Thread: US Immigration Reform

Originally Posted by barbaro

Supreme Court Rules: States Cannot Prevent Illegal Aliens from Voting in U.S. Elections
Kyle Becker
June 17, 2013

^ Alright, since that title sounded pretty fishy I just did a bit of research and have determined that the article Barbaro posted is in fact, bullshit. The case before the Supreme Court had nothing to do with Illegal Aliens and was about an Arizona State Law that conflicted with US Federal Law.

Here's the case and what the Supreme Court ruling ACTUALLY says:

Supreme Court Strikes Down Arizona Voting Law




The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday struck down a state-mandated requirement that prospective voters in Arizona provide proof of citizenship to be able to register to vote in national elections. But some experts are concerned that the court may have inserted a few "poison pills" in its opinion that would damage voting-rights protections someday down the road.


The case before the court involved a federal law that allows people to register to vote by mail using a federal form that requires the registrant to swear, under penalty of perjury, that he or she is a citizen. Arizona went further than the federal law and added a requirement that the registrant provide a passport, birth certificate or other proof of citizenship to register.


But the Supreme Court, by a 7-2 vote, invalidated the state requirement as pre-empted by federal law.


Justice Antonin Scalia said that the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, which requires states to "accept and use" the simple federal form, replaced more complicated state forms like Arizona's. And the court said that if the state wanted to add requirements, it had to get permission from the federal Election Assistance Commission set up under the law. If the state was unable to prevail at the commission level, the court said, it could then appeal to the federal courts.
"No matter what procedural hurdles a State's own form imposes, the Federal Form guarantees that a simple means of registering to vote in federal elections will be available," Scalia wrote.


He added that if Arizona's reasoning were to prevail, applicants would have to provide every additional piece of information the state requires on its state-specific form, and that would render the federal form purposeless.


"If that is so, the Federal Form ceases to perform any meaningful function, and would be a feeble means of increasing the number of eligible citizens who register to vote in elections for Federal office," Scalia wrote.


The high court decision affirmed a ruling by a federal appeals court panel that included retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who, since her retirement, still sits occasionally as a visiting judge on lower courts. On Monday she was in the Supreme Court chamber when the decision was announced.


Dissenting from the ruling were Justice Clarence Thomas and the man who replaced O'Connor on the high court, Justice Samuel Alito.


What The Decision Means
The lead plaintiff in challenging the Arizona law was a school janitor named Jesus Gonzalez, who registered to vote, or tried to, on the day he became a U.S. citizen. His application was twice rejected by state officials, though the documents he submitted were among those the state listed as acceptable proof of citizenship. The first time he tried to register, he followed instructions on the state form and supplied his naturalization number. But, as it turned out, the state had no way to verify that number with the Department of Homeland Security. On his next try, he entered his driver's license number — another document the state said would be acceptable. But, as it turned out, because he had obtained his license when he was a legal resident but not yet a citizen, the license was flagged as issued to a "foreigner," unbeknownst to him.


Those challenging the Arizona law contend that these kinds of registration hoops were exactly what Congress sought to prevent when it enacted the 1993 law. The court's Monday opinion upheld that purpose, says Nina Perales, litigation vice president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
"What that means in real terms is that voters can register to vote using the federal postcard in Arizona, just as they can in every other state in the U.S.," Perales said.


Voting-rights expert Richard Hasen of the University of California, Irvine, is not so sure the case is as straightforward as it may appear.


"At first glance it looks like it's a victory for the federal government because Arizona is told that it has to accept this federal form for voter registration," Hasen said. "But buried in the opinion are all kinds of potential arguments that states could make down the line so that they will not have to follow federal mandates on elections."


Arguments friendly to states' rights.


A Sigh Of Relief
Still, most voting-rights experts saw the court's ruling as a strong affirmation of the federal government's power to regulate how federal elections are conducted.
"What this decision is saying ... is: You need to check with the federal government before you do those things and you do need to justify what you're doing ... before you just willy-nilly enact various different requirements" for voting, said Wayne State Law School Dean Jocelyn Benson.


Voting expert Richard Pildes of New York University Law School echoes that view. "What Justice Scalia has essentially said here for a substantial majority of the court is if you want modifications to these federal forms that have been required up till now, you have to go to this commission to get those modifications," Pildes said.


Of course, the federal Election Assistance Commission is all but kaput these days, with Republicans in Congress blocking both personnel and funding. The commission has four members — two appointed by the Republican congressional leadership. Since 2009, the GOP nominees have withdrawn, while confirmation of the two Democratic nominees has been stalled.


Still, as NYU's Pildes put it: "The court's opinion does leave open some possibility that if all of this fails — if the commission is not active, if it doesn't exist, if it can't function — that the federal courts might ultimately have to decide some of these issues, but that's a long, long way down the road, I would think."


George Washington University law professor Spencer Overton notes in that Scalia's pronouncement that states have exclusive control over voter qualifications could actually hamper Congress' power to protect voting rights. The opinion has the potential to bring into question a federal law that requires a state to register a U.S. citizen who moved from the state and now lives abroad, which would include many members of the military.


"Another thorny question left unresolved by the opinion is whether photo identification is itself a qualification the state can impose on federal elections (even in defiance of a federal statue to the contrary), or whether photo ID is simply evidence of a qualification like residency," Overton wrote.


But, for today at least, civil rights groups were breathing a sigh of relief.
"Arizona's law made it so difficult to run community-based voter drives, whether that was on a college campus or at a mall or at a church festival," said MALDEF's Perales, "because people were not physically carrying around documents proving their U.S. citizenship."


Indeed, she says, that after the Arizona proof of citizenship law was enacted, voter registration dropped 44 percent in the state's most populous county. And it wasn't just Hispanics who were being turned down, Perales says. Eighty percent of those who were rejected were non-Hispanic whites.


Supreme Court Strikes Down Arizona Voting Law : NPR

Ah that's a shame, I was looking forward to Hannity and O'Reilly exploding.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Ah that's a shame, I was looking forward to Hannity and O'Reilly exploding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by barbaro (US Immigration Reform)
Supreme Court Rules: States Cannot Prevent Illegal Aliens from Voting in U.S. Elections
Kyle Becker
June 17, 2013

^ It was wording of the title and the date that made me suspicious. If this were breaking news and had an ounce of truth to it, you'd have expected the right wing blogosphere to go ballistic. Since that never happened I assumed, rightly so, that it was bullshit.

Boehner really is a puppet, isn't he?

Cuban-American Texas Sen. Ted Cruz was the only “Latino” Republican who voted against legal immigration reform that would help Mexican – American families

American immigrant history was made today.
Today the Cuban-American Texas Senator Ted Cruz was the only “Latino” Republican who voted against legal immigration reform that would help millions of Mexican – American families that live in Texas.
Cuban-American Ted Cruz is living in the State of Texas where the majority of the Latin people are of Mexican descent.Cruz becomes the convenient “Hispanic” while he stabs the many Mexican-American families living in Texas in the back. The majority of the Latin population in the United States (almost 70%) and in Texas are of Mexican descent. He wants the media to go to him on Hispanic issues, but does not vote what the majority of us are screaming for in our communities.
Why is Sen. Cruz silent on Cuban Amnesty via the Cuban Adjustment Act?
Is the Tea Party politician Cruz against Cuban immigrants receiving government benefit$ once their wet foot touches dry land since Tea Party people claim to be in support of doing away with tax payer funded government entitlement$?
What about the Cuban immigrant dry foot that touches dry land? Is this why we are seeing a spike with regard to Cuban immigrants coming through Mexico?
That said, let it be understood the Texas Senator is on the record for ending his speeches with a story about how his father fled Cuban oppression. According to the Dallas News, “his father departed for the U.S. in 1957, more than a year before Fidel Castro came to power.”
It appears the Cruz family supports taking amnesty benefits for themselves while shutting the door behind them to other immigrants. No wonder the DREAM Act students are calling Ted Cruz a vendido!


Today the Cuban-American Texas Sen. Ted Cruz was the only “Latino” Republican who voted against legal immigration reform that would help Mexican – American families - Mexican-American Times

Have a look at this graphic from the Economic Policy Institute and then ask yourself why our government keeps scheming to open the floodgates even wider, so as to swamp the country with still more foreign job seekers (or welfare seekers) through “immigration reform”:



The jobs just aren’t there — and they won’t be until Big Government gets its boot off the free market’s neck.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Have a look at this graphic from the Economic Policy Institute and then ask yourself why our government keeps scheming to open the floodgates even wider, so as to swamp the country with still more foreign job seekers (or welfare seekers) through “immigration reform”:



The jobs just aren’t there — and they won’t be until Big Government gets its boot off the free market’s neck.

The Free Market; the same market that has sent all US manufacturing overseas and turned the US into a service economy? The only labor intensive industry that remains in the US is agriculture and guess who does all the work? Immigrant labor.

How suspect that your chart omits agriculture...

Is Boehner feeling the heat? Full of crap? Worst speaker ever?

You betcha.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) reaffirmed his commitment to enacting immigration reform, a week after the chances of an overhaul appeared dead following his comments that he would not support negotiating with the Senate on its comprehensive bill.

“Is immigration reform dead?” Boehner said to reporters. “Absolutely not.”

Boehner pledged that his chamber was still working on the issue that had long dominated the congressional calendar this year until recently. The speaker noted that he has said since last year’s presidential election that Congress needs to enact immigration reform.

“I believe the Congress needs to deal with this,” he said. “Our committees are continuing to do their work. There are a lot of private conversations that are under way to try to figure out how do we best move on a common-sense, step-by-step basis to address this very important issue. Because it is a very important issue.”

His comments came as pro-reform protesters flooded his personal office, set on delivering a turkey and a bottle of Merlot wine to mark the work that immigrants do to harvest food. Activists have ramped up the pressure on Boehner in recent days — accosting him at his favorite breakfast joint, Pete’s Diner, and going to his home at dawn earlier this week for a protest.

_______________________

the remark americasvoice made speaks volumes about those birdies https://twitter.com/seungminkim

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Is Boehner feeling the heat?

too soon to tell, but if i had to guess, he's just running out the clock with vague statements.

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Full of crap?

undoubtedly.

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Worst speaker ever?

certainly in my lifetime.

Nice video and if would like to learn where the US sits with reforming its immigration policy you might want to watch it.

at 23:34 : “As long as this president” is in power, “you will be able to renew your deferred action,” Muñoz told one questioner during an online question-and-answer session on immigration conducted via Skype.

___

“We’re going to pass this bill, this Senate bill that we’re talking about here,” Biden said in an online forum hosted by Microsoft’s Bing and Skype. “It’s going to happen.”

Biden made his Joe Namath-esque guarantee after a young DREAMer asked whether she and her parents might gain permanent protection from deportation one day.

“You’re not going to have to worry about anything,” the vice president said. “And your parents are not going to have to worry about getting deported.”

we can only hope

No Legs. Only 3% of Americans Consider Immigration the Country's "Most Important Problem"

To show how out of touch Obama is, his two new policy initiatives, immigration and income inequality, are polling at 3% and 2%.



Americans Cite Gov't, Economy, Healthcare as Top Problems

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Before the crack of dawn on Wednesday, more than 200 undocumented youths and their family members

They are illegals.

They are also jerks.

I think there is more to this story. It's still odd, though.

Arizona State Trooper Resigns After It Is Discovered She Is An Illegal Alien - Downtrend.com

Check this out - Nancy Pelosi says No One Should Be Deported Just Because They're In the Country Illegally.

Huh?

So long as you can get into the country and not commit a crime Democrats don't consider you deportation-worthy?

Guess That's The End Of Immigration Law, eh?

Chris Christie signs bill granting in-state tuition to N.J. immigrants

TRENTON — Gov. Chris Christie today signed landmark legislation granting thousands of students who grew up in New Jersey but are in the country illegally the benefit of in-state tuition rates at all public colleges and universities.

Christie's signature marks the end of a public tug-of-war over the measure, deemed the "Dream Act", which was pared down in its final days in order for Democrats to gain the governor's approval. Both sides hailed the compromise as a historic achievement.

A spokesman for Christie, Colin Reed, said in a statement "the governor signed the legislation privately earlier today, and there will be a public ceremony to follow in the weeks ahead." He said a date and time for the ceremony has not yet been set.

The new law allows unauthorized immigrants who graduated high school in New Jersey after attending that school for at least three years to be eligible for the lower in-state rates at state college and universities, including in-county rates at community colleges.

________________________


Eight Immigration Wins In 2013

Despite a landmark comprehensive immigration reform bill that cleared the Senate in June, a corresponding bill that addresses the 11.7 million undocumented immigrants in the United States has yet to come to a vote in the House. In fact, the only immigration-related bill that House members brought to a floor vote was a measure to pave the way for deporting undocumented immigrants between the ages of 16 and 31. But although the year ended without a victory on the greatest potential avenue for reform through a bill in Congress, the immigration reform movement achieved other crucial victories in 2013. Here are eight:

1. Driver’s licenses and state tuition: In 2012, only three states granted driver’s licenses to the undocumented. Now, 11 states — California, New Mexico, Utah, Washington, Illinois, Nevada, Oregon, Maryland, Vermont, Colorado, and Connecticut — and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that allows the undocumented to legally drive.

2. Key anti-immigrant research discredited: The Heritage Foundation published a report in April that reform opponents hoped to use against the Senate bill. The paper, which argued that immigration reform would be a $6.3 trillion burden on the economy, was immediately slammed by Republicans, Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform, American Action Forum, and the libertarian CATO Institute for its dishonest methodology. Soon after, co-author Jason Richwine resigned from Heritage

3. Local and state anti-immigrant laws blocked: In Arizona, the Ninth Circuit of Appeals upheld a district court’s preliminary injunction on a key provision of the state’s controversial anti-immigrant law which would have made it illegal to give rides or provide shelter to undocumented immigrants. The opinion called the statute “incomprehensible to a person of ordinary intelligence and is therefore void for vagueness.”

Alabama passed the nation’s strictest immigration law in 2011, modeled after ALEC’s “No Sanctuary Cities for Illegal Immigrants Act.” Key provisions of HB 56 designed to encourage racial profiling and make immigrants’ daily lives difficult to impossible, have been permanently blocked.

more in the link

4. Obama used administrative measures to ease restrictions on undocumented immigrants: One year after the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was implemented, at least 455,455 undocumented immigrants under the age of 31 got a taste of what it would feel like to have legal status, when they were granted work authorization and temporary relief from deportation.

5. CA and CT limited deportations of non-violent immigrants: The TRUST Act rebukes federal policy by limiting local law enforcement’s compliance in screening and detaining undocumented nonviolent immigrants. The new law in California, a state with 2.45 million undocumented immigrants, should ease community fears of reporting crime because of deportation threats.

6. Republicans joined the call for citizenship: Within the span of one week in November, three House Republicans — Reps. Jeff Denham (R-CA), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), and David Valadao (R-CA) — signed onto a comprehensive immigration bill introduced by House Democrats.

7. People are limiting their use of the term “illegal immigrant”: A Pew research study released in June found that the use of the phrase “illegal alien” declined in 2013 and that the term “undocumented immigrant” rose (especially among immigrant advocates).

8. Majority of Americans support comprehensive immigration reform that includes a citizenship provision: The final g”immigration win” involves the strong backing of the American public. A November 2013 poll found that 63 percent of American voters support allowing undocumented immigrants to become citizens as long as they meet certain requirements (like paying back taxes and fines, learning English, and passing a background check).

Immigration reform?

It's not immigration reform it's giving handouts to...ILLegals.

Get a visa like everyone else, do the proper paperwork to work in the US, and then qualify for in-state tuition like everyone else.

That is the reform that is needed.

Originally Posted by barbaro

Washington state (my home state) has been advertising for a few year for illegals to come.

It's hard to take you seriously when you keep posting blatant lies like the above. Just sayin...

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

Originally Posted by barbaro

Washington state (my home state) has been advertising for a few year for illegals to come.

It's hard to take you seriously when you keep posting blatant lies like the above. Just sayin...

Tell me what I am lying about in the above quote.

^ provide a link to support what you've posted.

Janet Napolitano Appointee Defends ICE Transporting Illegal Immigrant Children To Illegal Parents.

So when Judge Andrew Hanen ruled this was illegal, you’d expect that DHS would make a change in their approach, right?
Nah, don’t kid yourself…

The head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement defended the role of federal agents in transporting illegal immigrant children after a federal judge complained they were hand-delivering smuggled kids to parents in the United States.

“While the court’s comments did not relate specifically to ICE, it is clear that the transportation of unaccompanied children (UAC) by ICE personnel is appropriate and legal,” acting Director John Sandweg wrote in a brief email obtained by FoxNews.com.

The email was sent Monday and addressed to “all ICE employees.”
Sandweg noted that “recent media reports” on the judge’s order had “prompted discussion about whether ICE personnel may lawfully transport alien minors.”

He was referring to a Dec. 13 order by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Texas, which claimed federal agents were intercepting human smugglers transporting children at the U.S.-Mexico border — and then delivering those children to illegal immigrant parents in the U.S.

Obama Administration Makes Up Laws As It goes Along

All your huffing and puffing is pointless, Booners. Eventually the Dems will win the senate and congress on sheer voter numbers, then they'll cement their place with some populist immigration reform and add another 12 million voters on their side.

You might as well quite while you're behind.

Originally Posted by raycarey

^ provide a link to support what you've posted.

Nice try, Ray.

He called BS, He - and you - should provide the link.

I am from there. Are you?

Originally Posted by barbaro

Originally Posted by raycarey

^ provide a link to support what you've posted.

Nice try, Ray.

He called BS, He - and you - should provide the link.

I am from there. Are you?

are you really going to go down this road?

requiring others to disprove the unsubstantiated claim you've made?

do yourself a favor and just admit you don't have any evidence to support what you posted:

Originally Posted by barbaro

Washington state (my home state) has been advertising for a few year for illegals to come.