Posts Tagged ‘amnesty’
Many things are holding the headlines hostage, the terrorist attacks, the crippling effects of Obamacare, the prospect of expanding war in Syria, and as always Iran.
There is one over-riding constant that defines as it divides the present era: the fact that America has a President who advances values and policies diametrically opposed to the traditional beliefs of a vast number of Americans. From bowing to foreign leaders to not knowing how many states there are, from vowing to fundamentally transform America to actually doing it, President Obama is to many the Manchurian Candidate.
Elected the first time on a vague promise of hope and change he has been re-elected on a blatant promise to re-distribute the wealth and complete the transformation of America into a welfare state. His bureaucratically imposed policies such as Cap-n-Trade and the Dream Act are blatant end runs around the authority of a Congress that overwhelmingly rejected both. The alarming reality we all must face is that for the first time in American history we may actually have a president who is anti-American.
Barack Obama is blatant in his anti-American rhetoric. Such as:
“In America, we have this strong bias toward individual action. You know, we idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns blazing. But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations.” Emphasis added.
“And what would help minority workers are the same things that would help white workers: the opportunity to earn a living wage, the education and training that lead to such jobs, labor laws and tax laws that restore some balance to the distribution of the nation’s wealth …” Emphasis added.
“But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. And to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted. And the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties — says what the states can’t do to you — says what the Federal government can’t do to you — but it doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf.
And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that …” Emphasis added.
These positive rights are what Progressives have been trying to establish since FDR floated his idea of a second bill of right which included:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad
The right of every family to a decent home
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment
The right to a good education
Now all of these sound great and in a perfect world might make up a laundry list of prizes falling out of the cornucopia of utopia. In a real world they would mandate a government large enough to provide everything and powerful enough to take everything away.
The whole idea of having a constitution is to limit the government which is in essence a charter of negative liberties.
President Obama goes on to state, “Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt’s time, there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. ‘The market will take care of everything,’ they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes — especially for the wealthy — our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.
Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked.”
And of course there is his infamous “You didn’t build that” statement which exposes his complete misunderstanding of what it takes to start and grow a business.
With a leader such as this whose basic understanding of America is at such odds with those who once constituted the majority of the citizens and the continuity of our History is it any wonder that so many feel as if they are living in a conquered nation?
Conquered by who? As Pogo once told us, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”
Or as Garet Garrett, quipped as he chronicled the fall of the Republic and the rise of the American bureaucratic Empire said, “There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom.”
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2013 Robert R. Owens firstname.lastname@example.org Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens
The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a mixed verdict on Arizona’s hotly debated immigration laws Monday, striking down much of the legislation but unanimously upholding the most contentious component of the law.
The Court ruled 8-0 that police in Arizona could request proof of legal residency from someone confronted over an unrelated violation if there is probable cause to believe the person may be here illegally. The high court also struck down provisions that would make it a state crime for illegals to apply for or hold a job. Illegals will also not be guilty of a state crime for not having proof of their legal residency on their person. All three of those provisions are currently in the federal law, but the Court ruled the state had no business entering an area of the law that was the domain of the federal government.
Justice Antonin Scalia wanted the entire law upheld, saying Arizona should not be punished for wanting to enforce laws the federal government won’t enforce. He also said this ruling questions whether states can be considered to have any sovereignty.
California Rep. Dana Rohrabacher is one of the staunchest voices in Congress for tougher border enforcement. He says the most important part of the Arizona law is the portion the court upheld and provides local and state authorities with much more latitude to keep their people safe. He does not appear worried about the components that were struck down, and he blames Democrats for failing to get serious about protecting our borders. Finally, Rohrabacher explains why President Obama’s recent efforts to attract Latino votes through leniency toward young illegals is going to backfire.
The nation’s unemployment rate stands at 9.8 percent, a post–World War II record 19th month that unemployment has been over 9 percent. President Barack Obama is the largest tax hike in American history. So what do Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–CA) have Congress voting on today? Amnesty. Specifically, the House and Senate will be voting on the fourth and fifth versions of the DREAM Act, which would legalize anywhere between 300,000 and 2.1 million illegal immigrants.
Supporters of the DREAM Act claim the bill would provide citizenship only to children who go to college or join the military. But all any version of the legislation requires is that an applicant attend any college for just two years. And if President Obama wants to reward non-citizen service members with citizenship, he already has the power to do so. The Secretary of Defense already has the authority under 10 U.S.C. § 504 (b) to enlist illegal immigrants in the military if “such enlistment is vital to the national interest,” and 8 U.S.C. § 1440 allows such immigrants to become naturalized U.S. citizens, with their applications handled at accelerated rates. The military component of the DREAM Act is a complete red herring.
Neither of these bills has gone through their respective committees, and only one has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office. As a result, they are chock full of loopholes designed by open border advocates to make an even wider amnesty possible.
One bill would even grant Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano the power to waive the college and military requirements if the illegal immigrant can demonstrate “compelling circumstances” and the immigrant’s removal would cause a hardship to the them, their spouse, their parents, or their children. When exactly would removal from this country not cause a hardship? What other loopholes are in these bills? As Speaker Pelosi might say: “You have to pass this amnesty so that you can find out what is in it.”
The DREAM Acts are also an invitation for fraud. All of the bills would make it illegal for any information in an amnesty application to be used to initiate removal proceedings against an applicant. Law enforcement agencies would be forced to prove that any information they used to find, detain, and try to remove an illegal immigrant was already in their files before an application was received or was not derived from the application. If an illegal immigrant lies about his age to qualify for the program, and the lie is never detected, he gets amnesty. And if the lie is found out, no worries—law enforcement is forbidden from using that lie against him.
The real goal of the DREAM Act is to make it even harder for our nation’s law enforcement agencies to enforce any immigration laws. And Congress is not the only forum where amnesty advocates are working to undermine the rule of law today. Right across the street from the Capitol, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments over an Arizona immigration enforcement law. This is not a hearing on the controversial SB 1070 law that passed earlier this year. This case, supported by the usual amnesty suspects (La Raza, the SEIU, the Chamber of Commerce, etc.), challenges Arizona’s 2007 E-Verify law, which penalizes employers who do not verify the legal status of their employees. This challenge by amnesty advocates to even common-sense immigration enforcement measures should send a clear measure to anyone wavering on the DREAM Act: Any enforcement mechanisms that DREAM Act supporters agree to today will be immediately challenged in court tomorrow. Enforcement is fickle; amnesty is forever.
Our country does need immigration reform. We need smarter border security, stronger interior enforcement, and a more efficient naturalization system. But amnesty plans like the DREAM Act undermine real reform. The DREAM Act encourages people to ignore our borders, undermines our law enforcement across the country, and makes fools of law-abiding immigrants who play by the rules.
by Michelle Malkin
At the time I filed the column yesterday, the CBO had yet to release its score of the Dems’ latest iteration of the illegal alien DREAM Act bailout. The score — and as we know from the CBO Obamacare cooked numbers, these analyses need to be taken with a huge grain of salt — is now out and was apparently leaked to a pro-DREAM Act group first here. It reports that the current DREAM Act legislation, S3992 — and as you know from the Obamacare debacle, what’s written in these massive Democrat bills differs greatly from reality — would “increase revenues by $2.3 billion over 10 years,” but “would increase net direct spending by $912 million over the 2011-2020 period.” While CBO writes that “implementation by DHS would have no significant impact on spending subject to appropriation,” it goes on to estimate “that the bill would increase projected deficits by more than $5 billion in at least one of the four consecutive 10-year periods starting in 2021.” And that doesn’t include the costs of all the unlimited family members that the millions of DREAM Act beneficiaries would be able to bring to the U.S.
A separate cost analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies concludes that the illegal alien DREAM Act bailout would cost taxpayers $6.2 billion a year and “crowd out” U.S. students in the classroom. As I note below and have told some of these DREAM Act radicals directly to their faces, they can pretend that the DREAM Act bailout is not a zero-sum game. The rest of us can’t afford such delusions.
No more illegal alien waivers
by Michelle Malkin
Open-borders radicalism means never having to apologize for absurd self-contradiction.
The way illegal alien students on college campuses across the country tell it, America is a cruel, selfish and racist nation that has never given them or their families a break. Yet despite their bottomless grievances, they’re not going anywhere.
And despite their gripes about being forced “into the shadows,” they’ve been out in the open protesting at media-driven hunger strikes and flooding the airwaves demanding passage of the so-called DREAM Act. This bailout plan would benefit an estimated 2.1 million illegal aliens at an estimated cost of up to $20 billion.
While votes on various DREAM Act proposals are imminent, the Congressional Budget Office has yet to release any official cost scoring. Viva transparency!
To sow more confusion and obfuscate the debate, Democrats in the Senate have foisted four different versions of the bill on the legislative calendar, which all offer variations on the same amnesty theme: Because they arrived here through “no fault of their own,” illegal alien children deserve federal education access and benefits, plus a conditional pass from deportation and a special path toward green cards and U.S. citizenship for themselves and unlimited relatives.
In a last-ditch attempt to win over fence-sitters, DREAM Act sponsors have tinkered with eligibility requirements. But supporters know that the words on bill pages — which hardly anyone will read before voting — don’t matter. Built into the proposals are broad “public interest” waiver powers for the illegal immigration-friendly Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.
University of Texas-San Antonio student Lucy Martinez embodies the entitlement mentality of the DREAM Act agitators: “We have done lobbying, legislative visits, marches, sit-ins. We are tired of it,” she complained to the San Antonio Express News. The illegal alien student hunger strike “is similar to what we go through in our everyday lives — starving without a future.” But neither she nor her peers have been denied their elementary, secondary or college educations. Neither she nor her peers face arrest for defiantly announcing their illegal status. And for all the hysterical rhetoric about “starving,” the federal government and the federal immigration courts have been overly generous in providing wave after wave of de facto and de jure amnesties allowing tens of millions of illegal border-crossers, visa overstayers and deportation evaders from around the world to live, work and prosper here in subversion of our laws.
Among the major acts of Congress providing mass pardons and citizenship benefits:
– The 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act blanket amnesty for an estimated 2.7 million illegal aliens.
– 1994: The “Section 245(i)” temporary rolling amnesty for 578,000 illegal aliens.
– 1997: Extension of the Section 245(i) amnesty.
– 1997: The Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act for nearly one million illegal aliens from Central America.
– 1998: The Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti.
– 2000: Extension of amnesty for some 400,000 illegal aliens who claimed eligibility under the 1986 act.
– 2000: The Legal Immigration Family Equity Act, which included a restoration of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty for 900,000 illegal aliens.
This is in addition to hundreds of “private relief bills” sponsored in Congress every year.
Most recently, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to stay the deportation of illegal alien DREAM Act activist Steve Li — whose family’s asylum claim was rejected and whom a federal immigration court judge ordered deported in 2004.
These illegal alien passes needn’t be approved by Congress for the recipients to gain benefits. Mere introduction of the bills buys the deportable aliens time that ordinary, law-abiding citizens can’t buy in our court system. The DREAM Act schemers pretend this isn’t a zero-sum game. But every time a private illegal alien relief bill passes, the number of available visas for that year is reduced by the number of illegal alien/deportable immigrant recipients granted legal status/deportation relief through the special legislation.
In Austin, Texas, this week, one illegal alien DREAM Act activist blithely argued to me that “it’s not like the government would be sending a message that breaking the law is OK.” Reality check: The number of illegal aliens in the U.S. has tripled since President Reagan signed the first amnesty in 1986. The total effect of the amnesties was even larger because relatives later joined amnesty recipients, and this number was multiplied by an unknown number of children born to amnesty recipients who then acquired automatic U.S. citizenship.
At a time of nearly double-digit unemployment and drastic higher education cutbacks, a $20 billion special education preference package for up to 2.1 million illegal aliens is not and should not be a priority in Washington. It certainly isn’t in the rest of America. And it certainly shouldn’t be a priority for federal immigration and homeland security officials, who have a 400,000 deportation fugitives problem, a three-year naturalization application backlog and borders that remain in chaos.
Grownups need to tell the DREAM Act agitators to get in the back of the line.
The concept behind the Dream Act is that people who as children were brought illegally into the country by their illegal alien parents, were raised here, educated here, and think of themselves as Americans should be able to easily become citizens.
Those supporting this act in congress consider it a matter of fairness. These young men and women are graduating from high school and supposedly only after applying for college or a job find out that they are not American citizens, but are in fact illegal aliens. As such they are subject to arrest and deportation, just as their parents are. Supporters point to the fact that these people had no choice in coming to the United States, they did not steal across the border of their own volition, but were brought in as innocents by their parents (who themselves were only seeking a better life). All this is more or less true, though each individual case would probably have its own characteristics.
Therefore, they say, it is only fair that, if they have not committed crimes, and have completed high school, they should be able to attend college as a resident and upon graduation become a citizen. A second path to citizenship in the proposed Dream Act would be for them to join the US military and upon receiving an honorable discharge they would become citizens.
I find a few things wrong with the basic premise and suggested solution proposed as part of the dream act. The premise that they are somehow victims doesn’t really make sense; consider the following points:
- They are in the United States in violation of our federal immigration law
- They have received an elementary and high school education from our public school system
- They have enjoyed government services intended for citizens
- They have lived in better circumstances than they would have in their homeland
- In many, if not most, cases the parents have worked without paying taxes
- It is most likely that the majority of these students have known before they finished high school they and their family are illegal aliens, they just never thought they would be caught.
As you consider these things it is clear that they have directly benefited from their parents’ illegal activities, and are not victims of our system, but have victimized the system. They were not entitled to the benefits they have already received. In spite of this, the proposed act would give them resident student status, so they would pay in-state tuition and would be entitled to grants, loans, and scholarships. In-state students are subsidized by taxpayer money, so they would continue freeloading on the American Taxpayer. They would also be in competition with students who are legal citizens for this education, grants, loans, and scholarships. As if that isn’t enough, because of their minority status, they would actually have an advantage over legal citizens.
The second proposal is more rational – After honorably serving in the armed forces, having taken the oath to defend the Constitution, and swearing loyalty to the US, they would be qualified to become naturalized citizens. This is something that has historically been done before; non-citizens who volunteered in our military and served honorably have been granted citizenship. So I say “no” to enrollment in college as a step to citizenship, but yes to military service as leading to citizenship. If they want to be citizens let them join the service, and upon release go through the naturalization process.
One of the foremost responsibilities of the federal government is to ensure the security of our nation. It is right there in the Preamble to the United States Constitution: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” This week the U.S. Senate is scheduled to take up the FY 2011 National Defense Authorization Act. This legislation is necessary to fund the defense of the United States and its interests abroad. The House already passed their bill in May. But Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) would rather talk about amnesty.
Why is Reid doing this? One only need look at the RealClearPolitics aggregate polling data: he is in a dead-heat reelection battle with State Rep. Sharon Angle (R). That is why Reid bypassed usual Senate procedure and included “the DREAM Act” in the defense bill. The DREAM Act creates a “path to citizenship” for illegal immigrants who entered the U.S. before the age of 16, have lived here for 5 years, and either serve in the military or attend college. But the bill also prohibits the government from deporting anyone who has even filed an application for the program. This essentially gives amnesty to anyone who applies regardless of whether they actually qualify for the act’s protections. Worse, the program would also allow applicants to sponsor their immediate family members for a green card. While current law prohibits sponsorship of illegal immigrants living in the United States, this leaves open the possibility that they could fraudulently, through falsified documents or other means, sponsor their parents who are in the U.S. illegally – creating an even larger amnesty.
By itself the DREAM Act is terrible public policy. It would reward illegal aliens for violating federal immigration laws. It would encourage more illegal immigration by sending the message that the United States does not take its immigration laws seriously. And in an additional slap in the face to law-abiding Americans, it offers in-state college tuition to illegal immigrants, while legal students in the rest of the country would have to pay out-of-state tuition rates. But forcing this measure into the defense authorization bill is just shameful.
Unfortunately this is not the first time Reid has pulled this stunt. Last year’s defense bill, The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, expanded federal hate crime laws to include crimes motivated by a victim’s “actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.” What did that have to do with national security? And this year the leftist Senate majority is also considering adding language to the bill that would repeal the military’s “don’t ask don’t tell” policy. This despite the fact that each of the four Service Chiefs (General Conway (USMC), General Conway (USMC), Admiral Roughead (USN), and General Schwartz (USAF)) have submitted letters stressing that any action by Congress should only be taken after the Pentagon finishes its review the policy. And Sen. Roland Burris (D–IL) has sponsored an amendment that would allow the use of military facilities around the world for “pre-paid” abortions.
According to Gallup’s latest poll, only 18% of Americans now approve of the job Congress is doing. Reid’s shameless hijacking of the defense bill for his reelection purposes is exactly why the American people have such a low approval of Congress. As Senator Mitch McConnell (R–KY) rightly declared, “It’s time they put the liberal wish list on the shelf and focused on the priorities of the American people.”
- According to the National Bureau of Economic Research’s Business Cycle Dating Committee, the end of the recession occurred in June 2009, 18 months after the economy began sliding into a downturn in December 2007.
- Thanks to imminent Obamacare regulations, some of the country’s most prominent health insurance companies have decided to stop offering new child-only plans.
- Republican lawmakers are developing plans to dismantle Obamacare by defunding key regulatory provisions.
- The United Kingdom’s tax collection agency, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), proposed that all employers send employee paychecks to the government, after which the government would deduct what it deems as the appropriate tax and pay the employees by bank transfer.
- According to a new Public Opinion Strategies poll, 55% of Americans believe increasing taxes on any Americans will slow the economy and kill jobs.