DACA Defended But Still Called Unconstitutional

DACA Defended But Still Called Unconstitutional

By Chris Freind DACA Defended But Still Called Unconstitutional

There’s a good reason comprehensive immigration reform hasn’t seen the light of day for decades.

It’s not because of partisanship, since both Democrats and Republicans controlled the White House and Congress in that span, but something much more basic: A lack of common sense.

Strident hardliners on both sides want an all-or-nothing approach, from deporting 12 million illegals (impossible) to having totally open borders (also completely unfeasible). Their inability to compromise has killed any effort at meaningful reform.

Add to that the reluctance of party leaders to change the status quo, since they gain tremendous political benefit from nonaction. Special-interest groups, from big business to labor unions, line their pockets to keep things just the way they are, to the detriment of the country – and illegal immigrants.

But now that we finally had an opportunity to do something positive – keeping the successful Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) program until a suitable replacement was passed by Congress – the Trump administration instead decided to end it entirely, phasing it out over six months. The result has been an uproar, since the lives of 800,000 productive young people – who had legal residency and legitimate employment – have been thrown into chaos.

Let’s look at the controversy surrounding the DACA “Dreamers.”

First, a quick background: DACA, instituted by the President Obama in 2012, deferred immigration action on children brought to America by their illegal immigrant parents. It did not grant legal status, but instead protected those who qualified from being deported. It also provided work permits for two years, which were renewable. Eligibility criteria included being under 16 upon entering the country; living continuously in the U.S. since 2007; being enrolled in high school or college (or already having a diploma or degree); have a GED certificate or be an honorably discharged U.S. military veteran; and have no felony criminal convictions.

We could do a lot worse than having productive Dreamers in our midst, living the American Dream.

Now to the issue:

1. The premise for rescinding DACA is that it’s unconstitutional. Trump administration officials stated that Obama made an end-run around Congress by instituting something that should’ve been under the purview of the legislative branch. That’s very likely true. That said, the president does, in fact, have broad discretionary powers when it comes to immigration. So, given how unpredictable judges can be in interpreting the law – with some actively legislating from the bench – the jury is still out on DACA’s constitutionality.

2. The “it’s not what you say, but how you say it” principle is still lost on Trump. While the White House has rolled out many good policies, most have been inexcusably bumbled due to incompetence and a lack of foresight, and the DACA decision was no different.

Rather than creating panic-inducing uncertainty – especially after months of promising “big heart” compassion and telling Dreamers they shouldn’t worry – the president should have worked quietly with Congress to formulate a replacement program before his announcement. That way, there would’ve already been a plan in place to ensure a smooth, less stressful transition. Doing it backwards was like discontinuing the space shuttle before having a replacement – a decision that still haunts America. After seven long months, there are still no grown-ups running the show at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

3. Give Obama credit for one thing: He led on the immigration issue when Congress would not. Maybe he overstepped his executive branch bounds, but he did what he thought was right. It certainly wasn’t the first time a president went into uncharted territory. And recent presidents, including Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, all instituted executive actions protecting segments of undocumented immigrants – though, to be fair, none were of the scope of DACA. Perhaps the lesson is if more elected officials did their jobs instead of doing nothing, then presidents would not feel the need to push the limits of their office.

4. Putting constitutional concerns aside, several questions come to mind: Why these people? Why now? And why not focus on the much more pressing immigration issues?

According to reports, 91 percent of Dreamers are employed, and most, if not all, have no criminal record. They are paying taxes and contributing to the economy, while remaining out of the shadowy and dangerous underworld – all desirable traits.

But are they taking jobs from Americans, as some claim? Maybe some, but for the most part, that is a fallacy. As much as we don’t want to hear it, fact is that far too many Americans – Millennials in particular – are highly unmotivated to seek work, let alone maintain a job. For some, anything not paying $125,000 for a 30-hour work week is beneath them. Instead, the overly coddled Entitlement Generation, which expects everything but works for nothing, is content to sip their lattes and eat avocado sandwiches – while posting social media sweet nothings every 30 seconds and binge-watching Netflix on their latest-model iPhones.

Sorry, but you can’t take a job away from someone who doesn’t want to work. The market seeks productive people with strong work ethics, and if legal Dreamers fill that bill, then good for them. What could be more capitalistic – indeed more American – than that?

4. Dreamers should be last on the immigration reform checklist, for two reasons: A) It was not their choice to enter America illegally, and B) The vast majority are productive, law-abiding people who have been in the United States longer than their home country, with many only speaking English. Where is the compassion in throwing them back into unknown lands that are often dangerous Central American hellholes?

The solution is two-fold: First, Trump must work with Congress to pass legislation that effectively continues the DACA program, despite the inevitable howls that will come from his hardcore base.

Second, while remembering that America grants permanent resident status to over one million legal immigrants per year – more than all other countries – we should enact the following:

• Build a border wall utilizing nonviolent prisoners and illegal immigrants, which would solve prison overcrowding and save billions. Funding could also be derived from drug seizures and diverted foreign aid to Mexico. The wall would also curtail drug traffickers, human smugglers and terrorists.

• Institute self-deportation policies by employing stringent law enforcement measures on businesses, and eliminate lavish public benefits, ending much of the free ride enjoyed by illegals.

• Mandate every business utilize the free E-Verify system. Any company in noncompliance should face stiff penalties and potential criminal prosecution.

• Illegal immigrants convicted of crimes should serve their time and be deported. And pass a law eliminating U.S. aid to any country refusing its citizens – and deport their citizens anyway.

• Document illegals by issuing long-term or lifetime work visas; permanently deny them citizenship and the right to vote; require them to pass a criminal background check; mandate they pay taxes; and levy fines (deducted directly from paychecks).

Done. Immigration crisis solved with common sense and compassion – leaving plenty of time for America to deport Kim Jong-un to another planet.

 

DACA Defended But Still Called Unconstitutional

 

Delco Sanctuary City Trump Says

Delco Sanctuary City Trump Says Sorry John McBlain, but it looks like the Center for Immigration Studies is right after all.

President Trump included Delaware County, Pa. on its list of sanctuary cities released yesterday, March 20.

The list comes from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Section II covers jurisdictions with recorded declined detainers between Jan. 28 and Feb. 3. Section III is a table of jurisdictions that have enacted policies that limit cooperation with ICE.

Delco is in Section III as being a jurisdiction that “will not hold individuals solely based on an ICE detainer.” However,”arrangements may be made for ‘in person’ review of the policy”. This has been the policy since August 2014 says ICE.

Chesco, Montco, Bucks and, of course, Philadelphia are also listed

Chesco is in Section III as “will not hold individuals solely based on an ICE detainer” but “will allow ICE agents access to the daily populations reports and other records for investigative purposes”. This has been policy since May 2014.

Bucks is in Section III as “will not hold individuals solely based on an ICE detainer but will notify ICE via email of a pending release from custody.” This has been policy since April 2014.

Montco is in Section III as “will not honor ICE detainer”; “will not accept anyone brought to it solely on an ICE detainer: and “has daily contact with ICE”. This has been policy since April 2014

Philly “will honor ICE detainer where the alien has a prior conviction for a first or second degree felony offense involving violence and the detainer is accompanied by a judicial arrest warrant.” Even more damningly, Philly “prohibits notice to ICE of the pending release of subjects of interest to ICE unless the above criteria is met.”

Section II lists Chester County as declining a detainer on Feb. 3 for an El Salvadorian sought for a probation violation; and Philadelphia as declining detainers on Feb. 1 for a Jamaican wanted for homicide and on Feb. 3 for a Dominican wanted for selling heroin.

Delco Sanctuary City Trump Says

Delco Sanctuary City Trump Says

 

 

 

Trump Explains Law To Judges

Trump Explains Law To Judges
President Trump with Chesco Sheriff Bunny Welsh.

Trump Explains Law To Judges — Donald Trump just finished (Feb. 8) a powerful and inspiring speech to the National Sheriffs’ Association. He praised law enforcement and said those involved had a friend in the White House. He warned they most hold themselves to high standards, remove the bad actors among them and be good role models.

He said youth murders were a national tragedy and that every child — even those in Detroit, Chicago and Baltimore — had a right to play outside in peace and attend school without fear, or pressure to join a gang.

He said he wasn’t joking about building the wall on the Mexican border and that it was being designed as he spoke.

Probably most significantly he took on the activist judges and pundits snarling his ban on those seeking entry from seven terrorist-controlled nations.  It was about time. Thank God he has the spine. He read the law INA 212 (f) verbatim:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

He cracked a cracked joke about the pronoun “he” being politically incorrect and noted that what was being discussed by the pundit/legal class had nothing to do with the perfectly clear statement that he read.

He said he had planned to give a month’s, and then a week’s, notice regarding his ban but was dissuaded by his security advisors as it would have allowed terrorists planning entry to move up their timetable.

As the President implied, it is political-based decisions by judges that are causing the courts to come into disrespect, not anything he is saying.

In a side note, Chester County’s wonderful Sheriff Bunny Welsh was seen worldwide sitting next to the President, yesterday, when he met with leaders of theNational Sheriffs’ Association at the White House.

Trump Explains Law To Judges

 

Josh Shapiro Opposes Vetting Plan

Josh Shapiro Opposes Vetting Plan — Pennsylvania’s Josh Shapiro is among the 16 state attorney generals who have have filed amici curiae briefs in Washington’s and Minnesota’s federal lawsuits against the Trump Administration’s sensible and necessary executive order temporarily restricting those from seven terrorist-sponsoring nations.

Trump’s order suspends visas and other immigration benefits for 90-days for those seeking entrance from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Yemen and Somali, while the Secretary of Homeland Security creates a system ensuring that those seeking entrance are who they claim they are and are not security or public safety threats.

Josh Shapiro Opposes Vetting Plan
Don’t worry about vetting. Let them all in, you big meanies.

The order also calls for other common sense reforms.

It is wildly popular among Trump voters and all thinking people.

Will Pennsylvania’s new Republican Party Chairman Valentino F. DiGiorgio III hold this over Democrat Shapiro’s head?

Don’t hold your breath.

Josh Shapiro Opposes Vetting Plan

Delco Sanctuary Says Philly Mayor

Delco Sanctuary Says Philly Mayor — A bill has been introduced in the Pennsylvania Senate — albeit it appears snarled — that would ban government units from adopting “sanctuary” policies. This basically means not checking immigration status and not complying with federal detention orders.

Philadelphia’s Jim Kenney, who mayors the bill’s numero uno target, is outraged. Delco and Montco and Chesco and Bucks do the the same he says.

That was a subject of discussion here in December. 

The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) claimed — and still does— that Delaware County is a “sanctuary” for illegals.

The Philadelphia Field Office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), however, sent us this: Delaware County, Pa and all police departments within Delaware County fully participate with PEP (Priority Enforcement Program).

Regarding the sanctuary city bill — SB 10 of 2017-2018–  what exactly is the problem with governments checking into someone’s immigration status and complying with federal detention orders?

By the way the CIS has added Pennsylvania counties to its list.
 

Delco Sanctuary Says Philly MayorDelco Sanctuary Says Philly Mayor

Delco Sanctuary City Nope

Delco Sanctuary City Nope — County Councilman John McBlain appears to have won the debate as to whether Delaware County, Pa. is a “sanctuary city” as claimed by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS).

Delco Sanctuary City NopeThe Philadelphia Field Office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)  has sent us the below comment:

Delaware County, Pa and all police departments within Delaware County fully participate with PEP.
 
With the implementation of the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) in July 2015, many law enforcement agencies, including some large jurisdictions, are now once again cooperating with ICE.  DHS continues to make significant strides in building partnerships with local law enforcement and community leaders through PEP to ensure a common-sense approach that focuses enforcement resources on convicted criminals and individuals who threaten public safety and national security while also taking into account important community policing needs.
 
For more information on PEP please visit www.ice.gov/pep.

CIS defines sanctuary city/county/state as a jurisdiction that does not comply with ICE detainers for jailed or incarcerated illegal aliens.

Clearly Delco now does.

Delco Sanctuary City Nope

Delco Sanctuary City Debate Continued

Delco Sanctuary City Debate Continued  — Delaware County Councilman John McBlain made a passionate reply to yesterday’s (Dec. 1) article regarding how the respected Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) — it has been cited by the Supreme Court and members have testified before Congress — listed Delco as a sanctuary for illegal aliens.

“Our Council has not and will not approve any policy that would qualify our county as any sort of ‘sanctuary’ status that would oppose the application of federal law,” McBlain said. “There’s no parsing words or being cute here – this website is flat out wrong.”

McBlain has demanded that CIS remove Delco from the list and retract the claim.

Bryan Griffith has since replied saying the data is correct and, further, “(Delco) has policy/legislation that limits or prohibits cooperation with ICE“. He said the county should take the matter up with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) if it wants the claim removed.

Delco Sanctuary City Debate ContinuedCIS defines “sanctuary city” as a jurisdiction that does not comply with ICE detainers for jailed or incarcerated illegal aliens as opposed to the more commonly understood one of a jurisdiction that has declared that it will protect undocumented immigrants by not prosecuting them solely for violating federal immigration laws in the country in which they are now living illegally.

The CIS definition is quite useful in that it exposes non-compliance that would otherwise be unknown to the public. It is  unfair, however, to use it in a fundamentalist way. Three declined detainers over 21 months ending Sept. 30, 2015 — which is what Delco is accused of having done — does not a sanctuary city make. We would be interested in learning specifically what  policy/legislation Delco has that “limits or prohibits cooperation with ICE”. None, however, is listed on the CIS map, unlike the listing for Philadelphia.

Chester County, which is also listed, has had but one declined detainer between Jan. 1, 2014 and Sept. 30, 2015. Montgomery County has had seven. Philadelphia County has had 171 and the city itself has declared itself to be a “sanctuary” via mayoral executive order.

The difference between Delco’s alleged sins and Philly’s known ones is huge and it is kind of unfair to put them on the same list.

UPDATE: A link has submitted by Bryan Griffith of Center for Immigration Studies to a Temple University Study from March 2015 says Delaware County has a written policy not to comply. As per the study:  A privately run company, Community Education Centers (CEC), is responsible for correctional services at the George W. Hill Correctional Facility in Delaware County. Dated August 5, 2014, CEC’s policy is to not hold individuals based solely on ICE detainers. CEC was unwilling to turn over the policy because CEC considers it to be “proprietary information,” but noted that arrangements can be made for “in person” review of the policy.

Delco Sanctuary City Debate Continued

Delaware County Sanctuary City?

Delaware County Sanctuary City? — A listing of sanctuary cities, counties and states is being circulated by the influential Center for Immigration Studies and on it is Delaware County, Pa. We contacted CIS asking the reason for the inclusion of Delco but have yet to hear back.

Delaware County Sanctuary City?A “sanctuary city” or county or state is a jurisdiction that has declared that it will protect undocumented immigrants by not prosecuting them solely for violating federal immigration laws in the country in which they are now living illegally.

It rarely involves giving necessary sanctuary to true refugees. More often than not the motivation is cheap labor or the consolidation of political power through divisive identity politics.

Chester, Montgomery and Lehigh counties are also named as is, obviously, Philadelphia.

You can find the complete list here.

UPDATE — We heard back from Bryan Griffith of  Center for Immigration Studies who tell us the definition in the article is incorrect with regard to their map. They define “sanctuary city (county/state)” as a jurisdiction that does not comply with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers for jailed or incarcerated illegal aliens. Griffith says Delco declined three detainers between January 2014 and September 2015 as per ICE.

UPDATE 2 — Bob Small has let us know that Swarthmore College President Valerie Smith has released a statement that the college is evaluating how to become a sanctuary campus after a petition signed by more than 1,100 students, faculty and alumni requesting such was presented to her. http://www.delcotimes.com/article/DC/20161116/NEWS/161119728#.WEBMF-4tJU8.email

Delaware County Sanctuary City?

 

Syrian Christians Excluded As Refugees

Syrian Christians Excluded As Refugees — Hillary Clinton wants a 500 percent increase in refugees from war-torn Syria, while dismissing claims that the existing vetting process needs to be stringently strengthened.

Syrian Christians Excluded As Refugees
Wholly owned by the Arabs.

This column by Syrian-American Tony George — who is very sensitive to the plight of those suffering in that war-torn land — crushes her claims while pointing out those pushing hardest for more Syrians to come here are the Saudis either as fifth columnists or to avoid having to take them.

And who is the candidate that is wholly owned by that oppressive land? Wiklileaks — and other sources — have revealed that Mrs. Clinton has received between $10 million and $25 million Saudi contributions and millions more from other Arabian states such as Kuwait and Oman.

Wikileaks further reveals that while the Arabians were giving money to the Clintons they were funding ISIS.

If you care about safety and security it is a no-brainer to vote against this woman.

By the way, very few of the refugees from Syria are Christian despite being the most endangered segment of that population. That’s another thing that should make anyone not brain-dead go hmmmm.

Syrian Christians Excluded As Refugees

Mexico Can Pay For Wall

Mexico Can Pay For Wall — Donald Trump says the wall he is proposing to stop the flow of drugs and illegal immigrants from Mexico will cost between $8 billion and $13 billion. Mexico Can Pay For Wall

He said he will get Mexico to pay for it.

How? Well, it’s not as though there isn’t a lot of money stashed away in our southern sister.

More practically he notes that Mexico receives about $24 billion annually from nationals working (or using social services) here and that by making a small change in the law to include money transfer firms as federal institutions, he could put an end to that.

Por lo tanto, the wall is paid.

Mexico Can Pay For Wall