September 6, 2017
Sep 06 01:07 Shoddy journalism from the Post Sep 06 09:44 Emanuel's defiant DACA tone Sep 06 10:59 DREAMers against the wall Sep 06 11:59 Sen. Franken, the DACA dummy Sep 06 14:30 Identifying DACA Democrats Sep 06 16:58 Our nation's sense of morality?
Prior Months: Jan Feb ~ May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Shoddy journalism from the Post
It shouldn't surprise anyone that the Washington Post has published another shoddy article that criticizes Republicans. The only surprise is that, this time, it's written by a Republican.
Jennifer Rubin's hit piece insists that "Republican reaction to President Trump's decision to rescind Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) so far falls into one of three categories, none of them positive if you want to prevent the deportation of 800,000 young people who came here through no fault of their own." With that out of the way, she then starts speaking in circles. The first category, Ms. Rubin says, is that "One reaction among Republicans is to throw it back in the president's court, as if there is a contest to see whether the president or Republican lawmakers can be more spineless." Ms. Rubin says that the second category "is to suggest DACA be part of comprehensive immigration reform." The third category "is to spout platitudes and tamp down on any sense of urgency to fix the problem."
What Ms. Rubin didn't include is the indisputable fact that DACA was dead the minute 12 states' attorneys generals filed the lawsuit questioning DACA's constitutionality. What Ms. Rubin didn't include in her hissy fit was the part about then-President Obama's heartlessness in creating this legislation unilaterally.
Supposedly, Ms. Rubin is a Republican, though you wouldn't know it by her latest article. She's all criticism all the time. Where she starts talking in circles is in the first paragraph. That's where she says "No one on the GOP side is offering a quick bill to fix DACA that could be expedited through Congress." Late in her article, though, she said "Here is the real test for both parties: If they are serious about protecting dreamers they need to pass a quick fix addressing that single problem, likely by passing it to legislation that cannot be delayed."
If Ms. Rubin were a better strategist, she'd notice that this presents a golden opportunity for Republicans. I'm positive that they'd pass DACA in a heartbeat if Democrats agreed to not block funding for President Trump's wall. Apparently, Ms. Rubin hasn't heard of thing called legislating. She should read up on it.
Of course, what Ms. Rubin wrote isn't as bad as President Obama's response to DACA ending:
Here's the most dishonest part of President Obama's statement:
Let's be clear: the action taken today isn't required legally. It's a political decision, and a moral question. Whatever concerns or complaints Americans may have about immigration in general, we shouldn't threaten the future of this group of young people who are here through no fault of their own, who pose no threat, who are not taking away anything from the rest of us.
When President Trump was inaugurated, President Obama should've disappeared like a bad memory. We put up with 8 years of his dishonesty and his animosity towards the Constitution. Saying that this decision "isn't required legally" is dishonest in the extreme. As I said earlier, DACA was essentially dead the minute the states' attorneys general filed their lawsuit. Then again, President Obama hasn't fared well in the Supreme Court. He's gotten slapped down, unanimously I might add, frequently. His biggest loss was when he got slapped by the Supremes with a 9-0 decision when he tried to stuff the NLRB through recess appointments.
Had DACA been passed by Congress, then signed by President Obama, it would've become the law of the land. That isn't what happened, opening the possibility for President Trump to rescind it.
Posted Wednesday, September 6, 2017 1:07 AM
No comments.
Emanuel's defiant DACA tone
The thing that stands out in this article is how Rahm Emanuel makes promises he can't keep. I'm also fascinated by Emanuel's painting a bull's-eye on students' backs.
According to the article, "Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel on Tuesday assured incoming high schoolers that they need not to worry about President Trump ending the 'Dreamers' program, saying Chicago Public Schools are a 'Trump-free' sanctuary for young illegal immigrants. 'To all the Dreamers that are here in this room and in the city of Chicago: You are welcome in the city of Chicago. This is your home. And you have nothing to worry about,' Mr. Emanuel told a group of freshman on the first day of classes at Solorio Academy High School, the Chicago Sun-Times reported.'"
It's nice that Emanuel is attempting to reassure these students. It's foolish, though, to essentially paint a bull's-eye on these schools. That's what he's done essentially.
Unfortunately, that isn't the end of the smart talk. Chicago Public Schools CEO Forrest Claypool said "We do not allow federal agents on these grounds and in this building. You are safe and secure here to learn, to grow and to pursue your dreams and we hope that you do so."
Whether Chicago allows them or not, the truth is that law enforcement can go wherever they want if they have either probable cause or a warrant. They don't need Claypool's or Emanuel's permission. Emanuel's act of defiance suggests that he's thinking about running for president.
Hopefully, by that time, the wall will have been built and this issue will have been resolved.
Posted Wednesday, September 6, 2017 9:44 AM
No comments.
DREAMers against the wall
Sam Stein's article suggests that someone behind the scenes is pulling strings. Stein's article starts by saying "President Donald Trump's decision Tuesday to phase out the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals immigration policy opened the door for legislative deal making. And no proposed trade has been more widely discussed than one in which Trump gets funding for his beloved border wall in exchange for permanent legal protections for the so-called DREAMers. There are just two major hitches: Democrats aren't biting and, more significantly, neither are DACA recipients. Those recipients, along with immigration reform advocates, have been lobbying lawmakers to reject any deal that would result in a border wall, Capitol Hill aides and activists have told The Daily Beast."
This suggests that Democrats want the Mexico-to-the-US pipeline stay open after immigration reform is passed. It also tells me that organizations like La Raza, aka NCLR, are have sold DREAMers a lie. This makes building the wall all the more imperative. If DREAMers want permanent protection, the wall will get built. If Democrats don't vote for President Trump's wall, then Republicans should play hardball. Period.
'I'm not going to step on top of my community to get ahead,' said Jose Aguiluz, a D.C. native who was brought by his family from Honduras when he was 15 years old and who received his DACA status in 2012. Aguiluz, a nurse, was outside the White House on Tuesday to protest Trump's decision. 'By me trying to say, 'Oh, let's make a deal with the wall,' it is like I'm stepping up on my community, my parents, uncles, and grandparents, that I'm putting them down so that I can get ahead,' he said. 'That's unfair and it's not American.'
Democrats have tried painting a picture that these DREAMers a) were brought to the US when they were infants and b) would be "returned to a country" they've never lived in. Mr. Aguiluz was brought to the US when he was 15. He definitely doesn't fit the image that Democrats are painting. Neither does this DREAMer:
Nearby stood Carlos Arellano, who was brought to the United States by his parents from Mexico when he was 15 and received DACA protection at age 26. 'DACA changed my life completely,' he said, explaining how the program allowed him to pursue a nursing degree.
Republicans should insist that the wall be built. If Sen. McCain insists on going rogue, Sen. McConnell should inform him that his chairmanship is tied to his supporting the bill.
That likely will be met with criticism from the media wing of the Democratic Party and his relatives. It might not get him to change his vote but it will send the message to everyone that this isn't negotiable. Lest there be any doubt, there will be lawsuits filed. Watch this video and tell me that the ACLU isn't spoiling for a fight:
The best witness that DACA wasn't implemented properly is President Obama. This is a collection of times when President Obama admitted that he couldn't unilaterally implement DACA:
The video runs over 3 minutes. A video that runs over 3 minutes essentially repeating a single sentence contains lots of speeches.
If Democrats want to fight against building President Trump's wall, that's their decision. Their fighting that funding, though, will hurt the DREAMers they supposedly fight for.
Posted Wednesday, September 6, 2017 10:59 AM
No comments.
Sen. Franken, the DACA dummy
It's pretty much impossible for me to think that Sen. Franken is intelligent. After reading his statement about DACA, it's impossible for me to think that he isn't owned by special interest organizations like the ACLU and La Raza.
In his statement, Sen. Franken said "The men and women protected under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program - commonly known as DACA - are American in every single way except immigration status. Often called Dreamers, these are students, innovators, and entrepreneurs who were brought here as children and grew up in the United States. They're our friends, coworkers, and neighbors, and they make enormous contributions to the economies of Minnesota and the entire country. The decision by President Trump to end DACA is a disgrace to our moral values and principles. It's not who we are or should be as a nation. Let me be clear: I promise that I will fight to protect the Dreamers who live in Minnesota and across the country."
Saying that DREAMers are "American in every single way except immigration status" is like saying that a criminal is trustworthy in every way except that he's committed a felony. The point is that that's a pretty significant exception. Sen. Franken's foolishness didn't stop there. Instead, Sen. Franken appeared on Hardball:
During the interview, Sen. Franken tried spinning DACA, suggesting that President Obama hadn't done anything unusual. As usual, Sen. Franken wasn't being honest. President Obama's EO entitled DACA recipients to federal benefits :
But DACA allows recipients to apply for social security numbers, which are required to claim the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), a major tax benefit for lower-income earners. The program allows recipients to participate in Social Security and Medicare as well, but they generally cannot receive benefits until retirement age.
None of President Bush's EOs conferred new benefits to people. That's because the legislative branch is the only branch of government that can write legislation. The executive branch can suggest legislation but they can't unilaterally enact legislation. If a president want DREAMers to get specific benefits, then that president must work with Congress to pass legislation.
That isn't some quaint theory, either. That's been how the government has done things for 240 years. If Sen. Franken wants to protect DREAMers, there's a solution. It's time for Sen. Franken and other Democrats to decide whether they want to protect DREAMers or whether they just want to pick ideological fights with Republicans. If Democrats want what's best for DREAMers, they can vote for building President Trump's wall.
I know they don't want to vote for President Trump's wall That's tough. Sometimes, you don't get everything you want. Democrats, including Sen. Franken, have a decision to make. Will they abandon DREAMers? Will they do NCLR's dirty work? Finally, will they do what's right for America?
It's time Democrats admitted that they aren't entitled to getting everything they want.
Posted Wednesday, September 6, 2017 11:59 AM
No comments.
Identifying DACA Democrats
Though Democrats insist that DACA is constitutional, it's been a long time since anyone took their statements seriously. When then-President Obama signed that EO, he did 2 things that won't pass constitutional muster. First and most importantly, he temporarily exempted an entire demographic group of people from deportation. Then-President Obama's EO didn't permanently exempt DREAMers from prosecution or deportation. It just temporarily delayed action on DREAMers. Greg Jarrett's article sheds an important light on DACA.
In his article, Jarrett writes "At the end of the 19th century, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that congress has 'plenary power' (meaning full and complete) to regulate immigration. Derived from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, the doctrine is based on the concept that immigration is a question of national sovereignty, relating to a nation's right to define its own borders and restrict entrance therein. As the high court observed, 'Over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete.'"
Considering this information and considering the fact that there's a well-known proposal that would protect DREAMers permanently, the question is whether Democrats will be reasonable. At this point, I'm betting that they'll be unreasonable. I'm basing that opinion partially on this video:
Democrats are insisting that Republicans pass the DREAM Act immediately. If the Democrats' demands aren't met, Senate Minority Leader Schumer said that they'll attach the DREAM Act to every bill that the Senate considers until it's passed. I'd love to see Sen. McConnell tell Sen. Schumer that DREAMers will get protection the minute Democrats vote to fund President Trump's wall and not a minute sooner.
This does 2 things to Democrats. First, it forces vulnerable Senate Democrats to vote against building the wall. For senators living on the coasts, that isn't a big deal. For senators living in the Heartland, that's a big deal. It's a big deal because it's a potentially a career-ending vote. Next, it forces Democrats to make a decision on whether being reasonable is more important than obeying the Democrats' special interest allies. If Democrats vote with their special interest allies, they'll identify themselves as defenders of The Swamp .
That's a difficult position to defend going into an election year. Let's remember that the people that vote in midterms are more conservative than those that vote in presidential elections. Senate Democrats are already running into strong headwinds because of the red states they're defending seats in. Couple that with the fact that some liberal senators will be running in some fairly red states and you've got the definition of pressure. If Democrats side with La Raza, aka NCLR, instead of siding with the American people, they'll pay a heavy price in November, 2018.
Posted Wednesday, September 6, 2017 2:36 PM
No comments.
Our nation's sense of morality?
Eric Holder's op-ed doesn't sound like a man defending the principle of prosecutorial discretion. It sounds like a man rationalizing the Obama administration's not enforcing existing immigration law.
In the opening paragraph of Holder's op-ed, he writes "Our nation's sense of morality - and of itself - is once again being tested." Shortly thereafter, Holder wrote "DACA, which gave undocumented young people brought to the United States as children a chance to work and study here without fear of deportation, has been a dramatic success. The program provided a two-year grant of protection and a permit to work legally in the United States, after which enrollees were required to go through a renewal process. To qualify, immigrant youths had to meet a set of stringent criteria: When applying, they were required to have been enrolled in high school, have a high school diploma or equivalent, or have been an honorably discharged military veteran. In addition, they must have lived in the United States continuously at least since June 15, 2007, and not have a criminal record suggesting they pose a threat to national security or public safety."
First, I'd question why Mr. Holder thinks our "nation's sense of morality ... is once again being tested." Is it against our nation's sense of morality to enforce this nation's laws? Is it against our nation's sense of morality to give lawbreakers an edge over people who follow the rules? Is it against our nation's sense of morality to tell law enforcement, in this case border patrol and our nation's sheriffs, not to enforce this nation's immigration laws?
Next, I'd like to ask Mr. Holder what he meant when he wrote "Of course, as Sessions emphasized, we are a nation of laws, and the immigration system is no different. We must ensure that our laws are enforced to maintain the vitality, prosperity and security of our polity. But in painting DACA as a flagrant disregard for our constitutional separation of powers, Sessions exhibited a fundamental misunderstanding of what DACA did." Did Mr. Holder mean that he thinks that presidents should have the authority to unilaterally write new laws? After all, that's what President Obama did when his EO gave illegal immigrants the ability to get a social security card and to apply for the EITC tax credit. Does Mr. Holder seriously think that President Obama never tried appropriating to the executive branch things that the legislative branch was authorized to do?
If Mr. Holder thinks that then-President Obama didn't try doing things that only the legislative branch is authorized to do, then I'll throw the National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning ruling in his face. That's the case where SCOTUS ruled that only the Senate could determine when the Senate was in recess. President Obama's solicitor general essentially argued that President Obama determined that the Senate wasn't in session. President Obama lost that lawsuit 9-0.
I'd submit that President Obama and Mr. Holder "exhibited a fundamental misunderstanding of" the Constitution. Further, I'd submit this video as proof that the Trump administration, especially Attorney General Sessions, knows exactly what he's talking about:
At what point will Mr. Holder admit that he's a political hack working for the Democratic Party? It's painfully obvious that he isn't constitutional lawyer with integrity.
Posted Wednesday, September 6, 2017 4:58 PM
No comments.
