Once again, lawbreakers–and their highly vocal supporters–are angry.
President Barack Obama has decided–at least temporarily–to delay taking any executive action on immigration until after the November congressional elections.
And millions of Hispanics–both within the United States and throughout Central and South America–are furious.
They had expected–or at least hoped–that Obama would essentially overturn all U.S. immigration laws.
In a Rose Garden speech on June 30, Obama said he had directed Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Attorney General Eric Holder to give him recommendations for executive action by the end of summer.
Obama promised to “adopt those recommendations without further delay.”
But now–suddenly–Obama has apparently had a change of heart.
There are two reasons why the President has made this decision–one that sounds good, and a real one.
The one that sounds good is this: Using executive orders to circumvent Congress on immigration during the campaign would politicize the issue and hurt future efforts to pass a broad overhaul.
The real one: Democrats fear losing their majority in the United States Senate.
With the House of Representatives already under Right-wing control, this would essentially nullify the remaining 16 months of the Obama Presidency.
And Democrats have good reason to fear having the illegal immigration issue turned against them in November.
True, Hispanics are passionately committed to turning the United States into a dumping ground for millions of poor, uneducated, non-English-speaking peons.
But they make up only one constituency of the Democratic Party.
And while millions of non-Hispanics believe that “immigration reform” is necessary, they’re more concerned with the stalled economy and the need to create jobs.
It’s different on the Right. There, millions of “angry white males” are prepared to make illegal immigration the major issue of the election.
During the 1994 mid-term elections, Republicans made “gun control” their central issue. Democrats lost heavily and the House of Representatives went Republican.
Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House, and dedicated the next two years to blocking every piece of legislation put forth by President Bill Clinton.
If history repeats itself, this is the sort of history that Democrats in the Senate don’t want to repeat.
Illegal immigration has always been a highly emotional issue for conservatives. But it’s been given added impetus this year.
Thousands–perhaps millions–of unaccompanied minors from Central America have flooded across the U.S. border with Mexico. And there seems to be no signs of stopping this deluge.
White House officials claim that President Obama didn’t foresee how this might increase frictions with Republicans when he made his June 30 pledge.
In other words: Obama didn’t realize that offering all-out support for millions of violators of America’s immigration laws could cost Democrats bigtime in the Senate.
But if Obama didn’t realize the danger Senate Democrats faced, Senate Democrats most certainly did.
This was especially true for those in vulnerable states like Arkansas, Louisiana and North Carolina. And they urged Obama to postpone any decision on immigration until after the election.
Of course, those promoting an end to all U.S. restrictions on illegal immigration are furious.
“We know where Republicans stand, and what this shows now is that Democrats are also willing to throw Latinos and immigrants under the bus,” said Cesar Vargas, director of the DREAM Action Coalition, a group of young undocumented immigrants who have encouraged voters to push for immigration reform.
During the 2012 Presidential race, Obama won big among Hispanic voters. In large part, he was unintentionally helped by his opponent, Mitt Romney, whose use of words like “illegals” and “self-deportation” enraged Hispanics.
But what worked for Obama in a Presidential election won’t work for Democrats in midterm elections.
Democrats such as Senators Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Mark Pryor of Arkansas don’t have large masses of Hispanic voters to rely on.
And there are plenty of angry white voters prepared to vote Republican against anyone they believe is “selling out America.”
Many of them are angry at being called racists simply because they believe the United States should be able to control its own borders–the way Mexico controls its own.
Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:
- in the country legally;
- have the means to sustain themselves economically;
- not destined to be burdens on society;
- of economic and social benefit to society;
- of good character and have no criminal records; and
- contribute to the general well-being of the nation.
The law also ensures that:
- immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
- foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
- foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;
- foreign visitors who enter under ralse pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
- foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned are deported;
- those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.
Meanwhile, Mexico uses its American border to rid itself of those who might otherwise demand major reforms in the country’s political and economic institutions.
Bureaucracybuster's Blog 
2014 MIDTERM ELECTIONS, ABC NEWS, ANCHOR BABIES, BARACK OBAMA, CBS NEWS, CNN, DREAM ACT, FACEBOOK, HISPANICS, illegal immigration, MEXICO, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEWT GINGRICH, RACIAL PROFILING, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER
REAL IMMIGRATION REFORM: PART TWO (END)
In History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on September 9, 2014 at 7:43 amIf Americans decide they truly want to control access to their own borders, there is a realistic way to accomplish this.
Arrested illegal aliens in Long Island, New York
(1) The Justice Department should vigorously attack the “sanctuary movement” that officially thwarts the immigration laws of the United States.
Among the 31 “sanctuary cities” of this country: Washington, D.C.; New York City; Los Angeles; Chicago; San Francisco; Santa Ana; San Diego; Salt Lake City; Phoenix; Dallas; Houston; Austin; Detroit; Jersey City; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; New Haven, Connecticut; and Portland, Maine.
These cities have adopted “sanctuary” ordinances that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about one’s immigration status.
(2) The most effective way to combat this movement: Indict the highest-ranking officials of those cities who have actively violated Federal immigration laws.
In San Francisco, for example, former District Attorney Kamala Harris—who is now California’s Attorney General—created a secret program called Back on Track, which provided training for jobs that illegal aliens could not legally hold.
She also prevented Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from deporting even those illegal aliens convicted of a felony.
(3) Indicting such officials would be comparable to the way President Andrew Jackson dealt with the threat South Carolinians once made to “nullify” any Federal laws they didn’t like.
Jackson quashed that threat by making one of his own: To lead an army into that State and purge all who dared defy the laws of the Federal Government.
(4) Even if some indicted officials escaped conviction, the results would prove worthwhile.
City officials would be forced to spend huge sums of their own money for attorneys and face months or even years of prosecution.
And this, in turn, would send a devastating warning to officials in other “sanctuary cities” that the same fate lies in store for them.
(5) CEOs whose companies–like Wal-Mart–systematically employ illegal aliens should be held directly accountable for the actions of their subordinates.
They should be indicted by the Justice Department under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, the way Mafia bosses are prosecuted for ordering their own subordinates to commit crimes.
Upon conviction, the CEO should be sentenced to a mandatory prison term of at least twenty years.
This would prove a more effective remedy for combating illegal immigration than stationing tens of thousands of soldiers on the U.S./Mexican border. CEOs forced to account for their subordinates’ actions would take drastic steps to ensure that their companies strictly complied with Federal immigration laws.
Without employers luring illegal aliens at a fraction of the money paid to American workers, the flood of such illegal job-seekers would quickly dry up.
(6) The Government should stop granting automatic citizenship to “anchor babies” born to illegal aliens in the United States.
A comparable practice would be allowing bank robbers who had eluded the FBI to keep their illegally-obtained loot.
A person who violates the bank robbery laws of the United States is legally prosecutable for bank robbery, whether he’s immediately arrested or remains uncaught for years. The same should be true for those born illegally within this country.
If they’re not here legally at the time of birth, they should not be considered citizens and should–like their parents–be subject to deportation.
(7) The United States Government–from the President on down–should scrap its apologetic tone on the right to control its national borders.
The Mexican Government doesn’t hesitate to apply strict laws to those immigrating to Mexico. And it feels no need to apologize for this.
Neither should we.
(8) Voting materials and ballots should be published in one language: English.
In Mexico, voting materials are published in one language–Spanish.
Throughout the United States, millions of Mexican illegals refuse to learn English and yet demand that voting materials and ballots be made available to them in Spanish.
(9) Those who are not legal citizens of the United States should not be allowed to vote in its elections.
In Mexico, those who are not Mexican citizens are not allowed to participate in the country’s elections.
The Mexican Government doesn’t consider itself racist for strictly enforcing its immigration laws.
The United States Government should not consider itself racist for insisting on the right to do the same.
(10) The United States should impose economic and even military sanctions against countries–such as China and Mexico–whose citizens make up the bulk of illegal aliens.
Mexico, for example, uses its American border to rid itself of those who might demand major reforms in the country’s political and economic institutions.
Such nations must learn that dumping their unwanteds on the United States now comes at an unaffordably high price. Otherwise those dumpings will continue.
Share this: