immigrants

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) believes that the mainstream media have not done enough to advance the pro-amnesty amnesty.

The mainstream media, in their “balanced” immigration reports, often have a pro-amnesty Republican and a pro-amnesty Democrat touting the benefits of comprehensive amnesty legislation while never mentioning the impact such legislation will have on American workers outside of the permanent political class. Pro-enforcement voices are never given the time of day. In fact, Univision’s Jorge Ramos, who has interviewed pro-enforcemnet advocates like D.A. King, has been more fair and balanced than his mainstream media brethren on the immigration issue–and that’s saying something.

The mainstream press lauds DREAMers as valedictorians, vilifies Americans opposed to amnesty because of the impact it would have on American workers of all backgrounds, and ignores crimes committed by illegal immigrants. And when Gallup, the organization the mainstream press most respects, publishes a poll that found only seven percent of Americans want more immigration at this time, the media that is quick to publish every bit of minutiae from the reputable Gallup organization ignores it. But that is still not enough for Gutierrez, who declared “they haven’t understood our relevance.”

“We’re still not as important as we should be,” he said in a interview with TeleSur Englishwhen asked if the mainstream press is aiding anti-amnesty advocates.

I’ve often cited data from NACE, the National Association of Colleges and Employers, a widely-respected organization that tracks the salaries of new graduates.  I believe most universities are members.  It has always shown in the past few years that Computer Science graduate salaries have basically been flat — up 2% one year, down 3% the next.  But the current figures show the biggest one-year change I can ever recall seeing — and it is downward.

The 2014 mean starting salary for new CS bachelor’s degree grads was $67,300, according to NACE.  But the organization’s projection for 2015 is only $61,287.  If that projection holds, it will be a drop of 9%.

Yet the tech industry continues to say, “We’re desperate to hire.”  And Congress continues to believe them; so does President Obama.

As I’ve said, the new grads still have it pretty good.  No, they are NOT all immediately being snapped up by employers, but their situation is still far better than those who are 10 or 15 years out of school.  I’ve written about this many times, but I direct your attention to an article in Venturebeat, sarcastically titled “Disposable Employees May Be the Tech Industry’s Greatest Achievement.”  Lots of interesting layoff data in there.

The industry would counter, of course, that those being laid off don’t have the background to work on the latest technology.  I’ve explained before why that’s a red herring — the short answer is that if only young new grads have that background, how is it that they acquired that knowledge from old guys like me? — but again, Congress believes it (or claims to).

President Obama's Department of Homeland Security issued 10 memos outlining the administration's planned lawless amnesty, but they are limited in detail and leave much of the policymaking to executive branch agencies.¹ As such, much remains unknown about exactly how this scheme will operate.

For example, in a memo titled "Expansion of the Provisional Waiver Program", the administration has expanded provisional unlawful presence waivers for immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) who, under law, are not eligible to adjust status in the United States and must travel abroad to obtain a visa. This is a problem for those who have been in the country illegally for more than 180 days because if they travel home and attempt to come back in, they will discover they are barred from returning for three or 10 years.² The purpose of this law is to deter people from living illegally in the United States for long periods of time.

On March 4, 2013, the Obama administration offered a waiver to immigrant visa applicants who are spouses, minor children, or parents of U.S. citizens. But the new memo extends this to "all statutorily eligible classes of relatives for whom an immigrant visa is immediately available." This means the spouses, children, and parents of lawful permanent residents and the adult children of U.S. citizens and LPRs will now have access to these waivers.

As part of this, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson — who authored the memos — announced that he has directed "USCIS to provide additional guidance on the definition of 'extreme hardship'." The memo notes that to be eligible for the waiver, aliens much demonstrate that their absence from the United States would cause extreme hardship to a spouse or parent who is a U.S. citizen or LPR.

More notable is the fact that Johnson notes that the statute "does not define the term, and federal courts have not specifically defined it through case law." In other words, the administration is going to come up with as-of-yet unseen guidelines about the definition of "extreme hardship" that Johnson notes "would provide broader use" of the waiver.

Of course, Congress could better define the phrase through legislation. If they do not, they are explicitly allowing the Obama administration to do as it pleases.

President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration survived their first major court test Tuesday, when a federal judge tossed out a lawsuit claiming the president exceeded his constitutional power.

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell dismissed a challenge brought by Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio and backed by conservative legal activist Larry Klayman. Howell ruled that Arpaio had not shown the direct harm from Obama’s actions needed to institute a lawsuit in the federal courts.

The ruling came just one day after Klayman, Arpaio’s lawyer, presented a colorful argument laced with political barbs at a hearing that extended to more than an hour. During the session, Howell — an Obama appointee — shot several quizzical looks at the well-known lawyer and made a series of pointed remarks suggesting she was highly skeptical of his arguments.

The lawsuit challenged a policy Obama implemented in 2012 deferring deportation of individuals brought to the U.S. illegally as children, as well as two moves the administration announced last month: expanding that program and instituting a broader deferred deportation program for illegal-immigrant parents of U.S. citizens. Both programs will soon carry the possibility of three-year reprieves from deportation, along with work permits.

White House spokesman Eric Schultz hailed the judge’s ruling.

“Judge Howell’s decision today confirms what the Department of Justice and scholars throughout the country have been saying all along: the President’s executive actions on immigration are lawful,” Schultz said in a statement. “The Supreme Court and Congress have made clear that federal officials can set priorities in enforcing our immigration laws, and the actions announced by the President are consistent with those taken by administrations of both parties for the last half century.”

Homeland Security Department officials say the changing face of illegal immigration and the reluctance of “sanctuary cities” to help enforce immigration laws have led to the stunning drop in deportations over the past few years.

Statistics released late Friday showed that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported about 315,000 immigrants in fiscal year 2014, a steep drop from more than 360,000 deported in 2013 and well below the more than 410,000 the previous year.

Even more striking is the drop in the number of immigrants kicked out from the interior of the U.S. — the 11.5 million or so who dominate the debate. ICE removed 102,000 in 2014, the lowest rate since 2006, which was before President George W. Bush began to take immigration enforcement seriously.

President Obama has unilaterally granted executive amnesty to purportedly five million illegal aliens via Royal Decree.45,46 Fortunately, our Constitutional Republic does not consist of a dictatorial monarchy. Such a decree would be a treasonous act in that it would subvert Constitutional intent and separation of powers as established by the Founding Fathers.

While open borders Republican elites may yap and holler about an amnesty decree,12 they covertly condone it, as it would remove the burden from their shoulders of having to grant amnesty via Congressional action - which is opposed by the vast majority of their constituents (meaning the American people, not rich corporate donors).

As Gibbons stated in Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:

The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may often assume the appearance, and produce the effects, of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy."

Obama's actions range from deliberate non-enforcement of immigration laws, to DACA via executive fiat, to promising to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. These are not the actions of a weak and distracted administration. Indeed, they are deliberate, calculated actions based on an explicit agenda of "fundamentally transforming the United States."

The result of executive amnesty will be millions upon millions of "immigrants" who are a net drain on the American tax base and who take jobs that over 18 million unemployed Americans would willingly take - at fair wages. And who vote Democratic - that is, for Obama's political party and its agenda.20,21

The amnesty of 1986 was clearly stated by Congress to be a "one time only" amnesty. Yet including the 1986 amnesty, Congress has passed a total of seven amnesties for illegal aliens. We know that amnesties overtly promote even more illegal immigration. It will become never-ending in the aftermath of an executive amnesty.

Amnesties which have originated in Congress and have been signed into law are legal and Constitutional. Amnesties via royal decree with the explicit objective of transforming the United States are not defensible according to Congressional intent.

The case for impeachment

The biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that's what I intend to reverse when I'm President of the United States of America.

– Senator Barack Obama, March 31, 2008 (Townhall in Lancaster, PA, March 31, 2008.)

EXCLUSIVE: President Obama is planning to unveil a 10-part plan for overhauling U.S. immigration policy via executive action -- including suspending deportations for millions -- as early as next Friday, a source close to the White House told Fox News. 

The president's plans were contained in a draft proposal from a U.S. government agency. The source said the plan could be announced as early as Nov. 21, though the date might slip a few days pending final White House approval. 

Obama was briefed at the White House by Homeland Security officials before leaving on his Asia-Pacific trip last week, Fox News has learned. 

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters traveling with Obama in Burma Thursday that the president had not made a final decision on any executive actions concerning immigration and would not announce any until he returned to Washington. 

The draft plan, though, contains 10 initiatives that span everything from boosting border security to improving pay for immigration officers. 

But the most controversial pertain to the millions who could get a deportation reprieve under what is known as "deferred action." 

The plan calls for expanding deferred action for illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children -- but also for the parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents. 

The latter could allow upwards of 4.5 million illegal immigrant adults with U.S.-born children to stay, according to estimates. 

Critics in the Senate say those who receive deferred action, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, receive work authorization in the United States, Social Security numbers and government-issued IDs.

Congressman Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) has been the single loudest voice criticizing President Obama for not issuing his promised amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants. But Gutierrez is also making himself the main man on immigration for the media, and some think he may be doing so as a prelude to running for president himself.

Previous to the midterm elections, Gutierrez was pushing as hard as he could to force Obama to announce his amnesty before the November elections. In March, for instance,Gutierrez noted that the "pleas from the community" got through to Obama, that the President heard them, and was sure to issue a mass amnesty earlier this year.

The congressman also tried to clear the way for Obama’s announcement. At one point, in September, Gutierrez warned Democrats squeamish on amnesty to "step aside" and let Obama have his head on amnesty for illegals.

Gutierrez went on like that for months, appearing on every TV show and speaking to every media outlet that would have him, saying that Obama promised him that he would issue that much sought-after amnesty. But, thus far at least, all the congressman's efforts have been for nothing.

For the man who told Newsweek that his "only loyalty is to the immigrant community," Obama's breach of promise is inexcusable.

How the feds are making THOUSANDS fewer requests to deport illegals arrested in the U.S. just as Obama plans to give amnesty to five million immigrants

• Since 2012, requests for ‘detainers’ have plummeted by 9,000 per month
• Detainers are used to extend migrants’ time in prison ahead of deportation
• California and Texas registered drops of 55 per cent and 28 per cent
• Comes as Obama plans an amnesty for up to five million immigrants

Most of the people the U.S. Border Patrol stopped from sneaking into the country last year were from countries other than Mexico, according to agency statistics, a startling shift that might have provided fodder for politicians leading up to Tuesday’s election.

But they didn’t get much of a chance. The Border Patrol’s annual statistics were posted on the U.S. Customs and Border Protection website for about five hours on Oct. 10, then taken down. Now some are questioning whether the decision to pull back the data was another example of the Obama administration playing politics with public information.

Even before Tuesday, the Obama administration said it was waiting until after the midterm elections to deal with immigration reform so that any losses would not be blamed on the Democrats’ proposal. For some, removing the apprehension statistics – which both parties could use to criticize U.S. immigration laws – was another flatly political move.

“It worries me that they may have been taken down for purely political reasons,” said U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah. “If the information is ready it should be made available. The idea that it was and then yanked down for political reasons is outrageous.”