Justin's Political Corner
Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-TX) on Monday told the AP that he doesn’t support comprehensive immigration reform that includes a pathway to citizenship because it might get him voted out of office.Marchant represents Dallas, Texas, where there are estimated to be thousands of undocumented people residing. His district is 24 percent Hispanic. Yet, he was quite straightforward when explaining that these numbers worked against him, and informed his opposition to reform:
“It’s hard to argue with the polling they’ve been getting from the national level,” said Rep. Kenny Marchant, R-Texas, referring to signs of serious problems for Republican presidential candidates if immigration laws aren’t rewritten. “I just don’t experience it locally.”
The proposed immigration overhaul “is very unpopular in my district,” said Marchant, who represents suburbs west of Dallas. “The Republican primary voters, they’re being pretty vocal with me on this subject.” Besides, he said, “if you give the legal right to vote to 10 Hispanics in my district, seven to eight of them are going to vote Democrat.”
Marchant’s website explains that the Congressman “is strongly opposed to amnesty for illegal aliens because amnesty rewards those who choose to break our nation’s laws, and only serves to encourage and incentivize the flood of illegal immigration plaguing our nation today.” But his comments make it clear that he isn’t just in it for the morality play.
[…]
Of the 232 Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives, only 40 Congressmen represent districts with a Hispanic population at or larger than 20 percent, and only 16 have districts that are more than a third Hispanic.
In a speech on the House floor on Tuesday, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) compared undocumented immigrants to bank robbers.King, notorious for railing against any immigration reform efforts, used the comparison to argue that deporting people is “not a particularly draconian punishment”:
KING: Think of it this way: If someone goes in and robs a bank and step out on the steps of the bank with the sack of the loot and law enforcement appears and says, sorry, you can’t keep the loot and we’re going to put that back in the bank but you can go. That’s equivalent of removal. You don’t get to keep the objective of the crime, we put you back in the condition you were in before you committed the crime. That’s not draconian. That’s the minimum you can do and still have a rule of law apply.
Deportation of undocumented immigrants isn’t like letting a bank robber off easy. It tears apart families, separating citizen children from undocumented parents. Often times, those kids are left to foster care.
A congressman tweeted that his office is under invasion. You will NOT believe who he was actually talking about.
Kiss my fucking ass, Steve King!
What happens when Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia makes a 13 minute speech in Spanish on the Senate floor in support of immigration reform? Why, he makes history as the first Senator in history to delivery an entire speech on the floor of the Senate in a language other than English! History!…
Story: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/us/politics/tim-kaines-immigration-speech-in-spanish-is-a-first-for-the-senate.html?_r=1
The white nationalist group VDARE is tired of hearing “tearjerkers” about DREAMers, or undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children, and doesn’t want to hear another “sob-story about an illegal alien honor student.” The fact that DREAMers include honor students does not help their case, writes a VDARE columnist who is an “anonymous source inside the Beltway,” as “we already have too many lawyers and too few jobs and do not need another left-wing attorney taking up Affirmative Action spots.”
Barack Hussein Obama really outdid himself during his latest immigration speech. [Remarks by the President on Immigration Reform, June 11, 2013]. In almost every single speech he’s given on immigration, he concludes by giving a sob-story about an illegal alien honor student. However, in his latest speech, he bookended the speech with tearjerkers about two illegal aliens.
…
While the story of the illegal alien honor student has been trotted out by amnesty proponents for years, it seems like this has been the year of the Honor Student Surge.
I oppose the DREAM Act. Assuming these stories are true, they are not representative of the average DREAMer, and we already have too many lawyers and too few jobs and do not need another left-wing attorney taking up Affirmative Action spots.VDARE’s Nicholas Stix went one step further, alleging that the “Minority Occupied Government” would use immigration reform to push an anti-white “ethnic cleansing” of the job market and ultimately white “extinction”. He goes on to say that white people will also face discrimination in “anti-white, minority and homosexual/feminist-dominated” academia.
“Younger whites will be increasingly unable to support children,” Stix continues. “With jailbreak-style immigration inflows of legal and illegal non-white immigration and an immigrant baby boom, whites will be even more rapidly rendered a minority…. Just as in South Africa today, whites will find themselves a despised, attacked, and increasingly poor minority in what used to be their country.”
H/T: RWW
Politicians who voted for the original 1986 immigration reform bill are accessories to homicide, according to Larry Korkmas the tea party president of Texans for Immigration Reduction and Enforcement President (TFIRE). During a debate on the Senate immigration reform bill, Korkmas accused government officials of allowing the Boston Marathon bombings to occur because they failed […]
Gun Owners of America director Larry Pratt has been going-all out against immigration reform, warning that immigrants will “vote to take away our guns” and are “going to be probably just sitting around drawing welfare and voting Democrat.” He told radio host Steve Deace earlier this week that if a reform bill passes, “you can buh bye to your guns and buh bye to the rest of your freedom because this would be a country that had been californicated.”
In an action alert this week, GOA tells its members to call their senators and oppose immigration reform because if it passes “you could lose all your guns before 2035.”
“By 2035,” the alert warns, “the battle will no longer be about stopping the expansion of background checks. Most likely, it will be about stopping the government from coming to take your guns away.”
To a chorus of boos from the gallery, House Republicans voted 224-201 on Thursday to approve an amendment that defunds the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. The amendment, from Rep. Steve King (R-IA), undercuts the flexibility that allows the Department of Homeland Security to halt deporting DREAMers and instead focus on people convicted of crimes.
After the vote, the House Hispanic Caucustweeted,”House Republicans just voted to treat DREAMers and undocumented spouses of servicemembers in the same way as violent criminals.” Only six Republicans voted against the measure.
As King’s amendment passed, the House gallery erupted in boos.
On Tuesday, the Tea Party website ‘Tea Party Nation’ put out an article that labeled Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) an “illegal immigrant” because he had sneaked into Syria to visit rebels fighting against the Bashar al-Assad regime. Although the White House was aware of McCain’s Syrian visit, the article indicated that his visit was virtually the same as undocumented immigration. It also noted that McCain’s humanitarian support for rebels could be attributed to his lack of intelligence, and Democratic turnout for his unsurprising win in the Arizona Senate race.
The characterization of McCain is just one incident in a long series of efforts by the group to unjustifiably incite hatred against undocumented immigrants. While the Tea Party is ostensibly meant to represent true American virtues, it’s better known for its outlandish values that border on racism, particularly when it comes to immigration. Tea Partiers have deemed pejorative phrase “illegal immigrant” and “illegal alien” a “fair” phrase, even when it is not applicable in many instances. For example, in the latest gubernatorial race in Virginia, Terry McAuliffe was portrayed as an “undocumented Virginian” even though he had lived twenty years in the state.
Some major newspapers like the New York Times, the LA Times, and the AP have dropped the use of “illegal immigrant” from its coverage of undocumented migration. Immigration advocates view the phrase as offensive, citing that “no human being is ‘illegal,’ drop the I-word.” Yet Tea Party organizations have hardly budged.
The definition that Tea Partiers give for an illegal immigrants is “someone who sneaks into another country… even if they do not stay long.”
North Carolina is set to vote on a piece of anti-immigration legislation on par with Arizona and Alabama’s racially-tinged laws that drew national attention and ire from immigration advocates. The Reasonable Enactment of Comprehensive Legislation Addressing Immigration Matters (RECLAIM) in North Carolina Act, or HB 786 would expand the scope of law enforcement officials with “reasonable suspicion” to authorize immigration status checks on anyone who has been lawfully stopped.
As in Alabama and Arizona, North Carolina police officers would be able to stop immigrants for minor infractions like having broken head lights and then inquire about their legal status. If the measure passes, a matricula consular ID, which are used by Mexican nationals, would no longer be acceptable as a valid form of identification. Undocumented immigrants who drive would be required to obtain a vertical, status-identifying driver’s licenses, which requires them to admit their unlawful status. Immigrant applicants would also be required to submit fingerprints and to pass a criminal background check. As a result of a requirement in which immigrants must prove that they have lived in North Carolina for a year, seasonal workers would likely not qualify.
The measure also allows for law enforcement officials to have the ability to “securely transport an alien… to a federal facility” potentially without ever having seen a lawyer. It specifies, “a law enforcement agency shall obtain judicial or executive authorization from the Governor before securely transporting an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States to a point of transfer that is outside this State.”
The RECLAIM NC Act comes in the wake of a lawsuit against Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio in which his office has been accused of aggressively targeting and detaining Hispanic drivers. Innumerous cases, Arpaio’s office was found to have stopped or harassed Hispanic drivers over minor speeding infractions when other drivers of a different national origin were let go. Along with Arizona, Iowa, Michigan, and Nebraska, North Carolina legislators had initially prohibited the issuance of driver’s licenses to immigrants who qualified under the Obama Administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which granted a two-year work authorization for individuals who had graduated from high school.
The hurdles posed by North Carolina’s law could severely undermine public safety benefits since immigrants would feel more inclined to stay in the shadows rather than to drive with a restricted driver’s licenses that bears the words, “no lawful status.” Aside from diverting state resources into prosecuting undocumented immigrants, NC also stands to lose money like Arizona did with SB-1070 from immigrant businesses and tourists who may be leery of law enforcement officials who can ask for their legal status. Although enforcing a “restricted” identification card has already been done in several other states, it only widens the divide of integrating immigrants into a society where they would be forced to carry the prominent fuchsia markings of their undocumented status.
…The ruling handed down by a federal judge is peppered with stinging criticism of the policies and practices of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, saying the sheriff relied on racial profiling and illegal detentions.
The ruling is a result of a federal civil trial last summer in which Sheriff Arpaio and his office were accused in a class-action lawsuit of singling out Latinos for stops, questioning and detention. It says deputies considered the prevalence of Latinos when deciding where to carry out enforcement operations, in many cases in response to complaints based solely on assumptions that Latinos or “Mexicans,” as some complainants put it, were necessarily illegal immigrants.
Regardless of the type of enforcement — workplace raids, traffic stops or targeted patrols in areas frequented by day laborers — Sheriff Arpaio’s deputies were required to keep track of the number of people arrested on federal immigration violations, as well as state charges, Judge Snow said. In news releases, Sheriff Arpaio’s office often referred to the operations as integral parts of the sheriff’s “illegal immigrant stance.”
Cecillia Wang, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the groups that brought the lawsuit, said, “Let this be a warning to anyone who hides behind a badge to wage their own private campaign against Latinos or immigrants that there is no exception in the Constitution for violating people’s rights in immigration enforcement.”…read more at New York Times.
In her latest column, Ann Coulter laments the 1965 immigration bill that ended a racist quota system which favored immigrants from northern and western Europe. She said that “Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act was designed to boost the number of immigrants from the Third World,” and now “we’re scraping the bottom of the barrel by holding ourselves out as the welfare ward of the world.”
Just in case it wasn’t clear already, Coulter is talking about Latino immigrants, warning that the “Gang of 8” immigration reform bill will “turn the country into Mexico” and expand the welfare state.
“Was there a vote when the country decided to turn itself into Mexico?” Coulter asked, arguing that if “Rubio’s amnesty goes through, the Republican Party is finished.”
h/t: Right Wing Watch
WASHINGTON, DC – Following months of threats and pressure by some Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) announced today he is withholding amendments to the immigration bill that would end discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) immigrant families. In recent weeks, GOP Senators Lindsey Graham, Jeff Flake, Marco Rubio, and John McCain have sought to scapegoat LGBT families, promising to abandon immigration reform entirely if it was amended to include LGBT protections.
“Despite the leadership of Chairman Leahy, Judiciary Committee Democrats have caved to bullying by their Republican colleagues,” said Rachel B. Tiven, executive director of Immigration Equality Action Fund. “There should be shame on both sides of the political aisle today for lawmakers who worked to deny LGBT immigrant families a vote. Despite widespread support from business, labor, faith, Latino and Asian-American advocates, Senators abandoned LGBT families without a vote.”
Senator Chuck Schumer, an architect of the immigration bill, had long promised LGBT constituents that the package would include their families. “From the beginning we told Senator Schumer that it would only get harder to add LGBT families to the bill,” said Tiven. “We are disappointed that Senator Schumer and his ‘Gang of 8’ colleagues accepted a false choice between LGBT families and immigration reform, when the truth is that including LGBT families from the outset would have strengthened the bill.”
Republican senators looking for a reason to walk away from the bill scapegoated LGBT families. “Republicans came after LGBT families, and Democrats didn’t stand up,” Tiven said. “Who will be in the GOP’s sights next?”
“Senators have lined up in recent months to proclaim their support for marriage equality and LGBT rights,” Tiven added. “Yet, given the first opportunity to put their vote where their talking point is, they failed. Our families need deeds, not words.”
An estimated 36,000 couples who are raising more than 25,000 children within the United States (and countless others already living in exile) are impacted by the inability to sponsor their spouse or partner for residency under current immigration law. Senator Leahy’s proposed amendments would have allowed all of those families an opportunity to remain permanently together in the United States.
As former Republican Congressman Jim Kolbe of Arizona noted in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, “Including this provision would place virtually no additional burden on our immigration system. For those families and their children, however, UAFA’s inclusion in the…bill would make all the difference in the world.”
For more information, visit ImmigrationEquality.org and ImEqActionFund.org
(via recall-all-republicans)
Of the 161 amendments offered during markup, the panel accepted numerous provisions to strengthen the bill, while keeping out any poison pills that could endanger the legislation. Below is a list of how the Senate Judiciary Committee improved immigration reform:
1. Racial profiling serves as a disincentive to prosecute an individual. Blumenthal 10 would prohibit federal government from reimbursing local detentions and prosecutions that were found to have come through racial profiling.
2. Children would be treated humanely. The Committee unanimously approved Franken 7, which provides a range of protections for children separated from their parents or guardians who are being deported. Hirono 22, as amended, would protect children trafficking victims by making sure that all unaccompanied children are provided care by the Office of Refugee Resettlement within three days of their apprehension while Feinstein 6 would allow children to receive both emergency and adequate medical and mental health care and basic necessities like food and bedding. Coons 2 will also limit dangerous deportation practices like dropping people off in the middle of the night.
4. Back taxes and penalties can be paid in an installment plan. Undocumented immigrants have to pay fines and back taxes before achieving legal status. Hirono 12 allows those fines to be paid in installments.
5. An expedited path to citizenship offered through military service.
Blumenthal 12 will allow an expedited path to citizenship for DREAMers who want to join the military. This amendment will allow individuals in temporary legal status to apply for naturalization after they have honorably served in the military.6. Federal aid for DREAMers. Hirono 21 would allow DREAMers to access some student loans and federal work study programs. They would not be eligible for Pell grants, however.
7. Streamlining E-Verify so that employers and employees can have assurance of its accuracy.The Senate bill requires employers to use E-Verify and three key amendments help address privacy concerns associated with the system’s accuracy. Blumenthal 18 prohibits employers from withholding employment-relevant records from employees. Coons 1 requires the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to put in place a system that would allow employees to know whether they have been confirmed or denied by the E-Verify system. Franken 2 also requires a study of accuracy rates.
8. Humane treatment for detained immigrants. Blumenthal 2 limits ICE’s policy of using solitary confinement and explicitly prohibits the use of solitary confinement to “protect” a detainee based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
9. More visas for sub-Saharan Africa and Caribbean countries. Responding to concerns from the African American community, who feared that the loss of the diversity visa program would impact immigration from African and Caribbean countries, Schumer 3 adds 10,000 nonimmigrant E Visas for certain nations in sub-Saharan Africa and Caribbean countries.
