Category: Immigration

Trump unveils sweeping immigration changes
Ken Cuccinelli calls it the ‘America first recovery’

President Trump will be signing an executive order and implementing a series of new regulations that will temporarily halt specific types of guest worker visas and make permanent changes to the H-1B visa program.

In April, Trump signed an executive order preventing the issuance of new green cards for 60 days. The new order extends that guidance through December 31, 2020 and also temporarily suspends the issuance of new visas through the H-1B and H-2B programs, as well as some visas through the J-1 and L-1 programs. The order intends to lower foreign competition for the tens of millions of newly unemployed Americans during the economic shutdown resulting from the COVID-19 outbreak. The May unemployment rate dropped slightly to 13.3 percent from 14.7 percent in April, but is still significantly higher than the February rate of 3.5 percent.

Continue reading “”

This confirms it, Roberts is the new squish.  Especially if it will be used against Trump. This was nothing more than an executive order by Obama and if a succeeding President can’t execute the powers of office, well………

Supreme Court Rules Trump Admin. Illegally Rescinded DACA

The Supreme Court ruled against the Trump Administration’s request to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program implemented by President Obama via executive order. The non-congressionally authorized administrative program created avenues to citizenship status for children if they had come to the United States with their parents before the age of 16, also known as DREAMers. In the conclusion of a highly-watched court battle over the controversial immigration program, the high court ruled in favor of keeping DACA in place by a vote of 5-4. Chief Justice John Roberts, a swing vote on the bench, sided with the liberal wing of the court:

Continue reading “”

Californian’s tax $$ at work.

California opens up coronavirus funding for immigrants in state illegally

Undocumented immigrants in California are now allowed to apply for the state’s coronavirus relief program that will pay $500 per person and up to $1,000 per household, according to reports Monday.

The Los Angeles Times reported that Sacramento has freed up $75 million for the fund, which could help about 150,000 who may be facing severe hardships during the pandemic. An earlier report in the paper said the Center for American Liberty is suing the state, claiming that the money is “not a slush fund for the governor to spend as he sees fit.” It hopes to block the package.

Opponents of the measure insist that any taxpayer funds should be directed to U.S. citizens who are also struggling amid the pandemic.

The LA Daily News reported that the state is home to about 2 million undocumented immigrants who are not eligible to receive any kind of federal stimulus. The report said the fund could hit $125 million,  which would include $50 million from donations. The money is expected to run out quickly.

The state website opened on Monday and there was so much traffic that the site crashed, the Fresno Bee reported.

The court ruled along ideological (that is, political) lines

Court Denies Trump’s Bid To Block Immigrants Who Can’t Afford Health Care

An appeals court on Monday blocked the Trump administration’s request to allow for a ban on immigrants who don’t have health care or otherwise cannot afford health care expenses.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the White House’s motion for a stay of a court order that prevents the administration from enforcing its proclamation. The divided panel found that the administration does not have “limitless power” to deny immigrants based on their economic standing.

“[T]he government’s claim of harm in the form of costs to healthcare providers and taxpayers by uninsured immigrants was not supported by the record, and the court was not required to accept the Proclamation’s conclusory findings as true,” the 97-page ruling stated.

The appeals panel went on to say that the administration failed to demonstrate irreparable harm absent a stay and that harm is “purely monetary.”

As for the order itself, the panel deemed that the plaintiffs would likely succeed in their claim that the order conflicts with the Violence Against Women Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), Obamacare, and the “public charge” provision within the INA.

The Trump administration first introduced the directive — Presidential Proclamation No. 9945, or the “Suspension of Entry of Immigrants Who Will Financially Burden the United States Health Care System” — in October 2019. The order would’ve essentially prohibited the entry of any immigrants applying for visas unless they prove they can obtain health insurance within 30 days of entering the U.S. or otherwise indicate they can afford their own medical care.

However, the order was immediately challenged in court by opponents of the president’s immigration agenda………….

The panel was divided along ideological lines.

Chief Judge Sidney Thomas and Judge Marsha Berzon, both appointees of President Bill Clinton, wrote the majority opinion, and Judge Daniel Bress, a Trump appointee, wrote the dissent.

Tucker: Trump’s Immigration “Ban” Still Allows Corporations to Import Cheap Foreign Labor

Tucker Carlson warned on his show last night that President Trump’s supposed immigration “ban” is nothing of the kind because it still allows corporations to import cheap foreign labor, failing to protect more than 22 million Americans who have just filed for unemployment.

As we highlighted yesterday, the draft executive order contains broad exemptions for “refugees,” “essential workers” and a number of other categories of people.

That’s a far cry from temporarily suspending all immigration to the United States, as Trump’s initial tweet suggested.

Supreme Court Allows Trump Administration to Maintain Remain-In-Mexico Immigration Policy.

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to continue enforcing an immigration policy requiring asylum seekers at the southern U.S. border to wait in Mexico while their cases are considered.

The court on Wednesday granted an emergency request by the administration to leave the program in place for now while legal proceedings continue. The order blocks the effect of a lower-court decision that said the administration must stop implementing the policy…….

Within hours of the Ninth Circuit court’s decision blocking the policy, hundreds of migrants queued at ports of entry in San Diego, El Paso, Texas, and Brownsville, Texas, some clutching printed copies of the court’s ruling, asking border officials to allow them into the U.S. They were turned away. The administration had been preparing military backup to guard U.S. points of entry in case migrants rushed the border, which it warned, in its filing with the Supreme Court, could happen if its policy was blocked.

The appeals court had agreed to postpone the effect of its decision temporarily, and it eventually gave the administration a week to seek intervention from the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is unlikely to give full consideration to the policy until its next term, which begins in October……

The administration also has argued recently that ending “Remain in Mexico” could also pose a risk amid the worsening coronavirus crisis, although the number of confirmed cases in the U.S. far exceeds the number in Mexico.

Supreme Court Narrowly Decides That Identity Theft by Illegal Aliens Is Actually a Crime

“This victory is a key one, but it also shows just how close we are to having our immigration laws being made illegal to enforce.”

Small wonder that we are a magnet for illegal immigration. Our courts, with the best of intentions, have created a Rube Goldberg device whereby the black letter of immigration law is thwarted by loopholes and roadblocks to enforcement.

In 1986, Congress enacted the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). IRCA made it illegal to employ illegal aliens, established an employment eligibility verification system, and created various civil and criminal penalties against employers who violate the law. As part of this law came the Form I-9, known to anyone who has applied for a job in the past 30 years. This is a largely toothless provision that does nothing to deter anyone from employing an illegal nor does it pose any noticeable bar to the ability of illegals to work, but it has created a booming black market in I-9 friendly documents.

What could have been a fairly formidable tool to deter longterm illegals has been effectively gutted by the courts.

In Flores-Figuroa vs. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that illegals using counterfeit social security cards could not be prosecuted for identity theft unless they knew that the bogus social security number belonged to a real person. The decision was 9-0, but three justices made it clear that their concurrence was based on the fact that the law provided for a greater penalty for users of social security numbers belonging to real people than it did for those belonging to no one or to a deceased person.

When the US Supreme Court in thetravesty known as Arizona vs. United States ruled that states have no authority to enforce US immigration law…thank you, John Roberts, for again selling the nation down the river in order to try to bond with the liberals on the court….it opened a can of worms for any judge or court which is sufficiently woke and ambitious enough to use it. One of those instances happened in Kansas.

The case in question is called Kansas vs. Garcia. This is the background.

On August 26, 2012, Officer Mike Gibson pulled Garcia over for speeding. Gibson asked Garcia where he was going in such a hurry. Garcia replied that he was on his way to work at Bonefish Grill. Based on the results of a routine records check on Garcia, Gibson contacted Detective Justin Russell, who worked in the financial crimes department of the Overland Park Police Department. Russell was in the neighborhood and came to the scene to speak with Garcia.

The day after speaking with Garcia, Russell contacted Bonefish Grill and obtained Garcia’s “[e]mployment application documents, possibly the W-2, the I-9 documents.” Russell then spoke with Special Agent Joseph Espinosa of the Social Security Office of the Inspector General. Espinosa told Russell that the Social Security number Garcia had used on the forms belonged to Felisha Munguia of Edinburg, Texas.

As a result of the investigation, Garcia was charged with one count of identity theft.

Garcia was convicted and the conviction was upheld on appeal. But the Kansas Supreme Court reversed. That court reasoned that because state officials were barred from using information on the I-9 for reasons other than verifying eligibility for employment that Kansas could not use the fact the fake social security number was used on state and federal tax returns and on an apartment lease as evidence of a crime.

The federal Immigration Reform and Control Act bars employers from knowingly employing undocumented immigrants. The act also requires employees to verify that they are eligible to work in the United States by submitting a Form I-9, and it strictly limits the use of information on or attached to a Form I-9. Because the Social Security numbers that the defendants were using appeared on their I-9s, the state court reasoned, the prosecution was trumped by the IRCA, even if the Social Security numbers also appeared on the defendants’ tax-withholding forms.

In short, what the Kansas Supreme Court did was legalize identity theft so long as you were an illegal. (READ: Will the Supreme Court Choose to Preserve Immigration Law or Will It Make Identity Theft Legally Protected?) The US Supreme Court heard the case back in March and the decision was handed down today.

The court, in a 5-4 opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, reinstated convictions obtained by Kansas prosecutors against three restaurant workers for using other people’s social security numbers on forms given to their employers.

The central question in the case, Kansas v. Garcia, was whether such state prosecutions were barred by a provision of federal immigration law that says any information submitted with federal work-authorization forms can’t be used for state law-enforcement purposes.

Justice Alito, writing for a conservative majority, said the answer was no. The mere fact that Kansas law on identity theft overlapped with federal law “does not even begin to make a case” that the state’s prosecutorial efforts should be pre-empted, he wrote.

“In the present cases, there is certainly no suggestion that the Kansas prosecutions frustrated any federal interests,” Justice Alito said.  Joining him in the majority were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

The Trump administration had sided with Kansas in the case, arguing that Congress never meant to carve out an immigration-related exception that would prevent states from enforcing their own identity-theft laws.

In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the court’s liberal wing, said U.S. immigration law gave federal authorities the sole responsibility to police fraud committed to obtain eligibility to work.

The law “reserves to the federal government—and thus takes from the states—the power to prosecute people for misrepresenting material information in an effort to convince their employer that they are authorized to work in this country,” Justice Breyer wrote.

If this representation of Breyer’s views are correct, and I’ve not read the opinion, it is sheer lunacy. He is literally declaring that using a fake ID on an employment I-9 immunizes you from being prosecuted.

This victory is a key one, but it also shows just how close we are to having our immigration laws being made illegal to enforce.

Law students storm out of ‘purely legalistic’ DACA discussion

Law students, LAW STUDENTS.  Students, supposedly in university to study LAW. What irony…and idiocy,  from those that have been propagandized until they totally lack self awareness.

Stanford University law students, upset about a “morally affronting” discussion of the arguments for and against the legality of DACA, staged a walkout of the event in protest.

On Feb. 10, Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins spoke at Stanford Law School, sponsored by Stanford’s Federalist Society chapter. After Hawkins began his speech on the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, more than half of those in the room got up and left. The purpose of Hawkins’ speech was to discuss the issues of legalities of repealing DACA.

Hawkins stated that he would be covering and arguing both sides for and against DACA…………

The walk-out from Hawkins’ speech was arranged by the Stanford Latinx Law Students Association (SLLSA) along with various other student groups. SLLSA member Raquel Zepeda wrote in an email to law students that the lecture was an “intellectually cheap and morally affronting topic.” In protest, students held posters that read, “No human being is illegal”, and “Everyone is welcome here.”

While Hawkins spoke about both sides on DACA he mentioned that Trump’s motion to repeal “did not say that DACA was unworkable…it just says that DACA is unlawful.”

“DACA is unlawful for the same reason that DAPA was unlawful, according to the fifth circuit,” Hawkins added.

Hawkins also spoke about the Obama administration not having the authority to put DACA into place as it “confers on someone a status Congress would otherwise deny.”

In a statement, SLLSA  and other groups said that “purely legalistic discussions of DACA ignore the human element, which must be front and center… we can not agree to disregard the presence and importance of DREAMers in all places, including here at SLS,” being that those who walked out did not find legality to be of importance in this aspect.

Orban: Not a Single Muslim Immigrant in Hungary, Declares Liberalism Over

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, during a panel discussion at the National Conservatism conference in Rome on Tuesday, declared liberalism to be over and said that not a single Muslim immigrant lives in Hungary.

During conference, which was organized by the Edmund Burke Foundation, Orban declared liberalism to be over while adding that a fresh kind government in the form of Christian democracy is needed to replace it, About Hungary reports.

The Hungarian premier highlighted two catastrophic failures of liberal western governments in the recent past: their mishandling of the 2008 global financial crisis and their current mismanagement of the ongoing migrant crisis.

Neil Gorsuch Issues rebuke to Activist Judges and Nationwide Injunctions

Apropos of the previous item about immigration:

In the 5-4 decision allowing the rule to go into effect, Justice Gorsuch issued a concurring opinion rebuking activist judges and their rush to apply “nationwide injunctions” against Trump administration policies. Edited for easier reading and deleting some case cites

JUSTICE GORSUCH, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, concurring in the grant of stay.
On October 10, 2018, the Department of Homeland Security began a rulemaking process to define the term “public charge,” as it is used in the Nation’s immigration laws.
Approximately 10 months and 266,000 comments later, the agency issued a final rule.
Litigation swiftly followed, with a number of States, organizations, and individual plaintiffs variously alleging that the new definition violates the Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the immigration laws themselves. These plaintiffs have urged courts to enjoin the rule’s enforcement not only as it concurring to them, or even to some definable group having something to do with their claimed injury, but as it applies to anyone.

These efforts have met with mixed results.

The Northern District of California ordered the government not to enforce the new rule within a hodge-podge of jurisdictions—California, Oregon, Maine, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia.
The Eastern District of Washington entered a similar order, but went much farther geographically, enjoining the government from enforcing its rule globally.
But both of those orders were soon stayed by the Ninth Circuit which, in a 59-page opinion, determined the government was likely to succeed on the merits.
Meanwhile, across the country, the District of Maryland entered its own universal injunction, only to have that one stayed by the Fourth Circuit.
And while all these developments were unfolding on the coasts, the Northern District of Illinois was busy fashioning its own injunction, this one limited to enforcement within the State of Illinois.

If all of this is confusing, don’t worry, because none of it matters much at this point.

Despite the fluid state of things—some interim wins for the government over here, some preliminary relief for plaintiffs over there—we now have an injunction to rule them all: the one before us, in which a single judge in New York enjoined the government from applying the new definition to anyone, without regard to geography or participation in this or any other lawsuit.

The Second Circuit declined to stay this particular universal injunction, and so now, after so many trips up and down and around the judicial map, the government brings its well-rehearsed arguments here.
Today the Court (rightly) grants a stay, allowing the government to pursue (for now) its policy everywhere save Illinois.
But, in light of all that’s come before, it would be delusional to think that one stay today suffices to remedy the problem.
The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them.
Whether framed as injunctions of “nationwide,” “universal,” or “cosmic” scope, these orders share the same basic flaw—they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case.
Equitable remedies, like remedies in general, are meant to redress the injuries sustained by a particular plaintiff in a particular lawsuit. When a district court orders the government not to enforce a rule against the plaintiffs in the case before it, the court redresses the injury that gives rise to its jurisdiction in the first place.
But when a court goes further than that, ordering the government to take (or not take) some action with respect to those who are strangers to the suit, it is hard to see how the court could still be acting in the judicial role of resolving cases and controversies. Injunctions like these thus raise serious questions about the scope of courts’ equitable powers under Article III………….

It has become increasingly apparent that this Court must, at some point, confront these important objections to this increasingly widespread practice.
As the brief and furious history of the regulation before us illustrates, the routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions.
Rather than spending their time methodically developing arguments and evidence in cases limited to the parties at hand, both sides have been forced to rush from one preliminary injunction hearing to another, leaping from one emergency stay application to the next, each with potentially nationwide stakes, and all based on expedited briefing and little opportunity for the adversarial testing of evidence.

This is not normal.

Universal injunctions have little basis in traditional equitable practice. Their use has proliferated only in very recent years.
And they hardly seem an innovation we should rush to embrace. By their nature, universal injunctions tend to force judges into making rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions.

The traditional system of lower courts issuing interlocutory relief limited to the parties at hand may require litigants and courts to tolerate interim uncertainty about a rule’s final fate and proceed more slowly until this Court speaks in a case of its own. But that system encourages multiple judges and multiple circuits to weigh in only after careful deliberation, a process that permits the airing of competing views that aids this Court’s own decision making process.

The rise of nationwide injunctions may just be a sign of our impatient times.
But good judicial decisions are usually tempered by older virtues.
Nor do the costs of nationwide injunctions end there.
There are currently more than 1,000 active and senior district court judges, sitting across 94 judicial districts, and subject to review in 12 regional courts of appeal.
Because plaintiffs generally are not bound by adverse decisions in cases to which they were not a party, there is a nearly boundless opportunity to shop for a friendly forum to secure a win nationwide.

The risk of winning conflicting nationwide injunctions is real too.
And the stakes are asymmetric.
If a single successful challenge is enough to stay the challenged rule across the country, the government’s hope of implementing any new policy could face the long odds of a straight sweep, parlaying a 94- to-0 win in the district courts into a 12-to-0 victory in the courts of appeal.
A single loss and the policy goes on ice— possibly for good, or just as possibly for some indeterminate period of time until another court jumps in to grant a stay.
And all that can repeat, ad infinitum, until either one side gives up or this Court grants certiorari.

What in this gamesmanship and chaos can we be proud of?

I concur in the Court’s decision to issue a stay. But I hope, too, that we might at an appropriate juncture take up some of the underlying equitable and constitutional questions raised by the rise of nationwide injunctions.

Supreme Court Allows Trump Admin to Implement ‘Public Charge’ Test for Immigrants

In other words, if you’re coming to this country and immigration can tell you’re going to instantly go on welfare because you don’t even have a job lined up, you don’t come in.

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday to approve the Trump administration’s “public charge” rule for new immigrants.

The justices approved the rule by a vote of 5-4 along ideological lines.
[so what else is new?]

“Public charge” has in recent years been defined as a person dependent on cash assistance programs. The Trump administration updated the definition in August 2019 to include people likely to require non-cash government benefits, and sought to implement a policy limiting the number of new immigrants who would require government assistance such as food stamps or Medicaid.

Lower courts have repeatedly blocked the new policy from going into effect. In early January the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals implemented a nationwide injunction against the policy, which Monday’s Supreme Court decision overrules.

“Throughout our history, self-reliance has been a core principle in America,” then-acting director of U.S. Customs and Immigration Services Ken Cuccinelli said at a 2019 press conference regarding the new policy. “The virtues of perseverance, hard work, and self-sufficiency laid the foundation of our nation and have defined generations of immigrants seeking opportunity in the United States.”

Alleged al-Qaeda Jihadis Caught Trying to Enter U.S. with Fake Colombian Passports

Woohoo Paul. Wazzup down there?

American authorities identified and apprehended three Syrian nationals accused of belonging to al-Qaeda in Dallas, Texas, from Colombia, the Colombian news agency RCN reported on Thursday, publishing images of the three individuals’ fake passports.

According to RCN, American law enforcement identified the three individuals as Al Raefee, Tuameh Tuameh, and Al Harari Al Harari. The three are believed to be in U.S. custody, soon to be charged with membership in a terrorist organization. The men appear to have entered Colombia through Venezuela, where they acquired Colombian residency paperwork, a government identification card, and a Colombian passport through an illegal documentation network.

Journalist Luis Carlos Vélez published images of the counterfeit passports on Twitter, noting that the men appeared to have crossed into Colombia through the La Guajira border crossing with Venezuela. Reports have not yet specified how the Syrians entered Venezuela or how long they had spent in the country after leaving Syria. Vélez reportedly stated that the U.S. embassy identified them as al-Qaeda terrorists when they attempted to procure U.S. visas, which does not align with the RCN report that police arrested them in Dallas. The RCN report does not note if Dallas authorities arrested them at the airport, which would suggest the men did receive U.S. visas and got onboard a flight to the country, or if they arrived by other means.

Over 90% of Illegal Aliens Nabbed Had Criminal Convictions or Pending Charges

“North Carolina’s Mecklenburg County, that state’s largest, was among the biggest offenders, releasing numerous violent criminals rather than turn them over to federal authorities for removal. Among them was a previously deported Honduran charged with rape and child sex crimes.” — Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Report.

Over 90% of the criminal illegal aliens arrested in 2019 had either criminal convictions or pending charges. The average was four charges per alien.

And yet Democrats insist on putting the well-being of these criminal aliens before the safety of American citizens.

The report also found the number of individuals apprehended or found inadmissible nationwide totaled 1,148,024, an increase of 68 percent over the previous fiscal year. Over one million illegals crossed into the United States in 2019 because the Democratic Party and news media care more about the well-being of lawbreakers with open border policies, sanctuary states and cities, and a deep hatred for President Donald Trump and for the nation’s law enforcement.

More than 90% of illegal immigrants arrested by federal agents in the United States last year had criminal convictions or pending criminal charges, including 56,000 assaults and thousands of sex crimes, robberies, homicides and kidnappings. Many had “extensive criminal histories with multiple convictions,” according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) year-end report.

Appeals Court Allows Use of $3.6 Billion in Military Funds for Border Wall

A federal appeals court allowed the administration to use a certain set of Defense Department funds for the construction of the border wall after a lower court blocked the administration from dipping into them last month.

The ruling marks a victory for President Donald Trump, who has sought to shore up funds for his signature border wall. The money is separate from other funds that the Supreme Court allowed to be used last year.

In a 2-1 ruling, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay of a Texas judge’s order, which the administration had appealed. The case is still ongoing.

The use of Defense Department funds for the President’s border wall has received pushback from numerous groups and states, which have argued the administration circumvented Congress to shore up wall funds.

The latest ruling applies to the military construction funds. Last September, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper authorized diverting $3.6 billion in the construction funds for 11 wall projects on the southern border with Mexico. The Pentagon said at the time that half the money was coming from deferred projects overseas, and the other half was planned for projects in the US.

The ruling doesn’t apply to the use of other funds, including counter-drug and Treasury Forfeiture Funds, that have been designated for wall construction.

Trump Is Quietly Winning Bigly At The Border.

Before this policy went into effect, illegal immigrant families knew that if they crossed the border and claimed asylum, they’d effectively get a free pass. Immigration officials would release them into the U.S. within 20 days, on the promise that they would show up for their court date months in the future. Few bother to return. This policy was dubbed “Catch and Release” for a reason.

Now, they must wait in Mexico while immigration judges review their cases.

What “Remain in Mexico” revealed is how few asylum seekers have legitimate claims. In fact, judges granted asylum in less than 1% of the more than 10,000 MPP claims resolved so far, according to TRAC Research Center at Syracuse University.

The impact of this program has been little short of profound.

The number of apprehensions at the southwest border plummeted from 144,000 in May 2019 to just 42,649 in November – the last month for which the government has data. The number of families caught crossing illegally went from 84,486 in May to a mere 9,000 in November.

As the El Paso Times put it, “the policy has proved to be a virtual wall.”

Nearly 400K Anchor Babies Born in 2019, Exceeding U.S. Births in 48 States

Canada and the U.S are the only 2 ‘developed’ nations that have birthright citizenship, and there are only 28 more in world who also do so.

Close to 400,000 anchor babies were born in the United States in 2019 as an executive order to end birthright citizenship gets kicked down the road for another year by President Donald Trump’s administration.

Analysis conducted by the Center for Immigration Studies revealed in 2018 that about 300,000 U.S.-born children of illegal aliens are born every year. These children, often referred to as “anchor babies,” immediately obtain American citizenship and anchor their illegal or foreign parents in the country.

In addition, about 72,000 anchor babies are born to foreign tourists, foreign visa workers, and foreign students every year — all of whom obtain immediate American citizenship simply for being born within the parameters of the country.

Altogether, about 372,000 anchor babies are estimated to have been born last year despite a commitment by Trump to sign an executive order ending the nation’s “anchor baby policy” that incentivizes pregnant migrant women to cross the U.S.-Mexico border in the hopes of securing American citizenship for their children.

This indicates that there were more anchor babies born in 2019 than births in each of the 50 states except California and Texas. California residents deliver about 455,000 babies a year, while Texans deliver about 379,000 babies a year, just slightly more than the total annual number of anchor babies born.

For example, there were more than 34 times as many anchor babies born nationwide than American children born in the state of Delaware and nearly five times as many anchor babies born nationwide than the American children born in Arizona.

To date, the U.S. Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled that the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens must be granted automatic American citizenship, and a number of legal scholars dispute the idea.

Many leading conservative scholars argue the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment does not provide mandatory birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens or noncitizens, as these children are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction as that language was understood when the 14th Amendment was ratified.

Homeland Security Chief Orders Review Of State Laws Allowing Driver’s Licenses For Illegal Aliens

Chad Wolf, the acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), ordered a review of state laws that allow illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses and restrict data sharing with federal immigration authorities.

Wolf on Tuesday ordered all of the components of DHS to conduct a department-wide review of the state laws to determine how they affect their day-to-day operations, according to a memo obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation. The DHS chief’s directive indicates he is prepared to take aim against the state laws.

“Accordingly, I am instructing each operational component to conduct an assessment of the impact of these laws, so that the Department is prepared to deal with and counter these impacts as we protect the homeland,” Wolf’s memo read.

The memo follows implementation of New York’s “Green Light” law, and passage of a similar bill in New Jersey in December. Both laws not only allow illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses, but also restrict DMV data from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other agencies within the Department of Homeland Security.

In New York, in particular, numerous county clerks have expressed reservation over the fact that illegal aliens can obtain a driver’s license with foreign documentation — arguing that such a policy paves the way for voter fraud, identity theft, and even terrorism. DHS had already voiced its opposition to a provision in the New York law that prohibits Homeland security Investigations, a division of ICE, from accessing DMV information — even if the agency is investigating serious crimes.

“Laws like New York’s greenlight law have dangerous consequences that have far reaches beyond the DMV,” DHS spokeswomen Heather Swift said Tuesday. “These types of laws make it easier for terrorists and criminals to obtain fraudulent documents and also prevent DHS investigators from accessing important records that help take down child pornography and human trafficking rings and combat everything from terrorism to drug smuggling.”

African Americans Are Taking Back Jobs Stolen By Illegal Aliens

African Americans are taking back jobs that were stolen from them by illegal immigrants. In August, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers swept up 680 illegal immigrants during raids on seven food processing plants in Mississippi. Without the cheap labor, the companies were forced to hire Americans to do the work.

(The New York Times explains)

By the end of the 1960s, black workers predominated on the lines.

It was an important win for African-Americans looking for an alternative to housework in wealthy white homes, or for those who had seen fieldwork dry up in an increasingly mechanized agricultural sector.

“The chicken plant,” Dr. Stuesse [an associate professor of anthropology at the University of North Carolina] quoted a civil rights veteran saying, “replaced the cotton field.”

But as American chicken consumption boomed in the 1980s, manufacturers went in search of “cheaper and more exploitable workers,” Dr. Stuesse wrote, chiefly Latin American immigrants.

At the time, the Koch plant in Morton was owned by a local company, B.C. Rogers Poultry, which organized efforts to recruit Hispanics from the Texas border as early as 1977. Soon, the company was operating a sizable effort it called “The Hispanic Project,” bringing in thousands of workers and housing them in trailers.

And we were told Americans just wouldn’t do the jobs illegal aliens are doing.

 

House passes farm bill that critics say grants ‘large-scale amnesty’ to illegal immigrants

The House on Wednesday passed a contentious agricultural bill that would likely put more than a million illegal immigrants on a pathway to legal status as part of what supporters say is a vital modernization of the industry’s workforce — but that immigration hawks blasted as a “large-scale amnesty.”

The Farm Workforce Modernization Act passed 260-165, with support from both Democrats and Republicans. The bill provides a process for undocumented farmworkers to seek a temporary five-and-a-half-year “Certified Agricultural Worker” status if they have worked for approximately six months in the industry in the last two years.

That status can either be renewed indefinitely, or workers (along with their spouses and children) can begin a path to permanent legal status in the form of a green card. That path, according to the legislation, includes background checks and $1,000 fine.

To secure the green card, those who have worked in agriculture for 10 years or more must work for four more years, while those who’ve spent less than a decade in the sector would have to work eight more years. Once workers receive a green card, they are then free to pursue work in fields outside of agriculture.

The bill also streamlines the H-2A agriculture visa program, cutting processing time and costs for visa petitions. And it calls for the Department of Homeland Security to set up a pilot program that would give H-2A workers the ability to change jobs within the sector if they find work within two months…….

The Heritage Foundation described the bill as a “clear cut example of amnesty,” warning that it “threatens the legal immigration system’s legitimacy and incentivizes aliens and farmers to ignore the legal immigration system in the future if it best serves their needs.”