Archive for the ‘Immigration’ Category
Eugene Robinson’s latest article is proof that there aren’t many great strategists left in the Democratic Party. A topnotch political strategist wouldn’t say “In the two weeks since, Trump has only piled outrage upon outrage, as far as progressives are concerned. He took the first steps toward building his ridiculous wall along the southern border, but with U.S. taxpayers’ dollars, not Mexico’s. He squelched government experts who work on climate change. He weakened the Affordable Care Act in the hope that it would begin to collapse, which would make it easier for Congress to kill it.”
That’s because they’d know that the ACA started collapsing a year ago. Its collapse is inevitable because it’s terrible legislation. A relatively healthy person is better off not buying insurance because the ACA’s out-of-pocket expenses (premiums plus deductibles) in some states are so high that families are better off paying the penalty rather than buying the insurance. As I’ve written before, the ACA is catastrophic coverage at Cadillac plan prices.
And I can’t help thinking back to 2009. Republicans made an all-out effort to stop the Affordable Care Act. Their motives were purely political; some GOP senators railed against policies they had favored in the past. Ultimately, they failed. Obamacare became law.
But this losing battle gave tremendous energy and passion to the tea party movement — which propelled Republicans to a sweeping victory in the 2010 midterm election. It is hard not to see an analogous situation on the Democratic side right now.
Democrats haven’t learned the TEA Party lesson, which is that politicians better listen to We The People or else. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi didn’t listen to people and lost 12 seats and 63 seats respectively. Chuck Schumer isn’t listening to the people, either. The chances of Democrats picking up Senate seats is remote at best.
Democrats cannot stop Gorsuch from being confirmed. But they can hearten and animate the party’s base by fighting this nomination tooth and nail, even if it means giving up some of the backslapping comity of the Senate cloakroom. They can inspire grass-roots activists to fight just as hard to win back state legislatures and governorships. They can help make 2018 a Democratic year.
This is delusional thinking. Democrats will lose more governorships and legislative seats because they’re owned by special interests. They haven’t talked about doing what’s best for the people. President Trump constantly talks about putting people first. Democrats reflexively side with environmental activists, which has alienated blue collar union rank-and-file.
Democrats in Illinois haven’t pressured Rahm Emanuel to actually crack down on Chicago’s crime-infested streets. New York City’s City Council hasn’t blasted Bill De Blasio’s sanctuary city policies. In both cities, people don’t feel safe. Former President Obama insisted that terrorism wasn’t a threat while ISIS killed people in shopping malls and at Christmas parties. The Obama administration insisted, too, that the borders were secured. Voters knew that wasn’t true.
Voters won’t vote for the party that won’t protect them. Right now, people don’t trust Democrats to handle the basic government functions. Until that happens, people won’t trust Democrats.
This article puts forth an interesting legal theory, though I’m not sure it’s applicable. The novel legal theory revolves around whether President Trump’s executive order on sanctuary cities is unconstitutional. I’m betting this theory fails.
In the article, Damon Root brings up the original Obamacare lawsuit, otherwise known as National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, aka NFIB v. Sebelius. Mr. Root notes that “At issue was whether Congress exceeded its Spending Clause powers when it threatened to cut off all existing Medicaid funding to any state that refused to expand Medicaid in accordance with the new health care law. The federal government’s Medicaid expansion amounted to a ‘gun to the head,’ the Supreme Court held. ‘A State that opts out of the Affordable Care Act’s expansion in health care coverage…stands to lose not merely ‘a relatively small percentage’ of its existing Medicaid funding, but all of it.'” That sort of ‘economic dragooning…leaves the States with no real option but to acquiesce.'”
The difference between the commandeering of state budgets in NFIB v. Sebelius and cutting off of law enforcement grants is that the ACA told states that they had to expand Medicaid. The federal government, through the ACA, said that states that didn’t expand Medicaid would lose all Medicaid funding. The withholding of funding to sanctuary cities isn’t commandeering because these sanctuary cities opted to apply for grants in exchange for helping the Department of Homeland Security with immigration-related issues.
In NFIB v. Sebelius, the federal government told states what they had to do without giving them an option. Cutting off funds to sanctuary cities isn’t the same because these cities applied for (think requested) federal grants. In exchange for these grants, those cities sign maintenance of service agreements that obligate them to specific things. In this instance, that means helping DHS capture illegal aliens.
The short story is simple. These sanctuary cities want the money but they refuse to enforce the law. That isn’t commandeering. That’s negotiating in bad faith.
What’s ignored is what’s important. After Congress appropriates the money, it’s the Executive Branch’s responsibility to ensure that the money is spent in accordance to the law. With sanctuary cities, they aren’t spending the money in accordance with our nation’s laws. It isn’t just within the Trump administration’s rights to monitor how cities spend this grant money. It’s their affirmative responsibility to verify that this grant money is spent in compliance with our nation’s laws.
Summarizing, commandeering is when the federal government tells local governments what they must spend their money on. In this instance, cutting off grants that cities requested in exchange for doing things that the federal government wants done isn’t commandeering. That’s simple contract law.
This LTE, written in the form of a resolution, is one of the most idiotic LTEs that the St. Cloud Times has ever published:
This is the only proper response to such stupidity:
Technorati: Donald Trump, Jeff Sessions, Law Enforcement, ICE, Republicans, Liberalism, Illegal Immigration, Sanctuary Cities, Violent Crime, Democrats
Stephen Dinan’s article highlights how little leverage Democrats have in the immigration reform debate. Without writing a single new law, Sen. Sessions will be able to pressure mayors of sanctuary cities. As a result, Sen. Sessions’ opponents are coming unhinged.
For instance, Brent Wilkes, the executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens, said “the agency would become the dispenser of terror and racial intolerance should Jeff Sessions be confirmed.” That’s mild compared with what Charles Chamberlain, head of Democracy for America, said. Chamberlain said “The handful of people who might be even less equipped than Jeff Sessions to dispense justice on behalf of the American people typically spend their weekends wearing pointy hats and burning crosses.”
Democrats are preparing to fight a losing fight against Sen. Sessions’ confirmation as the next US Attorney General. Sen. Sessions will be confirmed. The only question still undetermined is whether Democrats will do as La Raza and other special interests demand or whether they’ll vote to protect their constituents. At this point, I’m betting that they’ll follow these special interest organizations over a political cliff.
Byron York’s article lists some of the things that Sen. Sessions could do the minute he’s sworn in as the next US Attorney General.
There are laws providing for the deportation of people who entered the U.S. illegally. Laws providing for the deportation of people who entered the U.S. illegally and later committed crimes. Laws for enforcing immigration compliance at the worksite. Laws for immigrants who have illegally overstayed their visas for coming to the United States. Laws requiring local governments to comply with federal immigration law. And more.
Many of those laws have been loosened or, in some cases, completely ignored by the Obama administration. A Trump administration would not need to ask Congress to pass any new laws to deal with illegal immigration. If there was a presidential order involved in Obama’s non-enforcement, Trump could undo it, and if there were Justice Department directives involved, Sessions could undo them, and if there are Department of Homeland Security directives involved, the still-to-be-nominated secretary could undo them.
Once those laws are enforced, illegal immigration will slow to a trickle.
This would definitely change behavior:
End the embargo on worksite enforcement. “Experience has shown that employers respond very quickly and voluntarily implement compliance measures when there is an uptick in enforcement,” Vaughan notes, “because they see the potential damage to their operations and public image for being caught and prosecuted.”
Once cheap labor becomes expensive, corporate policies change quickly. That’s because companies prefer making profits rather than not making profits.
It isn’t a secret why the Democrats’ special interest groups are fighting Sen. Sessions’ confirmation. They’re right in seeing him as an existential threat to their policies. Here’s hoping that the American people punish Democrats for not fixing this crisis.
Technorati: Donald Trump, Jeff Sessions, Build the Wall, Border Enforcement, Republicans, Chuck Schumer, National Council of La Raza, Special Interests, Barack Obama, Priority Enforcement Program, Sanctuary Cities, Democracy for America, League of Latin American Citizens, Democrats, Election 2018
This morning, I wrote this post highlighting the leverage a Trump administration will have over Democrats on immigration. I quoted Byron York’s column, especially citing immigration laws already on the books that can simply be enforced.
By just enforcing the laws on the books, the Trump administration can dramatically cut illegal immigration. While I was writing that post, Sen. Schumer was getting interviewed by Chris Wallace. When the subject of a border wall came up, Schumer took a hardline position, saying “this idea of a wall, we already passed — John McCain and Chuck Schumer, bipartisan, an immigration bill that was comprehensive, that did a lot and was much tougher on the border than a wall would be.”
Wallace jumped in, saying “what he’s saying, Senator, is secure the border first, build the wall and then you can start worrying about immigration reform.” Sen. Schumer replied “No. Put it all together.”
Here’s the rest of the exchange:
WALLACE: And if he says wall first?
SCHUMER: We’ll say do it all. If we were to just do the wall, we’d never get the rest. It’s got to be all together.
Sen. Schumer is playing a weak hand very poorly. If Sen. Schumer opposes the Trump immigration plan, Trump might start tightening the screws on border enforcement, at which point Schumer loses his leverage. That’s because the majority of people who want immigration fixed first want the borders fixed.
If Sen. Schumer plays hardball on immigration, which I think special interest organizations like La Raza force him into, Democrats will be on the losing side of the immigration issue. Going into the 2018 midterms, that’s a politically difficult position. Picture Democratic senators defending illegal immigration in red states. If you can picture that, then picture most of those Democratic senators losing in 2018, too, because that’s what will happen.
A similar fate awaits Sen. Schumer on the ACA:
WALLACE: So, this is a kumbaya moment here we’re talking about.
SCHUMER: No, because there are many issues where we’ll oppose him tooth and nail. When he goes against our values, goes with special interests. Let me give you three right off the bat.
He’s going to try to repeal ACA, he won’t be able to do it.
He won’t be able to do it, because now even he, after his meeting with President Obama, said, “Oh, I want to keep the good things.” Well, you can’t keep the good things without keeping ACA.
If Sen. Schumer wants to stand in the way of fixing the ACA, Republicans should welcome that. The skyrocketing premiums are the biggest reason why blue collar workers ditched the Democrats. Democrats defending the ACA status quo is political suicide. If Schumer forces Democrats to filibuster the ACA, that will be the start of Republicans gaining momentum for the 2018 midterms.
Sen. Schumer isn’t this stupid. I think he’s just trying to sound tough before giving in.
Technorati: Donald Trump, Build the Wall, Immigration, Repeal and Replace, Affordable Care Act, Republicans, Chuck Schumer, Obamacare, Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Special Interests, Democrats, Election 2018
Byron York’s article on the likely confirmation of Sen. Jeff Sessions as President Trump’s Attorney General illustrates why Democrats are legitimately frightened by what Sessions could do without legislative action.
For instance, York writes that “There are laws providing for the deportation of people who entered the U.S. illegally. Laws providing for the deportation of people who entered the U.S. illegally and later committed crimes. Laws for enforcing immigration compliance at the worksite. Laws for immigrants who have illegally overstayed their visas for coming to the United States. Laws requiring local governments to comply with federal immigration law.”
That’s quite the bargaining chip a Trump administration could use against Democrats. If Senate Democrats filibuster a Trump immigration bill, Sessions could simply start enforcing laws already on the books. That’s something Senate Democrats can’t prevent. Further, as York highlights, it’d be political suicide for Democrats to fight enforcing laws already on the books.
York also wrote that a Trump administration could force “sanctuary cities to observe the law” because “Attorney General Sessions could enforce an existing law, 8 USC 1373, which prohibits local communities from banning their officials from cooperating with federal immigration authorities.”
Democrats would be foolish to be obstructionists on immigration, especially sanctuary cities. Their obstructionism wouldn’t help them when a Trump administration reminded people of Kate Steinle or Grant Ronnebeck getting murdered by illegal aliens who had already committed felonies. While people are sympathetic towards breaking up families of illegal aliens, they aren’t sympathetic towards cities protecting violent felon aliens.
There’s little doubt that Democrats will fight this nomination though there’s no doubt that they’ll lose this fight.
This NY Times editorial highlights why the NY Times editorial page isn’t taken seriously anymore. For instance, they wrote “Mr. Sessions has been the Senate’s most ardent opponent of fixing the immigration system. In 2015 he proposed a five-year mandatory minimum sentence for anyone re-entering the country illegally after being deported. That could increase the federal prison population by as much as 30 percent. As Mr. Trump’s chief law enforcer, he is likely to fully support efforts to enlist local law enforcement in a widening dragnet for people without papers. He also, during the campaign, endorsed the idea of a ban on Muslim immigrants.”
The horror of that. Sen. Sessions actually thinks that laws should be enforced. What that quote shows is that the NY Times noticed that the Obama administration didn’t enforce this nation’s immigration laws. It’s long past time to enforce the laws already on the books. Further, why wouldn’t Sen. Sessions enlist the help of local law enforcement?
As for the NY Times’ statement that Sen. Sessions “endorsed the idea of a ban on Muslim immigrants”, the reality is that he supports stopping the refugee resettlement program. Sessions’ thinking is that it isn’t smart letting in people whose identity can’t be verified from nations with problems with terrorism.
What’s frightening is that the NY Times apparently thinks that enforcing the laws on the books and protecting this nation’s citizens against potential terrorist attacks.
Count Mr. Sessions, as well, among those Trump allies calling for a special prosecutor to continue investigating Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, a decision that, if he is attorney general, would be his to make.
Why shouldn’t the Clinton Foundation’s pay-for-play practices be investigated? Based on what WikiLeaks exposed, there’s certainly justification for investigating the Clintons. Shouldn’t the Clintons live by the same rules as everyone else?
We expect today’s senators, like their predecessors in 1986, to examine Mr. Sessions’ views and record with bipartisan rigor. If they do, it is hard to imagine that they will endorse a man once rejected for a low-level judgeship to safeguard justice for all Americans as attorney general.
I guess this means the NY Times isn’t undecided on Sen. Sessions. While that isn’t surprising, it is disappointing.
I’ve always enjoyed watching conservatives debate progressives. I especially appreciate it when the progressive hasn’t thought things through. Fortunately, that happens relatively frequently. A great case-in-point was when Tucker Carlson debated Alex Uematsu, a student protest organizer attending Rutgers University, about immigration policy. Thanks to this mismatch, the progressives’ immigration policies were exposed as intellectually flimsy.
Another thing that was highlighted was the fact that Tucker Carlson’s new show will be a major winner and that Carlson is destined to be FNC’s newest star. The intellectual mismatch started when Carlson asked Uematsu “who has the right to come to the United States? You apparently assume that these people have the right to be on your campus, taking a state-subsidized education. Who has a right to come to the United States”?
Predictably, Uematsu replied “I believe that everyone should be able to come to the United States. We are and always have been a nation of immigrants and so I believe that there is no line we can’t let in as many people as we choose in terms of policy and there are artificial limits set on who can come in and who can’t…”
Rather than transcribe the entire interview, just watch this video:
The frightening part, though, was watching Mr. Uematsu sit virtually motionless when Carlson said that illegal immigrants are a net drain to taxpayers. It was apparent that Uematsu wasn’t taking in Carlson’s information because it was different than the propaganda he’s been fed by his professors.
Thus far, Carlson hasn’t suffered the liberals he’s interviewed. His aggressive debating style, combined with his unwillingness to let the left’s false premises stand without contesting them, have helped him shine. He’s 3 shows into his primetime career but it isn’t overstatement that he’s a gifted host and interviewer.
Much is being said about Donald Trump’s raunchy comments from a decade ago. That’s a perfectly legitimate article. Trump’s comments were disgusting and should be consistently criticized. Let’s not pretend, though, that Hillary is pure as the driven snow. Trump is right in saying that “Bill Clinton has actually abused women, and Hillary has bullied, attacked, shamed and intimidated his victims.”
Hillary led the Clinton campaign’s ‘Bimbo Eruptions’ team in the 1990s. She didn’t hesitate in threatening Paula Jones, Jennifer Flowers and Kathleen Willey. During an interview with Matt Lauer, Mrs. Clinton said “If all that were proven true, that would be a very serious offense. That is not going to be proven true. We’re going to find some other things and I think that when all of this is put into context and we read about other people’s motivations, look at their backgrounds, look at their past behavior, some folks are going to have a lot to answer for.”
It’s indisputable that Hillary Clinton is a disgusting individual. She hasn’t hesitated in threatening anyone who might derail her presidential ambitions. If that person is a woman, Mrs. Clinton hasn’t hesitated in utterly demolishing that woman.
That being said, that’s only part of Mrs. Clinton’s problems. Potentially, this might be a bigger problem than Mrs. Clinton’s Bimbo Eruptions problem:
Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open Trade And Open Markets.
“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.” [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28]
This is manna from Heaven for the Trump campaign. We already knew that he wasn’t a moral person. Trump’s disgusting remarks just remind us of that. This transcript, however, shows that Mrs. Clinton will work towards a new world order with open borders and globalization.
Now that their worries have been confirmed, Bernie’s voters are justified in not voting. Mrs. Clinton is the embodiment of the rigged establishment that’s out of touch with reality.
Donald Trump’s acceptance speech last night has been characterized as being scary or dark by Democrats. Mo Elleithee, a former Hillary campaign spokesman, said that this was a dreadful week for the GOP. That’s spin but not very good spin.
Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s pollster, said that she expects Trump and Hillary to be tied in all of the major swing states when the swing state polls start coming out. While it’s wise to take anything from a candidate’s pollster with a grain of salt, I’ve watched Mrs. Conway since she was Ms. Fitzpatrick. She isn’t a spinner. She’s earned the benefit of the doubt with me.
As for Trump’s speech, it was different in important and profound ways. He stripped away the façade that the Obama administration has hidden behind for 8 years. It started when Mr. Trump said “It is finally time for a straightforward assessment of the state of our nation. I will present the facts plainly and honestly. We cannot afford to be so politically correct anymore. So if you want to hear the corporate spin, the carefully-crafted lies, and the media myths, the Democrats are holding their convention next week. Go there.”
Think of that as Trump’s way of telling the elitists in the media and in the Democratic Party (pardon the repetition) that America would hear the truth. Here’s an example of that truthfulness:
These are the facts:
Decades of progress made in bringing down crime are now being reversed by this administration’s rollback of criminal enforcement. Homicides last year increased by 17% in America’s fifty largest cities. That’s the largest increase in 25 years. In our nation’s capital, killings have risen by 50 percent. They are up nearly 60 percent in nearby Baltimore.
In the president’s hometown of Chicago, more than 2,000 have been the victims of shootings this year alone. And almost 4,000 have been killed in the Chicago area since he took office. The number of police officers killed in the line of duty has risen by almost 50 percent compared to this point last year.
Democrats say that the speech was dark. Let’s ask this question: Are those the type of statistics that should make us feel happy? Or are they the type of statistics that make your heart ache? If that wasn’t enough information to make a decision on, this will help thoughtful people make the right decision:
One such border-crosser was released and made his way to Nebraska. There, he ended the life of an innocent young girl named Sarah Root. She was 21 years old and was killed the day after graduating from college with a 4.0 grade point average. Her killer was then released a second time, and he is now a fugitive from the law. I’ve met Sarah’s beautiful family. But to this administration, their amazing daughter was just one more American life that wasn’t worth protecting. One more child to sacrifice on the altar of open borders.
There’s no spinning that story. If I were to put it in tennis language, that story would be “Game. Set. Match. Championship.” Thoughtful people can’t hear that story and think we need to continue this administration’s immigration policies.
This is a powerful indictment of Hillary’s incompetence:
In 2009, pre-Hillary, ISIS was not even on the map. Libya was stable. Egypt was peaceful. Iraq had seen a big reduction in violence. Iran was being choked by sanctions. Syria was somewhat under control.
After four years of Hillary Clinton, what do we have? ISIS has spread across the region and the entire world. Libya is in ruins, and our ambassador and his staff were left helpless to die at the hands of savage killers. Egypt was turned over to the radical Muslim Brotherhood, forcing the military to retake control. Iraq is in chaos. Iran is on the path to nuclear weapons. Syria is engulfed in a civil war and a refugee crisis that now threatens the West. After 15 years of wars in the Middle East, after trillions of dollars spent and thousands of lives lost, the situation is worse than it has ever been before.
This is the legacy of Hillary Clinton: Death, destruction and terrorism and weakness.
That’s a devastating and accurate before and after portrait of Hillary’s incompetence. Think of it as the indictment the Justice Department didn’t attempt to get.
Technorati: Donald Trump, Acceptance Speech, Law Enforcement, Sarah Root, Violent Crime, Terrorism, Republican National Convention, Hillary Clinton, Illegal Immigration, Libya, Iraq, ISIS, National Security, Democrats, Election 2016