Tag Archives: IMMIGRATION REFORM

Mark Caserta: Immigration important to liberal cause

23 Nov

 English-Spanish Signs Front Election Center In Texas

Jul. 17, 2014 @ 12:00 AM

The very sovereignty of the United States and the resolve of the American people to stand firmly upon the principles of our republic are being challenged by the crisis at our southern border.

In the second of my series of columns exposing the progressive movement in our country, we’ll examine the liberal ideology behind their desire to “reform” the immigration policies of the United States.

Many recall President Obama’s first inaugural address in January 2009 when he suggested we must begin “the work of remaking America.” Understand what liberals peddle as “reform” is simply the progressive unraveling of our nation’s laws and redefining them to help propagate the progressive movement. Necessary to this change is reconstructing the very landscape of America’s demographics and gradually whittling away at our constitution.

immigration 1

The United States has a long history of welcoming immigrants from all parts of the world. America values the contributions of immigrants who continue to enrich this country and preserve its legacy as a land of freedom and opportunity.

However, America places no small value on the decision to become a U.S. citizen. To become a citizen you must apply for a “derived” or “acquired” citizenship through parents or apply for naturalization. The process requires a display of commitment to the United States and loyalty to its constitution. Their reward includes the rights and privileges afforded a U.S. citizen.

Integral to this process is “The Immigration and Nationality Act” set in place post-World War II and meant to control immigration into the United States. The law negated exclusion of immigrants based solely upon their country of origin, but protected our nation from those who were unlawful, immoral, diseased, politically radical, etc. and was accepting of those willing to assimilate into the U.S. economic, social and political structure.

US-POLITICS-IMMIGRATION-RALLY

Admittedly, poor enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws has rendered our borders porous far too long. But President Obama’s perceived open-door policy and his subsequent level of neglect of our nation’s borders is unprecedented! Among other things, it represents an unrestricted threat to our national security by anyone willing to exploit our vulnerabilities.

Make no mistake about it. Liberal reform of our nation’s immigration policies would render the current immigration laws null and void and virtually eliminate any incentive for immigrants to naturalize or assimilate into the culture of the United States, thereby having no ownership in its continuance.

But progressives thrive on arbitrary power, not the rule of law. They pursue immigration reform under the guise of humanitarianism while portraying conservatives as prejudiced and outright “haters” simply because we refuse to capitulate to those who would reframe America around their own cancerous liberal theology.

For liberals, bypassing the lawful assimilation of immigrants into the United States, among many potential deleterious effects, adds to a populace dependent upon a government willing to sustain it and devoid of any commitment to the sovereignty of our nation.

But most importantly, it broadens the scope of individuals, void of constitutional acumen, who may be dubiously proselytized into a predacious progressive movement.

US-MEXICO-MIGRATION-REFUGEE

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

DOUG SMITH: THE ODOR OF MENDACITY

19 Nov

An Obama consistency: An odiferous approach to governing.

doug smith

There ain’t nothin’ more powerful than the odor of mendacity …You can smell it. It smells like death,”

Big Daddy, in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof

Not surprisingly, to anyone who has not been in a coma since 2008, Barack Obama lied about immigration reform.

lie 6

Candidate Obama in 2008 promised to “put comprehensive immigration reform back on the nation’s agenda during my first year in office.”

Then in March 2009, President Obama said it was “a serious concern, but not an urgent one.”

In June, “I want to actively get something done and not put it off until a year, two years, three years, five years from now.”

By August, his words had changed to:

“And what we’ve said is in the fall when we come back, we’re going to complete health care reform. We still have to act on energy legislation that has passed the House … We still have financial regulatory reform that has to get done … That’s a pretty big stack of bills.”

In March 2011, President Obama said “the nation’s laws are clear enough that for me to simply, through executive order, ignore those congressional mandates would not conform to my appropriate role as president.”

Now, it seems, he is about to act, albeit illegally, when he could have done so legally – and not “now” in 2009, but “five years from now” in 2014.

lie 2

One wonders, why now? He could have done it with a Democrat majority in both Houses from 2009 to 2010. Could it be that he also knew that to do so would cost him so much political capital that the Affordable Care Act, which cost so much, would have failed? Was he worried about 2010? No, as he told the Dems, who lost in a landslide, no worries, you’ve got me now!

He may have been worried about 2012. Because it seems likely this would have made him a one term President.

Whatever his reasons then, he clearly lied to the supporters.

So why now?

Well, now his feelings are hurt because he has been roundly rejected by the American public. He is in a mood to punish the voters for not liking him. He is in a mood to pick a fight with the GOP.

He is a Leftist, so it is all about how he feels, never what he does. Bill Clinton can feel your pain, and that is supposed to be enough. He never worked as hard in his life as he did on this. The fact that he was talking about a failure did not matter, he FELT right. And so back to Barack. He is hurt and angry, and his feelings dictate his actions. He also feels, (never reasons), that, since the voters can no longer punish Him (sorry Mary Landrieu), the GOP options to fight back are:

  1. Talk angrily
  2. Sue him
  3. Cut funding
  4. Impeach him

Now, he doesn’t care how angrily they talk. They don’t like him. He doesn’t like anyone But HIM, and doesn’t care what they may say. Let them talk.

lie 4

Sue him. ( Hahahahaha) That is funny. He has been sued. He has had federal judges issue orders, which he has roundly ignored. What is a lawsuit? If you are going to violate the Constitution, why would you worry what a court says? Even if courts rule against him, it will likely take until he is out of office, or nearly so, for SCOTUS to give the final ruling on the question anyway.

Cut funding? Yes. A legitimate, and intended tool of Congress to force compliance or negotiation with a President. But, history shows him that if they don’t give him everything he wants, in the Trillions, he can balk and let the government shut down, and they will get the blame for it. Of course, should it happen after January, he won’t have Harry Reid to shield him. He will have to veto a budget that defunds his actions, or defunds the ACA, and let the government shut down. But so what? He doesn’t care. He still thinks the press will blame the GOP. He wants what he wants, and to him, that is a law. He is betting they won’t have the stomach for the fight.

Impeach him? He is willing to bet the store, or more properly, the country, that the political will does not exist to impeach him. He is convinced that as egregious as his actions may be, and as much harm as they may cause, the bar for impeaching the first black President is impossibly high. In any event, he is convinced that the GOP will not have the stomach for it in the next 2 years.

He may be right. But he should not be. The legitimate roles of the Congress to check an overreaching Executive should always be on the table. Remember Civics class? Checks and balances. The balance was in November. He has gone too far, and his policies are rejected. The country wants him to moderate his actions. But he will not, if the will to check him does not exist.

Barack Obama is governing like a petulant child. In November, the voters said, loudly, let’s have the adults take charge again.

Here’s hoping they do.

lie 5

OBAMA DELAYS EXECUTIVE ORDERS ON AMNESTY UNTIL AFTER MID-TERM ELECTIONS

8 Sep

President Obama is delaying action on the immigration reform that he promised to take until after the November midterm elections, a White House official said Saturday.

Obama had promised to act by the end of summer, but with the elections looming, worried Senate Democrats have turned up the heat on him to postpone any action.

“The President has made clear that while nothing replaces Congress acting on comprehensive immigration reform, given the House Republicans’ refusal to act for over a year, the President will use his executive authority to take significant steps to reform our broken immigration system,” said a White House official.

National Guard troops patrol along the U.S. and Mexico border in Nogales, Ariz.JOSHUA LOTT/REUTERSNational Guard troops patrol along the U.S. and Mexico border in Nogales, Ariz.

The official added that Obama “wants to do this in a way that is sustainable for the long-term, that is most effective and good for the country,” and would commit to action before the end of the year.

The White House has blamed the Republicans for blocking the passage of comprehensive immigration reform.

EUO 3TPHANDOUT/REUTERSDeported women and their children arrive at the Ramon Villeda international airport in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, the city with the highest murder rate in the world.

“The reality the President has had to weigh is that we’re in the midst of the political season, and because of the Republicans’ extreme politicization of this issue, the President believes it would be harmful to the policy itself and to the long-term prospects for comprehensive immigration reform to announce administrative action before the elections,” the official said

OBAMA PLOTS IMMIGRATION REFORM BY PEN AND PHONE

28 Aug

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House is crafting a blame-it-on-Congress legal justification to back up President Barack Obama’s impending executive actions on immigration.

 ILLEGALS

Facing an expected onslaught of opposition, the administration plans to argue that Congress failed to provide enough resources to fully enforce U.S. laws, thereby ceding wide latitude to White House to prioritize deportations of the 11.5 million people who are in the country illegally, administration officials and legal experts said. But Republicans, too, are exploring their legal options for stopping Obama from what they’ve deemed egregious presidential overreaching.

A self-imposed, end-of-summer deadline to act on immigration is rapidly approaching. While Obama has yet to receive the formal recommendations he’s requested from Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, administration officials said the president is intimately familiar with the universe of options and won’t spend much time deliberating once Johnson delivers his recommendations.

After resisting calls to act alone in hopes Congress would pass a comprehensive immigration fix, Obama in June bowed to immigration activists and said that “if Congress will not do their job, at least we can do ours.” The most sweeping, controversial step under consideration involves halting deportation for millions, a major expansion of a 2012 Obama program that deferred prosecutions for those brought here illegally as children.

Roughly half a million have benefited from that program, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or DACA.

But while prosecutors are routinely expected to use their discretion on a case-by-case basis, such blanket exempting of entire categories of people has never been done on the scale of what Obama is considering — potentially involving many millions of people if he extends relief to parents of DACA children, close relatives of U.S. citizens or immigrants with clean criminal records.

“The question is how broadly can the president extend the categories and still stay on the side of spectrum of ensuring the laws are faithfully executed?” said Cristina Rodriguez, who left the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel in 2013 to teach at Yale Law School.

Other options under consideration, such as changes to how green cards are distributed and counted, might be less controversial because of the support they enjoy from the business community and other influential groups. But Derrick Morgan, a former adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney and a scholar at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said Obama will still face staunch opposition as long as he attempts an end run around Congress.

Obama’s goal had been to announce his decision around Labor Day, before leaving on a trip next week to Estonia and Wales. But a host of national security crises have pushed the announcement back, likely until after Obama returns, said the officials, who weren’t authorized to comment by name and demanded anonymity.

Obama’s actions will almost surely be challenged in court.

“Any potential executive action the president takes will be rooted in a solid legal foundation,” White House spokesman Shawn Turner said.

What’s more, Obama may have undermined his case because he has insisted time and again that he’s the president, not the king, and “can’t just make the laws up by myself.” In a 2012 interview with Telemundo, Obama defended his decision to defer deportations for children but said he couldn’t go any bigger.

“If we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that’s not an option,” he said then.

Republicans are already hinting that they’ll consider legal action to thwart what they’ve denounced as a violation of the separation of powers. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, in a conference call this month with GOP House members, accused Obama of “threatening to rewrite our immigration laws unilaterally.”

“If the president fails to faithfully execute the laws of our country, we will hold him accountable,” Boehner said, according to an individual who participated in the call.

The House already has passed legislation to block Obama from expanding DACA and, through its power of the purse, could attempt to cut off the funds that would be needed to implement the expansion. House Republicans could also consider widening or amending their existing lawsuit against Obama over his health care law, a case that both parties have suggested could be a prelude to impeachment proceedings.

___

Mark Caserta: Immigration important to liberal cause

17 Jul

gty_GOP_path_130808_wg

Jul. 17, 2014 @ 12:00 AM

The very sovereignty of the United States and the resolve of the American people to stand firmly upon the principles of our republic are being challenged by the crisis at our southern border.

In the second of my series of columns exposing the progressive movement in our country, we’ll examine the liberal ideology behind their desire to “reform” the immigration policies of the United States.

Many recall President Obama’s first inaugural address in January 2009 when he suggested we must begin “the work of remaking America.” Understand what liberals peddle as “reform” is simply the progressive unraveling of our nation’s laws and redefining them to help propagate the progressive movement. Necessary to this change is reconstructing the very landscape of America’s demographics and gradually whittling away at our constitution.

The United States has a long history of welcoming immigrants from all parts of the world. America values the contributions of immigrants who continue to enrich this country and preserve its legacy as a land of freedom and opportunity.

However, America places no small value on the decision to become a U.S. citizen. To become a citizen you must apply for a “derived” or “acquired” citizenship through parents or apply for naturalization. The process requires a display of commitment to the United States and loyalty to its constitution. Their reward includes the rights and privileges afforded a U.S. citizen.

Integral to this process is “The Immigration and Nationality Act” set in place post-World War II and meant to control immigration into the United States. The law negated exclusion of immigrants based solely upon their country of origin, but protected our nation from those who were unlawful, immoral, diseased, politically radical, etc. and was accepting of those willing to assimilate into the U.S. economic, social and political structure.

Admittedly, poor enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws has rendered our borders porous far too long. But President Obama’s perceived open-door policy and his subsequent level of neglect of our nation’s borders is unprecedented! Among other things, it represents an unrestricted threat to our national security by anyone willing to exploit our vulnerabilities.

Make no mistake about it. Liberal reform of our nation’s immigration policies would render the current immigration laws null and void and virtually eliminate any incentive for immigrants to naturalize or assimilate into the culture of the United States, thereby having no ownership in its continuance.

But progressives thrive on arbitrary power, not the rule of law. They pursue immigration reform under the guise of humanitarianism while portraying conservatives as prejudiced and outright “haters” simply because we refuse to capitulate to those who would reframe America around their own cancerous liberal theology.

For liberals, bypassing the lawful assimilation of immigrants into the United States, among many potential deleterious effects, adds to a populace dependent upon a government willing to sustain it and devoid of any commitment to the sovereignty of our nation.

But most importantly, it broadens the scope of individuals, void of constitutional acumen, who may be dubiously proselytized into a predacious progressive movement.

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.