CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Senate Democrats Block Bipartisan Law Requiring Enhanced Background Checks For Syrian Refugees

Senate Democrats continued pandering to Muslims and blocked the American SAFE Act. The 55-43 vote largely split down party lines and fell short of the 60 votes needed for the bill to advance. The bill passed the House in the wake of the Paris terrorist attacks with a bipartisan "veto-proof" vote of 289 to 137, which included 47 Democrats. The bill would require the Obama administration to certify that any Syrian or Iraqi refugee admitted to the United States is not a national security threat. Ted Cruz of Texas, Marco Rubio of Florida and Rand Paul of Kentucky -- all returned to Washington, D.C. from the campaign trail to cast their votes in favor of advancing the bill.

Cruz said  the Democrats, "obstructionism is especially egregious given that earlier this month, two terrorists, who came to the United States as Iraqi refugees, were apprehended in Sacramento and Houston." Cruz went on to criticize the Obama administration and the ObamaCrats:

The Obama administration continues to allow thousands of insufficiently vetted refugees to flood our borders. Their plans to import refugees from war-torn Islamic nations not only make our country less secure, but also endanger American lives.  Unfortunately, due to the obstruction of Sen. Harry Reid, Democrats appear to have a greater allegiance to President Obama than to the safety and security of the American people.  

According the Washington Post’s Karoun Demirjian, many Republicans see the House bill as a reasonable middle ground between Barack Obama’s plans to expand Syrian refugee resettlement, and Donald Trump’s proposal to temporarily ban all Muslims from the U.S. I saw it as a common sense approach to defend America from Paris-like attacks, more San Bernardino-like attacks and to prevent sexual attacks like those being conducted by migrants invading Europe. It was an attempt at real immigration reform.

Cross posted from RedState.

Rubio blew it would let illegal immigrants that don't commit major crimes stay

Sen. Marco Rubio blew it. During his appearance on this morning's edition of NBC's Meet the Press Sen. Marco Rubio made a huge mistake when he said that illegal immigrants that haven't committed major crimes could be allowed to stay. According to NBC's Sally Bronston, when asked if he is still in favor of finding a way for millions of illegals to stay in the United States legally, Rubio replied:

If you're a criminal alien, no, you can't stay. If you're someone that hasn't been here for a very long time, you can't stay, I don't think you're gonna round up and deport 12 million people.

It doesn't matter that he went on to say, "It is very clear now more than ever that we are not going to be able to do anything on people that are illegally until we first prove to people that illegal immigration is under control and America is safe." Rubio's statement is going to make it even harder for him to win the Republican presidential nomination.

I thought Rubio had learned his lesson on his support for amnesty and his Gang of Eight deal with the Democrats. Last February he told the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) that he had learned he was wrong on his approach to immigration reform. You can watch Rubio's mea culpa at about the 13:25 mark in this video. The Hill had the best write up about it:

"It wasn't very popular, I don't know if you know that from some of the folks here," Rubio said with a smile, earning laughs from the crowd, when asked about his earlier support for the bill by Fox News host Sean Hannity.

 

"You have 10 or 12 million people in this country, many of whom have lived here for longer than a decade, have not otherwise violated our law other than immigration laws, I get all that," Rubio said. "But what I've learned is you can't even have a conversation about that until people believe and know, not just believe but it's proven to them that future illegal immigration will be controlled."

 

[. . .]

 

Rubio said recent border issues had proven his earlier approach was wrong, calling a border security first approach "the only way forward."

 

"You can't just tell people you're going to secure the border, we're going to do E-Verify. You have to do that, they have to see it, they have to see it working, and then they're going to have a reasonable conversation with you about the other parts, but they're not going to even want to talk about that until that's done first. And what's happened over the last two years, the migratory crisis this summer, the two executive orders, that's even more true than it's been."

I saw that speech and interview. I was impressed with Rubio's CPAC 2015 speech. I thought it showed that Rubio understood that his work as part of the Gang of Eight was a mistake. The GOP Establishment -- the business, contractor and donor class of the Republican Party heaped high praise on Rubio for it. Time magazine declared him “The Republican Savior” on its cover. But the grass roots, the Conservative base including the TEA Party types that enabled Rubio to overcome the Establishment choice for the senate seat he won felt betrayed.

 

I was hopeful that the grass roots accept that Rubio had seen the error of his ways and would forgive him. I have been dismayed over the last year as that has not come to pass. There is too much distrust and today's statement will just reinforce that.

 

The grass roots don't support amnesty, a path to citizenship, or even legal status for illegals, because they know it will only lead to more illegal immigration. They remember that we tried such a shenanigan before. Under President Reagan we adopted the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 ("IRCA"). That "immigration reform" legalized four million illegal aliens. IRCA was a monumental failure. Thirty-odd years later there are millions more illegal aliens to legalize.

 

I think Rubio is the most articulate politician there is. When I first met him at the first Gathering, I was convinced that someday he would be president. Now, for the first time, I'm beginning to doubt that. I don't think 2016 will be his year.

 

Romney refused to take Obama's immigration bait

Mitt Romney has outfoxed the Obama Campaign and its main stream media allies.

As explained by Breitbart's John Nolte, Obama's extralegal scheme to grant amnesty/immunity to certain "younger" illegal aliens was a clever attempt set to trap Romney in a treacherous catch-22 position:

This was the plan:

1. Obama releases the news on Friday in order to affect the Sunday talk shows. (Team Obama also knew Romney would be on "Face the Nation" with their water-carrier Bob Schieffer).

2. As they always do, the Sunday talk shows comply with White House strategy by making Obama's compassion and political brilliance The Big Story. This is also a move to set up the narrative for the coming week regardless of  how Romney answers the repeal question. 

3. Regardless of how he answers the question, Romney enters a world of media-created hurt for the following week.

Obama's media allies did their part:

• On CBS's "Face the Nation," Bob Schieffer asked Romney over and over and over again whether he would repeal Obama's extralegal amnesty/immunity scheme.

• CNN's Jack Cafferty asked, "Why is Mitt Romney refusing to answer questions on Pres. Obama's new immigration policy?"

• On MSNBC's Martin Bashir show, The Guardian’s Ana Marie Cox, Democratic strategist Julian Epstein and The Hill’s Karen Finney went on and on about "Romney’s non-answer."

We could list many more, but I think you get the idea.

Of course Romney did in fact have a response to Obama's scheme. On Friday, Romney said the problem of young illegal immigrants requires a long term solution and Obama's scheme will make a long term solution more difficult to achieve.

"I believe the status of young people who come here through no fault of their own is an important matter to be considered and should be solved on a long term basis so they know what their future would be in this country. I think the action the president took today makes it more difficult to reach that long-term solution because an executive order is of course just a short term matter. It can be reversed by subsequent presidents."

Romney also explained on "Face the Nation" that Obama's extralegal scheme is a stopgap measure for a long-term problem driven in "large part" by politics:

First of all, we have to secure the border. We need to have an employment verification system to make sure that those that are working here in this country are here legally and then with regards to these kids who were brought in by their parents through no fault of their own, there needs to be a long-term solution so they know what their status is. This is something Congress has been working on, and I thought we are about to see some proposals brought forward by Senator Marco Rubio and by Democrat senators, but the President jumped in and said I'm going to take this action. He called it a stopgap measure.

[. . .]

He was President for the last three and a half years, did nothing on immigration. Two years, he had a Democrats' House in Senate, did nothing of permanent or-- or long-term basis.

As for the oft repeated repeal question, Romney addressed that as well:

Well, it would be overtaken by events, if you will, by virtue of my putting in place a long-term solution with legislation which creates law that relates to these individuals, such that they know what their status is going to be.

In other words, Romney proposes to do the truly right thing -- get Congress to pass legislation to legally address the problem of youngsters made illegal aliens by their parents. 

This is a good time to remember that Obama announced his new amnesty/immunity scheme in a desperate attempt to change the subject from his "doing fine" reelection message, to gain favor with the Latino electorate unhappy with Obama's ongoing backdoor amnesty program, and to stop the growing popularity Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida's DREAM Act light.

Contrary to White House senior adviser David Plouffe's claim that Obama's amnesty/immunity scheme was not political, there is no doubt that it was indeed political. After all, there is even video of Obama saying, less than six months ago, that he has no authority to enact such a change in immigration law. You can watch the video here.

Unfortunately, Romney was proved correct about Obama making a long term solution more difficult. Rubio has announced he has abandoned his DREAM Act light legislation, at least until after the election, because it would be hard to argue with fellow lawmakers when they say, "Why are we going to need to do anything on this now? It has been dealt with. We can wait until after the election." 

Updated. Obama goes from backdoor amnesty to immunity for immigration reform

President Obama, desperate to change the subject from his "doing fine" reelection message, attempts to gain favor with the Latino electorate unhappy with his backdoor amnesty by revealing an immunity scheme for certain "younger" illegal aliens.

Under Obama's new scheme as many as 800,000 illegals will avoid deportation and be eligible for work permits if they arrived in the U.S. before age 16, are younger than 30, have been in the country for at least five continuous years, have no criminal history, graduated from a U.S. high school or earned a GED, or served in the military.

Obama's new immunity scheme partially achieves the goals of the so-called DREAM Act, meant to establish a path toward citizenship for certain illegals, but consistently rejected by Congress.

Obama intends to implement his new immunity scheme via executive fiat. In bypassing Congress, Obama blatantly ignores the rule of law that is the foundation of our democracy and violates his presidential oath to uphold the laws of this land. Obama's abuse of power will ensure that those who honestly believe that granting amnesty or immunity to illegal aliens encourages more illegal immigration will only become more determined in their opposition to congressional efforts to achieve similar results legitimately.

Obama's scheme is even more offensive when you recall that in March of 2011 at a Univision townhall he said that as president he can't just suspend deportations through executive order:

"Well, first of all, temporary protective status historically has been used for special circumstances where you have immigrants to this country who are fleeing persecution in their countries, or there is some emergency situation in their native land that required them to come to the United States. So it would not be appropriate to use that just for a particular group that came here primarily, for example, because they were looking for economic opportunity.

"With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed — and I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know that we’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws.

"There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role asPresident."

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), also opposes Obama's immunity scheme because of its "horrible consequences for unemployed Americans.":

"President Obama’s amnesty only benefits illegal immigrants, not Americans, and is a magnet for fraud. Many illegal immigrants will falsely claim they came here as children and the federal government has no way to check whether their claims are true. And once these illegal immigrants are granted deferred action, they can then apply for a work permit, which the Administration routinely grants 90% of the time."

The biggest problem holding up immigration reform proposals that include any sort of  legalization of some or all of the millions illegal aliens already in this country is that any amnesty/immunity will encourage more illegals to come expecting that eventually they too will be legalized.

That lesson was learned with the adoption of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 ("IRCA"). That "immigration reform" legalized four million illegal aliens. IRCA was a monumental failure. Twenty-odd years later there are millions more illegal aliens to legalize. If some or all of these millions of illegals are now legalized, then we should only expect that twenty years from now we will have to consider granting amnesty/immunity to millions more illegal aliens.

UPDATED: Thanks to the good work of Bryan Preston at PJ Media, we now have e video of President Obama explaining that he can not do what he did today. You can watch the video here. The video comes from the White House. During a Q&A on Sept 28, 2011, the president had this exchange:

"MR. LERNER: Me again. On the DREAM Act that you mentioned before, and this is like a statement from New York City: Mr. President, I am an undocumented law graduate from New York City. I'm just writing to say that your message that you do not have a dance partner is not a message of hope. A real dancer goes out on the dance floor and picks out his or her dance partner. You're just waiting. You have the facts, numbers, dollars and votes on the side of granting administrative relief for DREAMers. We are doing our part. It is time to do yours, Mr. President.

"THE PRESIDENT: I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there's been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It's just not true.

"Now, what we can do is to prioritize enforcement, since there are limited enforcement resources, and say we're not going to go chasing after this young man or anybody else who's been acting responsibly and would otherwise qualify for legal status if the DREAM Act passed.

"But we live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it. And if all the attention is focused away from the legislative process, then that is going to lead to a constant dead-end. We have to recognize how the system works, and then apply pressure to those places where votes can be gotten and, ultimately, we can get this thing solved. And nobody will be a stronger advocate for making that happen than me."

Supreme Court upholds Arizona's restrictions on hiring illegal immigrants

The Supreme Court has upheld Arizona's Legal Arizona Workers Act. That law allows the state to shut down businesses that hire illegal immigrants:

A recently enacted Arizona statute—the Legal Arizona Workers Act—provides that the licenses of state employers that knowingly or intentionally employ unauthorized aliens may be, and in certain circumstances must be, suspended or revoked. The law also requires that all Arizona employers use a federal electronic verification system to confirm that the workers they employ are legally authorized workers. The question presented is whether federal immigration law preempts those provisions of Arizona law. Because we conclude that the State’s licensing provisions fall squarely within the federal statute’s savings clause and that the Arizona regulation does not otherwise conflict with federal law, we hold that the Arizona law is not preempted.

The high court's majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts rejected Obama administration arguments that the Arizona law conflicted with federal immigration law:

• Arizona’s licensing law falls well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the States and therefore is not expressly preempted.

• The state law requires no more than that an employer, after hiring an employee, “verify the employment eligibility of the employee” through E-Verify.

• Arizona’s requirement that employers use E-Verify in no way obstructs achieving the aims of the federal program. In fact, the Government has consistently expanded and encouraged the use of E-Verify, and Congress has directed that E-Verify be made available in all 50 States.

This is a huge win for those trying to do something about the never-ending flow of illegal aliens across our southern border. It is a huge loss for President Obama who will no doubt use it to continue to demonize the Supreme Court and rally his supporters for his reelection battle.

You can read the decision (pdf) here.

Schooling Eric Holder

The good folks a BulletPeople.com put together a great video schooling Eric Holder on Arizona's illegal immigration problem.  In the video Eric Holder’s reasons for fighting Arizona’s immigration law (SB 1070 -- intended to identify, prosecute and deport illegal immigrants) with the realities faced by Pinal County, Arizona Sheriff Paul Babeu in dealing with illegal immigration.

Watch the video:

Obama admin gives illegal aliens backdoor amnesty

The so-called backdoor amnesty for illegal aliens is no longer merely another bad idea from the Obama administration. According to the Houston Chronicle, the Department of Homeland Security is trying to dismiss thousands of deportation cases against "suspected illegal immigrants."

The Chronicle reports the Obama amnesty effort began "about a month ago" in Houston, where the Department of Homeland Security now has five attorneys working full-time on this backdoor amnesty for illegal aliens. The amnesty program is expected to be rolled out nationwide soon.

Senator John Cornyn blasted the Obama amnesty:

This situation is just another side effect of President Obama's failure to deliver on his campaign promise to make immigration reform a priority in his first year. Until he does, state and local authorities are left with no choice but to pick up the slack for prosecuting and detaining criminal aliens.

Earlier this year, President Obama affirmed his support for the Schumer/Graham immigration legislation outline.

Obama ran for president promising secure borders, increased number of legal immigrants, to remove incentives for illegal immigration, and to allow undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.

President Obama promised to make immigration reform a top priority of the first year of his presidency. When Obama backed away from that promise, Politifact rated his promise stalled.

As I have said before, Amnesty for illegal, whether it is backdoor or contained in a comprehensive reform bill, sends a simple message - get into the United States anyway you can because eventually you will be legalized. That message will be heard loud and clear just as it was with the adoption of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 ("IRCA"). That "immigration reform" legalized four million illegal aliens. IRCA was a monumental failure. Twenty years later there millions of new illegal aliens to legalize.

Democrats seek Obamacare for illegals

A group of House Democrats wants illegal aliens to be included in Obamacare.

President Obama has said he does not want health care proposals to cover illegal immigrants. The bill drafted by Montana Democrat and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, specifically excludes illegals from the proposed health care exchange.

In response, California Democrat Congressman Michael M. Honda says it is unfair to exclude illegals. Honda, and more than 20 of his colleagues sent letters to key players in the health care reform debate in the House of Representatives and the Senate urging inclusion of illegals in Obamacare.

According to the Washington Times, the National Council of La Raza tried to pressure Baucus to drop verification language in the legislation that could prevent illegals from participating in Obamacare.

It makes no sense to me to reward those who came here illegally by providing them with health care. It will only further encourage more illegal immigration.

Obama hit over driving illegals

There is a new ad being broadcast in Ohio. It takes Obama to task for his position favoring driver's licenses for illegal immigrants:

Remember the Democrats' debate at Drexel University? Tim Russert asked Hillary about giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants:

MR. RUSSERT: Thank you, Brian.

Senator Clinton, Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer has proposed giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. You told the Nashua, New Hampshire editorial board it makes a lot of sense. Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver's license?

Hillary's failure to give a straight response was the beginning of the end of her presidential campaign.

When pressed to say whether he was for it or against it, Obama said it was the right idea:

MR. WILLIAMS: Are you for it or against it?

SEN. OBAMA: I think that it is a -- the right idea.

Obama couldn't be more wrong on this issue. The American people do not support giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Even Democrats don't support the wrongheaded proposal that Obama calls "the right idea."

Number of Illegal Immigrants Declines

The flow of illegal immigrants into the country appears to have declined over the last year:

The study by the Center for Immigration Studies based its findings on Census data indicating that the number of less-educated, working-aged Hispanic immigrants--defined as 18- to 40-year-olds with a high school diploma or less--has dropped by more than 10 percent, or about 830,000 people since last August.

Good news indeed.

There is a debate as to how much the recent crackdown on illegal immigrants contributed to the drop in the number of illegals:

"The evidence is consistent with the idea that at least initially more robust enforcement caused the number of illegal immigrants to decline significantly," said Steven A. Camarota, one of the study's authors. "Some people seem to think illegals are so permanently anchored in the United States that there is no possibility of them leaving. . . . This suggests they're not correct. Some significant share might respond to changing incentives and leave."

Several demographers who specialize in estimating the illegal immigrant population expressed concern about the limits of the study's methodology, but said they found the possibility that the illegal immigrant population is decreasing plausible.

Determining the actual amount of that decline, however, is a far more controversial matter.

Recently the Washington Post reported immigration prosecutions have hit new highs:

Federal law enforcement agencies have increased criminal prosecutions of immigration violators to record levels, in part by filing minor charges against virtually every person caught illegally crossing some stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border, according to new U.S. data.

Officials say the threat of prison and a criminal record is a powerful deterrent, one that is helping drive down illegal immigration along the nearly 2,000-mile frontier between the United States and Mexico. Skeptics say that the government lacks the resources to sustain the strategy on the border and that the effort is diverting resources from more serious crimes such as drug and human smuggling.

Federal officials say there was a 20 percent drop in apprehensions of illegal immigrants on the U.S.-Mexico border in 2007, to 859,000.

There has also been a decrease in financial remittances from illegal immigrants in the United States to families in Mexico.

States are also cracking down on illegal immigrants and that is also having an impact.

Fred was right. Attrition by enforcement works. When illegal aliens don't have jobs, they don't stick around: