Archive for the ‘#immigration’ Tag

The Rule of Law   Leave a comment

Immigrant Children and the Rule of Law

Earlier this week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that in six months, the Department of Justice will begin the long process for deportation proceedings against 800,000 young people who came to America as babies and young children in the care of their parents and others because those entries into this country were and remain unlawful.

Source: The Rule of Law

When President Barack Obama signed numerous executive orders attempting to set forth the conditions under which illegally immigrated adults whose children were born here could lawfully remain here, he was challenged in federal court and he lost. Sessions believes that the government would lose again if it declined to deport those who came here illegally as babies and young children.

Here is the back story.

Shortly after President Obama formalized two programs, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (commonly known as DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (commonly, DAPA), in a series of executive orders, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that DAPA — the orders protecting undocumented immigrants who are the parents of children born here — was unconstitutional.

Suicide Pact: The Radi…Andrew P. NapolitanoBest Price: $0.99Buy New $1.55(as of 09:48 EDT – Details)

Before signing his executive orders, Obama tried to persuade Congress to amend federal immigration laws so as to permit those who came here illegally and bore children here and those who came here illegally as infants to remain here with work permits, high school diplomas, Social Security numbers, jobs and other indicia of stability and permanence. After Congress declined to vote on the Obama proposals, he authored his now-famous DACA and DAPA executive orders. He basically decided to do on his own what Congress had declined to do legislatively.

But Obama’s executive orders were not novel; they merely formalized what every president since Ronald Reagan — including President Donald Trump — has effectively done. Each has declined to deport undocumented immigrants who bore children here or who were brought here as young children. President Obama alone showed the courage to put this in writing, thereby giving immigrants notice of what they need to do to avoid deportation and the government notice of whose deportations should not occur.

Numerous states challenged Obama’s DAPA orders in federal court. The states argued that because they are required to provide a social safety net — hospital emergency rooms, public schools, financial assistance for the poor, etc. — for everyone within their borders, whether there lawfully or unlawfully, DAPA was increasing their financial burden beyond their ability or will to pay. Stated differently, they argued that the president alone was effectively compelling these states to spend state tax dollars against the will of elected state officials. The states also argued that DAPA was such a substantial deviation from the immigration statutes that Congress had written that it amounted to the president’s rewriting the law and thereby usurping the constitutional powers of Congress.

A federal district judge agreed with the states, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit affirmed that ruling (emphasis Lela). That court held that by increasing the financial burden on states against the will of the elected officials of the states, the president had violated the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution — which guarantees a representative form of government in the states, not one in which a federal official can tell state officials how to spend state tax dollars

The Constitution in Ex…Andrew P. NapolitanoBest Price: $0.25Buy New $7.85(as of 04:00 EDT – Details)

It also ruled that by enforcing his executive orders instead of the laws as Congress wrote them — those laws mandate deportation for all who came here illegally, no matter their age or family status — the president was failing to take care that all federal laws be enforced (emphasis Lela). That behavior, the court ruled, violated the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, which compels the president to enforce federal laws as they were written, not as he might wish them to be.

The Supreme Court declined to intervene by a 4-4 vote, thereby permitting the 5th Circuit decision to stand undisturbed (emphasis Lela).

When Sessions announced this week that DACA will not be followed after March 5, 2018, he said he is confident that DACA is unconstitutional for the same reasons that the courts found DAPA to be unconstitutional. Yet there are moral, constitutional, legal and economic arguments on this that will be an obstacle to the cancellation of this long-standing program.

Morally, most of the beneficiaries of DACA are fully Americanized young adults who know no other life but what they have here and have no roots in the countries of their births. Many are serving the U.S. in the military. Constitutionally, DACA has effectively been in place since 1986, and 800,000 people younger than 40 have planned their lives in reliance upon it. Legally, once a benefit has been given by the government and relied upon, the courts are reluctant to rescind it, even though the 5th Circuit showed no such reluctance.

The Freedom Answer Boo…Andrew P. NapolitanoBest Price: $3.74Buy New $3.30(as of 01:00 EDT – Details)

Economically, the summary removal of more than three-quarters of a million people from the workforce would have serious negative consequences for their employers and dependents and for delicate economic forces, and there would be negative economic consequences to the government, as well, as each claimed hardship case — each person whose deportation is ordered — is entitled to a hearing at the government’s expense.

Now many Republican and Democratic lawmakers in Congress want to make a close version of Obama’s executive orders with respect to immigrant infants (DACA) the law of the land — something they declined to do when Obama was president. Were this to happen, the tables would be turned on Trump. He would be confronted with the constitutional duty of enforcing a federal law that he has condemned.

Would he live up to his oath of office?

A Historical Reminder   Leave a comment

unrestricted

#culture #immigration #commonsense #history #ohiohistory

Posted February 7, 2017 by aurorawatcherak in culture

Tagged with , ,

Fences   Leave a comment

Matthew Doarnberger

Originally published on FEE Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Harry Browne, former Libertarian Party nominee for president, once quipped, “A free and prosperous society has no fear of anyone entering it. But a welfare state is scared to death of every poor person who tries to get in and every rich person who tries to get out.”

This quote seems to ring especially true whenever politicians propose either immigration restrictions or economic protectionism. Their reasoning is straightforward. Those who fear the migration of the poor to their country are often concerned about the cost of welfare benefits available for disadvantaged individuals (despite evidence that immigrants are less likely to use such benefits).

Those who fear the fleeing of the rich do so out of concern that fewer tax dollars will be available to pay for extravagant government spending programs. Methods imposed by the state to dictate both inward and outward migration are often totalitarian in nature and stem from the fact that the society enacting those methods is already not a free one.

Perhaps no recent national candidate has exemplified this way of thinking more than presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. Trump’s plan to impose heavy-handed immigration restrictions is well known. He plans on having a wall built that stretches the length of the US-Mexico border, which Mexico is allegedly going to pay for. He also very much wants to round up and deport the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in the United States.

Certainly part of this desire stems from the fact that Mexican immigrants are often poor and unskilled. Trump made this very clear in the speech he made while announcing his presidential run when he said, “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us.”

Many people who agree with Trump are fearful that American taxpayers will have to foot the bill for immigrants from the lower economic class — those who are not “the best” (meaning, for Trump, the richest and most skilled).

But Trump’s desire to restrict migration doesn’t just apply to poor Latinos. It also applies to rich businesspeople and wealthy organizations in America that may choose to do business elsewhere. Trump railed against such emigration when the PGA’s World Golf Championships opted for Mexico City over a Trump-owned course in Florida, where it had been held since 2007.

The real estate mogul addressed this decision at a campaign rally in Sacramento by saying, “They moved the World Golf Championships from Miami to Mexico City. Can you believe it? But that’s OK. Folks, it’s all going to be settled. You vote for Donald Trump as president, if I become your president, this stuff is all going to stop.”

It’s not clear what measures Trump would use to prevent a private organization like the PGA from voluntarily moving one of its events out of the United States. But his desire to use the power of government to stop such action reflects his fondness for economic protectionism. He similarly assails private companies like Ford, Nabisco, and Pfizerfor moving operations out of the country.

The same sentiment can be seen in Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer’s plan to levy taxes on wealthy individuals who renounce their US citizenship. The bill, nicknamed the “Ex-Patriot Act,” was motivated by Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin renouncing his citizenship to avoid high US taxes. The legislation was clearly a last-ditch effort by the government to grab some portion of a rich person’s money before it lost the ability to do so.

However, it’s difficult to see how an action like this could be directed at a golfing association for holding an event in a different country. Perhaps only Trump knows the strong-arm tactics he will use to stop “this stuff” from happening.

It shouldn’t be surprising to anyone who has followed Trump’s campaign thus far that he would embrace the sort of authoritarianism espoused by both the left and the right. Vilifying poor foreigners and keeping them out of the country delights many on the nationalist right. Vilifying rich people and corporations and trapping them in the country embraces a philosophy championed by the nationalist left.

Considering that Trump has backed extraordinarily expensive proposals — such as a gigantic border wall, a police state to hunt down millions of immigrants, and some sort of government-run health care system — it isn’t hard to see why he would want to prevent both entrance for the poor and exit for the rich. If the country rejects these types of expensive and expansive policies, fear of immigration and emigration across our borders should largely dissipate. Harry Browne had it right: a truly free society has no need to fear free and voluntary movement.

 

I’ve been picking on Hillary a lot lately, so I thought I’d pick on Trump today.

I am sort of in favor of a fence mainly because I’ve met several illegal immigrants in my life and all of them have been here to squeeze what they could out of the American system. If I didn’t have to pay for their free bennies, I wouldn’t care, but since that represents money that might have gone to paying off my mortgage earlier or sending my kids to college or funding ad campaigns for my books … yeah, I care and I want them to stay on their own side of the border.

I am less concerned with rich people taking their money and moving elsewhere. If I had money, I might be tempted to join them. Lela

Barry’s Illegal Immigration Scheme Is Illegal   Leave a comment

Andrew Napolitano, if you are unfamiliar, is an actual constitutional legal scholar, unlike President Obama who, as an adjunct instructor (because he lacked the qualifications to be hired as a professor), taught a college course on the legal failures of the US Constitution as opposed to the constitutions of various other countries, with specific regard to racial equality. In other words, he is not a constitutional scholar; he just has an opinion on the constitution and someone gave him a soap box to stand on.

This is very different from Napolitano, who was a lawyer and a judge and who ruled on several important cases.

The main issue here is not whether we like immigrants or want to encourage immigration. It’s about whether or not the President has the right to overrule Congress in an executive order and whether or not Congress has the right to cede some of its Constitutionally mandated responsibilities to the President.

The President, the Court and Immigration

Source: Barry’s Illegal Immigration Scheme Is Illegal

Posted April 22, 2016 by aurorawatcherak in Uncategorized

Tagged with , ,

Open Borders in This World   Leave a comment

I used to work with a lot of open borders folks, though most of them were not libertarians. We would go round and round about it because I would call them on their BS. Most of them owned property and would call the cops if I set up a camp in their backyard, but they couldn’t see that illegal immigrants were essentially doing the same thing. So when I see an argument that is well-reasoned, that picks apart the open-borders argument, I like to post it. Lela

Open Borders in THIS World
By Bionic Mosquito
April 15, 2016

Merkel’s open borders pronouncement is the gift that keeps on giving in this libertarian debate about borders and immigration.

I understand quite well the theory of immigration in a theoretical libertarian world. Property owners decide who is allowed on their property (it is interesting – many open-borders libertarians are also the first to demand that a property owner cannot decide regarding things like baking wedding cakes and taking wedding photographs). Any unclaimed / unowned land is available to whoever wants to mix his labor with it.

Source: Open Borders in This World

thebibliophagist

a voracious reader. | a book blogger.

cupidcupid999

adventure, art, nature, travel, photography, wildlife - animals, and funny stuff

Republic-MainStreet

The Peaceful Revolution Liberate Main Street

atleastihaveafrigginglass

What could possibly go wrong?

Who the Hell Knows?

The name says it all.

Rebellious Hazelnuts

Surreal Stories, Very Tall Tales

Adjusting My Sails

When the wind doesn't blow the way you want, adjust your sails

Stine Writing

Poetry, Positivity, and Connecting!

Writer vs the World

In search of beauty, inspired by literature.

%d bloggers like this: