Thursday, November 20, 2014

Texas to extend border plan without National Guard

Associated Press ^ | Nov 19, 2014 6:50 PM EST | Paul J. Weber and Juan Carlos Llorca 

Illegal crossings along the Rio Grande have slowed dramatically since an overwhelming surge of immigrants had state and federal agents scrambling to secure the border earlier this year. Texas leaders still don’t want their ground troops to leave just yet.
As the federal government is downsizing its presence on Texas’ southern border, key state officials are proposing that when about 1,000 National Guard troops go home in the spring they be replaced with state troopers who would remain on duty until August.
The plan calls for spending an extra $86 million to extend a border security mission that Gov. Rick Perry ordered in June as unaccompanied immigrant children crossed into the state in record numbers. While local law enforcement agencies say the extra resources are no longer needed, outgoing Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst defended the strategy. …
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama’s Immigration Plan Could Shield Four Million

NYTimes ^ | November 19, 2014 | MICHAEL D. SHEAR and ROBERT PEAR 

President Obama on Tuesday. Some advocates said this week that they saw a paradox in the president’s policy.
WASHINGTON — Up to four million undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States for at least five years can apply for a program that protects them from deportation and allows those with no criminal record to work legally in the country, President Obama is to announce on Thursday, according to people briefed on his plans.
An additional one million people will get protection from deportation through other parts of the president’s plan to overhaul the nation’s immigration enforcement system, including the expansion of an existing program for “Dreamers,” young immigrants who came to the United States as children. There will no longer be a limit on the age of the people who qualify.
But farm workers will not receive specific protection from deportation, nor will the Dreamers’ parents. And none of the five million immigrants over all who will be given new legal protections will get government subsidies for health care under the Affordable Care Act.
Govs. Scott Walker of Wisconsin and Rick Perry of Texas, at center and right, threatened possible legal action over President Obama’s pending executive action on immigration.Immigration
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Don’t Mince Words: Gruber Tapes Show President Obama Is A Liar!

The Daily Caller ^ | November 20, 2014 | Jamie Weinstein 

President Barack Obama is a liar.

That’s the takeaway from Massachusetts Institute for Technology professor and Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber’s video oeuvre of narcissistic honesty.
“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure the CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies,” Gruber said in one of several videos recently uncovered of him explaining at forums and panels over the last several years how Obamacare was dishonestly sold to the public.
“In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in — if you made it explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed,” Gruber went on to say in the 2013 video. “Lack of transparency is a huge advantage. And basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever. But basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.”
“One former senior administration official said that as the law was being crafted by the White House and lawmakers, some White House policy advisers objected to the breadth of Mr. Obama’s ‘keep your plan’ promise,” the Wall Street Journal reported last year. “They were overruled by political aides, the former official said.”

The Honest Man!


Excuse me!








The Pen!


Weak Minded?


Climate Change




Grooming her!


Talk about pork!




The stupid voters!


Party of "NO"


No Big Deal!


More time?


Explain it to me!




The Boys


Will Republicans do anything about Obama?


Sorry, liberals: Reagan and Bush 41 did not defy Congress with executive amnesty!

Cain ^ | November 19, 2014 | Dan Calabrese 

Nice try.
Every time President Obama does something, or is about to do something, that has conservatives up in arms - especially if the protest is based on abuse of his constitutional authority - you can count on the left doing one thing: Finding a supposed example of a past Republican president or presidents doing the exact same thing.
Oh, I guess it was OK when a Republican did it!
They've been all over that argument the last couple of days with Obama's soon-to-be-announced executive order granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, claiming that both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush did the exact same thing. This argument is just clever enough that people who don't really understand the issue or don't really know the history might buy it.
But when you really look into it, as Hans von Spakovsky did today for the Daily Signal, you'll find that the liberals' claim here is a complete load of crap:
In 1986, Congress passed the Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA), which provided a general amnesty to almost three million illegal immigrants.  According to the Associated Press, Reagan acted unilaterally when his Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner “announced that minor children of parents granted amnesty by [IRCA] would get protection from deportation.”  In fact, in 1987 former Attorney General Ed Meese issued a memorandum allowing the INS to defer deportation where “compelling or humanitarian factors existed” for children of illegal immigrants who had been granted amnesty and, in essence, given green cards and put on a path towards being “naturalized” as citizens.  In announcing this policy, Reagan was not defying Congress, but rather carrying out the general intent of Congress which had just passed a blanket amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants.
As the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website itself explains, the children of individuals who become citizens through naturalization have a relatively easy process for also becoming naturalized citizens to avoid breaking up families. And as Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies points out, the INS was, as a practical matter, going to “look the other way under certain circumstances with regard to minor children both of whose parents received amnesty.”   This was well within the authority delegated to the executive branch and a “legitimate exercise of prosecutorial discretion.”
The Bush administration relaxed these technical requirements under a “Family Fairness” policy to defer deportation of the spouses and children of illegal immigrants who were allowed to stay in this country and seek naturalization through the IRCA amnesty. Shortly thereafter, Bush worked with Congress to pass the Immigration Act of 1990, which made these protections permanent.  Significantly, the Bush policy and the 1990 Act affected only a small number of immigrants–about 180,000 people –in comparison to Obama’s past (his 2012 implementation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival program) and anticipated unilateral actions that will affect millions of immigrants.
Some supporters of Obama’s unilateral actions on immigration have also pointed to other actions by past presidents that allowed immigrants such as Afghans and Nicaraguans to stay in the U.S. But those limited actions were based on very special circumstances such as the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, the Communist-driven civil war in Nicaragua or the Chinese massacre of students in Tiananmen Square that led Bush to granted deferred departure to threatened Chinese nationals.
What Obama is getting ready to do has nothing at all in common with what Reagan or Bush did. Both of these past Republican presidents made fairly run-of-the-mill administrative decisions on the implementation of bills Congress had passed, and that they had signed. That is entirely uncontroversial, and would be so if Obama did it too.
What Obama is proposing to do here is to act action on his own specifically because Congress has not given him authorization to act. That is about as unconstitutional as a thing can be, and it bears no similarity to the examples liberals are trying to put forward as its equivalent.
Nice job on von Spakovsky's part doing the work to expose the fraud that is this argument.
Of course, the most galling thing about all this is that, if Obama really wants immigration reform, he could wait until the new Congress is sworn in and then work with them on it. But he doesn't want that because the new Republican Congress is not going to pass a bill that's designed solely to serve the electoral objectives of Democrats. So suddenly, after getting nothing out of Congress on this score for six years, he suddenly has to act nowbecause it's a huge emergency.