A Party’s Failure on Immigration

The Party in question isn’t the Republican Party.  Those folks always have had a very stringent position on immigration, and they’ve not hidden their view from the public’s eye.  No, the failing party is the Progressive-Democratic Party.  Those folks have long claimed—a claim we now know to be a cynical pretense, a pretense consistent with the underlying philosophy of the party of Jim Crow and of racist and sexist affirmative action—to be champions of immigrants and of DACA children.  But last week, they voted against every bill, Republican-offered and “bipartisan,” that was brought up.  The Progressive-Democrats wouldn’t even vote for cloture so the bills could be openly debated on the Senate floor.

Immigration, Progressive-Democrats, and Votes

President Donald Trump has an immigration bill on offer before the Congress, the Republicans have one, and a bipartisan group of two Senators have one.  Trump’s bill includes legalization and an eventual possibility of citizenship for 1.8 million Dreamers (1.2 million, or so, beyond ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) illegal DACA program Dreamers), funding for a border wall, and changes to our visa programs.  The Republicans’ offer centers on DACA protections and a border wall.  The “bipartisan” bill has only DACA protections, not even border security.

Mid-Term Elections

At their retreat last week, Republicans indicated that they intend to run heavily on the tax reform they got through at the end of last year.  It’s good to have something positive on which to run, especially since, at least for the near term, the Progressive-Democratic Party has nothing on which to campaign other than its #NeverTrump and #NothingRepublicanNoWay platform and its standard disparagement of ordinary Americans like House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s (D, CA) claim that the tax reform’s aftermath of bonuses and pay raises are just crumbs.

The Party Wants No Deal

The Progressive-Democrats in Congress don’t want a deal, neither on the budget nor on DACA.  They want the Federal government shut down so they can blame the Republicans for it during this fall’s elections.  They also want to keep the DACA situation and immigration in general alive as a debating question for those same elections.

Democrats said Mr Trump’s dismissal of “shithole countries” in Africa in a closed meeting last week with lawmakers positioned him as the person who upset the negotiations.

A Federal Judge Has Overstepped

DACA was implemented by Department of Homeland Security memorandum—not even through Rule Making—and it can be removed by the same process or by Executive Order.  There is no legislation being ignored or abused here; this is purely and solely an internal Executive Branch affair.  Alsup is nakedly insinuating himself in what is only—can only be—a political matter and not a judicial one in a blatant violation of Constitutional separation of powers.

Even ex-Progressive-Democratic President Barack Obama (D) confessed he had no Constitutional authority to order the things DACA orders—before he had his DHS Secretary issue her memorandum.

This Makes No Sense

The German government wants to pay a bonus to refugees who’ve been rejected from consideration for remaining in Germany.

The German government wants to encourage rejected asylum seekers to voluntarily return to their home countries with a cash incentive, Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere told newspaper Bild am Sonntag on Sunday.

It’s also a cynical move.  Maiziere offered this as part of the bonus:

When you voluntarily decide to return by the end of February, in addition to startup help you can provisionally receive housing cost help for the first 12 months in your homeland

Welcome to Our World, Prime Minister

Maybe Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau agrees with President Donald Trump more than he’d care to admit.  Now that Canada is confronted with its own flood of illegal aliens, Trudeau has become concerned.

“Canada is an opening and welcoming society, but let me be clear. We are also a country of laws,” Trudeau said in remarks after a meeting in Montreal with Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar.

“Entering Canada irregularly is not an advantage,” the prime minister doubled down. “There are rigorous immigration and customs rules that will be followed. Make no mistake.”

And

What’s in a Name?

Quite a lot, actually, and the Left has this right—even if they’re on the wrong side of the naming question.  DoJ has begun referring to those who’ve entered the US illegally as “illegal aliens,” and the Left has gotten its collective panties in a twist over it.

Here’s Chicago Tribune journalist Todd Slowik:

The phrase “illegal alien” plays into assumptions that immigrants living in this country without proper documentation are criminals[.]

Sanctuary Cities

For the Left it means sanctuary from inconvenient laws.  Nevertheless, the House has passed two bills aimed at eliminating such sanctuary by reducing the ability of local cities and counties to give sanctuary to illegal aliens.  One such is the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, which looks to persuade—notice that: not force, as many on the Left insist it does—locals to hold folks in jail who’ve already been arrested by locals for local violations for up to 48 hours in response to an ICE detainer.  Kate Steinle was murdered by an illegal alien who had just been released—deliberately in contradiction of an ICE request.  Opponents, though, insist that

Constituents

Who are a Federal judge’s—at any level of the judicial hierarchy—constituents?  I asked this question of a number of folks, and the most cogent answer I got was this: “in order, the law and justice.”  Even that answer, though, is only about one-third right IMNSHO.

Here is the first oath of office Federal judge and Justice must take; it’s the same as any Congressman must take.