From: pwallace@moviepig.com

On 1/8/2019 12:32 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:

fredp151@gmail.com wrote:

On 1/8/19 8:05 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:

It is the sense of the Congress that the mission statement
of the Immigration and Naturalization Service should include
a statement that it is the responsibility of the Service to
detect, apprehend, and remove those aliens unlawfully
present in the United States, particularly those aliens
involved in drug trafficking or other criminal activity."
~Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-208

The media wants us to continue being frogs in a slow-boiling pot of
water and not to realize how much the political temperature has
shifted on the issue of national sovereignty. But if we jump out of
the water for a moment and explore relatively recent history on the
issue, we will learn that protecting our border, building the wall,
working with local law enforcement, expediting deportations,
clamping down on visa overstays, and deporting criminal aliens were
all consensus issues.

Several "conservative" commentators (see Jay Cost and Charlie Sykes)
have lamented the fact that Republicans once fought government
funding battles over fiscal restraint and are now doing so over
immigration. They are bemoaning what is in their view a negative
shift towards so-called nationalist priorities. But they are missing
one major point, a point that reveals that it is in fact they and
the Democrats who have shifted, not the rest of us. The reason there
was a shutdown fight in 1996 over spending and welfare and not over
immigration is because President Clinton agreed to sign the GOP's
toughest overhaul of illegal immigration law in a generation! There
was no shutdown because Republicans got much of what they wanted.
And they got what they wanted because Democrats, including Schumer
and Pelosi, once believed in a modicum of sovereignty.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of
1996 ("IIRIRA 96"), originally the "Immigration in the National
Interest Act of 1995," was signed into law by President Clinton on
September 30, 1996, after the final conference bill passed the House
370-37 and the Senate by voice vote.

This bill essentially contained all the promises Trump has made,
from the wall and clamping down on visa overstays to robust interior
enforcement and expedited deportations, except that it was tailored
for that time period. Many of the provisions failed because they
were ignored by past presidents and state and local governments and
twisted by the courts. This bill was designed to fulfill the wayward
promise of the 1986 amnesty and to finally fulfill the pledge to
protect Americans from the cost of illegal immigration. Those
promises have not been met, and millions of illegals later, millions
of pounds of drugs later, and trillions in costs later, these same
politicians have no interest in rectifying the promise they helped
break once again.

Unlike today, Republicans actually had a vision and a sense of
purpose. One of their agenda items was to cut back on legal
immigration, which was a failed promise of the 1990 bill. The other
was to end illegal immigration - completely. It was the former goal
that Democrats opposed, which is why Republicans originally attached
their legal immigration cuts to the illegal immigration bill.
Democrats gutted it. But they all broadly agreed on the goal of
stopping illegal immigration. To be clear, Democrats insidiously
weakened some provisions and only allowed for a ban on in-state
tuition for illegals, not K-12 education per the original version of
the bill, but they still all agreed on the core provisions of
interior enforcement we are trying to implement today.

As the Washington Post explained at the time, "By shifting their
focus to a crackdown on illegal aliens, the representatives seized
an issue on which there is broad agreement but did little to lower
the overall influx of immigrants, most of whom come to the United
States legally" [emphasis added].

To punctuate this point, we must not forget that the Welfare Reform
Act of 1996, which was signed just one month earlier and born out of
the government shutdown the year before, explicitly barred illegal
immigrants from accessing welfare. The bill contained language
expressing the sentiment that it was a "compelling government
interest to remove the incentive for illegal immigration provided by
the availability of public benefits." The bill used the word "alien"
93 times.

As I've lamented before, the courts and executive malfeasance have
allowed the letter and spirit of the welfare law to be violated. But
a number of Democrats voted for it at the time, and President
Clinton signed it into law.

A similar dynamic happened with the IIRIRA, except that Pelosi and
Schumer actually voted for that immigration enforcement bill. Among
other things, the law accomplished the following:

• It provided for funding of 5,000 border agents and a 14-mile
triple-layer border fence in San Diego, which worked well for years.
Section 102 also gave the attorney general (now the DHS secretary) a
general mandate that he "shall take such actions as may be necessary
to install additional physical barriers and roads (including the
removal of obstacles to detection of illegal entrants) in the
vicinity of the United States border to deter illegal crossings in
areas of high illegal entry into the United States."

• The bill called for an automated entry-exit control system within
two years to clamp down on visa overstays.

• The bill dramatically expanded deportations and explicitly
stripped the courts of jurisdiction to adjudicate many of these
cases. For example, the bill stated, "No court can accept
jurisdiction in most cases where person assert an interest under
legalization provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act." We
are tragically paying for the results of courts ignoring these
provisions to this very day.

• Section 531(4) updated the public charge laws by directing
adjudicators of green card application to consider factors such as
age, health, family status, financial resources, education, and
skills. All relatives bringing in immigrants were forced to sign a
legally enforceable affidavit promising to provide financial support
if needed. Unfortunately, none of this has been followed until the
Trump administration, but it is still the law, a law that Pelosi and
Schumer supported. Only .00008 percent of applications between
fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2011 were disqualified on the
public charge basis, even though overwhelming majorities of
immigrants from a number of top sending countries are on welfare.

• The bill provided for new programs promoting employment
verification. While E-Verify was developed from this bill, the
intent of the law was never followed through. In fact, the IRS still
explicitly invited illegals to work, file tax returns, and receive
refundable tax credits, a violation both of this provision of IIRIRA
and the welfare reform bill.

• The bill tightened up asylum requirements and barred asylum to all
those who have access to another safe country, which in today's
cases means Mexico. It also permanently barred those applying under
frivolous pretenses from ever immigrating here. The intent and
letter of this law have now been flipped on their heads by the
courts.

• The bill expanded the definition of "aggravated felony" as defined
to trigger deportability of even legal immigrants. This is another
provision that has been twisted by the courts. Congress also
criminalized female genital mutilation, another provision that has
been "struck down" by a wayward district judge.

• federal government to train local law enforcement in helping
enforce immigration law. Obama gutted the program, and now many
sanctuaries have pulled out of it.

• It barred states from providing in-state tuition breaks to
illegals. Nevertheless, this was never enforced, and at least 20
states were allowed to aid and abet illegal immigrants.

The point is that anyone who voted for this bill 22 years ago
should, by a factor of 10,000, support the reaffirmation and
expansion of these provisions today, now that we see that the other
two branches of government have evaded the provisions and also that
the results of what Congress was trying to stop in '96 are worse
today. The law was just but never worked as intended because of
executive laziness and malfeasance as well as judicial tyranny. If
Schumer and Pelosi were good to their word, they would agree with
all the tightening of the statutes Trump is calling for, because
they are needed to preserve the promise of the bill _they voted
for_.

While Democrats opposed the idea of slashing legal immigration and
some grumbled about increasing deportability of certain crimes for
legal immigrants, none of them had the temerity to (at least
publicly) side with illegal immigrants. Clinton's chief of staff,
Leon Panetta, who would later become Obama's secretary of Defense
and CIA director, best summed up the Democrat view at the time, as
reported by the San Francisco Chronicle. "We all understand the
problem of illegal immigrants. We're all trying to ensure that we
have additional enforcement to protect against illegal immigrants,"
he said. "But I, for the life of me, do not understand why we need
to penalize legal immigrants in that process."

This is why Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Steny Hoyer,
and James Clyburn, Democrat leaders who were all in the House at the
time, voted for the bill. Only 13 Democrats in the House voted no.
In fact, more Republicans voted no because they were upset that the
bill was gutted too much in conference and wasn't strong enough.

What about the California delegation, including Dianne Feinstein,
who is still serving?

Here is more from the October 1, 1996, article in the San Francisco
Chronicle:

Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., was generally pleased,
saying "the rich tapestry of this country must continue to
be woven by people who come to this country legally."

"This is not a perfect bill, but its major thrust is stop
illegal immigration and carried out and enforced I believe
it can make a major step forward in that direction,"
Feinstein said. But she said she was "disappointed" that
the law did not increase the penalties on employers who
hire illegal immigrants and that it did not have a more
comprehensive verification system to identify illegal
immigrants who try to work in the U.S.

Senator Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., also welcomed the bill.
"This bill recognizes that states like California which
bear most of the burden of illegal immigration should not
be left alone to deal with this national problem," she said.

Even Nancy Pelosi, who was radicalized earlier than the others,
still said on March 21, 1996, "I agree with my colleagues that we
must curb illegal immigration responsibly and effectively."

Thus, illegal immigration wasn't even an issue, except for a few
provisions. And in fact, Feinstein wanted to be even tougher on
employer sanctions. Feinstein, along with Patrick Leahy and Patty
Murray, actually voted for the original Senate bill before it was
gutted in conference. Even the stronger bill passed with 72 votes in
the Senate.

After decades of lies by people like Schumer, Pelosi, and Feinstein,
Trump should deliver a televised address framing the entire
immigration issue and showing how these people have failed on the
promises he intends to deliver.

You mean like the promise that Mexico would pay for that wall?
Like that?

"But but but but they do it toooo!!!"

Inability to offre a rebuttal noted.
Tu Coque noted.

'You cock'?

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)