illegal immigration

GOP, President Obama deeply divided on immigration

President Obama repeated Sunday that he intends to change U.S. immigration law through executive action, over Republican leaders’ repeated requests to wait and dire warnings about the consequences of sidestepping Congress.

“I’m going to do what I need to do,” Obama told CBS’ “Face the Nation,” in an interview taped on Friday.

As he has said before, the president said he would prefer that reform legislation come through Congress, but that he has waited for more than a year for House Speaker John Boehner to pass a bill like the Democrat-controlled Senate has done.

“If a bill gets passed, nobody would be happier than me,” Obama said.

His remarks followed similar ones made Wednesday, which brought dire warnings from Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell that were followed by more on Sunday.

“I believe [executive action] will hurt cooperation on every issue,” Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., told “Fox News Sunday.” “I think it would be like the president pulling the pin out of a hand grenade and throwing it in as we are trying to actually work together. I am hoping that cooler heads at the White House can prevail."

The comments by Barrasso, chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, followed Boehner warning Obama that using executive action would “poison the well” and McConnell, who will likely be the Senate majority leader next year, comparing it to waving a flag in front of a bull.

“Their time hasn’t run out,” Obama told CBS, arguing that legislation passed by Congress would supersede his executive action.

To be sure, the president is under pressure to use executive action on immigration reform, after promising Americans that he would by the end of summer, then delaying any action until after the midterms, which upset Democrats’ strong Hispanic base.

Obama also said Sunday that inaction is a “mis-allocation of resources” and that the country cannot continue to deport people who should be allowed to stay and keep those who should leave Read more about Obama: 'I’m going to do what I need to do' on immigration

The Obama administration yesterday announced that it is spending $9 million to provide lawyers for some of the young illegal immigrants who flooded across the border earlier this year, but voters strongly believe these illegal immigrants do not have the same legal rights U.S. citizens do.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 68% of Likely U.S. Voters say the new illegal immigrants should not have the same legal rights and protections that U.S. citizens have. Just 19% disagree. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure. (To see question wording, click here.)

Seventy-one percent (71%) say these illegal newcomers should not be eligible for government services and benefits. Sixteen percent (16%) believe they are entitled to government aid. Again, 13% are undecided.

Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters think the availability of government money and services draws illegal immigrants to the United States. Twenty-one percent (21%) believe this government assistance is not a magnet for illegal immigration, but 15% are not sure. These views are little changed from early March 2010 when we first asked this question.

Thirty-eight percent (38%) now say some of this year’s wave of illegal immigrants have been moved by the federal government to their state. Fifteen percent (15%) say their state hasn’t received any of these illegals, but nearly half (46%) of voters don’t know. The administration refuses to make public where these illegal immigrants are being moved and, in most cases, is not telling local and state officials beforehand.

Just 29% of voters approve of housing these illegal immigrants in their state. Only 34% think the administration needs to release publicly the locations of where the illegal immigrants are going, but a plurality (47%) believes it should get the approval of elected officials in a state before moving them there.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on August September 29-30, 2014 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.

Most voters think the president wants this latest group of illegal immigrants to stay in this country despite majority support for their quick deportation.

Just 30% of voters give the Obama administration good or excellent marks for its handling of the thousands of illegal immigrant children who have entered the country this year. Forty-seven percent (47%) rate the administration’s handling of the problem as poor. This is unchanged from mid-August.

Fifty-four percent (54%) of Democrats give the administration positive marks for dealing with the latest immigration situation, compared to six percent (6%) of Republicans and 26% of voters not affiliated with either major party.

Democrats, however, tend to agree with the others when it comes to legal rights and government benefits for illegal immigrants but not nearly as strongly. For example, while 89% of GOP voters and 70% of unaffiliateds think illegals should not have the same legal rights and protections that U.S. citizens have, just a plurality (49%) of voters in the president’s party agree.

Similarly, 51% of Democrats do not think illegal immigrants should be eligible for government services and benefits, but that compares to 91% of Republicans and 75% of unaffiliated voters.

Republicans are more aware than the others whether some of the new illegal immigrants have been moved to their state.

Men and women are in general agreement when it comes to legal rights and benefits for these illegal immigrants. Voters under 40 are only slightly more supportive than their elders in both cases.

School districts around the country are beginning to discover where the administration has moved many of the new illegal immigrants, but 53% of all voters don’t believe these youngsters should be allowed to attend local schools. Thirty-two percent (32%) disagree, while 14% are undecided.

Most voters oppose the president’s reported plan to unilaterally grant amnesty to several million illegal immigrants and think Congress should challenge him in court if he goes ahead with it. Consistent with surveying for years, two-out-of-three voters (67%) think securing the border to prevent future illegal immigration should come before amnesty is granted for some illegal immigrants already in this country. Just 26% believe amnesty should come first.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) favor a comprehensive immigration reform plan that would give legal status to those who entered the country illegally but have otherwise obeyed the law – if the border is really secured to prevent future illegal immigration. The problem for immigration reformers is that only 33% think it’s even somewhat likely that the federal government will actually secure the border, with seven percent (7%) who say it’s Very Likely. Read more about Voters Strongly Oppose Legal Rights, Government Benefits for Illegal Immigrants

The strategists who base their political advice on public opinion polls have just had a surprise. A new poll reports that the American people are now more likely to trust Republicans to handle immigration and less likely to trust Democratic plans to offer illegals a path to citizenship (a.k.a. amnesty).

The new survey is decisive; 35 percent say the Republican Party would do a better job on immigration while only 27 percent say the Democrats would. That’s a dramatic reversal from the previous year.

The Wall Street Journal poll also revealed another change in public opinion that should get the attention of candidates. Support for the much-discussed “pathway to citizenship” has dropped significantly from 64 percent in April to 53 percent today.

…

Obama was saying all summer that his plan was to bypass Congress and the Constitution and issue an “executive amnesty” for millions of illegal aliens. His amnesty plan has since changed to be issued only after the 2014 elections so as not to defeat Democrats up for election in November.

His planned amnesty will include work permits, photo IDs, and Social Security numbers for millions of people who entered the U.S. illegally, overstayed their visas, or defrauded U.S. immigration authorities.

As Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said, “Never in recent memory has the divide between the everyday citizen and the political elite been as wide as it is now.” He says the immigration debate comes down to several major questions:

Does our country have the right to decide who comes to live and work here? Do we have the right to demand that our representatives enforce our laws? Should American workers get priority for jobs?

If your answer is Yes, it is essential to block Obama’s planned executive amnesty and demand that Harry Reid call this up for a vote.

As Sessions said, “Let this sink in. The majority leader of the Senate is bragging that he knows the president will circumvent Congress to issue executive amnesty to millions.” Read more about Immigration Chicanery

Supporters say measure would improve safety on Oregon streets; opponents worry it would make state vulnerable to fraud

In the ongoing national debate about immigration reform, Oregon was one of a number of states to make changes to driver’s license policies in 2013.

The Legislature’s response was Senate Bill 833, which was intended to make four-year “driver cards” available to residents who cannot prove their legal presence in the United States.

The bill was approved, but before it was enacted, a veto referendum was successful in placing the issue on the ballot for the Nov. 4 general election.

The driver card would differ from an Oregon driver’s license in several ways, including that the card would be valid for only four years, as compared to the license’s eight.

The card, like the license, would also require applicants to pass written and behind-the-wheel tests, provide proof of residency in Oregon for at least one year and provide proof of identity and date of birth.

But that’s not enough for Jim Ludwick, communications director for the political action committee Oregonians for Immigration Reform and the Protect Oregon Driver’s Licenses (PODL, pronounced “poe-dle”) committee.

Ludwick said his organization, which led the referendum effort, is worried that SB 833, if enacted, would make the state and its licensing offices more susceptible to foreign criminals and drug traffickers.

“(Interstate 5)?is a major artery for Mexican drug cartels,” Ludwick said. “And they want these driver cards. I think the feeling is, if they have a driver card, they can go anywhere.”

Ludwick said he is worried that SB 833 would reinstate the practice of Matrícula Consular cards being accepted by the Department of Motor Vehicles as proof of identification.

Although issued by the government of Mexico with a number of security features, the card has been criticized by U.S. law enforcement officials and agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as being unreliable and highly vulnerable to fraud.

Ludwick is afraid that, under SB 833, a criminal could falsify a Matrícula card, then use it to obtain a driver card, in which case the state would be effectively lending legitimacy to the fraudulent identity.

“That would basically be Oregon verifying that this is the person whose face agrees with that name,” he said.

Ludwick said the current law in Oregon already allows legal immigrants or temporary residents to obtain driver’s licenses, but the licenses are valid only for the duration of the individual’s documented legal presence in the country.

As further evidence of safety concerns associated with the measure, Ludwick pointed out that the referendum has been publicly supported by a number of law enforcement officials, including Clatsop County Sheriff Tom Bergin, former Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller and the Sheriffs of Oregon political action committee.

But Caroline Fitchett, campaign director for Yes on 88, rebutted Ludwick’s claims. She said there are “important safeguards required in order to obtain a driver card,” designed to address safety concerns.

“The facial recognition feature, proof of identity and proof of residency in Oregon for at least one year are key requirements the DMV will utilize in order to prevent fraud,”?she said.

She pointed out that law enforcement officials have also supported the Yes on 88 campaign, including retired Hillsboro Police Chief Ron Louie.

Other proponents of Yes on 88 includes dozens of Latino and migrant workers’ advocates, civil rights groups, labor unions and religious organizations, including the Woodburn-based farmworkers union PCUN.

“Oregon’s neighboring states, Washington, California and Nevada, have laws that allow all Oregon residents to get tested and insured to drive,” Fitchett said. “By passing Measure 88, Oregon would join our neighboring states in making this needed change for public safety.”

Fitchett also said that, under Measure 88, the driver card could not be used as valid ID? in the way that a driver’s license can.

“The driver card is limited for driving purposes only,” she said. “The driver card cannot be used as identification to board a plane, register to vote, buy a gun or obtain government benefits.”

She said the card would comply with Congress’ 2005 Real ID Act, so it could not be used for any federal identification purposes. She added that, as a matter of federal law, a state-issued driver card could not convey or change anyone’s immigration status.

In addition to helping the families of undocumented workers, Fitchett said the measure would assist senior citizens who are unable to access their birth certificate or were never issued one.

If Measure 88 is approved in November, the law could take effect in as little as 30 days. Read more about Lines drawn in alternative driver's license debate