amnesty

Deadlocked Supreme Court blocks Obama on immigration

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court blocked President Obama's effort to protect more than 4 million undocumented immigrants from the threat of deportation Thursday, deadlocking 4-4 over a plan that had divided the nation as well as the justices.

The tie vote leaves intact lower federal court rulings that stopped the program in its tracks more than a year ago...

It was a sudden, crushing defeat for millions of parents who came to the country illegally and have lived in the shadows, often for decades. The administration had hoped that at least one of the more conservative justices -- possibly Chief Justice John Roberts -- would rule that the plan posed no financial threat to the states and therefore could not be challenged in court.

...the one-sentence opinion simply announced that the court was "equally divided" and unable to muster a majority for either side.

That's all opponents needed to block the "deferred action" program, which would have offered qualifying parents of children who were born in the United States or are legal residents the right to remain in the country...

The immigration battle was waged on two fronts before the court: The administration fought with the states as well as with the House of Representatives, which previously blocked the president's effort to confer legal status to some of the nation's more than 11 million illegal immigrants...

Obama announced the "Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents," or DAPA program, in November 2014. It would extend protections to more than 4 million parents who meet the criteria, just as a 2012 program did for immigrants brought to the United States as children. More than 700,000 have qualified for that earlier program.

Once qualified, parents also could apply for work authorization, pay taxes and receive some government benefits, such as Social Security. Those with criminal backgrounds or who have arrived since 2010 would not qualify.

Texas challenged Obama's authority to implement the policy by executive action, rather than going through Congress. Federal district court Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville, Texas, upheld the challenge in February 2015 and blocked the program from being implemented nationwide. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld that ruling last November in a 2-1 decision.

The Supreme Court agreed in January to hear the case, expanding its scope to include whether Obama's action violated the Constitution's "Take Care Clause" by failing to faithfully execute the nation's immigration laws.

In written briefs and oral arguments, the Justice Department contended that the policy only would make official what was happening anyway — undocumented immigrants who do not have criminal records and are not priorities for deportation are generally left alone. The government only has enough funds to deport about 400,000 a year, they said.

Lawyers for Texas and the House of Representatives countered that while the president can decide not to deport individual immigrants, only Congress can defer action on a class-wide basis.

The state's injury claim focused on what it said would have been the need to spend money issuing driver's licenses to hundreds of thousands of immigrants. Federal officials said that was Texas' choice, and not a ground for a lawsuit.

Not certain how your candidate stacks up on immigration issues?

Alert date: 
2016-05-07
Alert body: 

On the radio the other day, I heard Michael Medved touting to his audience that only a tiny portion of the American public is actually concerned about illegal immigration.  I disagree with him!  Often, if given a choice about concerns that voters have, illegal immigration will not be the first words out of their mouths.

But, voters will say they are concerned about terrorism, national security, JOBS, stagnant wages, over-crowded schools, high taxes, drugs, gangs, crime, the culture of corruption, the environmental impact on our environment of increased population and on and on.  Every one of their concerns is directly impacted by - hold on to your hat - illegal immigration and excessive legal immigration.

This election cycle, it's more important than ever before, to fully understand your candidate's position on the issue of illegal immigration and excessive legal immigration.  If you aren't asking, you may be surprised - and disappointed.

OFIR encourages our members to visit a candidate's website and discover if a detailed statement is posted about immigration,  If there is not, please contact that candidate and ask them to make a public statement on their website.  If, after a few pokes and reminders, there is still nothing posted, that might give you a clue as to their commitment to solving the problem.

OFIR has prepared, and now updated, information about Presidential candidates that may be useful to you. Information about candidates in state-wide races  may be helpful to you in approaching those candidates at upcoming events.  If you have more, credible information that can be substantiated, please share with OFIR.  As always, OFIR strives to be as accurate as possible in any information that we provide.

Another source of information is the Abigail Adams Candidate Comparison Guide

OFIR encourages you to learn more about the candidates from many sources.  OFIR invites candidates to let us know if there is anything they would like to add in our postings.

Townhall meetings coming your way

Alert date: 
2016-02-08
Alert body: 

Next week, Representative Kurt Schrader will be hosting town hall meetings around the district  These meetings are a chance for you to visit, talk about what's been going on in Washington, and find out ways that his office can be of service to you.

Oregon City Town Hall - Tuesday, February 16th, 6:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
Providence Willamette Falls Community Center Auditorium
519 15th Street
Oregon City, OR 97045

Salem Town Hall - Wednesday, February 17th, 6:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
Salem Library - Loucks Auditorium
585 Liberty Street SE
Salem, OR 97301

Military Academy Day Open House - Saturday, March 5th, 10 a.m. - noon*
West Linn High School
5464 W A Street
West Linn, OR 97068
*Presentation begins at 11 a.m.
 

EXCLUSIVE — ANN COULTER WARNS ‘END OF AMERICA’ IF MARCO RUBIO IS NOMINEE

In an exclusive statement to Breitbart News ahead of the New Hampshire primary, conservative columnist and eleven-time New York Times bestselling author Ann Coulter warned that if the donor-class gets its way and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is the Republican nominee, it will be the “end of America.”

“THE END OF AMERICA,” Coulter wrote when asked what she thought a Rubio nominee would mean for the future of the open borders movement.

“Rubio is [John] McCain is sheep’s clothing,” Coulter explained. “He’s the Manchurian candidate. At least with McCain, conservatives knew we were getting an open borders zealot and just made the calculation that he could win. Rubio has half the conservative movement thinking he’s Reagan. I’ve never seen anything like it. He’s McCain without the war record or experience.”

In a 15-page memo documenting Rubio’s “betrayal” of conservatives, living legend and grassroots heroine Phyllis Schlafly seemed to echo Coulter’s assertion. Schlafly’s memo states:

There is no single major distinguishing policy difference between Marco Rubio, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) or Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) . They have the same trade policy, immigration policy and foreign policy. But on immigration most especially — the issue in which all four have invested the most — there is no daylight separating them. The difference, then, is one of persona, not policy. And in the arena of immigration, this translates into a vital difference. The biggest change from McCain-Kennedy, which could not get out of the Senate, and the Gang of Eight — which was nursed along by conservative pundits despite being to the left of Kennedy’s bill — was the presence of Rubio. Rubio created the conditions necessary to produce a considerably more open borders bill: conservatives who were invested in the Rubio Brand provided no early pushback but accepted Kennedy’s old talking points, and Rubio gave red state Democrats the political space necessary to support it. This is how it got 68 votes in the Senate. The stakes of course are raised considerably if Rubio is President or Vice President. Rubio would have a much, much better chance than Obama of getting an open borders bill through Congress… there is likely no person in the United States of America in a better position to enact mass immigration legislation than a President Rubio… Rubio is the candidate of open borders, Obamatrade and mass immigration, making one last attempt to pull off one big con.

In her memo, Schlafly documented Rubio’s history of successfully deceiving conservatives. Schlalfy notes that Rubio, without any seeming compunction, “repeatedly lied” to conservative media and opinion makers who trusted him: “His deceptions about his immigration bill rivaled and exceeded Obama’s claims about disastrous Obamacare.”

Schlafly’s memo continues:

The seminal moment of the media tour occurred early, on Rush Limbaugh’s show. He [Rubio] declared: “If there is not language in this bill that guarantees that nothing else will happen unless these enforcement mechanisms are in place, I won’t support it.” Of course, we know there wasn’t any such language but he voted for it anyway. But this promise — and many others — and the calculated neutralization of conservative media, helped Schumer get 68 votes. But conservatives trusted Rubio. Limbaugh declared: ‘you are meeting everybody honestly.’

Rubio told [Sean] Hannity, on his media tour that: “I don’t think any of that [amnesty] begins until we certify that the border security progress has been real. That a workplace enforcement mechanism is in place. That we are tracking visitors to our country, especially when they exit.” This prompted Hannity to reply: “It’s probably the most thoughtful bill that I have heard heretofore.” At this point, it looked like the biggest mass immigration plan in history would breeze through Congress — all without Rubio saying a word about what was really in the heart of the bill: the largest immigration expansion in American history. To this day, Rubio will not answer if asked about how many green cards his bill gave out.”

Like Coulter, Schlafly has previously warned that if immigration is not stopped: We’re not going to be America anymore.”

If we don’t stop immigration—this torrent of immigrants coming in—we’re not going to be America anymore because most of the people coming in have no experience with limited government. They don’t know what that is. They look to the government to solve all of their problems, and as soon as we have a high majority of people who think that, it’s going to be a different country.

To this day, Rubio continues to support giving citizenship to illegal immigrants, substantially expanding visa issuances for foreign guest workers, increasing refugee resettlement, and surging immigration beyond all known historical precedent.

Senator Merkley to hold Town Halls - plan to attend

Senator Merkley has announced a series of town halls in January.  Please check the list and plan to attend one of the town halls near you.  Invite your neighbors and friends to come along, as well.  You can raise many questions about the Senator’s positions on immigration issues.  You can view and print out a copy of his voting record to give to him, here:

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/my/congress/1341/reportcard/CONGRESS/

In his announcement, he says:  “Senator Merkley will update constituents on his work in Washington, D.C. and answer their questions and invite their suggestions about how to tackle the challenges facing Oregon and America.”

-----------------------------------

January 5, 2016 @ 11:00 AM

Jefferson County Town Hall

Central Oregon Community College Open Campus - Community Room

1170 E Ashwood Road, Madras, OR 97741

-----------------------------------

January 5, 2016 @ 3:00 PM

Crook County Town Hall

Crook County High School - Auditorium

1100 SE Lynn Blvd, Prineville, OR 97754

----------------------------------

January 5, 2016 @ 6:30 PM

Deschutes County Town Hall

Central Oregon Community College - Wille Hall

2600 NW College Way, Bend, OR 97701

-----------------------------------

January 6, 2016 @ 10:30 AM

Lake County Town Hall

Memorial Hall - Lake County Courthouse

513 Center Street, Lakeview, OR 97630

-----------------------------------

January 6, 2016 @ 3:30 PM

Klamath County Town Hall

Oregon Institute of Technology - Mazama Room, Student Union

3201 Campus Drive, Klamath Falls, OR 97601

-----------------------------------

January 7, 2016 @ 9:00 AM

Jackson County Town Hall

Hanby Middle School - Cafeteria

806 6th Avenue, Gold Hill, OR 97525

------------------------------------

January 7, 2016 @ 12:00 PM

Josephine County Town Hall

Grants Pass High School - Library

830 NE 9th Street, Grants Pass, OR 97526

------------------------------------

January 7, 2016 @ 5:00 PM

Curry County Town Hall

Southwest Oregon Community College - Community Meeting Room

96082 Lone Ranch Parkway, Brookings, OR 97415

-----------------------------------

January 8, 2016 @ 9:00 AM

Coos County Town Hall

Myrtle Point High School - Cafeteria

717 4th Street, Myrtle Point, OR 97458

----------------------------------

January 8, 2016 @ 12:30 PM

Douglas County Town Hall

Douglas High School – Cafeteria

1381 NW Douglas Blvd, Winston, OR 97496

-----------------------------------

January 9, 2016 @ 10:00 AM

Benton County Town Hall

Monroe Community Library - Large Conference Room

380 N Fifth Street, Monroe, OR 97456

-----------------------------------

January 9, 2016 @ 1:30 PM

Linn County Town Hall

Brownsville City Hall - City Council Chambers

255 N Main Street, Brownsville, OR 97327

-----------------------------------

January 9, 2016 @ 4:00 PM

Lane County Town Hall

Coburg City Hall - City Council Chambers

91136 N Willamette Street, Coburg, OR 97408

Remember - the good Senator works for us.  Attend the meeting, ask questions, get answers.  Share your experience with OFIR.
 

Debating immigration in sound bites

 
The GOP presidential candidates’ debate in Milwaukee highlighted the difficulty in dealing with sensitive immigration issues in sound bites. The moderators phrased questions aiming at getting ‘yes” or “no” responses. But, only someone who does not understand the issue would be comfortable with a sound bite response.
 
One of the most heated exchanges in that debate occurred over the question whether the candidate, if elected president – would deport the 11-12 million illegal aliens. The thrust of the questioning was to provoke a split between those who would support some legalization program, i.e., amnesty, for the illegal alien population and those who refuse to accept another general amnesty like that enacted in 1986.
 
Attempting to provoke a “yes” or “no” response plays into the hands of the supporters of amnesty because it allows them to characterize their opponent as cold-hearted and unrealistic. Those who rejected amnesty were derided as unrealistic as well as uncaring by establishment candidates who apparently believe they can win more Latino votes by embracing some form of amnesty.
 
This debate format makes it difficult for a candidate to take a nuanced position that demonstrates that he or she understands the human impact of deportation and has weighed the negative impact of deportation on the aliens as well as their families which may include U.S.-born children against the negative impact that illegal immigration has on the U.S. public.
 
A more nuanced discussion is one that amnesty supporters try to avoid because they do not want to concede that there are negative impacts on society in general and individual Americans from illegal immigration.
 
So, how could a presidential candidate answer the amnesty “yes” or “no” question?
 
“Our immigration law is designed to protect Americans from unwanted immigration, and if we continue to accept illegal immigration through amnesties like the one in 1986, we will perpetuate the harm to Americans that has come from the job competition, crowding of schools, criminality and demands on scarce social service resources that should be available for our neediest citizens.”
 
Q. “So you support rounding them up and sending them home?
 
A. “When our law enforcement officers at all levels find persons in the country illegally they should get those aliens into deportation proceedings. And efforts to deny competition for jobs from illegal workers need to be made more effective so that future illegal immigration is discouraged and current illegal residents realize that their future lies in returning to their home country.”
 
Q. “So you support breaking up families by deporting the parents of U.S. citizen kids?
 
A. “The ‘mixed-status’ families issue is a false dilemma. It is based on a misreading of the 14th Amendment. The children born to illegal aliens in the U.S. should not have ever been considered U.S. citizens. In any case, they have the parents’ nationality and can accompany the parents when they leave voluntarily or are deported.

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.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - amnesty