Law Enforcement Is A Problem For Some Congressmen

Yesterday The Washington Examiner posted an article about Donald Trump’s nomination of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. The nomination is not welcomed by the Democrats, and they are trying to derail it before it gets anywhere near confirmation. The race card is coming out again–they’re now using the Alabama senator’s full name, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III. This links the Senator to the South and its past history of racism. The efforts are somewhat pathetic, and we need to examine what is behind them.

The article reports:

Democrats are particularly anxious about immigration because of the unusually tenuous nature of President Obama‘s policies on the issue. Those policies can be undone unilaterally, by the new president in some cases, and by the attorney general and head of homeland security in other cases. There’s no need for congressional action — and no way for House or Senate Democrats to slow or stop it.

There are extensive, and in some cases, strict immigration laws on the books, passed by bipartisan majorities of Congress. Obama wanted Congress to change those laws. Congress declined. So Obama stopped enforcing provisions of the law that he did not like. A new administration could simply resume enforcement of the law — a move that by itself would bring a huge change to immigration practices in the United States. No congressional approval needed.

Part of a President’s Oath of Office is to uphold the Constitution–that includes enforcing the laws. Unfortunately Congress did not force him to keep his Oath. Now the Democrats in Congress are trying to block the appointment of someone who would enforce the laws that are currently on the books.

The article lists a number of current immigration policies that could be changed without any action by Congress.

Here are some of those policies:

1) End the embargo on worksite enforcement. “Experience has shown that employers respond very quickly and voluntarily implement compliance measures when there is an uptick in enforcement,” Vaughan notes, “because they see the potential damage to their operations and public image for being caught and prosecuted.”

2) Restore ICE’s authority to make expedited removals of illegal immigrants who are felons or who have recently crossed into the United States.

3) Tighten requirements for H-1B visas, including banning such visas for low-salary, low-skill jobs, revoking visas that are followed by layoffs of American workers, and other measures.

4) Stop suing states that take action to support immigration enforcement, and instead support such enforcement. After Arizona’s famous SB 1070 law, Obama cracked down, arguing that the federal government has the sole authority to enforce immigration law, and also to not enforce immigration law. President Trump could choose to enforce the law.

5) Force sanctuary cities to observe the law. Trump campaigned extensively on the subject of sanctuary cities, mentioning San Francisco murder victim Kate Steinle in many speeches. Attorney General Sessions could enforce an existing law, 8 USC 1373, which prohibits local communities from banning their officials from cooperating with federal immigration authorities.

All of these are simply corrections to Presidential overreach that occurred during the Obama Administration. Since they were never approved by Congress, they don’t have to be undone by Congress.

Immigration is one of many reasons Senator Sessions will make a fantastic Attorney General. It is safe to assume that under Senator Sessions the politicization of the Justice Department will end. The Senator is quite capable of draining the swamp that has been created during the last eight years–from bogus investigations of the New Black Panther intimidation case, Fast and Furious, the Internal Revenue Service‘s targeting of conservative groups, etc.

Senator Sessions will bring America back to equal justice under the law. Any Congressman who does not support that concept does not belong in Congress.

What Does The Law Actually Say?

According to the Legal Resource Library, these are the requirements to vote in a federal election in America:

  • You are a U.S. citizen (either by birth or naturalization)
  • You meet your state’s residency requirements
  • You are 18 year old. (Some states allow 17-year-olds to vote in primaries or register to vote if they will be 18 before the general election).
You must be legally registered to vote in your jurisdiction in order to be able to vote in federal elections. State laws vary on voter requirements.

The U.S. Constitution gives citizens have the right to vote in elections. It does not give that right to non-citizens.

The following video was posted on YouTube on November 6:

This is the response to that video from Senator Jeff Sessions:

WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) issued the following statement after President Obama‘s comments on illegal immigrants voting in U.S. elections:  

“I am shocked that the President of the United States—who is the chief law enforcement officer for the nation and to whom all federal law enforcement officers report—failed to strongly and immediately object to a statement by an interviewer that unlawful immigrants can and should vote in U.S. elections. The interviewer proposed a radical and illegal action, which the President had a duty to condemn.

The President must immediately issue a statement to make crystal clear that only citizens of the United States have the right to vote, and that any noncitizen who votes, and anyone who assists noncitizens to vote, does so illegally and is subject to prosecution. The failure to clarify this statement will only add further credibility to the public’s concerns about the integrity of this election.” 

For those of you who may argue that President Obama was not referring to illegal aliens, why then was he discussing the fear of being deported? American citizens do not have to fear deportation.

The Problems With The Budget Deal

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article about the budget deal recently reached by Congress. He strongly suggests that Republicans do not approve the deal.

The chart below from the Heritage Foundation is included in the article:

image001

As you can see, there are no immediate spending cuts and no significant cuts until 2025. We all know what happens to budget cuts in the distant future–somehow they never materialize. There is also the matter of this Congress trying to bind a future Congress to a budget it had nothing to do with.

In an article posted yesterday, The New York Times described the deal as follows:

The deal is the policy equivalent of keeping the lights on — hardly the stuff of a bold fiscal legacy. But it achieves the main objective of his 2016 budget: to break free of the spending shackles he agreed to when he signed the Budget Control Act of 2011, an outcome, the president allowed Tuesday, that he could be “pretty happy” about.

I don’t want to see the government shut down, but this is not a compromise–iti’s a cave. This budget deal is an example of why John Boehner is being replaced as Speaker of the House.

An article at Daniel Mitchell’s website states:

Moody’s Investors Service announced Monday that, despite dire warnings from the Treasury Department, the government would find a way to pay money owed on its debt, regardless of whether lawmakers agree to raise the $18.1 trillion borrowing cap. …”Even if the debt limit is not raised, …the government will order its payment priorities to allow the Treasury to continue servicing its debt obligations,” says Moody’s Senior Vice President Steven Hess.

Raising the debt limit is not really required despite what the big spenders are telling you.

I think Senator Jeff Sessions said it best:

“Once again, a massive deal, crafted in secret, unveiled at the 11th hour, is being rushed through Congress under threat of panic.  Once again, we have waited until an artificial deadline to force through that which our voters oppose.

At its core, this deal with President Obama does two things: First, it lifts federal spending caps for the next two years – including a $40 billion increase in spending on the federal bureaucracy.  Second, it waives the federal debt limit through March of 2017, allowing for approximately $1.5 trillion to be added to the debt – ensuring no further conversation about our debt course or any corresponding action to alter it.

It appears this deal is built on the same principles as the Ryan-Murray budget deal from 2013.  It exchanges instant increases in federal spending for distant savings, as much two decades down the road, that are likely to never materialize.  It funds increased spending through increased revenues – violating a core budget principle by collecting more money to expand an already too-large federal bureaucracy.  And it trades the termination of today’s spending limits for the promise of new spending limits ten years from now.

The spending caps in law today were pledged as part of the 2011 Budget Control Act agreement to lift the debt ceiling by $2.1 trillion.  It represented a bipartisan commitment to cap spending at a fixed amount.  This deal shatters that commitment by spending $80 billion more than we promised over the next 2 years.

The deal also uses a common gimmick where alleged savings in an entitlement program are used to boost unrelated spending in the federal bureaucracy.  Any savings found to entitlement programs faced with insolvency must be used to shore up those programs – not to surge spending somewhere else.  Yet this deal claims illusory savings from Disability Insurance and increased pension insurance fees in order to boost bureaucratic budgets.  Perhaps even worse, the deal attempts to stave off the shortfall in fraud-ridden Social Security Disability by plundering from the Social Security Trust Fund for retirees.  One hundred and fifty billion dollars in funds will be siphoned from Americans’ payroll retirement contributions and redirected to the mismanaged disability program….

Republicans in Congress need to vote against this budget deal.

 

Let’s Give Away More Of Taxpayers’ Money

Sometimes you wonder if Congress were spending their own money, would they be a little more careful with it?

On Saturday, The DC Clothesline reported that the Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee voted unanimously to allow illegal immigrants to receive Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and child credit. Note the words “illegal immigrants.”

The article reports:

Sen. Jeff Sessions proposed an amendment, which would prevent illegal aliens from receiving the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)  and child credit.

…In the last year with complete records, 2010, the amount of fraudulent payments hit 4.2 billion dollars and all tax credits combined cost about 7.6 billion last year.

Democrats who voted against the amendment were:  Bernie Sanders, Debbie Stabenow,  Sens. Patty Murray, Ron Wyden, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Mark Warner, Tammy Baldwin, Tim Kaine and Angus King.

…Debbie Stabenow, who is one of many democratic women with IQs in single digits said she doesn’t believe illegal aliens are collecting federal benefits even though the idea came from the Treasury Inspector General who stated unequivocally that illegals are collecting benefits was right in front of her.

The amendment failed with unanimous support of the republicans on the committee.

Why don’t we either return illegal aliens to their home countries or take steps to prevent them from taking money out of the pockets of Americans. I don’t mind giving someone a hand-up when needed, but we have reached the point where illegal aliens are committing fraud to take money from Americans. That has got to stop.