When news broke in England a few years back that the country’s largest sandwich-supplier was importing workers from Eastern Europe, one of their biggest newspapers sarcastically put on its front page, “Is there no one left in Britain who can make a sandwich?” It was the kind of snide confrontation with the corporate addiction to immigration that’s so severely lacking this side of the pond.
Ian Smith | All Articles
- Subscribe to RSS
Ian Smith is an attorney and lapsed Democrat living in Washington, D.C, and a contributing blogger to the Immigration Reform Law Institute. http://irli.org/
Two recent news events coming out of the Homeland Security department may be unwelcome developments for the Clinton press team. Just last night it was reported that the agency announced it has terminated an ‘immigrant investor’-related business run by Hillary’s brother, Tony Rodham. That business, which was financed through the controversial EB-5 investor green card program, has faced ongoing scrutiny in the press, following ongoing investigations for securities fraud and questions about the role of its other high-profile founder, Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe.
Constitutional law professors gearing up for the new school year are no doubt delighted that something as arcane as the “plenary power doctrine” has gained so much attention in the news lately. The centuries-old English doctrine and the legal underpinning of ideological screening states that the authority of the government over immigration is unquestionably with the executive branch in spite of existing liberty charters, such as the Magna Carta in Great Britain’s case or the Bill of Rights in America’s. No-borders agitators attack extreme vetting of prospective refugees and immigrants as inherently violative of the Constitution, specifically, the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments—the Constitution trumps the executive branch is the essential claim. But besides ignoring the broad range of ideological grounds for exclusion found in our immigration laws, including anarchism, totalitarianism, communism, and terrorism, these critics are displaying a considerable amount of historical illiteracy.
A recent decision from the highest immigration court in the land may have taken America’s already generous asylum program and turned it into a Trojan horse for fraudsters in the developing world. All at a time when our immigration system’s reeling from gaping national security holes and growing pressure from economic migrants.
Forty-six years ago today, America held it’s very first Earth Day, an event credited with the birth of the modern environmental movement. The annual observance was intended by the day’s founder, Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin, as a time to contemplate our natural world and to encourage efforts to conserve and protect it. Compared to today’s environmental establishment groups, however, Nelson had a more mature understanding of what environmental sustainability really is.
Those who got up extra early to get in line at the Supreme Court on Monday got to hear oral arguments for the biggest case of the court's term: The Texas-led multi-state challenge against President Obama’s legacy-defining 2014 amnesty. Predictions that the eight-member panel will be split right down the middle with the program being kept frozen (but without a nation-wide precedent being created) went unfazed.
New Bill From Senators Sessions And Johnson Shows Who Truly Has The Moral Authority Over Immigration
Last week’s Senate Homeland Security hearing on the continuing unaccompanied minors surge coincided with the introduction of Chairman Ron Johnson and Senator Sessions’ Protection of Children Act (S. 2561), a bill that, among other things, promises to require the government to collect “certain basic information about individuals to whose custody unaccompanied alien children are released.” That provision is no doubt in response to reports from the Associated Press and elsewhere that “overwhelmed U.S. officials” at Health and Human Services, the agency tasked with placing Unaccompanied Alien Minors (UAMs) with sponsors, had been ignoring vetting standards such as fingerprinting, proper identification and criminal background-checks resulting in thousands of the minors being placed in homes where they were sexually assaulted, starved, or forced to work for no pay. Missing from Tuesday’s hearing, however, was any mention of who’s really responsible for the gruesome findings: open-borders activists themselves.
With the Supreme Court taking up Texas v. U.S., the multi-state challenge of Obama’s amnesty program, immigration patriots and unbiased jurists are no doubt scratching their heads wondering, how has Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor not been forced to recuse herself yet?
A highly anticipated rulemaking on immigration that was recently published could provide work permits to over a hundred thousand foreign white-collar workers, according to the rule's drafters inside the Homeland Security department (DHS). Although the 181-page proposed rule, which is now open for public comment, is vague and overly complex, its likely effects on the American middle class are clearly negative. Pro-labor advocates once again need to speak out about what's becoming a common trend in DHS's immigration policy direction.
One week before Christmas marked the 15th anniversary of “International Migrants Day," a United Nations invention commemorating the “courageous expression” of migrants and refugees around the world “who have the desire and the capacity to move to other places.” UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, used the occasion to call for a “global compact on human mobility” while chastising the West by dedicating the day to the “millions [who] have been made into scapegoats and become the targets of xenophobic policies and alarmist rhetoric.” He no doubt had Donald Trump in mind whose plan to temporarily halt adherents to Islam from immigrating to the U.S., Mr. Ban said earlier in the month was an idea that "relied on hate."
This week the Rainbow PUSH Coalition hosted a two-day symposium promoting greater African-American participation in the high-tech space. Speakers include Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) chair Rep. G.K. Butterfield who recently called on major IT firms to include more African-Americans in their government relations offices in Washington, D.C. Butterfield and the CBC have made similar calls to the actual operations-side of the tech industry where several leading companies were recently pressured to reveal that fewer than 3 percent of their tech professionals were black.
Last week Senator Chuck Grassley released findings from a DHS-whistleblower that show several thousand of the Unaccompanied Alien Minors (UAM) apprehended at the border over the last two years have been placed with sponsors who have serious criminal records. It’s estimated over 10 percent of UAMs are now living with sponsors previously charged with serious crimes, including child molestation, sexual assault, human trafficking and homicide. Considering the president’s line that the ongoing UAM-crisis is simply about kids “escaping rape and violence," the vetting gaffe’s a cruel bit of irony for those kids now being subjected to possible endangerment.
Twenty-five years ago last Sunday President George H. W. Bush signed into law the Immigration Act of 1990. The act would take the revolutionary and needless changes created under the Immigration Act of 1965 and make them dramatically worse. Although the economy was in recession at the time, the 1990 act raised general immigration levels by over 30 percent and increased employment-based entry provisions by three times. In spite of this, it had very little public debate due largely to a serious budget fight between President Bush and the Democrats which shut down the government for a brief time. As former Cornell labor economist Vernon Briggs reflects, this smokescreen together with it being signed on the final day of session, it was “doubtful” any member of Congress actually read the act.
President Obama, our Emotional Blackmailer-in-Chief, has been on a tear this week casting shame on those political leaders who refuse to bring any Syrian refugees into their constituents' communities. He accused a bipartisan group of governors of being hypocritical by (oddly) stating it that was “those folks themselves” who came “from families who benefited from protection when they were fleeing political persecution.” Although it's unlikely any of the governors in question actually descended from refugees (immigrants and settlers, perhaps) the emotional blackmail was once again laid on thick over an American public rightly concerned about the 74 terrorist attacks foiled in this country since 9/11.
The recent news of hedge fund-billionaire Paul Singer picking Marco Rubio as his candidate for President might start a sorely needed dialogue long ignored within the GOP establishment. Along with Singer’s other favored choice, Jeb Bush, the New York Times tells us that Rubio reflects the Jewish billionaire’s top issues: open-borders and support for Israel. According to the Times, these are also the biggest issues for major GOP-funder Sheldon Adelson. But are these positions actually compatible? Have people like Singer and Adelson really considered just what an open-borders America might mean for the state of Israel?
Considering the routing Democrats took in last year’s anti-amnesty elections, it’s no surprise conservatives around the country are pushing for Tennessee congresswoman, Marsha Blackburn, to jump into the race for House speaker. Ms. Blackburn has been earning the praise of pro-restrictionist Americans for years and her voting record on immigration policy is flawless. If speaker, not only will she inspire working-class voters in despair over the GOP’s weakness on immigration, she’ll have firmly cemented what’s becoming a truism in America: that the staunchest and most effective immigration patriots in the country are women.
A potentially ground-breaking voting law case, the most important in 60 years say experts, will be heard by the Supreme Court next term, and it’s sure to raise fundamental questions about the nature of our representative democracy. The case, Evenwel v. Abbott, is asking the court to decide whether state legislative districts with wide disparities in their voting-eligible populations violates the Constitution’s “one-person, one-vote” principle by giving voters in some districts more “weight” than others (See Scotusblog’s just-launched online symposium on the implications of the case here).
Is the House of Representatives the least representative body in the advanced world? Is the constitutional principle of “one person, one vote” truly applicable to our current system? Is excessive immigration diluting our democracy? These are some of the core questions emerging after the Supreme Court agreed to hear Evenwel v. Abbott, a case that could fundamentally alter the congressional redistricting process with the effect that the distribution of electoral power between red and blue states coming out more fair.
Immigration-watchers will have marveled at the recent spectacle of the ACLU attacking the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops over its failure to provide contraception and abortion referrals to its illegal alien and refugee clients. Both organizations are close comrades when it comes to pushing for open borders. The ACLU is one of the biggest legal advocates for “immigrant rights” while the USCCB is one of the biggest federal contractors of illegal alien “family reunification” and refugee resettlement services. For immigration law enforcement advocates, how this fight pans out isn’t important as it’s long, arduous and as mutually destructive as possible.