compilation: illegal immigration; obama violates oath/constitution; ect…

Obama: Americans Have No Right To Favor Americans

Any Amnesty Court Challenge Needs To Look At Last Year’s Near-Win In Texas

Ian Smith, Attorney

If law can be circumvented by cynical politics it simply doesn’t rule.

JoshuapunditStrangling the Eagle – Barack Obama And Amnesty, Part I

Obama Kills Tax Cut Because It Didn’t Help Illegals

Politics | Neil Munro

<img width="540" height="231" src="http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/texas-border-crisis-immigration-cis-4-e1404850132746-620×266.jpg&quot; class="attachment-540×300 wp-post-image" alt="Unaccompanied Minors In Texas" />

GOP leaders refuse demand to extend tax payments to illegals…

JOEL KOTKIN: Legal But Poor: The Economic Consequences of Amnesty.

This workforce is being legalized at a time of unusual economic distress for the working class. Well into the post-2008 recovery, the country suffers from rates of labor participation at a 36 year low. Many jobs that were once full-time are, in part due to the Affordable Care Act, now part-time, and thus unable to support families. Finally there are increasingly few well-paying positions—including in industry—that don’t require some sort of post-college accreditation.

Sadly, the legalization of millions of new immigrants could make all these problems worse, particularly for Latinos already here and millions of African-Americans.

African-American unemployment is now twice that of whites. The black middle class, understandably proud of Obama’s elevation, has been losing the economic gains made over the past thirty years.

How’s that hopey-changey stuff workin’ out for ya? — Posted at 8:00 am by Glenn Reynolds

Illegal Aliens vs. Undocumented Immigrants

February 13, 2014

By David Lawrence

Some Americans think that America is so good that it’s their moral obligation to let everyone in to share in the joyous holiday of being American. They assume that anyone who becomes American is lucky. Wow, what a big break for a foreigner.

Well, maybe it’s no longer so great here. After all, Obama ran on "change." And the country has changed during his administration. It went downhill.

Maybe we don’t have to feel guilty for not letting foreigners become Americans. Perhaps they could do better elsewhere. Perhaps Obama’s new America, with its change for change’s sake, is not good for them.

Who knows? Perhaps letting foreigners in will end up in their being shot in a school or a movie theatre. Perhaps they will be on unemployment lines, gluing food stamps to their foreheads.

I think our pro-immigration cheerleaders are having flashbacks to a pre-Obama America — a country that had a strong economy, a consistent set of values, and a hegemony that fused a beautiful collection of different people into one.

Simple-minded liberals cite that America was founded on diversity — a nation of immigrants. Who cares? The past is the past, and the future is a result of understanding the problems with the past when projected into the future.

The Mexicans and the Swiss make citizenship for foreigners difficult. Why shouldn’t we?

Foreigners secure their own borders and then sneak in through the holes our silly generosity makes. We are afraid to call them illegal aliens because honesty has become alien to us.

We have no moral obligation to allow all people to become Americans. They are not undocumented citizens; they are illegal aliens. An undocumented citizen is someone who has lost his papers, not someone who has sneaked into the country. Not an illegal alien.

We do have an obligation to keep America American, to have English as our national tongue, and to follow our laws rather than sharia and other barbaric customs.

This is no time to give foreigners jobs. We are in free fall without a parachute. It’s time that we made it more difficult rather than easier for foreigners to move here.

We do not even have the ability to determine who is a terrorist and who would make a good citizen. Ask some of the legs buried without torsos in Boston. The Tsarnaev brothers were given scholarships.

Obama favors immigration amnesty. You’d think he is a loving man who cares about illegal aliens until we remember that he cares more about their votes and less about employment for our citizens.

Laissez-faire immigration is the sloppiness of tenderness without thought. Robert Frost wrote in "Mending Wall," "Good fences make good neighbors."

I think that Frost was a bit brighter than the average college professor who wants open borders and ill-defined morals. He will be remembered for centuries. The illegal aliens will not be remembered unless they murder someone. The progressive fools marching for their own unemployment will shout at us, but their voices will be lost in the wind.

Enough illegal aliens. They are not undocumented citizens. As Gertrude Stein said about Shakespeare’s line, "a rose is a rose is a rose." Or in this case, "an illegal alien is an illegal alien is an illegal alien."

David Lawrence has a Ph.D. in literature. He has published over 400 blogs in the Daily Caller, American Thinker, and others. His letters appear in The New York Post, The Washington Times, and USA Today. He has published 600 poems, a memoir (The King of White-Collar Boxing), and several books of poems, including Lane Changes. He was a professional boxer and a CEO. Last year he was listed in New York Magazine as the 41st reason to love New York.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/02/illegal_aliens_vs_undocumented_immigrants.html#ixzz3KbVGufGX
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

The Missing Word in the Immigration Debate

November 25, 2014

By Paul Shlichta

The voting public, disgusted with the Democrats, has decided to try the Republicans for a couple of years. But if a Republican Congress does not win the public’s heart by 2016, it will be ousted as emphatically as it was installed a few weeks ago.

Therefore, Republicans must change their strategy and do what they have so far failed to do: win the war of words and propose alternative programs instead of merely opposing Democratic proposals. In issues such as immigration, the two strategies are closely connected.

Words are the stuff that ideas are made of. If you can control the vocabulary of a discussion, you can usually control the outcome. In warfare, it is axiomatic that one must not let the enemy choose the battleground. But Republicans have been violating that rule for decades by letting the liberals choose the vocabulary of debate.

Of course, liberals are famous for chanting catchphrases, such as "war on women" or “equality”, so incessantly that it takes an effort to remember their falsity. (They have even tried to brand opponents of illegal immigration as “nativist”, which they hoped would be equated to "racist".) But there’s a deeper and subtler way by which words can breed bias. Liberals choose words that convey subconscious meanings, which they hope will become universally accepted. This kind of political trickery, like stage magic, is based on misdirection: “Don’t look there, look here!”

Note the strident insistence with which liberals demand that we say “reproductive rights” instead of “abortion”, “gender” instead of “sex”, and “undocumented” instead of “illegal”. Each of these word choices hides some aspect of an issue that liberals want to keep hidden.

“Reproductive rights”, an essentially meaningless phrase, focuses on the mother and away from the baby, who is the victim of a homicide. In this respect, conservatives have unwittingly collaborated with liberals by calling themselves “pro-life” instead of “anti-abortion”, thereby failing to direct attention to the ugliness and brutality of abortions.

Similarly, by insisting that homosexuality is a matter of “gender” preference, liberals try to divert attention away from the fact that the primary objection most people have to homosexuality concerns certain grotesque sexual acts.

With regard to immigration, liberals insist on replacing the word “illegal” with “undocumented”, a sly euphemism that suggests that some sort of paperwork error is all that needs to be cleared up. Moreover, by expunging the word “illegal”, liberals have diverted attention away from the key word in the issue so successfully that even conservatives have forgotten it.

The word is “legal”.

In the past few years, I have heard only one politician use it. During the second presidential debate in 2012, Mitt Romney said it, loud and clear:

First of all, this is a nation of immigrants. We welcome people coming to this country as immigrants… We welcome legal immigrants into this country…. we’re going to have to stop illegal immigration. There are 4 million people who are waiting in line to get here legally. Those who’ve come here illegally take their place. So I will not grant amnesty to those who’ve come here illegally.

Everyone else seems to have forgotten that there is a legal way of entering the country. It is, as Romney said, unnecessarily slow and complicated — which is all the more reason for giving preference to the patient and honorable people who have chosen the legal route.

Obama’s stated plan for legalizing illegal aliens is not only a shameless scheme for stuffing ballot boxes with illegal votes; it is a vicious slap in the faces of the millions of decent people who are trying to enter this country legally.

It is as if the illegal aliens had sneaked in through a backdoor of our country (aided by criminals who jimmied the door open) and then looked out at the legal aliens, waiting patiently in a line at the front door, and shouted “Suckers! There’s an easier way!”

Republicans must therefore redirect discussion to the plight of would-be legal immigrants. They should fill the media with advocacy stories about specific families, from all parts of the world, who are now trying to enter our country legally.

Republicans should also start playing the word game by repeatedly referring to the “war on legal immigrants”. Romney’s phrase, “those who’ve come here illegally take their place,” should become an oft-repeated battle cry. They might also try to redefine “amnesty” to mean that the deported illegal immigrants would not be charged with any crime but simply forced to leave.

Actions must be positive and prompt. Any boxer knows that you can’t win by just parrying your opponent’s blows; you must hit back. The Republicans must prove to the public that they are not “the Party of No” by advancing counterproposals to those of the administration. Those proposals should focus on legal immigration.

They should start, as Romney suggested, by proposing a streamlined system for accepting legal immigrants, with preference to applicants with proficiency in English and with education and skills that we need, such as degrees in science and engineering. Emphasis should also be given, insofar as possible, to screening out potential terrorists.

Moreover, the Republican plan should be based on the principle that deported illegal immigrants be replaced, one-for-one, by increasing the allowed number of legal immigrants. This concept of “replacement” should be the keynote of Republican press releases. Selection should be impartial as to country of origin. Since more than half of illegal immigrants are Mexican, such a concept will probably be favorably received by all other ethnic groups, including Hispanics from other countries.

This, or some equivalent Republican proposal, should have been issued and publicized immediately after Obama’s speech. When Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. was our UN ambassador, he insisted on replying to Soviet accusations on the same day that they were hurled at us. This is known in boxing circles as counterpunching. The Republicans should hire a coach like our own David Lawrence to teach them this technique.

The voting public, disgusted with the Democrats, has decided to try the Republicans for a couple of years. But if a Republican Congress does not win the public’s heart by 2016, it will be ousted as emphatically as it was installed a few weeks ago.

Therefore, Republicans must change their strategy and do what they have so far failed to do: win the war of words and propose alternative programs instead of merely opposing Democratic proposals. In issues such as immigration, the two strategies are closely connected.

Words are the stuff that ideas are made of. If you can control the vocabulary of a discussion, you can usually control the outcome. In warfare, it is axiomatic that one must not let the enemy choose the battleground. But Republicans have been violating that rule for decades by letting the liberals choose the vocabulary of debate.

Of course, liberals are famous for chanting catchphrases, such as "war on women" or “equality”, so incessantly that it takes an effort to remember their falsity. (They have even tried to brand opponents of illegal immigration as “nativist”, which they hoped would be equated to "racist".) But there’s a deeper and subtler way by which words can breed bias. Liberals choose words that convey subconscious meanings, which they hope will become universally accepted. This kind of political trickery, like stage magic, is based on misdirection: “Don’t look there, look here!”

Note the strident insistence with which liberals demand that we say “reproductive rights” instead of “abortion”, “gender” instead of “sex”, and “undocumented” instead of “illegal”. Each of these word choices hides some aspect of an issue that liberals want to keep hidden.

“Reproductive rights”, an essentially meaningless phrase, focuses on the mother and away from the baby, who is the victim of a homicide. In this respect, conservatives have unwittingly collaborated with liberals by calling themselves “pro-life” instead of “anti-abortion”, thereby failing to direct attention to the ugliness and brutality of abortions.

Similarly, by insisting that homosexuality is a matter of “gender” preference, liberals try to divert attention away from the fact that the primary objection most people have to homosexuality concerns certain grotesque sexual acts.

With regard to immigration, liberals insist on replacing the word “illegal” with “undocumented”, a sly euphemism that suggests that some sort of paperwork error is all that needs to be cleared up. Moreover, by expunging the word “illegal”, liberals have diverted attention away from the key word in the issue so successfully that even conservatives have forgotten it.

The word is “legal”.

In the past few years, I have heard only one politician use it. During the second presidential debate in 2012, Mitt Romney said it, loud and clear:

First of all, this is a nation of immigrants. We welcome people coming to this country as immigrants… We welcome legal immigrants into this country…. we’re going to have to stop illegal immigration. There are 4 million people who are waiting in line to get here legally. Those who’ve come here illegally take their place. So I will not grant amnesty to those who’ve come here illegally.

Everyone else seems to have forgotten that there is a legal way of entering the country. It is, as Romney said, unnecessarily slow and complicated — which is all the more reason for giving preference to the patient and honorable people who have chosen the legal route.

Obama’s stated plan for legalizing illegal aliens is not only a shameless scheme for stuffing ballot boxes with illegal votes; it is a vicious slap in the faces of the millions of decent people who are trying to enter this country legally.

It is as if the illegal aliens had sneaked in through a backdoor of our country (aided by criminals who jimmied the door open) and then looked out at the legal aliens, waiting patiently in a line at the front door, and shouted “Suckers! There’s an easier way!”

Republicans must therefore redirect discussion to the plight of would-be legal immigrants. They should fill the media with advocacy stories about specific families, from all parts of the world, who are now trying to enter our country legally.

Republicans should also start playing the word game by repeatedly referring to the “war on legal immigrants”. Romney’s phrase, “those who’ve come here illegally take their place,” should become an oft-repeated battle cry. They might also try to redefine “amnesty” to mean that the deported illegal immigrants would not be charged with any crime but simply forced to leave.

Actions must be positive and prompt. Any boxer knows that you can’t win by just parrying your opponent’s blows; you must hit back. The Republicans must prove to the public that they are not “the Party of No” by advancing counterproposals to those of the administration. Those proposals should focus on legal immigration.

They should start, as Romney suggested, by proposing a streamlined system for accepting legal immigrants, with preference to applicants with proficiency in English and with education and skills that we need, such as degrees in science and engineering. Emphasis should also be given, insofar as possible, to screening out potential terrorists.

Moreover, the Republican plan should be based on the principle that deported illegal immigrants be replaced, one-for-one, by increasing the allowed number of legal immigrants. This concept of “replacement” should be the keynote of Republican press releases. Selection should be impartial as to country of origin. Since more than half of illegal immigrants are Mexican, such a concept will probably be favorably received by all other ethnic groups, including Hispanics from other countries.

This, or some equivalent Republican proposal, should have been issued and publicized immediately after Obama’s speech. When Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. was our UN ambassador, he insisted on replying to Soviet accusations on the same day that they were hurled at us. This is known in boxing circles as counterpunching. The Republicans should hire a coach like our own David Lawrence to teach them this technique.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/11/the_missing_word_in_the_immigration_debate.html#ixzz3KbeGeTAR
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Obama Regime Feels “Incredibly Strongly” About Breaking Promise by Providing Taxpayer-Financed Benefits to Illegal Aliens Through ObamaCare

In 2009, after Obama proclaimed to a joint session of Congress that illegal aliens would not be eligible for taxpayer-financed benefits through ObamaCare, Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) was put through the wringer by the media for observing that this was a lie. Even though he has already been repeatedly vindicated, now is a good time for another fact check on Rep. Wilson’s allegation:

On November 11, Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell [who is in charge of administering ObamaCare] participated in an online chat with a group of Latino bloggers. Burwell was asked a two-part question. Would the young immigrants known as Dreamers be eligible for Obamacare subsidies, and can so-called mixed families — for example, a family with illegal parents and legal children — receive benefits?

Dreamers are not eligible, Burwell said. But she left no doubt that she — along with officials at the highest levels of the Obama administration — wants that to change. “I think that everyone probably knows that this administration feels incredibly strongly about the fact we need to fix that,” Burwell explained. “We need to reform the system and make the changes that we need that will lead to benefits in everything from healthcare to economics to so many things — a very important step that we need to take as a nation.”

Burwell went on to tell the bloggers that families with illegal members are welcome to receive benefits. “Mixed families should come, they should seek and try, go on the site, they’ll find out they can get financial assistance,” Burwell said. “They may be eligible for different programs for their children or themselves.”

Finally, Burwell stressed that no one in the government will ask applicants if they are here legally or not. “Everyone should come on, and folks should not be scared,” Burwell said. “No questions will be asked…”

Attention world! Free healthcare! Come one, come all!

We are witnessing a looting spree. Obama and his treasonous collaborators have turned America into the Third World’s Ferguson.

On a tip from Mr. Mentalo.

Obama on ‘Gang-Bangers,’ Hoodies, and Illegals Emptying Bedpans

November 26, 2014

By Jeannie DeAngelis

It’s classic Cloward-Piven strategy. First you foment a crisis, and then you rush in with a left-wing cure. That is exactly what the president did during an interview on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, who is not to be confused with Sesame Street’s Mr. Snuffleupagus.

During the Closer Look segment, Barack Obama weighed in on how to fix what he helped break.

As the public awaited the grand jury decision as to whether or not to indict Ferguson, Missouri Police Officer Darren Wilson for the shooting death of black teen Michael Brown, the typically anarchistic Obama saw it as an opportunity to impart guidance to law enforcement on how to profile black teenagers.

That’s right – Barack Obama, who, when it comes to himself, regularly contravenes the rules and regulations, is now suddenly an expert on how law enforcement should comport themselves in tense situations.

According to the president, minority community sensitivity is needed for police officers, who Obama has said in the past can “act stupidly.” The president feels the goal should be to teach law enforcement how to differentiate between a gang-banger and an innocent child, who, if wearing a hoodie, could be Obama’s son.

What the president’s counsel did not include was advice on how to deal with gang-bangers wearing hoodies or innocent children foolishly emulating gang-bangers.

Nonetheless, Obama did tell a totally transfixed George:

… [t]hey want to make sure the police are trained so they can distinguish between a gang banger and a kid who just happens to be wearing a hoodie, but otherwise is a good kid and not doing anything wrong.

The president should be familiar with that type of mix-up. In 2008 and 2012, thanks to his emitting a “new car smell,” candidate Obama benefited because Americans were not trained to distinguish between a qualified candidate and a Chicago community organizer/socialist rabble-rouser who decided being black was the only criterion needed to run for president.

Now, just a few weeks after America expressed views Obama ignored when he lawlessly and unilaterally extended executive amnesty to those who defy the rule of law, he told George Stephanopoulos, “You know, this is a country that allows everybody to express their views. But using any event as an excuse for violence is contrary to rule of law and contrary to who we are.”

It sure would have been nice if George had asked the president, who just the other day said that “[m]ass deportation would be both impossible and contrary to our character,” how the rule of law reflects who we are in some circumstances, but in others, following the rule of law contradicts our character?

After a break, Obama came back to discuss why lawless behavior is acceptable when he deems it necessary. Stephanopoulos asked the president how he justified exercising “administrative flexibility” when he circumvented Congress to grant amnesty to 5,000,000 illegal aliens.

First the president denied being emperor; then he explained that his job is to execute the laws he doesn’t keep, and then applied the gang-banger/hoodie argument to immigration when he told George that America has to:

…[p]rioritize felons, criminals, recent arrivals, folks who are coming right at the border and acknowledge that if somebody’s been here for over 5 years, they may have an American child or a legal permanent resident child[.]

In other words, the president was sort of saying that when it comes to immigration, Americans have to put the law aside and be able to “distinguish between” gang-banging illegal ISIS terrorists, MS-13 gang members, pedophiles, murderers, and rapists and hoodie-wearing unaccompanied minors who just happen to be infected with Enterovirus D-68, but otherwise are good kids and “not doing anything wrong.”

Then, after citing prosecutorial discretion as the reason he did what he erroneously thinks Democrat and Republican presidents have done before with bipartisan Congressional approval, the president went on to give a laundry list of things that we have to do but will never do nor be able to enforce.

Things like securing the border, deporting criminals similar to the ones the Obama administration has already released, and believing that illegals will willingly submit to criminal background checks and U.S. tax law.

Then, point guard Stephanopoulos provided an opportunity for Obama to block any argument that might suggest that his so-called prosecutorial discretion on immigration could open the door for future presidents to target Democrat favorites like abortion and taxes.

According to Barack Obama, it’s different when it comes to taxes because, he says, “The vast majority of folks understand that they need to pay taxes. And when we conduct an audit, for example, we are selecting those folks who are most likely to be cheating.”

Wait! Sneaking over the border isn’t dishonest? And when he says “we,” does he mean himself and Lois Lerner auditing conservatives, Tea Party activists, and right-wing media types?

Either way, apparently for Obama it’s not the same when illegals flagrantly break the law as it is for American citizens whom Obama wants to abuse with Chicago-style intimidation.

Clearly, the president feels his time is better spent “going after” millions and millions of Americans who disagree with him politically than it is pursuing illegals who Obama believes “we’re taking advantage of … as they mow lawns or clean out bedpans.”

When it comes to tax law, Obama, who’s proven to be the lawless one and who doesn’t expect bed-making, fruit-picking, lawn-mowing, bed-pan-emptying illegals to follow the law either, said that although not every person is audited, “we,” (as in he) “still expect that people are going to go ahead and follow the law.”

So there you have it. According to Barack Obama, black teenage boys in hoodies are off-limits to police officers. Similarly, when it comes to illegal aliens, the hoodie test should also be applied, lest those daring to suggest deportation as an option end up being legally audited by a president who doesn’t respect the law.

Jeannie hosts a blog at www.jeannie-ology.com.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/11/obama_on_gangbangers_hoodies_and_illegals_emptying_bedpans.html#ixzz3Kbbqlp3e
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

GOP Pushes Leadership To Block Obama Amnesty

Politics | Neil Munro

<img width="341" height="141" src="http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/texas-border-crisis-immigration-cis-e1405436135964-620×257.jpg&quot; class="attachment-341×300 wp-post-image" alt="Unaccompanied Minors In Texas" />

Calls, visits and protests are being used to rally leadership against Obama

WHOOPSIE: Turns Out Republicans CAN Cut The Funding For Obama’s Amnesty

Politics | Christopher Bedford

<img width="341" height="146" src="http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Obama-surprised-Getty-e1417029308320-620×266.jpg&quot; class="attachment-341×300 wp-post-image" alt="Barack Obama surprised. Getty Images." />

The Congressional Research Service layeth the smacketh down

Delusional Obama Declares Action Lawful, Not Amnesty; Republicans Promise Fight

By Joseph R. Carducci, November 21, 2014.

So, after months of talking about how he was going to act alone, going so far as to use his pen and phone, our feckless President Obama has laid out his plan for granting amnesty. Of course, Obama needed to justify this plan and try to fool at least some of the voters in this country. To that end, he declared his plan is NOT amnesty…and that it is perfectly legal.

Obama Does a 360, Declares Unilateral Action

This still flies directly in the face of six years of Obama insisting he didn’t have the authority to unilaterally change the immigration laws without the consent of Congress. I suppose that he is still hearing that mandate from those non-voters; maybe they were the ones who told him to go ahead and act on this now.

Honestly, though, this is probably simply how the most arrogant President in history gets his revenge. He has been reportedly furious ever since the Democrats endured their tidal wave of defeat in the midterms earlier this month. This is how Obama strikes back; by picking a political fight. He doesn’t think that the Republicans have the political will to do anything about this new plan, or he thinks they don’t have enough tools or power to do so. Maybe he thinks they won’t actually block his nominees…or that such a political battle would go badly for the Republicans? Then again, maybe he just doesn’t even care?

Obama Claims Authority to Act Alone

So, if this new plan of Obama’s isn’t amnesty, then what exactly is it? He tried to justify this by claiming, “there are actions I have the legal authority to take as President…that will help make our immigration system more fair and just.” Perhaps, but certainly not by going behind the back of Congress; not that this is really anything new for Obama…he has never been much for working together with Congress.

Even when Congress was held by the Democrats for the first two years of his Presidency, Obama seemed not to care about doing any type of immigration reform deal. Undoubtedly, this was something he could have had. Even up until he started simply not enforcing immigration laws and allowing a huge and constant flow of illegals over our southern border, he probably could have been able to get some type of deal.

Plan Could Be Devastating For Economy

That deal, probably wouldn’t have looked like his new plan. This calls for the fast tracking of green cards in order to make illegals eligible for numerous government welfare and other handout programs. That’s just what our country needs right about now, as our national debt is about to blast through the $18 trillion mark. That would be bad enough, but Obama’s plan also calls for the issuance of five million new work permits for those illegals living inside the United States.

Hopefully, the new Republicans in Congress are ready to stand up to this challenge. Hopefully, they will also be able to find a few more reasonably minded Democrats (yes, I know this might be difficult) to go along with them. This is more than just bad policy, it is a direct challenge to the Constitution. Even Constitutional Law professors and other liberals don’t agree with Obama’s action.

If Obama gets away with this, he will have changed the make-up of executive power and authority for years to come. Future generations will refer to this ‘plan’ and how Congress and the voters react to it as a pivotal moment in history. It was at least encouraging last night to hear some of the Republican leadership making statements to fight this and take all legal actions to prevent it from happening.

What do YOU think? Will the Republicans mount a vigorous challenge? Will it be enough to stop the new amnesty plan from really being implemented?

Obama Wants Things Both Ways: Now Claims Amnesty IS Changing Law

20 hours ago

Obama Admits To Violating The Constitution

By Brian Anderson, November 26, 2014.

Prepare for some major league spin from the White House to explain why Barack Obama just admitted that he violated the Constitution. While promoting his amnesty plan in Chicago on Tuesday the President said his executive action in fact changed the immigration law of this country.

At some point during what was supposed to be a

, some illegal aliens began yelling at Obama about God knows what. The President, not wanting to offend his most valuable demographic, let the disrupters scream for several minutes. He allowed them to stay and eventually got them to calm down. Reassuring them that he puts the interests of foreign nationals above American citizens, he said this:

Now, you’re absolutely right that there have been significant numbers of deportations. That’s true. But what you are not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law.

Wow, he changed the law? That’s a pretty amazing feat considering he lacks the authority to change any law. Maybe he just misspoke. He was off-script and Obama doesn’t improvise very well. Nope. This is exactly what he meant because he doubled-down on it. Moments later he made reference to “the way the change in the law works…”

To remind the President how the separation of powers as defined by the Constitution work: The legislative branch (Congress) makes the law, the judicial branch (Supreme Court) determines the legality of the law, and the executive branch (President) enforces the law.

Nowhere in the Constitution is the President granted the power to make laws, change laws, or repeal laws. Yet, Obama just admitted twice that he changed the immigration law. In addition to being ignorant of the separation of powers, he also seems unaware of the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Sure, he’s illegally changed the law before, which is why Congress is suing him, but he’s never really admitted to changing the law. He always uses euphemisms like “tweaking” and “deferring.” Congress already had a pretty good case for the changes Obama made to the ACA train wreck and now the President has given them all the ammunition they need to undo his executive amnesty action.

Part of Obama’s cover story is that he’s a Constitutional scholar, but his complete disregard for the highest law of the land leaves that claim in doubt. Surely a man with a degree in Constitutional law would understand the powers granted to the executive branch don’t allow him to change the law on his own.

Two years ago when Obama was talking about immigration reform he told everyone that his hands were tied and that he couldn’t change the law. Last week when he signed his amnesty order he told everyone that he wasn’t changing the law. Yesterday he told everyone “I just changed the law.” Tomorrow he goes full-emperor when he tells everyone “I am the law!”

Obama Offers Companies $3,000 To Hire Illegals Over U.S. Citizens

By Robert Gehl, November 26, 2014.

Under Barack Obama’s new – and unconstitutional – amnesty plan, businesses have a big incentive to hire illegal aliens over U.S. citizens.

The incentive, $3,000 per employee per year – comes because while the illegals will now be granted work permits, they won’t qualify for Obamacare, meaning the companies won’t have to pay the penalty for not offering them insurance.

It’s a loophole the Obama Administration certainly must have known about and the President’s Department of Homeland Security confirmed that the new “legal illegals” won’t have access to Obamacare and companies will benefit from the incentive.

Under the Affordable Care Act, businesses with 50 or more employees are required to provide insurance coverage to full-time workers. If they refused, they are assessed a $3,000-per-year penalty for each employee. But since the illegal aliens do not qualify for coverage, there would be no penalty.

This, of course, provides a great incentive for companies to hire “legal illegals” over U.S. citizens.

“If it is true that the president’s actions give employers a $3,000 incentive to hire those who came here illegally, he has added insult to injury,” said Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican. “The president’s actions would have just moved those who came here illegally to the front of the line, ahead of unemployed and underemployed Americans.”

Dick Morris said companies have already taken notice:

“The dimensions of this problem are enormous. One wonders if any of Obama’s crew spotted it during the run-up to his executive order. It is hard to imagine former President Clinton failing to notice such a conflict between his two major programs,” Mr. Morris said in an op-ed Tuesday in The Hill, a Capitol Hill newspaper.

Dick Morris: Amnesty, Obamacare Will Eat Up Blue-Collar Jobs

Wednesday, 26 Nov 2014 08:50 AM

By Drew MacKenzie

Close

More ways to share…

Stumbled

LinkedIn

Vine

Reddit

Delicious

Newstrust

Tell my politician

Technocrati

·0

Democratic strategist Dick Morris has warned that President Barack Obama’s amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants will result in "a disaster of unparalleled magnitude" due to the Obamacare employer mandate.

In a commentary for The Hill, Morris says that blue-collar employees in large companies could eventually be replaced by undocumented immigrants because employers will not have to pay their healthcare insurance.

"Those granted amnesty will not be eligible for Obamacare," he wrote. "The amnesty will merely keep them safe from deportation. It won’t make them legal. And Obamacare can only go to citizens and legal noncitizens living in the U.S."

The political analyst, who was an adviser to former Mississippi Republican Sen. Trent Lott and former President Bill Clinton, noted that the employer mandate in Obamacare requires big companies to offer insurance to their full-time workers or pay a large fine to the government.

"Combine these two programs and you have a huge incentive for employers to dismiss any blue-collar workers on their payroll and replace them with illegal immigrants covered by amnesty.

"These folks are allowed to work but not to get Obamacare. An employer can’t be fined for failing to offer Obamacare to employees who are ineligible to receive it. It’s an employer’s dream."

Morris dismissed the suggestion that anti-discrimination provision of Obamacare prevent employers from giving health insurance to some workers (citizens and legal immigrants) and not to others (illegal immigrants).

"That argument seems far-fetched, because the illegal immigrants cannot enroll in Obamacare," wrote Morris, author of 17 books, including his latest, "Power Grab: Obama’s Dangerous Plan for a One Party Nation."

Morris says that by having one pool of legal workers who can receive Obamacare, and another pool of illegal works with amnesty who cannot receive healthcare insurance will give employers the incentive to replace citizens with illegal immigrants.

"If you think Democrats are bemoaning the loss of the blue-collar whites who voted with Republicans in the midterm elections now, wait ’til the amnesty/Obamacare mandate combo kicks in. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet!" he said.

"As the 2016 elections approach, this conflict between amnesty and the employer mandate will likely become a major campaign issue. It calls into question the two hallmarks of the Obama presidency and puts them on a collision course."

Morris noted that Census Bureau figures show three out of four new jobs, or 6 million out of 8 million jobs created since Obama took office in 2008, went to "non-native-born Americans," a term which covers legal and illegal immigrants as well as naturalized U.S. citizens.

He concluded by saying, "The desire of employers to find a way out from under the expensive mandate in Obamacare will accelerate the process.

"It will be a great line to feature on your resume that you came here illegally and are not eligible for Obamacare. It will go a long way toward guaranteeing a job."

Related Stories:

· Dick Morris Tells Hannity: Obama Pushing for One-Party Rule

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/US/obamacare-mandate-employers-illegals/2014/11/26/id/609677/#ixzz3KLMIlFNr
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

What the President Didn’t Tell You About His Amnesty Plan

By Rick Moran Bio

November 23, 2014 – 10:55 am

Newt Gingrich, writing at CNN, contrasts the words that President Obama used to describe his deferred deportation plan with what his administration is actually proposing.

The President also said in his speech that his actions would offer relief only to people who met certain criteria he described, including having child dependents in the United States. But the actual policy memo makes clear that “DHS will direct all of its enforcement resources at pursuing” people who are “national security threats, serious criminals, and recent border crossers.”

In other words, there will be one group, estimated at 4 million or so, who are eligible for the new work authorization program. But at the same time, there will be no resources directed at enforcing immigration law against the other 7 million people here illegally as long as they do not fall into a few narrow categories, according to the President’s Office of Legislative Affairs. And indeed, a “senior administration official” told Roll Call that the administration “will order immigration agents to prioritize deportations of criminals and recent arrivals — and let people who are not on that priority list go free.” This is not at all the program the President described in his speech.

As I wrote yesterday, drunk drivers, sex abusers, drug traffickers, and even burglars will not be “prioritized” as far as deportations are concerned. Most local governments don’t turn illegals over to the feds anyway, so not much will change. Still, for the federal government to ignore the immigration laws already on the books by looking the other way and “deferring” deportations for almost all 11 million illegal aliens is a breathtaking expansion of executive power.

Gingrich, quite appropriately, called Obama’s address a “Gruber speech”:

Listening to a speech in which the President lied about what he was proposing and lied about his authority to implement it, it was hard not to think of the Gruber model — which is really the Obama model, after all. He said what he needed to say to do what he wants to do.

Immigrants will “get right with the law,” but not be “legalized,” just as Obamacare’s taxes weren’t taxes, until they were taxes before the Supreme Court, but after which they weren’t taxes again. Only immigrants who meet certain specific criteria will be eligible for relief, except for the millions of other people he doesn’t mention for whom he will also stop enforcing the law.

In the past few years, the President has described 22 times on video how he doesn’t have the legal and constitutional authority to take many of the actions he announced Thursday night.

“With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed,” he said in 2011. “…[W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. …There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.”

President Obama made a good case back then. It’s a shame he apparently thinks, like Gruber, that Americans are all so stupid we won’t figure out he’s not telling us the truth today.

The president also claimed that his amnesty plan would slow the rush to the border by illegals. With history as a guide, that’s hornswaggle. Look what happened after his unilateral action in 2012 with DREAMers being legalized. The crush of illegal alien children at the border overwhelmed our ability to deal with it. Now he announces that unless you’re a murderer or a terrorist, you can come to the U.S. and not be deported (as long as you avoid the authorities long enough). If past is prologue, you can expect a surge of illegals at the border in the near future.

At least Gruber was honest enough to come out and say what he was thinking. Obama used subterfuge to disguise his true intent: overturning our immigration laws.

Illegal immigrants will be eligible
for Social Security, Medicare

· AP

· PRESIDENT OBAMA’S executive actions will allow illegal immigrants who apply for work permits to be eligible for Social Security and Medicare, the White House says.

Democratic Party Gambling Future On The Changing American Electorate

By Joseph R. Carducci, November 23, 2014.

Facebook

Twitter

One perspective about the illegal executive amnesty action Obama wanted…and now has indeed taken…is how this is an attempt to pander to the changing face of the American electorate. I have said before that a big part of Obama’s Open Borders policy, along with his direct instructions to the ICE and Border Patrol NOT to enforce current immigration law, is to hasten this change in the American electorate.

In other words, Obama and the Democrats are hoping that as more and more immigrants come into this country, illegally or not, that will gain a bigger advantage for their party. They also feel this will play out much better in Presidential and other national election cycles than in midterm or off year elections.

This is their big plan to retain control of the White House in 2016 and beyond. In fact, this so-called rising electorate, which is really a coalition of immigrants and socially progressive young people, has been discussed in political circles since at least 2002. It was even touted as the key to a new Democratic majority, although this has yet to come to pass, thankfully.

The plan is certainly an ambitious strategy. It is also partly complicated by the fact that the Democrats no longer seem to have any clear message that is truly resonating with voters. While a number of Latinos are in support of amnesty, there are a large number of Latinos and other immigrants NOT supportive of amnesty, certainly not in the fashion Obama has indicated.

While the leadership of the party likely understands that such a strategy can lead to problems in midterm election cycles, they are hoping they will be able to keep the White House (at least) out of the grasp of the evil Republicans for a generation or more. But as I said above, you still need to have a message that will reach and resonate with voters. The midterm elections earlier this month proved this to be a big Democratic problem:

“On election day 2012, the president had a 49.9 percent job approval rating and a 47.4 percent disapproval rating. In 2014, by contrast, the president had a 42 percent job approval rating, and a 53.3 disapproval rating. Notably, this isn’t ascribable to likely voter screens; the highest the president has been in polls of adults since June was 45 percent.

This low job approval interacted with state partisanship more heavily than it did with state demographics. After all, Obama was popular enough in 2012 in places such as Montana and North Dakota to enable Democratic Senate victories. If Obama’s job approval had been 54 percent in the overall 2014 electorate, rather than 44 percent (as exit polls indicated), the Republican purple state wins would not have occurred, and some of the red states would have elected blue senators…Regardless, the Democrats’ problem in 2014 was not simply the map, nor was it mostly a demographic/turnout issue. It was an unpopular Democratic president…”

So, as we see, the tidal wave of defeat that flooded over the Democratic Party on November 4 was due to more than simply a lack of voter turnout, or simple demographics. Even still, we should still be seriously worried about the effects of Obama’s opening the borders and lack of immigration law enforcement. Of course, all of this combines with the illegal executive amnesty action to create huge potential problems and consequences, the least of which might be a changing American electorate.

This is why Obama declared his action to be NOT amnesty and perfectly legal, despite nearly six years of his own prior assertions that he didn’t have the legal authority to do this. It is not amnesty in his eyes, because he is simply making new little Democratic voters.

What do YOU think about this? Is the Obama plan to flood the US with illegals, grant them legal status, and then allow them to vote, expanding the demographics of his party? Will this work…is it a good strategy to allow the Democrats to retain the White House in 2016 and beyond?

·

·

·

·

BACK

Embed

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

This video player must be at least 300×170 pixels in order to operate.

Ted Cruz: Obama’s In The Business Of ‘Counterfeiting Immigration Papers’

Ted Cruz: Obama’s In The Business Of ‘Counterfeiting Immigration Papers’

Daily Caller

Ted Cruz: Obama’s In The Business Of ‘Counterfeiting Immigration Papers’ [VIDEO]

9:47 AM 11/23/2014

154

88

Alex Griswold

Media Reporter

· See All Articles

· Send Email

· Subscribe to RSS

· Bio

Alex Griswold

Alex Griswold is a reporter for The Daily Caller.

·

· Tweet

·

4389618

Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz said on “Fox News Sunday” that President Barack Obama’s use of executive amnesty was tantamount to “counterfeiting immigration papers.”

Well, the notion that this is just prosecutorial discretion is simply nonsense. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish our immigration laws. What the President announced this week is a wholesale refusal to follow our immigration laws, to enforce our immigration laws. Number one, for 4 to 5 million people here illegally, he’s promising to print up and give work authorizations. Essentially he’s gotten in the job of counterfeiting immigration papers, because there’s no legal authority to do what he’s doing. He’s simply giving work authorizations and claiming unilateral authority.

Communist Party USA Praises Obama for Violating the Constitution on Amnesty

Submitted by Terresa Monroe-Hamilton on November 22, 2014 – 9:43 am EST2 Comments

By: Sara Noble
Independent Sentinel

Communists marching. They must destroy the Republican party to succeed.

The Communist Party USA, in their Peoples’ World magazine, praised Barack Obama’s decision to violate the law and bastardize even a valued legal tactic called “prosecutorial discretion.”

They say he is bringing millions out of the shadows. Their article by Tim Wheeler started with Helen Chavez’, César Chavez’ widow praising the president. Of course, her husband, though one of them, didn’t approve of illegal immigration.

“Today, President Obama kept his promise to me and to the American people,” Chavez said in a MoveOn petition expressing support for Obama’s actions. The President took these steps despite threats from the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill to close down the federal government or even impeach him on specious grounds that he has exceeded his constitutional authority. Every president in the past half century including Republicans has issued executive orders to deal with issues of immigration when Congress failed, or refused to act.

Impeachment talk has been coming from the leftists in our government to be honest but communists aren’t honest.

La Raza (NCLR) is also thrilled with the decision but describes it as only a first step. Many in the LaRaza movement believe much of the West is theirs and was taken illegally in 1848.

I say give them California and call it even.

The AFL-CIO also backs the president. Illegal immigrants are the unions “brothers and sisters.” It doesn’t seem to phase them that they have welcomed in more workers to compete with their members.

Poll: Most Americans Against Obama’s Amnesty Plan

A majority of Americans feel that President Barack Obama badly handled the way he gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants through executive order. [Full Story]

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/#ixzz3KH3tDCpB
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

(Getty Images)

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer: Amnesty Costs ‘Horrendous’

The costs to the states from President Barack Obama’s executive order on immigration are going to be "horrendous," Arizona Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said. [Full Story]

Related Stories

§ Poll: Most Americans Disapprove of Executive Amnesty Action

§ Rep. Messer: Obamacare Gives Firms Reason to Hire Illegals

§ Dick Morris: Obama Amnesty to Cause Massive Layoffs

§ Social Security, Medicare Open to Illegals Under Amnesty Plan

§ Arizona Court Upholds Giving Drivers’ Licenses to Illegals

§ Congress Can Block Use of Fees for Immigration Overhaul

§ Congress can block President Barack Obama from using federal immigration [Full Story]

Ben Carson

Prescription for D.C.

Illegal Executive Orders Reward Illegal Immigration

§ Some Immigrants Eligible For Social Security Under Obama Immigration Executive Order

Tea Party’s Singular Focus on Amnesty Troubles GOP

President Obama’s executive action on immigration has so outraged the tea party faction of the Republican Party that the ultra conservatives are focusing their attention and resources on this single issue, The New York Times reports. [Full Story]

Related Stories

§ Poll: Americans Don’t Want Shutdown Over Amnesty

§ Michele Bachmann, Steve King Take Amnesty Fight to the Border

Obama’s Amnesty Will Cost $22,000 Per US College Grad

11:25 PM 11/23/2014

Neil Munro

White House Correspondent

4389892

President Barack Obama’s amnesty for four million illegal immigrants will cost Americans about $2 trillion, or roughly $40 billion a year for the next five decades.

The cost of Obama’s generosity is equivalent to 30 cents extra for every gallon of gas bought by Americans.

Or a $10 monthly fee added to every cellphone.

Or a $22,000 tax on every American graduate’s four-year college degree.

The $2 trillion cost is driven by the federal government’s support for all poor people, says Robert Rector, a budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation. Rector explained that, on average, the illegal immigrants benefiting from the amnesty have a 10th grade education.

That low education ensures they can’t earn enough money, or pay enough taxes, to pay for the many benefits they’ll get if they progress from temporary residents to legal residents and then to citizens, Rector said.

These various benefits add up to roughly $50,000 a year for each household, but those households can and do pay only about $13,000 a year in federal taxes, leaving a gap of roughly $40,000 between payments and benefits, Rector said.

That gap is effectively filled by payments from intact, college-education households which normally pay $30,000 more in taxes than they receive in benefits. “It takes all of the net taxes paid by one college-educated family [household] to pay for one of these immigrant households,” he said.

Rector draws his estimate from a May 2013 analysis he completed for Heritage, which predicted a $6.3 trillion, 50-year cost if all 12 million illegals in the country were granted amnesty.

Currently, government spends roughly $50 billion a year supporting the children and families of illegal immigrants. Much of that costs consists of free schooling and medical care for the U.S.-born kids of illegals.

Obama’s plan will expand the spending, for example, by providing tax benefits, including Earned Income Tax Credit.

Two parents with three or more children would receive up to $6,143 in 2014 if they earn less than $46,997, according to the Internal Revenue Service’s EITC calculator. A family with two kids and an income of $20,000 would receive $14,590 in taxpayer funds this year alone from EITC.

Those benefits will gradually expand to include healthcare and retirement benefits, Rector said.

“It is completely implausible that the Obama administration plans to have people with legal status reside here for 30 years without medical care… They would incrementally gain access to all of the means-tested programs,” he said.

According to Rector, half the total cost of the amnesty will come due once the low-wage migrants get Green Cards and tap into Americans’ Social Security and Medicare funds. Americans with similar education get $3 back from Social Security for every $1 they pay in taxes.

Tags: Barack Obama, Robert Rector

Next Page

·

·

·

·

BACK

Embed

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

This video player must be at least 300×170 pixels in order to operate.

Krauthammer: ‘Madison Is Turning Over In His Grave’ Following Obama’s Executive Amnesty [VIDEO]

Krauthammer: ‘Madison Is Turning Over In His Grave’ Following Obama’s Executive Amnesty [VIDEO]

Daily Caller

Krauthammer: James Madison ‘Is Turning Over In His Grave’ Following Obama’s Executive Amnesty [VIDEO]

7:41 PM 11/21/2014 Al Weaver Reporter

4389199

Appearing the night after President Barack Obama’s national address announcing executive action on immigration, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said that James Madison is “turning over in his grave” after Obama “assaulted the separation of powers” and exceeded “the powers of the presidency.” Krauthammer made the comments on “Special Report” Friday night.

Krauthammer: “My loser is James Madison, who is turning over in the grave in Montpelier, when he sees how Obama has assaulted the separation of powers and exceeded by any conceivable measure the powers of the presidency.

My winner: Barack Obama. He’ll get away with this. He will, it is not going to be overturned, there’s no way you can actually do it. He can be hampered, you know, you can hold back the judicial appointments. But overturning the executive order is extremely difficult, and he will. He will succeed, but history will not judge him nicely on this.”

Parker Moore, Linfield College student. Youtube screen grab.

Illegal Immigrant Stabbed College Football Player To Death In Oregon

1:27 PM 11/20/2014 Chuck Ross is a reporter at The Daily Caller.

4386699

A man who fatally stabbed a 20-year-old college football player in the chest at an Oregon convenience store over the weekend was likely an illegal immigrant, authorities say.

Juventino Bermudez-Arenas stabbed Parker Moore several times at a 7-11 in McMinnville on Saturday. Bermudez-Arenas returned to the scene after fleeing, and was shot and killed by police who say the 33-year-old refused to drop the knife he used to stab Moore.

Moore was a sophomore business management major and played linebacker for Linfield. The team had just won a game 59-0 several hours before the incident.

Bermudez-Arenas’ family told KPTV that he did not speak English and that they believe he may not have understood police commands because of the language barrier.

His identity was also hard to pin down in the days after the attack, which led authorities to believe he he was an illegal immigrant.

“It is not believed that he was in the United States lawfully based on inconsistent Social Security numbers given to his employer, lack of official U.S. paperwork, and from information provided by his family,” the Yamhill County district attorney said in a statement. “Investigators continue to gather further background information on him.”

Based on records that they could find, authorities said Bermudez-Arenas was arrested for trespassing in 2000. He told police his name was “Jonventino Bermudes” and listed his birth date a month earlier than his actual birth date, KOIN reported.

Police have not determined a motive for the killing but have said it appears to be random. Bermudez-Arenas’s aunt told KPTV that after stabbing Moore, he went home to his family and said he had to go back to the store to turn himself in to police.

It is not clear if Bermudez-Arenas had ever come into contact with federal immigration agencies. Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not return an email request for more information.

Obama: US Taxpayers Must Pay For Illegals’ Children

6:00 PM 11/20/2014 Neil Munro White House Correspondent

4387893

Illegal immigrants will receive huge payments from American taxpayers under rules now being imposed by President Barack Obama’s unilateral amnesty.

The illegals will get work-permits and Social Security cards, and will be required to pay taxes, according to Cecilia Munoz, the former immigration lobbyist who is now a top Obama aide.

That means they’re part of the tax system, she said, when she was asked if the illegals would get annual payments under the Earned Income Tax Credit program.

“They are subject to our tax law,” she said, carefully.

Most households of illegals have very low income, and pay little in taxes. For example, in 2011, roughly 22 percent of immigrant households — both legal and illegal — were classified as living in poverty. In contrast, only 13 percent of American households were in poverty.

However, once illegal immigrants are enrolled in the tax system, they would be entitled to EITC payments.

The payments may be huge, and will rise each year.

According to the Internal Revenue Service, two parents with three or more children would receive up to $6,143 in 2014 if they earn less than $46,997.

A family with two kids, and an income of $20,000, would receive $14,590 in taxpayer funds this year alone.

Parents who earn less than the threshold would get $3,305 if they have one child, and $5,460 if they have two children.

The EITC program is already poorly monitored and may be subject to large amounts of fraud, according to critics.

Another study says that 47 percent of legal and illegal immigrants and their children are classified as living in poverty or in near-poverty, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors reduced annual immigration.

U.S. President Barack Obama attends the 2nd ASEAN-USA Summit in Naypyitaw November 13, 2014. REUTERS/Damir Sagolj

‘FALSE’: Politifact Rates Obama Executive Amnesty Claim Ahead Of Address

6:17 PM 11/20/2014 Al Weaver Reporter

4387880

Ahead of President Barack Obama’s address tonight, Politifact has issued a “False” rating for Obama’s claim that his “position hasn’t changed” on using executive action to address immigration issues.

Per the rating from Politifact:

“Obama has been asked about his ability to use his office to change immigration rules in the U.S. in many ways throughout the years. Sometimes, he has been asked broadly, but other times, he was asked about very specific measures, such as not splitting up families or freezing deportations for parents of DREAMers.

In answering those questions, Obama’s position has clearly changed. Whereas he used to say his ability to take action ended at deferring action on DREAMers, he now is saying there are at least some things he can do and intends to do. Even absent the specifics of his plan, it’s very clear his tune is much different now.”

Two days ago, the Washington Post’s resident fact-checker Glenn Kessler gave the president’s claim an Upside-Down Pinocchio, described by Kessler as “a statement that represents a clear but unacknowledged ‘flip-flop’ from a previously-held position.”

Washington Post Fact Checker: Obama Flip-Flopped On Executive Amnesty

6:22 PM 11/18/2014 Alex Griswold is a reporter for The Daily Caller.

4385133

Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler ruled on Barack Obama’s recent claim that his “position hasn’t changed” on executive amnesty, calling it a clear flip-flop.

In the lead-up to Obama’s planned executive amnesty, observers have pointed out that on previous occasions, Obama claimed he lacked the authority to do so. “I am president, I am not king,” he once told Univision, back in 2010. “I can’t do these things just by myself.”

But Obama said last week in Australia that in those instances, he was talking about something else entirely. “When I was talking to the advocates, their interest was in me, through executive action, duplicating the legislation that was stalled in Congress,” Obama explained, “And getting a comprehensive deal of the sort that is in the Senate legislation, for example, does extend beyond my legal authorities.”

Not true, says Kessler. He points out that on no less than four occasions, President Obama was asked only about halting the deportation of illegal immigrants. In all four occasions, and as late as 2013, Obama claimed it was beyond his power to do so.

“The president has certainly been consistent on this issue — until he saw that the path through Congress was blocked,” Kessler concludes. “It’s clear from the interviews that the president was not being asked about executive orders that would have provided comprehensive immigration reform, but about specific actions that ended deportations of a subset of illegal immigrants — precisely the type of action he will shortly unveil.”

Obama recieved an” Upside-Down Pinocchio,” which according to the Fact Checker rating scale represents “[a] statement that represents a clear but unacknowledged “flip-flop” from a previously-held position.”

Rick Santorum: Amnesty’s a ‘Slap in the Face’ of Working Americans

Saturday, 22 Nov 2014 01:08 AM By Sean Piccoli

Close

More ways to share…

Stumbled

LinkedIn

Vine

Reddit

Delicious

Newstrust

Tell my politician

Technocrati

0

With his edict on immigration now in effect, President Barack Obama has flooded a struggling American labor market with millions of new workers who will further depress wages and make jobs harder to find, former Sen. Rick Santorum told Newsmax TV on Friday.

"He’s doing this as a slap in the face of every working American, and that is what we should be talking about," Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican and former presidential candidate, told "MidPoint" host Ed Berliner.

In that besieged working-class group, said Santorum, are some of the very people that Obama claimed to be aiding by announcing on Thursday that 5 million immigrants living here illegally will be shielded from deportation.

"You know, who gets hurt most by what the president just did? Hispanics in America," said Santorum.

"You’re adding 5 million mostly unskilled workers into a labor pool right now, where wages are declining and income in America is declining."

With the economy creating "maybe if we’re lucky, 2 million new jobs a year," Santorum said that amnesty will add 5 million new workers "in addition to 1.1 million new legal immigrants that are coming into this country every year.

"Plus more illegals who will be coming because the president has now created a path to citizenship to whoever gets into this country," he said.

"We are going to flood labor markets."

Obama declared amnesty in a televised address over the objections of Republicans in Congress, who say the president is exceeding his authority and effectively inventing law, which he has no constitutional right to do.

House Speaker John Boehner said on Friday that Obama is "damaging the presidency" with his actions and that Congress will act to "protect the Constitution."

Santorum, like others, rejected the argument that Obama’s executive action is no different from deportation stays issued by former presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, calling the comparison "a farce."

"What President Reagan and President Bush both did, they dealt with a very small group of people and they acted pursuant to a congressional act," said Santorum.

"In other words, Congress acted, did something on the issue of immigration and, in implementing that law, the president cleaned up some loose ends. He dealt with a very small group of people, which in fact, Congress agreed with him doing."

"That is not what’s going on here," Santorum said.

With comprehensive immigration reform stalled in Congress, "The president is saying, ‘You won’t act, so I will. You won’t grant amnesty to all these people. You have opposed doing that, and therefore I’m going to do it,’" he said.

"That is not what Reagan did and that is not what Bush did."

Santorum said that by "acting like a tyrant" and "against the Constitution," the president "has thrown the Republicans and the country a curveball.

"We have never dealt with anything like this before," he said.

"It’s a time where people from both parties have to take a step back," said Santorum, arguing that Democrats in Congress should be just as concerned as their GOP colleagues.

"You’ve just seen the president of the U.S. basically tell you that ‘You’re irrelevant and we don’t really need you anymore. I don’t need you to change the laws of this country. I can do what I want to do irrespective of what you say and what you want in the [legislative] conference.’"

Santorum said that Obama’s act "is not just backing Republicans in a corner, it’s backing Americans in a corner."

Related Stories:

· Hispanic Post: Obama Creates a ‘Two-tiered’ Hispanic Community

· Rep. Steve King: ‘Sinking Feeling’ on How Order Will Play Out

Dick Morris: Obama’s ‘Ghost Army’ of Illegals

Dick Morris: Obama’s Amnesty Is a Never-Ending Cycle

Friday, 21 Nov 2014 12:37 PM0

President Obama’s decision to grant amnesty to between 4 and 5 million people is really part of an ongoing cyclical process of immigration-amnesty-more immigration.

He intends this amnesty to provoke a new wave of illegal entry into the United States, creating a new pool of illegal immigrants awaiting their own amnesty.

And in the meantime, they will constitute a "ghost army" able to vote illegally with no requirement that they present photo identification.

Obama’s previous grant of amnesty — to the group known as "DREAMERS" — triggered a flood of new illegal immigration from Central America. No sooner did they arrive than Obama packed them off to all parts of the country, likely shielding them from deportation.

His new amnesty, based on giving legal status to those who have had anchor babies in the U.S., suggests a simple strategy for the coming wave of illegal immigrants: Come here, sneak over the border, have a baby in the U.S., and wait for your amnesty.

None of these outcomes are unintended consequences of the president’s program — they lie at its very core. In our book "Power Grab," we explain how Obama uses this cycle of amnesty and immigration to pad his electorate and power the left into office using demographically based politics.

But Obama’s nightmare is that even as he catalyzes millions of new immigrants, Latinos who have lived here for many years might be assimilating, voting as independents unwilling to toe the ethnic voting line. The president’s economic policies, which decrease upward mobility, may retard assimilation, but the process is proceeding nonetheless.

In the 2012 election, 75 percent of Hispanics voted for Obama. But this year, only 63 percent did.

When will the Latino vote go Republican? When it is no longer the Latino vote. The same assimilation, intermarriage, and merging which has extinguished the German-American, Italian-American, and Irish-American vote, making them all just American voters, is at work among Hispanics.

Democrats would prefer that Latinos follow the model of African-Americans, whose resentment, memory of past discrimination, and worry about ongoing racism keep them bound to the Democratic Party even as they move up the income ladder. But Latinos give every evidence of being more like the traditional immigrant groups that merge into the American population and culture.

In a sense, the very removal of the grievance over immigration reform, implicit in Obama’s amnesty, may serve to undermine his purpose by reducing the racial tensions which keep Latinos Democrat.

Devout Catholics and increasingly evangelical Protestants, the Latino vote embraces values shared largely by Republicans. Their move to the right as they advance economically may swing the electorate back to the Republicans.

Ben Carson: Obama Helping Illegals While Appalachia, Cities Rot

Friday, 21 Nov 2014 14:25 PM

President Obama is ignoring the plight of millions of needy Americans in inner cities and rural communities with his fo . . .

Rep. Joe Barton: Opposing Amnesty Not About Race

Saturday, 22 Nov 2014 01:06 AM By Sean Piccoli

Close

More ways to share…

Stumbled

LinkedIn

Vine

Reddit

Delicious

Newstrust

Tell my politician

Technocrati

0

Taking issue with President Barack Obama’s executive decree on immigration does not make somebody a racist, Rep. Joe Barton told Newsmax TV on Friday.

"I don’t think there’s anything racial about asking the president to enforce the existing immigration laws and to work with the Congress to reform those laws where we all agree there’s something that needs to be done," the Texas Republican told "MidPoint" host Ed Berliner. "I don’t see a racial issue in that at all."

In a televised address on Thursday night, the president declared that some 5 million immigrants — primarily Hispanic — living here illegally will be shielded from deportation. He said he was acting because Congress had failed to.

He proceeded despite criticism that the move exceeds a president’s authority, and that Obama is asserting powers the Constitution explicitly gives to legislators, not the executive.

Obama also defied warnings from Republican leaders that he would "poison the well" for cooperation between Congress and the White House — whose relations were sour even before the Nov. 4 electoral rout of Democrats that gives the GOP control of the U.S. Senate beginning in January.

Barton, a veteran congressman who touts his suburban Dallas-Fort Worth base as "one of the more diverse districts in Texas," said that Obama missed an opportunity on Thursday to restart the push for comprehensive immigration reform — lawfully.

"If he has said almost identically what he said last night and [then] said, ‘I’m sending this as a legislative proposal to the Congress,’ we would have taken it under consideration," said Barton. "And I don’t think we would have enacted it verbatim, but we would have acted upon it in the regular course of legislative action."

Instead, Obama said, in effect, "Forget Congress, forget last week’s election; I’m just going to do this," said Barton. "He’s thumbing his nose at everybody in this country, and that’s flat wrong."

Barton credited the president with being "partially correct" in one respect — that "amnesty" was the state illegal immigrants already lived under because, until Thursday, the federal government had not addressed what to do with an estimated 12 million undocumented migrants who are here.

"I would partially agree with the president that just doing nothing, in effect, is the de facto amnesty," said Barton, "because it allows the however many millions of people who come into this country without proper documentation to stay here."

The hitch, said Barton, is that "this president is not enforcing the [existing] immigration laws."

"What does get under my skin is that he is trying to act unilaterally, which is against the Constitution," he said. "He is not the legislative body; he is the administrative officer of the executive branch. He’s a powerful person — the president’s a very powerful office. But he cannot act unilaterally without the support of the Congress."

He also questioned the president’s timing and the sudden urgency with which he acted in defiance of Congress.

"When President Obama had a Democratic Senate, [and] a Democratic House when he was first elected, he never sent an immigration bill to the Congress. … So it’s a little hypocritical for him now to demand immediate action. When he had the entire legislative apparatus, he didn’t do anything," said Barton.

Related Stories:

· Greg Abbott: Texas Will Sue Obama Over Executive Amnesty

· Rep. Mike McCaul: ‘Shut Down’ Obama, Not Government

·

·

·

·

BACK

Embed

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

This video player must be at least 300×170 pixels in order to operate.

White House Excludes Unfriendly Media From Amnesty Briefings

The White House cancelled its usual press conference on November 20th, and instead invited establishment media to attend a closed-door briefing about the president’s unprecedented offer of work-permits to millions of foreign workers. The 45-minute event was held in a room near the White House’s press room, just before midday, and attending journalists were told they can’t release the information until 6.00. The attendees included some independent reporters from major outlets, including Ed Henry at Fox News, ABC’s Jon Karl and CBS’ Major Garrett. Most of the media at the event were from outlets, including The New York Times, Politico, The Hill and The Washington Post, which have not provided critical reporting of the president’s planned executive order.??

Daily Caller

White House Excludes Unfriendly Media From Amnesty Briefings

3:52 PM 11/20/2014 Neil Munro White House Correspondent

4387658

The White House cancelled its usual press conference Nov. 20, and instead invited establishment media to attend a closed-door briefing about the president’s unprecedented offer of work-permits to millions of foreign workers.

The 45-minute event was held in a room near the White House’s press room, just before midday.

The attending journalists were told they can’t release the information until 6.00.

The attendees included some independent reporters from major outlets, including Ed Henry at Fox News, ABC’s Jon Karl and CBS’ Major Garrett. Most of the media at the event were from outlets, including The New York Times, Politico, The Hill and The Washington Post, which have not provided critical reporting of the president’s planned executive order.

The Daily Caller was not invited. Other popular outlets, such as Breitbart, National Review, The Weekly Standard, and TheBlaze were also excluded.

The White House also held a conference call for reporters at 2:00 pm, which was embargoed until 6:00 pm.

Administration officials accepted questions from regional media and from the media site Vox, as well as from the progressive outlet Think Progress.

The regional media invited to ask questions included the Las Vegas Sun, the Los Angeles Times, the Dallas Morning News, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and the Arizona Sun.

Callers were forced to identify themselves before they were selected by officials.

None of the reporters on the call asked about the impact of Obama’s amnesty on American workers, and or about public support for the unpopular amnesty. Instead, the questions asked about the benefits provided by the president to illegal immigrants, and why Obama set some limits on benefits.

The Daily Caller was not invited to join the media call.

Advertisements