Category Archives: immigration

Misapprehensions

Posted on by
Reply

More in a long list of Leftist and Progressive-Democrat misapprehensions. Recall that President Joe Biden has abandoned the Trump administration’s Public Charge Rule. That rule required immigrants be financially stable to become US citizens or obtain permanent residency.

Naturally, the Leftist critics are coming out of the woodwork with their objections.

…the policy hurts those trying to obtain citizenship or [permanent] residency. The Legal Aide society [sic] called the policy a “wealth tax” that discriminated against people on the basis of race and immigration status.

One misapprehension is this business about hurting those trying to obtain citizenship or [permanent] residency. No nation has any obligation to grant residency—permanent or otherwise—or citizenship to anyone wishing to immigrate (more on this in a bit). No nation has any obligation even to entertain such applications. Hence no injury is possible here.

Another misapprehension: the idea that any sort of wealth tax is being applied from a public charge sort of rule. There is no tax intrinsic or even implied in requiring prospective residents or citizens to be independent of the receiving nation’s welfare system, in requiring them to be able to fend for themselves or to rely on their own family. The only tax involved would be the added burden on the receiving nation’s extant taxpayers.

Yet another misapprehension: the idea that requiring a degree of independence or self sufficiency as a prerequisite to residency or citizenship is somehow racist. This beef suggests that prospective immigrants are, because of their race, inherently unable to see to their own welfare. That attitude itself is invidious and racist.

A fourth misapprehension: the idea that any sort of public charge criterion discriminates on the basis of immigration status. No. National borders effect that discrimination. It’s one of the purposes of national borders, it’s a part of maintaining and enforcing a nation’s sovereignty. No one, nor any collection of people, has any inherent right to enter another nation without that nation’s prior permission. Neither has that nation any obligation to grant that permission.

A Clue Bat

Posted on by
Reply

…just struck. Colorado’s Progressive-Democrats want to censure their US Senator John Hickenlooper (D, CO) for the crime of voting to keep illegal aliens from receiving Wuhan Virus situation stimulus checks.

(Apparently, censure is becoming a thing as, just in the last month or so, Republicans moved to censure Congresswoman Liz Cheney (R, WY), Senator Ben Sasse (R, NE), and a brief low key effort was made to substitute censure for impeachment regarding ex-President Donald Trump.)

That’s not the item of interest here, though. The real clue to Progressive-Democrat intentions with their no-border, no-vetting, come-one-come-all immigration policy is this statement regarding censuring Hickenlooper by State Senator Julie Gonzales (D):

Usually politicians don’t slam the door shut on Latino voters so abruptly[.]

And a confirming clue:

Background below. The party platform opposes laws that make immigrants ineligible for assistance. https://t.co/kysMhSRxNi— Justin Wingerter (@JustinWingerter) February 8, 2021

Illegal aliens are immigrants—and these same illegal aliens are voters.

Be very heads up.

Opposition

Posted on by
Reply

Republicans in the Senate put Progressive-Democrats on the record on a number of amendments to Party’s budget reconciliation move—itself a deliberate act to sideline any dissent—which Republicans offered during a Thursday afternoon through Friday morning vote-a-rama. Party’s budget reconciliation then was voted up strictly along party lines.

Here’s some of what the Senate’s Progressive-Democrats oppose. Notice that every one of these would have enhanced Americans’ national security, economy, and individual liberty had they had the support of even a single Progressive-Democrat.

  • 50-50 on a failed amendment to support the border wall
  • 50-50 on a failed amendment supporting the free exercise of religion
  • 50-50 on a failed amendment to oppose packing the Supreme Court
  • 50-50 on a failed amendment opposing stimulus checks for people in prison
  • 50-50 on a failed amendment opposing the Biden administration’s move to restrict oil and gas leasing on federal lands
  • 50-50 on a failed amendment opposing a federal carbon tax

What a Concept

Posted on by
Reply

A legal, permanent resident immigrant with a prior criminal record, has been ordered deported, and the Supreme Court has upheld the deportation order.  Because it’s the law.

Writing for the Court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh had this [emphasis added]:

Removal of a lawful permanent resident from the United States is a wrenching process, especially in light of the consequences for family members. Removal is particularly difficult when it involves someone such as Barton who has spent most of his life in the United States. Congress made a choice, however, to authorize removal of noncitizens—even lawful permanent residents—who have committed certain serious crimes. And Congress also made a choice to categorically preclude cancellation of removal for noncitizens who have substantial criminal records. Congress may of course amend the law at any time. In the meantime, the Court is constrained to apply the law as enacted by Congress.

The law does matter. At least to some of us.

Unsurprisingly, the four liberal Justices, voted against the Court’s ruling. Which is entirely consistent with their view that laws don’t matter when they’re in the way of the Justices’ personal views of social needs.

The case is Barton v Barr, and it can be read here.

An Immigration Case and Legislation

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court is heard oral arguments on US v Sineneng-Smith last Tuesday. The case involves the convictions of a woman mail fraud and inducing illegal immigration. The woman billed illegal immigrants $6,800 to file paperwork for an expired pathway to legal residence.  Two of her victims has also testified that, but for the woman’s efforts and billings, they would have left the US otherwise.  That last formed the basis of the woman’s conviction of inducing illegal immigration.

The 9th Circuit struck the second conviction, holding the law unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment.

In the course of those oral arguments, came this item of primary interest, at least to me:

Justice Stephen Breyer noodled the idea of narrowing the law so “it is limited to solicitation of a crime.”

That may or may not be a useful thing to do, but it’s for the political branches of our Federal government to legislate, not for the judicial branch. Leave it to a…liberal…Justice to think it’s OK to modify a law from the bench.