Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Backdoor Amnesty

In what's become the norm, the Obama Administration released a controversial proposal on Friday, hoping to bury the news on slow-news-Saturday. Specifically, the Department of Homeland Security's Citizenship and Immigration Services proposed to allow illegal immigrants who are spouses or parents of citizens to get, in effect, an automatic waiver to remain in the United States while seeking citizenship. Current law requires such illegal aliens to return to their home country and seek immigrant visas and waivers of prior unlawful entry at the American Embassy there. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) & (II). The "Notice of Intent" to change the current policy was published in Monday's Federal Register.

Naturally, the lapdog Mainstream Media spun it as another triumph for the Obamessiah. The story in Saturday's Washington Post was headlined "Obama to ease route to legal immigration by keeping families together" (changed for the online edition to "Obama eases route to legal immigration"). Both versions highlighted the compassion shown by "significantly shorten[ing] the time that illegal immigrants would have to spend away from their U.S. citizen spouses or parents."

Nonsense. "Chained immigration" is bad enough, but the new policy will encourage aliens whose close relatives are citizens to jump the border and stay illegally -- under a waiver -- while undertaking the lengthy process of gaining citizenship. It also incentivizes "marriage fraud", which not only increases illegal immigration but potentially ups the risk of violence: marriage fraud was linked to two murders in the District of Columbia alone last year.

I support legal immigration. I'd even favor increasing current quotas. But illegal immigration is, well, illegal. The Administration's new approach winks at the law, implicitly opening the floodgates.

No wonder the Justice Department is blocking tighter state immigration laws in Arizona and elsewhere. Obama's incrementally implementing illegal immigration amnesty by stealth and without the consent of Congress.

(via reader Warren)


KitWistar said...

Thank you Carl & Warren !
I've always thought it was so bizarre that the US should, well, coddle the people whose very first act upon entering the US was to break the law.( Don't dare to say that aloud in DC , tho'..)
I'm by no means a Mr Bilbo--the US is amazing, in part, BECAUSE of its many different peoples. My ancestors and relatives, too, came here to escape religious persecution/terror and wars in their countries of origin.

I love this:
"I support legal immigration. I'd even favor increasing current quotas. But illegal immigration is, well, illegal. " (On a T shirt anyone?)

Interestingly, a NYTimes article Jan 5, did catch my eye:
"Migrants’ New Paths Reshaping Latin America" by Damien Cave.

A_Nonny_Mouse said...

"... The Administration's new approach winks at the law ..."
= = = = =

Naaah, it's not a "new" approach.

They've been "winking at the law" since Pres. Zero directed the GM of General Motors to resign, quickly followed by his
"we don't need no steenkin' bankruptcy court" shenanigans which rewarded the unions and shafted the secured bondholders.

And, since our courts operate by reference to precedent more than adherence to law, and since Glorious Leader has established SO MANY wicked precedents, we may well require some unprecedented event to shake things loose so we can start over again with Constitution 2.0.

Warren said...


Carl is generous with his hat tips. Often, I've just supplied one out of his many links.

Carl said...

Kit: I stole the line from the late, and underestimated, Representative Sonny Bono.

Anonymous said...

Where is John Doerr's credibility when he told a generation of MBA students he did the right thing by firing Steve Jobs? John Doerr should ask Kit Wong why Chinese engineers only sought venture capital when they were out of work and Wong told them to start restaurants to learn entrepreneurship as they rejected Wong when they had safe jobs. Foreign students can be bright, but faculty exaggerate their brilliance because foreign students are servile in doing work and favors for faculty and not demanding that professors actually earn their tuition keep. Moreover, faculty like that foreign students are either afraid, complicit or morally ambivalent about the immoral grant guzzling behavior of professors. In many cases they are more likely to share the professors' anti-Americanism than American students. Meanwhile perfectly good American engineers have to get jobs at Home Depot. And Google cancels my account for saying these things but dares to complain about censorship. Why should the liberal media get SOPA protection?