Appeals Court Denies Bid to Let Obama Immigration Plan Proceed
by Julia Preston
A federal appeals court on Tuesday denied the Obama administration’s request to lift a hold on the president’s executive actions on immigration, which would have granted protection from deportation as well as work permits to millions of immigrants in the country illegally.
Two of three judges on a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, left in place an injunction by a Federal District Court judge in Brownsville, Tex. The ruling comes in a lawsuit filed by Texas and 25 other states against actions President Obama took in November. Many of the initiatives were scheduled to take effect this month.
Translation: 26 states took Obama to court objecting to Obama’s assumption of powers he didn’t truly possess and the Federal District Court in Texas agreed. Today’s ruling by the 5th Circuit upheld that initial ruling.
Cue the crying.
Hand the Spite House and the Demorats a hankie.
Charles Krauthammer nails the truth once more.
Obama won’t be taking any blows from this, unless it involves Reggie Love late at night in darkened and closed quarters far from Michelle.
Kern County sheriff a defiant California maverick on immigration
by Kate Linchicum
Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood was hiking along the bluffs overlooking Bakersfield last year when he got a call from Gov. Jerry Brown.
“What are you trying to do to me?” the sheriff said Brown asked him.
“What are you trying to do to me?” Youngblood shot back.
A Republican in one of the reddest counties in the state, Youngblood had riled the Democratic governor when he announced that his department would defy the Trust Act, a law signed by Brown that restricts cooperation between local law enforcement officials and federal immigration agents.
The sheriff said the law put him in an impossible position, stuck between a federal program that relies on local jails to hold inmates who might be deportable and a state law that says inmates in jail for low-level crimes can’t be detained past their release dates.
Apparently what Brown fails to realize is that federal law, generally, trumps Fornicalia law.
That kind of stance has won him enemies in California’s immigrant-rights movement and frequent comparisons to Joe Arpaio, the brash Arizona sheriff notorious for his workplace raids and ID checks.
Imagine that. However, Sheriff Youngblood nails it in the next paragraph:
The federal government should start enforcing immigration laws — or write new ones, he said. He criticized President Obama’s new deportation policies, which say most immigrants who have not committed serious crimes and have fewer than three minor crimes on their records should not be priorities for removal.
“You’re in this country illegally and we’re going to give you three bites of the apple? That’s three victims!” Youngblood said. “If you commit crimes, you oughta go.”
Sheriff Youngblood stating the obvious: either enforce what’s on your books, federal government, or completely re-write them. Make a decision and commit. There’s a reason, however, the federal government refuses to commit.
He has largely refused to sign paperwork that immigrant crime victims need to apply for U visas, which allow some victims to stay in the country lawfully. As president of the Major County Sheriffs’ Assn., a national advocacy group, he has asked Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to share data with police so patrol officers can determine whether the person they stop may be in the country illegally.
How odd that a major Fornicalia law enforcement officer dares to display courage in today’s political environment.
Youngblood argues that Brown and the Legislature were interfering when they passed the Trust Act. Conflicting state and federal mandates put sheriffs like him “in the crosshairs,” he said.
“It’s unfair, because the law is so unclear,” Youngblood said. “Really what we’re looking for is clear law, clear direction.”
The law is so unclear. The Demorats wish it that way for one reason only: votes, in order to hold the state and the nation in perpetuity.
Because, after all, if it’s good enough for Harry Reid, it’s good enough for me.
It’s also apparently good enough for Louisiana Senator David Vitter:
Vitter happened to quote from another figure who advocated for the end of birthright citizenship: Harry Reid.
In 1993, Reid introduced S.1351, called the Immigrant Stabilization Act. As you can see when you click the link, this bill was proposed solely by Reid himself, fully credited.
Reid said then, in a 1993 speech:
If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and guarantee full access to all public and social services this society provides. And that is a lot of services.
Reid is entirely correct. Vitter agrees. And so do I, wholeheartedly. Reid continued:
Is it any wonder that two-thirds of the babies born at taxpayer expense in county-run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers?”
No wonder at all. True then and true now. Want proof of Reid’s words? Here it is:
Reid later verbally regretted the move in 1999. That was because he realized he was moving closer and closer to more true power in DC and his seniority in the Demorat Party helped immensely. Demorats counseled him to walk back his earlier remarks. Also, Nevada became flooded with illegal Mexicans, a firm expanding base of Demorat voters who filled the mandatory two-pronged ideal: 1) ignorant and 2) needy, not independent.
And nothing smells better to a Demorat than another ignorant, needy, Mexican voter.
Demography is prophecy. As such, we are well on our way to turning the Left Coast into what Victor Davis Hanson calls “Mexifornia.” That is to say: purposely “importing” the same ignorant mindset that has turned Mexico into the southern country from which people have, for decades, wanted to escape. DC is purposely importing unskilled, uneducated and disease-ridden illegals into the United States. For one reason only: votes.
When illegal children began flooding our southern border in huge waves roughly two years ago, is it any surprise whatsoever that diseases the US hadn’t seen in any kind of significant numbers shot skywards? TB? Pertussis? Swine flu? Dengue? Measles? All over the US? DC purposely took those children and hid them in communities all around the states, refusing to tell anyone what they had done and where they had stashed those children, in order to hide them. Then it lied about the statistics.
Like Vitter, like the younger Harry Reid, I too support the end of “anchor babies” and birthright citizenship.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
But: does the 14th absolutely guarantee birthright citizenship?
RUMOR: The 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to children born to parents illegally in the U.S.
FACT: The current law that grants automatic citizenship to children born to illegal aliens is Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1401, which uses language similar to the 14th Amendment, regarding persons born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Critics argue that automatic birthright citizenship could be changed by revoking the statute. Others say it would require a constitutional amendment because they believe the 14th Amendment requires birthright citizenship. However, nobody can say what the 14th Amendment means until the Supreme Court interprets it. The court has not done that (The 19th century case – United States v. Wong Kim Ark – that some outlets are reporting concerned a legal Chinese immigrant).
The Birthright Citizenship Act would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act – not the constitution – to consider a person born in the United States “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States for citizenship at birth purposes if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is: (1) a U.S. citizen or national; (2) a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States; or (3) an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces.
And there you go. Just a modicum of logic used.
I say: end automatic “anchor babies” and birthright citizenship.”
Leftists will squeal like stuck pigs.
Because: there goes their ignorant and needy voting base.
Father Asks Obama to Use Executive Order to Bring Son Slain by Illegal Alien Back to Life
by Matthew Boyle
A grieving father is asking President Barack Obama to bring his son, who was killed by an illegal alien, back to life with an executive order on immigration.
“While your Executive Order pad is out, can you write one to bring my son and the tens of thousands (actually over 100,000) killed by illegal aliens back to life and to bring our destroyed families back together?” asks Don Rosenberg in a letter to Obama. His son Drew was killed by an illegal alien who ran over him in 2010.
In the letter, Rosenberg notes that President Obama’s administration refused to deport the illegal alien who killed his son.
“I know that shortly you will be issuing some sort of Executive Order protecting millions of lawbreakers, many of whom have killed people but all of whom share some responsibility for those killed,” Rosenberg wrote. “I know that you want to prevent their families from being separated. By the way, your administration refused to deport the man who killed my son. I was told, ‘He’s only committed one crime of moral turpitude.’”
What do you think the chances are that Mr Obama will respond?