2014-08-13 08:15:442014-08-14 09:26:15Why is the pro-amnesty Florida Chamber of Commerce defending Julio Gonzalez?
One reason predictions of a Mitt Romney victory in 2012 were inaccurate, say analysts, is that the turnout among certain Democrat constituencies — in particular blacks and Hispanics — was greater than expected. And what a significant factor this is. Whether we call it getting out the vote, having a great “ground game” or just turnout, it can make or break an election.
But while the phrase “getting out the vote” is well understood, there is a lesser known election strategy: getting in the vote. What’s the difference? While the former involves getting as many as possible of the set number of sympathetic potential voters to the polls, getting in the vote is the process by which you increase that number of sympathetic voters. This process is most effectively exercised by Democrats, and it’s done in two ways. One is by indoctrinating people — especially young people — via academia, the media and entertainment. The second way is through immigration.
Why immigration? Because virtually the whole world is, to use our provisional (and lacking) political terminology, to the “left” of America. In addition, indoctrinating a young person is effective, but it’s an expensive process that must continue throughout his formative and teen years. Far easier is to import ready-made leftists. The results are quicker, too: the targeted babe born today won’t be entering the voting booth for 18 years. An immigrant, however, can perhaps be naturalized in just a few years. And politicians are more interested in the next election than in a future election involving the next person to hold their seat.
Moreover, you have to add to this the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965’s creation of a status quo in which 85 percent of our immigrants now hail from the Third World and Asia. This is significant because, like it or not and whatever the causes, there is an ironclad correlation between racial/ethnic identification and voting patterns. The GOP derives 90 percent of its votes from approximately 63 percent of the population: whites. In contrast, there is no major non-white group (note that I’m including Hispanics in this even though most are anthropologically classified as Caucasian) that doesn’t break Democrat by wide margins. Blacks cast approximately 94 percent of their votes for Democrats, while Hispanics and Asians come in at about 75 percent.
So if you’re a Machiavellian leftist who values power above all else, what do you do?
You increase the non-white segment of the population while decreasing the white segment percentagewise — as much and as fast as possible.
Call this demographic warfare. The idea is that if the people won’t change the government to your liking, you change the people.
This places our current border crisis in perspective. It explains why Barack Obama will not enforce immigration law. It explains why we’ve had seven amnesties during the last few decades, all accompanied by unfulfilled promises to secure the border. And it explains why a promoter of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was hard-core leftist Ted Kennedy. Expecting power-hungry Democrats to seal the border and not facilitate the invasion of our nation is like supposing they will cancel their get-out-the-vote drives. Migration — illegal and legal — is one of the main ways in which they grow their constituencies.
Yet while we, again, face a largely statist world, Democrats would still prefer non-white migrants. There could be many reasons for this, but I will mention three. First, many such migrants are especially socialist, which is why south-of-the-border peoples have elected demagogues such as Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales. Second, they’re poor. This means that, unlike some European immigrants, they have no reason to be concerned about higher income tax rates. It also means that in a prosperous land in which they see wealth surrounding them, their socialist tendencies will be stoked all the more. Envy is a dangerous and easily exploited sin, and why shouldn’t they get a piece of that American pie?
Lastly there is the divide-and-conquer factor. Even if European immigrants are left-leaning, they will nonetheless associate with and more quickly assimilate into the more conservative white majority. In contrast, consider Hispanic immigrants. They generally will circulate within a left-leaning group — the wider Hispanic community — which places them in an echo chamber in which their socialist tendencies are reinforced, nurtured and where deviation from them could make one a pariah. It also makes them ripe for racial/ethnic demagoguery. You don’t want to vote like the gringos, do you? And I think here about how Obama told Hispanics in the run-up to the 2010 mid-term elections to “punish” their “enemies.” To whom do you think he was referring?
In fact, assimilation of many of these newcomers isn’t just unlikely, it’s impossible. This is because we have in our midst more than just an ethnic echo chamber — we have a burgeoning nation within our nation.
Consider: approximately 50 percent of our legal immigrants come from Mexico, and 67 percent of American Hispanics have origins in that nation. This translates into a legal and illegal Mexican-heritage population of 20 to 30 million — perhaps 20 percent of Mexico’s population. The consequences of such an unbalanced and suicidal immigration policy are severe, and they were explained well by University of Edinburgh professor Stephen Tierney in his book Multiculturalism and the Canadian Constitution:
In a situation in which immigrants are divided into many different groups originating in distant countries, there is no feasible prospect of any particular immigrant group’s challenging the hegemony of the national language [press one for English, folks?] and institutions. These groups may form an alliance among themselves to fight for better treatment and accommodations, but such an alliance can only be developed within the language and institutions of the host society and, hence, is integrative. In situations in which a single dominant immigrant group originates in a neighbouring country, the dynamics may be very different. The Arabs in Spain, and Mexicans in the United States, do not need allies among other immigrant groups. One could imagine claims for Arabic or Spanish to be declared a second official language, at least in regions where they are concentrated, and these immigrants could seek support from their neighbouring home country for such claims — in effect, establishing a kind of transnational extension of their original homeland in their new neighbouring country of residence.
So liberals are seeking to overwhelm what they call white America through demographic change. In the name of power, of a get-in-the-vote drive, they happily commit cultural genocide, the fear of which, Professor Tierney goes on to write, “is often compounded in situations where the immigrant group has historic claims against the receiving country. … For example, in the Mexican-United States case….”
This is why our handwringing over the current border crisis is a little ironic. Yes, the situation is outrageous, but taking exception to illegal migration while blithely accepting our legal-immigration regime is like thinking that government death squads are preferable to roving gangs of murderous miscreants. Demographically, politically and culturally the two types of migration have precisely the same effect. All the illegal variety does is accelerate the process, giving the left more votes now and authentic Americanism a quicker, and perhaps more merciful, death.
The amnesty of 1986 was supposed to be a “one time only” amnesty. Yet since 1986 through 2000, Congress passed a total of seven (7) amnesties or adjustments for illegal aliens:
1. The Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA) Amnesty of 1986 – the “one-time only” blanket amnesty for some 2.8 million illegal aliens.
2. Section 245(i) The Amnesty of 1994 – a temporary rolling amnesty for 578,000 illegal aliens.
3. Section 245(i) The Extension Amnesty of 1997 – an extension of the rolling amnesty created in 1994.
4. The Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) Amnesty of 1997 – an amnesty for nearly one million illegal aliens from Central America.
5. The Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act Amnesty (HRIFA) of 1998 – an amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti.
6. The Late Amnesty of 2000 – an amnesty for approximately 400,000 illegal aliens who claimed they should have been amnestied under the 1986 IRCA amnesty.
7. The LIFE Act Amnesty of 2000 – a reinstatement of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty to an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens.
An amnesty is a reward to those breaking the law. Issuing an amnesty to illegal aliens only encourages more illegal immigration into the United States.
An amnesty benefits neither our society nor those being amnestied.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/amnesty-vote-e1402840626780.jpg513631George R. Fullerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngGeorge R. Fuller2014-06-15 09:57:552014-06-15 17:22:41Dear Members of Congress: Why do you only mention the 1986 Amnesty?
A week ago I reported that if Floridians wanted to head off in-state tuition we needed to get together a coalition, I said tea party groups, and meet with Governor Scott. The purpose of the meeting would be to demand a special session of the legislature to take up his broken promise of getting E-Verify passed or he would not get our vote in November. There was only one response and it was negative.
Take a careful look at Senate President elect Andy Gardiner’s biography, the man voted yes for SB 1400, and Speaker Elect Steve Crisafulli’s biography, the man who voted yes for HB 851. Both have awards from illegal alien employers of the state and Crisafulli is in agriculture.
Does anyone think if in-state tuition fails this year it will not pass next year with these two Republicans controlling the legislature and either Scott or Crist both support in-state tuition) in office?
That is exactly the reason I said now is the time to put pressure on Scott to alter course or watch the efforts to stop in-state tuition go to waste. Timing is everything.
Senate President Elect Gardiner
Personal & Career
Elected to the Senate in 2008, reelected subsequently
Majority (Republican) Leader, 2010-2012
Majority (Republican) Whip, 2008-2010
House of Representatives, 2000-2008
Republican Leader, 2004-2006
Orange County Legislative Delegation Chair, 2007-2008; 2002-2003
Other Public Service
National Conference of State Legislators, Transportation Committee, past Member
Honors and Awards
Orlando Business Journal, Forty Under Forty Outstanding Male of the Year, 2005
Orlando Magazine, 50 Most Powerful People, 2010, 2005-2008
Received Honors and Awards from the following:
Alliance to Save Florida’s Trauma Care
American Heart Association
Associated Builders and Contractors
Associated Industries of Florida
Central Florida Hotel and Lodging Association
Central Florida Library Cooperative
Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority
Central Florida YMCA
Christian Coalition of Florida
Coastal Conservation Association Florida
Down Syndrome Association of Central Florida
Florida Alcohol and Drug Abuse Association
Florida Association for Behavior Analysis
Florida Association of Chamber Professionals
Florida Association of DUI Programs
Florida Association of Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors
Florida Automobile Dealers Association
Florida Chamber of Commerce
Florida Counseling Association
Florida Engineering Society
Florida Home Builders Association
Florida Medical Association
Florida Outdoor Advertising Association
Florida Right to Life
Florida School Counselor Association
Florida State Fraternal Order of Police
Florida Transportation Builders Association
Foundation for Florida’s Future
Hunter’s Creek Community Association
Independent Colleges and Universities of Florida
Judges of the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court
Legal Aid Society of the Orange County Bar Association
Mental Health Association of Central Florida
National Federation of Independent Business
Orange County Sheriff’s Office
Orange County Young Republicans
Orlando Regional Realtor Association
State Attorney of the Ninth Judicial Circuit
Camaraderie Foundation Board of Directors
Central Receiving Center Governing Board
Lambda Chi Alpha Fraternity
Orange County Republican Executive Committee
Orlando Museum of Art’s Board of Trustees
Vice President, External Affairs and Community Relations, Orlando Health
Camille Gardiner of Brooklyn, NY
Andrew, Jr.; Joanna Lynn; Kathryn Lucille
Stetson University, B.S., Political Science and Psychology, 1992
January 23, 1969 in Orlando, Florida
Baseball, fishing, reading
Speaker Elect Crisafulli
Biographical Information City of Residence: Merritt Island
Occupation: Real Estate Broker/Agribusinessman
Spouse: Kristen Brown Crisafulli of Rockledge, Florida
Child(ren): Carly, Kennedy
Education: Brevard Community College, A.A.; University of Central Florida, B.A.
Born: July 26, 1971, Rockledge, FL
History:Doyle E. Carlton, cousin, Governor of Florida, 1929-1933; Vassar B. Carlton, grandfather, Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court, 1969-1974
Religious Affiliation: Christian
Recreational Interest: baseball, fishing, football, golf, hunting, outdoors with the family
Elected to the Florida House of Representatives in 2008, reelected subsequently
Other Public Service
Brevard County Soil & Water Conservation, Supervisor, 1998-2002
Brevard County Farm Bureau, President, 2003-2005, Director, 1996-2004, 2006-present
Central Florida Legislative Delegation, Chair, 2013
Brevard Delegation, Chair, 2012
Orange County Delegation, Chair, 2011
Leadership Brevard, past graduate, 1998, past program committee member, 1999-2000
AFP, Champion for Economic Freedom, 2013
AIF, Champion for Business, 2013
Americans for Prosperity, Champion for Economic Freedom, 2013
Associated Builders and Contractors, Friend of Free Enterprises 2013
Economic Development Commission, Award for Exceptional Leadership, 2013
Florida Chamber of Commerce, “A” Honor Roll, 2009-2013
Florida Chamber of Commerce, Distinguished Advocate, 2009-2013
Florida Dental Association, Dr. Lewis Earle Legislative Service Award, 2013
Florida Farm Bureau, Champion of Agriculture, 2013
Florida League of Cities, Legislative Appreciation Award 2013
Florida Forestry Association, Legislator of the Year, 2011
Florida Nursery, Growers and Landscapers Association, Legislator of the Year, 2011
The American Conservative Union, “Defender of Liberty” Award, 2011
Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association, Legislator of the Year Award, 2010
Florida Home Builders Association, Friend of Housing, 2010
LEAD Brevard, 4 Under 40 Award, 2010
Florida Farm Bureau, President’s Award, 2005
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/new-leaders-equal-amnesty.jpg351640George R. Fullerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngGeorge R. Fuller2014-04-26 10:11:332014-04-26 10:11:33Florida: Why In-state tuition for illegal aliens will pass in 2015
There has been much discussion about amnesty for illegal aliens in Congress. Democrats, led by President Obama, want amnesty at all cost. I recently had a conversation with Kelly Kirshner, the former Mayor of Sarasota, FL. He is planning a demonstration to promote “immigration reform”, which is code for amnesty. Kirshner believes he is doing good, when in fact he is promoting policies that will bring violence to America.
Amnesty (immigration reform) is inextricably linked to efforts to legalize drugs and control gun ownership in America. These three movements are joined at the hip and will, in the long term, lead to a “cartel of death” in America. By not taking into account the long-run effects and all people these policies will wreak havoc on our society, especially our youngest and most vulnerable.
The major Mexican drug cartels. For a larger view click on the map.
Many have documented how our borders are not secure. Dennis Michael Lynch in his documentary “They Come To America” focuses on the land border between the United States and Mexico. Many ignore the border states along the Gulf of Mexico. Drug cartels, like the Gulf Cartel, use these porous borders to come to America transporting not only illegal aliens but also drugs and the certain violence that is part and parcel of the drug business.
There is a push by Libertarians, Democrats and some Republicans to legalize medical marijuana. This effort is only the first step, like in Colorado, to the full legalization of marijuana, like in Florida. By legalizing marijuana you legalize the cartels and the culture of death that comes with them and their drugs. President Obama gave banks permission to do business with marijuana distributors.
On Jan. 1, Colorado opened its doors to this nation’s first legal sale of recreational marijuana. Lost in the buzz is the documented impact of legal marijuana on Colorado children.
The reality about today’s marijuana, an addictive substance whose average potency has dramatically increased from 3 percent THC in the 1990s to almost 15 percent, should change everything that people think they know about the drug.
[ … ]
Past 30-day use of marijuana by teens 12 to 17 is highest in medical-marijuana states. In Denver between 2004 and 2010, past 30-day users of marijuana ages 12 and up increased 4.3 percent, while the increase for the nation was 0.05 percent.
By 2010, past 30-day use for this age group was 12.2 percent, compared to 6.6 percent for the country. One in six kids who start using marijuana becomes addicted.
The below video is by the National Rifle Association. It is a different approach for the NRA in that it links the violence and the effort to demonize guns by President Obama, Michael Bloomberg, candidate for Florida governor Charlie Crist and others. We now know due to the work of bloggers and authors like Katie Pavlich, that these guns were provided by our own government in an operation named “Fast and Furious.”
Lesson Number 1: We should not rush to experiment with an entire generation of our young people by legalizing marijuana. Use of marijuana by Arizona’s 8th, 10th and 12th graders has already increased by 14.4 percent from 2008 to 2012.
Lesson Number 2: We must build an environment in which every child can learn and thrive. That must include funding public education to heighten awareness about the harms of marijuana. Every child can succeed when adults believe in them and create safe communities for them.
Marijuana is never part of that equation.
A wise warning indeed. Drugs, children, violence and guns make for a toxic combination.
EDITORS NOTE: Sheila Polk is the Yavapai County Attorney and co-chair of MATFORCE, the Yavapai County Substance Abuse Coalition. The featured image is courtesy of activist Thomas Good, who is in costume – “recruiting” for the military as the Grim Reaper, October 2007. The photograph was taken by the subject’s 14-year-old son, Nathaniel Good. In March of 2007 the photo was reprinted as the cover shot on “Peacework” magazine, a publication of the American Friends Service Committee.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/640px-NLN_Grim_Reaper-e1392550103732.jpg398640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2014-02-16 06:28:432014-02-16 09:28:09Amnesty, legalizing marijuana and gun control: Creating a “cartel of death” in America
Recently we reported that the House GOP, especially Speaker Boehner, was looking at a means to advance the idea of “comprehensive” immigration reform.
President Obama threw down a gauntlet during his State of the Union address, (which very few watched, by the way). The House GOP is currently at a retreat conference in Baltimore (some might say their at a retreat both literally and figuratively) and they may well be crafting a strategy at this session.
The Wall Street Journal reports that some House Republican leaders are looking to give illegal immigrants legal status right away, with the chance for a green card—and citizenship—down the line….First, illegal immigrants would be offered a “probationary” status, allowing them to work while the government tightened border security and interior enforcement. Officials have explained that this would allow people to work legally while they wait for permanent legal status. (Officials have explained that this group could revert to illegal status if enforcement benchmarks are not met.)
Mr. Kristol (and I) challenge that parenthetical statement. Kristol says,
Is it plausible, and would it even be fair, to force legalized working immigrants to “revert” to illegal status just because some bureaucrats haven’t met certain arbitrary benchmarks? The forced “reversion” would never happen, and it shouldn’t.
I’m constantly amazed how so much legislation is written in double-speak to appease and assuage some concerns while enabling the true goals to be met. “Comprehensive” legislation equals lots of pages of legislation with caveats buried deep inside and no one reads but everyone votes for.
An imminent Republican debate over immigration will play into the hands of the Democratic party. With the widespread unpopularity of Obamacare, Republicans should instead focus on the embattled health-care law ahead of the 2014 midterm election. By pivoting to the issue of immigration, Republicans are walking right into the trap.
Buchanan surmises that the “Chamber of Commerce and the big-business folks want the immigration deal solved.”
And therein lies the u-shaped ambush awaiting the House GOP and Speaker Boehner if they fall on this grenade. First of all, at a time when Americans are suffering from high levels of unemployment, they should not be adding illegals into the job market until we can rectify the situation for Americans.
The Democrats will certainly blame the Republicans for exacerbating the jobless situation for Americans and castigate the GOP as the party of big business and corporations who want cheap labor.
Second, why would Speaker Boehner do anything that feeds more members into the liberal progressive welfare nanny-state? Who does the Speaker believe these new legal-status individuals will support? Ya think we have voter fraud issues now?
Lastly, why would the GOP want to discourage its base, which enabled them to have a House majority in 2010?
This issue combined with the insidious government education initiative “common core” will result in many conservatives basically saying, “you’re on your own” and this will add fire to the direction and policy of the Republican Party.
My advice to Republicans? You cannot win by being a lesser version of the liberals. If you cannot articulate a clear delineation based upon a policy agenda that promotes the advancement of the individual American, you will lose.
Focus on healthcare solutions, policies that get Americans back to work, get behind our veterans and their concerns, and present a vision for our national security — and communicate that as a unified body.
Even Harry Reid wised up and is denying President Obama fast track trade authority and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Make the connection with the American people, because right now, President Obama and the progressive socialists have lost credibility with Americans.
What do you think, should the House GOP cave in and advance some type of comprehensive resolution to illegal immigration? I think I know the answer…
“After reading Crime & Incompetence, Americans will learn how, under the watch of both Republican and Democratic administrations, the USCIS grew into a dysfunctional bureaucracy that substantially contributed to the current illegal alien/undocumented worker crisis; yet somehow, magically, is expected to process a “bipartisan” path to citizenship (a.k.a. amnesty) for roughly 11+ million illegal immigrants,” writes Peschmann.
Peschmann asks, “How can a broken system process millions of illegal immigrants when it can’t process legal immigrants properly? It cannot. As you will see, comprehensive immigration reform is not about compassion—it is a vote-grab at the expense of Americans and lawful immigrants.”
Dare to see big government at its worst. See what legal immigrants have known all along—how devastating life can be at the mercy of unelected bureaucrats while stuck in a broken state-run agency. This could be your future in Obama’s America. Heed Peschmann’s documented warning: should any type of amnesty become law, America will be fundamentally transformed into a one-party nation.
This is a must read for anyone who cares about America’s future.
Jon Feere, the Legal Policy Analyst at the Center for Immigration Studies, reviews an ad released by the “Gang of Eight” featuring Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL). The ad is playing nationwide, including in Florida.
Feere states, “The minute-long advertisement calls the proposal ‘conservative immigration reform’ and attempts to make amnesty appealing to Republican voters. Partisan politics aside, the amnesty ad is misleading on a number of counts…”
The ad was produced by Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg who created FWD.us, an advocacy group aimed at promoting amnesty. One of the group’s offshoots is “Americans for a Conservative Direction“, which is cited at the end of the ad.
Americans for a Conservative Direction’s board members include: Haley Barbour: former Governor Haley Barbour served as the 62nd governor of Mississippi from 2004 to 2012 and served as Chairman of the Republican National Committee in the mid ’90s; Sally Bradshaw: former Florida Governor Jeb Bush’s Chief of Staff from 1999-2001, and served as a Co-Chair of the Republican National Committee’s Growth and Opportunity Project; Joel Kaplan: currently Vice President of US Public Policy at Facebook, Joel also served as Deputy Chief of Staff to former President George W. Bush; Dan Senor: former chief advisor to Representative Paul Ryan on the Romney-Ryan 2012 campaign; Rob Jesmer: former Executive Director at the National Republican Senatorial Committee from 2008 – 2012.
Below is the ad:
Here is Feere’s analysis of the ad phrase by phrase:
RUBIO: “Anyone who thinks what we have now in immigration is not a problem is fooling themselves. What we have in place today is de facto amnesty.”
Very few Americans believe that we don’t have a serious problem with illegal immigration. It is true that this country is experiencing a de facto amnesty for illegal aliens, and it is largely the result of the Obama administration refusing to enforce immigration laws on the books. The problem is that Rubio wants to turn this “de facto” amnesty into a formal amnesty, and grant millions of law-breakers work permits, driver’s licenses, Social Security accounts, travel documents, and an unknown number of additional state-level benefits. Rubio is trying to help President Obama fulfill his campaign goal of keeping all illegal aliens in the country and giving them benefits reserved for legal residents. If Rubio was actually troubled by the de facto amnesty being advanced by the Obama administration, Rubio would side with the ICE officials who are suing the Obama administration over the president’s effort to prevent them from doing their jobs. Top-ranking ICE official Chris Crane explained the lawsuit to Fox News, here. Mr. Crane’s recent congressional testimony, available here, raises many troubling issues. ICE’s additional concern is that the amnesty bill would make permanent their inability to enforce the law by giving DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano “virtually unlimited discretion” to waive all enforcement of immigration law. If an amnesty is passed, the Obama administration will likely continue to undermine any immigration enforcement provisions in the bill.
ANNOUNCER: “Conservative leaders have a plan, the toughest immigration enforcement measures in the history of the United States.”
The so-called “Gang of Eight” senators who wrote the bill aren’t all “conservative leaders”, unless you consider Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) to fit that description. True, the gang also includes Republican senators, but it is up for debate whether one considers Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), and Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) to be conservative on immigration. Their immigration report card grades, from the pro-enforcement group NumbersUSA, are troubling: Graham has a “C”, McCain a “D”, and a Flake “C”. This is in contrast to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has an “A+” from NumbersUSA.
The voiceover in the ad also cites a newspaper article for the “toughest enforcement measures in the history of the United States” language. This commercial carefully avoided some of the language in the article’s full sentence, particularly the part noting that this bill would allow previously deported illegal aliens to return to the country. The article’s full sentence reads:
The controversial proposal would grant most of the 11 million people here illegally a path to citizenship and give thousands of deported individuals a chance to return, but would also adopt some of the toughest immigration enforcement measures in the history of the United States.
No immigration bill in the history of the United States has ever permitted previously deported illegal aliens to return to the United States to receive citizenship, so it is difficult to see how this news organization concluded that the bill is the “toughest” our country has ever seen. Of course, the article is really claiming that the bill would “adopt some” tough enforcement measures, not that the bill itself is tough.
On closer inspection, many of these measures (noted below) are not as tough as they seem to be.
RUBIO: “They have to pass the background check, they have to be able to pay a registration fee, they have to pay a fine.”
Within six months of the bill’s passage, illegal immigrants would become immediately eligible for legal status, and many of the hoops that illegal immigrants would have to jump through to get such status do not amount to much. It is likely that any illegal immigrants who simply claim to be eligible will be able to avoid deportation, even if they’re already in detention. This is exactly what is already happening under President Obama’s deferred action program. ICE agents are being instructed to release any illegal aliens who claim to be eligible, even if they haven’t filled out an application form. The same situation will unfold under the large-scale amnesty bill. ICE will be virtually handcuffed and will not be able to carry out most enforcement.
To acquire the primary legal status offered under this bill, illegal immigrants would have to undergo a simple background check. But the bill would still grant legal status to illegal immigrants with a significant amount of criminality on their rap sheet. For example, crimes like ID theft and vandalism are not considered serious enough to deny a person status, despite the fact that such crimes create real victims. Specifically, two misdemeanors will not result in legal status being denied and under the bill multiple misdemeanors could be counted as “one” misdemeanor, provided they occur on the same day. Additionally, any problematic history an illegal immigrant has in his home country is unlikely to be uncovered; in a sense, our public safety would depend on the bookkeeping of police departments in the alien’s homeland, and there are many things that Americans consider criminal that are not criminal overseas.
Finally, the government’s capacity to conduct background checks on millions of illegal immigrants is questionable. ICE Union head Chris Crane explained in a video interview with the Daily Caller that there is “no such thing as a background check on a foreign national.” The 1986 amnesty also had background checks, but hundreds of thousands of fraudulent applicants were rubber-stamped. The amnesty granted legal status to someone who used his new status to freely travel to the Middle East to pick up terrorist training and helped lead the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Had we enforced our immigration laws, he would have been removed from the country and the attack might never have occurred.
The recent Boston Marathon bombing should also illustrate the government’s inability to carefully vet backgrounds. The FBI interviewed at least one of the terrorists, his family members, and his neighbors, in addition to analyzing his Internet usage. They apparently found nothing that would have raised a red flag. Despite the fact that DHS estimates there are many problematic foreign-born people living in the United States, the millions of illegal aliens applying for the amnesty will not have nearly as vigorous of a background check as the Boston bombers had, suggesting that some bad people will receive legal status through the bill. As written, the bill would allow known gang members to become U.S. citizens if they simply “renounce” their gang affiliation.
Rubio also claims that illegal aliens applying for the amnesty would have to pay a fee, but there are waivers and no specificity. The bill simply notes that illegal aliens aged 16 and older who want legal status will have to pay a fee “in an amount determined by [DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano]”. While it is unclear how much the fee would be, the bill says it should be enough to cover processing the applications. (See here for David North’s estimate of the size of the fee needed to process applicants properly.) But in the next section, the bill gives Napolitano the power to limit the fee and to exempt “classes of individuals” altogether. With such broad authority granted by Congress, it is unclear whether this fee would apply to most amnesty applicants.
It should also be noted that USCIS already offers waivers for those who cannot afford certain fees — in fact, the Obama administration created a form for such waivers in 2010 — and similar waivers may apply to any future amnesty. To obtain a fee waiver for some existing immigration benefits, an applicant simply must show that they are currently using a welfare program. Currently, 71 percent of illegal alien households with children make use of at least one form of welfare.
Rubio also claims that amnesty applicants would have to pay a fine. A fine is different from a fee and, by definition, a fine is meant to be a punishment for breaking a law. The bill puts the fine at $500 for the initial legal status — not much of a punishment considering the laws that have been broken. This initial status turns the illegal aliens into legal residents and grants them work permits, driver’s licenses, Social Security accounts, and many other benefits. Applicants would have to pay another $500 over the next six years. If a person wants to upgrade from this provisional status to full green card status (and eventual U.S. citizenship), they would have to pay another $1,000 many years down the road. But there are many exceptions. For example, people of any age who claim to have entered before age 16 and have a high school degree or GED would not have to pay either of the $500 fines, nor would they have to pay the $1,000 fine for green card status. Also, all people under 21 years of age, regardless of when they entered and whether they have a high school degree, would be exempted from both of the $500 fines.
Furthermore, it is likely that some pro-amnesty groups will assist applicants in paying the fines — some of which will be using taxpayer-provided funds to do so. The bill would actually grant groups like La Raza $150 million of taxpayer dollars to help illegal aliens apply for the amnesty, and the bill grants them a lot of discretion to decide how to spend the money. In reality, the fine may not be much of a punishment at all — particularly if American taxpayers are the ones footing the bill.
Absent from Rubio’s list is the requirement that illegal aliens pay back taxes. The reason he is no longer citing it is because that provision never made it into the bill. For months Rubio and other amnesty advocates sold the bill on the notion of requiring illegal aliens to pay back taxes for the years they have worked off the books. But it was simply part of an attempt to mislead the public into thinking this bill is tougher than it really is. Only “assessed” taxes have to be paid, and if the IRS doesn’t audit illegal immigrants working off the books — which is won’t — then there will be no “assessed” taxes to pay.
ANNOUNCER: “Border security on steroids. Tough border triggers have no giveaways for law breakers.”
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano Napolitano simply has to submit a plan for border security and a fencing plan within six months of the passage of this bill. As soon as she submits the plans, illegal aliens become eligible for work permits, Social Security accounts, driver’s licenses, travel documents, and countless state-level benefits. Past amnesties show that these benefits are mostly what illegal aliens are looking for; green card status and U.S. citizenship are not priorities for most illegal immigrants. No border security has to be in place for these benefits to be handed out. A proposed amendment to the bill that would have made border security come before these benefits are handed out was rejected by the Senate. Sen. Jeff Flake and Sen. Lindsey Graham, two of the alleged “conservative leaders” who helped authored this bill, voted against the amendment along with all of the Democrats.
The “triggers” — border security, an entirely new electronic verification system (to replace E-Verify), and an operational exit-tracking system — are required to be in effect before illegal immigrants can upgrade to a green card. But even this isn’t exactly true.
The bill does provide a significant amount of funding for border security, but it remains unclear how that money would be spent and whether the border would ever actually be secured. The bill requires an “effectiveness rate” of 90 percent and defines such a rate as “the percentage calculated by dividing the number of apprehensions and turn-backs in the sector during a fiscal year by the total number of illegal entries in the sector during such fiscal year.” This equation requires some estimate of the number of missed illegal entries, but the metrics of border security have been up for debate for many years and it’s unclear how such an estimate would be reached. Shawn Moran, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council asks, “How are they going to measure effectiveness?” He fears the bills language “will put pressure on Border Patrol management to fudge the number in order to fit political purposes.”
Rubio has said that if effective control of these sections of the border is not met within five years, “it goes to a border commission made up of people that live and have to deal with the border and they will take care of that problem.” But in the bill, the “Southern Border Security Commission” would be made up of six Washington-appointed members (two by the president and four by congressional leaders), plus one from each southern border state (appointed by the governor), and it could do nothing but issue recommendations. But it gets worse. The bill also says that if “litigation or a force majeure” prevents the border from being secured then Secretary Napolitano has the authority to go ahead and issue illegal aliens U.S. citizenship anyhow.
One member of the Gang of Eight has asserted that citizenship for illegal immigrants will not be conditioned on actually having a secure border. Sen. Charles Schumer (R-N.Y.) explained, “We are not using border security as a block to a path to citizenship. This [the trigger] will not be a barrier to giving citizenship to the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in our country.”
In other words, there really aren’t any border security triggers at all.
RUBIO: “No federal benefits, no food stamps, no welfare, no Obamacare, they have to prove that they’re gainfully employed.”
Rubio is simply wrong with these assertions. Illegal immigrants are already receiving federal benefits and this bill would do nothing to stop that. This bill would actually extend greater amounts of benefits to illegal immigrants by giving them legal status.
We estimate that 71 percent of illegal immigrant-headed households with children use at least one welfare program. Illegal immigrants generally receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children, but they, not the children, are collecting the benefits, which support the entire family. Illegal immigrant households with children primarily use food assistance and Medicaid, making almost no use of cash or housing assistance. In contrast, legal immigrant households tend to have relatively high use rates for every type of welfare program. It is undeniable that if the amnesty bill becomes law, the legalized illegal immigrants will have greater access to the welfare state.
As for Obamacare, illegal immigrants who get green card status will have access to Obamacare, causing the aggregate annual deficit to soar to around $106 billion, finds the Heritage Foundation. Heritage also concludes that the amnesty applicants who receive green card status would also receive full eligibility for more than 80 means-tested welfare programs.
As to the “gainfully employed” requirement, Rubio is not being completely honest. The most important exemption comes toward the end of the bill, but it’s worth noting at the outset: All education and job requirements in the bill are waived if the immigrant is unable to work or go to school “due to circumstances outside the control of the alien”. The bill provides no explanation of what this might include, and one must ask whether high unemployment rates would count as something outside the control of the amnesty applicants.
Acquiring provisional status does not require evidence of employment. Renewing the status after six years does trigger an employment section of the bill. The section requires that the legalized immigrant fulfill one of two options. In the first option, the alien must prove that he “was regularly employed throughout the period of admission as a registered provisional immigrant, allowing for brief periods lasting not more than 60 days” and “not likely to become a public charge”. But this means that the immigrant could be unemployed for a two-month period and still meet this requirement. Plus, the wording is such that it leaves some interpretation to the courts. What if the immigrant has two “brief periods” of unemployment “lasting not more than 60 days”? By some interpretations, the immigrant would still be able to meet this requirement. Can an immigrant have five such brief periods? Ten? If the bill were written to limit unemployment to 60 days, then it would read “allowing for brief periods of unemployment totaling not more than 60 days”. It is a simple wording change, but it leads to a significantly different outcome.
As an alternative, the alien can “demonstrate average income or resources that are not less than 100 percent of the federal poverty level” for the period he lived here as an alien legalized under the bill. If the alien is the only person in his household, this requirement means that he would have to be making at least $11,490 a year.
But standards are low here. Amnesty applicants can submit a number of different documents to prove they worked. This includes any paperwork from a day laborer hiring center or even sworn affidavits from an alien’s family member who is willing to claim that the alien was working.
On top of all this, the work requirements do not have to be met if an amnesty applicant is going to school. The bill defines the education requirement quite broadly.
Furthermore, the employment and educational requirements do not apply to anyone under age 21 at the time of applying for the amnesty’s provisional legal status, nor do they apply to people over age 60. Also exempted is anyone who is a “primary caretaker of a child or another person who requires supervision or is unable to care for himself or herself.”
ANNOUNCER: “Bold, very conservative, a tough line on immigration.”
Considering all the exemptions and waivers already laid out above, it is difficult to conclude that this bill is bold with a “tough line” on immigration. The phrasing in this portion of the Rubio commercial is taken from quotes from pro-amnesty columnists in the media. The word “bold” was used by a Washington Post blogger who supports amnesty. The phrase “very conservative” is from the same writer; the full sentence is more illuminating:
In essence, if you accept that you have to start somewhere and we have no capability to uproot 11 million people, this is a very conservative-friendly plan.
So the writer called the bill “very conservative-friendly” and the ad shortened it to “very conservative.” One could certainly argue that these have different meanings. But the premise of the full quote is also worthy of debate. Does the United States have no capability to send 11 million people back home? Amnesty advocates constantly argue that the only alternative to mass amnesty is mass deportations. But in reality, both are unworkable. The only solution to the illegal immigration problem is the “attrition through enforcement” policy where we consistently enforce our immigration laws for a period of years and encourage illegal immigrants to go home in greater numbers than they already are. The Post blogger does not entertain this option and presents only a choice between amnesty and mass deportations, one embraced by Rubio.
The phrase “tough line on immigration” was taken from a pro-amnesty columnist from CNN. The same columnistcalled Arizona a “rogue state at war” for passing laws attempting to curb illegal immigration. That the pro-amnesty columnist opposed Jan Brewer’s efforts but embraces Rubio should raise flags about Rubio’s commitment to immigration enforcement.
RUBIO: “It puts in place the toughest enforcement measures in the history of the United States, potentially in the world and it once and for all deals with the issue of those that are here illegally but does so in a way that’s fair and compassionate but does not encourage people to come illegally in the future and isn’t unfair to the people that have done it the right way.”
Rubio claims that this comprehensive amnesty will fix the illegal immigration problem “once and for all”. But the American people have been told this before. The 1986 comprehensive amnesty, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was sold to the public as a one-time plan that would not have to be repeated because the bill contained sanctions against employers for hiring illegal immigrants, and other enforcement provisions. But after IRCA legalized about three million illegal aliens, the enforcement provisions never materialized. Today, about 7.5 million illegal aliens are holding jobs and their employers are not being held accountable. Why would anyone believe that the enforcement provisions in yet another amnesty would ever be enforced? In fact, only a few years after IRCA passed, the National Council of La Raza issued a report calling for the end to workplace enforcement. Interestingly, the author of that report was Cecilia Munoz, who today is President Obama’s chief immigration advisor. Odds are high that she will be working to undermine the enforcement in Rubio’s bill the moment it becomes law. Just last week President Obama told a roomful of amnesty advocate groups that if the bill becomes law, he will “revisit” the enforcement provisions. In other words, Obama has pledged to administratively narrow the scope of enforcement as soon as 11 million illegal immigrants and their family members acquire legal status through the bill. This is why enforcement must come before any type of legal status. Rubio’s bill is backwards, and it’s clear he hasn’t learned from the mistakes of IRCA.
Rubio also claims that the bill “does not encourage people to come illegally” but he apparently hasn’t been listening to border officials in the field who have come to Washington to testify before Congress. Rubio didn’t see thisWashington Times article:
“We have seen an increase in attempted entries,” Border Patrol Chief Michael J. Fisher told a Senate committee.
He said part of the reason for an increase is that Congress is talking about legalizing illegal immigrants, which is luring more foreigners to try to be in the U.S. when amnesty takes effect.
This should not come as a surprise. Amnesties always encourage illegal immigration because they send the message that illegal entry is a feasible path to legal U.S. residence.
Rubio also claims that amnesty is not unfair to those who are attempting to come to the United States the legal way. The reality is that illegal aliens get to stay in the country the moment they apply for amnesty. If they pass the simple background check, they receive legal status and nearly all the benefits of citizenship, including a work permit, a Social Security account, travel documents, a driver’s license, and many additional state-level benefits. While green card status may be delayed for a period of years, it is undeniable that amnesty applicants are in a much better position compared to those overseas who have applied to come to the United States legally. The amnesty applicant is only in the “back of the line” in the sense that the green card — and eventual U.S. citizenship — would allegedly be delayed until after all existing green card applications are processed. But the fact is, the genuine back of the line is in the illegal alien’s home country.
ANNOUNCER: “Stand with Marco Rubio to end de facto amnesty, support Conservative Immigration Reform.”
Again, Rubio wants to turn the de facto amnesty we’re currently experiencing as a result of non-enforcement of immigration laws into a de jure amnesty for millions of people who do not belong here. Rubio asks you to “stand” with him, but Rubio himself is standing with Obama, Napolitano, La Raza, the ACLU, and many other amnesty supporters who cannot be described as “conservative” in any sense of the word.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/deception.jpg376600Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2013-05-16 06:37:502013-12-21 19:07:06Center for Immigration Studies calls Rubio’s amnesty ad “deceptive” (Video)