Anti Immigration & Illegal Immigration Info - Ongoing Thread

Search
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
39,858
Tokens
The Zetas Cartel helped him cross the Rio Grande River
He said he and 28 other people took a raft across the river around 8 p.m. on the night they left. The Zetas charged him 11,000 Mexican pesos for protection and 1,500 Mexican pesos to cross the deep river. It took three trips to get their group across the river.




Zetas Cartel linked to fatal mass human smuggling case in San Antonio
One of the 29 survivors rescued from the back of a un-air conditioned trailer parked in a southwest San Antonio Walmart early Sunday morning gave a…
KSAT.COM












 
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
39,858
Tokens

[h=1]AG Sessions Set to Block Millions in Funding to Sanctuaries[/h]
Facebook

Twitter
Google+
Email


PrintBy Jessica Vaughan on July 27, 2017

The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced Tuesday that sanctuary jurisdictions will lose access to certain federal law enforcement grants in 2017 if they prohibit officials from communicating with ICE, if they block ICE from interviewing jail inmates, or if they fail to notify ICE of the pending release of criminal aliens ICE is seeking to deport. These particular grants, known as the Byrne Justice Assistance Grants, are the largest source of federal criminal justice funds for state, local, and tribal authorities.
This move is helping fulfill one early promise of the Trump administration: to impose consequences on the most egregious of the more than 300 sanctuary jurisdictions.
It is significant because a large share of the funds awarded in this program go to sanctuary jurisdictions. For example, according to DOJ records, the four largest grants, and seven out of the top 10 recipients of the Byrne/JAG grants are sanctuaries. Under the new rules announced by Sessions, these four top grant-getters (New York City, Cook County, Ill., the City of Los Angeles, and Philadelphia) are likely to be disqualified from these grants in the future if they maintain their current policies toward ICE. These cities received more than $10 million in grants in 2016.
See the table below for a list of sanctuary jurisdictions that received Byrne/JAG grants in 2016. Sanctuary jurisdictions received $32.7 million in 2016.
Ten sanctuaries are already at risk of debarment based on an initiative launched last year by Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas), chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that controls DOJ's budget. Last year, the department notified 10 of the worst sanctuaries that their DOJ law enforcement grants could be pulled if they did not come into compliance with the federal law prohibiting sanctuary policies. The jurisdictions are California; Connecticut; Cook County, Ill.; Chicago; Milwaukee County; New York City; New Orleans; Philadelphia; Miami-Dade County, Fla.; and Las Vegas.
A few months later, Miami-Dade County reversed its sanctuary policy and began cooperating fully with ICE.
In April 2017, DOJ sent letters to nine of the jurisdictions (all but Connecticut) reminding them that by a deadline of June 30, 2017, they had to send documentation of compliance with the law or lose certain funding (and potentially face clawbacks of previously awarded funding). The documentation of "alleged compliance" is currently under review and the results are expected soon. AG Sessions has said their statements will be reviewed carefully: "It is not enough to assert compliance, the jurisdictions must actually be in compliance."
Tuesday's announcement makes clear that DOJ is not looking merely at bare minimal compliance with the letter of Section 1373, the federal law that prohibits policies that block communication between local officials and federal immigration agencies, which many sanctuaries dubiously claim to meet. It also signals that if a jurisdiction feels constrained by the legal controversies surrounding detainers (see discussion here), they can still demonstrate satisfactory cooperation by giving ICE 48 hours advance notice of criminal alien releases.
The following jurisdictions have extreme sanctuary policies that, if maintained, are likely to lead to disqualification from Byrne/JAG grants under the new rules: New York City; Chicago; Cook County, Ill.; Philadelphia; San Francisco County, Calif.; Orleans County, La.; Newark, N.J.; Travis County, Texas; Taos County, N.M.; Lycoming County, Pa.; and Butler County, Pa. Some jurisdictions have milder versions of sanctuary policies that may not lead to disqualification from grants under the DOJ rules announced Tuesday. For example, the following jurisdictions do not honor detainers but already provide ICE with adequate notification of criminal alien releases: Chesterfield County, Va.; Erie County, Pa.; Bedford County, Pa.; Montgomery County, Pa.; and Lebanon County, Pa. Under the new rules, these counties and others may still maintain eligibility for grants if they continue to cooperate fully with ICE.
A new map shows the jurisdictions that are most likely to fail to meet the new requirements, those that likely can meet requirements with their current policies, and a large number that could go either way.
The Byrne/JAG grants are one of three programs now off-limits to sanctuaries. Last year, Rep. Culberson imposed requirements for basic compliance on the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which offers partial reimbursement for the costs of incarcerating illegal aliens, and the Community Oriented Policing grant program.
How much money is at stake in the Byrne/JAG program? The Trump administration reportedly is seeking $380 million for the program in 2018. The table below shows a list of sanctuary jurisdictions that received these grants in 2016 and the amount of the grant.
View Interactive Map of Table Below
[h=3]Sanctuary Jurisdictions Receiving Byrne/JAG Grants in 2016[/h]
AwardeeAward AmountLocation
New York City Major's Office of Criminal Justice$4,298,245N.Y.
City of Chicago$2,333,428Ill.
City of Los Angeles$1,870,503Calif.
City of Philadelphia$1,677,937Pa.
Clark County$975,604Nev.
Milwaukee County$937,932Wisc.
County of Alameda, CA$876,345Calif.
City of Baltimore$743,842Md.
City of Seattle$673,166Wash.
County of San Bernandino$626,025Calif.
Hennepin County$564,510Minn.
City of San Diego$546,793Calif.
City of Newark Police Department$525,446N.J.
City and County of San Francisco$522,943Calif.
City of Albuquerque$479,125N.M.
City of Portland$465,810Ore.
City of Boston$447,390Mass.
City of Riverside$429,942Calif.
City and County of Denver$426,590Colo.
City of Stockton$383,843Calif.
City of Orange$377,708Calif.
Baltimore, County of$336,110Md.
County of Sedwick$331,032Kan.
Prince Georges County$312,667Md.
Dekalb County$306,768Ga.
City of Tacoma$287,469Wash.
City of Fresno$269,208Calif.
City of New Orleans$265,832La.
City of Saint Paul$260,540Minn.
City of Sacramento$256,776Calif.
City of Colorado Springs$255,100Colo.
Sacramento County$241,650Calif.
City of Providence$225,539R.I.
City of New Haven$217,907Conn.
City of Hartford$196,347Conn.
City of Long Beach$196,217Calif.
City of Bridgeport$195,781Conn.
Contra Costa County$194,562Calif.
City of Aurora$175,123Colo.
County of Kern$168,552Calif.
County of Union$167,034N.J.
County of Stanislaus$165,937Calif.
Spokane County$154,903Wash.
County of Delaware$154,093Pa.
Montgomery County$147,560Md.
City of Bakersfield$145,769Calif.
City of North Las Vegas PD$143,777Nev.
City of Vallejo$136,511Calif.
City of Reno$130,850Nev.
City of Syracuse$117,888N.Y.
City of Oxnard$112,635Calif.
Santa Barbara County$108,100Calif.
Clayton County$107,853Ga.
City of Salinas$98,308Calif.
City of Pueblo$95,787Colo.
City of Compton$95,747Calif.
Clark County$91,717Wash.
City of New Brunswick$90,341N.J.
City of Lakewood$87,988Colo.
City of Topeka$85,769Kan.
Lane County$84,217Ore.
County of Jackson$76,389Calif.
City of Council Bluffs$73,440Iowa
City of Salem$69,968Ore.
City of Pomona Police Dept$69,550Calif.
City of Lancaster$68,883Calif.
City of Greeley$65,164Colo.
City of Palmdale$64,321Calif.
City of Gainesville$63,771Fla.
City of Yakima$63,434Wash.
City of Allentown$62,429Pa.
Inglewood City$61,413Calif.
City of Santa Cruz$59,519Calif.
Chesterfield County$55,163Va.
City of Pawtucket$54,601R.I.
City of Oceanside$53,730Calif.
City of Merced$51,649Calif.
City of Fort Collins$51,561Colo.
City of Redding$50,688Calif.
Linn County$50,045Iowa
City of Hawthorne$50,021Calif.
City of Waterbury$49,914Conn.
City of Boulder$49,602Colo.
City of Santa Rosa$48,367Calif.
Sonoma County$48,287Calif.
City of Woonsocket$47,961R.I.
Chula Vista City$47,700Calif.
Adams County$46,754Colo.
City of Escondido$46,313Calif.
Municipality of Norristown$46,294Pa.
County of Tulare$46,020Calif.
City of Everett$45,593Wash.
Arlington County$44,203Va.
City of Erie$43,588Pa.
City of Stamford$43,468Conn.
City of Elk Grove$42,765Calif.
City of Gallup$42,240N.M.
Shasta County$42,045Calif.
City of South Gate$41,484Calif.
County of Merced$41,458Calif.
City of Visalia$40,764Calif.
County of Washington$39,976Ore.
City of Bellingham$39,398Wash.
City of New Britain$39,287Conn.
Town of Hamden$38,895Conn.
Kitsap County$38,053Wash.
Incorporated Village of Hempstead$37,982N.Y.
City of Hanford$37,643Calif.
Yolo County$37,455Calif.
City of New London$36,107Conn.
City of Thornton$34,968Colo.
Henderson Police Department$34,400Nev.
City of Concord$33,988Calif.
Hernando County$33,767Fla.
Deschutes. County of$33,730Ore.
City of Norwalk$33,712Conn.
Tulare City$33,694Calif.
Snohomish County$33,664Wash.
City of Vista$33,348Calif.
City of Farmington New Mexico$33,277N.M.
West Haven City$32,841Conn.
City of Cambridge$32,576Mass.
City of Las Cruces$31,665N.M.
City of Norwalk$30,840Calif.
City of Roswell$30,672N.M.
City of Huntington Park$30,440Calif.
City of Turlock$30,066Calif.
Madera County$29,426Calif.
City of Central Falls$28,961R.I.
City of El Cajon$28,759Calif.
City of El Monte$28,492Calif.
City of Grand Junction$28,487Colo.
City of Iowa City$28,453Iowa
City of Santa Monica$28,199Calif.
City of Rancho Cordova$28,012Calif.
City of Citrus Heights$27,692Calif.
City of Cranston$27,195R.I.
City of Westminster$27,169Colo.
Valencia County$26,889N.M.
City of Downey$26,358Calif.
San Juan County$26,237N.M.
Thurston County$25,982Wash.
Clackamas County Juvenile Department$25,771Ore.
City of Spokane Valley$25,628Wash.
City of National City$25,397Calif.
City of Meriden$25,175Conn.
Dona Asta County$24,904N.M.
City of Santa Clarita$24,677Calif.
City of Chico$24,570Calif.
City of Bremerton$23,752Wash.
City of Bellflower$23,370Calif.
County of San Mateo$23,317Calif.
City of Lodi$22,863Calif.
City of Hillsboro$22,297Ore.
Town of East Hartford$22,213Conn.
Placer County$22,116Calif.
City of West Hollywood$21,903Calif.
City of Gardena$21,556Calif.
City of Delano$21,289Calif.
San Luis Obispo County$20,862Calif.
City of Bethlehem$20,854Pa.
Mesa County$20,546Colo.
County of Mendocino$20,222Calif.
City of Watsonville$20,115Calif.
City of Somerville$20,004Mass.
City of Roseville$19,928Calif.
City of Pico Rivera$19,822Calif.
City of West Covina$19,662Calif.
City of Santa Fe$19,631N.M.
City of San Mateo$19,475Calif.
City of Napa$19,208Calif.
City of Whittier$18,915Calif.
City of Paramount$18,808Calif.
City of Commerce City$18,766Colo.
City of Baldwin Park$18,675Calif.
El Dorado County$18,435Calif.
City of Carlsbad$18,408Calif.
City of Clovis$17,616N.M.
City of Grants Pass$17,547Ore.
City of Arvada$17,484Colo.
City of Lakewood$17,447Calif.
City of Manteca$17,421Calif.
City of Bell$17,341Calif.
City of Beaverton$17,239Ore.
City of Yuba City$17,181Calif.
City of Olympia$17,168Wash.
City of Daly City$16,887Calif.
City of Rio Rancho$16,871N.M.
City of Azusa$16,834Calif.
Norwich City$16,638Conn.
City of Loveland$16,451Colo.
City of Clovis$16,434Calif.
City of Longview$16,389Wash.
City of La Mesa$16,354Calif.
City of Everett$16,288Mass.
City of DeKalb$16,225Ill.
City of Glendale$16,007Calif.
City of Danbury$15,985Conn.
County of Lake$15,980Calif.
City of Centennial Colorado$15,668Colo.
County of Yuba$15,553Calif.
City of Dinuba$15,527Calif.
City of Burbank$15,046Calif.
County of Nevada$15,020Calif.
Douglas County Government$14,813Colo.
City of Santa Clara$14,806Calif.
City of Selma$14,753Calif.
Imperial County$14,726Calif.
City of Porterville$14,726Calif.
City of Petaluma$14,566Calif.
City of Atwater$14,513Calif.
City of Gilroy$14,299Calif.
City of Torrance$14,193Calif.
Village of Freeport$14,140N.Y.
Reedley Police Department$14,113Calif.
Town of Manchester$14,068Conn.
City of San Luis Obispo$13,873Calif.
City of Pittsburg$13,659Calif.
City of Sanger$13,659Calif.
City of Culver City$13,579Calif.
City of Redondo Beach$13,552Calif.
City of Newton$13,458Kan.
Tehama County District Attorney$13,419Calif.
Eureka Police Department$13,232Calif.
City of Arvin$13,206Calif.
City of Hollister$13,152Calif.
Township of Lakewood$13,149N.J.
City of Lawndale$12,966Calif.
City of Marysville$12,956Wash.
City of Sunnyvale$12,832Calif.
City of Alhambra$12,805Calif.
City of East Providence$12,785R.I.
City of El Centro$12,725Calif.
City of Mountain View$12,485Calif.
City of Ceres$12,299Calif.
Brighton Police Department$12,036Colo.
City of Redmond$11,874Ore.
City of Coalinga$11,738Calif.
City of Santee$11,738Calif.
City of Rosemead$11,712Calif.
Village of Los Lunas$11,692N.M.
City of Pearland$11,670Texas
City of Las Vegas$11,537N.M.
City of Tracy$11,365Calif.
City of Wheat Ridge$11,288Colo.
City of Northglenn$11,217Colo.
City of Puyallup$11,115Wash.
City of Walla Walla$11,115Wash.
City of Lemon Grove$10,858Calif.
Town of Stratford$10,715Conn.
City of Belen$10,700N.M.
City of La Puente$10,671Calif.
Covina Police Department$10,645Calif.
City of Moses Lake$10,619Wash.
City of Monterey$10,351Calif.
City of Red Bluff$10,324Calif.
City of Los Banos$10,244Calif.
City of Encinitas$10,164Calif.
City of Ridgecrest$10,138Calif.
City of South Lake Tahoe$10,031Calif.
Total$32,737,204





https://cis.org/Vaughan/AG-Sessions-Set-Block-Millions-Funding-Sanctuaries



 
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
39,858
Tokens
Aug. 1[SUP]st[/SUP], 2017​
MEDIA
RESPONSE
picture-18-1399907083.jpg
confidential-stamp.png
[h=3]CBS: immigration policy lowers wages & hurts American employment.[/h]CBS News reports that automakers (who receive hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. subsidies and tax breaks) are profiting from the use of foreign workers who are paid "far less than Americans - about $10 an hour."
"It's basically: sweatshop" says an American safety manager who has worked on the construction sites.
Automakers are exploiting visa loopholes to bring in foreign workers at low wages when American workers are available. In a separate interview, visa watchdog Jay Palmer explains how immigration policy gives employers a deal they can't refuse:
"Why train an American as an apprentice or teach him how to do electricity or plumbing, {who} is maybe going to be unionized and pay $15-20 an hour when you can pay a foreign worker four dollars an hour, five dollars an hour, six dollars an hour? Why do that?"
Spread the word: The purpose of immigration shouldn't be to keep wages down. (twitter users can tweet directly at the president at @realDonaldTrump)
As is often the case, Americans who are harmed by these practices do not blame the foreign workers -- they blame the companies and the government policies. Daniel, a foreign-born American citizen and member of the sheet metal union tells CBS:
"I have nothing against those men, they work here...I would do probably the same to provide for my family. But that should go towards our pensions, towards our daughters future or sons...not some other country....

"....I'm angry. Angry. Angry. There's lots of guys out there still looking for work. In the United States. And now we have how many, thousands and thousands Eastern European workers working here? And they're abused, too? Who lets this happen?"

Daniel's anger is in the right place. The government lets this happen. It is the responsibility of our elected officials to reform immigration policy to once again serve American workers, including immigrants like Daniel.
[h=3]Spread the word. www.numbersusa.com[/h]
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
39,858
Tokens

As part of American Dream Week, President Donald J. Trump will introduce the RAISE Act, which will address our current outdated immigration system which fails to meet the diverse needs of our economy.
-------------
President Trump, Senator Cotton, and Senator Perdue Introduce the RAISE Act
Today, Senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue will join President Donald Trump at the White House to introduce The Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy Act (RAISE Act). The RAISE Act is aimed at creating a skills-based immigration system that will make America more competitive, raise wages for American workers, and create jobs. Americans deserve a raise.
Watch live at 11:30am EST
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
39,858
Tokens
Aug. 4[SUP]th[/SUP], 2017
WEEKLY
NEWSLETTER

[h=3]THIS ISSUE: Our national poll finds overwhelming voter support for RAISE Act's immigration cuts that horrify much of media[/h]FRI, AUG 4[SUP]TH[/SUP]
Many of the elite national TV and radio networks and newspapers have reacted in horror at the idea of cutting legal immigration from around a million a year to around a half-million. Draconian! UnAmerican! Violating our Statue of Liberty immigration policy! Threatening a collapse in our economy!
It's a little discouraging to hear and watch how much your and our point of view is marginalized, isn't it?
But NumbersUSA has just released a national poll of 1,000 likely voters in next year's congressional mid-term elections that shows the only thing really controversial with voters about the RAISE Act may be that most think a cut to a half-million is not big enough!
[h=4]The poll found that 46% want annual immigration reduced to EITHER A QUARTER-MILLION OR NONE AT ALL and 62% support cuts to 500,000 or less.[/h]
By the way, I have always preferred a level around a quarter-million. But because of circumstances driving hundreds of thousands of overseas marriages each year, I think Cotton and Perdue are cutting about as far in the RAISE Act as is politically feasible for now. (I am disappointed that the Act leaves employer-based Green Cards at 140,000, but I'll write more about that at another time.)
After President Trump stood with the authors of the RAISE Act at the White House on Wednesday to endorse the 50% immigration reduction, I've been doing media interviews nearly non-stop. Most of the journalists have been clear that they can't imagine such a radical proposal ever passing Congress.
My response to them is that it will be a huge up-hill battle, but that it is possible to pass this bill by waging unrelenting grassroots pressure because the new polling shows the American people want the changes.
Can we trust these poll results, and what do they really mean?
Let's start with the wording:
POLL QUESTION: Current federal policy automatically adds about one million new legal immigrants each year, giving all of them lifetime work visas. Which is closest to the number of lifetime immigrant work visas the government should be adding each year -- none, 250,000, half a million, one million, one and a half million, two million or more than two million?
The question helps identify how voters might respond to candidates who talk about legal immigration in the context of jobs issues. The question reminds voters that immigration is -- among other things -- about adding workers to the country and that being an immigrant means getting a lifetime work authorization to compete in the U.S. labor market.
The pollsters said the responses collected on July 24-25 have the very low margin of sampling error of 3 percentage points. Pulse Opinion Research, LLC, is an independent public opinion research firm using automated polling methodology and procedures licensed from Rasmussen Reports, LLC. NumbersUSA commissioned the survey.
Congressional Republican leaders who lean more toward increasing than reducing immigration numbers will need to be forced to look at off-the-charts support for deep cuts among their base of conservatives, evangelicals, older voters and those who live in small cities, towns and rural areas.
But both Parties will need to consider these swing groups and their preference for cuts to a half-million or less:

  • Independents (57% want half-million or less; 28% want a million or more).
  • The ratio for moderates (57%-30%), Catholics (64%-22%), those living in Suburbs (58%-28%), union households (69%-19%), those without a college degree (78%-14%).
Appealing to those swing groups by supporting deep immigration cuts shouldn't hurt Democrats with their base groups which support cuts to a half-million or less by these margins:

  • Democrats (53%-30%), Liberals (50%-34%), Non-Christians (53%-32%), those living in major cities (58%-24%), younger adults (51%-35%).
That support across so many groups of Americans for immigration reduction may be influenced by what the conservative Republican Senator Cotton said this week that sure sounded like the late, great liberal Democrat Congresswoman Barbara Jordan:
Cotton disagreed with those who see our current immigration of a million a year as a "symbol of America's virtue and generosity." Instead, he sees a million a year "as a symbol we're not committed to working-class Americans and we need to change that."
That 78%-14% spread for deep cuts among Americans without a college degree looks like a hearty "amen." www.NumbersUSA.com
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
39,858
Tokens
Aug. 11[SUP]th[/SUP], 2017
MEDIA
RESPONSE
picture-18-1399907083.jpg
confidential-stamp.png
[h=3]Good reasons for Democrats to support the RAISE Act[/h]NumbersUSA is strictly non-partisan. We recognize good arguments from across the political spectrum for moderated immigration levels.
As we've been telling you, Public Opinion Research polling finds widespread support for lower immigration numbers among Democratic as well as Republican voters.
T.A. Frank writes in Vanity Fair about the many reasons Liberals and Democrats have to support lower immigration numbers:
"Most problems that the left hopes to solve - poverty, bad schools, stagnant wages, homelessness, climate change - would instead be alleviated by more modest levels of immigration."

Conservatives may share some but not all of those concerns -- and liberals may not agree with all of the reasons conservative voters support lower levels. That's ok. As Frank writes, "sound policy often has numerous interconnected rationales."
Larger excerpt from Frank's piece:
"Wages would tick up. On the more gradual front, with a system that selects for skill, most immigrants coming to the United States would out-earn the native-born, raising per-capita productivity for everyone and boosting our fiscal health. With the share of low-skill workers becoming smaller, many sorts of employment would start to pay better: home care, security work, massage therapy, dishwashing, gardening, housekeeping, cleaning, construction , gardening, manufacturing. Out in the fields, agricultural wages would likewise start to rise little by little. Union drives would go better, as employers stopped being able to threaten workers with deportation. We'd see more productivity innovations as labor costs forced businesses to make better use of their human resources or to mechanize, as in Japan.

"Environmental conservation would become easier for the simple reason that fewer people would be making demands on our natural resources. Our persistent droughts out west would become less severe with a slowly growing population than with a rapidly growing population, for the simple reason that there would be more water to go around. Americans would continue to consume too much fuel and electricity per person, but lower numbers would mean less strain on our resources. Air pollution would be curbed. Traffic increases would be slower. National parks would become only slightly, not drastically, more crowded each year."

Frank illustrates one ethical argument for reduced immigration by pointing out that a bigger economy is not always a more just economy. Noting that less immigration would mean fewer people (and thus a slower-growing economy), Frank says:
"...these developments would merely restore some of what Americans took for granted 50 years ago, when the wealthier among us accepted a more modest lifestyle in order to pay a living wage to the rest. We're all consumers and producers, and we'd remember to try to balance those interests, taking satisfaction in knowing that a pricier hotel room also means a less desperate housekeeper."
[h=3]Spread the word. www.NumbersUSA.com[/h]











 
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
39,858
Tokens
News reports have indicated that President Trump could finally fulfill his campaign promise and terminate Obama's DACA executive amnesty, but he is facing pushback from big business and open-border groups. They have deluged the White House with calls and messages in support of the DACA program.
Call the White House at 202-456-1111 and express your support for ending the DACA amnesty!
You can also send a message to President Trump online at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact
Ten attorneys general have issued an ultimatum, threatening to sue the administration over DACA unless the program is rescinded. The attorneys general called DACA "unlawful" and said it "unilaterally confers eligibility for work authorization ... and lawful presence without any statutory authorization from Congress." Trump has called the DACA amnesty illegal and unconstitutional on several occasions.
Remind the President of his promise. Call the White House comment line at 202-456-1111 and tell President Trump to end DACA.
Thank you for taking the time to contact The White House and support all Americans on these crucial issues.
Sincerely,
Toby Nicole White, Public Affairs Coordinator
P.S. If you have any questions or encounter any problems sending this message please contact CAPS at (805) 564-6626 or publicaffairs@capsweb.org to let us know. Also, this alert is personalized just for you, so instead of forwarding this customized email to your family and friends please utilize the share options after you have taken action. Thank you!










Get in Touch with The White House
To write or call the White House, click here.
WHITEHOUSE.GOV












 
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
39,858
Tokens
The Time for President Trump to End DACA Has Long Passed


PUBLISHED:

Fri, SEP 1st 2017 @ 2:17 pm EDT by Eric Ruark

AMcClatchy news story that ran today, and quoted NumbersUSA's Chris Chmielenksi, ended up as the headline story on the Drudge Report. The report was North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis was crafting a “conservative” (whatever that means) DREAM Act amnesty to formalize the unconstitutional DACA program instituted by President Obama and continued by President Trump, despite candidate Trump's promise to end the program on day one of his administration.
This was followed by a later story on CNN that Paul Ryan was urging the President not to end DACA (apparently “conservative” to Paul Ryan means not adhering to the Constitution).
NumbersUSA maintains its position that President Trump end the illegal, unconstitutional DACA program, as he repeatedly promised to do; and NumbersUSA opposes the DREAM Act.
The DREAM Act is a bad idea, no matter whether it’s labeled “conservative,” “liberal,” or “disestablishmentarian.” NumbersUSA has held firm on that line for many years. So, too, did Attorney General Jeff Sessions when he was in the Senate.
Allowing DACA to stand has ramifications far beyond immigration. It is Congress’ prerogative, and only Congress’ prerogative, to make immigration and naturalization law, even if the laws it makes are terrible. No President can choose not to enforce existing laws, or to institute his own if Congress refuses to act according to his demands.
If Congress continues to acquiesce by allowing the overreach of the federal courts (particularly in the arena of immigration law), while also allowing the Executive Branch to exercise legislative power, the entire Constitutional system is at risk. Yet, here we have a sitting U.S. Senator and the Speaker of the House of Representatives seeking to rubberstamp an unconstitutional Presidential action that would severely undermine Congress’ power.
The DREAM Act will reward illegal immigration and encourage more, while doing nothing to prevent the same problem arising in the future. DACA sets a terrible precedent that the President stands above the law.
[COLOR=#C1272D !important]If President Trump wants to put America first, which presumes he means putting the interests of the American people first and foremost, he will end DACA and work for the passage of the RAISE Act and mandatory E-Verify before even discussing the possibility of an amnesty with Congress.[/COLOR]
ERIC RUARK is the Director of Research for NumbersUSA

Updated: Fri, Sep 1st 2017 @ 11:39pm EDT
NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted. The views expressed in blogs do not necessarily reflect the official position of NumbersUSA.

https://www.numbersusa.com/blog/time-president-trump-end-daca-has-long-passed
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
39,858
Tokens
[h=2]Trump Admin. Rescinds DACA Executive Amnesty[/h]
Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced on Monday that the Trump administration is rescinding the unconstitutional executive amnesty that granted deferred action and work permits to nearly 800,000 illegal aliens living in the United States. Former Pres. Obama began the amnesty in 2012, and Pres. Trump pledged to end it while running for President.



[h=2]Statement from Pres. Trump on Rescinding DACA Executive Amnesty[/h]
In a statement issued after the administration announced it was rescinding the DACA executive amnesty, Pres. Trump said, "Congress now has the opportunity to advance responsible immigration reform that puts American jobs and American security first."
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
39,858
Tokens
Trump Admin. Rescinds DACA Executive Amnesty


Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced on Monday that the Trump administration is rescinding the unconstitutional executive amnesty that granted deferred action and work permits to nearly 800,000 illegal aliens living in the United States. Former Pres. Obama began the amnesty in 2012, and Pres. Trump pledged to end it while running for President.



Statement from Pres. Trump on Rescinding DACA Executive Amnesty


In a statement issued after the administration announced it was rescinding the DACA executive amnesty, Pres. Trump said, "Congress now has the opportunity to advance responsible immigration reform that puts American jobs and American security first."
Statement from Pres. Trump on Rescinding DACA Executive Amnesty



Trump090517.jpg

Pres. TrumpPUBLISHED:

Tue, SEP 5th 2017 @ 1:09 pm EDT

Pres. Trump issued the following statement today following Attorney General Jeff Sessions' announcement that the administration is rescinding Pres. Obama's unconstitutional DACA executive amnesty:
As President, my highest duty is to defend the American people and the Constitution of the United States of America. At the same time, I do not favor punishing children, most of whom are now adults, for the actions of their parents. But we must also recognize that we are nation of opportunity because we are a nation of laws.
The legislative branch, not the executive branch, writes these laws – this is the bedrock of our Constitutional system, which I took a solemn oath to preserve, protect, and defend.
In June of 2012, President Obama bypassed Congress to give work permits, social security numbers, and federal benefits to approximately 800,000 illegal immigrants currently between the ages of 15 and 36. The typical recipients of this executive amnesty, known as DACA, are in their twenties. Legislation offering these same benefits had been introduced in Congress on numerous occasions and rejected each time.
In referencing the idea of creating new immigration rules unilaterally, President Obama admitted that “I can’t just do these things by myself” – and yet that is exactly what he did, making an end-run around Congress and violating the core tenets that sustain our Republic.
Officials from 10 States are suing over the program, requiring my Administration to make a decision regarding its legality. The Attorney General of the United States, the Attorneys General of many states, and virtually all other top legal experts have advised that the program is unlawful and unconstitutional and cannot be successfully defended in court.
There can be no path to principled immigration reform if the executive branch is able to rewrite or nullify federal laws at will.
The temporary implementation of DACA by the Obama Administration, after Congress repeatedly rejected this amnesty-first approach, also helped spur a humanitarian crisis – the massive surge of unaccompanied minors from Central America including, in some cases, young people who would become members of violent gangs throughout our country, such as MS-13.
Only by the reliable enforcement of immigration law can we produce safe communities, a robust middle class, and economic fairness for all Americans.
Therefore, in the best interests of our country, and in keeping with the obligations of my office, the Department of Homeland Security will begin an orderly transition and wind-down of DACA, one that provides minimum disruption. While new applications for work permits will not be accepted, all existing work permits will be honored until their date of expiration up to two full years from today. Furthermore, applications already in the pipeline will be processed, as will renewal applications for those facing near-term expiration. This is a gradual process, not a sudden phase out. Permits will not begin to expire for another six months, and will remain active for up to 24 months. Thus, in effect, I am not going to just cut DACA off, but rather provide a window of opportunity for Congress to finally act.
Our enforcement priorities remain unchanged. We are focused on criminals, security threats, recent border-crossers, visa overstays, and repeat violators. I have advised the Department of Homeland Security that DACA recipients are not enforcement priorities unless they are criminals, are involved in criminal activity, or are members of a gang.
The decades-long failure of Washington, D.C. to enforce federal immigration law has had both predictable and tragic consequences: lower wages and higher unemployment for American workers, substantial burdens on local schools and hospitals, the illicit entry of dangerous drugs and criminal cartels, and many billions of dollars a year in costs paid for by U.S. taxpayers. Yet few in Washington expressed any compassion for the millions of Americans victimized by this unfair system. Before we ask what is fair to illegal immigrants, we must also ask what is fair to American families, students, taxpayers, and jobseekers.
Congress now has the opportunity to advance responsible immigration reform that puts American jobs and American security first. We are facing the symptom of a larger problem, illegal immigration, along with the many other chronic immigration problems Washington has left unsolved. We must reform our green card system, which now favors low-skilled immigration and puts immense strain on U.S. taxpayers. We must base future immigration on merit – we want those coming into the country to be able to support themselves financially, to contribute to our economy, and to love our country and the values it stands for. Under a merit-based system, citizens will enjoy higher employment, rising wages, and a stronger middle class. Senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue have introduced the RAISE Act, which would establish this merit-based system and produce lasting gains for the American People.
I look forward to working with Republicans and Democrats in Congress to finally address all of these issues in a manner that puts the hardworking citizens of our country first.
As I’ve said before, we will resolve the DACA issue with heart and compassion – but through the lawful Democratic process – while at the same time ensuring that any immigration reform we adopt provides enduring benefits for the American citizens we were elected to serve. We must also have heart and compassion for unemployed, struggling, and forgotten Americans.
Above all else, we must remember that young Americans have dreams too. Being in government means setting priorities. Our first and highest priority in advancing immigration reform must be to improve jobs, wages and security for American workers and their families.
It is now time for Congress to act!
Obama's executive amnestiesPres. Trump


 
Joined
Oct 30, 2006
Messages
39,858
Tokens
trans.gif

blue.gif
Subject:
trans.gif
trans.gif
blue.gif
Date:
trans.gif
trans.gif
blue.gif
trans.gif
trans.gif
trans.gif
trans.gif
trans.gif
trans.gif


[Print]

blue.gif



DACA AMNESTY RESCINDED
picture-63333-1392760580.jpg
[h=3]But Trump creates a 'rolling end' with some relief for American workers happening today and other relief taking time[/h][h=3]DEAR FRIENDS of AMERICAN WORKERS,[/h]
I'm already seeing a lot of confusion and some misleading reports on what Pres. Trump did today.
The following is based on what the Administration has issued publicly and on a briefing we received this morning.
(KEEP UP WITH THE LATEST NEWS BY GOING TO OUR HOME PAGE AT: https://www.numbersusa.com/)

[h=4]There is NOT a 6-month delay on ending DACA amnesty[/h]I was extremely concerned when I first heard over the weekend that Pres. Trump was going to end the executive DACA amnesty but only after giving Congress six months to enact a legislative amnesty.
That would have provided six months for immigration expansionists inside the Administration to delay the end of DACA even further once the deadline approached.
The reality is not perfect but is far better than advertised.
1. DACA ends today for anybody wanting to apply for the first time for a work permit or any other benefit.
2. DACA ends Oct. 5 for anybody wanting to apply for a renewal of a work permit.

[h=4]But opening up of jobs for Americans won't begin in earnest until March[/h]My top concern about the DACA work-permit amnesty has always been the addition of hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens competing in the legal labor market against struggling American workers and legal immigrants already here. This has created downward pressure on wages and meant that hundreds of thousands of Americans -- particularly Millennials -- do not have jobs at this time.
Atty Gen. Sessions noted this morning that around 800,000 DACA work permits have been given out since Pres. Obama created them in 2012. Those work permits are for two years but could be continually renewed. (That ended today.)
We were told this morning that around 690,000 work permits are still in effect due to some recipients not renewing along the way for various reasons.
That attrition will continue and provide some relief for American workers immediately.
However, the expiration of perhaps a thousand of the work permits a day will not begin until after March 5 next year.
Here's how the order has been laid out:
1. PENDING FIRST-TIME DACA APPLICATIONS: Young adult illegal aliens whose first-time applications for a work permit are still pending will be processed despite the end to accepting new applications as of today. (About 33,000 applications are said to be pending.)
2. DACA WORK PERMITS THAT EXPIRE SEP. 5, 2017 THROUGH MARCH 5, 2018 or which have renewal applications pending right now:
These illegal aliens will be allowed to renew for one more two-year period. But they will have to apply by Oct. 5, 2017. Many of these are likely to miss the deadline or decide for various reasons not to renew, which will begin to open up jobs as their employers are required to end their employment at the expiration of their work visa.
3. DACA WORK PERMITS THAT EXPIRE AFTER MARCH 5, 2018: These illegal aliens will not be allowed to apply for renewals for the Oct. 5 deadline. They will be able to hold their jobs -- or even get new jobs -- until the expiration date on their work visa. Perhaps a thousand a day will be expiring starting March 6 and through 2019.

[h=4]DON'T LISTEN TO THE SMUGGLERS[/h]The White House is concerned that smugglers in other countries will entice people to fork over their savings to get to the U.S. before Oct. 5 in order to file for these work permits.
The fact is that nobody can gain anything under this order unless:
(a) they filed an initial application before today
(b) or they already have a work permit

[h=4]THE THREATS BEFORE US[/h]Huge efforts among the mainstream media, corporate lobbyists, the community of foundations and leaders of both parties in Congress are already underway to pass an amnesty for these DACA recipients. Typically, they do not include any provisions to reduce the harm to vulnerable American workers, nor any provisions to keep foreign parents from putting their children into this situation in the future.
We will keep you alerted to each new challenge with ways to make a difference.
picture-63333-1392760580.jpg
ROY BECK, NUMBERSUSA PRESIDENT
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,118,850
Messages
13,560,400
Members
100,695
Latest member
suvipclub1
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com