May 23

Report Deals Blow to Legal Defense of Obama Amnesty Edicts

The Department of Homeland Security’s own Inspector General has dealt a serious blow against the Obama administration’s defense in the lawsuit filed by 26 states against the immigration amnesty scheme announced by Obama in November, 2014.  The amnesty plan is currently on hold due to a preliminary injunction issued by federal District Court judge Andrew Hanen, an order being appealed by the administration.

The crux of the defense asserted by Justice Department lawyers is that the president’s actions are a permissible exercise of prosecutorial discretion.  However, the Inspector General’s report published on May 4, reveals that the Obama DHS does not even attempt to gather or analyse prosecutorial discretion data to assess its policies or develop future policies to improve its ability to remove even dangerous aliens.  The administration has been making the laughable claim that it needs to give amnesty – including Social Security cards and work permits – to five million illegals so that it can concentrate on removing dangerous alien criminals and terrorists.

Read more at:

Posted 5/23/15 by Margaret Hull

Permanent link to this article:

May 22

NYT Endorses Obama’s Lawlessness

Mrs. Clinton defended a path to citizenship for those 11 million [illegal aliens], and promised as president to take executive—more broadly than Mr. Obama has—to defer [their] deportations. . . . Mrs. Clinton vowed “as president I will do everything possible under the law to go even further.” . . . Those are stirring words, but Mrs. Clinton has set no timetable for action and given herself clear exists if things get sticky. “Under the law” is one collusion point, as we see from the way hostile governors, attorneys general and a testy judge in Texas have managed to stall Mr. Obama’s modest, and patently legal, action to defer deportations. Hillary Clinton Takes the Lead on Immigration, The New York Times, editorial, 5/7/15.

Fact Check: The New York Times, ever a defender of illegal aliens, thinks it’s “stirring” that Hillary Clinton wants to go even further than Obama in ignoring the Constitution and acting like a dictator. Contrary to the Times’ claim, there is nothing “modest” about Obama’s highhanded actions, which ignore Congress, and propose to give legal status to as many as six million of the 11 million illegal aliens now living in the U.S. Clinton proposes to go “even further,” presumably from what the Times said, to legalize them all.

Contrary to the Times’ claim, the Obama’s legalization scheme is patently illegal, something he himself once conceded. To rationalize his present stance, he now claims that it is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion. This legal principle allows law enforcement to set priorities of enforcement, but it never gives the right to place whole categories of people off-limits to enforcement. Further, the Obama edicts simply repeal the law against the hiring of illegal aliens by offering them work permits. Making law is what Congress is supposed to do, not the president.

Currently, Fifth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit is weighing the legality of Obama’s edicts, specifically the extension of his DACA edict, and the much broader DAPA edict. Most interestingly the Cato Institute has submitted an amicus brief to the court to advise it legal principles. Cato, a libertarian think tank, is pro-amnesty and basically for open borders, yet even Cato can’t tolerate the blatant lawlessness of Obama’s actions.

It described this brief by stating, “Our message is simple: the implausible defense of the president’s unilateral executive action requires a level of legal sophistry that puts Humpty Dumpty to shame. As Justice Robert H. Jackson recognized six decades ago in the seminal case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co v. Sawyer (the ‘Steel Seizure Case’), presidential lawmaking that lacks congressional support ‘must be scrutinized with caution.’ Such scrutiny will reveal that, even though Congress has previously authorized deportation deferrals and accompanying work permits, DAPA amounts to a deliberate effort to bypass Congress and conflicts with five decades of congressional immigration policy.”

The New York Times describes people who support our country’s rule of law as “hostile” and “testy.” More accurate terms would be honorable and patriotic.


Permanent link to this article:

May 21

Disney Replaces American Tech Workers With Foreigners

Disney has joined the growing number of big businesses firing workers and forcing them to train their foreign replacements, The Daily Caller reports. One Floridian described the end of his career: “You had me here one day, and the next day you had an Indian worker at a lower skill level sitting at my desk.”  He and hundreds of his fellow Disney employees in Florida were told last October they were being replaced by a foreign work force, and they could either stick around for 90 days and train their replacements – with a good attitude – or leave immediately and lose their severance packages.

The U.S. currently allows one million legal immigrants, 700,000 guest workers, and untold numbers of illegal aliens into the country annually.  The results of this unprecedented flood of cheap foreign labor include falling wages, high unemployment and millions of discouraged Americans leaving the workforce. Most of the politicians running for president want even more foreign workers, as demanded by the corporate interests that are very heavy campaign contributors.

Read more here:

Posted 5/21/15 by George Palmer


Permanent link to this article:

May 20

AFL-CIO Supports Obama Lawlessness

AFL-CIO Executive Vice President Tefere Gebre and other Big labor leaders defended President Obama unconstitutional amnesty edicts for illegal aliens. Said Gebre, “Far from paralyzing us, the current legal injunction of the deferred action programs further highlight something that we in the labor movement know very well: that organizing is the only real force that moves our country forward.” Organized labor once opposed mass immigration to protect American workers.” Now labor leaders welcome foreign-born workers to become dues-paying members of their unions.


Permanent link to this article:

May 19

Obama Task Force: Stop Local and State Enforcement

The Task Force of 21st Century Policing, appointed by the Obama Administration, has called for an end to most involvement of state and local police agencies in immigration law enforcement. The Task Force stated, “The U.S. Department of Homeland Security should terminate the use of the state and local criminal justice system, including through detention, notification, and transfer requests, to enforce civil immigration laws against civil and nonserious criminal offenders.” This recommendation is consistent with the Obama administration’s ongoing effort to allow the great majority illegal aliens to remain in the United States.


Permanent link to this article:

May 15

House Votes Down Military Service for Illegal aliens

In a 221-202 vote the House voted to bar from military service illegal aliens who receive amnesty under President Obama’s DACA edict. Leading this legislative action was Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL). He stated, “Today is a great victory for Americans and lawful immigrants who wish to serve America in our Armed Forces. . . . It makes no sense to me that, at the same time the Army is downsizing and issuing pink slips to American soldiers serving in Afghanistan, there are congressmen who seek to help illegal aliens deprive American citizens and lawful immigrants of military service opportunities.”


Permanent link to this article:

May 14

Immigration Advocates Don’t Define Immigration

Immigration is one of the great polarizing issues in American politics. . . . But overall, immigrants are good for the United States. . . . They embody the American Dream. . . . ITEP [Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy] says that immigrants who entered the country illegally paid about $12 billion in state and local taxes in 2012. More significantly, ITEP found that if the estimated 11.4 million immigrants who entered the country illegally were granted legal status, the taxes they would play would increase by about $2.2 billion. Yes, that requires some kind of amnesty or forgiveness. — Immigrants Are Good for US, David Brunori,, 5/4/15.

Fact Check: “But overall, immigrants are good for the United States.” This is meaningless statement because it offers no definition in terms of numbers, make-up, or qualities. It’s like saying, “Overall, water is good.” But that depends on whether you’re talking about a full reservoir which provides drinking water for a community, or a rampaging Mississippi flood. Or it’s like saying, “Overall, fire is good.” That depends on whether you’re talking about a cozy blaze in your wood stove, or a raging forest fire.

Now let’s apply this principle to immigration. Suppose we had an immigration policy that admitted a reasonable number of immigrants a year, say around 250,000, and that we selected them primarily on the basis of cultural compatibility and needed skills. Would immigration, so described, be good? Probably so.

Next, let’s consider a different policy. It would be one that annually admits one million immigrants, year after year—creating the greatest sustained wave of immigration in our history. It would admit people primarily on the basis of their family ties, rather than cultural affinity or skills. Many would come from countries with values quite different from ours, or values even hostile to them. Also, many would be relatively poor, so much so that some would say that we were importing poverty. The great numbers of immigrants further would have the effect of suppressing wages, draining public assistance, and placing a burden on infrastructure and resources. Would immigration, so described, be good? Definitely not—but it’s precisely the kind of immigration we have today.

Individuals like Brunori prevent reasonable discussion of immigration by refusing to define what they mean by immigration. They aim to manipulate happy-face sentimentality by evoking the “American Dream” and other shibboleths of immigration advocacy. Sadly, they have little concern for the dreams of Americans who want to retain the America they have known and loved and not see it replaced by an alien land torn by hyper-diversity, economic distress, and a degraded infrastructure and environment.

As for the finding by ITEP that illegal aliens pay $12 billion per year in taxes, it may well be true. But that’s not the relevant issue. The real issue is whether what they pay is greater or less than what they cost in public services. The Heritage Foundation did an extensive study of this question and found that illegal aliens pay more in taxes that what ITEP estimates, a total of $17.6 billion. But it also found that they consume $54.5 billion more per year in tax-paid services.

The claim that they would paid pay higher taxes with amnesty is based on the assumption that they would have opportunities to get better jobs. The problem with this notion is that when they seek better jobs they will compete with citizens to get them, and thus limit the ability of those citizens to pay taxes. Also, the amnestied illegal aliens will have access to welfare programs now denied to them because of their unlawful status.

Finally, even if illegal aliens really did pay more than they take, it would hardly require “some kind of amnesty or forgiveness.” This is purely a statement that money matters more than the worth of our laws and citizenship.

Permanent link to this article:

May 11

Jeb Bush: We Need to Show Respect for Illegal Aliens

Likely presidential contender Jeb Bush lamented in an interview that illegal aliens deserve more respect. He said that we should make legal immigration easier than illegal immigration and “show some respect” illegal immigrants already here. Bush didn’t say anything about respecting ordinary American citizens who suffer from illegal immigration.


Permanent link to this article:

May 08

Immigrants Benefit from Job Growth More than Natives

Immigrants have experienced much greater employment growth than native-born Americans since 2007, according to figures recently released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Since December of 2007, the number of employed immigrants increased by more than two million. During that same period, the number of employed natives only went up by 245,000.


Permanent link to this article:

May 07

Rubin Is Wrong on Wage Suppression

[L]egal immigration does not depress wages and has ample economic benefits. . . . immigration is not a zero-sum [game] but rather [it is] a worldwide competition for the most economically productive people because they help expand the economic pie. . . . [Immigration opponents] use “recycled AFL-CIO talking points” [and raise] “cultural issues”. . . . [Some Republicans] . . . “paint a fearful picture of the United States under siege. . . . They aren’t much for free markers, but they are about harnessing fear and resentment of those who lack the skills to compete in the global economy.” — Jennifer Rubin, Two Views of Immigration, The Washington Post, 4/27/15.

Fact Check: Perhaps the most fundamental principle of economics is the law of supply and demand. It states that when the supply of an item increases—and all other variables are equal—the price for it will decline. This means that increasing the supply of labor tends to drive down wages. Again, other variables can come into play, but this is the general tendency.

So why do Rubin and other immigration enthusiasts claim so dogmatically that immigration (the addition of foreign workers to our labor force) has no effect on wages? Would they have us believe that the law of supply and demand has been repealed?

The enthusiasts try to dodge this issue by focusing on the other variables that mitigate wage suppression, and these indeed exist. But they would have us believe that the huge numbers of immigrants we have received in recent decades have had little if any effect. To shore up this idea, they cite various studies that allegedly prove what they claim.

These studies notwithstanding, U.S. wages have in fact stagnated since mass immigration began in the sixties. Recently the Congressional Research Service issued a report showing the correlation between immigration and the income levels of the bottom 90 percent of U.S. tax filers. Since the year 2000, the level of those wages ceased being flat and actually began to decline. This trend of stagnant and declining wages took place as productivity was increasing. Normally when productivity increases, so do wages—unless something else is holding them down.

Further evidence that immigration is swamping the labor market is that immigrants are taking jobs at a significantly higher rate than natives. Also, convincing studies show that immigration indeed drives down wages, particularly those of Americans on the lower end of the economic spectrum. Contrary to Rubin’s assertion, most legal immigrants are not “the most economically productive people.” They tend to be less skilled and educated than natives on average, which puts them in competition with our poor people.

At one time organized labor tried to protect American workers by supporting restriction of immigration. But now, contrary to what Rubin suggests, restriction is no longer an AFL-CIO “talking point.” Labor bosses today welcome immigration as a means of increasing the dues-paying membership of unions, regardless of what it does to wages.

Rubin seems to dismiss “cultural issues” as a reason for opposing mass immigration, but they are quite crucial. When diversity overcomes assimilation, as is happening now, our country will lack the common values and teamwork to advance economic prosperity or any other national objective.

With respect to national spirit, something most disturbing about Rubin is her flippant indifference and even contempt for many of her fellow countrymen. Perhaps they have good reason to harbor “fear and resentment” when they suffer from elitist policies that sacrifice their wellbeing and their country for the greater good of something called “the global economy.”

Rubin and her ilk appear inclined to justify those sacrifices in the name of the cause of “free enterprise.” To the contrary, mass immigration is a policy of government intervention that distorts the American labor market to the detriment of many citizens. Further, their version of enterprise is scarcely free when the public benefits that immigrants receive amount to a tax-funded subsidy to the businesses that employ immigrants for cheap labor.

Finally, there is the issue of sincerity and honesty. If Rubin and the rest truly care about free enterprise having a future, they would seek to end mass immigration because it is building a powerful left-wing voting bloc, one that will favor Big Government at the expense of free markets. Robert Creamer, a prominent Democratic strategist, openly acknowledges this development and encourages it. One wonders if “free enterprise” is really a cause for the immigration enthusiasts who espouse it—or just a noble phrase to hide selfish and shortsighted greed.


Permanent link to this article:

Page 1 of 13812345...102030...Last »