Immigration Battles

Some wins for Enforcement; Losses for Obama & Amnesty Crowd:

Immigration Enforcement Wins Big

May 26, 2011 11:14 A.M.

By Mark Krikorian

The Supreme Court has upheld Arizona’s 2007 law requiring all employers to use the E-Verify system for checking new hires.

Of Course They Are

May 26, 2011 11:21 A.M.

By Mark Krikorian

The ACLU is challenging Indiana’s immigration law. Some excerpts:

Under other disputed provisions, police could arrest someone for having a federal immigration “removal order” on file — even if that order is not being pursued by the federal government.

“Removal” here means deportation; former immigration judge Mark Metcalf, in a CIS report published this week, finds that there are 1.1 million unexecuted removal orders — people ordered deported who have just not left. Since the feds aren’t looking for them, I certainly hope Indiana will.

And this:

Something as simple as using a picture ID card issued by the Mexican consulate would be enough to allow police to make an arrest, the ACLU lawsuit claims, even though more than 50,000 cards have been issued locally in the past five years for basic uses such as getting consular services, cashing a check or using a credit card

The “matricula consular” card, issued by Mexican consulates in the U.S. (and generally not recognized in Mexico itself) is useful only for illegal aliens. Foreigners living legally in the U.S. have U.S.-government-issued ID, by definition — usually a green card or an employment authorization document (EAD). If you need a matricula card it’s because you don’t have legitimate ID, because you’re an illegal alien.

Creating Facts on the Ground May 26, 2011 11:59 A.M. By Mark Krikorian The Supremes’ complete repudiation of the Chamber of Commerce/Obama administration opposition to state E-Verify requirements will likely result in such mandates making more progress in the states’ next legislative sessions; Georgia passed a mandate this year, and the Chamber’s strategy of scaring lawmakers away from E-Verify with the bogeyman of Arizona’s SB1070 won’t work any more. Of course, the point of the push for such state E-Verify mandates isn’t really to get all 50 states to sign on separately, but to move Congress to pass a national E-Verify mandate, something House Judiciary Committee chairman Lamar Smith would very much like to do. The state mandates help this along in two ways: First, they obviously create political momentum. But in a more practical sense, as more states require use of E-Verify — whether for all employers or just state agencies and/or state contractors — a larger and larger share of the nation’s hiring will be run through the system, increasingly making it a standard part of the employment process. In other words, the goal is to make E-Verify a fait accompli, so that when Congress finally gets around to passing the national requirement, it will be more of a mopping-up operation than the imposition of an unfamiliar requirement on unsuspecting employers. And I think we’re already getting close to that tipping point. More on the Magnitude of the E-Verify Win May 26, 2011 12:11 P.M. By Mark Krikorian A lawyer friend writes: By the way, an interesting tidbit – the administration not only supported the Chamber, but had Neal Katyal — the Acting SG [Solicitor General, who represents the federal government before the Supreme Court] — argue the case. The SG normally argues only one, maybe two, cases per sitting, and that’s reserved for the cases the gov’t sees as the most important/prominent. The reason the administration and the Chamber of Commerce saw this case as so important is that they want to hold back mandatory E-Verify as their main bargaining chip for what they really want out of a “comprehensive” immigration deal — amnesty for the Obama administration and massive increases in imported captive labor (“guestworkers”) for the Chamber. The decision makes it more likely Congress will be able to pass such a mandate on its own, not bundled with any amnesty or guestworker provisions. In other words, it’s not just a win for enforcement but also a setback for amnesty and increased immigration.

Wisconsin back in the news - activist judge

The tyranny of the left in action yet again ... Wisconsin Collective-Bargaining Law Struck Down (Updated) May 26, 2011 4:32 P.M. By Christian Schneider Dane County judge Maryann Sumi today struck down Wisconsin governor Scott Walker’s new collective-bargaining law, arguing that its passage by the state senate on March 9 violated the state’s open-meetings law. Sumi’s decision (PDF) isn’t a surprise, though the timing was surprising in that it came earlier than expected. Sumi argues that the state senate violated the open-meetings law by failing to provide 24 hours’ notice of a legislative meeting — in this case, the conference committee meeting that forwarded the bill to the full senate. Yet, in her order, she doesn’t address the clear exemption to the rule provided in Senate Rule 93, which allows for no notice of proceedings for conference committee bills. The state statutes clearly give precedence to legislative rules in the case of conflict; Sumi simply believes no conflict exists, ignoring the fact that the bill was, in fact, a conference committee bill. Naturally, unions and their legislative allies are celebrating. Assembly minority leader Peter Barca called Sumi’s ruling “a huge win for democracy in Wisconsin.” Of course, in this case “democracy” is when two duly elected branches of the legislature pass a law, the state’s popularly elected governor signs it, and then it gets struck down by one of 17 judges in one of 72 state counties. (In the decision, Sumi laughably casts herself as a champion of taxpayers, haranguing legislative leaders for “the needless expenditure of taxpayer money to continue this lawsuit.”) Sumi’s position was never really in doubt — she repeatedly denied all attempts to discard the lawsuit, and issued a restraining order to keep the law from taking effect. Her order today is simply an appetizer to the inevitable supreme court battle ahead (which made the election of conservative justice David Prosser last month so critical). Otherwise, legislative leaders could add the invalidated provision to the pending budget bill and re-pass it — an option they have not ruled out. — Christian Schneider is a senior fellow at the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute. Update: This might explain the timing of Sumi’s ruling. Just yesterday, the state Department of Justice wrote a letter to Sumi warning her that they may seek her recusal based on a brief she had filed with the state supreme court last week. In her brief, Sumi argued an act of the legislature can be voided through a violation of the state’s open-meetings law — an issue which was before her court in the collective-bargaining lawsuit. DOJ attorneys charge that judges should recuse themselves from a proceeding in which they have made a public statement that “commits, or appears to commit” the judge to any issue or controversy in the case. By issuing her ruling today, the issue of her recusal is moot.

Obama vs. Israel - Obama would throw Israel under the bus if he could

Obama just doesn't get it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/268168/we-don-t-ask-your-sons-and-daughters-die-our-soil-david-french

AndrewCMcCarthy

Obama proposes leaving Israel indefensible. http://tinyurl.com/3g28eya

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/268034/obamacare-israel-andrew-c-mccarthy

Obama screws up Israeli policy w/ controversial and unwelcome comments; Bibi strikes back

Much has transpired over the past few days after Obama stuck foot firmly in mouth by loudly proclaiming that any peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians should be based on the [indefensible] 1967 lines. Not only is this in fact a major change in stated US policy; Obama continues to deny [i.e. lie] that this is in fact a change in policy. Moreover, Israel was completely blindsided on the eve of PM Netanyahu's visit to DC to meet Obama, and both were due to speak days later at the AIPAC conference.

There is much else wrong with what Obama said and how he said it...

Max Boot (may 21) said it very well: "Boy, did President Obama screw up !"

How, you may ask ?

Boy, did President Obama screw up! He gave two-thirds of a great address on Thursday, abandoning his pinched, Realpolitik orientation and promising to put the United States on the side of democrats in the Middle East. It was a ringing call that should have received wide attention, but didn’t. Why not? Because of the final third of his speech, which contained the now-infamous call for a future Israeli-Palestinian peace to be “based on the 1967 lines.”

The president went on to add a caveat to this statement, adding that there would be “mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.” He also tossed some other rhetorical concessions Israel’s way, for example decrying “antagonism toward Israel,” warning that “efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure,” and telling “Palestinian leaders” that they “will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection.” He even eschewed his previous call for an Israeli settlement freeze.

None of it mattered. All of the headlines were about Obama becoming the first U.S. president to declare that the 1967 borders—meaning the 1949 cease-fire lines—should be the basis of any peace treaty.

This is a gratuitous insult to our closest ally in the region and an unearned gift to the Palestinians at a time when they are eschewing talks with Israel. It is all the more puzzling because the entire focus of the region has been on the Arab Spring—not on Israel and Palestine. The only people who want to put the focus back on Israel are dictators like Bashar al-Assad who want to deflect popular anger among their own people. Why is Obama playing their game at the same time that he rightly denounces human-rights abuses by Assad, Qaddafi, and their ilk?

And why is he insisting on putting the focus back on the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process” at a time when prospects for a settlement have never been bleaker because of Fatah’s willingness to form a unity government with the genocidal terrorists of Hamas? Obama even agrees with Prime Minister Netanyahu, at least in public, that Israel cannot negotiate with Hamas until that group renounces violence and recognizes Israel’s right to exist—conditions that are likely to be met around the time that cows start jumping over the moon. So, why, then did Obama upend his own pro-democracy speech with a totally unnecessary and counterproductive foray back into the thickets of Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking?

I don’t know, but can only conclude that this is a mania that he came into office with, and no amount of hard experience can disabuse him of it.

I commented a few days ago on Obama’s ability to learn from his early blunders on many issues. The fact that he is now taking a harder line with Iran and Syria, while embracing the pro-democracy forces in the region, is evidence of his maturation in office. But when it comes to Israel, Obama just can’t seem to escape his ideological straightjacket. He still seems to believe that an Israeli-Palestinian accord is not only of overarching importance but also something that can be accomplished during his term of office. Many presidents going back to the days of Richard Nixon have fallen prey to the same illusion. In Bill Clinton’s case he was still trying to squeeze out a deal even as his last minutes in office ran out.

I had figured that Obama was smarter than that—that he might have learned from experience. Apparently not.

Below I have included many links addressing what has transpired regarding this completely unnecessary and avoidable mess that Obama made.

Obama's May 22nd speech at AIPAC conference:

http://www.israellycool.com/2011/05/22/barack-obamas-aipac-speech/ video of speech, text of speech & commentary

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obama-double-downs-at-aipac/2011/03/29/AFhx9C9G_blog.html#pagebreak

http://bigpeace.com/jpollak/2011/05/22/obamas-three-lies-to-aipac/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/22/obama-aipac-speech-2011-p_n_865198.html Obama's Aipac speech

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/in-oval-office-bibi-offers-history-lessons-to-obama.html

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/whats-irking-bibi-and-the-war-powers-act-todays-qs-for-os-wh-5302011.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/267784/hamas-attacked-you-mr-president-tevi-troy

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/267797/israel-peril-rick-santorum

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/05/21/obama-insults-israel-upends-prodemocracy-speech/

Here is what started this whole brouhaha:

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/19/obama_alters_us_policy_tells_israel_to_start_with_67_borders?sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4dd56a5e9c314239,0

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/05/president-obama-talks-more-about-israels-borders-with-bbc-as-republicans-attack.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/267691/hed-tk-charles-krauthammer

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/world/middleeast/20policy.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto

Jennifer Rubin in the Washington Post:

That’s when the boos came. It is not “well known” what the deal will be because the right of return, the demand to flood Israel with the children and grandchildren of Arabs who fled during the war of aggression on the infant Jewish state, and the security arrangements are the core of the matter. Moreover, Obama misquoted himself by insisting he said the parties “will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967.” No, he said it was U.S. policy that the deal would stem from the 1967 lines.

He then disingenuously said he’d always meant “it is the right and responsibility of the Israeli government to make the hard choices that are necessary to protect a Jewish and democratic state for which so many generations have sacrifice.” And there was some pablum about the current situation not being sustainable, the U.S. commitment to Israel and Obama’s fondness for the nation whose bargaining position he has undermined.

The problems in the speech include: 1) Obama made it clear the United States is willing to give away Israel’s bargaining position for nothing in return; 2) Obama never even mentioned the right of return; 3) He did not reiterate specifically the necessity of a military presence in the Jordan Valley. You see, only Israel’s expected concessions are “well known”; 4) Israel can’t be expected to negotiate with those who want to destroy it, but negotiations need to resume; and 5) if anything Obama underscored that the United States has differences with Israel — but it’s between “friends.”

Obama must be very certain that liberal Jews will enthusiastically support him no matter what. And there is evidence he is right. Josh Block, senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute and a former AIPAC spokesman, e-mailed: “It [the speech] was a strong reaffirmation of the US-Israel relationship, and was an important and positive change from his remarks on Thursday. It reflected an important continuity of US policy going back to President Johnson.”

This is the sort of spin that pro-Israel Democrats use to justify voting for Obama. But there is a reality that can’t be avoided. This president once again has proved an apt negotiator on behalf of the Palestinians and a thorn in Israel’s side. Now is a time of choosing for the American Jewish community, for Israel and for Congress. And if Obama should be reelected in 2012 one can only imagine how hostile he will become toward the Jewish state.