Obama's Free Bus Rides

[B-Man]

Obama’s Border Request

 

Here is a devastating critique.

 

Analysis of the Supplemental Budget Request: A peek at what's behind the White House’s border "surge"

 

On July 8, the White House submitted its emergency budget request to the House of Representatives (which holds the "power of the purse" under our Constitution) to deal with the "humanitarian crisis" on our southern border.

 

The budget request, which totals $3.7 billion, immediately drew flack from many representatives who called it a blank check. Responding in the media, White House Director of the Domestic Policy Council Cecilia Muñoz said that Congress cannot have it both ways: criticizing the administration while withholding the funding to effectively handle the crisis.

Having studied the request, it seems clear to me that it is the White House that wants it both ways.

 

{snip}

 

Reciting the entire litany of questionable items that pop out at me when I read the request is beyond the boundaries of a blog. But here are a few of the things that garnered my attention and concern:

• Of the $3.7 billion being requested, fully $1.8 billion (about 49 percent of the total) is for resettlement costs to be appropriated to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) — not just for the UACs, but for entire family units, including adult men and women. There is no reason to think that the accommodations will be temporary, insofar as the funds include authorization "for acquisition, construction, improvement, repair, operation, and maintenance of real property and facilities."
  

• There is a "general provision" in the request which, under the guise of limiting reprogramming or reallocating of funds once appropriated, in fact gives the administration the right to move as much as 30 percent of the monies around as they choose. (Past history suggests that such reprogramming is usually limited to 10 percent of appropriated funds, unless specifically approved by Congress.)
  

• The Department of Justice (DOJ) would be given $15 million to hire attorneys to defend the UACs against deportation in removal proceedings before an immigration judge. An additional $1.1 million would be given to DOJ for "immigration litigation attorneys" who, presumably, would assist alien adults in their proceedings. It is clear that such litigation attorneys are not prosecutors, who are called "trial attorneys" and work for DHS, not DOJ. In essence, Congress is being asked to approve the executive branch's violation of the law. Section 292 of the Immigration and Nationality Act specifically prohibits representation of aliens in immigration proceedings at government expense.
  

• Much of the so-called "enforcement" portion of the budget is not truly geared toward removal; rather, it is a recouping of costs for temporary detention and subsequent transporting of aliens (including adults) to facilitate their resettlement and relocation by HHS. (It is noteworthy that, according to a leaked Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Office of Intelligence document, fully 47 percent of the arrivals are adults, who should be subjected to expedited removal, not to relocation and resettlement.)
  

• A meager $109 million is being requested to facilitate anti-smuggling investigative efforts, which, according to Secretary Johnson's statements and testimony in other venues, are supposed to be one of the crown-jewels in his 14-point plan to stem the surge. In any case, such efforts are destined to limited success.
  

It's no wonder that many in Congress are balking at being asked to go along with such a Potemkin village approach to the problem, one that the White House saddled itself with by reason of its fecklessness where respect for the rule of immigration law is concerned.

Edited July 10, 2014 by B-Man

[IDBillzFan]

Obama’s Border Request

 

Here is a devastating critique.

 

There was a time I would have enjoyed watching such failure.

 

Not I'm just pretty much scared of where we're headed. This is going to hurt everyone. A lot.

[B-Man]

Instead of acknowledging that his own policies have played any role in the crisis, he instead blamed Republicans and demanded that they do exactly what he says, or he will take no action on his own to fix the problem. Some people might see that as extortion.

 

Everyone sees it as extortion. Only Democrats refuse to call it that, but everyone knows what it is, following a well-established pattern.

 

 

This point is the root of the problem.

 

Deportation policies and procedures that prohibit UACs from countries other than Mexico and Canada from being immediately repatriated back to their country of origin. After DHS processes these UACs, they are issued an NTA and delivered to a sponsor or relative in the United States, regardless of the relative’s immigration status.

 

The UAC’s flooding the border expect to get to stay, because the talk of “comprehensive immigration reform” always causes a spike in illegal crossings; because of how the 2008 William Wilberforce Act is being implemented; and because of President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

 

The latter is an executive order. Obama imposed it without Congress, yet today he says that he cannot act without Congress.

 

 

Also President Obama refuses to visit the border to see the situation for himself. The White House came up with a new excuse today — that the president’s presence might get in the way of security on the border.

 

 

The Texas-Mexico border is more than 1200 miles long.

 

 

 

Again, the DACA is his policy, created via executive order. He could rescind it any time he wants. He won’t.

 

 

 

 

.

[keepthefaith]

Border security should be an easy bi-partisan thing to agree upon and not a bargaining chip for rights for illegal immigrants. This is a disgusting use of politics by the left.

[3rdnlng]

If the Border Patrol can keep the media away from the border why can't they keep the illegals away? Anyway, here's a practical solution that involves immigration policy:

 

http://cdn.rollcall.com/news/immigration_reform_proponents_must_consider_results_from_100_years_ago-234569-1.html?popular=true&cdn_load=true&zkPrintable=1&nopagination=1

The effect on the congressional immigration debate after House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s surprising primary loss should not be about whether to have reform, but whether that reform should be about increasing foreign labor or reducing it.

Cantor represented the unanimous views of the leadership of both parties, which have only differed in how and how much to increase lifetime immigrants, guest workers and legalizations of unlawful foreign visitors.

By stressing the opposite option — reductions in legal immigration — during his campaign against Cantor, victorious economics professor Dave Brat has suddenly given hope to the many members of Congress whose immigration policy vision for wage-earning Americans has been blocked by their parties’ leaders. Echoing themes articulated tirelessly by Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., Brat argues for dramatic cuts in future visas for immigrant and other foreign labor, The purpose is to allow the labor supply to tighten, raise wages and make it more likely that employers will recruit from the neglected American populations in today’s economy.

This is a prescription that has worked well in the past. Perhaps the most stunning example was 100 years ago, when the outbreak of World War I abruptly stopped a three-decades-old massive importation of immigrant labor into the United States.

Northern manufacturers responded by aggressively recruiting, training and employing the still-living freed slaves and their descendants. Since the 1880s, manufacturers had virtually ignored this source of workers, preferring to send ships to Europe to bring in immigrants to expand their factories. But 1914 began a domestic people movement from plantations to cities that has been celebrated in literature and art as “The Great Migration.” It was the start of a decades-long mass movement of black Americans into the non-agrarian economy of the nation and the building of a large black middle class. But it happened only after easy access to foreign labor was removed.

- See more at: http://cdn.rollcall.com/news/immigration_reform_proponents_must_consider_results_from_100_years_ago-234569-1.html?popular=true&cdn_load=true&zkPrintable=1&nopagination=1#sthash.gVqpLiV5.dpuf

[Tiberius]

What should ouR government do about these children surrendering to our border patrol agents?

[3rdnlng]

What should ouR government do about these children surrendering to our border patrol agents?

 

Reverse the executive action that allows 16 year old "children" to stay in this country. Make it clear in their own countries that we will not allow them to stay. Spread the word with pamphlets in their countries of the dangers they face on the trip. Threaten Mexico with something that will really hurt if they don't stop looking the other way as the trainloads of Central Americans traverse their country. There is a reason that we have immigration laws, much of which are in place to protect our citizenry.

[DC Tom]

What should ouR government do about these children surrendering to our border patrol agents?

 

Thus the brilliance of it. Sentimentality trumps legality, because no one would ever declare a child "illegal."

[B-Man]

The good news: The border crisis has a straightforward solution.

 

The bad news: It requires presidential leadership.

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-immigration-no-brainer/2014/07/10/a7e8723c-085a-11e4-bbf1-cc51275e7f8f_story.html …

[3rdnlng]

The good news: The border crisis has a straightforward solution.

 

The bad news: It requires presidential leadership.

 

 

http://www.washingto...y.html …

 

I've heard "immigration reform" thrown about quite a bit but never understood why we need reform. What is it about our laws that has us in such straights? If we followed our present laws would we not need reform? Just asking.

[Tiberius]

 

 

Thus the brilliance of it. Sentimentality trumps legality, because no one would ever declare a child "illegal."

 

Yes Tom, and it works both ways, cold legal words on a page trump real life situations. Why is there sentimentality? Because these really are children.

 

 

 

Reverse the executive action that allows 16 year old "children" to stay in this country. Make it clear in their own countries that we will not allow them to stay. Spread the word with pamphlets in their countries of the dangers they face on the trip. Threaten Mexico with something that will really hurt if they don't stop looking the other way as the trainloads of Central Americans traverse their country. There is a reason that we have immigration laws, much of which are in place to protect our citizenry.

What wll happen to these kids?

 

Too bad these were not unborn fetuses, the right wing would be screaming to save them

 

The good news: The border crisis has a straightforward solution.

 

The bad news: It requires presidential leadership.

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-immigration-no-brainer/2014/07/10/a7e8723c-085a-11e4-bbf1-cc51275e7f8f_story.html …

Cut/Paste

 

Think? Nope

[3rdnlng]

Yes Tom, and it works both ways, cold legal words on a page trump real life situations. Why is there sentimentality? Because these really are children.

 

What wll happen to these kids?

 

Too bad these were not unborn fetuses, the right wing would be screaming to save them

 

Cut/Paste

 

Think? Nope

 

Maybe they will stay at home instead.. They, or their parents have intentionally tried to thwart U.S. law because Obama has circumvented that law and has basically told them they have a free pass to U.S. citizenship. Bullschit. He's not our dictator.

[IDBillzFan]

Because these really are children.

 

Kinda makes you wonder...what kind of president would leave children piled high, sleeping on a cement floor, covered with scabies and lice because he had to play billiards and raise some campaign cash from rich Texas oil lawyers?

 

Answer: not much of a president.

[Azalin]

 

 

I've heard "immigration reform" thrown about quite a bit but never understood why we need reform. What is it about our laws that has us in such straights? If we followed our present laws would we not need reform? Just asking.

 

I would think that true immigration reform would be such that it would make it just as easy for Europeans and Asians to settle here as it does Latinos.

 

 

Too bad these were not unborn fetuses, the right wing would be screaming to save them

 

 

like the left would be screaming to kill them?

[Tiberius]

Boy you would think the right to life people would have something to say here. Seems like they hate people that are already born. I mean these are living children and need help but the right to life crowd couldn't bother, heck, they are probably the ones out screaming to send these kids back to wherever.

[DC Tom]

Boy you would think the right to life people would have something to say here. Seems like they hate people that are already born. I mean these are living children and need help but the right to life crowd couldn't bother, heck, they are probably the ones out screaming to send these kids back to wherever.

 

You must be an eight year old, to not remember the old "life begins at conception and ends at birth" line.

[keepthefaith]

Boy you would think the right to life people would have something to say here. Seems like they hate people that are already born. I mean these are living children and need help but the right to life crowd couldn't bother, heck, they are probably the ones out screaming to send these kids back to wherever.

 

You can't possibly believe that this completely disorderly border and influx of people is a positive for the United States and that the response or lack thereof by this President is a quality one.

[DC Tom]

You can't possibly believe that this completely disorderly border and influx of people is a positive for the United States and that the response or lack thereof by this President is a quality one.

 

He already believes in the fuehrerprinzip. The above is entirely consistent with that, so why wouldn't he believe it?

[Chef Jim]

Boy you would think the right to life people would have something to say here. Seems like they hate people that are already born. I mean these are living children and need help but the right to life crowd couldn't bother, heck, they are probably the ones out screaming to send these kids back to wherever.

 

Back to wherever?? Seriously? How about back to their home countries? And comparing this to the right to life is just...well just gatormanish.

[Tiberius]

 

 

You can't possibly believe that this completely disorderly border and influx of people is a positive for the United States and that the response or lack thereof by this President is a quality one.

 

 

I think abortion is good for America

 

 

 

Back to wherever?? Seriously? How about back to their home countries? And comparing this to the right to life is just...well just gatormanish.

But they left their home countries for a reason. I think the right to lifers would be interested in saving the born. I guess not.