Enforcement advocates insist proposed amnesty must be sunk or tied to significant border measures

Flanked by 100 so-called “dreamers,” Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) expressed confidence that their long-dreamed-about DREAM Act will become law.

The two in past years have sponsored the bill, formally called the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act. They renewed efforts last month after President Donald Trump set a March 5 date for ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which the previous administration created to protect illegal immigrants brought to America as children.

"So here's the deal — I've never felt better about the DREAM Act than I do right now," Graham said. "The March 5 deadline is going to make us act. Failure is not an option. I've never seen more bipartisan support for the idea than right at this moment. The American people have heard you. They share your dreams and overwhelmingly support your dream."

Durbin, who has been pushing the issue for 16 years, credited the young illegal immigrants with sharing their stories and changing their minds.

"As soon as this stopped being a discussion about theory and numbers and became a discussion about real people and their aspirations and their talents and what their lives mean, we started seeing a shift in public opinion," he said.

With momentum rising — and Trump sending repeated signals that he is open to amnesty for DACA recipients — immigration hard-liners are divided over how to approach the issue.

Williams Gheen, president of the Americans for Legal Immigration political action committee, urged no-compromise opposition.

"I'm very confident we can beat it, but it all depends on how many Americans we can mobilize and how fast," he told LifeZette.

Gheen said what is needed is more unity from people and organizations opposing illegal immigration. He lamented that some groups appear more interested in striking a deal than fighting it.

He said anyone concerned about illegal immigration should be leery about trading amnesty for pledges of stronger enforcement.

"None of these promises will happen if this amnesty goes through," he said.

Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, said momentum seems strong for congressional action.

"I think there will be an amnesty," she said. "But the question is how many people will be covered and what conditions will be placed on getting a green card, and what will Republicans be able to extract for it?"

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services statistics indicate that there are about 690,000 people enrolled in DACA, which protects beneficiaries from deportation as long as they meet certain conditions and offers them permits to work legally in the United States.

But the DREAM Act would apply to a much larger population. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that 3.338 million illegal immigrants would be eligible.

It would offered lawful permanent residency — and eventually citizenship — to longtime residents who came to America before the age of 18, as long as they graduate from high school or obtain a GED; pursue higher education, serve in the military or work for at least three years; pass a background check and pay an application fee; demonstrate English proficiency and knowledge of U.S. history; and have not committed a felony or other serious crime.

"I think there will be an amnesty. But the question is how many people will be covered and what conditions will be placed on getting a green card, and what will Republicans be able to extract for it?"

Other lawmakers have sponsored similar bills. Three Republican senators last month introduced the Solution for Undocumented Children through Careers, Employment, Education and Defending our nation (SUCCEED) Act, billed as the conservative alternative to the DREAM Act. Some 2.5 million illegal immigrants would be eligible under that legislation, according to the Migration Policy Institute.

Vaughan said the most important concession Republicans should demand is a reform of "chain migration" that allows green card holders and citizens to sponsor relatives for immigration. She estimates that if 700,000 illegal immigrants became citizens, it would trigger another 1.4 million immigrants. NumbersUSA estimates that the DREAM Act could eventually lead to an additional 14.02 million immigrants because of chain migration.

Congress should balance that, she said, by eliminating or restricting categories of family migration like siblings and their children. She said Congress also could eliminate the diversity visa lottery, which each year brings in roughly 50,000 immigrants chosen randomly from the millions of people who apply for permanent residency under the program.

If that is not politically feasible, Vaughan added, Republicans at least ought to insist that Congress require all businesses to use the now-voluntary E-Verify system to confirm the eligibility of workers they hire. That ought not be a heavy lift for Senate Democrats, many of whom voted for it as part of the "Gang of Eight" comprehensive immigration bill in 2013.

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/graham-durbin-sense-momentum-for...

Views: 40

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Tech companies paying for Hundreds of Thousands of pro-amnesty phone calls to Congress today -- Will you help counter their effort?

Our Capitol Hill team has learned that a number of tech companies are paying for hundreds of thousands of phone calls today, urging Congress to pass an amnesty for illegal aliens. It's critical that Congress also hears from you!

Capitol Switchboard -- (888) 995-2053

www.Numbersusa.com

"...We would expand the ‘Dream Act’ amnesty to include the parents of the DACA illegal families because it’s the right thing to do,” he said."...GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham and Democratic leader Sen. Richard Durbin stated on Oct. 5, 2017, @ Breitbart.com.

The following is a resolution that is presently before the executive committee of my local GOP. Once passed, it will be sent to every GOP organization within our House district. 

A RESOLUTION

Whereas, the Dream Act, the Succeed Act, and all other proposed clean amnesty bills fail to prevent continuing illegal immigration into this country, and,

Whereas, this failure to address persistent illegal entry into this country, will harm American workers and we will be faced with these same problems ten years down the road, and,

Whereas, the record reflects Rep. XX has thus far failed to cosign the "Legal Workforce Act (H.R. 3775)," nor offered any legislation restricting "anchor babies":

Resolve, the XX Republican Party, supports the Raise Act, The Legal Workforce Act, and opposes birthright citizenship bestowed on the offspring born here of illegal parents, and

Be it further Resolved to bring this resolution to other Republican Party executive committees throughout District XX.

Please copy this resolution or write one of your own and bring it to your next GOP county meeting and present it to the group. Also be prepared to go to your next executive committee meeting, if the chairman requests, to present your resolution.

Excellent David. Thank you for posting

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

ALERT ALERT

Newt Says What The Rest Of Us Are Thinking:
It’s Time To Throw Peter Strzok In Jail

Disgraced FBI special agent Peter Strzok, a senior member of the bureau who gained notoriety in recent months over his anti-Trump text messages to a colleague, was grilled for nearly 10 hours during a joint congressional committee hearing on Thursday.

At issue was Strzok’s anti-Trump texts to former FBI lawyer and lover Lisa Page that coincided with his leading of the investigations into both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal and the alleged Trump/Russia 2016 election collusion, as well as his involvement in the subsequent Robert Mueller special counsel probe.

The hearing proved to be a heated battle, as Strzok displayed an arrogant smugness in defiance of pointed questions from Republicans that he largely danced around, while Democrats sought to upend and undermine the entire hearing with a plethora of interruptions, parliamentary maneuvers and outright praise for the man who helped let Clinton off the hook while ferociously targeting Trump.

Former House speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was less than impressed with Strzok’s performance and cooperation in the hearing and suggested during an appearance on Fox Business that the FBI agent should be held in contempt of Congress.

“I think they have to move to hold him in contempt and throw him in jail,” Gingrich said of Congress and Strzok.

“This is a person who is willfully standing up and refusing to appear as a congressional witness and he was a government employee at the time,” he continued.

“He has every obligation to inform the legislative branch, and I don’t think they have any choice except to move a motion of contempt because he is fundamentally — and so is his girlfriend (Page) — they’re both fundamentally in violation of the entire constitutional process,” he added.

Page had been subpoenaed to appear before Congress on Wednesday but refused to appear, saying she’d been unable to review relevant documents prior to the scheduled hearing, a closed-door hearing that has since been rescheduled for Friday.

Gingrich was not the only one who thought Strzok deserved to be held in contempt of Congress, as House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte informed Strzok that he remained at risk of such during the hearing, according to The Daily Caller.

That warning from Goodlatte came after Strzok had refused to answer a straightforward question posed by House Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, regarding how many people Strzok had personally interviewed between a specific set of dates in relation to the Clinton email investigation.

“Mr. Strzok, please be advised that you can either comply with the committee’s direction to answer the question or refuse to do so,” Goodlatte stated. “The latter of which will place you in risk of a contempt citation and potential criminal liability. Do you understand that? The question is directed to the witness.”

Strzok still refused to answer, citing instructions received from his counsel and the FBI to not answer certain questions on certain topics.

Goodlatte replied, “Mr. Strzok, in a moment we will continue with the hearing, but based on your refusal to answer the question, at the conclusion of the day we will be recessing the hearing and you will be subject to recall to allow the committee to consider proceeding with a contempt citation.”

It is unclear if Goodlatte and the committee ultimately did consider a contempt citation for Strzok following the contentious hearing, nor is it clear if Page will be held in contempt for blowing off her subpoenaed appearance on Wednesday.

Hopefully Congress will follow through on the threats of contempt followed by actual jail time against Strzok and Page in response to their uncooperative behavior and failure to appear when subpoenaed, if only to ensure that future witnesses called before Congress for sensitive or contentious hearings don’t think they can get away with the same sort of behavior.

TEA PARTY TARGET

Cops Sent To Seize Veteran’s Guns Without A Warrant, He Refused To Turn Them Over

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” says Leonard Cottrell, after successfully staving off law enforcement and the courts from confiscating his firearms. Cottrell, an Iraq War veteran, was at work when he received a phone call from his wife. The cops were there, busting in to take his guns away. It all started after a casual conversation his son had at school.

Ammoland reports:

Police said their visit was sparked by a conversation that Leonard Cottrell Jr.’s 13-year-old son had had with another student at the school. Cottrell said he was told his son and the other student were discussing security being lax and what they would have to do to escape a school shooting at Millstone Middle School.

The conversation was overheard by another student, who went home and told his parents, and his mother panicked. The mom then contacted the school, which contacted the State Police, according to Cottrell.

The visit from the troopers came around 10 p.m. on June 14, 2018, Cottrell said, a day after Gov. Phil Murphy signed several gun enforcement bills into law.

After several hours, Cottrell said police agreed not to take the guns but to allow him to move them to another location while the investigation continued.

“They had admitted several times that my son made no threat to himself or other students or the school or anything like that,” he said.

Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was “not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing.”

The troopers searched his son’s room and found nothing, Cottrell said.

“To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” he said. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

“In the Garden State, the usual approach is to confiscate first and ask questions later, and victims of this approach often don’t know their rights. ‎In this case, the victim pushed back and confiscation was avoided — but the circumstances surrounding the incident are outrageous. A student expressing concern over lack of security is not a reason to send police to the student’s home — but it might be a reason to send police to the school to keep students and teachers safe” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a member of the NRA board of directors.

NJ.com adds:

Cottrell, a disabled U.S. Army veteran who served three tours during “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” owns a shotgun and a pistol. He has all the correct permits to own the firearms, he said, and predominately uses the shotgun to hunt.

He said his wife allowed the officers to enter the home, and with her permission, they searched his son’s room — but they did not find any weapons, he said. The officers, he said, didn’t have a warrant but still wanted to take his guns. Cottrell wouldn’t let them.

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” he said Thursday.

He said the attempted seizure resulted because of a new law Gov. Phil Murphy signed into law that makes it easier for police to confiscate guns when someone in the state poses a threat to themselves or others. The law is part of a broader statewide effort to make New Jersey’s gun laws even tougher amid the national outcry for more gun control in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Cottrell said the officers “danced around the issue” when he confronted them about the new law.

A New Jersey State Police spokesman declined to answer questions about whether this incident had anything to do with the new gun laws.

In an email, Sgt. First Class Jeff Flynn said, “Troopers responded to Mr. Cottrell’s residence in reference to the report of a possible school threat. Based on their investigation, it was determined that Mr. Cottrell’s weapons did not need to be seized.”

David Codrea, writing for Ammoland, further added:

To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” New Jersey gun owner and Army veteran Leonard Cottrell Jr. told New Jersey 101.5 after a June 14 visit from State Police,. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

Cottrell was recalling state troopers showing up at his door to confiscate firearms after his 13-year-old son was overheard discussing lax school safety with a friend.

Indoctrinated by a pervasive snitch culture — one that never seems to deter the blatantly obvious demonic nutjobs — the eavesdropping student told his parents, who told school administrators, who in turn called the cops. (Note “If you see something, say something” carries risks of its own – if you report the wrong person, you could end up smeared as a “hater.”)

“Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was ‘not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing,’” the report continued. Despite that, his home is now a “gun free zone” and that has been publicized by the media. He has, in fact, willingly ceded those rights, and by his own words in order to make authorities “happy.”

Before judging him for that, consider the environment that is New Jersey. Then consider the overwhelming force the state can bring to bear, and its predisposition to using it, especially if it’s to enforce citizen disarmament. It’s easy to anonymously declare “Molon Labe” on the internet. In meatspace, resistance is more effective when the aggressor doesn’t get to dictate the time and place, especially if that place is your home and you have family inside.

Appeasing gun-grabbers, generally couched as “compromise,” is impossible. It’s like throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and expecting them to be sated and leave you alone — instead of sensing opportunity and fear, and moving in closer.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service