By: Robert VerBruggen - NRO – The Corner
According to an internal U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services memo going the rounds of Capitol Hill and obtained by National Review, the agency is considering ways in which it could enact “meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action” — that is, without the consent of the American people through a vote in Congress.
“This memorandum offers administrative relief options to . . . reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization,” it reads.
Also: “In the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place, deferred action and the issuance of Notices to Appear (NTA), and adopting significant process improvements.”
In recent weeks, Sen. Chuck Grassley and others in Congress have been pressing the administration to disavow rumors that a de facto amnesty is in the works, including in a letter to Department of Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano. “Since the senators first wrote to the president more than a month ago, we have not been reassured that the plans are just rumors, and we have every reason to believe that the memo is legitimate,” a Grassley spokesman tells NR. (NR contacted DHS, but a spokesman did not have a comment on the record.)
Many of the memo’s proposals are technical and fine-grained; for example, it suggests clarifying the immigration laws for “unaccompanied minors, and for victims of human trafficking, domestic violence, and other criminal activities.” It also proposes extending the “grace period” H-1B visa holders have between the expiration of their visa and the date they’re expected to leave the country.
With other ideas, however, USCIS is aiming big. Perhaps the most egregious suggestion is to “Increase the Use of Deferred Action.” “Deferred action,” as the memo defines it, “is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion not to pursue removal from the U.S. of a particular individual for a specific period of time.” For example, after Hurricane Katrina, the government decided not to remove illegal immigrants who’d been affected by the disaster.
The memo claims that there are no limits to USCIS’s ability to use deferred action, but warns that using this power indiscriminately would be “controversial, not to mention expensive.” The memo suggests using deferred action to exempt “particular groups” from removal — such as the illegal-immigrant high-school graduates who would fall under the DREAM Act (a measure that has been shot down repeatedly in Congress). The memo claims that the DREAM Act would cover “an estimated 50,000” individuals, though as many as 65,000 illegal immigrants graduate high school every year in the U.S.
In the immediate wake of the court decision blocking the Arizona immigration law yesterday, the memo is sure to create controversy — and the sense that the administration is bent on preserving and extending the nation’s de facto amnesty.
Lawmakers Consider Ending Citizenship for Children of Illegal Immigrants
Published July 29, 2010 - | FoxNews.com
Sen. Lindsey Graham speaks during a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill July 20. (AP Photo)
The federal court decision blocking key provisions of Arizona's immigration law from taking effect could light a fire under lawmakers considering an alternative -- and some say radical -- approach to reining in illegal immigration.
Lawmakers since last year have been kicking around a proposal to bar U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants from becoming U.S. citizens. Such a move, which has been ridiculed by legal scholars, would be a drastic reinterpretation of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.
But those supporting the move say it removes a key incentive luring illegal immigrants over the border. And with Arizona lawmakers now prohibited from requiring police to check immigration status, the option might be back on the table.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News after the Arizona ruling came down that "birthright citizenship" needs to be changed.
"I'm a practical guy, but when you go forward I don't want 20 million more (illegal immigrants) 20 years from now," he said. "Let's have a system that doesn't reward people for cheating."
Though other lawmakers have called for a change in U.S. or state law, Graham said he might introduce a constitutional amendment.
"We should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child's automatically not a citizen," he said Wednesday. "They come here to drop a child -- it's called 'drop and leave.' ... That attracts people here for all the wrong reasons."
The amendment process is drawn out, and success is almost always unlikely -- it would take a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress as well as ratification by three-fourths of the states. That's 38 states.
Michael Wildes, an immigration lawyer and former federal prosecutor, called the push "pie in the sky" no matter how lawmakers go about it. He said any law altering the 14th amendment would never survive a court challenge and questioned the intent.
"It's spiteful," he said. "These are U.S. citizens. ... They're babies that by the grace of God were born in one country instead of another."
He said immigrants are not by and large crossing illegally into the United States just to have children. For starters, he said the parents would have to wait 21 years before their children could sponsor them for legal residency.
Wildes, former mayor of Englewood, N.J., said changing the citizenship ground rules would fundamentally alter the foundation of the United States. It is a rarity for a country to offer citizenship to anyone just because they're born on that country's soil -- but that principle has shaped the U.S. population.
"America has always been a beacon to the immigrants," Wildes said. "As a result of that, we have made ourselves the greatest superpower in the world."
Children of immigrants include droves of accomplished Americans, including former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, born in Kentucky to Jewish immigrants from Europe; actor/dancer/singer Fred Astaire, born to an American mother and Austrian father; singer Christina Aguilera, whose father was born in Ecuador; and former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, born to Italian immigrants -- not to mention President Obama, whose father is from Kenya.
Those looking to fiddle with the 14th Amendment, though, aren't looking to go after children of legal immigrants.
A bill introduced in April 2009 by former Georgia Rep. Nathan Deal called for the law to be changed so that "birthright citizenship" as prescribed in the 14th Amendment only applies if one of the child's parents is a U.S. citizen or national, or a legal immigrant.
That bill has languished in the House since last year, though it currently lists 92 co-sponsors.
Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce told Fox News last month that he was working with some of the co-sponsors, as he considered a similar bill at the state level in Arizona. Pearce was behind the Arizona law that was partially struck down by the court Wednesday.
Pearce contends that the 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War, was intended to protect African Americans.
"Illegal wasn't illegal then," he said. "If you think about it, it's illegal to enter the United States, illegal to remain here, but you get the greatest inducement you could possibly have -- the citizenship of your child. ... It was never intended to do that."
A spokesman for Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, one of the co-sponsors, said he wouldn't be surprised if the bill started to kick back up "in the wake of Arizona."
Kevin Bishop, a spokesman for Graham, said the senator is currently "discussing the issue" but would not say what route he would take.
"It is something he is very interested in pursuing further," Bishop said.
Brewer Seeks Dismissal of Obama Challenge to Immigration Law
(Clinton-Appointed Judge Guts Arizona Immigration Law… But maybe without the authority?!?)
--> ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial <--
Friday, July 30, 2010 8:19:55 AM · by afraidfortherepublic · 1 replies
Canada Free press ^ | 7-29-10 | Publius Huldah
Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don’t read it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder. But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in Our Constitution which is as plain as the nose on your face. Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the...
Excerpt:
Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you
See where it says, “State of Arizona”? And “Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her official Capacity”? THAT (plus Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2) is what gives the US Supreme Court “original Jurisdiction”, i.e., jurisdiction to conduct the trial of this case. THAT is what strips the federal district court of any jurisdiction whatsoever to hear this case. Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you (unless you are a US Supreme Court justice).
Virginia legal opinion supports checks of immigration status
By Anita Kumar and Rosalind S. Helderman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
RICHMOND -- Virginia joined the national debate over immigration Monday when Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II issued a legal opinion that authorizes law enforcement to check the immigration status of anyone stopped by police officers for any reason.
Previously, law enforcement officers in Virginia were required to investigate the legal status only of those who were arrested and jailed.
Cuccinelli's opinion is less stringent than the portion of an Arizona law that was stopped by a federal court last week. Under that law, Arizona authorities were required to question people who they have a "reasonable suspicion" are illegal immigrants.
"Our opinion basically said that Virginia law enforcement has the authority to make such inquiries so long as they don't extend the duration of a stop by any significant degree,'' Cuccinelli (R) said at a news conference Monday. "That's consistent with Supreme Court authority."
The attorney general issued the opinion in response to a request from Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William), who sought clarification on whether local police, conservation officers and zoning officials could inquire about legal status.
Marshall said he chose to seek the legal opinion because he feared that the Senate, under Democratic control, would not approve legislation permitting law enforcement officers to inquire about legal status during routine stops. Bills seeking similar powers were killed in the Senate in recent years.
Marshall wrote to Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) on Monday asking him to codify Cuccinelli's opinion through executive order. He said he thinks that Virginia can avoid legal trouble by allowing but not mandating the checks by police.
By Anita Kumar and Rosalind S. Helderman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
RICHMOND -- Virginia joined the national debate over immigration Monday when Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II issued a legal opinion that authorizes law enforcement to check the immigration status of anyone stopped by police officers for any reason.
Previously, law enforcement officers in Virginia were required to investigate the legal status only of those who were arrested and jailed.
Cuccinelli's opinion is less stringent than the portion of an Arizona law that was stopped by a federal court last week. Under that law, Arizona authorities were required to question people who they have a "reasonable suspicion" are illegal immigrants.
"Our opinion basically said that Virginia law enforcement has the authority to make such inquiries so long as they don't extend the duration of a stop by any significant degree,'' Cuccinelli (R) said at a news conference Monday. "That's consistent with Supreme Court authority."
The attorney general issued the opinion in response to a request from Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William), who sought clarification on whether local police, conservation officers and zoning officials could inquire about legal status.
Marshall said he chose to seek the legal opinion because he feared that the Senate, under Democratic control, would not approve legislation permitting law enforcement officers to inquire about legal status during routine stops. Bills seeking similar powers were killed in the Senate in recent years.
Marshall wrote to Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) on Monday asking him to codify Cuccinelli's opinion through executive order. He said he thinks that Virginia can avoid legal trouble by allowing but not mandating the checks by police.
McDonnell spokesman Tucker Martin said the governor will review the opinion, saying it built upon an opinion he issued as attorney general in 2007. "That opinion detailed how local and state law enforcement officials can work in cooperation with federal authorities to ensure the criminal immigration laws of this nation are upheld and enforced," Martin said in a statement.
'The same inquiries'
In his opinion, Cuccinelli also wrote that local law enforcement officers can arrest those they suspect of committing criminal violations of immigration laws -- crossing the border -- but not those they think have violated civil immigration statutes -- overstaying visas. But he says that checking immigration status is different than arresting for a violation, and that law enforcement can inquire.
"Virginia law enforcement officers have the authority to make the same inquiries as those contemplated by the new Arizona law. So long as the officers have the requisite level of suspicion to believe that a violation of the law has occurred, the officers may detain and briefly question a person they suspect has committed a federal crime," he writes.
Cuccinelli said, however, that local law enforcement can arrest those suspected of violating criminal laws, but that it is generally "inadvisable" to arrest those suspected of committing civil violations. "The ability to arrest lies clearly when there is a criminal offense and it is decidedly unclear where there is a civil offense," he said.
The attorney general's legal opinion was issued amid a growing national debate about immigration. A U.S. district judge temporarily blocked the most controversial sections of Arizona's law, which took effect last week. Nearly 20 states have introduced bills similar to the Arizona law, and nine states, including Virginia, are filing appellate briefs supporting Arizona. (Read Rest of Article Here)
No comments:
Post a Comment