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.

Bin Laden: DEAD

Congrats to our military for delivering ultimate justice to that POS.

Enjoy this video:

Dem Attacks on Paul Ryan vs. your lying eyes

Watch:

The Backlash That Wasn't (or Isn't) http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/266014/backlash-wasnt-contd-andrew-stiles

Obama's Fantasy Budget - No Leadership; All Politics

The Hypocrite-In-Chief's (Obama) sad and unserious approach can be condensed as follows:

a) Attack Paul Ryan for putting forth a serious budget proposal that attempts to address some "third-rail" issues like Social Security and Medicare. Paul Ryan is an "extremist" out to kill children and grandma.

b) Put forth some make believe claims that kick the can down the road for a decade or more and do nothing to reduce the nation's debt. Very little in substance.

c) A lot of political grandstanding.

Keith Hennessey gives a detailed analysis here: "Understanding the President's New Budget Proposal

http://keithhennessey.com/2011/04/13/obama-budget-v2/

Analysis

Here are four broad reactions to the new proposal.

First, this is a short-term budget, not a long-term budget. There are three forces driving our long-run government spending and deficit problem:

1. demographics;
2. unsustainable growth in per capita health spending; and
3. unsustainable promises made by past elected officials, enshrined in entitlement benefit formulas.

The President’s proposal addresses none of these forces. It instead spends most of its effort on everything but those factors. His proposed Medicare and Medicaid savings, while large in aggregate dollars, are quite small relative to the total amount to be spent on those programs, and he lets the largest program in the federal budget (Social Security) grow unchecked. While Bowles and Simpson focused their efforts on the major entitlements and also addressed other spending areas and taxes, the President’s proposal does the reverse, focusing on other mandatory spending, taxes, and defense. That’s a short-term focus.

Second, this proposal “feels” to me like the recently concluded discretionary spending deal. It’s the size of a typical deficit reduction bill that Congress usually does every five or so years. I’m sure the affected interest groups are even now preparing to invade Washington to explain how a 3-5% cut will devastate them. The problem is that our fiscal problems are now so big that they require much larger policy changes.

Third, while framed as a centrist proposal, the substance leans pretty far left. It’s deficit reduction through (triggered) tax increases on the rich, plus defense cuts, plus unspecified other mandatory cuts and process mechanisms that might cut Medicare provider payments. Centrist Democrat proposals do all of these things, but they also reform Social Security and Medicare, usually through a combination of raising the eligibility age, means-testing, and raising taxes.

Fourth, the President’s speech was campaign-like in its characterization of and attacks on the Ryan plan.

The President’s proposal could be the opening bid in a negotiation with Congressional Republicans. When you combine this substance with the President’s aggressive partisan attacks and framing of the Ryan budget, however, it’s hard to see how this leads to a big fiscal deal this year or next. A small incremental bill, which “cuts” spending by a couple hundred billion dollars over the next decade, is possible. But the chances of a long-term grand bargain in the next two years just plummeted from an already low starting point.

Michael Goodwin: O's in Fiscal Fantasyland

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/in_fiscal_fantasyland_Zv3ID2mIbVbl2hMuVpKkCM

Elections have conse quences, we are told, but the admonition usually refers to how results shape subsequent events. Yet as last week's huge battle over puny budget trims proved, America already is suffering from an election that is still 18 months away.

Blame President Obama. By waiting until Republicans offered a bold plan to address the staggering debt and deficit problems, then countering with a partisan attack that lacked any serious reforms, he signaled that no major changes will happen until voters speak in 2012.

Indeed, he defined his sketchy financial plan in pure political terms, saying it is "an attempt to clarify the choice that we have as a country right now."

Like many of Obama's claims, this one is both technically accurate and not true. Voters have a "choice" only to the extent that they must choose between fantasy and reality.

Obama's plan resides firmly in the fantasy camp. His vision is that America's financial problems can be fixed by raising taxes on 2 percent of the population. Everything else will take care of itself, or Congress will do something about it down the road.

His is not a plan as much as it is a placeholder while he tries to rally his party's ultra-liberal, anti-business base. He is already in cheap populism mode, telling supporters at a Chicago fund-raiser he "reformed Wall Street so you won't get cheated when you apply for mortgages or take out credit cards."

Contrast that with the more realistic vision of Republican Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. While Ryan's plan, passed Friday by the House, is incomplete and far from perfect, his starting point is honesty: The nation cannot continue on its current path because entitlement spending, especially for health care, will take the country over the cliff. No amount of tax hikes can keep up with the explosion of climbing costs and existing debt, or, as Ryan puts it: "We don't have a problem with our budget because Americans don't pay enough taxes. We have problems with our budget because we spend too much money."

He proposes fundamental changes to save nearly $6 trillion over a decade, including making Medicaid a block-grant program so states can administer it more efficiently. He also proposes a voucher program for Medicare for those under 55. Those already in the program or age 55 and above would not see any reduced benefits.

While both Republicans and Obama are guilty of pushing plans they know the other side won't accept, they are not equally guilty with regard to the fundamental problem. As Ryan argues, comparing his plan to what exists now, as Obama does, is "measuring us against a fiscal fallacy . . . against a future that's not going to happen."

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/in_fiscal_fantasyland_Zv3ID2mIbVbl2hMuVpKkCM#ixzz1Jpu5degk

NY Post Editorial: "Daring To Demonize"

President Obama was the spirit of full bipartisan cooperation in discussing Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan to reform Medicare and other fiscally challenged entitlement programs.

Fifteen months ago, that is.

“We’re not going to be able to do anything about any of these entitlements if what we do is characterized . . . as, well, you know, that’s — the other party is being irresponsible; the other party is trying to hurt our senior citizens,” the president told House Republicans back in January 2010.

“If we’re going to frame these debates in ways that allow us to solve them,” he said, “then we can’t start off by figuring out: a) Who’s to blame? b) How can we make the American people afraid of the other side?

“Unfortunately, that’s how our politics works right now,” Obama lamented.

But that was then.

Fast-forward to Wednesday, when Obama again tackled the question of budget and debt — demonizing Ryan by accusing him and the GOP of trying to hurt (if not outright kill) senior citizens.

Ryan’s entitlements plan, Obama charged, “says America can’t afford to keep the promise we’ve made to care for our seniors . . . It says [that], instead of guaranteed health care, you will get a voucher. And if that voucher isn’t worth enough to buy insurance, tough luck.”

He accused the GOP of trying to reduce the deficit on the backs of “50 million Americans.”

And who are they? “Many are someone’s grandparents, who wouldn’t be able to afford nursing-home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down’s syndrome.”

So much for “serious conversations about Medicare and its long-term viability.”

So much for refusing to accuse the GOP of “trying to hurt our senior citizens.”

So much for not “fighting each other in some sort of political steel-cage match to see who comes out alive.”

Fifteen months ago, Obama warned that “all of us have a choice to make: We have to choose whether we’re going to be politicians first or partners for progress, whether we’re going to put success at the polls ahead of the lasting success we can achieve together for America.”

It’s pretty clear now which choice the president has made.

And it’s not the one in which America wins.

Peggy Noonan:

http://www.peggynoonan.com/article.php?article=569

An excerpt:

We all get stuck in the day-to-day and lose sight of the overarching, but the overarching fact of Mr. Obama’s presidency is that he made a bad impression his first years in office and has never turned that impression around. He spent his first 14 months moving on what he was thinking about—health care—and not what the public was thinking about—the economic crash, jobs, spending. He seemed not to be thinking like everyone else, which underscored the idea that he was unresponsive to the crises they were seeing. It’s hard to get past that.

His speech this week brought together all the strands of his flawed leadership. It was at moments clever, but merely clever, not up to the needs of the moment—and cleverness in a time of crisis comes as an affront. The speech seemed oblivious to recent history, as if the president had just discovered something no one knows about, a problem with spending, and has decided to alert us to the danger. He said other politicians attempt to cut by focusing on “waste and abuse,” but he knows the real secret: The problem is entitlement spending. But addressing entitlements is all anyone serious has been talking about for years; it’s what the Ryan plan is all about!

The speech was intellectually incoherent. An administration that spent two years saying, essentially, that high spending is good is suddenly insisting high spending is catastrophic. The president appealed for bipartisan efforts but his manner and approach leave his appeals sounding like diktats. His attempts to seem above the fray leave him seeming distanced and unwilling to risk anything.

Most important, the speech signaled that the White House, after all this time, sees the question of spending as a partisan tool, a weapon to be deployed in an election, and not an actual crisis. This is disrespectful toward citizens who feel honest alarm.

Because of these flaws, the speech will have no afterlife, and a major speech with no afterlife might as well not have been given.