Tuesday’s House hearing, The President’s Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws, was more gripping than a wonky examination of law might suggest. Constitutionalist Tea Party Republicans were in attendance, while the Democrat side of the dais was somewhat empty. Perhaps members of the President’s party didn’t want to be seen defending him, now that Obamacare has become the disaster without end.
The House is the branch of government most damaged by the “imperial President” (a phrase used by liberal Prof. Jonathan Turley in his testimony).
The opening statement of Chairman Bob Goodlatte was straightforward and specific.
Chairman Goodlatte: Today’s hearing is about the President’s role in our constitutional system.
Our system of government is a tripartite one, with each branch having certain defined functions delegated to it by the Constitution. The President is charged with executing the laws; the Congress with writing the laws; and the Judiciary with interpreting them.
The Obama Administration, however, has ignored the Constitution’s carefully balanced separation of powers and unilaterally granted itself the extra-constitutional authority to amend the laws and to waive or suspend their enforcement. [. . .]
From Obamacare to immigration, the current administration is picking and choosing which laws to enforce. But the Constitution does not confer upon the President the “executive authority” to disregard the separation of powers by unilaterally waiving, suspending, or revising the laws. It is a bedrock principle of constitutional law that the President must “faithfully execute” Acts of Congress. The President cannot refuse to enforce a law simply because he dislikes it. [. . .]
In place of the checks and balances established by the Constitution, President Obama has proclaimed that “I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer” and that “where [Congress] won’t act, I will.” Throughout the Obama presidency we have seen a pattern: President Obama circumvents Congress when he doesn’t get his way.
For instance, while Congress is currently debating how to reform our immigration laws, the President effectively enacted the DREAM Act himself by ordering immigration officials to stop enforcing the immigration laws against certain unlawful immigrants. [. . .]
Also noteworthy was Congressman Trey Gowdy, the former prosecutor, who asked witnesses on the panel of lawyers, “If you can suspend mandatory minimum and immigration laws, why not election laws?” referring to the President.
Professor Turley expressed his deep concern with the slow-moving Constitutional crisis and its harm done to the House of Representatives:
TURLEY (starting 6.45): The great concern I have for this body is that it is not only being circumvented, but it is also being denied the ability to enforce its inherent powers. Many of these questions are not close in my view; the President is outside the line. But it has to go in front of a court and that court has to grant review, and that’s where we have the most serious Constitutional crisis I view in my lifetime. And that is, this body is becoming less and less relevant.
Iowa Congressman Steve King is not a lawyer, but he is well read on the Constitution. His questioning of Prof Turley brought another statement of concern about how this President is destroying the brilliant system created by the framers:
TURLEY (starting at 5.28): I have great trepidation of where we are headed, because we are creating a new system here – something that is not what was designed. We have a rising fourth branch in a system that was tripartite. The center of gravity is shifting and that makes it unstable. And ithin that system, you have the rise of an Uber-Presidency. There could be no greater danger for individual liberty. I really think that the Framers would be horrified by that shift, because everything they dedicated themselves to was creating political balance – and we’ve lost it.
Add to the list of Jobs Americans Won’t Do: parking ticket writer. The New York Times informs its diversity-appreciative readership that Bangladeshi immigrants are creating a mini-surge to take the jobs, at least 400 out of 3000 total.
The job pays $29,000 to start and has good benefits. Only a high-school education is required — why aren’t young New York City citizens encouraged to apply?
Instead, a self-appointed ethnic booster, Showkat Khan, arranges meetings of his countrymen to pitch the job as an opportunity to “get a better life.”
Below, Showkat Khan, Bangldeshi booster, helps his countrymen bone up for the US Civil Service Exam.
This being a diversity puff piece with facts added, we learn that 74,000 Bangladeshis live in New York City. Sometimes the ticket writers hear the suggestion, “Go back to your country” but the foreigners are adjusting now that more of them have learned to speak some English and are less rude (“standoffish”).
Above a Korean fried chicken restaurant in Jackson Heights, Queens, Showkat Khan worked the room of mostly Bangladeshi men, speaking Bengali with a few English phrases mixed in, his enthusiastic message of opportunity broadcast through a crackling amp. At one point, he held aloft a copy of New York City’s Civil Service newspaper, The Chief.
“You are here to make money in this country, and to get a better life,” Mr. Khan said.
There was more than one way toward that American dream, he acknowledged, outlining a few options. But one path seemed to stand above the others, if only because Mr. Khan had already paved the way: He is a traffic enforcement agent.
Mr. Khan is part of an influx of Bangladeshi immigrants who earn a living by writing parking summonses for the city, a curious and growing presence navigating the choking traffic and bumper-to-bumper sea of parked cars.
Bangladeshi immigrants, who represent less than 1 percent of the city’s population, now make up between 10 percent and 15 percent of the 3,000 traffic agents, Robert Cassar, the president of the union representing the agents, said. Continue reading this article
The interviewer, ABC’s David Wright (@WrightUps), didn’t ask a single question about how a more permissive immigration system with amnesty and increased legal immigration might benefit Zuckerberg in a personal financial way. The DailyCaller noted that the Senate bill would “double the resident pool of low-wage, university trained guest-workers to roughly 2 million” which would surely be a profit increaser for Silicon Valley tycoons.
But instead of probing questions on that account, Zuckerberg was allowed to pontificate with a silly statement about illegal alien kids not getting sufficient American goodies:
ZUCKERBERG: When you meet these children who are you know, really talented, and they’ve grown up in America and they really don’t know any other country besides that, but they don’t have the opportunities that we all enjoy, it’s really heartbreaking right? And it seems like it’s one of the biggest civil rights issues of our time.
Funny how the serious lack of jobs for older IT workers doesn’t strike Zuckerberg as being heart-breaking. In fact he remarked in 2007, “I want to stress the importance of being young and technical,” so he appears to have a fondness for vapid youth of any nationality.
DAVID WRIGHT, ABC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: In a room full of hackers, the guy in the hoodie stands out. In fact Mark Zuckerberg counts as an elder statesman. The 29-year-old founder of Facebook is exactly the sort of success story these other bright, young faces hope to be. If the United States government allows them to stay in this country.
What is your status?
DIANA TORRES, HACKATHON PARTICIPANT: I was undocumented (inaudible) action.
WRIGHT: These young people are all undocumented immigrants taking part in a two-day hackathon organized by Forward.us, a Silicon Valley lobbying group pushing for immigration reform. Zuckerberg is one of the group’s founders.
MARK ZUCKERBERG, FOUNDER, FACEBOOK: I was teaching an afterschool program and one of my top students put his hand up, and he said, I don’t think I’m going to be able to go to college because I’m undocumented.
WRIGHT: For Zuckerberg, it was a eureka moment.
ZUCKERBERG: When you meet these children who are you know, really talented, and they’ve grown up in America and they really don’t know any other country besides that, but they don’t have the opportunities that we all enjoy, it’s really heartbreaking right? And it seems like it’s one of the biggest civil rights issues of our time.
WRIGHT: A civil rights issue? How do you mean?
ZUCKERBERG: There are 11 million undocumented people living in this country.
WRIGHT: Some would argue that all 11 million are breaking the law and have no fundamental right to American citizenship. What would you say to them?
ZUCKERBERG: There are a lot of misconceptions about that. And a lot of them came here because they just want to work. They want to help out their families and they want to contribute. We definitely should make it so that they can, so that there’s a path for them to come into the country legally as well. Continue reading this article
How fascinating that the wellspring of liberal wisdom, the New York Times, has noticed that many illegal aliens don’t care about becoming Americans. For most illegals, their heart’s desire is anything that allows them to steal Americans jobs without punishment and make lots of money. They came for the money and that’s all they really care about — first, last and foremost.
We can look to the 1986 amnesty to see how important American citizenship has been to lawbreaking foreigners. Simple legalization solves their problems by allowing them to remain in this country to work without fear of deportation; as a result, only 40 percent of the 1986 cohort chose naturalization.
Under the 1986 move to open the way for illegal immigrants to eventually become citizens, only 40% of the 2.7 million immigrants who received a green card, or permanent legal residency, had become naturalized citizens by 2009, according to a 2010 study by the Department of Homeland Security.
Legalization IS the amnesty.
The Times prints varying opinions in its article, with no polling to sort the feelings about legalization versus citizenship. But there is no reason to think that the current class of foreign lawbreakers would behave any differently from their earlier counterparts.
Glendy Martínez is waiting anxiously to see if Congress will ever pass legislation to allow immigrants like her without papers to stay in the country legally. But frankly, she says, she does not care if it will include any promise of citizenship.
With the earnings from her job in a Houston hair salon, Ms. Martínez, 30, is supporting one child born in Texas and three others she left behind in her home country, Nicaragua.
“So many people back there depend on those of us who are here,” she said. “It would be such a help if we could work in peace and go back sometimes to see our children.”
As President Obama looks for a way to salvage a broad overhaul of the immigration system, he opened the door this week to a piecemeal series of smaller bills as a way of getting past the objections of the Republican-run House, which refused to take up the comprehensive measure that the Senate passed in June.
But as far as Ms. Martínez and many other immigrants are concerned, one of House Republicans’ sharpest disagreements with the Senate and the White House — over a path to citizenship for those here illegally — should not be that hard to resolve.
“For many undocumented people, citizenship is not a priority,” said Oscar A. Chacon, executive director of the National Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean Communities, a network of immigrant organizations that includes many foreigners here without papers. “What they really care about is a solution that allows them to overcome their greatest vulnerabilities.” Continue reading this article
It’s the same old story: a previously arrested but not deported illegal alien remained at large in America to murder an innocent person. The government refused to do its basic function of law enforcement because of ethnic politics, and a young woman died as a result.
Below, illegal alien Guatemalan Julio Miguel Blanco-Garcia (left) killed 19-year-old Vanessa Pham in 2010.
At that point, the mystery of the murder was somewhat solved, as Garcia stated Pham picked him up in an act of kindness when he was carrying a baby and said he needed a ride to a hospital. He further claimed that he was crazy-high on PCP and freaked out when she took a wrong turned, stabbing her at that point. The prosecution believes instead that Garcia tried to rape her and she resisted.
Lat week a judge sentenced Garcia to 49 years imprisonment per the recommendation of the jury, though he could have gotten life.
FAIRFAX, Va. (WUSA9) — The man who murdered Falls Church college student Vanessa Pham was officially sentenced to 49 years behind bars today. Just before being sentenced, Julio Blanco Garcia apologized to his victim’s family.
“I would like to say to Ms. Pham’s family and friends, that I am deeply sorry for what I did. And that I hope, that I hope that my punishment will help them in their grieving process,” said Blanco Garcia.
He stood in a dark green jail shirt and pants as he spoke those words, never looking at the Pham family or friends seated behind him.
Judge Jane Roush said, “I have given a lot consideration to this case and considered e jury’s recommendation appropriate.”
In the August trial, the jury watched a cell phone video of 19 year old Vanessa Pham talking to her mother.
At sentencing today, Chief Deputy Commonwealth Attorney Casey Lingan read from the mother’s victim impact statement:
“Society has lost a beautiful, compassionate, ambitious young woman who would have lived a full life if it were not taken from her. My dreams of her finishing college, falling in love, getting married and giving me grandchildren has all been taken from me…. I have a tomestone where I go to visit Vanessa and all I can do is place fresh flowers and have a one-way conversation.”
During the trial, the jury watched Blanco Garcia’s video-taped police interview and confession of the killing. In it, Blanco Garcia said he was hallucinating and high on PCP. With his baby in his arms, he flagged down Pham and convinced her to drive him to the hospital. He said when she took a wrong turn, he freaked out, and fearing for his baby’s life, he took out his knife and killed Pham. He stabbed her 13 times. Continue reading this article
Over in the Republican House, the establishment leaders have been quietly huddling to crank out measures of immigration non-enforcement that they hope will be attractive to the highly sought hispanic voter. The new thing is the Kid Act, a downsized DREAM Act, which would amnesty the kiddies but would not allow the young newbies to sponsor their lawbreaking parents, thereby breaking the line of chain migration based on illegality.
Remember the main argument of DREAMers has been that they are guiltless little victims, dragged as children against their will to the USA by adults. When the young foreigners arrive, however, they just happen to get a raft of benefits like free K-college education on the back of the unwilling taxpayer.
Unsurprisingly, the anti-borders zealots aren’t interested in an unduly generous amnesty for the innocent children: the leading raza types want the whole enchilada or nothing. Anti-borders forces are fully subscribed to the marxist globalist agenda, which includes extra permissiveness for designated victim classes, with special attention given to illegal alien criminals. Equality under law is not what they want, quite the opposite.
And anyway, why are Republicans bent on handing out rewards to lawbreakers just because of their age? Kids suffer all the time because of their parents’ bad choices, like the 2.7 million children with a parent in prison. Amnesty for the moppets would mean the adults had been successful in grabbing American benefits for their family through breaking the law.
The House Republicans’ Kids Act—a path to citizenship for undocumented youth brought here as children—has hit a stumbling block over whether those “kids” would be able to sponsor their undocumented parents for green cards after they become citizens themselves, according to people close to the negotiations. How the GOP sponsors, led by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, come down on the question could affect whether the legislation is taken seriously by Democrats and the immigrant community.
The Kids Act is viewed by many lawmakers involved in immigration talks as the fulcrum on which the entire House negotiation turns. The bill addresses the dicey question of legalization for at least one group of undocumented immigrants, and it has Republican support from rank-and-file members and party leaders. The Kids Act, combined with a border security/enforcement measure and a narrow work-visa proposal, could form the three pillars of an immigration package that would signal to Latino voters in particular that House Republicans aren’t ignoring the issue.
The problem comes when lawmakers start asking what happens to the children who eventually become citizens under the bill. Under current law, they would be allowed to sponsor family members, including parents, for green cards. That worries some Republicans who have long questioned the utility of family-based immigration in the United States. It also is of concern to any member who justifies support by saying that unauthorized immigrants brought here as children were not at fault, their parents were. Continue reading this article
When Janet Napolitano was in charge of the Department of Homeland Security, the illegal alien hacks thought she deported too many of them. (However, it has been known for some time that the deportation figures of the current administration were inflated — Obama admitted the numbers were “deceptive” back in 2011.)
In her first major address in her new gig as head of the University of California system, she made a point of plopping down some serious cash for illegal alien students who want a free ride to UC — $5 million, at a time when the university has been struggling with its budget and tuition has been marching ever upward.
Yet Janet Napolitano can find $5 million in loose change to make the lives of foreign lawbreakers still easier as they take college slots that should go to California young people. Illegal alien students already get taxpayer-subsidized tuition and financial aid, but apparently that red carpet treatment was not enough and now they must have special advisors.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — University of California President Janet Napolitano said Wednesday she is devoting $5 million to provide special counseling and financial aid for students living in the U.S. illegally, a move aimed at disarming critics who worried she would be hostile to the small but vocal student population.
The former Homeland Security Secretary announced the initiative in her first public address since she became head of the 10-campus university system a month ago — an evening appearance in San Francisco organized by the Commonwealth Club. She also pledged $10 million for recruiting and training graduate students and post-doctoral research fellows.
“Let me be clear. UC welcomes all students who qualify academically, whether they are documented or undocumented,” she told an audience of several hundred people. “Consider this a down payment — one more piece of evidence of our commitment to all Californians.”
Napolitano said the money earmarked for immigrant students would be used for financial aid and to hire advisers at each campus who could provide guidance on matters ranging from how to pursue legal U.S. residency to applying for graduate school.
“They do merit special attention,” she said. “Oftentimes they are from families who are very poor and first-generation, so have no one out there to talk to them about student life.”
University officials estimate that out of a student population of 239,000, the UC system enrolls about 900 students who were brought into the country illegally as children, a group of immigrants known as “dreamers” because of the stalled U.S. DREAM Act that would give certain youth a path to permanent residency.
As part of a bill signed by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown, California this year started allowing students who are not legal U.S. residents and are therefore ineligible for most types of federal financial aid to apply for state grants and scholarships.
UC spokeswoman Dianne Klein said later that the $15 million Napolitano pledged in her remarks — $5 million for immigrant student support and $10 million for graduate students and research fellows — would not come from tuition or the university’s state-funded operating budget. It will be drawn from reserves in accounts the system has used to help finance faculty mortgages and campus efficiency projects, Klein said. Continue reading this article
The Constitution, our nation’s founding legal blueprint, is increasingly regarded as a list of outmoded suggestions from dead white men. Sovereignty and laws are thought by many elites to be unfriendly vestiges of the old America which has been hung up on legal trifles.
Today’s example is former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who once claimed to be a conservative. Now he thinks that the Constitution’s requirement that a Presidential candidate be a natural born citizen is too restrictive. Perhaps he thinks that Barack Obama’s squishy credentials provide him an opening.
BTW, I have no doubt that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii, but his father was a temp visitor from Kenya (who was a foreign student and not even an immigrant), thereby making junior a non-natural-born citizen. At least in my non-lawyer understanding of the more stringent requirement in the Constitution for President.
Interestingly, Schwarzenegger has been sniffing around this issue for some time. In 2008, powerful TV news star Tim Russert remarked he would change the Constitution through his mighty journalist powers so Arnold could be President. As I quoted in a blog titled, Russert Had Big Plans for His Buddy Schwarzenegger:
Schwarzenegger said Tim Russert, the recently deceased host of “Meet the Press” whom Shriver had called her best friend, told him if he ever chose to run for president he would help. “When I ran for governor, he called me and said, ‘If you make that, if you win, then I will take care of the rest,’” Schwarzenegger recalled. “I said what are you talking about? And he said, ‘I will get you to run for president. I will make sure that we change the Constitution.’ It never happened. But anyway, I miss him very much.”
He isn’t expressing the policies he would implement as Chief Executive for the good of the country, just that he would like to Be the President. And anyway, he’s dreaming if he thinks Americans would vote for him after he broke up his marriage with Maria Shriver by bonking the Mexican housekeeper, producing an extramarital kid.
Action star and former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has been lobbying for support to change the law to allow him to run for president in 2016, Page Six has exclusively learned.
We’re told Ahnold has been openly talking about his political ambitions while in New York to promote his new movie with Sylvester Stallone, “Escape Plan.”
One source said: “Schwarzenegger has been talking openly about working on getting the constitutional rules changed so he can run for president in 2016. He is ready to file legal paperwork to challenge the rules.”
Arnie was born in Austria, and the US Constitution prevents foreign-born citizens from holding the nation’s top job. Any amendment to the Constitution must be approved by two-thirds majority in the House and the Senate.
But Arnold, who became a US citizen in 1983, still could mount a legal challenge. In 2010, he appeared on the ‘Tonight Show,’ and was asked by Jay Leno if he would make a White House run if the law were changed.
Schwarzenegger replied, “Without any doubt.” With America becoming more diverse, it is not clear what would happen if Arnie or any other foreign-born naturalized citizen decided to run.
Columbia University Law School professor Michael Dorf, an expert in constitutional law, said about the Governator’s case in 2007, “The law is very clear, but it’s not 100 percent clear that the courts would enforce that law rather than leave it to the political process.” Continue reading this article
Clearly, no expense was spared in the production of Latino-Americans, with dual-language websites, a pretty picture book, numerous videos with the liberally conventional stories of suffering and success, blah blah.
Below, PBS heroically pictured Pancho Villa when he was a general in the Mexican revolution, but didn’t mention his attack on the town of Columbus New Mexico in 1916 when 19 Americans were killed by Villa’s army.
The blog section is odd indeed.There are individual blog postings, but the comments are all identical, at least when I looked on Sunday. They appear to all come from the item on Jewish Latino music. They are strange responses when read following the hateful blog about the illegal aliens who came to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina (and never left). Residents of the Crescent City didn’t want their unique culture overrun with illegal Mexicans imported for cheap exploitable labor while local residents, black and white, were pushed aside for rebuilding jobs.
The blog item about New Orleans could be torn from the pages of the Raza handbook, being so full of lies, distortions and the complete disregard of American sovereignty. It’s pretty rich for the race-obsessed author to cite hispanics’ “black brothers and sisters” when the foreigners invaded New Orleans and snatched rebuilding jobs from local people of color.
At no other time since my arrival in 1968 have I been witness to such blatant defamation of immigrants as I am seeing today, and the passing of Arizona’s SB 1070 by the Republican Governor Brewer in 2010 has spawned other copycat anti-immigrant laws in states like Georgia (May 2011), Alabama (June 2011), and South Carolina (June 2011).
I call these states the New Confederacy of the South passing Juan Crow laws that redirect their previous vitriol and racial poison towards African Americans towards brown Latinos today.
Basically, people who look like me because I’m a brown Mestizo Latino male, and based on the discretion of local police in any of these states, I could be detained and made to present my passport or green card to prove my status.
Imagine, if we were to see laws being passed where we required people of Jewish descent to have to show proof of their rightful status, if the many Hasidic Jews in New York were stopped and questioned about their legal status. There would be a very loud political fallout about racial profiling or living while Jewish. It is not like the Jewish people have not experienced this before in freedomlandia.
We, brown people, like our black bothers and sisters, know too well what it means to be stopped while simply being the colored other. Continue reading this article
In the 2009 video clip below, candidate Rubio declared, “You cannot grant amnesty” and made all the right arguments about enforcement. But that principled viewpoint didn’t survive meeting up with billionaire supporters of cheap foreign labor like Facebook guy Mark Zuckerberg and the influence of open-borders Senators John McCain and Charles Schumer.
ORLANDO — Sen. Marco Rubio knew it was coming, and it did — shouts and jeers from conservative activists over his role in immigration reform.
“Build the fence!” a man yelled as Rubio took the stage Friday at the Americans for Prosperity conference in Orlando. “No amnesty!” several people shouted throughout his address.
But the reception from the crowd of 1,500 was mostly enthusiastic for Rubio, who used his speech to denounce big government and Obamacare, the mention of which brought people to their feet.
Rubio also got loud applause when he criticized the Common Core education standards, which have come under assault form tea party activists who see the standards as a federal takeover. By extension, Rubio was jabbing at his mentor, former Gov. Jeb Bush, who is a major backer of Common Core and has worked to defend against the critics.
Rubio never mentioned immigration, but it was on the mind of many. He was one of eight senators who crafted a wide-ranging bill that would spend tens of billions on border security while also providing a pathway to citizenship for as many as 11 million undocumented residents, provided they pay fines and meet other standards.
“He lied about his position on amnesty,” said Jon Moseley, an activist from Lake Placid, Fla., referring to Rubio’s hard-line stance on immigration during his 2010 Senate campaign. “Now he’s the main face of amnesty.” Continue reading this article
If illegals are dragging the kiddies across the border, then do not arrest, says the President. That may sound all warm and cuddly, but it shows how law enforcement is a language the chief executive does not speak.
Moreover, making kids the keys to the kingdom endangers them by encouraging foreign lawbreakers to bring them along during hazardous unlawful border crossings. One indicator of the danger is the “big surge” in fatalities — 477 deaths along the southwest border in 2012, up from 375 the year before. Why put little kids in such danger?
So, we should trust this President to enforce immigration law after the Senate mega-amnesty?
The Obama administration issued a new policy Friday that says immigration agents should try not to arrest and deport illegal immigrant parents of minor children. The move adds to the categories of people the administration is trying not to deport.
In a nine-page memo, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said agents should use “prosecutorial discretion” to try to avoid detaining parents and, if parents are detained, agents should make sure they have the ability to visit with their children or participate in family court proceedings.
The move won praise from immigrant-rights groups who said it’s a step toward a less harsh detention policy. But a top Republican blasted the memo as another effort by the Obama administration to circumvent the law.
“President Obama has once again abused his authority and unilaterally refused to enforce our current immigration laws by directing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to stop removing broad categories of unlawful immigrants,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert W. Goodlatte, Virginia Republican.
Mr. Goodlatte, whose committee is in charge of many of the immigration bills the House could consider later this year and who is working on a legalization bill for young illegal immigrants, said the Obama administration move “poisons the debate” and shows the president is trying to “politicize the issue” rather than work for a compromise bill.
The memo is the latest in a series of directives issued by ICE and by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano that try to lay out priorities for who the government will detain and try to deport. Continue reading this article
The Little Prince from Cuba has returned, tippy-toeing back into the immigration debate after major rebuffs from concerned citizens who don’t like Washington giving their country away to lawbreaking invasive foreigners. Schumer’s poodle is now trying to convince the public that enacting amnesty the legislative way is a swell strategy to thwart the overreach of the imperial president.
America’s job-creating engine has been largely shut down by the President’s anti-business regulations and Obamacare, yet the government plans to import tens of millions of excess workers in the near term for non-existent jobs. How is this a workable plan?
Sen. Marco Rubio is warning that President Obama may allow many undocumented immigrants to stay in the U.S. by executive action if Congress fails to pass an immigration reform bill.
Rubio (R-Fla.) has remained relatively quiet since he helped pass a major immigration bill through the Senate in June. The legislation would legalize undocumented immigrants in exchange for border security and enforcement provisions.
But now he’s reemerging with a new message for conservatives who have criticized his efforts and don’t want to see immigration reform pass: Congress can pass a bill with both border security and legalization, or they can sit on their hands and Obama could offer legal status to undocumented immigrants by himself.
“I believe that this president will be tempted, if nothing happens in Congress, he will be tempted to issue an executive order as he did for the DREAM Act kids a year ago, where he basically legalizes 11 million people by the sign of a pen,” Rubio said in an interview Tuesday on WFLA Radio’s “The Morning Show with Preston Scott.” Just over a year ago, President Obama enacted his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which provides temporary relief from deportation for certain young undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children. Over 400,000 individuals have benefitted from the program, according to government data. Continue reading this article
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.