Category Archives: immigration

The Party Wants No Deal

Posted on by
Reply

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.

Notice that.  The Progressive-Democrats are doing two things here: masquerading a claim of certain words being spoken as a fact that those words were spoken, and then using those words as an excuse to refuse to deal on DACA rather than actually dealing on DACA.

That the Progressive-Democrats do not want a DACA deal at all is illustrated by a third thing to notice, a matter that’s being carefully ignored by both those Progressive-Democrats and the NLMSM.  Such words spoken publicly would be damaging to our national reputation; on that we’re all agreed.  What’s ignored is that, having been said in that closed meeting (if they were said), no one outside the meeting would know about them and no damage would be done—but for a meeting participant (Senator Dick Durbin (D, IL) comes to mind) running screaming to the press as soon as the meeting broke up to bruit about those words.  This is a deliberate move to blow up any DACA negotiations.

Nor is a DACA agreement needed in the current budget debate.  President Donald Trump’s rescission of ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) DHS memorandum gave Congress, where such a matter belongs, until next March to enact a DACA program legislatively, or explicitly decline to do so, before Trump’s rescission takes effect.  The lack of urgency is further well-known to the Progressive-Democrats: a Federal judge has blocked Trump’s order.  Demanding a DACA deal in the current budget debate is simply a mechanism to block a budget deal.

Too, the Progressive-Democratic Party must come before children.  That Party is more important than children is demonstrated by two outcomes of the Progressive-Democrats’ obstructionism.  The DACA children will get nothing from any government shutdown.  The Progressive-Democrats’ rejection of a budget deal also will reject the CHIP program, whose funding is renewed for six years, in the deal on offer.  Millions of children will be denied access to health insurance.

Remember that in the coming elections.

A Federal Judge Has Overstepped

Posted on by
Reply

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.

Nevertheless, a Federal judge, William Alsup (from San Francisco and a Clinton appointee, but that has nothing to do with the illegitimacy of his ruling, only with the likelihood with which he’d issue such a thing) has barred President Donald Trump’s order rescinding it and which order also HIAed the rescission until March to give Congress time to handle the matter legislatively, which is how even Obama originally claimed he wanted it handled.

Alsup’s ruling ignores the law, ignores the supreme Law of the Land, and it creates “rights” that do not exist.  DACA may be good or bad policy, but its implementation or removal is a political decision; it has no place in the judiciary.  This is judicial activism at its worst.  Alsup’s ruling is a clear violation of his oath of office.  He needs to be dealt with accordingly.

This Makes No Sense

Posted on by
Reply

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

If these folks have been rejected even for refugee status, what have they done that would earn them any of the German citizens’ money?  These folks are refugees, or claim to be; what is there in the home country from which they say they’re fleeing that would allow them to live there in safety?

Welcome to Our World, Prime Minister

Posted on by
Reply

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

Our rules, our principles and our laws apply to everyone[.]

What’s in a Name?

Posted on by
Reply

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[.]

Without proper documentation: in other words, in the US illegally.  Which is a crime, which makes these folks criminals.  Now, I’m one of those squishes who thinks illegal aliens whose only crime is entering illegally, and who since have been solid, contributing members of their community, should be offered a path to make good on their (really quite minor—on the order of a traffic violation) crime and then a path to legal permanent residency and eventual citizenship.  Illegal aliens who aren’t contributing members or who commit additional crimes ought to be tried for those additional crimes, and for the illegal entry now that that has become a problem; if convicted, jailed; and at the end of their sentence, deported with no option for reentry.

Hiding behind euphemisms—undocumented, unauthorized, migrants—just hides the damage illegal aliens who commit additional crimes do.  Just ask the two women who were raped in Portland, OR, because the city’s councilmen considered the PC rights of a multiply-deported illegal alien were more important than the right to security of those two women.  Just ask Kate Steinle.  Oh, wait.   Just ask the victims of MS-13 barbarians.  Oh.  Keep waiting.

As a side note, Fox News insider has it wrong, too, as they demonstrate in the opening sentence of their piece:

The Justice Department began calling illegal immigrants “illegal aliens….”

Illegal aliens aren’t immigrants, either.  Immigrants are in our nation legally.