Posts Tagged ‘illegal aliens’
New York City could soon become the first major city in the country to give non-citizens the right to vote. The proposal, which would allow certain non-citizens to vote in local elections, appears to have a veto-proof majority in the New York City Council — enough to overcome opposition by Mayor Michael Bloomberg. As hearings on the proposal get underway Thursday, supporters are optimistic it will become law by the end of the year and believe it will have an impact beyond the five boroughs.
Read more by Hunter Walker at Talking Points Memo
Judicial Watch today released documents detailing how the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is working with the Mexican government to promote participation by illegal aliens in the U.S. food stamp program.
The promotion of the food stamp program, now known as “SNAP” (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), includes a Spanish-language flyer provided to the Mexican Embassy by the USDA with a statement advising Mexicans in the U.S. that they do not need to declare their immigration status in order to receive financial assistance. Emphasized in bold and underlined, the statement reads, “You need not divulge information regarding your immigration status in seeking this benefit for your children.”
Read more at Judicial Watch
Days after they were badly hurt in a car accident, Jacinto Cruz and Jose Rodriguez-Saldana lay unconscious in an Iowa hospital while the American health care system weighed what to do with the two immigrants from Mexico.
The men had health insurance from jobs at one of the nation’s largest pork producers. But neither had legal permission to live in the U.S., nor was it clear whether their insurance would pay for the long-term rehabilitation they needed.
So Iowa Methodist Medical Center in Des Moines took matters into its own hands: After consulting with the patients’ families, it quietly loaded the two comatose men onto a private jet that flew them back to Mexico, effectively deporting them without consulting any court or federal agency.
When the men awoke, they were more than 1,800 miles away in a hospital in Veracruz, on the Mexican Gulf Coast.
Read more by DAVID PITT at Associated Press
Paradoxical quote of the day from Ben Stein:
“Fathom the odd hypocrisy that the government wants every citizen to prove they are insured, but people don’t have to prove they are citizens”.
“Fathom the odd hypocrisy that Obama wants every citizen to prove they are insured, but people don’t have to prove they are citizens.”
by Ben Stein
Why is the Obama Campaign trying to disenfranchise military votes and at the same time, trying to make sure that illegal aliens remain on state voter rolls? Why are both political parties pandering for the Latino vote? Can illegal aliens vote now? The answer is yes, but I’ll get to that in a minute.
King_ObamaAs Obama’s so-called Department of Justice sues numerous states to block military votes from being counted in the upcoming November election, they are also suing states to keep them from purging known illegal voters from voter registration files.
Read more by JB Williams at RightSideNews.com
If you have high blood pressure, take some medication before reading further.
A basic premise of immigration law is that immigrants to the U.S. are expected to be self-supporting. We obviously don’t want to attract people who have no intention of working, but simply want to benefit from our generous welfare system. This principle is incorporated into the Immigration and Nationality Act, which provides:
An alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.
But, as in so many other instances, President Obama has simply changed the law by executive fiat. In this case the administration acted quietly, so that it took quite a while before others understood how badly Obama had subverted the immigration laws.
Read more by John Hinderaker at PowerLineBlog
Has anyone noticed the federal government has seceded from Arizona?
Apparently, the state no longer belongs to the Union.
In an action bizarrely the reverse of South Carolina’s secession from the Union in December of 1860, the Department of Home security has suspended its existing agreements with Arizona law enforcement, essentially declaring the state an outlaw entity.
Arizona is on its own.
Read more by Fay Voshell at American Thinker
PPP, a democrat-leaning polling firm, is out today with a new poll of Ohio, a critical battleground this Fall. The top-line number getting the most attention is Obama’s erosion of support over the past month. A month ago, Obama led Romney by 7. Today’s poll shows the lead has fallen to just 3 and Obama remains below the important 50% threshold. Perhaps more interesting in today’s poll, though, is the sharp drop-off in Obama’s support among white Democrats.
Last month, Obama led among white Democrats 89-6. Today, his lead is down to 78-16. A twenty-point swing in one month is a big shift. The corrupt media will no doubt suggest this has something to do with race. But, remember, they were giving Obama around 90% of their support a month ago. A huge swath of white Democrats didn’t suddenly become racists this month. Whether its the continued sluggishness in the economy, the renewed focus on ObamaCare or the Fast & Furious scandal, something is definitely eroding Obama’s support with a significant portion of his base.
Read more by Mike Flynn at Breitbart.com
If the citizens of this Republic still took the Constitution seriously, Obama would be impeached for his decision to unilaterally grant amnesty to certain illegal aliens.
Article 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution, which enumerates the power of Congress, states that “Congress shall have the Power To… establish an [sic] uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Congress has passed numerous laws pertaining to immigration and naturalization, including laws requiring the deportation of illegals.
The role of the President, according to Article II, Sec. 3, is to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Obama’s refusal to execute Congress’s immigration laws (or, for that matter, Congress’s Defense of Marriage Act) is an impeachable offense. Article II, Sec. 4 states that the President “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for… Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The deliberate failure to enforce valid immigration law and allow hordes of foreigners to live and work in the U.S. is, arguably, “treason,” and doing so in an election year to appease Hispanic voters could certainly be considered “bribery.”
Read more by Michael Filozof at American Thinker
–SNIP– But after the Obama administration and its media allies crowed that the court ruling was a win, their fury over their loss on the one provision became obvious.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that the administration would cut off ties to Arizona’s police and end provisions of seven 287(g) task force agreements that gave some Arizona police agencies powers to enforce immigration laws.
The vindictive, disproportionate response effectively isolates the state in terms of being far more stringent than anything the administration has inflicted on Burma, North Korea or Iran.
–SNIP– It goes to show that the court ruling was never a question of federal law trumping state law, as the administration has spun its argument in court, but of election-year pandering for the Latino vote.
The whole federal conflict with Arizona has come about not because Arizona wanted to make its own laws contradicting federal law, but because it wanted to enforce federal laws itself.
What does it say about the Obama administration’s priorities that it effectively scraps its sworn pledge to uphold the law, usurps the legislative function by ignoring federal laws, punishes those who comply and puts its own re-election first?
Read more at Investors Business Daily
. . . are becoming clearer. As this CIS report notes, 1) The decree doesn’t just apply to illegal immigrants who were “brought to this country by their parents.” It also would give work permits to those who snuck across the border by themselves as teenagers. “Through no fault of their own” is a talking point for DREAM proselytizers, not an actual legal requirement. 2) The same goes for the phrase “and know only this country as home.” That’s a highly imaginative riff on the decree’s actual requirement, which is for 5 years “continuous residence.” It turns out “continuous residence” doesn’t mean what you think it means. “Immigration attorneys have been successful in getting immigration courts to whittle this down to a point where it is almost meaningless,” says CIS’s Jon Feere. As an illegal immigrant you can go back homeabroad for multiple 6-month stints during those five years–but, if precedent holds, in Janet Napolitano’s eyes you will still “know only this country as home.”
By Mickey Kaus at the Daily Caller
–SNIP– The Founders set the course in a simple, concise, 35-word affirmation — the president’s top job is to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution. The chief executive does, of course, have other responsibilities, but his guardianship of the document they had just written was deemed by the Founders to be of such great import that they made him swear it — aloud, in front of witnesses.
–SNIP– Little did they know then that 128 years later, America would face just that: a domestic threat to the U.S. Constitution.
From the very beginning, the president and his administration made clear they had no intention of enforcing laws they didn’t like. Mr. Obama and his minions decided that they would simply stop enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act, no longer prosecute growers of “medical” marijuana, and let some states walk away from provisions in the No Child Left Behind law (which, by the way, was co-authored by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, and passed the Senate by a 91-8 vote).
Mr. Obama’s Justice Department has even more flagrantly flouted the laws of the land. Out of the blue, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., . . .
Read more by Curl at WashingtonTimes.com
I asked the same question in an update to Erika’s post on Barack Obama’s unilateral move to accommodate young illegal immigrants by refusing to deport them and issue them temporary work permits instead. With potentially as many as 800,000 new workers flooding into the system, what happens to the millions of Americans who can’t find work now? The Washington Post wonders the same thing, and more:
Read more by Ed Morrissey at HotAir.com
Three unanimous Supreme Court decisions against the government suggest that the administration has a faulty view of federal power.
As the world awaits the Supreme Court’s ruling on ObamaCare, there’s a larger story that the pundits are missing: the court’s rejection of the Obama administration’s increasingly extreme claims on behalf of unlimited federal power.
This term alone, the high court has ruled unanimously against the government on religious liberty, criminal procedure and property rights. When the administration can’t get even a single one of the liberal justices to agree with it in these unrelated areas of the law, that’s a sign there’s something wrong with its constitutional vision.
Let’s take these cases in order:
Rea more By ILYA SHAPIRO at Wall Street Journal