Category Archives: Immigration

McCarran-Walter Act Of 1952

Oh, yes. I’m sure you have heard of it in the New York Times.

Wouldn’t it be interesting if, at some point during his Presidential campaign, Donald Trump asked, “Oh, by the way, has anyone in Washington DC ever heard of the McCarran-Walter Act Of 1952”?

Here are the historic facts that would seem to indicate that many, if not most, of the people we elect to work for us in Washington DC do NOT have the slightest idea of what laws already exist in OUR country.

After several terrorist incidents were carried out in the United States, Donald Trump was severely, criticized for suggesting that the U.S. should limit or temporarily suspend the immigration of certain ethnic groups, nationalities, and even people of certain religions (Muslims). The criticisms condemned such a suggestion as, among other things, being Un-American, dumb, stupid, reckless, dangerous and racist. Congressmen and Senators swore that they would never allow such legislation, and our illustrious President called such a prohibition on immigration unconstitutional.

As Gomer Pyle would say, “Well, Surprise, Surprise!” It seems that the selective immigration ban is already law and has been applied on several occasions.

Known as the McCarran-Walter Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 allows for the “Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by the President, whenever the President finds that the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. The President may, by proclamation, and for such a period as he shall deem necessary, may suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants or impose any restrictions on the entry of aliens he may deem to be appropriate.”

And who do you suppose last utilized this process? Why it was Democrat President Jimmy Carter, no less than 37 years ago, in 1979, to keep Iranians out of the United States.

But he actually did more. He made ALL Iranian students, already in the United States, check in with the government. And then he deported a bunch of them. Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas, and a total of 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the USA in 1979.

So, what say you about all of the criticism that Donald Trump received from the Democrat Senators, Representatives and the Obama Administration?

Additionally, it is important to note that the McCarran-Walter Act also requires that an “applicant for immigration must be of good moral character and in agreement with the principles of our Constitution.”

Therefore, one could surmise that since the Quran forbids Muslins to swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, technically, ALL Muslins should be refused immigration to OUR country.

Check it out:


Deport Nikki Haley??

Interesting indeed.
WSJ 1/15/2016
When Nikki Haley offered the Republican response to President Obama’s final State of the Union, the American people heard an articulate conservative who has twice been elected Governor in South Carolina. It’s a sign of the GOP’s distemper that some conservatives denounced her because she didn’t denounce legal immigration.

Gov. Haley’s parents came to America from India. Her father taught botany at Voorhees College. Her mother started what would become a multimillion-dollar clothing company out of the living room of the family home. As she put it Tuesday, “I am the proud daughter of Indian immigrants who reminded my brothers, my sister and me every day how blessed we were to live in this country.”

Her conservative critics unloaded. “Trump should deport Nikki Haley” went one tweet. The next morning on “Fox & Friends,” Donald Trump declared that Gov. Haley is “very weak on immigration.”

Are we talking about the same Nikki Haley? The woman who says “illegal immigration is not welcome in South Carolina”? Who signed a law toughening the state’s illegal immigration reform act, which requires employers to verify the immigration status of new hires? Who has fought President Obama’s bid to resettle unvetted Syrian refugees? And whose state has joined 16 others in a lawsuit against Mr. Obama for what they say is his unconstitutional executive order on illegal immigration?

The distinction Gov. Haley is trying to make is between a functioning, legal immigration system that works in America’s interest—which Republicans say they want—and the unlawful, broken and arbitrary system that encourages illegality—which is what we now have and which President Obama exploits to the Democrats’ political advantage.

The attacks on Ms. Haley show that many on the right these days oppose any immigrants, even those who arrive legally. They also want to make opposition to immigration a GOP litmus test. A party that rejects Nikki Haley as a spokeswoman is one that doesn’t really want to build a governing majority.


A Misbegotten Showdown on Immigration

I appreciate the commitment to principle, but will Republican’s really fail to take advantage of their majority [again]?
By Jason L. Riley
March 3, 2015 7:12 p.m. ET

Leave it to Republicans to do the right thing after exhausting all other options.

Speaker John Boehner announced Tuesday that the House would vote to fund the Department of Homeland Security, even though some members of his caucus thought Republicans could withhold funding to protest President Obama ’s immigration policies and not pay a price politically. They were kidding themselves. Republicans may control both chambers of Congress, but their political opponents still control the news media.

The DHS drama has played out just as President Obama hoped it would when he moved unilaterally in November to protect some five million illegal immigrants from deportation. He knew that Republicans would turn on one another, that his liberal friends in the Fourth Estate would play up the party division and that the GOP would be cast as anti-immigrant villains. The same conservatives who like to mock the president’s intelligence are making him look like a genius.

A group of about 50 Republicans in the House insisted that a showdown over DHS funding would be a political winner for the party. But they never had the votes in the Senate to force Mr. Obama’s hand, and nothing in his history as president suggests that he would otherwise reverse course. Whether the issue is net neutrality, Common Core education standards or cutting a nuclear deal with Iran, this is a White House that has had little use for the legislative branch. Even when Mr. Obama has deigned to go through Congress, as he did with ObamaCare, he later selectively enforces his own laws.

Republican lawmakers are understandably frustrated at Mr. Obama’s immigration end-run, but as Mr. Boehner told his caucus this week, the place to push back is the courtroom, where a federal judge has stayed the order. “The good news is that the president’s executive action has been stopped, for now,” said the speaker in a closed-door meeting, according to Politico. “This matter will continue to be litigated in the courts, where we have our best chance of winning this fight.”

The reality is that President Obama will be in office for two more years. If Republicans want to show voters they can govern and deserve the presidency in 2016, they ought to pick fights that they can win. At some point, the party also will have to acknowledge that it has an image problem with Hispanic voters that these public spats only exacerbate. Threatening to partially shut down an agency responsible for the safety of the homeland at a time when Islamic terrorists are recruiting in Brooklyn and threatening to blow up malls in Minnesota might be a sign that some Republicans have been driven to distraction over the immigration issue.

The Hispanic voting bloc is large and growing fast—not because of immigration but due to higher birthrates among Latinos already here. Sealing the border will not alter this demographic trend, nor will making a fetish of demonizing millions of economic migrants who are here illegally. Lawmakers who are fed up with illicit border crossings should focus on fixing the legal-immigration system, which will give people an incentive to use it. Part of Mr. Boehner’s problem is that some of his colleagues want the issue, not a solution.

Another reason that Mr. Obama was unlikely to bend to the restrictionists is that most of the country supports his goal—though not his tactics—of ultimately granting legal status to most undocumented aliens. A Pew poll taken shortly after the president issued his immigration order put support for it at just 46%, which is one reason he waited until after the midterm elections to act. But the same poll reported that 70% of Americans, including 53% of Republicans, said illegal immigrants in the U.S. “should have a way to stay in the country legally.”

A Fox News survey taken last year found even stronger Republican support for legalization. When asked if the U.S. should “allow illegal immigrants to remain in the country and eventually qualify for U.S. citizenship, but only if they meet certain requirements like paying back taxes, learning English, and passing a background check,” 68% of all respondents and 60% of Republican respondents said yes.

Despite efforts to scapegoat illegal immigrants for everything from crime to unemployment to health-care costs, polls have consistently showed that most Americans, regardless of party affiliation, back comprehensive immigration reform that includes some form of conditional amnesty. The fact that immigration hard-liners and talk-radio hosts don’t even speak for most Republicans on immigration is not something you read about very often, but it’s yet another example of a liberal press corps determined to make the GOP look bad.

Mr. Riley, a Manhattan Institute senior fellow and Journal contributor, is the author of “Please Stop Helping Us: How Liberals Make It Harder for Blacks to Succeed” (Encounter Books, 2014).


I, Barack – WSJ

He can only “work across the aisle” if he gets all of what he wants. It speak volumes that the Democrat party does nothing to check him.
Updated Nov. 20, 2014 10:14 p.m.

President Obama ’s decision to legalize millions of undocumented immigrants by his own decree is a sorry day for America’s republic. We say that even though we agree with the cause of immigration reform. But process matters to self-government—sometimes it is the only barrier to tyranny—and Mr. Obama’s policy by executive order is tearing at the fabric of national consent.

The first question to address is Mr. Obama’s legal rationale. At least he finally rolled out a memo from the experts on presidential power in the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel, but it’s fair to wonder how much time he gave them. The OLC made its justification public about an hour before the speech.

The President’s rationale is “prosecutorial discretion,” but he is stretching that legal concept beyond normal understanding. The executive branch does have discretion about whom to prosecute. But this typically extends to individual cases, or to setting priorities due to limited resources such as prosecuting cocaine but not marijuana use.

Mr. Obama claims he is using his discretion to focus on such high deportation priorities as criminals, but he is going much further and is issuing an order exempting from deportation entire classes of people—as many as five million. Justice’s OLC memo claims there is no such categorical exemption, and that immigration officials can still deport someone if they want to, but the memo offers no measures by which to make that “complex judgment.” In practice it will almost never happen.

The Reagan and Bush precedents cited by the Obama lawyers are different in kind and degree. They involved far fewer people and they were intended to fulfill the policy set by Congress—not, as Mr. Obama intends, to defy Congress. That is why their actions were done with little controversy.

Mr. Obama is issuing his order amid furious political opposition and after his own multiple previous declarations that he lacks legal authority. “If we start broadening that [his 2012 order for undocumented children], then essentially I’ll be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally,” Mr. Obama said on Telemundo in September 2013. Until now.

While we favor generous immigration, Mr. Obama’s order also fails as policy because it won’t reduce the economic incentive that drives illegal immigration. The only way to reduce the flow of illegal migrants is to offer enough legal ways to work in the U.S. and then return home.

His unilateral order will encourage more migrants to come in hope of a future amnesty, without matching the ebb and flow of migration to America’s changing labor market demands. His order also offers no prospect of future citizenship, creating a laboring class with less of a stake in American institutions—and less incentive to assimilate.

The politics of immigration is already fraught, and Mr. Obama’s order will make it worse. He is empowering the most extreme anti-immigrant voices on the Republican right, which may be part of his political calculation.

Mr. Obama wants Democrats to get political credit with Hispanics for legalization, while goading the GOP into again becoming the deportation party in 2016. Hillary Clinton would love that, which explains why Bill Clinton is already backing Mr. Obama’s order. Mark this down as one more way in which this President has become the Great Polarizer.

How should Republicans respond? They can use their own constitutional powers without falling into Mr. Obama’s political trap. Impeachment is a fool’s errand that would change the political subject and fail. The power of the purse is an obvious tool now that the GOP will soon control the Senate, but that will require patience and unity to prevail over Mr. Obama’s vetoes.

The best GOP revenge would be to trump him on immigration. Before Mr. Obama’s decree, smart Republicans were discussing a legislative strategy focusing on piecemeal immigration reforms. Separate bills addressing individual problems (border security, agriculture and tech visas) could pass with rotating majorities that show the GOP has immigration solutions of its own. Some bills might get to Mr. Obama’s desk, forcing him to reveal his cynical political hand if he uses his veto to block durable reform.

We realize this won’t be easy, especially as many on the anti-immigrant right will want an immediate strategy to defund the President’s order. But another Pickett’s charge up Shutdown Hill is exactly what Mr. Obama wants. Republicans need to keep the focus on Mr. Obama’s abuse of power while showing voters they have better immigration solutions.

The polls show the American people are uneasy about Mr. Obama’s unilateral law-making, and liberals should be too. Mr. Obama is setting a precedent that Republican Presidents could also use to overcome a Democratic majority. How about an order to the IRS not to collect capital-gains taxes on inflated gains from property held for more than a decade? That policy would be broadly popular and also address a basic lack of fairness.

Mr. Obama’s rule-by-regulation has already been rebuked more than once by the Supreme Court. His “I, Barack” immigration decree is another abuse that will roil American politics and erode public confidence in the basic precepts of self-government.
I, Barack – WSJ.