Homeland Security

Another sneaky way the DHS helps aliens instead of citizens

It seems the DHS cannot do enough to give benefits to aliens and help employers get cheaper labor.  Now a new rule allows the wives of H-1B workers to take jobs here, along with their husbands.  As David North of the Center for Immigration Studies says, there is no need for extra workers of any kind.  The spouses of H-1B workers are likely not in need of a job, and even if they were, any job openings should be available to citizens first.  

 
And by the way -- “An American woman who has a husband with a job in India cannot legally work there.” 
 
The entire H-1B visa program is notoriously corrupt; this latest embellishment makes it even more so. 
 
DHS will start receiving these new employment authorization applications on May 26.
 
-------------------------------
 
Stealth Work Force of as Many as 179,600 H-4 Workers Due To Be Authorized 
By David North, Center for Immigration Studies, May 6, 2015 
 
My colleague John Miano reported late last month on the highly suspect legal status of the H-4 workers DHS will authorize to start work in the next few weeks — these are a subset of the dependents of H-1B workers, usually spouses of programmers or other IT workers.
 
Now, let me tell you about the impact that they will have on the American labor market: It will take away jobs from as many as 179,600 U.S. workers — that's the government estimate — and, indirectly, will swell the coffers of some of America's most prosperous companies. Most of these will be white collar jobs.
 
This is a stealth work force and its impact on various U.S. labor markets will be so scattered that it will not be covered the press. Of course, I hope I am wrong about that. 
 
When the news gets out that a major corporation (such as Southern California Edison) has decided to replace hundreds of perfectly good resident workers with H-1Bs, newspapers cover the event and some politicians start making appropriate noises.
 
But the arrivals of the H-4s in the labor market will be quite different; one by one they will get jobs all over the country quietly and slowly; that new worker in the grocery store or the new accountant or perhaps the librarian in the law firm, they will all arrive without fanfare and another three jobs will be lost to American workers, who probably will never know that a decision in Washington robbed them of these jobs, or at least postponed their getting new jobs. 
 
There are a bunch of things wrong with the government's H-4 decision:
 
• It has nothing to do with the needs of the U.S. labor market; the workers are located near where their spouses work and no agency has decided (as it does with H-1B) that their skills are needed;
• There is no need for extra workers of any kind in the United States; 
• The workers themselves have absolutely no labor market protections; they can be hired at any wage (at or above the minimum); and
• Oddly, these particular H-4s are — as opposed to, say, Mexican H-4s married to H2-A farm workers — a comparatively cosseted population. 
 
On the last point one should bear two facts in mind. First, these workers, probably 90-plus percent women, are not only married to employed college graduates (all H-1Bs fit that description), but the H-1Bs are probably making in excess of $70,000 a year. I would guess that most of the H-4 women, or a large minority, have college degrees of their own. 
 
The new program, after all, is for the spouses of the upper classes of the H-1B population, people whose value to their employer is characterized, by definition, as above average because the employer has filed a green card application for the worker. 
 
The real (but totally hidden) beneficiaries of this program are the big corporations hiring the husbands — there is no need to give the H-1B a raise now that his wife can work, saving millions of dollars. 
 
I understand that many of these spouses are restless being unemployed, and many of them have something to contribute to society, but shouldn't U.S. workers get first dibs on available jobs?
 
By the way, and this is a minor point, this is not a reciprocal-arrangement with India, from whence come most H-1Bs. An American woman who has a husband with a job in India cannot legally work there. 
 
USCIS does not tell us where it got its 179,600 estimate of jobs to be filled in the near future by these women, or how it obtained is accompanying estimate of 55,000 new applicants each year in the future, but I suspect that both of these are understatements. 
 
Nevertheless, it is useful that USCIS has given us some numerical estimates; it does not always do that. 
 
As the agency says in its announcement, it will start receiving employment authorization applications from these H-4s (and the $385 fee that goes with them) on May 26. 
 

Homeland Security Working Overtime to Add ‘New Americans’ by 2016 Election

Sources at the Department of Homeland Security report to PJ Media that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services is reallocating significant resources to sending letters to all 9,000,000 green card holders urging them to naturalize prior to the 2016 election.

President Obama’s amnesty by edict has always been about adding new Democrats to the voter rolls, and recent action by the Department of Homeland Security provides further proof. Sources at the Department of Homeland Security report to PJ Media that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services is reallocating significant resources away from a computer system — the “Electronic Immigration System” — to sending letters to all 9,000,000 green card holders urging them to naturalize prior to the 2016 election.

This effort is part of the DHS “Task Force on New Americans.”

PJ Media has obtained an internal “Dear Colleague” letter written by Leon Rodriguez, the “director and co-chair of the Task Force on New Americans.”  The letter refers to a White House report called “Strengthening Communities by Welcoming All Residents.”

Leon Rodriguez has a tainted history...

The Rodriguez letter states:

This report outlines an immigrant integration plan that will advance our nation’s global competitiveness and ensure that the people who live in this country can fully participate in their communities.

“Full participation” is a term commonly used to include voting rights.  To that end, resources within DHS have been redirected toward pushing as many as aliens and non-citizens as possible to full citizenship status so they may “fully participate” in the 2016 presidential election.  For example, the internal DHS letter states one aim is to “strengthen existing pathways to naturalization and promote civic engagement.”

Leon Rodriguez

Leon Rodriguez

Naturalization plus mobilization is the explicit aim of the DHS “Task Force on New Americans.” Multiple sources at DHS confirm that political appointees are prioritizing naturalization ahead of the 2016 presidential election.

Empirical voting patterns among immigrants from minority communities demonstrate that these new voters will overwhelmingly vote for Democrat candidates...

Other DHS sources report that racial interest groups such as La Raza (translated to “The Race”) and the American Immigration Lawyers Association have been playing a central and influential role in rewriting the administration’s immigration policies...

This means that DHS is not only rushing green card holders toward citizenship before the next election, but also jamming previous visa holders toward green card status.  These policies and priorities add to the brazen public positions of the president toward enforcing immigration laws.

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.

Immigration action back in limelight

A U.S. Court of Appeals hears arguments, April 17, on an injunction that stopped Obama's executive order to give work status to illegal aliens but the issue could take longer if it goes to the Supreme Court.

PASCO, Wash. — It may be months yet before millions of people living in the U.S. illegally can sign up for temporary legal work status under the president’s controversial executive action, a Pasco immigration attorney says.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in New Orleans, hears arguments April 17 on an injunction preventing the Obama administration from proceeding with deportation deferrals and temporary legal work status for people in the U.S. illegally.

Having just dismissed a similar case April 9, the court is likely to overturn the injunction and let the programs proceed while taking up the merits of the case, says attorney Tom Roach.

But regardless of which way the court goes on the injunction, the losing party may appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court and that could take several more months to hear, Roach said.

He estimates there are 90,000 to 100,000 people in Central Washington and northeastern Oregon, thousands more in Idaho and many thousands more in California who are eligible for the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) or an expanded 2014 version of the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, called DACA 2.0. Many of them are farmworkers.

The programs are executive actions giving temporary legal work status to illegals who have lived in the U.S. at least five years, not been convicted of disqualifying crimes and meet some other conditions.

Roach said he helped about 350 people prepare to sign up for DAPA before the program was put on hold Feb. 16 by an injunction by a U.S. District Court judge in Texas.

Roach said he’s handled 335 cases under the 2012 DACA which he’s been told is more than any other immigration attorney in the state.

How many people sign up for DAPA or DACA 2.0, if the programs are eventually upheld, is a good question, he said.

Some people may be eager for legal status and benefits that come with it while others may figure they’ve done well enough in the shadows for years and are reluctant to risk exposure since deferrals are only good for three years, he said.

Benefits include a Social Security card good only with a work permit and, in some states, drivers licenses.

The government estimates 1.2 million people were eligible under the 2012 DACA program but only 600,000 signed up, Roach said.

An estimated 4 million to 5 million people are eligible for DAPA nationwide. “It wouldn’t surprise me if only half of them sign up,” he said.

Shortly after the November 2014 elections, President Obama issued an executive action for DAPA and DACA 2.0. The administration planned to implement the programs this spring. Many Republicans said the action was unconstitutional, that Obama was writing law.

On Feb. 16, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen, in Texas, ruled in favor of 26 states that sued to overturn the executive order and issued an injunction stopping the programs on grounds that they were implemented without following an administrative procedures act requiring a public comment period.

On April 7, Hanen denied an administration request to lift his injunction.

The government argues the executive order is prosecutorial discretion that does not require the administrative procedures act be followed, Roach said.

Prior administrations have deferred deportation of people from China, Nicaragua, Cuba and other places, just not on the same scale, he said.

On April 9, the 5th Circuit Court dismissed a lawsuit challenging the 2012 DACA, saying the state of Mississippi lacked standing to sue because it did not prove it was injured by the program.

The 26 states suing over DAPA and DACA 2.0 “allege irreparable harm, that the programs will cost them lots of money and encourage more illegal immigration,” Roach said.

Judge Keeps Injunction on Obama’s Immigration Plan

AUSTIN, Texas—A Texas federal judge late Tuesday night declined to lift his injunction blocking the Obama administration’s immigration action to defer deportations for more than four million people in the country illegally.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen declined a request by the administration to lift his Feb. 16 ruling temporarily blocking the administration from proceeding with the immigration plans, announced by President Barack Obama in November.

Texas and officials from 25 other largely Republican states sued to stop Mr. Obama’s action, arguing that it was an unconstitutional overreach of presidential power.

The Justice Department has already appealed the matter to the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is set to hear oral arguments in the case on April 17...

Judge Hanen also issued a separate ruling Tuesday night allowing the states to conduct discovery into their separate claim that the administration, beginning late last year, improperly implemented part of its immigration program, even though it had allegedly represented to Judge Hanen that it wouldn’t do so until February.

Texas made the complaint after the federal government revealed in a court filing that it had granted some immigrants deferred deportation under the DACA program for three years, the new terms called for in the November executive action, rather than the prior two-year deferral...

Judge Hanen found that the administration has made multiple “misleading” statements about the implementation of its immigration program. He ordered the administration to produce a range of documents and information by April 21 related to its representations to the court about the rollout of the program.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is leading the suit by the states, said in a statement that Judge Hanen’s ruling affirms that “once put into effect, President Obama’s executive amnesty program will be virtually impossible to reverse.” He added: “Any premature implementation could have serious consequences, inflicting irreparable harm on our state.”
 

Detentions put counties, ICE at odds

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials say that refusal by jails to cooperate with so-called “detainers” is resulting in unauthorized immigrants with violent criminal pasts – including alleged rapists, child abusers and drug traffickers – being released in New Mexico before federal authorities can take them into custody.

But the counties being asked to hold those individuals are pushing back, citing lawsuits and costs, among other objections.

Nearly every New Mexico county detention center, along with hundreds of other jurisdictions around the country, have in most circumstances stopped honoring ICE’s 48-hour “detainer” – a request to hold arrested persons whom the agency suspects are in the country illegally.

The detainers have become a flashpoint in the debate over how local law enforcement should aid federal immigration authorities and reveal a strain in that relationship after years of closer ties.

ICE provided the Journal with a half-dozen sample cases from 2014 “in which dangerous criminal aliens were released from New Mexico jails since they failed to honor ICE detainers.” Among them were:

- A 30-year-old Mexican male charged with two counts of criminal sexual penetration of a minor, released in December.

- A 28-year-old Mexican female charged with intentional child abuse resulting in great bodily harm, released in July.

- A 39-year-old Mexican male charged with two counts of trafficking a controlled substance, three counts of child abuse, receiving or transferring of stolen motor vehicles, tampering with evidence and possessing drug paraphernalia, released in March last year.

ICE did not say whether those individuals were convicted on those charges before their release.

But New Mexico counties say ICE has no business asking them to hold people without charge – especially since counties, including Doña Ana and San Juan, are increasingly facing litigation for doing so. U.S. District Court last month said the federal government must be a party to a lawsuit by three unauthorized immigrants who claim San Juan County wrongly detained them under an ICE hold.

Counties say ICE should be held to the standards of other federal law enforcement agencies and charge people with an immigration crime, seek a warrant for their arrest or arrest them upon their release.

“County jails can’t hold a person unless they are criminally charged,” said Matt Elwell, director of the Luna County Detention Center, which stopped honoring ICE detainers three years ago. “That is the difference between a detainer and charge. A detainer says ‘just hold this person,’ and legally we can’t. If (ICE agents) have enough time to put a detainer, I say why don’t you just charge them with a criminal act?”

Counties in a bind

Here’s how the detainer has historically been used: Police arrest someone on a criminal charge such as domestic violence or a serious traffic violation. While the person awaits a chance to post bond or complete a sentence, and ICE suspects he has also violated immigration laws, ICE places a detainer, asking the jail to hold him 48 hours to give ICE a chance to assume custody – on the county’s dime and without filing an additional immigration charge.

Counties say those requests put them in a bind.

The New Mexico Association of Counties reports that at least 24 of 28 county detention centers statewide no longer honor the detainer. ICE confirmed that “most of the jurisdictions in New Mexico do not honor ICE detainers.”

San Juan County Detention Center Administrator Thomas Havel, who is named in the lawsuit, offers this message to ICE: “Don’t put us in peril, give us a bona fide charge and we’ll hold an individual. That’s all it takes.”

Additionally, when a hold is in place, ICE doesn’t foot the bill, the county does. In Doña Ana County, that amounts to $62 a day. In Santa Fe, it’s $85 a day.

“I feel very confident in saying that the vast majority of law enforcement agencies would see the need and the benefit to cooperate with ICE,” said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that favors tougher immigration controls. “They don’t feel ICE has been abusing its authority. But the problem now is the threat of litigation.”

Detainers denied

ICE issued 600 detainers in New Mexico in fiscal year 2014 but said it does not routinely track the number of detainers that aren’t honored. However, The Associated Press reported that in the first eight months of 2014, localities nationwide declined 8,800 of the roughly 105,000 detainer requests filed by immigration officers.

“The release of serious criminal offenders to the community, rather than to ICE custody for removal, undermines ICE’s ability to protect public safety and impedes ICE from enforcing the nation’s immigration laws,” ICE said in a statement.

ICE declined to describe its current policy for taking custody of unauthorized immigrants in New Mexico, saying it “does not discuss specific operating methods.”

‘Constitutional’ issues

Jurisdictions across the country increasingly began to deny ICE detainers thanks to a U.S. Court of Appeals decision a year ago ruling that detainers are nonbinding requests and do not carry the force of a criminal charge or warrant.

Vicki Gaubeca, director of the ACLU’s Regional Center for Border Rights in Las Cruces, said ICE detainers “raise serious constitutional problems.”

“No right is more firmly ingrained in our Constitution … than the right not to be left in jail indefinitely without charges filed or an opportunity to post bail,” she said. “States and municipalities would open themselves to liability if they treated ICE detainers as if they were sentences imposed by a court.”

New Mexico counties have been faced with tort claims for wrongful detention.

Doña Ana County was one of the last New Mexico counties to stop honoring the detainers, ending the practice last May. The county got tangled in litigation when two Mexican women sued after the jail prohibited them from posting bond and imprisoned them for two months on the basis of a 48-hour ICE hold.

The women, sisters Hortencia and Maria Acahua Zepahua, had been living in New Mexico for 12 years and had applied for legal residency.

“We are under more scrutiny than ICE would be,” said Chris Barela, director of the Doña Ana County Detention Center. “There was a time when we used to ask the citizenship. That is no longer allowed.”

New priorities

Cooperation between local and federal law enforcement on immigration issues in recent years had been dictated by the Secure Communities program, under which detainers were issued until U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson discontinued Secure Communities in a Nov. 20 memo to ICE.

“The goal of Secure Communities was to more effectively identify and facilitate the removal of criminal aliens in the custody of state and local law enforcement agencies,” Johnson said in the memo. “But the reality is the program has attracted a great deal of criticism, is widely misunderstood and is embroiled in litigation; its very name has become a symbol for general hostility toward the enforcement of our immigration laws.”

Johnson instructed ICE to replace requests for detention with requests for notification. Rather than ask a county jail to hold individuals beyond their release date, Johnson told ICE to ask local law enforcement to inform the agency of a pending release.

DHS spokeswoman Marsha Catron said a transition is underway to replace Secure Communities with the “Priority Enforcement Program,” which reflects the administration’s focus on targeting unauthorized immigrants who are also convicted criminals.

“ICE will now only seek transfer under PEP of an individual in state or local law enforcement custody if that individual has a conviction for a criminal offense, is suspected of terrorism or espionage, or otherwise poses a danger to national security,” Catron said in a statement.

New reality

New Mexico counties describe varying degrees of communication with ICE, from solid working relationships to minimal interaction. Several detention centers said they provide ICE with a daily roster of inmates so that the agency can run the names and determine whether to bring immigration charges.

Elwell in Luna County described a good relationship with local ICE agents. On the other end of the spectrum, Barela said Doña Ana doesn’t communicate with ICE at all – not even emailing a daily roster – to protect itself from liability. ICE agents drop by “every couple of days” in person to review the list, he

“We don’t send them anything anymore,” he said.

Mark Caldwell, warden of the Santa Fe Adult Detention Facility, said, “Once the detainers were not honored, we really haven’t been in communication.”
 

AZ lawmakers urge DHS, ICE not to release illegal immigrant with TB

FLORENCE, AZ (KPHO/KTVK) - Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake, as well as Rep. Paul Gosar, AZ-District 4, and Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, AZ-District 1, sent a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Sarah Saldana. [Click here to read the letter.]

Gosar's office said Pinal County Director of Public Health Thomas Schryer was notified this week that ICE is planning to release an illegal immigrant with drug-resistant tuberculosis into the Pinal County community.

Schryer said there are about 35 cases of TB that go through the ICE facility in Florence each year and they are usually treated and then deported.

But Schryer said they have been unable to treat this immigrant's case.

He's been in the facility for the last seven months.
 

Judge delays ruling on unblocking Obama immigration executive actions

A federal judge signaled Monday that he has no plans to act soon on the Obama Administration's request to stay an order blocking President Barack Obama's latest round of executive actions on immigration.

U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen said in an order issued Monday afternoon that he views as serious claims that federal government lawyers may have misled the court about the implementation of new immigration policies the president ordered in November.

Last week, the Justice Department advised Hanen that the federal government issued new 3-year "deferred action" grants and work permits to 100,000 people between November 24 and when Hanen blocked the Obama moves on February 16.

The group of 26 states whose lawsuit persuaded Hanen to block the Obama immigration actions recently filed a motion calling the federal disclosure "surprising" and asserting that Justice Department lawyers had assured the court that no action would be taken to implement Obama's new policies until mid-February.

Obama's moves announced in November expanded eligibility for the "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals" program and initiated a new program for illegal immigrants who are parents of U.S. citizens or permanent residents. However, there was a third part to Obama's new actions: he extended the "deferred action" period protecting certain immigrants from deportation from two years to three, and authorized the issuance of three-year work permits as well.

Hanen, who sits in Brownsville, Texas, said Monday that he wants a more complete explanation of what happened.

"Due to the seriousness of the matters discussed therein, the Court will not rule on any other pending motions until it is clear that these matters, if true, do not impact the pending matters or any rulings previously made by this Court," Hanen wrote. He set a hearing on the matter for March 19 and ordered that Justice Department lawyers "be prepared to fully explain to this Court all of the matters addressed in and circumstances surrounding" the notice the feds sent the judge last week.

A Justice official who asked not to be named said Hanen's ruling was being reviewed.

Hanen's decision appears to indicate that he won't be meeting a deadline of sorts the Justice Department set last week, warning it could move to an appeals court to block Hanen's original injunction if he didn't act on a stay request by the close of business Monday.

A few weeks ago, federal government lawyers set a similar timing target for Hanen, but did not move to the 5th Circuit after he failed to rule by that time

Collapse of immigration law enforcement detailed to House Committee

 
Jessica Vaughan, a security expert with the Center for Immigration Studies, testified on February 25, 2015 before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittees on National Security and Health Care, Benefits and Administrative Rules.  The Committee was holding a Hearing to review DHS policies and procedures for the apprehension, detention, and release of non-citizens unlawfully present in the U.S. 
 
Ms. Vaughan’s lengthy testimony used the government’s own statistics along with information from sheriffs and ICE employees in the interior of the country, to describe in detail what the current, dangerous situation is.
 
Her statement begins:
 
 “…There can be no doubt that immigration enforcement is in a state of collapse. Border apprehensions, which are considered an indicator of illegal crossing attempts, are rising and many of the illegal crossers are being released into the country instead of repatriated. Hundreds of thousands of temporary visitors are overstaying their visas each year. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) statistics show clearly that over the last several years the number of deportations has plummeted and the number of illegal aliens allowed to stay and work in the United States has increased. The vast majority of illegal aliens residing in the interior face no threat of deportation, regardless of when or how they arrived, or if they have been deported before. Many deportable aliens who are encountered and apprehended by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers are released soon after, even if they have come to ICE's attention after being arrested by local authorities. 
 
"This state of affairs can be traced directly to policy changes put in place by the Obama administration. While administration officials claims that these policies are 'smarter and more effective' and allow the agencies to better focus on aliens who represent a threat to the public, in reality the intent, and certainly the result, has been the dismantlement of effective enforcement. It is no exaggeration to say that DHS is running a massive catch and release program.  …"
 
 

There Is No Executive Order for Amnesty! - It Is Far Worse

NOTE:  DHS issued ten memorandums to implement Obama's executive amnesty.

As we enter the last two years of the Obama Administration, the outlook on immigration issues is as bleak as it is complex and potentially overwhelming.

No, there is no Executive Order for amnesty for illegal aliens. The media coverage of President Obama’s “executive order on amnesty” has been loud, repetitious, and wrong. Many news organizations have used the terms “Executive Order” and “Executive Action” and “Executive Memorandum” interchangeably, and incorrectly.

As of January 23, the White House website for Executive Orders1 shows no amnesty for illegal aliens.

What is being done is far worse for our country and our culture.

On the day of the President’s supposed Executive Order, November 20, 2014, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Jeh Johnson issued ten memorandums.2

The timeline of what happened: The news reported President Obama’s impending announcement on “executive order amnesty” for over a week.

At 8:00pm ET on November 20, 2014, President Obama did give a speech3 that was filled with lies and misinformation. He lied about border security and the number of illegal aliens entering our country. He repeated the idiocy about how our immigration system is “broken.” He made the same claim in his January 20 State of the Union address to Congress. (Just how the system is broken, nobody has ever honestly or accurately described.)

Obama surrendered on enforcement:

…tracking down, rounding up, and deporting millions of people isn’t realistic.

He also called it, “impossible.” But, nobody could know what is possible or “impossible” because real enforcement hasn’t been tried in decades.

No “Executive Order Amnesty” was announced on November 20, only the usual shibboleths about immigration.

However, earlier in the day Secretary of DHS Jeh Johnson issued ten memorandums dealing with legal and illegal immigration, immigration enforcement, prosecutorial discretion, DACA, etc.4

On Friday, November 21, President Obama traveled to Las Vegas, gave a speech, and signed two Presidential Memorandums, not Executive Orders as the media, once again, erroneously reported.5

In the first memorandum, “Modernizing and Streamlining the U.S. Immigrant Visa System for the twenty-first century,”6 Obama twice invokes the “broken” lie and says;

We have worked to simplify an overly complex visa system, one that is confusing to travelers and immigrants, burdensome to businesses, and results in long wait times that negatively impact millions of families and workers. But we can and must do more to improve this system.

Translation: “Even though the United States lets in more legal immigrants per year than almost all the rest of the countries in the world added up…we are going to accelerate the process.” In the second memorandum, “Creating Welcoming Communities and Fully Integrating Immigrants and Refugees,”7 Obama provides an overview of the plan to accelerate legal immigration and to naturalize over 13 million Legal Permanent Residents before the 2016 Presidential election....

[Read the original article for an explanation of each of the ten DHS memorandums]

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Homeland Security