Much has transpired lately in regards to our nation’s immigration pushes and pushbacks. While President Donald Trump implores US Congress to allocate billions in border wall funding, some House and Senate members foist DACA deals as if chess-playing at a checkered table-top. Each side seeks to gain Capitol ground while pro- and anti-immigration enforcement figureheads tout end-zone successes.
An immigration overhaul package reshaped by White House staff is set to be announced Monday, January 29, 2018. Essentially, the modified proposal amounts to a $30 billion border wall allocation in exchange for a more flexible approach regarding Dreamers while shoring-up chain migration.
To put it into numerical context, Pres. Trump is conceding legalizing up to 1.8 million DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) babies while, conversely, abbreviating the familial sponsorships of emigrants wishing to obtain visas and join their citizenized kinship in America.
According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), chain migration is defined as “when an immigrant to the United States sponsors other family members for admission – such as parents, children and siblings – who can then sponsor other immigrants themselves, and so on…”
Per a Pew Research Center study published on January 19, 2018, “A large majority (74%) favors granting permanent legal status to immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally when they were children, but 60% oppose a proposal to ‘substantially expand the wall along the U.S. border with Mexico’ – a longtime goal of President Donald Trump.”
Referring to citizenship for Dreamers, “We’re going to morph into it,” said President Trump on January 24, 2018. The White House “framework” seeks to “promote nuclear family migration by limiting family sponsorships to spouses and minor children only (for both Citizens and LPRs), ending extended-family chain migration” applying “these changes prospectively, not retroactively, by processing the ‘backlog.'”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D — California) said President Trump’s immigration proposal points are “part of the Trump Administration’s unmistakable campaign to make America white again.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D — California) said President Trump’s immigration proposal points are “part of the Trump Administration’s unmistakable campaign to make America white again.” Yikes, talk about a jugular-clench.
Nevertheless, House Republicans are supporting a bill introduced by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R — Virginia) which distinctly denies permanent citizenship to Dreamers, instead catering “renewable” legal status in the US. Party wrangling?
In a January 23, 2018 press release from Congressman Goodlatte, a foot-stomp message was declared: “The Securing America’s Future Act is the framework to strengthen border security, increase interior enforcement and resolve the DACA situation. We believe an eventual stand-alone floor vote is essential. We oppose any process for a DACA solution that favors a backroom deal with Democrats over regular order in the House.” Yep, party wrangling of varying sorts.
President Trump tossed a tweet in the Schumer court as well:
Cryin’ Chuck Schumer fully understands, especially after his humiliating defeat, that if there is no Wall, there is no DACA. We must have safety and security, together with a strong Military, for our great people!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 24, 2018
Per an unidentified White House source quoted in a January 25, 2018 edition of Roll Call, a senior Trump administration official reportedly said, “We have been pushing Congress to take up legislation for quite some time. Despite concerns raised by DHS, obviously there was not a lot of action in the first six months [of the Trump presidency].” Inaction by whom?
According to State Department roles, approximately four million applicants await family-sponsored preference. Among nations, Mexico tallies the highest number of 1,259,080 immigrants seeking to stand upon American soil and join family.
Take notice of comparable numbers between Obama-era 2016 and 2017. With the Trump administration walking back immigration promises, makes one wonder what the State Department numbers will look like for 2018 and beyond. From 2016 to 2017, there is a role reduction in each category.
Among the State Department’s “Employment First Preference” visa category, Mexico drops low in ranking with a mere 92 seeking work visas. Overall, 5,527 immigrants from other countries who seek visas to work in the United States are insignificant compared to those who wish to unite with kin in America.
Any proposal conceding anything immigration-related may have many populist-minded folks incredulously wondering if President Trump somehow sold-out his voter base, in effect handing over half of the immigration pie whereas his 2016 campaign bid promised the full monty (total immigration crackdown and a comprehensive border wall).
John T. Bennett wrote, President Trump’s “legislative package would jump-start a larger policy debate about immigration that began with Trump’s election and engulfed spending debates on Capitol Hill with his fiscal 2018 budget request for about $1.6 billion to build 74 miles of wall.”
I do not think anyone can justly argue the recent three-day government shutdown, largely triggered by liberals opting to support non-citizens over tax-paying Americans.
I do not think anyone can justly argue the recent three-day government shutdown, largely triggered by liberals opting to support non-citizens over tax-paying Americans. It was the latest layer of disgusting behavior by elected officials occupying seats on Capitol Hill. Rep. Bob Goodlatte candidly opined sentiments I harbor.
“Senate Democrats, led by Senator Chuck Schumer, held funding for our government hostage because they had not yet secured a deal to address the individuals using the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program known as DACA. Negotiations in the House and Senate were already underway in good faith on how to address DACA by the March [2018] expiration of the program, and the decision to insert this issue into the funding debate and hold our government hostage was completely unnecessary. By forcing this shutdown, Senator Schumer and his colleagues put unlawful immigrants before America’s lawful citizens, children, and our troops,” Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Bob Goodlatte elucidated.
Stirring Sanctuary Cities
What would a discussion on immigration reform be without cobbling sanctuary cities into the context? Wednesday was a busy day for the Department of Justice (DoJ). Under the tutelage of US Attorney General Jeff Sessions, federal prosecutors dispatched communiques to 23 sanctuary city jurisdictions, “demanding” proof of compliance with 8 USC 1373. Suggesting subpoena power, DoJ authorities reminded local leaders that, via 8 USC 1373 code, they can be held criminally liable for enacting local laws restricting communication between municipal law enforcement officials and federal immigration authorities.
“We have seen too many examples of the threat to public safety represented by jurisdictions that actively thwart the federal government’s immigration enforcement—enough is enough.”
In the DoJ correspondence titled “Justice Department Demands Documents and Threatens to Subpoena 23 Jurisdictions as Part of 8 USC 1373 Compliance Review,” federal prosecutors are dangling federal Byrne Justice Administration Grants to compel local government cooperation instead of forfeiting grant funding. It is a highly publicized (transparent) tactic to encourage local elected officials to shed sanctuary city skin and comply with federal immigration codes. DoJ also announced that non-compliant sanctuary cities must reimburse the federal government for FY 2016 grant funds received/spent.
Addressing the 23 cities’ leaders, AG Sessions bellowed, “I continue to urge all jurisdictions under review to reconsider policies that place the safety of their communities and their residents at risk. Protecting criminal aliens from federal immigration authorities defies common sense and undermines the rule of law. We have seen too many examples of the threat to public safety represented by jurisdictions that actively thwart the federal government’s immigration enforcement—enough is enough.”
Although not among the 23 sanctuary cities on the DoJ list of compliance review, the Fairfax County, Virginia sheriff’s office (a listed sanctuary jurisdiction) announced on January 24, 2018 that it is severing its agreement with DoJ.
“I am pleased with Sheriff Stacey Kincaid’s decision to take this step. The Sheriff and her Deputies operate the County jail and are not federal immigration officials.”
“I am pleased with Sheriff Stacey Kincaid’s decision to take this step. The Sheriff and her Deputies operate the County jail and are not federal immigration officials,” Sharon Bulova, Fairfax County Board of Supervisors chairman declared in a press bulletin. But Fairfax County Sheriff Kincaid’s decision came with rebuke from Elizabeth Schultz, a Fairfax County School Board member.
“That’s an inexplicable, right now, position to hold that I really do think needs to come clean in terms of the thought process that went behind that and the potential risks. Here we are in a pattern up and down the Eastern Seaboard that goes from here all the way up to Long Island of an increase in MS-13 and other gang activity, and you have people cheering on breaking the relationship with the federal government and potentially releasing people who have federal detention orders under ICE. I don’t understand it,” Schultz echoed.
“While Schumer has said he intends to take funding for Trump’s border wall off the table, Sen. Joe Manchin (D —W.Virginia) said Wednesday morning that a deal to protect Dreamers was within reach and that the border security measures, including the wall, that the president has called for are necessary. The senator, perhaps the most moderate Democrat in Schumer’s caucus, said all 100 senators agree that Dreamers should be allowed to stay in the U.S. and that a sticking point has been what to do with Dreamers’ parents,” reported Louis Nelson of Politico.
Generally speaking, DACA diaspora rooted across the nation, demographically concentrated in metropolises.
President Trump’s recent talking points reflect a softer side, indicating he is willing to bend for DACA and Dreamers so that border wall billions are approved and national security enforcement vessels such as DHS, ICE and CBP are fiscally endowed to see the mission to completion.
The White House “Framework on Immigration Reform & Border Security” purports to “mitigate the rapidly growing surge of illegal immigration” via a “$25 billion trust fund for the border wall system” to include beefing up “DHS personnel, ICE attorneys, immigration judges, prosecutors and other law enforcement professionals.”
On the DACA side, President Trump seeks to “Provide legal status for DACA recipients and other DACA-eligible illegal immigrants, adjusting the time-frame to encompass a total population of approximately 1.8 million individuals.” Notice he used the word “total” to denote a cap, a plug denying an endless flow of immigrants.
None of the aforementioned is without failsafe stipulations and vetting features, to include a “10-12 year path to citizenship, with requirements for work, education and good moral character, clear eligibility requirements to mitigate fraud,” with every individual’s status “subject to revocation for criminal conduct or public safety and national security concerns, public charge, fraud, etc.”
Politically-speaking, more Democrats support DACA concepts while more Republicans stand by the border wall project.
Politically-speaking, more Democrats support DACA concepts while more Republicans stand by the border wall project.
So, do you think President Trump is playing a balanced hand? Is the flip-flop on DACA one of appeasement to secure billions in border funding?
President Trump is scheduled to orate his State of the Union address to Congress on Tuesday, January 30, 2018…and rumblings are that a number of Democrats are bringing along Dreamers to sit among the crowd before the podium. If that is fact, that means federally-elected politicians plan to be accompanied by and allow illegal immigrants entry to the US Capitol.
Attended by plenty of federal agents, that does not afford much of a sanctuary. Dems also amuse themselves by reportedly planning to bring along women’s rights activists and female sexual assault victims.
Mockery: (noun) “contemptuous language or behavior directed at a particular person or thing” and “ludicrously futile action.”
Can you feel the brouhaha momentum brewing?
