Bloomberg answered a question from a Wall Street Journal reporter who also served as moderator of the event, and the response was rather jaw-dropping.
Reporter: “… My sister lives in Amarillo, Texas, and they’re very worried about waves coming up north over the border there. What are you going to tell them?”
Bloomberg: “Number one nobody has come across the border in a long time. I mean we spend a fortune on technology, and if you want to come to America illegally, don’t waste your time going across the border and through the desert. It’s dangerous. Just get on an airplane, fly here, and overstay your visa. We have absolutely no ability to track who you are and get you back.”
That notion only rings true if you consider the concept of time span as arbitrary, and assume that the Mayor was thinking of time in small, hour-long segments. Then one could say that a ‘long time’ in Bloomberg’s head may simply be the last hour or so.
Or you can just accept that the Mayor is lying.
While illegals crossing the border have been on the decline, the statement that nobody has crossed in a long time is absurd.
“The total number of undocumented in this country has been going down for a long time. How do we solve the problem? We solved the problem by having our economy crater. People don’t come here to put their feet up and collect welfare. They come here to work, and if there’s no jobs, they don’t come here, and if they’re here and they can’t find a job, they go back home, because America is not a very good place to sit around and think the state is going to support you.”
Actually, a recent report shows that illegal immigrants do indeed come here to put up their feet and collect welfare. That report indicated that “43 percent of immigrants, both legal and illegal, who have been residing in the U.S. for at least 20 years were on welfare.”
Bloomberg should stick to regulating everybody’s diet as opposed to wading into immigration policy, a platform in which he clearly knows very little.
Obama Administration Ordering Release of Illegal Immigrants As Long As They SAY They Qualify For DREAM Act
A recent report from the Daily Caller highlights immigration officials claims that they are being forced to release illegal immigrants if they simply say they ‘went to high school’ or ‘have a GED’, requirements that would qualify them for the President’s new amnesty by executive order plan.
This is the equivalent of a police officer walking up to a bank robber and asking the person if they robbed the bank. If the thief says no, the police must release him.
It is a blatant compromise of national security, and I would love for somebody to explain how it does not also qualify as an impeachable offense.
The fact that President Obama granted amnesty to nearly 1 million illegal immigrants via an executive order was a stunning abuse of power in and of itself. The fact that a suspected illegal immigrant can now go free just by claiming they qualify for the President’s plan virtually extends that amnesty to many more law-breakers. And what are the odds that those who have no respect for the law of the land in the first place would simply lie in order to be released?
An excerpt from the Daily Caller report:
A top union official for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers said Thursday that President Barack Obama’s administration has ordered ICE agents to blindly — and without any evidence — believe illegal immigrants if they claim they qualify for Obama’s administrative DREAM Act.
Chris Crane, president of the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council, explained at a press conference on Capitol Hill Thursday afternoon how the new selective immigration law enforcement policy Obama announced during a White House Rose Garden speech in June is affecting the officers he represents.
“As we still wait on detailed guidance from the administration, it’s impossible to understand the full scope of the administration’s changes, but what we’ve seen so far concerns us greatly,” Crane, said. “As one example, prosecutorial discretion for DREAMers is solely based on the individual’s claims. Our orders are: If an alien says they went to high school, then let them go. If they say they have a GED, then let them go.”
“Officers have been told that there is no burden for the alien to prove anything,” he continued. “Even with the greatly relaxed policies, the alien is not required to prove that they meet any of the new criteria.”
Under the new orders, however, illegals can escape federal charges simply by claiming — whether it’s the truth or not — that they meet the DREAM Act rule’s requirements issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
ICE agents have claimed the new guidelines amount to a free pass for illegal aliens. It condones law-breaking for those who are already law-breakers.
Also mentioned at the press conference was a specific example of the new rules at work.
One example used focused on last week’s El Paso, Texas incident where an illegal alien was arrested after he physically assaulted a family member, tried to keep that person from calling police and was subsequently arrested by an ICE agent who was then assaulted by the illegal alien himself before trying to flee arresting officers. Under the new DREAM Act, this man was released without charge because he was under 30 and said he went to high school in the U.S.
McCubbin and Crane further illustrate that agents do not need any proof that illegal aliens went to high school or received a GED- their word is good enough under President Obama’s new DREAMer policy.
The man physically assaulted a family member and an agent, and was released based on the fact that he said he went to high school?
Doug Ross summarizes, “Folks, we are seeing the civil society unravel right before our eyes.”
He added, “If we don’t stop this madness in November, we may well have lost the Republic.”
Unbelievable. It may already be lost…
Where would you want to celebrate Independence Day? Somewhere relatively close to home, at a local park or beach, taking in the fireworks?
Not only is the Obama campaign team planning to spend Independence Day outside of the U.S., but they’re spending it in a surrender-happy country who’s only major military victory came during their civil war.
Apparently tiring of US soil as a source of campaign dollars, the Obama campaign is headed overseas — with its celebrity friends in tow. The European Obama campaign starts next week in Paris on July 4 with a reception organized by various fundraising heavy-hitters. Independence Day fundraisers in Paris – now that’s a flag-waving campaign.
But then, France may be the ideal place for a President who’s main platform seems to be one of Anti-Americanism.
While the crux of his predecessor’s low approval ratings were in fighting an ‘unpopular war’, President Obama is watching his own approval ratings stagnate due to an unpopular, well, everything else. His record has been so blatantly in contrast to the will of this nation, that it could very nearly be defined as anti-American.
The most obvious example of this has been the force-feeding of the health care reform bill down the collective throats of a nation. There has been a consistently strong opposition to Obamacare even prior to it being signed into law. The Supreme Court decision to uphold the law did nothing to change the negative perception, as 50% of Americans in a recent poll opposed the court’s decision, to 39% who supported the ruling.
This isn’t the only example of the President supporting policies that the rest of America opposes.
- In 2010, the President voiced what CNN called ‘incoherent’ support for the building of the Ground Zero Mosque, something a massive 70% of America objected to.
- The U.S. Justice Department’s decision to fight the Arizona immigration law through the courts; a law that 59 percent of U.S. voters would like to have seen enacted in their very own state. Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, a CBS News Poll showed most Americans (52%) considered the law to be “about right”. In addition to that, another 11% said the law did not go far enough, while a mere 33% said it went too far.
- The President killed the job creating Keystone pipeline, while Americans at a 2-1 margin thought the project should have been approved. Another energy independence issue involved the BP oil spill. After the crisis in the Gulf of Mexico, Obama issued a ban on deepwater oil drilling, a policy that nearly three quarters of Americans opposed.
And it isn’t just these more recent actions that are contributing to the President’s perception as being anti-American. Lost in the more current list of unpopular moves are some of the early attempts at implementing policies which were equally unpopular. They include…
- An early term executive order that gave federal funding to family planning organizations that provide abortions, opposed by 58 percent of Americans.
- A subsequently embarrassing mark on the president’s record involving an executive order to close the prison in Guantanamo Bay. The goal was to shut down the prison within one year, and was opposed by a 50-44 percent margin. Despite the President’s efforts, the prison remains open.
- On that same note, the DOJ’s decision to investigate the treatment and possible torture of terrorists during the Bush administration was considered wrong by a 49-36 percent tally. These same interrogation tactics were later proven to have led to the assassination of Osama bin Laden.
- The announcement that terrorists, including September 11th mastermind, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, would be tried in New York City, was roundly rejected by the American public 51-29 percent. This particular move may have been the hallmark of the anti-American presidency, granting rights afforded our citizens to a terrorist with single-minded designs on destroying those very same citizens, speaks volumes.
Isn’t it about time that the president of the United States started implementing pro-American policies? Isn’t it about time that he listen to the people that elected him?
Then again, that would require abandoning his liberal agenda and start accepting what America is – a predominantly conservative nation.
The Supreme Court has upheld a provision in the Arizona Immigration Law known as SB 1070, which allows police officers to check the immigration status of people they stop.
A majority of other provisions in the law were struck down, cited as an intrusion on the federal governments enforcement of immigration.
The Wall Street Journal explains the other provisions which were overturned.
The others make it a crime for immigrants without work permits to seek employment, make it a crime for immigrants to fail to carry registration documents, and authorize the police to arrest any immigrant they believe has committed a deportable offense. Those other three provisions were struck down.
Shane at Caffeinated Thoughts has a copy of the decision, and states in regards to the immigration check victory, the reason the police immigration status check was upheld is because the Court didn’t believe it interfered with the “federal immigration scheme.”
This gives the decision an even greater feeling of being a hollow victory of sorts. What good is checking the immigration status of those stopped for breaking the law, if it is only reported to the federal government who just recently were instructed to halt deportations of some 800,000 illegal immigrants?
On the plus side, the “show me your papers” provision was the most controversial, as well as the most widely debated and generally understood aspect of the law.
Both sides will likely come away from this claiming victory.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on Obamacare on Thursday.
President Obama has issued a “deferred action” executive order which will halt the deportation of some younger illegal immigrants, providing them government issued work permits, and by extension granting them amnesty to stay in the United States despite their illegal means of entry.
The policy bypasses Congress, a tactic the President has used repeatedly, and achieves the goals set forth by the DREAM Act, a plan that creates a path to citizenship for young people who entered the country illegally, but have attended college or served in the military.
If you’re wondering about the motivation for such a move, don’t. It is, much like his gay marriage ‘evolution’, a politically calculated move.
Via the Associated Press:
The Obama administration will stop deporting and begin granting work permits to younger illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and have since led law-abiding lives. The election-year initiative addresses a top priority of an influential Latino electorate that has been vocal in its opposition to administration deportation policies.
The policy change, described to The Associated Press by two senior administration officials, will affect as many as 800,000 immigrants who have lived in fear of deportation. It also bypasses Congress and partially achieves the goals of the so-called DREAM Act, a long-sought but never enacted plan to establish a path toward citizenship for young people who came to the United States illegally but who have attended college or served in the military.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was to announce the new policy Friday, one week before President Barack Obama plans to address the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials’ annual conference in Orlando, Fla. Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney is scheduled to speak to the group on Thursday.
Granting amnesty to illegals has long been a goal of the administration and the Democrats in general. Illegals, individuals with no regard for United States immigration law (or in some circles, the Democrat base), may be the only path to victory for President Obama in 2012.
And it has been in the works for some time. Take the case of Eliseo Medina, for example.
Medina previously served as a member of Obama’s National Latino Advisory Council and as honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America. As such, he used the platform of an America’s Future Now! Conference in 2009 to outline a plan for long-term Democrat rule through blanket amnesty.
“We reform the immigration laws; it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters. If we have eight million new voters who care about, and will be voting, we will be creating a governing coalition for the long term.”
Think about that. Democrats are trying to use people with no regard for U.S. law, to create a long-term reign of government in the United States.
Not surprisingly, Medina is a strong advocate for the DREAM Act. In September of 2010, Medina sent an email to supporters expressing staunch support for the DREAM Act amnesty bill.
“It’s essential we urge all Senators to vote yes on the DREAM Act amendment,” he wrote.
The email fittingly closed with the phrase, “¡Si se puede!” or “Yes we can!”
Also not surprisingly, around the same time Medina was hatching this plan, Obama was also pushing for non-legislative routes to amnesty via a memo between staff and the director of the Citizenship and Immigration Service. In that memo was a revelation that the department was reviewing viable substitutes for comprehensive immigration reform; including rewriting legal opinions and reviewing executive orders, among other mechanisms for amnesty.
Of course, when confronted about that memo the USCIS basically laughed it off saying, ‘nothing to see here…‘
Part of their statement:
“Nobody should mistake deliberation and exchange of ideas for final decisions.”
And yet, here we are today, three years after this memo, granting amnesty via executive order.
Republicans in Congress responded to the memo via a letter to President Obama, part of which read:
“… the administration would be wise to abandon any plans for deferred action or parole for the illegal population. Such a move would further erode the American public’s confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books.”
What Republicans sometime forget is that the rule of law often trumps the political will for re-election in this administration. While this may seem like amnesty and a dangerous immigration policy to most, it is simply a voter registration drive to the Democrats.
What does that immigration reform entail?
Building a fence on the border? No.
Enforcing proper identification to weed out those who have entered the country illegally? No.
Allowing states to enact laws which reinforce already existing federal immigration laws? Hell no.
Making the U.S. economy so crappy that more people want to leave the country than enter it?
We have a winner…
Via the Washington Post:
A four-decade tidal wave of Mexican immigration to the United States has receded, causing a historic shift in migration patterns as more Mexicans now leave the United States for Mexico than the other way around, according to a report from the Pew Hispanic Center.It is the first reversal in the trend since the Depression, and experts say that a declining Mexican birthrate and other factors may make it permanent.…Nearly 1.4 million Mexicans moved from the United States to Mexico between 2005 and 2010, double the number who came a decade earlier. The number of Mexicans who moved to the United States during that period fell to less than half of the 3 million who came between 1995 and 2000.…The reversal appears to be a result of tightened border controls, a weak U.S. job and housing construction market, a rise in deportations and a decline in Mexican birthrates, said the study…The drop comes at a time when overall immigration to the United States continues to grow, and reflects several factors specific to Mexico, including a relatively strong economy and a sharply diminished birthrate.…Gustavo Velasquez, 38, who came from Oaxaca, Mexico, 12 years ago and serves as the director of the D.C. Office on Human Rights, said that the scarcity of U.S. jobs is causing more Mexicans to think twice about moving.
Only Obamanomics would make the Mexican economy seem more enticing than the U.S. economy…
Don’t worry, he’s not illegal in his own mind. He’s simply undocumented.
Okay, when the question you dread most is ‘hey, why are you currently breaking the law?’ then you shouldn’t be running for anything. Ever.
Actually, it’s not like that at all. And there’s one simple reason for that. Being gay or being an atheist is not illegal.
What does it take to be seen as a regular Aggie? How about becoming a legal Aggie?
Photo: Houston Chronicle