Brownsville judge halts Obama’s plan
Wed, 2015-02-25 09:29
News Staff
By G. Romero Wendorf
The subject of illegal immigration is all the rage these days, both literally and figuratively. But look at it this way: The approximate 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants currently living in the U.S. wouldn’t ever have to worry about deportation had, underscore had, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 actually done what it promised: secure our borders and only allow people into this country who do so legally. In other words, those who lawfully follow this country’s immigration laws. Because if that ’86 law had worked, the 12 to 20 million wouldn’t be here. For those of us old enough to remember, here is what President Ronald Reagan and the U.S. Congress promised us 29 years ago – grant amnesty to the estimated 3.2 million illegal immigrants living here, and America will become like all the rest of the developed nations. We’ll start to seriously defend our southern border, and no longer will people be able to enter this country illegally, take up residence, sign up their kids for school, get on the welfare roll, and basically become de facto citizens. Not only that, promised Reagan and honest politicians like House Speaker Tip O’Neill, but if the ’86 amnesty law gets passed, which it did, the U.S. government will start enforcing labor laws. No longer will employers be able to hire illegal workers, thereby undercutting legit workers, legit employers. The federal government will crack down on employers who don’t follow the law. And if they do break the law, pay illegal immigrants cash under the table for work they do, the employers will face “stiff penalties.” They gave us their word.
FAST FORWARD
Of course, fast forward to today, and Reagan’s promise, along with that of the Democratic Congress at the time, obviously never panned out. If anything, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 never did anything it promised, other than grant amnesty to approximately 3.2 illegal immigrants in the U.S. at the time the bill was passed by Congress and signed into law by the president on Nov. 6, 1986. At the time, the amnesty plan sounded pretty tough. In fact, that’s probably why the word “Control” was added to it. To make it appear so. As in, the U.S. is no longer going to roll over for anyone who wants to enter this country illegally. We’re going to secure our borders and limit the number of people entering the U.S. Like the rest of the developed countries do it. Reagan’s amnesty plan, as it became to be called, made any immigrant who had entered this country illegally before 1982 eligible for citizenship. But like most things enacted by Congress, the new legislation provided no framework for moving forward. Hence, 29 years later, here we are again, at the amnesty crossroads. Only now, we don’t have an estimated 3.2 illegal immigrants in this country. We have approximately 12 million to 20 million living here, based on which government report you want to disbelieve. And it seems that a lot of them, especially the younger ones, are becoming more belligerent, more demanding of their so-called rights when Republicans stand up and tell them no, we’re not just going to grant you amnesty. Which is odd in a way. If a bunch of Americanos were living, let’s say, in Mexico illegally, would they be demanding anything? Would they be marching on college campuses, claiming that the Mexicans who didn’t want them there were racists? Or would they be quiet, knowing that if the government found out they were there illegally, they’d expel them from their country? In fact, in a somewhat ironic twist, GOOGLE: “U.S.-born children of migrants lose rights in Mexico.” It’s an Associated Press story written three years ago. Apparently, with less work in the U.S., some poor Mexicans were repatriating to their country with their kids in tow. Unfortunately for the kids, however, since they were born on U.S. soil, they were by default American citizens. And because of that, the Mexican government was denying these kids access to schools, health care, not to mention any medicines they might need.
RETALIATION PROMISED?
Last week, after finding out that Federal Judge Andrew S. Hanen, of the Federal District Court in Brownsville, had issued a 123-page ruling blocking Obama’s amnesty plan, a U.S. representative from Illinois, Democrat Luis Gutierrez, went on MSNBC and promised retaliation against those opposed to amnesty reform: “(This judge’s ruling is going to create some) militancy that will be activated throughout the immigrant community in terms of voter registration, voter participation and voter anger at the Republican Party… I think you are going to see it in an unprecedented manner.” The mistake Gutierrez makes is assuming that all Mexican-Americans living here legally are in favor of granting amnesty to the 12 to 20 million who are not. I don’t think that’s the case. They just keep their views to themselves because they don’t want certain groups jumping down their throats. This whole business of all Mexican-Americans being united is a sham, and Gutierrez knows it, but he can score political points by catering to certain “civil rights” groups. Many of whom make money off of federal grants paid to them to “care for” illegal immigrants. In other words, their reasons for standing up for the “rights” of illegal immigrants is far from entirely altruistic. The federal lawsuit, by the way, the one that Judge Hanen ruled in favor of last week, was initially filed by then-Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott in December 2014 on behalf of the State of Texas and 16 other states. Since then, 10 additional states have signed on to the suit. The basic claim of the lawsuit: Obama’s executive amnesty plan (who needs Congress?) is going to put an undue burden on the states that have to shoulder the cost of caring for illegal immigrants. Not that Obama’s executive action would grant amnesty to the millions of illegal immigrants living here. Instead, it would have shielded approximately 4 million from deportation. Provided they had lived here illegally for five years and had committed no crimes, and had contributed money to the Democrat Party (I'm joking).
WHAT'S THE END GAME?
Still, both Obama and the Democrats have made no secret about what their end game ultimately is: widespread amnesty for more than just 4 million. But since Republicans control the U.S. House of Representatives (they now control the U.S. Senate as well), the president wasn’t going to get any large-scale amnesty plan pushed through Congress prior to this year, a la the one Reagan signed in ’86. So he came up with this executive action. Getting the federal judge’s decision overturned isn’t going to be easy for the Obama Administration. The judge ruled in favor of the lawsuit based on a rather arcane bit of law: the president didn’t post a public notice with regard to his executive action. Imagine that. A simple clerical error was his undoing? The failure on the part of the president to publish a public notice, wrote Judge Hanen, who was appointed to the federal bench by George W. Bush in 2002, was a violation of the 1946 Administration Procedure Act, which requires notice in a publication called the Federal Register as well as an opportunity for people to submit views in writing. Imagine that: feedback from the public about something that will affect the public. How un-American can that be? Obama’s U.S. Justice Department is now preparing an appeal of Judge Hanen’s temporary injunction to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (New Orleans). Obviously, the president and his dream team are hoping that the appellate court will grant an emergency request to block Hanen’s ruling. But since the majority of the judges on the 5th were appointed by Republican presidents, granting such an emergency request seems doubtful. After Judge Hanen’s ruling last week, now-Governor Greg Abbott issued a written statement: “President Obama abdicated his responsibility to uphold the United States Constitution when he attempted to circumvent the laws passed by Congress via executive fiat, and Judge Hanen’s decision rightly stops the president’s overreach in its tracks.” If it is reinstated, Obama’s executive order will offer work permits, tax rebates (in the form of earned income tax rebates), Social Security cards and a fasttrack route to citizenship for approximately 4 million of the 12 to 20 million undocumented/illegal immigrants currently estimated to be living here. By the way, the real undoing of Reagan’s 1986 amnesty plan came about for one simple reason: the strict sanctions on employers who hired illegals were stripped out of the bill to gain final congressional passage. Both the Republicans and the Democrats were adamant that the large industries who helped bankroll their campaigns be allowed to continue underpaying illegal immigrants for the work they did. That, plus all the new border security promised never materialized. That approximate 2,000-mile border stretch from Texas to California remained as porous as ever. How else were the illegal maids and gardeners going to make it across? All of which may help explain why the number of estimated undocumented immigrants in the U.S. has increased from approximately 3.5 million in 1986 to the 12 to 20 million estimated today. With no real end in sight, based on what we saw along the border last summer.