Freedom Line Blog

Here’s an update from the New York Times about how the Obama Administration is implementing the DREAM Act without waiting for Congress to actually pass the measure into law.

The decision would, through administrative action, help many intended beneficiaries of legislation that has been stalled in Congress for a decade. The sponsor of the legislation, Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, has argued that “these young people should not be punished for their parents’ mistakes.”

The next paragraph explains the motivation:

The action would also bolster President Obama’s reputation with Latino voters as he heads into the 2012 election. Just a week ago the leaders of major Hispanic organizations criticized his record, saying in a report that Mr. Obama and Congress had “overpromised and underdelivered” on immigration and other issues of concern to Latino voters, a major force in some swing states.

At least the Times is honest.  We’re still waiting for the White House.

The International Business Times chronicles another blow to the meaning of American citizenship:

The Illinois DREAM Act would make undocumented students eligible for private college scholarships and would allow them to enroll in state college savings programs. The California DREAM Act, signed last week by governor Jerry Brown, granted undocumented immigrants at public universities greater access to privately funded scholarships. The California state legislature is debating a more controversial measure to allow undocumented immigrants to pay in-state tuition, which Brown has signaled he supports.

In this week’s Freedom Minute, CFIF’s Renee Giachino discusses the administration’s move to trump the will of the American people and Congress through de facto imposition of the so-called DREAM Act by executive fiat.

Michael Barone says that thanks to a sputtering economy, a growing Mexican middle class, and measures like Arizona’s e-Verify system that puts the onus of enforcement on employers, President Barack Obama’s push for immigration reform is behind the curve.  It would be far better if the federal government reacted to facts on the ground.

That means we can shift our immigration quotas to more highly skilled immigrants, as recommended by a panel convened by the Brookings Institution and Duke University’s Kenan Institute for Ethics and as done currently by Canada and Australia.

Such a change would be in line with the new situation. Mexican immigrants have tended to be less educated and lower-skilled than immigrants from other Latin or Asian countries. Lower Mexican immigration means lower low-skill immigration. Employers of such immigrants may have to adjust their business models.

Probably they are already doing so. But government adjusts more slowly.

Tell us about it.

The Houston Chronicle (scroll to the bottom) has a helpful side-by-side chart comparing the positions of declared and presumptive GOP presidential candidates, all of whom lean in one way or another toward the Tea Party.  The line-up includes Texas Governor Rick Perry, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, and businessman Herman Cain.

Some highlights:

• AZ Immigration Law: Bachmann and Cain support it; Paul has “some reservations,” and Perry thinks it “would not be the right direction for Texas”

• Middle East Foreign Policy: Bachmann and Perry support Israel; Paul wants troop withdrawals from the Middle East; Cain is unequivocal: “You mess with Israel, you’re messing with the U.S.A.”

• Economy: Bachmann, Perry and Cain all support tax cuts; Paul wants to go even farther: abolish the Federal Reserve and reestablish the gold standard

Here’s hoping for a substantive debate featuring all these candidates and their ideas.  America needs it.

In Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting yesterday, the Supreme Court obliterated the Obama administration’s ludicrous position (with apologies to the Chamber of Commerce, which lost its usually perspicacious way on this one) that a state may not withdraw a business license from employers who knowingly or intentionally hire illegal aliens. The whole controversy was nonsense.  The Chamber and Obama had argued that federal law prohibits states from sanctioning employers in that way, even though — get this — the law they cited explicitly allowed states to enforce rules against hiring illegals through “licensing and similar laws.”  In pursuit of its extremely pro-immigration ideological agenda — which will be put to an even bigger and more politically explosive test in another Arizona case next year — the administration argued that the exact words of a federal statute should be ignored in order to read that statute as preventing state action meant to dovetail with and complement, not undermine, those very same federal immigration laws. Writing for a 5-3 majority, Chief Justice Roberts concluded that no ambiguity exists at all: “the plain wording of the clause,” “on its face,” supported Arizona’s contention that it was operating entirely within the law.

As Ed Whelan noted at Bench Memos, Roberts got in a very sharp dig at the dissenting justices (and at the administration) by noting that two dissents read the clauses at issue in completely different ways. His footnote is worth quoting, with my bolded emphasis added:

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR creates an entirely new statutory requirement: She would allow States to impose sanctions through“licensing and similar laws” only after a federal adjudication. Such a requirement is found nowhere in the text, and JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR does not even attempt to link it to a specific textual provision. It should not be surprising that the two dissents have sharply different views on how to read the statute. That is the sort of thing that can happen when statutory analysis is so untethered from the text.

As The Washington Times argued last December, a decision in favor of Arizona in this case means that in the more explosive case next year, “the administration’s argument… falls apart.” The Washington Times’ conclusion also stands: “States retain certain authority unless Congress expressly says otherwise. Arizona is right to insist that the Constitution is meant to limit federal power.”

Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation notes some solace for businesses worried that they could lose their licenses over a mere mistake in hiring, rather than willful or flagrant violation of immigration laws: “As the Chief Justice pointed out, there is no sanction against employers for merely hiring unauthorized workers. The state law’s sanctions are only triggered if an employer hires such a worker intentionally, knowing that they are not authorized to be employed. An employer acting in good faith need not have any fear of being sanctioned, especially since they enjoy a safe harbor from liability if they use the federal E-Verify system to check on prospective employees.”

In a different piece, this from the Washington Examiner, von Spakovsky gives evidence of the practical reasons that the states’ authority in this regard is so important: The administration is flat-out refusing to enforce immigration laws on its own.

One can be moderate on the overall subject of immigration, supporting streamlined processes for legal immigration, while insisting that the law actually be enforced against those who break it. Culturally, too, legal immigrants (it stands to reason) are more willing to acclimate to American society and to our language, more willing to become more fully Americans as earlier waves of immigrants did; illegals tend (by my observation) to be more separatist, less assimilated, and even resentful. Is it too much to ask for the federal government to allow states to take reasonable steps to guard against the worst abuses from waves of unassimilated aliens, if the feds themselves won’t do it?

Below is one of the latest cartoons from two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez.

View more of Michael Ramirez’s cartoons on CFIF’s website here.

Gallup released a fascinating survey this week, under the heading “U.S. Steady as the Most Popular Destination for Potential Migrants.”

In fact, it’s not even close.  Using aggregated data compiled from 148 nations during the years 2007 through 2010, survey subjects were asked, “Ideally, if you had the opportunity, would you like to move permanently to another country, or would you prefer to continue living in this country?  To which country would you like to move?”  The United States was the runaway leader, with more than three times as many respondents as the next closest countries (Canada and the United Kingdom).  The U.S. led with 24%, Canada and the U.K. were far behind at 7% each, with France at 6% and Spain at 4%.  In fact, America was named as the top potential destination by as many people as the U.K., France, Spain, Germany and Italy combined.  So much for that supposedly superior European model.

President Obama may not believe in American exceptionalism, but apparently the rest of the world that he strangely seeks to follow rather than lead still does.

A new Rasmussen Reports poll of likely voters finds that less than half of Democrats favor an immigration policy that prohibits national security threats, criminals and welfare seekers from entering America.  By contrast, Republicans support this kind of welcoming policy toward every other kind of immigrant by a 3-to-1 margin.  Here’s the data:

But, while Americans want the border secure and a reduction in illegal immigration, most continue to support a welcoming policy of legal immigration.

Fifty-four percent (54%) of voters now agree with an immigration policy that keeps out only national security threats, criminals and those who would come here to live off America’s welfare system. This is down slightly from 58% last April but is generally consistent with findings for several years. Twenty-seven percent (27%) disagree with a policy like that, while another 19% are not sure about it.

It is interesting to note that Democrats are less supportive of a welcoming immigration policy than Republicans and unaffiliated voters. Republicans support such a policy by a 3-to-1 margin and unaffiliated voters by a 2-to-1 margin. Among Democrats, 47% favor a welcoming immigration policy and 36% are opposed.

This is just another example of where Democrats think their interests lie in the immigration debate: lawbreakers and tax-takers.  Heckuva way to build a party.

With a Rice University demographic expert projecting that only 20 percent of the state’s public school enrollment being Anglo by 2040, the makeup of the Lone Star State’s population will be decidedly more Hispanic.

Reflecting on the fact that Anglos are already a minority in Texas (at 42% still the largest minority), a group at Texas State University, San Marcos announced a new scholarship offer for white males with at least a 3.0 GPA.  Says the group’s leader, “We’re not looking for blond-haired, blue-eyed, stereotypical white males.  My feeling is that if you can say you’re 25 percent Caucasian, you’re Caucasian enough for us.”

Welcome to a new America.

With much of the 2012 presidential election coverage centering on Republican candidates, it’s worth noting – as this blog from the National Interest does – that President Barack Obama posted lopsided support among African-American and Hispanic voters during the 2008 campaign (95% and 67%, respectively).  Those numbers will likely grow as Hispanics continue to increase their share of the voting base.

So, what’s a WASP-ish GOP frontrunner like Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, or even Sarah Palin to do?  Any contestant eyeing a general election takedown of Obama-Biden (or even, heaven forbid, Obama-Clinton) should make travel plans for Santa Fe, New Mexico.  There newly inaugurated Governor Susana Martinez can teach them how to frame a winning position on illegal immigration: “It’s not about the Mexican population.  It’s about the Mexican border.”

That message, combined with Martinez’s career as a state prosecutor and traditional values stances, earned her 30% of the Hispanic vote in a heavily Democratic state.  It’s the kind of success story that just might earn her a place as the next Vice President of the United States.

Join CFIF Corporate Counsel and Senior Vice President Renee Giachino today from 4:00 p.m. CST to 6:00 p.m. CST (that’s 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. EST) on Northwest Florida’s 1330 AM WEBY, as she hosts her show “Your Turn.”  Today’s star guest lineup includes:

4:00 pm (CST) Virginia Scharff, author of “The Women Jefferson Loved”

4:30 pm (CST) Susan Ferrechio, Chief Congressional Correspondent for The Washington Examiner, New Congress

5:00 pm (CST) Sheriff Larry Dever, Immigration

5:30 pm (CST) Timothy Lee, Center for Individual Freedom, Deficit/Economy/Judges

Please share your comments, thoughts and questions at (850) 623-1330, or listen via the Internet by clicking here.  You won’t want to miss this!

One week ago, we were treated to the pathetic spectacle of Comedy Central’s Stephen Colbert “testifying” before Congress in character.  Colbert was invited by Representative Zoe Lofgren (D – California), but even House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D – Maryland) called it “an embarrassment” and “not appropriate.”  Now this week, President Obama labeled Comedy Central host Jon Stewart’s farcical October 30 rally in Washington, D.C. “really important.”  With all of the domestic and international issues pressing the White House and our nation generally, not to mention a pivotal election just days later, Obama considers Stewart’s inanity “really important?”

Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised, coming from a man who was elected largely on the basis of a cartoon “Hope” poster.

Amid the national debate over whether to amend the 14th Amendment to prohibit automatic birthright citizenship for “anchor babies” of illegal immigrants, we receive startling data from a Pew Research Center analysis of U.S. Census data.  In 2008, according to the numbers, illegal immigrant parents accounted for some 8% of births in America – one out of every twelve.

Although illegal immigrants constitute 4% of the American adult population, the Census data indicates that they account for twice that percentage of newborns.  The terms of the 14th Amendment grant citizenship to”all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and courts have interpreted that to grant birthright citizenship.  Amendment proponents, however, argue that those terms fairly aimed to protect freed slaves from attempts to deny them equal rights under the law, not to confer automatic U.S. citizenship to illegal immigrants’ offspring.

Regardless of the legal and constitutional merits for or against the amendment, the new data adds startling new practical, real-world, objective perspective to the debate.

A federal judge has temporarily enjoined portions of SB 1070, Arizona’s legislative effort to address the flood of illegal immigrants in that state.  The enjoined portions will be put on hold pending the resolution of the underlying lawsuit, and appeal of the ruling is expected in any case.

Two immediate reactions, however, immediately come to mind.  First, it seems curious that the judge would justify her injunction on the basis that local enforcement creates a “burden” that only federal officials may impose, since the entire problem arises because federal officials are simply failing to enforce something they’ve made illegal.  Second, opponents of SB 1070 may be celebrating what may prove a Pyrrhic victory.  Specifically, how do such opponents expect the electorate, which heavily favors the law, to react to a ruling that condones the federal government effectively sitting on its hands while a problem that it has made illegal festers?  The backlash in the voting booth could be severe.  Stay tuned…

Below is one of the latest cartoons from Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez.

View more of Michael Ramirez’s cartoons on CFIF’s website here.

As we noted yesterday, Senator Jon Kyl (R – Arizona) stunned a weekend townhall audience with his disclosure that President Obama told him during a private Oval Office meeting, “the problem is if we secure the border, then you all won’t have a reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.”

In other words, Obama considers our nation’s very territorial integrity little more than a partisan bargaining chip. Or, as stated by Sen. Kyl, “they’re holding it hostage.”

In response, the Obama White House essentially labeled Sen. Kyl, a man respected across party lines for his intellectual heft and moral integrity, a liar.  Speaking yesterday to White House correspondents, Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said, “the President didn’t say that, Senator Kyl knows the President didn’t say that…  It’s not true.”   Senator Kyl, however, maintains his version of events.

So whom to believe?  Well, this is the same White House that is accused by two separate Democratic candidates for Senate of offering appointments in exchange for dropping out of their campaigns.  This is also the same White House that falsely justified its offshore drilling moratorium (which threatens innumerable jobs in the Gulf region) by citing the opinions of drilling engineers.  Those engineers subsequently objected to the White House’s false attribution in the strongest of terms.

Those are just two recent examples of White House dishonesty.  It’s difficult to imagine a scenario under which both the White House and Sen. Kyl are correct, so who possesses the better record of honesty and integrity?

In taking the Constitution’s oath of office, President Barack Obama solemnly swore to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Does faithfully executing the office to the best of his ability include holding our nation’s border security hostage to “comprehensive immigration reform” legislation?

In a truly stunning revelation recorded on video during an Arizona weekend townhall meeting, Senator Jon Kyl (R -AZ) recounted a one-on-one discussion in which Obama explicitly said that border security is a bargaining chip for comprehensive immigration reform, a.k.a. amnesty.

I met with the President, in the Oval Office, just the two of us – I kicked the rest of the people out…  Here’s what the President said:  ‘The problem is,’ he said, ‘if we secure the border, then you all won’t have a reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.’  In other words, they’re holding it hostage.”

So there you have it.  To Barack Obama, our nation’s border security, and its very territorial integrity, is nothing more than an expedient bargaining chip for his partisan political agenda and expansion of his potential voting bloc.  That admission occurs just as his Department of Justice plans to sue the state of Arizona for passing an illegal alien statute that merely parallels the existing federal statute.

Less than two years into his tenure, it is becoming increasingly clear that Barack Obama isn’t merely incompetent, but dangerous.

In this week’s Freedom Minute, CFIF’s Renee Giachino discusses the temper tantrum being thrown by the City of Los Angeles over Arizona’s new immigration law and the idea of taking border security seriously.

Below is one of the latest cartoons from Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez.

View more of Michael Ramirez’s cartoons on CFIF’s website here.