Categories

Archive for the ‘Immigration’ Category

Rep. Tom Cotton’s op-ed offers a scathing critique of the Senate immigration ‘reform’ bill. It’s the type of op-ed that the useful idiots in the media have ignored. Here’s part of Rep. Cotton’s powerful argument:

In the bill, legalization comes with trivial preconditions. Pay a “fine”? Yes, but it’s less than $7 per month and can be waived. Pay back taxes? Only if a tax lien has already been filed, which will be rare for undocumented work. Pass a criminal-background check? Yes, with a gaping exception allowed for illegal immigrants with up to two misdemeanors—or more, if the convictions occurred on the same day—even if these were pleaded down from felony offenses and included serious offenses such as domestic violence and drunken driving.

Rep. Cotton stated earlier in the op-ed that America is a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. The Democrat-RINO bill is filled with loopholes to essentially turn America into a nation of immigrants sans the nation of laws part. While it’s true there is a border surge mentioned in the bill, it’s entirely slight of hand gimmickry:

Further, the bill explicitly lets the secretary of Homeland Security decline to build a fence in a specific location if she decides it’s not “appropriate.”

That means Janet Napolitano, not Congress, has the final say on building the fence. Anyone that thinks she’ll build the fence, hire the border patrol agents, then enforce all of the immigration statutes is kidding themselves.

The day that happens is the day I’ll look for pigs flying in V-formation.

That isn’t the only major flaw with the Senate legislation. Here’s more:

Instead, the bill throws billions of dollars at the border for new border-patrol agents (though not until 2017) and sensor technologies. These solutions are complements, not substitutes, for a fence. When I was a soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan, my units relied on guards and technology to secure our bases, but the first line of defense was always a physical perimeter.

Let’s remember that the border fence provision is mostly illusion. Let’s understand that the Democrats don’t want the immigration bill passed unless it doesn’t fix the problem:

After 10 years, the CBO predicts, the illegal-immigrant population will have declined to only eight million from today’s 12 million. So much for solving the problem. All we’re doing is setting up the next amnesty.

In other words, the Senate Democrat-RINO bill is just Simpson-Mazoli Part II, with Simpson-Mazoli Part III anticipated in 2020.

If enforcement fails, what’s more likely: that legalized persons won’t become citizens or that future Congresses will simply relax or eliminate the required “triggers”? If past is prologue, we know the answer.

Forget about questioning if enforcement fails. It’s guaranteed to fail. Even if the fence gets built, we’ll have 8,000,000 new illegal immigrants in the US within another decade. That isn’t a solution. It’s an opportunity for Democrats to return in 6-8 years and lie about how Republicans hate Hispanics.

The solution is simple. Build the double fence from California to the Gulf of Mexico, then enforce the laws that are already on the books. That’s 80% of the solution. The rest are minor tweaks.

Friday night, the trio of David Schultz, Kathryn Pearson & Stacey Hunter-Hecht were guest panelists on Almanac. Predictably, Dr. Schultz bemoaned the fact that Republican moderates were nowhere to be found in the House on immigration.

This isn’t a big thing because Dr. Schultz hasn’t had a new idea in years, possibly decades. Further, Dr. Schultz has been a shill for the DFL for nearly all that time.

The problem with the Senate amnesty bill isn’t that there aren’t enough GOP moderates in the House. The problem with the Senate amnesty bill is that conservatives know it isn’t a solution to the problem it’s meant to fix. I wrote here about the gaping hole in the ‘Border Trickle’ in the Senate Amnesty Bill:

On page 35, line 24 of the new bill, a provision was inserted that says Napolitano–who already believes the border is secure–can decide against building a fence if she chooses not to erect one:

Notwithstanding paragraph (1), nothing in this subsection shall require the Secretary to install fencing, or infrastructure that directly results from the installation of such fencing, in a particular location along the Southern border, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain effective control over the Southern border at such location.

In other words, House conservatives see this as a sham provision. It doesn’t secure the border. It doesn’t fix the problem. Its only purpose was to provide political cover for weak-kneed Senate Republicans.

House Republicans shouldn’t budge from their demand for a real solution to immigration. That means a border fence. That means 5 straight years of enforcing current immigration laws. That means no catch and release. That means implementing E-Verify.

Dr. Schultz’s lamentations about the lack of House GOP moderates is silliness parading as thoughtful policymaking. The Senate Amnesty Bill has a gaping hole in it. Milton Friedman, the late, great economist, was fond of asking where the halfway point between right and wrong was.

When the gap between House conservatives and the Senate Amnesty Bill are this immense, Dr. Friedman’s question should be modified to ask what the halfway point is between a solution and a disaster.

The Senate Amnesty Bill is a disaster. The CBO says that it doesn’t stop illegal immigration, meaning that the Republicans who voted for the Senate bill voted for a bill that will cause us to revisit the issue 5-7 years from now.

If I were advising House Republicans on this issue, I’d advise them to highlight the failure of the Senate bill to fix the problem. I’d send Speaker Boehner and Rep. Trey Gowdy out daily to any TV news program to talk about the need for a real solution. I’d have them pick a fight with Chuck Schumer, John McCain and Lindsey Graham. I’d have them ask why they support a bill that doesn’t fix the problem.

It’s really that simple.

When the Senate votes on the immigration bill, they’ll be voting for a 1,200 page monstrosity. They won’t be voting on a solution to the immigration problem. Unserious politicians like Harry Reid, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, John Hoeven and Bob Corker will say that their bill is the solution but it isn’t. I wrote about it in this post. John Hinderaker wrote about the bill’s glaring shortcomings in this post. Thankfully, Greta van Susteren wrote the outline to a true immigration solution in this post:

1/ PROBLEM: every day we get people entering the USA illegally (or staying beyond visas – I will get to this later.)

SIMPLE SOLUTION: SEAL THE BORDERS. Don’t tell me we don’t have the money – we do. We can stop doing stupid thinks like the IRS, in just 2 years, spending $50 million on conferences involving line dancing and trinkets. (They don’t have receipts for the other years and you can expect the same absurd waste.) We can sell empty government buildings (the number of buildings is staggering!) and everyone, including the President, can tighten the belt (is this really the right time to be going to Africa to the tune of $60-100 million dollars?) Cost overruns and waste at the Pentagon are breathtakingly large…and I could go on and on and on. We just need to start being smart about our money.

We can figure out how to seal the borders (it just isn’t that hard!) and we can afford it.

Greta’s post highlights the problem. Money isn’t the problem. Political will is the problem.

2/ PROBLEM: What about the 11 MILLION IN THE USA ILLEGALLY NOW? If you speak to the 11 million, you know their big fear and that is that ICE will deport them. That is what THEY want solved.

SIMPLE SOLUTION: give them green cards (we already know how to do that and have a mechanism) but make them ineligible for citizenship since there should be some price for violating our laws. They can stay and work forever and be good neighbors with green cards, but they can’t be citizens for violating our immigration law and then getting lucky.

This is sensible. If people knowingly came to the US illegally, they shouldn’t have a path to citizenship.

ICE is criticizing the Corker-Hoeven amendment:

After Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) admitted the amendment he and Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) offered to the immigration bill will not improve immigration law enforcement, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) National Council president Chris Crane told Breitbart News he is shocked lawmakers would still want to pass the bill.

“So that’s the answer from U.S. Senators,” Crane, an ICE agent and a former Marine, told Breitbart News exclusively on Sunday morning. “They know the bill is bad but plan to pass it anyway? With billions of taxpayer dollars to be spent and the safety of the public on the line, Senators plan to pass the buck to the House with hopes they might fix it? Anti-enforcement special interests have succeeded in pressuring the Senate from doing what’s best for America. This is why America has lost faith in its lawmakers.”

Crane is right. This bill is fatally flawed. It doesn’t secure the border. It isn’t that it doesn’t secure it enough. It’s that it doesn’t secure the border. Period.

Finally, Hugh Hewitt is right about this:

If the answer is “We don’t want to waste money on unnecessary double fencing,” my response is that the bill should die because the amendments’ sponsors simply do not understand the importance of this provision and thus have no real intention of meeting the demands of the border-security conservatives. Fence-proponents do not care about a few more hundreds of millions or even billions, and they really don’t believe that cost is driving the opposition.

I and almost every double-sided fence-advocate I know or have talked with don’t trust anyone in D.C. to do anything not specifically written into the law and done so with exacting detail. In fact, they believe every authority to water down border security will in fact be employed –as has been the case since 2006. This is the rational, indeed compelling attitude to have towards this draft law: The rhetoric about it means nothing. The legislative language means everything.

Why would we trust the government at this point? More to the point: Why would we trust Chuck Schumer, Lindsey Graham, Harry Reid, Janet Napolitano and Bob Corker? I wouldn’t trust those people if my life depended on it.

Why would anyone trust Janet Napolitano on building the fence? Apparently, there’s a bunch of idiots masquerading as GOP senators who think she can be trusted to build the fence. Chief among these idiots are Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Marco Rubio, Bob Corker and John Hoeven.

What’s appalling is that Lindsey Graham was foolish enough to say that the bill’s security measures are better than he could’ve imagined. While that might be true, that’s only testimony to the fact that Sen. Graham sets a low bar to be impressed with. Check out Matthew Boyle’s article to see what’s allowed:

On page 35, line 24 of the new bill, a provision was inserted that says Napolitano–who already believes the border is secure–can decide against building a fence if she chooses not to erect one:

Notwithstanding paragraph (1), nothing in this subsection shall require the Secretary to install fencing, or infrastructure that directly results from the installation of such fencing, in a particular location along the Southern border, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain effective control over the Southern border at such location.

This should be a poison pill for Republicans. Sen. Graham, however, thinks it’s reasonable because requiring a border fence is a deal breaker with Democrats. I think that’s spin. I’d bet they’d cave if Republicans forced them to defend against securing the border first.

Let’s suppose I’m wrong, though. Let’s suppose that it’s a deal breaker with Democrats. That’s fine. If they want the US-Mexican border to be as secure as the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, let them defend that position. I’d love hearing Sen. Schumer and Sen. Reid explain why a fence isn’t needed to secure the border.

Personally, I’d love to see Sen. Graham get defeated in a primary, preferably by Rep. Trey Gowdy. It’s one thing to have a big tent party. It’s quite another to have politicians who cave and give their opponents everything they wanted from the start.

This is nothing more than Simpson-Mazoli, Part II. It doesn’t stop illegal immigration. It helps import tons of low-skill, low-wage illegal immigrants into the United States at a time when unemployment is still high, wages are stagnant and the economy is still struggling.

Each week, people are bombarded with another scandal. Right now, the NSA surveillance is the one capturing the people’s attention most, followed by the IRS targeting of conservatives placing second. According to this article, distrust with the federal government is killing immigration reform:

On immigration, there is broad popular support for comprehensive immigration reform. Most Americans believe legal immigration is good for the country, but most do not trust the government to enforce any provisions in the new law that would improve border security and reduce illegal immigration. Only 7 percent believe that enforcement is “very likely” to happen.

This is not just Republicans grumbling about Barack Obama in the White House. The same skepticism was there when George W. Bush was president. Unless the government does something to address the border problem, it will be there for the next president, as well. Because of that distrust, prospects for passing serious immigration reform this year are slim indeed.

That isn’t good news for Sen. Schumer and the Gang of Eight. As Scott Rasmussen says, support for immigration reform is broad, with an asterisk. The American people want it provided the border is secured. They don’t want a 21st century replay of Simpson-Mazoli.

Change is needed in Washington but not the type Democrats and Republicans are pushing:

Many in Washington are frustrated by the public distrust. They dream of public relations programs to overcome it. What’s needed, though, is for the government to change its behavior so that it can earn the trust of the people it serves.

The concept of doing the right thing is, unfortunately, a foreign thing in DC these days. Slick PR games won’t cut it. People are demanding solutions. Washington’s insiders are pushing PR gimmicks. That’s why the disconnect between real people and DC is growing.

If DC doesn’t start doing what the American people expect of them, starting with protecting them from terrorists and illegal immigrants, immigration reform will still be a problem a decade from now.

As I write this, Republicans are playing the role they often play: that of the timid, unprincipled party. They’re doing a terrible job negotiating the immigration bill. It’s time for them to tell Sen. Schumer that there won’t be a bill unless the fence is built. Yesterday, Sen. Schumer lied through his teeth when he said that building a fence “might take years and years and years.” A double fence doesn’t take long to build once there’s a will to do it.

Republicans should run from this bill. Instead, they’re giving platitude-filled speeches on the subject:

Sen. Marco Rubio stayed away from specific immigration reform policies during a talk Thursday, reiterating that America must be recognized as an exemplary nation that welcomes those seeking freedom they don’t have in their home countries.

“What we have is special,” Rubio said. “Every single human life is worthy of the protection of our values. Who else will do it if not us?”

The Florida Republican also appealed to America’s religious heritage, asserting that as the “salt of the earth,” the United States has a duty to be compassionate to the less-fortunate.

That’s pretty sounding Unfortunately, that isn’t what’s needed. What’s needed is for Republicans to tell Sen. Schumer that the bill isn’t going anywhere without guaranteed border security. If Sen. Schumer replies that it’s impossible to do with this bill, Republicans’ response should immediately be that it’s never impossible to build things like fences.

If Republicans vote for this immigration bill, they’ll be the minority party for a generation. They will have shown themselves to be as unprincipled as Democrats. Not as corrupt but as unprincipled.

At this point, they aren’t engaged in negotiations. They’re engaged in taking orders from Sen. Schumer. They’re frightened that the media and the DNC will paint them as mean-spirited, rigid ideologues. They shouldn’t worry about that. Democrats will paint them that way regardless of what happens.

As for Sen. Rubio, he should be ashamed. If he asserted himself on the fence, he’d win that negotiation. He isn’t asserting himself, which is why Republicans appear to be on the verge of signing onto another bad bill. If he doesn’t assert himself on that specific issue, he’ll never be president.

The bottom line is that no bill is better than a bill that doesn’t build a fence. The bottom line is that Republicans hurt themselves when they’re seen as being unprincipled. That’s what they look like now.

Wednesday night, Michele Bachmann was interviewed by Greta van Susteren about the IRS scandal. What she said is quite pertinent to the scandal:

Here’s the first exchange between Greta and Michele:

GRETA: And, of course, we’re all chewing on the news that Bret Baier sent me that he was at the end of his term at the end of the month and President Obama making the announcement that he’d resigned just a month early.
BACHMANN: Well, he was the perfect scapegoat. He was exiting the stage anyway and so they might as well make it look like they’re chopping his head off on the way out because it wasn’t going to happen anyway.

By the time Jay Carney gives the daily press briefing, people will be criticizing President Obama for attempting to pull a fast one on people. This scandal will hurt the administration because the IRS has a history of intimidating people and because of the fear IRS audits have caused.

Later in the interview, Ms. Bachmann talked about a major TEA Party press conference:

BACHMANN: This is a major press conference where all of the major TEA Party organizations from across the United States are coming together. We are having a major press conference at the Capital. Joining us will be Sen. Mitch McConnell, Sen. Rand Paul, Sen. Mike Lee. There’ll be many members of the House of Representatives. But it’s to give a voice to the TEA Party because they are livid as you can imagine and these leaders want to react and tell their story publicly.

People have asked where the TEA Party has been. Frankly, they’ve been hiding after the left successfully vilified them. Rest assured, though, that they’ll be fired up after they’ve been targeted by the IRS. Rest assured, people will sympathize with them because people hate and fear the IRS.

Later, Rep. Bachmann dispatched with the notion that a couple agents went rogue:

GRETA: So I’m curious with the IRS, doing this, what is the usual time period for people to get their tax exempt status from the IRS?
BACHMANN: Well, within a reasonable amount of time. Certainly within 2 years. It certainly doesn’t take the IRS to do it. But I knew this was a phony story last Friday, when the story came out because when I was a federal tax attorney and did this work, we had very strict jurisdictional limits within the IRS because we were handling people’s tax data. We had to act within that tax zone. We had very strict procedures where we check a lot of boxes. Our supervisors up the food chain check them. It’s impossible for them to go rogue.

In short, President Obama and his handlers are attempting to sell a BS story to the American people. The thing that’s going to trip them up are little details like this. If people “up the food chain” are checking these applications off, then this must be a cultural systemic problem, not a couple rogue agents acting irresponsibly. If you read the type of intrusive questions that the IRS asked some conservative applicants, you’ll realize that it’s ideological and possibly systemic.

It’s apparent that President Obama carries some pretty nasty grudges. That was in plain view after the Supreme Court ruling on SB1070. The minute that they upheld the section that got the most publicity, President Obama’s vindictiveness flashed into public view. At that precise moment, he stripped Arizona law enforcement of their 287(g) capabilities.

That’s the face of vindictiveness.

It’s equally apparent that he’ll fight for his allies even if it means ignoring the Constitution or this nation’s laws. This op-ed makes a compelling case that President Obama won’t hesitate to ignore this nation’s laws if that’s what’s needed to fight for his friends:

When the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel exposed the fact that the Obama campaign is keeping an enemies list and spending vital resources attacking Romney supporters, many liberals gasped in surprise. Richard Nixon and Senator Joseph McCarthy kept lists of names to be targeted, but Obama keeping an enemies list? They just couldn’t understand it.

The first proof we had of President Obama’s lawlessness was when he told auto executives that their secured bondholders wouldn’t get their money, that they’d have to wait in line until after the UAW got their money first.

At a private meeting, President Obama told the auto executives that he was the only person standing between them and angry mobs. The clear implication was that these bondholders would have to forfeit their rights to people who didn’t have any rights to the spoils.

We saw President Obama ignore common sense when he shoved Solyndra’s loan down our throats even though he knew they were going bankrupt. Those aren’t the only examples:

This is why he threatens institutions such as the Supreme Court and treats the Republican House of Representatives as if they don’t even exist. He isn’t interested in compromise or coexistence with his opponents; he is committed to destroying them.

This is why when Washington rejects his political priorities, he just dictates them through executive order. Don’t enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. Don’t enforce our immigration laws. Congress defeats his cap and trade legislation, so he tells the EPA to write the new regulations by edict. He is comfortable acting on his own, ignoring the US Constitution’s old fashioned limits to executive power.

For most of my life, I’ve heard a phrase repeated again and again that I can’t shake. America is a “nation of laws, not men.” For most of my adult life, that’s been true. The hallmark of this administration has been the opposite. In President Obama’s practice, America is a nation of his whims and preferences. If this nation’s laws don’t fit his agenda, then he’s ignored this nation’s laws.

It isn’t possible to credibly argue that President Obama hasn’t attempted to do through executive orders and regulations what he couldn’t accomplish legislatively.

After he’s defeated this fall, most people won’t miss his ruthlessness or lawlessness. They’ll breath a sigh of relief that his ill-advised policies won’t adversely affect their lives.

Investors will breath an even bigger sigh of relief because they won’t have to worry about the bullseye this administration painted on their backs.

The downside is that President Obama created a pool of people who think that people with money should be punished. In fact, many of the lefty bloggers here in Minnesota think like that.

They hate prosperity. They love omnipotent government.

Many in the media have swooned over “The One.” He isn’t “The One.” This administration’s hardline followers are cultists; he’s their James Jones.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Based on yesterday’s oral arguments, it sounds like Solicitor General Donald Verilli got a beating in his SCOTUS arguments yesterday. SCOTUS appears on the verge of ruling SB1070 is constitutional:

The Obama administration has sued, arguing that those provisions conflict with the federal government’s role in setting immigration policy, but justices on both sides of the aisle struggled to understand that argument.

“It seems to me the federal government just doesn’t want to know who’s here illegally,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said at one point.

This administration is about to get embarrassed by the Supremes again. That’s because this administration thinks it can rewrite the Constitution whenever it wants. This administration got rolled by a 9-0 ruling when it tried telling private property owners they didn’t have the right to contest the EPA’s administrative rulings.

I don’t expect a unanimous ruling this time (Justice Kagan recused herself) but I’d be surprised if SB1070 isn’t ruled constitutional with votes to spare.

The Holder Justice Department is getting the reputation for being corrupt and inept. Verilli is getting a reputation of ineptly arguing questionable cases before the Supreme Court. That’s what happens when the administration makes foolish decisions, then has the solicitor general defend its foolish decisions in the Supreme court.

It’s particularly embarrassing for the solicitor general to be told by Justice Sotomayor that his arguments weren’t playing well with the justices.

That’s what happens when an incompetent solicitor general argues for a corrupt administration’s bankrupt policies in front of the Supreme Court.

While there’s some doubt about whether the Supreme Court will overturn Obamacare, there’s little doubt that SCOTUS will rule in Arizona’s favor.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Senate Democrats plan on pushing legislation that would invalidate SB1070, the Arizona immigration law. Today starts the SCOTUS oral arguments for the Arizona law. They’d only push this legislation if the SCOTUS validates it as constitutional.

“If the court upholds the Arizona law, Congress can make it clear that what Arizona is doing goes beyond what the federal government and what Congress ever intended,” Schumer said in an interview.

He called the Arizona law an “assault on the domain of the federal government” that Congress will need to address if the court allows it to stand.

What a windbag. If the Supreme Court rules in Arizona’s favor, they will have ruled that Arizona didn’t change or set federal immigration laws. They will have ruled that they acted within the framework of federal immigration laws.

As for SB1070 being toxic to Hispanic voters, that might be true. However, it’s wildly popular with voters who don’t already lean Democrat. Simply put, this isn’t a winning issue for Democrats.

It’s just a situation where they please one demographic group but piss off a different demographic group. Since the group that Democrats would piss off is significantly bigger than the Hispanic group, it’s a net loss for the Democrats.

I’d recommend that vulnerable Senate Republicans vote for the bill so they’re protected against future ads. I’d then tell Republicans occupying strong GOP seats to defeat the bill.

I’d then instruct the House to not bring the bill up for consideration. Once that happens, the bill dies quietly.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,