Archive for the ‘Immigration’ Category
You know how the MSM has been telling us for years that immigrants don’t lower wages?
In fact, just three days ago in an article criticizing Trump’s speech to Congress, The Washington Post repeated that immigrants have “little to no negative effects on overall wages and employment of native-born workers in the longer term.”
But today, in an article about the problems of immigrants returning to Mexico after being deported, the Post matter-of-factly states:
More returnees means lower wages for everybody in blue-collar industries such as construction and automobile manufacturing, where competition for jobs is likely to increase, economists say.
Funny how the normal laws of economics work in Mexico (more people competing for jobs means lower wages), but the same laws don’t work in the United States. Because of magic American exceptionalist soil or something?
(The idea for this post came from commenter “Curle,” thank you.)
Dictionary definition (as well as U.S. legal definition) of immigrant: “a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.”
The H-1B visa is for foreign workers in specialty occupations who will stay here for a maximum of 6 years and then go home.
Now in reality, because of lack immigration laws and loopholes, a lot of (nearly all of them?) H-1Bs come here assuming they will game the system and never leave, but they have no legal right to think that.
It was obviously a mistake. The Trump administration would surely be smart enough to make sure the first intentional arrest of someone granted illegal amnesty by the Obama administration would happen outside of the territory of the hostile 9th circuit.
Based on a burst of news stories, that seems to be the case. But the real truth is more likely found in this New York Times article reporting that this week of raids is really just business as usual at ICE, and stuff like this was happening under the Obama administration, but it just went unreported.
What has likely happened is that the left has decided (either through a mysterious central authority or by undirected osmosis) that reporting on tough enforcement by the Trump administration advances their bigger narrative.
But it seems to me that the left has made a miscalculation. The majority of Americans want less immigration, not more. These fake news stories about sudden increased enforcement of immigration law creates the impression that Trump is accomplishing things and fulfilling his campaign promises. And even more importantly for those who want fewer illegal aliens in this country, theses news stories create a climate of fear among the illegal immigrant community and would-be community resulting in increased self-deportation and fewer people from outside the country wanting to come here illegally. Thus the mainstream media is inadvertently accomplishing what those of us on the right have always wanted, and it’s not costing the government any money at all!
* * *
OK, I believe the opinion goes where no court has gone before, and holds that non-citizens, who are not currently in the United States, now have Constitutional rights to 5th Amendment Due Process and 1st Amendment Free Exercise of religion. (However it should be pointed out that the sides are arguing over a TRO, so this is not a final determination that aliens now have these rights, but a prediction that when this case comes back to the same panel of judges, they will hold that aliens have such rights.)
This seems to be in direct contradiction to Kleindienst v. Mandel 408 U.S. 753 (1972) which held that a Belgian journalist could be denied entry to the United States because he believed in communism.
Did I not warn you that liberal judges would do stuff like this? Republicans in Congress had better confirm Neil Gorsuch ASAP.
* * *
And the two cases cited by the 9th Circuit to support this outrageous decision?
1. Zadvydas v. Davis 533 U.S. 678 (2001). This was a habeas corpus case. The alien was being held in detention too long. It has been long established that non-citizens have certain due process rights if they are present inside the country. It has nothing to do with denying entry to non-citizens.
2. INS v. Chadha 462 U.S. 919 (1983). This was an appeal from a decision by the Immigration Court (which as I previously pointed out is not a real Article III Court, but Congress created a right of appeal to the federal Circuit Court). So once again, the non-citizen was inside the United States and had personal standing. The decision to invalidate an immigration-related statute was based on a very weird separation of powers issue and had nothing to do with non-citizens having rights under the Bill of Rights (except for certain due process rights on account of being within the United States, but which are still more limited that those of American citizens).
Arizona v. United States 567 U.S. ___ (2012) is a decision in which Roberts and Kennedy joined the liberal wing of the court and smacked down Arizona’s right to independently enforce federal immigration law. Kagan did not participate, so it was a 5-3 decision.
Although perceived as an anti-immigration-enforcement case, the legal reasoning of the case is really about how executive power with respect to immigration preempts anything the states want to do differently.
The background is that Arizona, tired of Obama refusing to enforce the immigration laws, and claiming that illegal immigrants were causing crime and using up government resources, took matters into its own hands and empowered its state law enforcement officers to enforce the federal immigration laws that Obama refused to enforce.
Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, slapped down the state of Arizona and said that executive branch of the federal government gets to decide what immigration laws are enforced and what immigration laws aren’t enforced, and if the President doesn’t want to enforce the laws, then the States aren’t allowed to override the President by enforcing them themselves.
Although not directly related to the Trump EO currently before the Ninth Circuit, the overall guiding philosophy of the decision is that the President can do whatever he wants with respect to immigration, and if that hurts that states, well too bad, so sad.
Arizona v. United States is, however, directly related to the issue of sanctuary cities. The Department of Justice, now led by Jeff Sessions, can sue the sanctuary cities the way the federal government previously sued Arizona, and demand that they stop the sanctuary nonsense because Trump’s EOs with respect to immigration preempt anything a city wants to do differently. The DOJ just has to cite Arizona v. United States and it should be a slam-dunk victory for the Trump administration. That is, if the courts are honest about following precedent.
The Temporary Restraining Order:
1. Offers no legal explanation as to why the judge thinks the case will succeed on the merits.
2. No explanation of what the “irreparable harm” is, only the vague sentence that the executive order “adversely affects the States’ residents in areas of employment, education, family relations, and freedom to travel.” There is no attempt to balance those harms against the possibility that among refugees and travelers from the seven banned countries are those who pose a threat to the safety and security of the United States. The law of TROs requires a balancing of the harms.
3. The only explanation of why the states of Washington or Minnesota have any standing or will suffer any harm is a mention of “parens patriae.” This is a doctrine that is normally used to allow the states to stand in for citizens of the states who don’t have the capacity to represent themselves, such as children or the mentally incapacitated. No case law is cited for this unprecedented expansion of the concept to adult citizens of foreign nations.
4. There is no discussion of the “public interest” which is one of the four factors district courts must consider in granting a TRO, nor is there any mention of the deference normally given to the President on matters of national security and foreign relations.
Liberal Judge in Washington State says that the entire travel ban is unconstitutional.
I told you that the liberal game plan was that the courts would require open borders.
I urge Republicans in the Senate to use the so-called “nuclear option” today, dispense with any further nomination hearings, and get Neil Gorsuch onto the Supreme Court ASAP. The Ninth Circuit is the most liberal circuit and a 4-4 tie on the Supreme Court can’t overturn an open-borders decision.
I warned you in June that liberals would use a liberal Supreme Court majority to force open borders onto the nation without Congressional approval.
We see that with the Brooklyn judge, and the former acting Attorney General, how the forces of the left would twist legal interpretation to get the open borders results that they want. We were only saved from a huge disaster because Trump won the election and Republican Senators hung tight and followed Joe Biden’s prophetic advice from the 1990s to not approve a new Supreme Court justice until the next president came into office.
When Trump names his new Supreme Court nominee, it’s the immigration issue that’s most important. The Court split 4-4 in June. A fifth justice who believes that the country is allowed to enforce its borders and place restrictions on who is allowed to immigrate here is essential.
* * *
Regarding the executive order by Trump to deny entry visas to people from seven countries, the Obama administration previously placed travel restrictions on those same countries because they have terrorist training camps or are state sponsors of terrorism, and no one on the left had even the slightest complaint. It’s within the President’s authority on matters of immigration both based on the Constitution and statutes passed by Congress for Trump to expand those restriction to deny all entry visas. Jimmy Carter did the same thing in 1980 with respect to Iran, and he didn’t need Congress to approve it, and it didn’t violate the Constitution.
So don’t be fooled by the mainstream media into having even the slightest doubt that Trump did something wrong here.
The only problem is that it’s only a very small step in addressing the bigger problem of immigration from all over the world, and yes, especially from Islamic countries. Look what happened to France after they allowed Muslims to become too large of a percentage of the population.
The Constitution doesn’t protect citizens of other countries who don’t live in the United States. That’s why Obama could order bombs to be dropped, thus killing a lot of people in other countries, whenever he deemed it necessary to protect the United States. Compared to killing people with bombs, not allowing them to immigrate here is minor stuff.
Regarding the First Amendment, when the Founders wrote that Amendment, there were only Christians living here who were able to get along with each other without resorting to inter-sect violence, plus a tiny number of Jews who kept to themselves and didn’t bother anyone. The Founders never envisioned that liberals 230 years in the future would say that the First Amendment requires us to allow unlimited Muslim immigration when an alarmingly high percentage of Muslims believe in jihadist terrorism.
It’s interesting to note how the liberals support a “living Constitution” when it suits their interests, but then argue strict adherence to the text when it also suits their interests.
And anyway, the Supreme Court has always held that immigration policy is for Congress and the President and not to be interfered with by the judicial branch. In Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952), the Supreme Court upheld a Congressional statute to expel non-citizens who were former Communists. If that didn’t violate the First Amendment, then the lesser action of not allowing non-citizens into the country in the first place because of their beliefs doesn’t violate the First Amendment. In fact, based on Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, we can logically conclude that it would be Constitutional for Congress to pass a law requiring the expulsion of non-citizens who are Muslim, even those with green cards. And therefore, the lesser action of banning all new Muslim immigration would certainly be Constitutional.
There is has been a lot of whining about this from Trump-haters. “But the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. Trump is stupid.” As if they really would feel better about Trump’s action if Saudi Arabia were added to the list. If that happened, instead they’d be outraged about how Trump has alienated an American “ally” in the Middle East.
In fact, Saudi Arabia runs a tight ship. Although their funding for Wahhabism is not in the interest of the United States, Saudi Arabia does not tolerate any terrorist training camps within its border. Saudi Arabia is definitely not a lawless country. It’s a lot safer in Saudi Arabia than in any inner city ghetto in the United States, as long as you don’t do anything anti-Islamic or anti-government.
The 9/11 terrorists may have been Saudi Arabian citizens, but they trained in Afghanistan, which back then was the location of the Taliban and the worldwide capital for jihadism. That so many of the terrorists came Saudi Arabia may have had something to do with the then-leader of Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, also being from Saudi Arabia and favoring his own countrymen for an opportunity to strike a great blow against the infidels in the United States.
Adding Saudi Arabia to the list, fifteen years later, when Osama bin Laden is dead and ISIS has taken over from Al Qaeda as the leading organization for training and inspiring jihadists, would be plain stupid.