A few items caught my eye yesterday:
Immigration is seriously worried about the Chinese coming to the US to have kids to get them the American Citizenship prize. Called Birth Tourism, apparently it’s bad and wrong and the US government wants to stop it. Seems these people buy plane tickets, rent hotels, have their kids and go back to China, where after some number of decades their child might return to the US for, among other things, the education. I’m not sure how I feel about all that, but I do observe they are playing by the stupid rules we’ve established that being a foreign national and having a kid in the US makes the kid a citizen and entitles their parents to come along for the ride. And they seem to be doing it through perfectly legitimate, even trackable means too.
The Chinese may be getting screwed on this deal. California being California there’s no guarantee that 17 years of so from now they won’t pass a law saying Californians are obligated to educate everyone in China anyway, because that’s how they seem to roll out there on the high powered left coast.
It’s an interesting insight that so many Chinese would like to be Americans isn’t it? Well, at least in the current currency of American citizenship which the Obama Administration is working so diligently to debase these days.
Imagine, some of them are defrauding the hospitals! Well! Thank heavens everyone else who staggers across the borders illegally and avails themselves of our services makes sure they settle all their hospital bills right?
and these Chinese people, they lie!
“These people were told to lie, how to lie, so that their motives for coming to the U.S. wouldn’t be questioned,” Claude Arnold, a special agent with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, told the Associated Press.
this must be as opposed to not even bothering to have to lie and just crossing the Rio Grande or the desert someplace between San Diego and El Centro where you get scooped up and processed at a “detention facility” before you are flown or bused by the government to the city of your choice in the US.
What makes me go hmmmmm is the curious fact that our government, nay, our very President, has encouraged tens of thousands of Mexican and Central Americans to sneak into the country, and is intent on making all of them citizens right now, well, certainly trying to get the job done by the 2016 election, when of course they won’t vote for Republican candidates. There’s no point in beating around the Obama here and pretending that’s not the plan going forward. I’m trying to figure out why the usual host of Raul Gravilja’s and Luis Gutierrez’s aren’t out there doing their best to protect these Asian-American citizens in the making!
I guess it’s not all illegals, I’m sorry, undocumented (though technically, they ARE documented aren’t they) immigrants that Raul and Luis and Barack are fighting for.
I don’t know who the Asians pissed off, maybe they didn’t properly celebrate Thanksgiving in 2014.
While I’m thinking on it, stray thought as it were, with respect to McQ’s post the other day on Nanny State, I wonder if CPS in various locales are investigating all those families that let their kids wander into the country without their parents during 2014.
Is it worse to let your kid wander half a mile from school to the house, or across the Rio Grande from Mexico to Texas? Duh, school to the house, hands down.
Another bit of news was..
It turns out according to the prosecution in the Boston Marathon bombing that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was an Islamic holy warrior.
Federal prosecutor William Weinreb took charge of presenting the first profile of Tsarnaev to the jury, stating that the accused had “had murder in his heart” and had wanted to kill Americans.
“He believed that he was a soldier in a holy war against Americans,” Weinreb said. “He also believed that by winning that victory, he had taken a step toward reaching paradise.”
Tsarnaev also thought that the U.S. government was the enemy of the Muslim people,” Weireb added.
Or, he thought he was a holy warrior, for Islam.
See, that’s just silly, the jury should disregard that allegation from the getgo, because it’s just not possible according to the White House and State Department and numerous other executive agencies. There had to be something else that motivated him, like anger about marathons or something. After all, in the closing of the trial of Major Nidal Hasan, the Army prosecutor said it wasn’t about religion, it’s wrong and un-supportive to tie his actions to religion. So why would the Federal prosecutor in Boston start out by explaining the perp thought he was a holy warrior fighting for Islam against Americans? That just doesn’t make sense. There’s no tie to Islam here!
If those ‘committing the crime’ delusionaly think it’s for Islam, it doesn’t matter what they think. If we decide that’s not why they’re doing it then that’s not why they did it. That’s been made pretty clear in the Fort Hood massacre, the case where the solider was decapitated in England, the beheading in Oklahoma, the Charlie Hebdo massacre, or the coffee shop attack in Sydney, or the one in Copenhagen. And that whole ISIS isn’t Islam thing too. The Crusades!
I’m not sure what the Federal prosecutor is trying to say, or prove here. I hope someone from the West Wing gives him a call and tells him to knock that crap off. I could better understand if it were being done by a prosecutor working for the whackjob rightwing citizens of the city of Boston, those redneck morons, but a Federal prosecutor?
If he’s not careful and keeps making these links to Islam then there could be a mistrial or it might fuel people’s intolerance. They might start getting irritated and commit hate-crimes like drawing cartoons of the prophet or saying there’s a link between Islam and radical terrorism (as opposed to just plain old conventional terrorism).
Almost last and not least, not to tell the Supreme Court justices how to do their jobs and all, but does it matter more how much damage is done to the country when an unconstitutional law is allowed to stand or how much economic damage is done if it is determined to be against the Constitution?
So these discussions yesterday about Obamacare death spirals and all, do I misunderstand the principle such that the Supreme Court determinations should be based on the damage done if we find something isn’t Constitutional and we can and must excuse bad law if it’s going to cause economic hardship above some arbitrarily determined point?
Oh well, clearly if it’s going to economic hardship we should just let the law stand as currently interpreted by his Highness, because well, it would hurt to undo the thing now. Besides His Majesty can probably fix it with an executive extension or rescission or action or something to get around whatever silly argument is being made that the legislation as written and intended, shouldn’t be taken verbatim in THAT particular portion. All the other things the legislation said should be taken at absolute face value until the King changes what he wants them to mean, but the wording in the part about State exchanges should be considered fungible because it might hurt to undo it.
I wanted to mention the Republican’s brave stand in refusing funding for the 14% of DHS that isn’t mandatorily funded but that is probably just to much hmmmmmm for one day right?
The first shoe drops on the President’s executive amnesty order:
According to the opinion by Judge Arthur Schwab, the president’s policy goes “beyond prosecutorial discretion” in that it provides a relatively rigid framework for considering applications for deferred action, thus obviating any meaningful case-by-case determination as prosecutorial discretion requires, and provides substantive rights to applicable individuals. As a consequence, Schwab concluded, the action exceeds the scope of executive authority.
Ya think? So, now what? Will this proceed up the line to the Supreme Court? And if it does, will the “ObamaCare is a tax” court manage to actually rule as this judge has, that the executive has unconstitutionally exceeded his power?
Anymore, you never know.
They can always find a way to turn an advantage into a disadvantage.
The GOP’s draft 2015 “omnibus” spending bill reportedly includes $948 million to help poor and unskilled Central American migrants establish themselves in the United States, but includes no effective restrictions on President Barack Obama’s plan to provide work permits and tax payments to millions of resident illegal immigrants.
That new spending works out to $16,928 for each of the 56,000 youths, young adults and children who crossed the border during the 12 months up to October 2014.
Another apt adjective is “spineless”.
The GOP leadership has given merely lip service to supporting the opposition among GOP legislators and much of the public to Obama’s welcome for foreign migrants, and is now refusing to direct the Department of Homeland Security not to spend any funds on implementing the Obama amnesty.
Instead, the leadership, led by House Speaker John Boehner, drafted a bill imposing a 60-day spending limit for Obama’s immigration agencies.
The planned 60-day spending limit is largely symbolic, because the most important immigration agency can operate on fees paid by the illegals.
“Leadership is basically giving in to every facet of Obama’s amnesty. We’re giving up an astonishing amount of leverage on every issue imaginable,” said one Hill aide.
Useless, ineffective, spineless and stupid. That’s no way to go through life, for most. Wonder how the GOP faithful, who pretty forcefully made their desires known, feel about this group now?
Senator Jeff Sessions points out:
“Polling shows voters believe that Americans should get preference for available jobs by almost a 10–1 margin,” Sessions said. “Republicans should not be timid or apologetic, but mount a bold defense of struggling Americans.”
Remember what I said about framing the illegal alien amnesty as being about jobs? Remember I said they could own this politically. Remember I also said “of course we’re talking about the Republicans here”?
Yeah, well like I said:
Senator Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) suggested that House Republicans are on the verge of breaking their campaign promise to fight President Obama’s administrative amnesty, judging by the legislative text currently being circulated.
Sessions said that the proposed language “fails to meet [the] test” established by Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus, who promised earlier this year that the GOP would do everything possible to thwart Obama’s executive orders.
“The executive amnesty language is substantially weaker than the language the House adopted this summer, and does not reject the central tenets of the President’s plan: work permits, Social Security and Medicare to 5 million illegal immigrants — reducing wages, jobs and benefits for Americans,” Sessions said in the statement expressing his dissatisfaction with the results of a House Republican conference meeting today.
Yes, yes, the usual nonsense from the stupid party.
Look they’re getting ready to vote on a continuing resolution to fund government for next year – so this can’t wait till then. It’s time to do this now.
Sessions wants Congress to attach a rider to the government-funding bill that prohibits Obama from implementing the orders; his office released a list yesterday, compiled with the assistance the Congressional Research Service, of instances in which Congress did just that on a variety of issues last year.
“Congress must respond to the president’s unlawful action by funding the government but not funding illegal amnesty,” Sessions said. “This is a perfectly sound and routine application of Congressional authority. In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service reports that last year’s omnibus spending bill included 16 such funding restrictions on fee-based programs.”
To those inclined to worry that using the spending power would backfire on Republicans, Sessions suggested that economic populism would lead to a GOP victory.
Yes it would. But that’s if they had a collective spine and actually meant all the fire and brimstone rhetoric they spouted while they were trying to get elected/reelected.
But we’re talking the GOP here – always snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Short one today (Hagel is gone … meh, no surprise), but so indicative of the leftists we’re most familiar with – in this case Hillary Clinton:
While speaking at a swanky event Friday night in New York City, Hillary Clinton speculated about the immigration status of the people serving food and beverages at the gala.
“This is about people’s lives, people, I would venture to guess, who served us tonight.”
Ah, the “little people.” The people there to serve her highness and her ilk (and to fall in line and vote properly, of course). Can’t have a plantation without a few slaves.
What do you say about something like that? Amazingly disconnected. Absurdly condescending. And, of course, a slap in the face of all those who played by the rules and did it within the law.
But she wants to be your chief law enforcer if you’ll just vote for her.
It simply doesn’t make sense in any sort of context that says the job of the President of the United States is to look after the welfare of the country’s citizens:
The official U.S. unemployment rate has indeed fallen steadily during the past few years, but the economic recovery has created the fewest jobs relative to the previous employment peak of any prior recovery. The labor-force participation rate recently touched a 36-year low of 62.7%. The number of Americans not in the labor force set a record high of 92.6 million in September. Part-time work and long-term unemployment are still well above levels from before the financial crisis.
Worse, middle-class incomes continue to fall during the recovery, losing even more ground than during the December 2007 to June 2009 recession. The number in poverty has also continued to soar, to about 50 million Americans. That is the highest level in the more than 50 years that the U.S. Census has been tracking poverty. Income inequality has risen more in the past few years than at any recent time.
The true indicator of the actual unemployment rate is the labor participation rate. It is at a 36 year low. The fudged numbers used by the US government hides the actual depth of joblessness problem. And, frankly, it’s a “buyers market” in the labor market. Lots of labor competition for few jobs. That’s one reason you don’t see incomes rising and you do see underemployed Americans.
So let’s introduce about 5 million illegal workers from other countries and enable them to compete in an already depressed labor market and while we’re at it, let’s agitate for a raise in the minimum wage.
Mind blown. How do you square that sort of action with your oath of office if you’re the President of the United States?
“This isn’t about legalizing Latin American immigrants, it’s about legalizing Latin American-style government.”
That’s Dave Burge’s take (IowaHawk) on last night’s venture into banana-republic style government by Obama.
This isn't about legalizing Latin American immigrants, it's about legalizing Latin American-style government.
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) November 21, 2014
Hard to beat that. So I just visualized it:
You just know he really, really wants to wear that suit, but Valerie Jarrett won’t let him
Several networks won’t be carrying President Obama’s prime-time address on immigration Thursday night from the White House.
ABC, CBS and Fox are saying they won’t air the president’s speech live; NBC also reportedly isn’t planning to carry his address.
With polls saying that only 38% of Americans support his intent to use his executive power to provide amnesty to a portion of illegal aliens here in the US, there’s certainly no ratings upside to televising it. And, in fact, there may be a little payback involved:
There was also griping among the White House press corps Wednesday at Mr. Obama using a Facebook video post to announce the timing of tonight’s address, rather than using the traditional media.
A television correspondent asked White House press secretary Josh Earnest if the move was “a thank you” to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, who helped launch the immigration reform advocacy group FWD.us that is aiding the administration’s push for immigration changes.
Mr. Earnest denied the White House was playing favorites with Facebook, but said it was a good way to reach the president’s audience.
“The good news is that the wires, the networks and the press corp are all on Facebook,” Mr. Earnest said. “We don’t have to choose.”
The denial comes as no particular surprise – this administration denies everything. As for choice, the White House did choose, and it chose to snub the White House press corps and the networks. Apparently it finds their reaction to the snub problematic.
White House officials are expressing annoyance with the networks’ decision, saying that all major networks aired a prime-time address by Republican President George W. Bush in 2006 when he announced the deployment of national guard troops at the U.S-Mexico border.
Well perhaps that was because the Bush administration included the networks in its announcement of his speech. The fact that the big 4 (if NBC refuses to carry it as well) are not going to carry it doesn’t mean it can’t be seen live if you’re so inclined to view it:
Two networks with Hispanic audiences, Univision and Telemundo, will air the president’s address live. CNN, MSNBC and PBS also plan to broadcast live.
But the bottom line of this little dust up is it appears that at least some of the networks are willing to strike back a bit at the White House press operation and it’s treatment of an unhappy White House press corps. Now if we could get some actual unbiased and factual coverage from that press corps that would be a bonus. Being water carriers hasn’t worked out very well for them, has it?
If, no, when President Obama issues his executive orders addressing immigration, Republicans are going to be faced with making some decisions about how to address those EOs. One of the ideas recently floated comes from the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and considers involving the House’s “power of the purse”, aka, defunding. The interesting point is that the rescission power rests with the President granted under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. However, Congress has used it in the past (without presidential direction) as Chairman Rogers notes:
The chairman of the House Appropriations Committee pitched GOP colleagues on a plan to rescind funding for targeted programs in the next Congress to respond to President Obama’s planned executive amnesty, throwing a new idea into a ring already full of them.
“Chairman Rogers just got up and said if we pass an omnibus and then the president does this executive amnesty, he said we can rescind it, and we can rescind it with 218 and 51 and we don’t need the president. That’s what he just told me. I’ve never heard that before,” said Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ), a key conservative lawmaker who has emerged as a leader in crafting strategy on the issue.
The idea startled GOP members who, according to Salmon, hadn’t contemplated the strategy until now. And Rogers had difficulty explaining the idea to a scrum of reporters given that the last time it was used was the 1990s. “I don’t think any of you have ever seen a rescission bill!” Rogers said.
“There’s any number of possibilities including rescission of spending after the fact. One of the difficulties we’re having is we really don’t know what actions he plans to actually take. When Livingston took over as chairman, he proposed and passed rescissions of spending bills that after the fact took away money that had been appropriated for an agency,” Rogers added.
The reason he’s talking about “after the fact” is Congress is currently engaged in trying to pass a huge spending bill and that will likely take priority. Once passed, then it will likely address anything that Obama has directed via EO. Also note that rescission bills are very rare – Congress isn’t about cutting spending or defunding much of anything.
However that are a number of Republicans that don’t even want the spending bill passed until next year:
Many Republicans are pushing to punt significant legislative action, including an omnibus spending bill, until the next Congress, when the GOP will have more leverage and control, given their control of the upper chamber.
Whatever the eventual plan, the next two months should be quite interesting. However, should they pass the spending bill before the next Congress, rescission provides a path for the GOP to cut funding to the programs that Obama targets with his EOs and trigger quite a nasty political battle next year.
In his 2006 book, “The Audacity of Hope”, then Senator Barack Obama laid out the argument against illegal immigration:
“[T]here’s no denying that many blacks share the same anxieties as many whites about the wave of illegal immigration flooding our Southern border—a sense that what’s happening now is fundamentally different from what has gone on before.”
”Not all these fears are irrational,” he wrote.
“The number of immigrants added to the labor force every year is of a magnitude not seen in this country for over a century,” Obama noted. “If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole—especially by keeping our workforce young, in contrast to an increasingly geriatric Europe and Japan—it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and put strains on an already overburdened safety net.”
So why is he now contemplating doing, in a down economy with high unemployment and high deficits (and stretched welfare system), exactly what he previously claimed was harmful to America and its workers? Has he somehow “evolved” in his thinking to a belief that his logically sound 2006 argument is now poppycock? That flooding the US with immigrant workers will somehow keep wages up and not put a strain on the “already overburdened safety net?” It seems pretty counterintuitive, doesn’t it?
But then, let us not forget that this is the guy who condemned George W. Bush for his use of executive orders and executive overreach and promised not to do it if he were elected to the presidency:
“I taught constitutional law for ten years. I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that were facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.”
Of course, he hasn’t “reverse[d]” it, has he? And past public polls have shown an overwhelming majority of Americans don’t support the use of executive orders to circumvent Congress (and let us not forget that he had an overwhelming Democratic majority for his first two years in office and essentially ignored the immigration issue).
So there is no public will at work here. There is only the will to power of this White House.
Which is why the thinking liberal’s move, if this action goes forward, will be to invoke structural forces, flaws inherent in our constitutional order, to justify Obama’s unilateralism. This won’t be a completely fallacious argument: Presidential systems like ours have a long record, especially in Latin America, of producing standoffs between executive and legislative branches, which tends to make executive power grabs more likely. In the United States this tendency has been less dangerous — our imperial presidency has grown on us gradually; the worst overreaches have often been rolled back. But we do seem to be in an era whose various forces — our open-ended post-9/11 wars, the ideological uniformity of the parties — are making a kind of creeping caudillismo more likely.
But if that evil must come, woe to the president who chooses it. And make no mistake, the president is free to choose. No immediate crisis forces his hand; no doom awaits the country if he waits. He once campaigned on constitutionalism and executive restraint; he once abjured exactly this power. There is still time for him to respect the limits of his office, the lines of authority established by the Constitution, the outcome of the last election.
Or he can choose the power grab, and the accompanying disgrace.
And there’s little doubt, he will choose the latter and further add to his reputation as someone who has no political integrity at all.