Nancy Pelosi: “Trump’s Immigration Plan is a Campaign to Make America White Again!”

PELOSI - Trump's Plan is Campaign to Make America White Again

by Diane Rufino, January 28, 2018

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) slammed President Trump’s framework for immigration reform that was submitted to lawmakers on Capitol Hill last Thursday, as he promised to do. The deranged, self-admitted “progressive left Democrat” vomited her opinion of the framework in a public statement: “Last night, the President put forth a plan….  That plan is a campaign to make America white again.”

She continued to spew the rantings of a demented diseased mind: “The Administration’s anti-immigrant framework is an act of staggering cowardice which attempts to hold the DREAMers hostage to a hateful anti-immigrant scheme. The 50 percent cut to legal immigration in the framework and the recent announcements to end Temporary Protected Status for Central Americans and Haitians are both part of the same cruel agenda. The DREAMers will not be ransomed for a hateful agenda that betrays our sacred American values.”As with the rest of “progressive left Democrats,” Pelosi has no clue whatsoever what “our country’s sacred American values are.”

 

Most of us in the Tea Party movement and in other conservative movements – as well as on shows like Tucker Carlson and Mark Levin – have spoken about how offensive the Democrat Party has become and how anti-America it has become over the years. In order to advance the Democrat Party, its leaders and members must trash America. There are enough single-issue voters, far too many ignorant and dependent-on-government individuals, and a growing number of social and psychological/biological misfits out there… conservative values stand in their way of living a life without producing anything or contributing anything, of getting other people’s money, or living their perverse lifestyles. They hate religion, they hate the notion of studying honest history (god forbid they learn something and it makes sense!), they hate the notion of education in general and being prepared to take a meaningful place in the workforce, they hate the notion of personal responsibility, they hate the notion of a stable traditional nuclear family, and they hate the fact that people cling to time-honored truths and values such as biology and the greatest obligation of a human being – to have and properly raise their next generation. Progressive Democrats must trash religion, the Constitution, our founding fathers, our founding principles, historic figures, and our history itself (except, of course, slavery. That topic must be emphasized again and again and again and again. Every time period in history must be de-emphasized EXCEPT for slavery and Jim Crow). They need poverty; they need people who live below the poverty line, and they need people who are content to live in poverty. People like that will never question anything as long as entitlement checks and programs support them.

Pelosi and Schumer, and in fact, almost the entire Democrat Party, take the side of illegals over the interests and concerns of American citizens. These party leaders live as royalty in this country and have no idea how illegal immigration is affecting our day-to-day lives, our communities, and even our ability to live an existence that isn’t consumed by politics and political correctness. Sanctuary cities… really???  Who really thinks this is a good idea? A jury that couldn’t provide justice for Kate Seinle….  Is it any wonder why it hardly feels like America anymore??  Day after day we learn about the deaths of innocent children – legal Americans – at the hand of illegals, including DREAMers, and the families that will forever grieve, and as well as other violent crime, including an increase in the drug traffic. They don’t talk about this aspect of illegal immigration. The liberal media doesn’t focus on any of this. They want Americans to believe that DREAMers and illegal immigrants are good and decent and loving and productive individuals, and a benefit to our country. They criticize those who point out the deaths and the violence and the increase in drugs and claim that a few bad examples must not condemn the entire population of DREAMers or illegals. Yet they had no problem condemning all those who voted for Donald Trump as “deplorables” and “racists.” They have no problem labeling all conservatives as “racist,” “islamophobic,” “homophobic,” “xenophobic,” and now, as “white supremacists.”

They give you the impression that DREAMers are just like other Americans and are on their way to contributing to our country. But they neglect to mention some very telling statistics about DREAMers. DREAMers have a 21% high-school drop-out rate. The national average is 5.1%. In Arizona, DREAMrs commit crime at two times the rate of ordinary legal citizens. And then there are the plain facts that Democrats find completely unimportant: that illegal immigration costs the US taxpayer $116 billion and it leaves our country open to those who mean to harm us and our children

Legal Americans dream too. But the Democrat Party doesn’t care about them, unless, of course, they are minorities, poor, and need something from government. Legal Americans dream that the country will be a decent place for them to live and that when they finish their education, find a job, build a career, start a family, and live a good and decent life that government won’t plunder their paychecks to subsidize those who can’t and won’t provide for themselves. Those who are citizens of the United States are guaranteed the “opportunity” to live the American Dream. That opportunity is increased the more the individual has some resources and is willing to get the education and use the ambition to seek it. That’s all they – we – are guaranteed. Our legal DREAMers want that opportunity – not reduced because others, not even entitled, are being offered it too. Those here illegally, no matter how they got here and no matter how heartbreaking the situation, are not ENTITLED to anything..  not to automatic citizenship and not to the American Dream. They MAY apply to become a legal citizen.

Legal citizenship comes with certain rights and privileges, such as protection under the US Constitution and access to our education and social programs, including healthcare. It also comes with a burden – a citizen must pay federal incomes taxes and live according to all the laws of the land, federal and state. Illegals want the best of both worlds – protection under our laws and access to education and social programs, but without the obligation of obeying our laws.

For those who are unclear as to what the term “DREAMer” stands for, it refers to those individuals, aged 18 or younger, who came to this country by their (illegal) parents. Because they came here through no fault of their own and have come to think of the United States as their home, Democrats (and Republicans like Lindsey Graham) have sought a plan to establish a  path to citizenship for them, known as the DREAM Act. Since 2001, Democrats have tried to pass a Dream Act but have never been successful in doing so. In 2012, President Obama was frustrated that Congress would not give him a bill, as he demanded, and so, as he promised, he used his pen to create an equivalent program. He signed an Executive Order creating the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), a program that gave the head of Homeland Security the discretion to protect them (as a class) from deportation. DACA, even though it was an unconstitutional exercise of presidential power, must be renewed every two years, and President Trump has announced he would not renew it. Hence, the outcry from Democrats for a DREAM Act – a law protecting them by providing them a path to citizenship (amnesty).

Nancy Pelosi stands for everything ordinary Americans stand against. Every time she opens her mouth, she makes the case that our government is comprised of a bunch of useless bunch of individuals who care more about the longevity of their party than the longevity of our country. She is profoundly offensive.

Equally offensive are the protests of DREAMers and other illegals in response to the proposed Immigration plan that President Trump released on Thursday. Guaranteed citizenship (amnesty), albeit according to a 10-12 year timeline, is not good enough for them. Being protected under this plan from deportation is not good enough for them. I see Democrats are creating yet another class of ENTITLED individuals. God knows we already have too many of them of that kind already.

 

VIDEO:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwP_gB4bghs

 

Advertisements

Comparing Obama’s Amnesty Plan to the Emancipation Proclamation

AMNESTY  by Diane Rufino

According to Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, President Obama’s plan to excuse the illegal action of millions of immigrants not unlike Abraham Lincoln’s effort to free slaves.  At first I thought it was a joke.  And then I remembered two things: Nancy Pelosi is an idiot and has no sense of humor.

In a press conference on November 20, Nancy Pelosi said: “Does the public know that the Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order?  People have to understand how presidents have made change in our country.”   She continued: “Remember, President Lincoln said, ‘public sentiment is everything… I wish the Republicans would at least give the public a chance to listen to what the president is trying to do.”

Listening to the people is exactly what the President should do….   Maybe he already forgot, but the election this month can be seen as a complete rejection of his policies. Republicans just won complete control of both the House and Senate for the session that will begin in January.  Voters turned out to do what they see as an urgency…. to turn out government leaders who are willing to support the President in his agenda on immigration, healthcare, and more.  The urgency in this election was not to grant amnesty to “fix the immigration problem” but to PREVENT the President from doing so.

Perhaps Nancy Pelosi looked to President Lincoln for a new Democratic talking point because, after all, Lincoln was a tyrant and consolidated executive power to act extraordinarily in extraordinary circumstances. But I question whether our current broken immigration situation amounts to an “extraordinary circumstance.” The only reason we have this current immigration problem is because the government has refused to enforce immigration laws, an express enumerated power delegated to it.  The government can’t use a crisis of its own making as a reason to invoke unconstitutional powers.

Just because one president overstepped the law doesn’t mean another president should.  The people are entitled to a government that is restrained by its charter.  The American people are entitled to a government that operates within its boundaries so they can be comforted that government acts consistently, legally, and not in violation of their rights and interests.  Nancy Pelosi likes to think that Presidents can define issues as “crises” and thereby usurp power to address them. And then she believes that this type of conduct makes a President “great.”  That type of power grab made Adolph Hitler a monster.  That type of power grab made Abraham Lincoln a tyrant and gave rise to all-powerful government rather than a subordinate one. Luckily for the government, the party that wins a war has the luxury of writing the history books, providing the talking points, re-writing its reasons for the bloodshed, and demonizing the other side.  The admiration the country has for Abraham Lincoln has everything to do with the great debt the government owes to him and how his legacy has been defined.

So, what’s the real story behind the Executive Order?  Abraham Lincoln issued a preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on September 22, 1862. This date was chosen to coincide with the news of the battle at Antietam, near the village of Sharpsburg, Maryland. Antietam is infamously known as being the bloodiest single day of fighting in the Civil War. Although the battle is officially recognized as a stalemate, the North attempted to claim it as their victory. Hence, it would be a perfect time for Lincoln to tie a northern victory with the emancipation of slaves. The preliminary Emancipation Proclamation stipulated that if the Southern states did not cease their rebellion by January 1st, 1863, then the Proclamation would go into effect. According to Lincoln, if the slaves were being forced to aid the Confederate war machine, by working in the fields and hauling armaments and building fortifications, he would act in his capacity as commander-in-chief to liberate that labor. When the Confederacy did not yield, Lincoln issued the final Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. U.S. Navy General Order No. 4, issued on January 1, 1863 declared “that all persons held as slaves” within the rebellious states “are, and henceforward shall be free.”  It was issued as the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war and as the North continued to watch its defeat at the hands of the South.  With the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1863, Lincoln decided to go one step further.  He would not only to free the slaves outside of Union-controlled areas but also to enlist any black man as a soldier in the Union army.  Thus black men could be part of the movement to liberate those in bondage.

The Emancipation Proclamation broadened the goals of the Civil War. While slavery had been a major issue that instigated tensions between the North and the South, Lincoln’s only mission at the start of the war was to keep the Union together. The Proclamation made freeing the slaves an explicit goal of the Union war effort, and was a step toward abolishing slavery and conferring full citizenship upon ex-slaves.  But make no mistake, the measure was not inspired by any affection for the slave or any stirring ambition to see them free in white-dominated society.  It was a cold calculated initiative to undermine the South.  Although the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in the nation, it captured the hearts and imagination of the slaves who were held as property in the South. It encouraged insurrection among the slaves against their white plantation owners (who, at the time, were mostly women and children). It eroded the loyalty and devotion of confederate soldiers because now their attention was torn between the war and between their families at home with this new threat from slaves who are encouraged to undermine the confederate war effort. Furthermore, the sooner the uprising could occur, and the greater the confederate effort could be undermined, the sooner the opportunity for local slaves to be liberated.  After January 1, 1863, every advance and victory of federal troops would bring freedom to the slaves in the South.    of undermining the confederate effort were almost.  After January 1, 1863, every advance of federal troops would offer them immediate freedom. And again, the Proclamation announced the acceptance of black men into the Union Army and Navy, enabling the liberated to become liberators. [By the end of the war, almost 200,000 black soldiers and sailors had fought for the Union and freedom].

The Emancipation Proclamation was solely designed to energize the war effort because the North was still losing at that point, and losing badly. Far greater numbers of Northern soldiers were being killed in the many battles than Confederate soldiers.  But the Proclamation lacked any force of law with respect to actual emancipation.  First, it purported to free slaves in territory that no longer was under the jurisdiction of the United States government. The southern states had seceded from the Union and immediately formed the Confederate States of America, a new and independent, sovereign nation.  The only way slaves could be emancipated was if the North won the war. Second, the Emancipation ignored legislation that Congress had passed and Constitutional provisions regarding slavery and slaves, including the controversial Fugitive Slave Laws.  True, Congress (lacking any members from Southern states) moved towards limiting slavery and freeing slaves, but it refused to do so in the states.  Their measures only applied to territories. As in the antebellum era, Congress adamantly refused to legislate regarding slavery in the states. The issue was deemed a state prerogative on which Congress had little or no constitutional authority.

The constitutional question is whether President Lincoln overstepped his authority in signing the Executive Order – U.S. Navy General Order No. 4.  As President and Chief Executive, the Proclamation was an assault on Congress as the law-making branch of government.  And he seems to have understood that.  He seems to have understood that the federal government’s power to end slavery in peacetime was limited by the Constitution, which before 1865, committed the issue to individual states (through the Article V amendment process). But with the Civil War going on, Lincoln issued the Proclamation under his authority as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, outlined in Article II, section 2 of the US Constitution.  As such, he claimed to have the martial power to free persons held as slaves in those states that were in rebellion “as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion.”  In other words, his position was that Congress lacked power to free all slaves within the borders of rebel held states, but as Commander-in-Chief, he could do so if he deemed it a proper military measure.  He did not have this authority over the four slave-holding states that were not in rebellion.

The only way Lincoln could support this approach is if he completely ignored the articles of secession of the eleven southern states that decided, in special convention, to issue in order to legally separate themselves from the government of the United States – exactly as the 13 original states did with the Declaration of Independence to dissolve their bonds of allegiance with Great Britain.  In fact, the wording of several of the Ordinances of Secession are designed very much after the Declaration (just so that the Lincoln administration should have no doubt about their intentions).  Furthermore, to support his approach, Lincoln would have to completely ignore the status of the Confederate States of America as a new, independent, and sovereign country.  He would have to ignore their Constitution, which was based almost exclusively on the US Constitution, except for provisions regarding the power to enforce protective tariffs and slavery.

During the time of the Civil War, the US Congress took up the issue of slavery.  In January 1862, Thaddeus Stevens, one of the leaders of the Radical Republican faction of the Republican Party and the Republican leader in the House, called for total war against the South to include emancipation of slaves, arguing that emancipation, by forcing the loss of enslaved labor, would ruin the economy of the South.  On March 13, 1862, Congress approved a “Law Enacting an Additional Article of War”, which stated that from that point onward it was forbidden for Union Army officers to return fugitive slaves to their owners.  On April 10, 1862, Congress declared that the federal government would compensate slave owners who freed their slaves. Without the South in the Union and without any members of Congress from the South to represent its interests, there apparently was no need to respect the Fugitive Slave provision of the Constitution. (Slaves in the District of Columbia were freed on April 16, 1862, and their owners were compensated).  On June 19, 1862, Congress prohibited slavery in all current and future United States territories (though not in the states), and President Lincoln quickly signed the legislation. By this act, they repudiated – nullified – the 1857 decision by the US Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, which announced that Congress was powerless to regulate slavery in U.S. territories

So the question is whether the power President Lincoln assumed as Commander-in-Chief allowed him to act outside of the Constitution’s structure of separation of powers and checks and balances during the Civil War.  I would submit that he didn’t.  He merely wanted to extend to those collateral parties to the war – the slaves – a vested interest in fighting for the North and undermining the effort of the South.  It was sabotage by usurpation.

Is Nancy Pelosi starting this Democratic talking point for the same reason Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation?   Are they hoping that Ohama’s amnesty plan will energize those here illegally?  Are they hoping to sabotage our rule of law by claiming there is precedent for unconstitutional executive actions?

Well, perhaps in this regard, the President’s amnesty plan is designed to resemble the Emancipation Proclamation.

Let’s go back to President Obama’s plan for the amnesty of 5 million illegal immigrants. In light of the recent election and voter mandate (he got slaughtered in the election!)  and despite a recent Rasmussen poll which shows that 62% of Americans do NOT want the president to act on immigration reform without the approval of Congress,  the president signed two Executive Orders yesterday, November 21, onboard Air Force One (en route to Las Vegas).  The Executive Orders would delay deportation for millions of illegal immigrants. They will grant “deferred action” to two illegal immigrant groups – (1) parents of US citizens or legal permanent residents who have been in the country for five years, and (2) young people who were brought into the country illegally as of 2010. During his televised 15-minute primetime speech Thursday evening from the East Room of the White House, Obama said his administration will start accepting applications from illegal immigrants who seek the deferred actions. Those who qualify will be granted protections for three years.

It’s no wonder that Obama has chosen to go to Las Vegas for his first stop in drumming up support for his plan.  Hispanics are a growing and powerful constituency in Nevada.

In general, the American people seem confused as to what an Executive Order is, what applicability is has, and how much authority the President has to issue them.  If you look at social media and blog responses, those who support Obama’s amnesty plan claim that Obama is only being criticized unfairly because he is black and as proof, they cite the fact that President Bush signed far more Executive Orders.  This is a typical liberal response, lacking in any fact or logic. Yes, President Bush signed a butt-load of Executive Orders (and we’re talking Kim Kardashian size butt loads). But each executive order is different. A president can issue an executive order to clarify his position, to further manage “executive” operations, give directions, give instructions, make declarations, make proclamations (like the one to establish the National Day of Prayer), give directives, etc. They are mainly for clarification and for instructions. They further explain something that Congress has passed. When Executive Orders are pursuant to valid Constitutional powers, they have the force of law. But Executive Orders are ALWAYS subject to the Separation of Powers doctrine. The President can NEVER assume powers not granted to him under Article II.

In 1950, North Korean troops invaded the Republic of Korea. Backed by a UN Resolution, President Truman sent U.S. troops to aid South Korea. He did not ask for a declaration of war from Congress. Because of the “war,” demand increased for steel and prices had risen.  As steel prices rose, the steel worker union, the United Steel Workers of America, threatened a strike unless they received a wage increase.  President Truman believed that it would be a disaster for the nation if steel production were stopped and he ordered his Secretary of Commerce to take control of and operate the steel mills.  Truman wanted to make sure that the military effort in Korea would not be disrupted.

The steel mill owners believed President Truman’s seizure was unconstitutional because it was not authorized by any law and they took it to the Supreme Court. Truman argued that his position as Commander-in-Chief gave him the necessary power to seize and operate the mills. (Sounds similar to what Lincoln did with the Emancipation Proclamation). In 1951, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the landmark case known as Youngstown Steel v. Sawyer.  This is an important case and one that is certainly studied in law school. The Court struck down President Truman’s Executive Order and through its decision (full of cajones), it helped to curb presidential power. Perhaps it was an attempt to push back against presidents (like FDR and Truman, thinking themselves untouchable because of their management of the war) who had greatly sought to enlarge the powers of the Executive. The Court disagreed with Truman and held that neither the Constitution nor any act of Congress allowed the President to take over the steel mills. “The President’s power, if any, to issue the order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” There had been no act of Congress, so the Court turned to the Constitution. The Court ruled that the President’s role of Commander in Chief power did not authorize the action, and neither did the “several constitutional provisions that grant executive power to the President. In the framework of our Constitution, the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker.”  In other words, his power to see that the laws are faithfully executed should NOT be confused with the power to make law in the first place.

The ruling was based on the Constitution’s Separation of Powers doctrine. Legal scholars point out that the Court did not rule that any seizure would have been unconstitutional. Rather, Truman’s actions were unconstitutional because he did not have any legislative authority.

The case stands for the bright line rule that a President CANNOT act where Congress has decided NOT to act.

Another argument pushed by supporters of the president’s Executive Order, including Nancy Pelosi herself, is that Obama is not doing anything that Ronald Reagan didn’t do when he was president, in deferring the removal of certain immigrants.  I believe there is a clear difference though. Congress had passed sweeping immigration reform legislation in 1986, granting full-blown amnesty.  In Obama’s case, Congress hasn’t passed any immigration reform.  I would remind folks to visit the Youngstown Steel case.

In 1986, Congress passed a full-blown amnesty, the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, conferring residency rights on some 3 million people. Simpson-Mazzoli was sold as a “once and for all” solution to the illegal immigration problem but ended up being riddled with fraud. It was passed as immediate amnesty with strict enforcement measures to be put in place for the future. Unfortunately, the bill failed to anticipate the situation where certain members of a single family qualified for amnesty while others did not.  Nobody wanted to deport the still-illegal husband of a newly legalized wife. Reagan’s Executive Order attempted to address this situation and tidy up Congress’ immigration scheme.  The public didn’t view it to a unilateral initiative to reform immigration and it was not seen as controversial.

In other words, Ronald Reagan acted in conjunction with Congress and in furtherance of a congressional purpose.  Obama is intentionally ignoring Congressional purpose.

The executive action by President Obama, however, would follow not an act of Congress but a prior executive action of his own.  Remember when he suspended enforcement against the so-called “dreamers” by Executive Order in June 2012.  The 2012 Executive Order announced a change in immigration policy; the government would stop deportations and begin granting work permits for some Dream Act-eligible students.  The policy change applied (applies) to young undocumented immigrants who entered the United States as children, following along the same lines as the Dream Act, a bill that passed in the House of Representatives but failed in the Senate in 2010.  (Dream Act-eligible young people are referred to as “DREAMers”).

AMNESTY #2

No one from the left seems to care about what lies at the very core of the president’s actions.  Let’s be clear….  President Obama has NO authority to do what he wants to do – to grant legal rights to illegal immigrants.  But never-mind the substantive issue here, the President has NO right to sidestep Congress and to ignore the Constitution. He has no right to rule by fiat and he has no right to act like a King. No matter where a person stands on the issue of amnesty, it is the conduct by this president and the audacity with which he approaches the job that should make every American fuming mad.

The lies, the accusation, and the frivolous comparisons to Ronald Reagan are bad enough.  But when I hear folks out there comparing the Amnesty plan to the Emancipation Proclamation and illegal immigrants to slaves, I want to scream. I want to remind those on the left who the REAL slaves are, because they really don’t have a clue.  The real slaves are the tax-paying middle class who aren’t exempt from the federal income tax scam but aren’t rich enough to have any lobbying power or ability to bribe anyone for favors.  They are the workers…  the ones who get up each day, ride a bus, train, plane, etc to work so they can pay for a house, college, car, clothes, food, and to support the kids that they carefully planned to have. The slaves are the ones who pay taxes at the expense of those who don’t but have no say in how their money (their property) is used to increasingly allow those deadbeats to live more comfortably.  The slaves are the ones who are forced to pay for the healthcare plans of those who, in great part, don’t give a rat’s ass about their health or how to improve it.  The slaves are the ones whose kids who kids can’t get into top-notch schools based on their high grade point averages because they are not a minority.  The slaves are the ones who have to save all their receipts and fill out lots of paperwork each April, hoping that the government won’t send a letter accusing them of not paying enough, while welfare recipients can use their money (OUR money) to buy cigarettes, alcohol, and luxury items, and go to gambling casinos.  Slaves are the ones who take voting seriously and go to the ballot box well-informed of the issues and with skin in the game but immediately have their votes cancelled out by ones that are cast by low-information voters without skin in the game for the sole purpose of making sure they continue to get what the other voters can provide to them.  But most importantly, slaves are the ones who, because they pay taxes and have files with the IRS, are forced to censor themselves and refrain from protest for fear that the government will use their henchmen (the IRS) to audit and otherwise harass them.

The real slaves want the President to uphold the Constitution and stop trying to make a mockery of it.

As mentioned earlier, the Emancipation Proclamation carried no legal authority and freed no one, and so in this sense, I hope that Obama’s lawless behavior will be recognized similarly and have similar results.

Watch:
Nancy Pelosi Compares Obama’s Amnesty Bill to Emancipation Proclamation – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNxglS1E3pc

Nancy Pelosi to GOP on Immigration Action: ‘Look to Ronald Reagan, Your Hero’  –   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYLrmnW3JHo  (“The President’s Actions are as good as it can be under the law…. That doesn’t mean we wouldn’t like to have a bill….  “  Nancy Pelosi)

References:
Billy House, “Pelosi Compares Obama Immigration Order to Emancipation Proclamation,” National Journal, November 20, 2014. http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/pelosi-compares-obama-immigration-order-to-emancipation-proclamation-20141120.

Henry L. Chambers Jr., “Lincoln, the Emancipation Proclamation, and Executive Power,” Maryland Law Review, Vol 73, Issue 1, Article 6 (2013. http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3599&context=mlr   or http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol73/iss1/6

The Emancipation Proclamation, the Navy Department Library.  http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq57-2.htm

Gabriel Malor, “No, Reagan Did Not Offer an Amnesty by Illegal Executive Action,” The Federalist, November 20, 2014.  http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/20/no-reagan-did-not-offer-an-amnesty-by-lawless-executive-order/

David Frum, “Reagan and Bush Offer No Precedent for Obama’s Amnesty Order,” The Atlantic, November 18, 2014.   http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/11/the-weak-argument-defending-executive-amnesty/382906/

Appendix:

THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.  A PROCLAMATION.

WHEREAS, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a Proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:

“That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever, free; and the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of any such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

“That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States, by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such States shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States.”

Now, therefore, I, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do, publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof, respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terre Bonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the city of New Orleans,) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth,) and which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this Proclamation were not issued.

And by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States and parts of States are and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.

And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defense; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.

And I further declare and make known that such persons, of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.

And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgement of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-seventh.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

Audit the IRS Rally - June 19, 2013

by Diane Rufino (who attended the rally)

On Wednesday, June 19th, a protest event, termed “Audit the IRS” Rally, was held on the front lawn of the US Capitol to demand accountability for the actions of the Obama administration, in particular the IRS and Homeland Security for using the powers of government to intimidate, harass, and silence conservative organizations and ordinary Americans who have done nothing wrong. The actions of government have amounted to gross civil rights violations – the violation of the fundamental rights of free speech/expression and assembly (1st Amendment), conscience (1st Amendment), and privacy (4th Amendment), as well as interference with the right to vote. It’s ironic that Voter ID laws must be cleared by the DOJ so that the government can make sure minorities are not harmed in any way in the exercise of their right to vote but the same government can directly stand in the way of conservatives trying to vote and get involved in the election process.

The protest event featured about 20-30 Congressmen, FreedomWorks activists, Restore America’s Voice, Americans for Prosperity, Patriot Action Network, Brent Bozell, authors, Tea Party leaders, victims of IRS inquisitions, and groups such as the ACLJ (American Center for Law & Justice; Jordan Sekulow) who are defending the rights of approximately 50 conservative groups which have been targeted by the government. The event’s featured speaker, however, was none other than Glenn Beck, who delivered a riveting speech outlining exactly what is at stake in the government’s concerted scheme to shut down political opposition. In a nutshell, Beck alleged that what is going on today is about the encroachment on American’s civil rights from an abusive tyrannical government and outlined how we need to get back to our founding principles to win this battle against the progressive agenda which ultimately seeks to transform our system from one that protects the rights of the individual to one that seeks to govern for the best of the collective.

Audit the IRS Rally (Glenn Beck) - June 19, 2013

In part, Beck delivered the following comments:

      “Today, inside, they dedicated a new statue of another American giant, Fredrick Douglas – a man born into slavery, but who knew instinctively that he was not born a slave. No man is.

      To keep a man a slave you do much the same as the cruel circus masters did to the elephant around the turn of last century. Clamp heavy chains around their legs and stake them to the ground. Then beat and terrorize them. After a while you no longer even have to stake the chain; the elephant gives up and just the mere rattle of the chain convinces the elephant there is no hope, so they give up and do whatever it is the circus requires.

      Fredrick Douglas was lucky enough to live in a house where he was taught to read, write and think. He knew God did not make men masters over others. Nor did he ever intend any man to impose unrighteous dominion over another man or beast.

      It is time we remind ourselves of this truth again, and begin to rise up against the intimidation before the handful of peanuts from our new political circus masters is considered a kindness and not the symbol of evil cruelty.

      In the building behind me, they are now excusing storing all data, phone calls, financial transactions, geotracking on every American for our “safety,” while allowing anyone to cross our borders either on foot or in underground tunnels without any worry or consequence. They have not suspended or fired but promoted those at the IRS who rattled the chains of control to any group that disagreed with their policies. Whatever the reason, too many are no longer willing to call evil by its name.

      Someone has always been on the losing end of the stick of power. Blacks are the most obvious, the Chinese, the Native Americans, but let’s not forget the Irish, the Catholics, the Mormons, the Jews, and now it seems that all those of faith who will not conform are the targets. Man doesn’t vanquish hatred or bigotry. The target keeps moving. From the blacks to the Irish. Atheists to Christians.

       But as always, there are a few leaders: Ben Franklin, John Quincy Adams, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Abraham Lincoln, Fredrick Douglas, Booker T. Washington, Gandhi and Martin Luther King. They know that the march toward freedom never ends; man must be ever-vigilant and pray less with his lips and more with his legs. They never forget that truth, justice, and freedom are the wellspring from which the waters of man’s civil rights come. And so they must be upheld for all men – those you know, those you do not, and maybe more importantly — they must be upheld for those who you do know but do not like or agree with at all. If they are lost for one, in the end they are lost for all.

      In the past, these historic stands which we now call civil rights movements were done by a small but dedicated portion of our citizens which led to great shifts in our culture. The rights that so many Americans ignorantly preach about so often are not really their rights. They belong to God and they are given to us for stewardship. They are pretty important and obvious. So obvious that we used to say they were “self-evident,” meaning that humans don’t need to be taught; you instinctively know that you have a right not to be executed without a trial, held without charge, searched without warrant or spied upon without cause.

     The government is no longer the protector of those civil rights, and so we must be. When we are told that it is okay for the IRS, EPA, ATF, FBI or anyone to hassle, threaten or intimidate others because of their skin color, religion or political belief, we stop being the country that we all want to build, and start being the country the world should fear.

      Men may make progress, but man never changes. Man loves power and money. No matter the skin color, religion or income level. These symbols of our nation make men drunk with power, who then justify their lust for more by claiming they are public servants. The only difference between Las Vegas and Washington, D.C. is that at least Vegas has the decency to admit the town is full of hookers and crooks

      The long train of abuses regarding these rights are the same MLK marched against, and the very same our dusty Founders warned us about losing.

      We must sober up and admit that too many of the Republicans and the Democrats have played us, lied to us and stolen from us, while the getaway car was driven by the media. A media that can no longer claim with a straight face the role of journalist. Journalists print the things the powerful don’t want printed. What they do is public relations. Those PR firms will not print the truth about the average American who finds himself concerned with the direction of our country today.  So we must.  We are not violent.  We are not racist.  We are not anti-immigrant. We are not anti-government.  And we will not be silent anymore.

      We come today to declare our independence, to reaffirm our founding principles. We, as a nation, acknowledge a creator. We acknowledge that he gives certain natural, guaranteed rights to man. We declare that government exists primarily to protect these natural, God-given rights. He has established right and wrong. He is just and therefore, man must pay for his mistakes either now on Earth, or through God’s justice later.

      Those who wish to use unrighteous dominion over mankind are not enemies of ours; they are enemies of God, and He will not be silent much longer either. There is no such thing as social justice. Only God can balance things out, and we are not God. But honest and decent men can fight for and establish equal justice.

      We will no longer accept the lies, the corruption, or the information and data gathering. It is evil. And we come here today to send a message that we will surround all of those who wish to stand and break the cycle of corruption. We will use ourselves as shields to protect those in the system, the elected officials or whistle blowers with the courage to stand.

      We come here today to respectfully, but with the power of the spirit, demand to be treated as an equal members of society. I answer to only one King and His kingdom will come, His will be done. We have chosen sides and we choose God. America as a nation must do the same, as well.”

To hear the entire content of Glenn Beck’s speech, go to http://savingtherepublic.com/blog/2013/06/glenn-beck-rocks-at-the-audit-the-irs-rally-is-this-country-even-worth-defending-anymore-full-speech/

Brent Bozell asked: “Do you want a federal investigation?” He said: “I am sick and tired of not getting answers from my government when my government is abusing my freedoms. It is time to fire Eric Holder.”  And Steve Lonegan, former GOP candidate for Governor of NJ and current chair of the NJ chapter of Americans for Prosperity, led the crowd to chant: “Don’t Tread on Me!”

The speakers reminded the crowd of what the Founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence –  (i) that power was delegated to government by sovereign individuals, by a “consent of the governed,” (ii) for the primary purpose of protecting and securing their God-given inalienable rights, and (iii) when any government becomes destructive of those ends, the people have a right and a duty to alter and abolish that government and establish a government that better protects their “safety and happiness.” The clear message of the afternoon was that our current government has become destructive of the purpose and end of government and it needs to be altered, and specifically, by abolishing the IRS.

For example, Rick Morlen of the NM Tea Party, spoke:

“Our Founding Fathers weren’t acting on behalf of a political party when they wrote the Declaration of Independence. They were simply trying to secure individual liberty by creating a limited government that would stand for certain principles and stand the test of time. They wrote that that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights and that governments deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed must secure those rights. They wrote that people must, infrequently, consider altering their government whenever it becomes destructive of their rights. The Declaration listed a series of grievances against the King of England which propelled the colonies to seek their independence. Listen while I remind you of some of those grievances: for refusing to pass laws of immediate importance, for invading the rights of the people, for suspending our legislatures and himself with the power to legislate for us, for denying our citizens the benefit of a trial by jury, for erecting a multitude of new offices, and sending forth swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance, for keeping among us – in times of peace – standing armies without the consent of our legislatures, to render the military independent of and superior to civil power, for subjecting us to the jurisdiction of law that is  foreign to our constitution, and for taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments.

      We are not here to set up a new government. We are here to bear witness that we need to alter the government of this great country and to bring it back under the control of the people. And one way is to abolish the IRS. We acknowledge that there is a need to tax the people for the constitutionally-limited purposes of government, but that taxation should be fair and borne by all the people who enjoy living under this republic.”  

Audit the IRS Rally #3 - June 19, 2013

Ken Hoagland, chairman of Restore America’s Voice, spoke after Glenn Beck, Senator Rand Paul and Senator Mike Lee.  Hoagland attended the event first to deliver 2 million petitions to Repeal Obamacare that his organization collected from citizens (with the help of Mike Huckabee) and also to speak. He quickly became a crowd-pleaser with his words:

“I want you to remember this name – Bob Bauer.  Bob Bauer, who was the top lawyer for the Democratic National Committee, Senator Barack Obama’s mentor, the White House’s counsel, and then the General Counsel for the Obama-Biden re-election campaign, sent memo after memo to the Justice Department, the IRS, and ‘all interested parties,’ urging them to go after all law-abiding citizens who wanted to end voter fraud and exercise their rights of free speech to stop an out-of-control federal government. This abuse of Americans was directed by Washington at the very highest levels of the Obama administration and campaign. Bob Bauer.

      No natural disaster or foreign enemy has hurt us as much as our own government. The economic collapse that still has 12 million citizens unemployed was caused by the government insisting that all Americans are entitled to a home and then disastrously insisting that the marketplace not be purged of the toxic mortgages provided for those homes. We didn’t do that; the government did.  Adding insult to injury, the government then forced taxpayers to use their hard-earned money to bail out the guilty parties and give them bonuses. Then it passed Obamacare – ramming it down our throats. As if this wasn’t enough, Obama recently appointed the same woman who oversaw the abuse of Tea Party groups to be in charge of Obamacare at the IRS. All of this was done without the consent of the governed, as guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence. We didn’t consent to the bail-outs, we didn’t consent to Obamacare, and we didn’t consent to be spied on.

      Our Founding Fathers wrote the Declaration of Independence, remembering the actions of a King who swept up citizens and held secret hearings to condemn them. The true traitors are those self-important brutes in our government who work behind closed doors and in session to dismantle the Bill of Rights and other constitutional protects without the consent of the governed.

     We will never be free until we abolish the IRS and close its doors forever. We will never be free until we rid the government of that power over the People.” 

Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) reminded those who attended the rally of the abuses of the IRS:

  “I believe that trust in government is vital in a free society. and I believe that trust in our government has been violated. Nowhere is that trust more important and more violated than with the IRS, an agency that access to personal information about your finances and associations.  We’ve learned outrageous things about what the IRS has been doing since 2009.  The IRS has targeted your groups. The IRS has tried to extort money from you in order to shut you down because you are proven organizers of opposition. The IRS has leaked information about your donors and then targeted those donors. This is different than anything we’ve seen before because it’s not the government going after Republicans or Democrats. It’s the government going after just plain folks – just plain ‘ol folks like you.  We all know that the IRS is the enforcement arm of Obamacare. Do you want the IFS involved in your healthcare?  Do you want the IRS knowing about your healthcare?  I certainly don’t.”

Two bills have been introduced which address the abuse at the hands of the IRS.  One was introduced by Rep. Tom Price and the other by Rep. John Fleming (R-LA), who also spoke at the rally. Rep. Price introduced H.R. 2009 on May 16, termed the “Keep the IRS Off Your Healthcare Act of 2013,” which would prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from enforcing Obamacare. Specifically, it says that the IRS may NOT enforce or implement any portion of Obamacare. Rep. Fleming introduced H.R. 2045 on May 17, termed the “Halt the IRS Act,” which would prohibit officers and employees of the Internal Revenue Service from initiating any new audits for 180 days (to give the House the opportunity to get to the bottom of the scandal). To track these bills, go tohttp://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr2045 and http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr2009

One has to be concerned that an organization that has become the gestapo arm of the Obama administration will be in charge of implementing Obamacare. Will elder conservative leaders be denied life-saving health services because they happen to belong to a Tea Party group, teach about the Founding Fathers, attend Tea Party rallies, promote the Right to Life, criticize President Obama, or support the limitations set forth in the Constitution?  Of course, the surest way to abolish the IRS is to push for the Fair Tax, a national consumption tax, or a Flat Tax. A tax that requires that the burden to fund the government be shared among every American will eliminate the “progressive income tax” that was ushered in with the 16th Amendment and which resulted in the establishment of the tax code and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).  A Fair Tax or Flat Tax will render the 16th Amendment useless (so we can abolish it) and will eliminate the IRS.  Americans will be able to file their taxes by simply filling out a postcard. As Ken Hoagland said: “Repeal of the Income Tax will do more than anything to shift the power from Washington back to the People!”

Audit the IRS Rally #4 (with Rand Paul) - June 19, 2013

The protest also addressed the Immigration Reform bill (AMNESTY, in short!) and the Cornyn Amendment, which was co-sponsored by our very own Senator Burr), which are currently being pushed by Congress. The legislation and the amendment are simply BAD and will grant amnesty to approximately 15-20 million illegal immigrants who have chosen to enter our country illegally and take advantage of our welfare, Food Stamps, healthcare, and education, to name a few services (without providing a fair proportion of federal income taxes). With the passage of this legislation, the democrats will be assured of millions of additional voters who like this country for its benefits rather than liberties. The greatest legal objection to the immigration bill and Cornyn Amendment is that they propose amnesty without addressing immigration reform or ENFORCEMENT!!  There is talk of securing the border, but only AFTER illegal immigrants are granted amnesty and immediate voting rights. Proponents of the bill try to divert attention from this fact by claiming that it is not an amnesty bill because it “has plenty of penalties and hurdles for those here illegally who seek citizenship.”

For anyone who wants to understand the gravity and the likely consequences of this bill, just review what happened when the government tried this very thing back in 1986 under Ronald Reagan.  To be clear, the 1986 Immigration Reform bill also offered the same “roadblocks” to citizenship.  But the roadblocks were effectively in ink only.

The Reagan administration passed the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act to address the massive immigration of Hispanics. That law essentially told those in the US illegally that if they had arrived in the U.S. prior to 1982 and wanted to become citizens, all they had to do was simply raise their right hand.

The 1986 act didn’t turn illegal immigrants into citizens on the spot. It granted temporary resident status only to those who could prove they had resided continuously in America for five years. After 18 months, their status could be upgraded to permanent residency, and only after another five years could they become U.S. citizens.

But advancement to citizenship was not automatic. Immigrants had to satisfy various requirements along the way. They had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible.

If these “roadblocks” sound familiar, that’s because they are all in the current immigration bill. It’s pretty much the same “penalties and hurdles” set forth by the Senate’s Gang of Eight (including NY Chuck Schumer, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham) and the House’s Gang of Eight. In their bill, they call it a “roadmap to citizenship.”  Ronald Reagan called it “amnesty.”

The ’86 reform bill also had supposedly “rigorous” border security and immigration law enforcement provisions. So how did that pan out? On the day Reagan signed “comprehensive” reform into law, only one thing changed: Millions of unlawful immigrants gained “legal” status. The promised crackdowns on security and enforcement never happened. Only amnesty prevailed.

Since the 1986 amnesty, the number of illegal immigrants has quadrupled. That should teach Congress a very important lesson: Amnesty “bends” the rule of law. And bending the rule of law to reach a “comprehensive” deal winds up provoking wholesale breaking of the law. Ultimately, it encourages millions more to risk entering the country illegally in the hope that one day they, too, might receive amnesty.

On legislation as important as this, lawmakers must take the time to read the bill, not rely on others’ characterizations of what it says. We can’t afford to have Congress once again “pass the bill to find out what’s in it.”  And we can’t have Republicans once again compromise on principles that define what it means to be a “constitutional republic.”

The entire “Audit the IRS” rally can be viewed at:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB8JLMJV_iM

Please contact your representatives in DC and let them know that you DEMAND a complete and comprehensive investigation into the conduct of the IRS and any other branches that potentially were used to harass and target conservative groups (such as Homeland Security and its Report on “Rightwing Extremism”) and that you OPPOSE this type of irresponsible Immigration Reform.

Audit the IRS Rally #2 - June 19, 2013

For those who are not familiar with the immigration bill or Cornyn Amendment, it is probably one of the most important items that the Congress is taking up this year and it is worthy of at least a cursory review. This immigration initiative is a top priority of President Obama – now that Obamacare has been passed.  Conservative talk show radio hosts such as Glenn Beck believe that this initiative is an attempt to increase the voter support for the Democratic party and to make sure that Republicans don’t win another presidential election in the near future.

The Immigration bill was proposed by the Senate’s “Gang of Eight” – John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, Chuck Schumer, Mike Bennet, Dick Durbin, Jeff Flake, and Bob Menendez – and is more the attempt to deal with the 15-24 million illegal immigrants currently in this country (the 11 million figure that has been cited repeatedly by the government is simply a sharp under-representation). Ron Paul estimated the number of Illegals at 21 million back in 2008.

The “Gang of Eight” bill would allow undocumented immigrants to gain provisional status, which would let them remain in the country legally and work. It would later create a path to citizenship – first a green card and then eventual naturalization, but only if there are certain border security measures. That is, the bill would require the Department of Homeland Security submit a plan within 6 months of its adoption. In other words, under the Immigration bill, immigrants who are here illegally are given temporary legal status before the border security conditions are met, which, in essence, is amnesty.

The Cornyn Amendment was proposed by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) to help the bill pass in the Senate by supposedly addressing some of the concerns of the Republican members. Cornyn promised that if his amendment was included, he would vote for the bill. The Cornyn Amendment, in its 134 pages, calls for enhanced US security and requires certain laws to be enforced more aggressively. The most notable addition is a requirement that DHS implement a biometric entry and exit program, but even there, the amendment only applies that requirement to air and sea ports of entry, but not land ports of entry.  Moreover, it does not require the implementation of a biometric exit program at land ports of entry any time in the future.  Furthermore, it requires no fencing or physical barrier along the southern border nor does it set any money aside to construct such fencing or barrier.

Despite its provisions, the Cornyn Amendment does nothing to alter the general spirit of the law, which is Amnesty first and then addressing border security maybe or at best, later on. Many are skeptical of the Amendment, claiming that it doesn’t do enough to make the U.S. more secure. It uses weak, arbitrary benchmarks that can be manipulated by DHS and do not guarantee future security or enforcement. Additionally, it says nothing about new flows of illegal immigration. Under the Cornyn Amendment, there could still be a sizable number of illegal immigrants entering the U.S. every year, but DHS would still be able to certify that the border is secure, thus allowing LPR status to be given out.  Despite these concerns, several GOP Senators have signed-on as co-sponsors to the Amendment, including Sens. Lamar Alexander (TN), John Barrasso (WY), Roy Blunt (MO), Richard Burr (NC), Saxby Chambliss (GA), Mike Crapo (ID), Orrin Hatch (UT), Johnny Isakson (GA), Mike Johanns (NE), Mark Kirk (IL), Rob Portman (OH), Pat Roberts (KS), and Roger Wicker (MS).

Amazingly, despite the fact that the Cornyn amendment still does not place a single obstacle in the way of illegal aliens gaining amnesty plus work and travel authorization, some Gang of Eight Senators are opposing it, calling the amendment a “poison pill” aimed at taking down the bill. John McCain, a gift to the Democratic Party, said: “It’s not possible for us to support Senator Cornyn’s amendment as it is presently written. It’s a poison pill.” Senator Schumer called it a “deal killer.”

The National Review calls describes the proposed legislation as: “an amnesty-first, enforcement-maybe program drawn up mainly to reflect the priorities of 11 million citizens of other countries rather than the concerns of more than 300 million citizens of the United States.”  Needless to say, the National Review, as well as conservative leaders all over the country, have been urging Republican Senator Rubio to vote against the bill that he helped craft.  (They know McCain and Graham are lost causes).

Today, GOP Senators John Hoeven (ND) and Bob Corker (TN) introduced a bi-partisan compromise amendment, hoping to ensure Senate passage of the immigration reform bill by increasing Republican support for it. The amendment would call for a border agent every 1,000 feet, every hour of every day, supported by 700 miles of fencing along the Mexican frontier. Furthermore, it would provide that no green cards be issued for the “11 million immigrants living illegally in America” until those steps and others to enhance border controls are taken. (Of course, it would take a couple of years to train and deploy the new agents in an expansion that would almost double the current force). The compromise amendment still doesn’t address the fundamental flaw of the immigration reform effort, which is that it is an amnesty measure and not a security measure. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said the compromise means “amnesty will still occur” and Roy Beck, president of Numbers USA, a group that opposes the immigration reform measure, called the compromise “a desperate political move by pro-amnesty forces to provide cover to pass a bill that would otherwise not pass.”

The Immigration Reform effort does nothing to address the serious concerns surrounding the massive immigration of low-skilled Hispanics over the past 20 years or so. For one, it will cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars in welfare benefits. Granting amnesty to millions of low-skilled Hispanics sends the message that the United States only enforces immigration laws against those who are educated and can offer the country professional skills, something we are in need of.  It also ensures that law-abiding American citizens will continue to suffer from unemployment and salaries will decrease. Speaking today on the Rush Limbaugh, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) said that the Senate immigration bill “sets up affirmative action – a strong preference in hiring – for those who are here illegally.” Cruz argued that because illegal immigrants who are granted legal status would be exempt from Obamacare, it would be cheaper for employers to hire them than to hire native-born workers. “If you’re a small-business owner,” said Cruz, “if you hire an American or if you hire a legal immigrant, you’re subject to a $2,000 dollar fine per employee if you’re not providing health-care under Obamacare. It’s a massive economic incentive for employers to not hire Americans.”

The reform bill undermines our rule of law, is a slap in the face to everyone who entered the country legally and had to wait and follow the mandates of the law, continues to impress upon law-abiding American citizens that there is no such thing as “one set of laws for everyone,” and will be an enormous drain on those who pay the bulk of taxes.

One must ask: “Shouldn’t border security and upholding the immigration laws be a priority regardless of other immigration reforms?” Regrettably, the President and some in Congress seem to be treating security and upholding the law as an afterthought or a bargaining chip, not as one of the core purposes of government. In fact, the President appears to be intentionally ignoring his role as our head Enforcer and refuses to enforce the laws already on the books. We see this in sanctuary cities, we see this in repeat offenders who are here illegally being turned loose on the streets, we see this in the appeasement policy the current administration has with the President of Mexico and other Mexican authorities, and we see this in the refusal of government to enforce laws that make sure that illegal immigrants are not able to avail themselves of our welfare programs.

Before 1996, legal immigrants were eligible for public benefits on similar terms as citizens, while illegal immigrants were NOT eligible. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act, officially titled “The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act” (PRWORA), restricted access to TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), Medicaid, and SNAP for many legal immigrants. In other words, it was supposed to make it difficult for immigrants after 1996 to live as wards of the state and to burden law-abiding taxpayers. The 1996 law states that “self-sufficiency has been a basic principle of United States immigration law.”  In particular, it reads: “aliens within the Nation’s borders should not depend on public resources to meet their needs,” and “the availability of public benefits should not constitute an incentive for immigration to the United States” (U.S. Congress 1996).  The Welfare Reform Act established two categories of immigrants for eligibility purposes (qualified and nonqualified immigrants) and restricted eligibility for qualified immigrants based on time of arrival into the United States (pre-enactment versus post-enactment immigrants), and length of U.S. residency (more than five years versus five years or less). Stated most generally, welfare reform allowed benefits for qualified immigrants, most of whom are legal permanent residents (LPRs), who arrived in the United States prior to the enactment of PRWORA (on August 22, 1996), and it restricted benefits for most immigrants who arrived after enactment for their first five years of qualified residency in the United States.  As a result of these reforms, eligibility for public benefits can vary within families based on each family member’s citizenship, immigration status, time of arrival, and length of residence in the United States.

Over the past 20 years, the foreign-born population in the United States has more than doubled. In the 20 years from 1990 to 2010, the population increased from 20 million in 1990 to 40 million in 2010 (US Census Bureau 2011). Immigrant families include nearly 17 million children, more than 15 million of whom are U.S.-born citizens. It is estimated that one in every 2 or 3 Hispanic immigrants is here illegally. While foreign-born adults have high employment rates and many do well economically, they are also more likely to work in low-wage jobs and less likely to have health insurance coverage from their employers than native-born adults. Several of our public assistance programs are available to them. Despite the instructions outlined in the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, several major public programs, including Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) are available to all low-income immigrants. The problem is that federal public benefits include a variety of “safety-net services” which can be paid for by federal funds  But the welfare law’s definition does not specify which particular programs are covered by the term, leaving that clarification to each federal benefit granting agency.

For anyone wanting to know what immigration to the United States was like when many European immigrants came here, look at the “Ellis Island and Immigration Experience” at http://freepages.family.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~gregkrenzelok/Ellis%20Island.html

The Immigration Reform bill, even including the amendments, does nothing to alter the fundamental truth that amnesty will be granted before any meaningful security measures are put in place. The bottom line is that this very same effort was tried once before and was a dismal failure. It sent the message to our neighboring countries and others around the world that the United States is not interested in taking any strong measures to effect a sensible immigration policy that furthers important national interests. Immigration has become political. Instead of a furthering important national interests, immigration is being used to further political interests.

One thing is certain: If we subsidize them, they will come. We have rolled out the social services red carpet, so it is no surprise that many from other countries are eager to come take advantage of our very generous system. The magnet used to be our unlimited freedom and a government that would leave people alone. Today that magnet is free stuff.  Today that magnet is social pandering – in order to advance a progressive agenda and tear down traditional American norms. We must return to the Rule of Law and the American principle of personal responsibility. We must expect those who come here to respect our laws and to take care of themselves. Not only is this the right thing to do for our overtaxed citizens, but it sets a standard that should define all Americans, including those who have recently immigrated here. We simply have no choice. We can’t afford our relaxed, “politically-correct” policies anymore.

Again, please contact your representatives in DC and let them know that you oppose any immigration reform effort that includes amnesty. The primary objective of immigration reform should be border security and enforcement of an immigration policy that serves legitimate national goals (and not political goals). And don’t forget to demand an investigation of the IRS and Homeland Security.