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.
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/
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.
With the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals soon deciding on whether to keep the freeze on President Obama’s new and expanded amnesty programs, the Immigration Reform Law Institute along with the Remembrance Project, the Federation for American Immigration Reform and the National Sheriffs’ Association have filed a friend-of-the-court brief outlining some of the weakest and most misleading legal arguments of the DOJ. New research shows the programs are in even more conflict with legal precedent and well-outside the president’s constitutional powers.
The White House And Soros-Backed Open Borders Group Strategize About Bribing Immigrants To Naturalize Before 2016
Last week, the White House Task Force on New Americans held a briefing at the Soros-funded, pro-open borders Migration Policy Institute to push its new “Strategic Action Plan on Immigrant & Refugee Integration.” The Task Force, which seeks to ramp up naturalization rates among non-citizens, grew out of one of the dozen bombshell memos dropped on the American public after the midterms last year. Although barely discussed, it may be the most important memo released that day, even more so than Obama’s twin amnesty programs and the ‘New Priorities on Deportations’ memo which rewrote the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Judge Andrew Hanen of Texas District Court slapped down the Obama DOJ last week, ruling that his February 16 injunction order would stay in place pending a full hearing on the merits. DOJ’s attempt to convince the judge that the injunction was "disruptive to national security" had indeed been pretty weak. When he questioned the need for the DAPA program to dole out work permits to illegal aliens on top of providing amnesty, he was told it was necessary in order to "incentivize" the aliens to “come out and identify themselves.”
Yesterday, 181 of the 188 Democrats in the House filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the federal government’s attempt to appeal Judge Hanen’s recent amnesty-injunction. The Democrats, identifying themselves in the letter as “representatives of diverse communities," attempt to set out a legal argument as to why Judge Hanen’s carefully reasoned, 123-page opinion should be set aside. The brief follows (and largely mimics) an open letter published last month by four of the most prominent open-borders law professors in the country.
Last week it was during a hearing before a federal court in Texas, this week it’s from a report by the Inspector General's Office. The Department of Homeland Security has found itself again in hot water as allegations surface that Citizen and Immigration Services’ head, Ali Mayorkas, gave special treatment to friends and top Democrats with business holdings tied up in the controversial EB-5 “investor visa” program.
DOJ Attorneys Tell District Court Amnesty Benefits Are Legal, Temporary — Other Officials Say The Opposite
DOJ’s request to let Obama’s amnesty proceed hit another hurdle late Monday night when U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen demanded that they “fully explain” why DHS has already extended benefits to 100,000 illegal aliens covered under the DACA extension before a full trial has been heard.
Obama’s amnesty decree being halted by a federal court in Texas comes at a perfect time. The injunction order will now let a full hearing of the Texas plaintiffs take place just as fresh allegations of more unlawfulness on the part of Obama’s amnesty-enablers begins to surface.
Although spending taxpayer money isn't usually a big concern for the president, he’s managed to get plenty of mileage out of the “limited resources” argument for cutting deportations and pushing through amnesty. The phrase litters the Office of Legal Counsel’s justification for DAPA and the Justice Department makes it their central argument against Texas and the 25 other states currently challenging that program in court.
In an interview this past week, the new chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Ron Johnson, questioned why Obama chose to do nothing about immigration during his first two years in office. The answer apparently is that he didn’t get the memo.
Leading up to his presidential announcement this week, Jeb Bush reportedly began “conducting opposition research on himself” to identify any potential issues that may arise during his campaign. What his campaign managers should be most concerned of is difficult to say, but two figures from his past, one obvious, the other less so, immediately come to mind: Raul Salinas, drug-trafficker, convicted murderer and a previous associate of Jeb’s; and Fredo Arias-King, a Harvard academic and former foreign affairs aide in Mexico’s National Action Party who Jeb briefly met once.
Open-Borders Republicans And Democrats Agree: Mass Immigration Weakens Democracy, And That’s The Point
Republican voters stunned by the House leadership’s apparent reneging on their pre-election promise to defund Obamnesty, must turn to the insights of Mexican national, Fredo Arias-King to understand the true, treasonous nature of our modern political elite. While representing former Mexican president Vincente Fox’s foreign affairs team in the early 2000s, Arias-King met and discussed immigration policy with over 80 members of the U.S. Congress, a level of access your average political scientist could only dream of.
In the National Journal this week, liberal elections analyst Charlie Cook of the Cook Report penned a rejoinder to his fellow Democrats accusing the party of having a race problem. In his piece, subtitled “Democrats have subordinated their traditional focus on helping the working class.” Cook notes it’s been “increasingly hard” for the party to attract white working class voters in particular. Because inside-the-Beltway types usually take years to notice things us regular outsiders have been seeing for decades, Cook's commentary is refreshing stuff.
Congressional leaders and state attorneys general looking to use the courts to block Obama’s latest amnesty decree need to remember that much of the work was already done in April of last year. Although forced to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, Judge O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas found that ICE union chief Chris Crane and 9 other ICE agents were “likely to succeed on the merits of their claim in challenging [deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA)] as contrary to the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.”