amnesty

Facebook founder promotes illegal immigration

 
Facebook, the social media program, is wildly popular, but how many users know that the billionaire head of the company that runs Facebook is a leading promoter and cheerleader for illegal immigration?  Maybe there are other programs that could be used instead of Facebook?
 
Mark Zuckerberg, like some other illegal alien cheerleaders, depends on the stability and honesty of U.S. institutions to protect his business and his wealth, while undermining these institutions with his campaign on behalf of illegal aliens.
 
Here, Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, discusses the illogic of Zuckerberg’s actions and the damage Zuckerberg is doing to this country.
 
-------------
Zuckerberg Continues To Promote, Encourage And Reward Illegal Immigration
 
June 18, 2015, By Dan Stein, President, Federation for American Immigration Reform
 
Mark Zuckerberg and his wife are giving $5 million to something called “TheDREAM.US” scholarship fund. This is pocket change to Zuckerberg, but his decision to give to a fund that gives only to illegal aliens underscores everything that’s wrong with Zuckerberg’s approach.
 
To get the money, you must have broken the law and be here in violation of federal law. To quality you must be a citizen of a country other than the United States. To qualify, your parents must have evaded detection and deportation over several years. To qualify, you cannot be someone patiently waiting outside the U.S. and respecting our borders and law.  You must be a line-jumper and law breaker whose parents are scamming the system and taxpayer.
 
The Facebook founder says “We ought to welcome smart and hardworking young people from every nation, and to help everyone in our society achieve their (sic) full potential.”
 
Isn’t it possible someone could reach their full potential in their home country – the country where the person is regarded as a citizen? What is accomplished by explicitly discriminating against American citizens?
 
Zuckerberg himself relies upon respect for law in his own personal and commercial affairs. He benefits by living within a civil society in which the rule of law prevails. All his property relies upon civil protections that ensure title to his land, stock and vast wealth is protected from theft.
 
Yet Zuckerberg thumbs his nose at the borders, and chooses to encourage and reward lawbreaking at the expense of our common understandings of fair play and justice in order to curry favor with a political constituency and make his “cheap labor” grab appear high-minded. What gives him the right to pick and choose and make those moral judgments for the rest of us.
 
For disadvantaged Americans who can trace through their ancestry generations of sacrifice and suffering to build this nation, this kind of arrogance is a bitter pill to swallow.
 
 
 

Most Still Oppose Obama’s Immigration Amnesty, Say It’s Illegal

Most voters still oppose President Obama’s plan to exempt up to five million illegal immigrants from deportation, with more than ever saying he doesn’t have the legal authority to take such action...

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% of Likely U.S. Voters now oppose the president’s plan to allow the illegal immigrants to remain in this country legally and apply for jobs. That’s up from 51% in early February but down from 62% last August before the exact details of the amnesty plan were known. Thirty-five percent (35%) favor the plan, little changed from two months ago. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Only 25% think the president has the legal authority to grant amnesty to several million illegal immigrants without the approval of Congress. Fifty-nine percent (59%) disagree and say he does not have that legal power. That’s up from 52% in February and a high to date. Fifteen percent (15%) are not sure.

Sixty-one percent (61%) of voters think the government should only do what the president and Congress agree on when it comes to immigration, up four points from early December. Just 26% say Obama should take action alone if Congress does not approve the immigration initiatives he has proposed. Twelve percent (12%) are undecided.

Twenty-six states are challenging Obama’s plan in court, saying the president lacks the constitutional authority to stop the deportations and that his action puts a heavy financial burden on them. The plan is on hold pending a review by a federal appeals court panel...

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls).  Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The national survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on April 19-20, 2015 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

More voters than ever feel the United States is not aggressive enough in deporting those who are here illegally...

Forty-eight percent (48%) of both black and other minority voters support Obama’s immigration effort. Sixty-one percent (61%) of white voters oppose it.

Eighty percent (80%) of Republicans and 57% of voters not affiliated with either major political party oppose the president’s amnesty plan. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Democrats favor it. But then while 85% of GOP voters and 64% of unaffiliateds say the president does not have the legal authority to act alone, just 33% of Democrats agree.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Republicans and a plurality (49%) of unaffiliated voters favor their state suing the administration over the new immigration policy. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters in the president’s party oppose their state taking such action.

Most voters continue to believe federal government policies encourage illegal immigration,...

Most also still think that securing the border is more important than legalizing the status of undocumented workers already here and say plans to offer legal status to such individuals will just encourage more illegal immigration.

Centrist House Dems Don’t Sign Brief in Support of Obama Exec Amnesty

On Monday, 12 centrist House Democrats–including an Oregon Democrat who declared that amnesty for illegal immigrants is the new civil rights movement and will determine who controls the country for the next 30 years–refused to sign an amicus brief in support of President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty, revealing that voters in their districts may not be as supportive of granting amnesty to illegal immigrants as national Democrats.

According to The Hill, 181 House Democrats signed the brief, which argues that “Congress has vested the Secretary of Homeland Security with broad discretion to determine how best to implement the immigration laws, including the particular decisions embodied in the Deferred Action Memorandum.”

But 12 Democrats, including Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR), did not. Schrader’s refusal to do so is indeed curious given that he declared at a pro-amnesty rally in February that the amnesty movement is the new civil rights movement and “probably the biggest issue of the 21st century.”

“It will decide who is in charge of this country for the next 20 or 30 years,” he said.

The Hill noted that the 12 Democrats who did not sign the brief “are mostly centrists and members who will face tough reelection races next year.” They include: Reps. Brad Ashford (NE), Jim Cooper (TN), Henry Cuellar (TX), Gwen Graham (FL), Rick Larsen (WA), Dan Lipinski (IL), Stephen Lynch (MA), Collin Peterson (MN), Schrader (OR), Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), Peter Visclosky (IN), and Tim Walz (MN).

The Obama administration has appealed a federal judge’s injunction that temporarily halted its executive amnesty program. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has decided to hear oral arguments in the case later this month...

 

Rasmussen Poll: Majority Continues to Reject Obama Amnesty Plan

Most voters continue to believe federal government policies encourage illegal immigration.

Most voters in nearly every demographic category agree that the federal government is not aggressive enough in its deportation policies. Most also believe very strongly that someone should have to prove they are a U.S. citizen before obtaining government benefits.

Most women and men agree that a child born to an illegal immigrant in this country should not automatically become a U.S. citizen.

Voters under 40 are only slightly less supportive than their elders of more aggressive deportation policies. But they are much more likely than those 40 and over to think that a child born to an illegal alien in this country should automatically become a U.S. citizen.

Sixty percent of whites oppose automatic citizenship; 51 percent of blacks and 56 percent of other minority voters favor it.

Eighty-one percent of Republicans and 68 percent of voters not affiliated with either major party think the government is not aggressive enough in deporting illegal immigrants. Just 40 percent of Democrats agree. But then Democrats are far more concerned than the others that deportation efforts may end up violating the civil rights of some U.S. citizens.

Democrats by a 51 percent to 33 percent margin believe illegals who have American-born children should be exempt from deportation. Sixty-two percent of GOP voters and 60 percent of unaffiliated voters disagree.

Most voters continue to believe that securing the border is more important than legalizing the status of undocumented workers already here and think plans to offer legal status to such individuals will just encourage more illegal immigration.

More than half of voters remain opposed to Obama’s new plan that will allow nearly five million illegal immigrants to remain in this country legally and apply for jobs. Forty-seven percent (47 percent) think Congress should try to find ways to stop the president’s plan, while 41 percent believe Congress should allow this decision to stand.

Voters also continue to strongly support voter ID laws and don't consider them discriminatory.

What Is to Be Done?

 
This week’s spectacle in Congress leads to some pretty obvious questions. If the Democrats can block any challenges to the president’s unprecedented immigration power grab, what can be done? If Congress can’t (or won’t) stop blatantly illegal actions by the Obama Administration, what do we do now?
 
For many years, we have been concerned about the prospect of a lawless president dispensing immigration benefits for partisan purposes. While the courts have been less than helpful in preventing past abuses, the magnitude of the current breach is without precedent. This administration has hired extremists – people who are both experts in immigration law and hostile to the public interest in effective controls — who believe neither in deportation nor numerical and financial limits, and they are using the next two years to cement in place policies and practices that have rendered ICE and the Border Patrol useless. That this extremism may inure to the long-term benefit of the Democrats seems to provide suitable motivation among those who ought to know better.
 
FAIR and this movement have for decades relied upon what some still call the “mainstream media” to scrutinize executive actions and conduct. We no longer can, it seems, at least until the current administration ends. But it’s time to recognize two realities: First, there is no “mainstream media” any longer. While there remain venerable names, such as CNN, NBC, the Washington Post and the New York Times, these are no longer “mainstream publications” because these outlets have been compromised and, in any case, most people get there news elsewhere. These, along with the Los Angeles Times, are just mouthpieces for administration policies no matter how illegal or unreasonable. Worse still, these outlets refuse to use accurate terminology in a daily effort to mislead and confuse the public. We can and must play a role in countering the public confusion and misunderstanding.
 
Secondly, the people that are managing this administration’s immigration policy are not suitable appointees for the purpose: These include Lucas Guttentag, Cecilia Munoz and Angela Kelley, all of whom lack any concern for the public or national interest. They are lobbyists for interests that seek to destroy this nation’s ability to regulate immigration, and they are not people who can or should handle the public trust. Racialists, like Frank Sharry at America’s Voice, work overtime to try to divide Americans along color lines to achieve partisan objectives – and he works so closely with this White House that he may as well live in it. …
 
The embarrassing breakdown of leadership. The failure of Congress to defund the DHS-Obama amnesty power grab was enabled by unified Democrats in Congress. Their goal: to change the electorate quickly in that party’s favor. There can be no mistake about their intentions, and America faces a true and urgent immigration crisis as a result. Virtually the entire Democrat Party seems prepared to create a quasi-dictatorship to produce unprecedented immigrant admissions, and to sacrifice the rule of law and fundamental fairness to achieve power – even at the expense of sound finance and Americans who desperately need a chance in a fair labor market, better wages and future prospects.  Keep in mind the situation is ripe for over-reach within the Administration. The arrogance of unchecked and absolute power can and will lead to missteps and abuses that must be spotted and exploited for all America to see and hear. …
 
How to move forward?  Power is being abused, let that be clear. And the major financial backers of the two parties seem oblivious to the threat. We must fill the void with effective leadership and action. First we will need to improve the public’s popular knowledge of today’s complex questions. For those of us who seek to limit immigration to ensure the livability, health, sustainability and survival of our nation and planet, the scene is challenging to say the least. But at least the agenda of those seeking empowerment through immigration is clear. Immigration is not the goal, it is power, plain and simple. Nothing else could explain the administration’s behavior in the face of stagnant wages and yawning income inequality. Understanding motives is critical to fashioning an effective counter-strategy. …
 
Congress can enact laws which this president will veto. But enacting those laws – and the veto itself – helps to highlight presidential malfeasance. In that regard, we expect that the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee will be sending a steady stream of good bills to the floors of Congress.
 
While Congress may enact a national E-Verify compliance bill with pre-emption language, there remain many rich vehicles for state legislatures to move related bills.  These state bills, which run the gamut from in-state tuition to driver’s licenses, are important both for their needed substance and for the political pressure they place on local politicians as benchmarks for citizen sentiment.
 
Third, litigation will continue to be an important part of this equation. …
 
Lastly, we must push for Senate leader McConnell to adopt the Democrat’s filibuster busting rule. There are many examples now where the president’s robust use of “executive action” is stepping on special interest toes. If Democrats will not act to limit the president’s abuse of executive authority – not just on immigration but on a whole range of issues — then McConnell will have justification to exercise the nuclear option. At that point, the field is wide open. …
 
To read the entire article, click here:  http://immigrationreform.com/2015/03/06/what-is-to-be-done/
 

Sen. Sessions advises about immigration

 
No one in Congress better understands the challenges facing American workers than Senator Jeff Sessions. This Alabama senator knows that the debate over immigration comes down to three simple questions: Does America have a right to control its borders? Should our immigration laws serve the national interest? And, do Americans have the right to demand that our laws be enforced?
 
The answer to all these questions should be a firm “yes.” But you couldn’t tell that, based on what’s going on in Washington. Most so-called “immigration reform” plans cater to business interests and open-borders activists. Senator Sessions says that so-called reform bills are influenced by 1.5 billion dollars of lobbying money.
 
They double the influx of foreign workers, give amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, and destroy enforcement. Special interests love this phony so-called “reform,” but it would leave the American people high and dry.
 
For four decades, the United States has taken in immigrants in vast numbers, but more Americans are now on welfare, and good middle-class jobs have been exported to cheap-labor countries. The so-called immigration reforms promoted by the Chamber of Commerce would make these problems even worse.
 
Senator Sessions recently provided all members of Congress with an Immigration Handbook, which offers guiding principles for immigration policy. Above all, he wants an immigration system that serves the interests of American citizens.
 
To keep our country safe, we must secure the border and keep track of everyone in our country on a visa. To help our country prosper, we need to limit visas and stop employers from hiring illegals.
 
Taking Senator Sessions’ advice would stop the downward pressure on wages and enable Americans to find better-paying jobs. Senator Sessions knows what sensible immigration policy should look like. …
 
 

Democrats hold DHS hostage; Demand Ransom of Work Permits for Illegal Aliens

 
Thus far, every single Democrat in the Senate and nearly all in the House are taking the position that they will not allow funding for the Department of Homeland Security unless their Republican colleagues pay a ransom in the form of millions of work permits for illegal aliens.
 
The headlines should read: "Democrats hold DHS hostage and demand ransom of work permits for illegal aliens."
 
But you are unlikely to read that characterization in any of the mainstream news media which have substantially described the funding standoff as being about deportations. Reading most news media, one would guess that the Republicans are demanding that millions of illegal aliens be deported sometime this year, and that the Democrats are refusing to allow that to happen.
 
But Pres. Obama made it clear in his town hall in Miami this week that deportations are not at stake at all.
 
Any characterization of Pres. Obama's executive immigration action as being about shielding illegal aliens from deportation is a straw man.
 
The Obama administration years ago halted nearly all deportations from the interior of illegal aliens who weren't convicted criminals.
 
And this week, the President repeated what he has said for months that, regardless of any court ruling or action by Congress, he will not allow his immigration enforcement officials to deport most illegal immigrants they encounter. In fact, he said he would punish any federal officials who initiated a deportation process. 
 
Nothing has been proposed in the DHS funding legislation that would force Pres. Obama to resume deportations from the interior.
 
The legislative language that offends the unanimous Democrats is not about deportations but about denying work permits to huge classes of illegal aliens.
 
The united congressional Democratic front is about ensuring that some 5 million unlawfully present foreign workers get an equal shot with struggling Americans at every new job that opens up.
 
To this moment on Friday evening, the Democrats are all taking a stand that there will be no funding for DHS unless the new jobs are opened up for illegal aliens.
 
That is the impasse.
 
The Senate Republican leadership and about a third of the Republican Senators today decided to pay the ransom to illegal aliens. But it is unclear whether House Republicans will go along with it or continue to insist that new U.S. job openings be reserved for U.S. citizens and for legal immigrants already here.
 
The fate of millions of American workers hangs in the balance.
 
-- ROY BECK is President & Founder of NumbersUSA
 
NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted. 
 

Obama amnesty creates loophole for illegal immigrants to vote in elections

President Obama’s temporary deportation amnesty will make it easier for illegal immigrants to improperly register and vote in elections, state elections officials testified to Congress on Thursday, saying that the driver’s licenses and Social Security numbers they will be granted create a major voting loophole.

While stressing that it remains illegal for non-citizens to vote, secretaries of state from Ohio and Kansas said they won’t have the tools to sniff out illegal immigrants who register anyway, ignoring stiff penalties to fill out the registration forms that are easily available at shopping malls, motor vehicle bureaus and in curbside registration drives....

... mass registration drives often aren’t able to give due attention to that part, and so illegal immigrants will still get through.

Kansas Secretary of State Kris W. Kobach said even some motor vehicle bureau workers automatically ask customers if they want to register to vote...

“It’s a guarantee it will happen,” Mr. Kobach said.

Democrats disputed that it was an issue at all, saying Mr. Obama’s new policy, which could apply to more than 4 million illegal immigrants, doesn’t change anything in state or federal law.

 

Effective immigration law enforcement is ‘pro-immigrant,’ compassionate

 
Effective immigration law enforcement is ‘pro-immigrant,’ compassionate
By Michael W. Cutler, Senior Special Agent, INS (Ret.)
Senior Fellow, Californians for Population Stabilization
On CAPS website, February 17, 2015
 
For many years those of us who have called for the effective enforcement of our immigration laws and the securing of our borders have been accused of being “Anti-Immigrant” and have had a host of other vile epithets hurled at us by immigration anarchists who enrich themselves greatly through the callous and cynical exploitation of the very aliens they purport to support.
 
Those who exploit the failures of the immigration system include special interest groups and unscrupulous employers who know that foreign workers – both legally employed and illegally employed in the United States – accept lower wages under substandard conditions.
 
Additional exploiters include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, immigration attorneys who in the flood of illegal aliens see clients and politicians who seek to not only accept campaign contributions from many of those who profit from the massive influx of foreign nationals but hope to garner votes along the way.
 
The exploiters demonstrate unmitigated chutzpah claiming that opening our borders to a human tsunami of foreign nationals from around the world is an act of compassion. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush claims that it would be an “Act of Love” to provide lawful status for unknown millions of aliens who evaded the inspections process that is supposed to prevent the entry of international terrorists and transnational criminals among other categories of aliens deemed excludible under our immigration laws.
 
Jeb is “Looking for love in all the wrong places!”
 
Jeb and those of a similar mindset know damn well that such a massive amnesty program would do great harm to all Americans and that the greatest harm would be done to America’s black and Latino communities. He is no fool. The only conclusion that can be reached is that wealth and power are all that matter. For them, those who suffer as a result of the failures of the immigration system are simply “collateral damage.” They certainly know the damage being done even as they spout their rhetoric and false accusations. They simply do not care.
 
Click here to read the entire article.
 

Judge orders halt to Obama immigration plan

 
A federal judge in Texas has blocked President Obama's policy deferring the deportation of millions of undocumented immigrants.
 
In a 123-page opinion handed down late Monday, Judge Andrew Hanen ruled that the Department of Homeland Security did not allow public comment on its rules implementing Obama's executive action. He issued a preliminary injunction blocking the administration from implementing the deferred deportment program.
 
The White House immediately said that the Justice Department would appeal the decision. …
 
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, filed suit in December on behalf of Texas and 26 other states opposed executive action proposed by Obama in November.
 
The temporary injunction will halt the administration's actions on immigration — moves that could protect up to 5 million undocumented immigrants from deportation — as the states' lawsuit moves forward.
 
"President Obama abdicated his responsibility to uphold the United States Constitution when he attempted to circumvent the laws passed by Congress via executive fiat, and Judge Hanen's decision rightly stops the president's overreach in its tracks," Abbott said in a statement. "We live in a nation governed by a system of checks and balances, and the President's attempt to by-pass the will of the American people was successfully checked today." …
 
Click here to see entire article.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - amnesty