The Border Crisis is By Design

On October 8, 2005, Barack Obama  vowed to "fundamentally transform America" and he has certainly lived up to his promise.  With one crisis and scandal after another (IRS, NSA, VA, Benghazi, Fast and Furious, an out of control EPA, Obamacare, and negotiating with terrorists, to name a few) we are a much weaker and less esteemed country than ever before.  We are more racially divided, we are angrier, and we have little trust in our government or optimism for the future.

It's all by design.

He told you he was going to do it, and he did.

Obama's plan to transform America is no more evident than in the border crisis.  Andrew McCarthy has an excellent post on this topic at National Review Online:

The president has spent nearly six years giving effective legal immunity to millions of illegal aliens already here. His administration, meanwhile, hooks them on the government gravy train and fights state efforts to detain them, deny social services to them, and prevent them from fraudulently voting. Under those circumstances, the rolling out of a federal red carpet for teeming masses of illegal aliens must be understood as intentional.

It is absolutely intentional.

And, of course, Obama blames Bush for this.  No, really.  Andrew McCarthy explains that this is a clever ploy by Obama because much of this controversy involves a Clinton-era anti-human trafficking law which during the Bush years, in re-authorization, picked up an amendment added by Feinstein and Biden; in short, the anti-human trafficking law concerns those children who are "coercively trafficked into the country for purposes of sex-slavery or other indentured servitude."   

That is not the case here; so the blame-Bush's-law defense of the left does not play.  The Bush-era law attempts to protect those kids brought here unwillingly; the current crisis involved illegals coming quite willingly.

McCarthy again:

The January 2014 solicitation published by DHS’s bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement foretells (a) the arrival of 65,000 “unaccompanied alien children,” and, tellingly, (b) the administration’s intention to transfer them to “Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) shelters located throughout the continental United States.” 

Refugee Resettlement.  That does not sound like deportation.

It is team Obama's plan to relocate these illegals throughout the United States and into your neighborhoods.

The end result is thousands of new, unskilled workers on the public dole, a further erosion of our American values, an increased drain on our already troubled education system, and utter havoc in an already ruined health care system.  Of these illegals that are, in fact, children (and not all of them are - get that image of sweet, doe-eyed, hungry toddlers out of your head), how many are vaccinated and know English?  How many will want to assimilate into our American culture and become productive members of society?

Lest I be perceived as a heartless bigot, let me assure you, I'm all for legal immigration.  I know people who have done it the right way and as Americans, we welcome them with open arms.  That is our way.  This, however, is not the Ellis Island of your ancestors.

These new immigrants are not refugees from war torn countries; they are political pawns.

One of the more troubling aspect of all this is the secrecy; the administration touts "privacy rights."  Some of these illegals are being housed at Fort Sill, OK, yet an Oklahoma congressional representative was barred from visiting the immigration center.

The administration won't say where all these kids are going.  Two hundred of these illegals were sent to Nebraska yet the governor was not notified and the administration won't identify them or their locations.

"Governors and mayors have the right to know when the federal government is transporting a large group of individuals, in this case illegal immigrants, into your state," Mr. Heineman told The Wall Street Journal in an interview on Saturday. "We need to know who they are, and so far, they are saying they're not going to give us that information."

Here in Louisiana, Senator David Vitter sent a letter on July 10 to find out how many and where these illegals might be coming to this state.  He got no response.  According to the Louisiana Hayride:

And now, four members of the state’s congressional delegation – Bill Cassidy, John Fleming, Charles Boustany and Vance McAllister – have sent a similar letter.

Camp Minden is a possibility and local news station KSLA reported that Hirsch Coliseum has been contacted about holding some of them.  (Shades of Katrina refugees ... ).

Senator Vitter and Rep. Cassidy have introduced bills in both the House and Senate that would:

• Requires mandatory detention of all unaccompanied minors upon apprehension by border agents.
• Gives unaccompanied minors the option to voluntarily return to their country of origin.
• Places unaccompanied aliens children affiliated with gangs in an “expedited” removal proceeding.
• Raises the standards for “credible fear of persecution” to “substantiated fear of persecution” for unaccompanied minors seeking asylum under the law.
• Places unaccompanied minors without claims for asylum on the next available flight to their home countries within 72 hours of an initial screening, barring cost, feasibility, repatriation agreements with the minors’ countries and the health and safety of the minor.
• Extends the bar to reentry for all illegal aliens to 10 years.
• Requires Secretary of Homeland Security to submit an annual report to Congress detailing voluntary departures, deportations, and grants of refugee or asylum status.

In the end, it comes down to how much the states are willing to take of this nonsense.  As McCarthy pointed out:

And if a renegade United States government is not going to secure the borders of the United States, the states must secure their borders or surrender. As the Supreme Court recognized in 1837, each state has a sovereign right and duty of self-defense ...

Obama voters got what they wished for:  a fundamentally transformed America.

Rep. King Promises a Lawsuit While Romney Takes a Knee

There's a poll out today from Bloomberg reporting that 64% of likely voters approve of Obama's decision to stop enforcing immigration laws:

Sixty-four percent of likely voters surveyed after Obama’s June 15 announcement said they agreed with the policy, while 30 percent said they disagreed. Independents backed the decision by better than a two-to-one margin.

That said, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air took a look at the Bloomberg polling data and has a few questions about the results.  He notes the absence of any demographic data as well as the absence of any party affiliation, so it's difficult to weigh the bias of the poll.  As to whether or not Obama "is winning" the immigration discussion, Morrissey also questions that:

Furthermore, we have other consistent data to check.  For instance, Gallup’s tracking polls would have already shown a significant bump in the rolling averages if this issue really moves the needle as Team Obama hopes.  As of this morning, Obama’s approval in the three-day cycle that included Friday and the two days following the announcement sits at 46/47.  The addition of Sunday’s data added a point to his approval and deducted two from his disapproval, which means Obama got some small bump over the weekend … but hardly a game-changer.  The seven-day rolling average on the head-to-head race went from Romney up over Obama 46/45 to a 46/46 tie. 

 And if you go by Rasmussen, according to Morrissey, "there's even less impact."

So did this dictatorial fiat help Obama?  Probably not, in the end.

Rep. Steve King was on Fox News this morning discussing his intent to sue Obama over the immigration mandate.  King insists this is an over reach and a rule "by edict."  He expressed even more Constitutional outrage in pointing out that "we take an oath to uphold the Constitution, too.  Our Founding Fathers envisioned that each branch of government would jealously protect the authority granted to it in the Constitution."  He called this a "vast and insulting" over reach.

King is suing on the separation of powers issue;  he also points to Article 2 that the laws of this nation be "faithfully executed" not created by the president.  Watch the whole thing:



The point is clear that this edict, or "mandate by press conference" that Obama has thrown down is a political move.  It's another pandering move by a politician who doesn't have a record to campaign on.  It's a continuation of his intent to separate and divide us all and initiate class warfare among Americans.  It's all he knows how to do.

Obama issued this edict intentionally before Sen. Marco Rubio could introduce his version of the DREAM Act which, according to Daniel Foster, has a passing chance at legitimate, bipartisan, lawful immigration reform:

It’s simple. On Friday, retiring Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) told National Review editors that he expected the version of DREAM he cosponsored with Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) to be greeted with “tolerance by our most conservative friends, and enthusiasm from the rest.” 

Of course he said this even as the Obama administration was Friday-dumping the DHS memo on the public. Forty-eight hours later it was clear any momentum a Republican-friendly version of DREAM had was dead. As Rubio put it: “People are going to say to me, ‘Why are we going to need to do anything on this now. It has been dealt with. We can wait until after the election. . . . And it is going to be hard to argue against that.”

This is a dangerous precedent that Obama has initiated and it must be struck down.  Lawful reform must prevail.


Romney's response to the whole mess was dispiriting.  Milquetoast.  Weak.  John O'Sullivan has what Romney said when asked if he would overturn this edict and what he SHOULD have said:

Interviewer: But would you repeal it? 

Romney: I hope that when I am inaugurated, this illegality will already have been withdrawn or ruled unconstitutional. It is not too late for the president to have wiser second thoughts. But if it is still standing, then of course I will withdraw it and ask Congress to consider a wider and more thoughtful review of immigration law — one that strengthens our borders and ensures that immigration and citizenship are determined by the American people and their elected representatives. You cannot have our immigration laws determined by some people who smuggle people into America and others who manage to evade the police once here. You cannot have U.S. citizenship granted to people who break into our country and manage to have a child before they are caught. You cannot have two presidents in succession breaking their vow to uphold the Constitution. The people must be able to trust those they elect.

Romney should take a lesson from O'Sullivan and from Rep. King.  The weak-kneed response he gave just reinforces the concerns that conservatives had about him in the first place.

Charles Krauthammer says Romney's deference is the correct move and he makes a valid point; Krauthammer says that any day Romney is not talking about the economy is a day that Obama wins.  I think the two issues are linked and Romney should make that clear.  With up to 800,000 new work permits on the line, that must certainly figure into American unemployment numbers.

Krauthammer suggests it is Congress who should be outraged and offended as Obama has usurped their power.  Unless we have a cadre of fighters like Rep. Steve King in Congress, I'm not expecting much from them.


(More at Memeorandum)

We Are Now Under the Rule of a Dictator: "It's Not Amnesty!" (UPDATED)

I spent a lovely morning shopping four great estate sales today picking up a few little treasures for my various collections.  On the way home I stopped at the grocery store to get a few things and was tickled to see that they had three six-packs of my Sam Adams favorite, Latitude 48 IPA in stock.  It's a good thing I bought all of them because when I came home, fired up the computer and saw that Barack Obama is enacting the DREAM Act by fiat I had to go open one of those IPAs just to get my blood pressure back down to normal.

In case you haven't heard, from the New York Times:

Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children will be able to obtain work permits and be safe from deportation under a new policy announced on Friday by the Obama administration.

Obama says these illegal immigrants are "essentially Americans" and that this makes the immigration system "more efficient, more fair, and more just."  


Just not MORE LEGAL. 


Congress has repeatedly rejected the DREAM Act, but in ObamaWorld, that just doesn't matter:

Republicans were quick to criticize Mr. Obama, saying that he was overstepping his powers in an end run around Congress. But he said he acted only "in the absence of any immigration action from Congress to fix our broken immigration system."

Never mind the rule of law!


Is there no end to what he won't do through executive fiat?


Is there no limit to the blatant political pandering?


Pirates Cove responds:

Even the AP can’t stop themselves in pointing out that this is simply campaign year politics, rather than serious policy. What Democrats always forget when they essentially push some type of amnesty is that these people still can’t vote, and the other illegals that want these policies can’t vote, either. And those who came to the US and obtained their citizenship the proper way aren’t particularly keen on voting for those who give illegals a free pass.

Well, they can vote in Florida where the DOJ is suing to stop the purging of illegals from voter rolls.

Rush Limbaugh:

What's that gonna do to the unemployment number?  Are we gonna count 'em looking for work or not?  If we don't, the number won't drop. If we do, the number will go up.  What's it gonna do for those of you trying to get work to learn that 800,000 new illegals are in the job market who will work cheaper than you do?  And what's next is home mortgages and student loans.  Those are the next two things that are gonna fall.  

Rush is calling this the "Catch, Release, Vote" program.

Janet Napolitano:

"This is not immunity, it is not amnesty," said Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security, which oversees immigration enforcement. "It is an exercise of discretion."

Well, that's certainly parsing words.

Ed Morrissey:

So …. he’s going to hand out hundreds of thousands of work permits when unemployment is at 8.2% nominal, 14.8% U-6, and the civilian participation rate is near the 30-year low Obama set last month (now 63.8%)?  The only thing this accomplishes is driving the labor rate further downward and the unemployment rate further upward.  Work permits make sense when you’re creating jobs, but not when jobs are scarce.  I’m not sure that’s going to endear Obama to unions and blue-collar voters struggling to find work already. 

Well, as Rush asked, are we going to count them in the unemployment numbers or not?

Back to the New York Times and the parameters:

The policy, effective immediately, will apply to people who are currently no more than 30 years old, who arrived in the country before they turned 16 and have lived in the United States for five years. They must also have no criminal record, and have earned a high school diploma, be in school or have served in the military. 

My first question is how were they enrolled in school if they were illegal in the first place?

And obviously these age parameters include a whole new voting block for The One.

This will certainly open the borders for many more who want to come on over.  Nobody is going to stop you anymore unless you confess your membership in some drug cartel.  Sounds to me like all you have to do is come on in, go to school, stay for five years and you're all good.  That ought to make all those going through the proper channels feel all warm and fuzzy.

Obama will use Republican outrage as a campaign point in his re-election.  He will say that Republicans are anti-immigration and want to shut the doors on immigration.  This will be false.

All he needs to do is to craft a plan that will get through Congress - a plan that is acceptable for both sides of the aisle.  But the BrilliantOne has been unable to do that.

And so instead, he's going to rule America like a dictator.

Until November, that is.


Added:

Mark Krikorian:

The debate over this must not focus on the substance of the DREAM Act. We have a branch of government that does that kind of thing and it’s called “Congress.” The problem with today’s announcement is that it’s an unconstitutional expansion of executive power that can be applied to any area of law. If a future Republican president can’t get Congress to agree to a reduction in tax rates, say, or a change in environmental rules, he can just use this “discretion” to change things on his own. Democrats in Congress should be terrified of this precedent and stand with their fellow members across the aisle to put a stop to it. This is about the rule of law and nothing else.

Update:

Rep. Steve King (R-IA)  is suing to stop this unconstitutional ploy:

Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King said Friday that he plans to sue the Obama administration to halt implementation of its newly announced selective illegal immigration law enforcement policy. He told Mike Huckabee on the former Arkansas governor’s radio program Friday that he successfully sued his own state’s governor — and won — over a similar separation-of-powers issue. 

“I will tell you that — I’m not without experience on this — I’m prepared to bring a suit and seek a court order to stop implementation of this policy,” King said

Update 2:

Over at Legal Insurrection, Professor Jacobson reports (and has video & Twitter reaction) of the heckling of Obama at his speech today.

From CNN:

President Barack Obama did not respond kindly Friday to an interruption during his Rose Garden announcement of new immigration rules, telling the man shouting that it was neither the time nor the place to field questions. 

The reporter, who was wearing a temporary press badge, was identified as Neil Munro from the conservative website the Daily Caller. He later told CNN, "I have to ask the questions you all won't ask," referring to the reporters gathered who regularly cover the White House.

Here's the video:




Update 3:

Ed Driscoll reports that the Obamabots are making it a racial issue that Dear Leader was "heckled" or asked a question.

Update 4:

Senator David Vitter responds:

President Obama shows again how he isn't serious about securing our border or reforming our immigration system. He's certainly shown how serious he is about the politics of it. Like other DREAM Act proposals before, Obama's executive action today goes well beyond helping minor children caught in a policy loophole - it essentially grants amnesty to adults almost 30 years old.

Update 5:

Heh.  ABC News calls Daily Caller reporter Neil Munro "eccentric."

President Obama flashed anger for the first time in recent memory today as an eccentric conservative reporter interrupted his speech on immigration in the Rose Garden.

Even more curious, I'm wondering where ABC has been when they suggest that Obama hasn't "flashed anger" recently.  The man is a walking cesspool of anger.


More at Memeorandum and Instapundit.

I'm Running for Mayor of South Podunk: Immigration and the Republican Field

Newt caused quit a stir at the foreign policy debate with his stance on immigration (emphasis mine):

So I think you've got to deal with this as a comprehensive approach that starts with controlling the border, as the governor said. I believe ultimately you have to find some system -- once you've put every piece in place, which includes the guest worker program, you need something like a World War II Selective Service Board that, frankly, reviews the people who are here. 


If you're here -- if you've come here recently, you have no ties to this country, you ought to go home. period. If you've been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you've been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don't think we're going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out.

The Creeble Foundation is a very good red card program that says you get to be legal, but you don't get a pass to citizenship. And so there's a way to ultimately end up with a country where there's no more illegality, but you haven't automatically given amnesty to anyone.

Gingrich was referring to The Krieble Foundation plan, here.

Newt's idea of a "Board" to review people is rather odd, it seems.  Mark Steyn makes the point:

So the North Podunk Town Meeting could vote to deny you your Green Card but ten miles down the road the burghers of South Podunk could vote to give one to your cousin? That sure sounds like a plan.

It’s a tribute to Mitt Romney’s soporific caution and Herman Cain’s blithe indifference to the bit on the map marked Rest of the World that Newt is now what passes for the GOP’s deep thinker.

And why should this be the problem of the folks in South Podunk, anyway?  Maybe Newt hasn't thought that one through.

And is Newt offering amnesty as Bachmann claims...:

Well, I don't agree that you would make 11 million workers legal, because that, in effect, is amnesty. And I also don't agree that you would give the DREAM Act on a federal level. And those are two things that I believe that the speaker had been for, and he can speak for himself.

And as Romney claims...:

 “Newt Gingrich supported the 1986 amnesty act, and even though he conceded that was a mistake, he said that he was willing to repeat that mistake by extending amnesty to immigrants who are illegally in the country today," Romney adviser and spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said in the spin room following the AEI/Heritage Foundation debate in Washington, DC.

I don't think Newt is offering amnesty to all.  He said, "there's a way to ultimately end up with a country where there's no more illegality, but you haven't automatically given amnesty to anyone."


Andrew McCarthy says Newt is just offering "common sense":

All he said was, “Let’s be humane in enforcing the law.” That was my reaction last night when Newt Gingrich argued that the federal government should refrain from deporting illegal immigrants who had been in the U.S. for many years if the effect would be the break up of a family.

I did not take him to be proposing a new law conferring amnesty. To do what the former Speaker proposed would require no change in U.S. law. All you’d need is the sensible application of prosecutorial discretion.

Part of the argument, though, seems to be about "magnets."  Romney fired back at Newt during the debate and insisted that not to deport them all would be legitimizing a magnet and serve as an incentive for others to come:

Look, amnesty is a magnet. What when we have had in the past, programs that have said that if people who come here illegally are going to get to stay illegally for the rest of their life, that's going to only encourage more people to come here illegally. 

Andrew McCarthy again:

In my mind, if you are in the country without authorization and we elect not to use our power to kick you out, you are the recipient of humane treatment and a very valuable benefit. You don’t rate more than that. We simply leave you alone: You don’t get the windfall of some sort of legal status, we don’t make it easier for you to work, and it’s not our job to relieve your anxiety over your status — you brought that anxiety on yourself when you entered or stayed illegally. If being here without authorization is causing you grief, go home and try to come back through the legal process. If you don’t want to do that, you takes your chances — period.

Now that, to me, is common sense.  I'm for the McCarthy plan!  We leave you alone.  If you're here illegally, you don't get free social services, you don't get to vote, you don't get a driver's license, you don't get in-state tuition in Texas or any other state.  If you're a criminal, terrorist, drug user, or other burden on society, we'll use our resources to deport you.  Is that a "magnet"?  Probably.  So secure the border, already.

I think it is, frankly, unrealistic to think that with the current staffing of ICE that we would or could deport every illegal.  I also think Newt makes a bit of sense when he suggests we must be humane about it all. 

It's sort of like this Republican field.  There's no perfect answer.  There's no real conservative option. 

Perry's Stance on "Strategic Fencing" Does Not Translate to Soft on Immigration

Rick Perry's position on the border fence is not necessarily a weakness.  At a rally in New Hampshire yesterday, Perry said:

"No, I don't support a fence on the border," he said, while referring to the long border in Texas alone. "The fact is, it's 1,200 miles from Brownsville to El Paso. Two things: How long you think it would take to build that? And then if you build a 30-foot wall from El Paso to Brownsville, the 35-foot ladder business gets real good."

Instead, Perry said he supported "strategic fencing" and National Guard troops to prevent illegal immigration and violence from Mexican drug cartels.

According to the AP report, Perry's audience didn't like this answer, but frankly, I don't see anything wrong with it.  

Unless you're going to build something like the Berlin wall with armed guards shooting down those who breach the boundaries, Perry's answer could be a rational one.  He'll have to provide more details to satisfy the Tea Party voters.

In Fed Up, Perry discusses his immigration views.  He acknowledges that drug cartels and drug violence is a huge problem and equates those people to terrorists.  Perry says that the "federal government's actions [on immigration] fall somewhere between raging incompetence and outright dereliction of duty" (119).    No disagreement here.

Perry distinguishes between "border security" and "comprehensive immigration" and makes the case that you must deal with them separately.  Maybe you can legislatively deal with them separately, but one does feed the other.  The incentives for coming illegally must be removed. 

Legal immigration is the way to go, Perry says, but it needs reform:  "The visa  and naturalization system is not working efficiently for anybody," he says.  Deportation is backlogged and most orders are simply unenforced.  Case in point:  Uncle Omar.

Perry even criticizes fellow republican George W. Bush for not doing as much as he'd hoped on enforcing immigration laws already on the books, while at the same time, conceding that Bush did "step up workplace enforcement."  Obama, Perry says, has "reversed course."

Mitt Romney in Tampa this week highlights one of the differences between himself and Rick Perry:

“Our country must do a better job of securing its borders, and as president, I will,” Romney told the Republican National Hispanic Assembly in Tampa, according to his prepared remarks. “That means completing construction of a high-tech fence, and investing in adequate manpower and resources.”

 

Will Perry's approach to building a high-tech fence at "strategic locations" and using National Guard troops elsewhere cost him enough votes to give Romney the win?  

I think Romney's albatross of RomneyCare will be a bigger problem.

On the other hand, Perry signed into law a bill allowing illegals in Texas in-state tuition, which drew the ire of the Tea Party.  He'll have to do a better job explaining his position in the debates, and I'm sure he will.  The AP and the Obama-media will try to paint Perry as soft on immigration and likely won't report it when Perry clears that up. 

Obama: Our Immigration Laws are "Too Hard"

Is it really "too hard" to follow the immigration laws of the United States?

Obama thinks so.  In his Twitter town hall yesterday he said,

 We’ve got an immigration system that’s broken right now, where too many folks are breaking the law but also our laws make it too hard for talented people to contribute and be part of our society.  And we’ve always been a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.  And so we need comprehensive immigration reform, part of which would allow entrepreneurs and high-skilled individuals to stay here -- because we want to be attracting that talent here. 

Tell that to the 100 immigrants who took their oath during a naturalization ceremony at Mount Vernon on July 4.  Or to the 77 who took the oath at Monticello the same day.  And to the 680,000 who are sworn in year round:

Each year, about 680,000 U.S. immigrants from all corners of the globe take the Oath of Allegiance, in which they promise to "support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies," says the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which conducts naturalization ceremonies year-round.

"Too hard"?  I don't think so.  If these people to which he refers are so "talented" then they can figure out how to go through proper channels.

Victor Davis Hanson points out:

The old liberal ideal of a racially blind, melting-pot society where the law is applied equally across the board has descended into the new postmodern practice of enforcing many laws only selectively — and based entirely on politics, matters of race, ethnic chauvinism, and national origin.

And Hanson has plenty of questions:

Why does the present administration oppose new anti-illegal-immigration laws in Arizona and Georgia that are designed to enhance existing federal law — but not so-called “sanctuary city” statutes that in some municipalities deliberately contravene federal immigration law?

Read the whole thing.

Hanson points out that the people who go through the legal channels are bound to be resentful of those who don't:

In the old immigration narrative of the 1960s and 1970s, affluent, profit-minded white American employers often exploited cheap workers from Mexico. But that matrix has been largely superseded. So-called whites are no longer a majority in California, where large Asian and African-American populations often object to illegal arrivals from Mexico who cut in front of the legal-immigration line, tax social services, and raise costs to the detriment of American citizens.

Yet Obama contends that our laws are "too hard."  If "too many folks are breaking the law" you don't just change the law - you enforce it.  If  "too many people" started robbing banks because the economy is too tough, would you change the law and open the banks?  If "too many people" found the laws restricting drug smuggling "too hard" would you declare amnesty for drug dealers?

He's right about one thing:  "We've always been a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants."  So you enforce the laws.  You don't abandon them.  It's good enough for the 680,000 plus people each year who get it done.






Update:  In a semi-related issue, here's the Memeorandum thread on Obama's statement about White House salaries in the Twitter Town Hall.

Judge Sides With ACLU in Georgia

As a follow-up to my post last week about the controversial immigration bill in Georgia, it is to be noted that federal judge Thomas Thrash, a Clinton appointee, has sided with the ACLU in striking down major parts of that bill:

Judge Thomas Thrash granted a request to block parts of the law that penalize people who knowingly and willingly transport or harbor illegal immigrants while committing another crime. He also blocked provisions that authorize officers to verify the immigration status of someone who can't provide proper identification.  Thrash wrote that under parts of the law, the state is enforcing immigration law that should be left to the federal government.

It's that "left to the federal government" part that just kills me.

Note to ACLU and Judge Thrash:  the states are trying to do the job the federal government WON'T do.  Get out of the way and let them.

You've Been Served: Mexico Sues the United States

In an attempt to continue the infiltration of the United States by hoards of illegal immigrants, Mexico, "and the governments of several Central and South American countries filed court papers…in support of efforts to halt Georgia’s tough new immigration enforcement law," according to this post at Big Government.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

The American Civil Liberties Union, the Southern Poverty Law Center and several other civil and immigrant rights groups filed a federal class-action lawsuit against Georgia's law this month and are now asking a judge to halt the measure pending the outcome of their case. They argue the measure – also known as House Bill 87 – is preempted by federal law and is unconstitutional.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has been busy protecting illegals lately.  The Alabama state legislature has passed a bill that  makes it a misdemeanor to rent property to illegals:

The provision is contained in a single sentence: “It shall be unlawful for a person to harbor an alien unlawfully present in the United States by entering into a rental agreement … with an alien to provide accommodations, if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien is unlawfully present in the United States.”

Once a violator collects ten violations (TEN!), the charge is upgraded from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class C felony.  This doesn't sit well with the SPLC:

Sam Brooke, an attorney at the Southern Poverty Law Center, says, “If you were a [landlord] found to have a number of properties and apartments with more than ten individuals, you could face up to 20 years. … [I]t’s incredible that they would have the audacity to do this.”

Hey Mr. Brooke, how about seeing to it that these people have proper papers?  If you want to help them, help them get proper documentation.  

The SPLC mission statement says:

The Southern Poverty Law Center is dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our society. Using litigation, education and other forms of advocacy, we work toward the day when the ideals of equal justice and equal opportunity will be a reality. 

No objections here to fighting hate and bigotry; the SPLC should be using its resources to help illegals get legal papers rather than filing suit against lawfully passed legislation that upholds the United States Constitution.

Meanwhile, in Georgia, farmers are lamenting the lack of Hispanic farm workers now scared by the new bill.  Georgia Governor Nathan Deal suggests paroles take up the slack.

In Georgia there are those who support the law:

Supporters of the law say that shows it is already working. They want the law to clear the state of illegal immigrants, who they say are taking advantage of Georgia's schools, hospitals and workplaces, draining public funds as they take jobs that could help the unemployed.

"I think we're the only country that allows people to come in and take over," said Sheila Bryan, 58, who cleans homes around Tifton, a farming community in South Georgia. "I'm sure there are enough legal people to do the work."

...and those who don't:

“This law is hurting us very badly because many workers are afraid and as Georgia is one of the few states that have this kind of law, they prefer to simply avoid Georgia and go to another state, Gary H. Paulk, owner of Paulk Farms & Vineyards, told Efe.

Paulk, who runs the farm with his father and brother, usually hires around 300 workers every year to harvest his grapes, blueberries and blackberries, but is currently short more than 100 field hands.

“Never before have we had problems getting qualified workers for our fields like now, and not only I, but all the other farmers are having problems and I think it’s due to the law,” he said.

Mr. Paulk laments the lack of "qualified workers" for his fields?  What are the "qualifications" that make blueberry picking so challenging?  I wish he'd explain "qualified" to me.

At any rate, now it seems that the courts will have to decide if Georgia's law will stand:

Nevertheless, Clinton appointee U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash will ultimately decide, and has indicated that he “might rule from the bench …on the plaintiffs’ request to halt the law” on the first day of the hearing. The way Judge Thrash rules will determine whether Georgia, on behalf of the United States of America, wins or loses a battle against the unrelenting influx of illegal immigrants, the dictates of foreign countries, and the insane demands of liberal organizations that are oblivious to the safety and security concerns of America.

The law is scheduled to go into effect July 1.

Added:  You will remember that Obama felt free to espouse his opinon of the Arizona immigration bill; will he opine on the Georgia or the Alabama bills?  Memeorandum links to this report that Hispanics are miffed at Obama's non-appearance at their annual conference. 

Another Victory for the Illegals

The latest memo from ICE's John Morton "intends to prohibit not only his officers, but also local officers with 287(g) immigration authority, from busting illegal aliens who are discovered as a result of traffic violations," according to Jessica Vaughn at the Center for Immigration Studies  (H/T:  The Corner):

Never mind that local patrol officers around the country routinely come across unlicensed illegal alien drivers in unsafe and/or uninsured vehicles, sometimes transporting vanloads of smuggled and illegally employed aliens with stolen identities. Forget the 9/11 terrorists, the Ft. Dix plotters, the Times Square bomber's money brokers, and the many other notorious illegal aliens who have driven our streets without fear of encountering local cops or immigration law enforcement. Don't mention that the Colorado State Patrol has eliminated (knock on wood) alien smuggling-related traffic fatalities by implementing a 287(g) program that removed illegal aliens caught driving unsafely on Colorado highways.

Yes, indeed.   Drive with impunity; no worries.

Seriously, I've asked this before, but if Obama were TRYING to destroy the country, what exactly would he be doing differently?

Read the whole thing.

OTMs Crossing the Southwest Border

Via Dittos Rush! comes this video from WSB Atlanta.  Reporter Justin Farmer reports on the OTMs ("Other Than Mexicans") coming across our southern border.



Farmer says thousands cross who are from places like Yemen, Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, and Iraq among others. 

One Arizona rancher found a Muslim prayer rug on his ranch.  Justin Farmer examined a Congressional report from 2006 entitled "A Line in the Sand:  Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border"  (PDF - 39 pages) which confirmed members of Hezbollah have crossed the border.  It also contains photos of military jackets found on the border, one in Jim Hogg County, with Arab insignia praising martyrdom and depicting pictures of planes flying into the Twin Towers.

In 2005, Border Patrol apprehended about 1.2 million illegals and of those about 165,000 were from "countries other than Mexico."  All of this traffic includes human smuggling, drug smuggling, and "special interest" individuals coming into the country and creating a threat to not just those border communities but to the nation as a whole.

The report also reveals the route taken by the Middle Easterners from Europe to the tri-border region in South America.  Then they learn Spanish, trel to Mexico,  blend in with other illegals and come on in.

Farmer reports on several terrorists seen in the U.S., in the Atlanta area, who likely came in from the southwest border, it is believed.

If the problem was this bad in 2006, I can hardly imagine how much worse it is now. 

Meanwhile, we've got John McCain tromping around down there saying "Complete the danged fence!" and the U.N. is worrying about the human rights of illegals.  The U.N. issued a statement today criticizing Arizona's new immigration bill saying  it could lead to racial profiling and also laments, "It also makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally."

The world is truly upside down.

Obamacare For Illegals - Part 2

Just as I predicted back in July, the administration is beginning to unfold a plan in which illegals will be covered by Obamacare by ... you guessed it - becoming legal.

Via TPMDC:

Lawmakers who want to extend health coverage to illegal immigrants will not block the passage of the final health care reform bill so long as the White House offers a substantive promise to start pushing comprehensive immigration legislation this year. ****

Democratic leadership aides believe that a firm White House promise of a comprehensive immigration bill will be enough to quell any House dissent.

TPMDC sources have been telling us that members won't admit it publicly but they are ready to concede on immigration in the health care bill. Political aides in the White House have told key parties in Congress that President Obama wants to see a bill this year, and negotiations are under way for how it would be written.

A source familiar with the negotiations between Congress and the White House told TPMDC the Congressional Hispanic Caucus will demand an agreement from Obama that health care coverage for illegals who earn a path to citizenship will be addressed in an immigration bill.

Back in July when I wrote about this it was pretty clear that this was in the cards. In an interview with Katie Couric in July, Obama said, "First of all, I'd like to create a situation where we're dealing with illegal immigration, so that we don't have illegal immigrants," he said. "And we've got legal residents or citizens who are eligible for the plan. And I want a comprehensive immigration plan that creates a pathway to achieve that."

You always have to read between the lines with Obama; it's not necessarily what he says but what he doesn't say that you have to worry about. There was never anything in the original House bill to keep illegals from getting coverage; oh the bill SAID no coverage for illegals, but the provision to verify whether or not someone is a legal resident was shot down. A loophole was born.

Allahpundit's insight:

Newsflash for the left: Amnesty’s not going to pass in this political climate if it couldn’t pass in 2007, so either this is all an elaborate kabuki aimed at tactfully caving on benefits for illegals or the CHC is a really, really cheap date. As for the right, if this sounds familiar it’s because The One has been hinting at doing it for at least four months.

And here is what Michelle Malkin wrote in July (and she linked me!).

So, Obama looks right at the American people in numerous speeches and town halls and says illegals will not be covered under this plan. It's sort of like when he said you can keep your current insurance. It's just not exactly true. It's bending and shading the truth. How are we supposed to trust him? Answer? You can't.

Via: Memeorandum