OBAMA PROVIDING EXTRA MILLION ALIEN WORK PERMITS ANNUALLY

The Obama administration has issued more than 7.4 million work permits to foreign nationals from 2009 – 2014, beyond the approximately one million lawful permanent residents and 700,000 foreign guest workers admitted to the U.S. each year.

In written responses to the Senate Judiciary Immigration and the National Interest Subcommittee Republicans obtained by Breitbart News, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services reveal that the Obama administration has been approving work authorizations for immigrants beyond admission limits and for some categories of immigrants that Congress never intended to work in the U.S.

Green card holders and foreign nationals on guest worker visas do not need work authorizations.

Beyond those limits each year, these new and renewed work permit approvals amounted to about 1.23 million in fiscal year 2009, 1.08 million in FY 2010, 970,277 in FY 2011, 1.24 million in FY 2012, 1.68 million in FY 2013 and 1.24 million in FY 2014.

Such categories of immigrants that received permits include: Illegal immigrants granted Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, immigrants granted Temporary Protective Status (TPS), spouses of guest workers, various types of foreign students, immigrants granted voluntary departure, parolees, as well as asylees and refugees.

Further, more than 113,800 individuals with final orders of deportation also were granted work permits in that six year span.

A number of categories of immigrants granted work permits simply had immigration applications pending without approval. Those work permit approvals include immigrants with TPS pending, application for suspension of deportation, “in proceedings,” adjustment applicants, asylum applicants, and pending Special Agricultural Workers (SAW) applicants.

For example,from FY 2009-FY 2014 more than 356,600 applicants for asylum were granted work permits. Another 2.69 million work permit approvals were for immigrants applying for an adjustment of status.

In addition to the raw work permit data, USCIS also provided a list of every zip code in the country, revealing where these extra work permits or EADs were issued each fiscal year.

The two zip codes with the greatest number of extra EADs in FY 2014 was in Flushing, NY (11355 and 11354) with 6,529 and 4,800 EADs. The zip code with the third most EADs in FY 2014 was Brooklyn, NY (11220) with 4,106 EADs. A zip code in San Gabriel, CA (91776) boasted the fourth most EADs at 3,803. And the zip code with the fifth most EADs was a zip code in Miami (33126) at 3,220.

Readers may see how many extra work permits have been granted in their area by finding their own zip codes here.

The data comes on the heels of a Center for Immigration Studies report, authored by expert Jessica Vaughan, which also revealed 7.4 million excess work permits issued in what she described as a “parallel immigrant work authorization system outside the numerical limits and categories set by Congress.”

Vaughan’s data obtained, via a Freedom of Information Act request, yielded different categories of immigrants. USCIS explained in its response that the new data is an update to the data provided in the FIOA.

Of the updated data, Vaughan explained to Breitbart News that the numbers show the Obama administration has been “abusing what should be considered very limited authority to issue work permits.”

She noted that while work permits have been intended to be a benefit for those who are applying for legal status or as a temporary benefit, the administration has issued them to people who are not eligible for legal status.

“Work permits have always been intended as a transitional benefit to assist someone that is in the process of applying for legal status, or as a temporary benefit.  The administration has used them as a way to secretly give out benefits to huge numbers of people who are not eligible for a legal status,” she wrote in an email to Breitbart News.  “They are using them to bypass the law and evade the rules set by Congress that limit the number of people who can take jobs here.

Vaughan further called on Congress to take action to rein in the issuance of these work permits.

“It’s no wonder people are flocking here to claim asylum, enrolling in school, and using other tactics to get here by hook or by crook.  This shadow immigration system is displacing Americans and legal workers from jobs, and Congress needs to take back control of the process without delay,” she emailed.

When Vaughan’s report broke earlier this year, the chairman of the immigration subcommittee, 

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)

80%

, called for an investigation.

“This massive increase in the labor supply has occurred simultaneously with a steep drop in family incomes and a sharp rise in the number of Americans pushed out of the workforce. All jobs gains since the recession have gone to foreign workers, while the slack labor market has depressed median family incomes almost $5,000 in that time,” he said at the time.

Via Breitbart

Continue Reading...

Ed Klein: Hillary Racing to Stave Off Indictment

President Barack Obama and those closest to him are "doing everything they can" to encourage Vice President Joe Biden to challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, former New York Times Magazine editor-in-chief Edward Klein tells Newsmax TV.

In a panel discussion Tuesday on "Newsmax Prime" with host J.D. Hayworth and Miranda Khan, the author of "Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. The Obamas," said the push is coming from the president, First Lady Michelle Obama and Obama's senior advisor, Valerie Jarrett.

"[They] are doing everything they can at this point to encourage Joe Biden to throw in his hat," he said.

Klein said he also believes Clinton is in "a kind of race against time."

"Which is going to come first, is she going to be able to sew up the nomination by just throwing more money, more organization at the primaries so that she is unbeatable – or will a criminal indictment come down from the Justice Department [over her personal email system while Secretary of State] before that fact?" Klein said.

"And they're very concerned about which is going to come first."

Political commentator Dick Morris said if a possible Biden candidacy doesn't signal any animosity between the Obama and Clinton camps, "there sure will be if Biden runs, because the inevitable dynamos of the race are going to cause it, even if nobody wants it."

"You can only have one candidate out there saying everything Obama's doing is right…. I'll just continue what Obama's doing," he said. "You can't have two candidates saying that because the other one won't get covered and Biden lives on campus. These are his programs as well as Obama's."

Morris added Hillary Clinton, in order to get media coverage, will have to distinguish herself, and that means criticizing the president's record — "at first gently," but eventually becoming "more and more acerbic."

"It really could endanger Hillary's pursuit of Obama's base," Morris predicted.

In the meantime, Morris predicts Clinton's polling will continue continue to trend downard.

"I believe that Hillary is in free fall," Morris said. "She's dropped from the high 60s to 37 percent in favorability and she's going to continue to drop and she's losing her grip on the base and the Clintons are wrong. Something may happen before she sews up the nomination ... which is the sound of Hillary crashing and hitting bottom.

"If Biden comes into the race, the opening head to head would probably be Hillary 38 [percent support], Biden 18, [Vermont Sen. Bernie] Sanders 15. And then a month later, it'll become close to a two-way tie. I don't think that Hillary can easily defeat Biden and Sanders. Biden would probably win that contest."

Via: Newsmax

Continue Reading....

Report: Food Stamp Use Up 300 Percent Since ’00, As Eligibility Requirements Dropped

Food stamp use has increased nearly 300 percent nationwide since 2014, despite a drop in the poverty rate, according to a report released Wednesday by The Foundation for Government Accountability.

“Even though poverty rates are declining, the number of people receiving food stamps continues to climb,” the report detailed. “Food stamp spending is growing ten times as fast as federal revenues.”

According to their report — “Restoring Work Requirements Will Help Solve the Food Stamp Crisis” — the problem results from less restrictive eligibility requirements.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is the main agency in charge of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). According to its own findings, SNAP has increased from 17 million participants in 2000 to nearly 47 million in 2014. Concurrently, work requirements were waived in many states.

“Federal law generally limits food stamp eligibility for non-disabled childless adults to just three months out of any three-year period unless they meet specified work requirements,” the report also noted. “These work requirements have become irrelevant in recent years, however, as states have been given waivers to exempt able-bodied adults from federal work requirements.”

The Obama administration had granted working requirement waivers to 40 states and partial waivers to another six states. As a result more states are providing food stamp benefits to more adults who don’t work despite not having physical disabilities preventing them from doing so.

“By 2013, a record-high 4.9 million able-bodied, childless adults were receiving food stamps,” the report continued. “Federal spending on food stamps for able-bodied adults skyrocketed to more than $10 billion in 2013, up from just $462 million in 2000.”

The size of the program alone has prompted concern among among many lawmakers. Some on the state and federal level have tried reforming the program by getting work requirements back or adding additional eligibility requirements. In July, the administration for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker sued the USDA after the agency informed the state itcould not drug-test those on food stamps. Walker is currently running for the Republican nomination for president.

“The way forward for states could not be more simple or clear,” the report concluded. “Governors should decline to renew the federal waivers that have eliminated work requirements for able-bodied childless adults on food stamps.”

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

Why this week’s presidential debate doesn’t matter

By Vic Berardelli, Special to the BDN

Posted Aug. 05, 2015, at 7:29 a.m.

Last modified Aug. 05, 2015, at 10:42 a.m.

Do not pay much attention to this week’s televised presidential debate. It has as much value as the sideshow on the carnival midway.

It is far too early for candidates to square off on the vital issues facing the nation.

This is the time in a campaign cycle for candidates to introduce themselves to voters and acquaint the public with their back-story. They cannot deliberate stands on issues until they have the credibility to be taken seriously.

Voters need to know them first. I believe that Donald Trump’s name recognition is a far greater factor to his early poll leads than anything he had said. Many valid candidates are in low single digits simply because only full-time political junkies know them.

This is a problem on both sides.

Jim Webb and Martin O’Malley both have impressive credentials but stand little chance in early Democratic primaries against the Hillary juggernaut because nobody outside their home states know them. Webb, a Vietnam veteran with Navy Cross, Silver Star and Purple Heart, is a former U.S. senator from Virginia and was Navy secretary, assistant defense secretary and counsel to the House Veterans Affairs Committee. O’Malley was a Baltimore city councilor and mayor during the renaissance of the city, Maryland governor and chaired the Democratic Governors Association.

Neither is in the headlines every day, so they fall back in the field. When they do get exposure, it is to answer questions about the frontrunner rather than to position themselves and their own unique approach to governing.

Media-feeding frenzy has forced a series of debates, none of which will be significant until closer to actual Election Day. Moreover, this August spectacle is something more appropriate for a New Hampshire town hall than a national audience.

In the process, lesser-known but well-qualified candidates will fall by the wayside.

Those who condemn money in politics are naïve. The only way for a candidate to introduce himself or herself directly to voters is with a substantial funding in order to advertise heavily and bypass the chance passing references in free media that are overlooked.

We see it firsthand here in the 2nd Congressional District, which is so large geographically that no candidate could meet all voters personally. It isn’t like a legislative district where a candidate can go door-to-door and have personal conversations with voters. And heavy fundraising is essential because to reach all voters in the 2nd District requires buying ads in three television markets and in every daily newspaper except York County’s. Congressional candidates in large urban areas have it much easier with just one TV market buy, and they have the luxury of smaller geography, allowing visits that are more diverse in an average campaign day.

Presidential politics is even more complex. Astute candidates are not even reaching out to the nation-at-large. Hillary Clinton wisely started TV ads this week limited to New Hampshire and Iowa because that is where the first delegate elections take place in five months.

(For real political junkies, the best text on the system is David Plouffe’s “The Audacity to Win,” which chronicles with candid detail the 2007-08 strategies that he and David Axelrod deployed on a targeted state-by-state basis to thrust relative unknown Illinois Sen. Barack Obama ahead of better-known Clinton, Biden and Edwards.)

The key is to introduce the candidate as a person and move up from there to the issues. In our campaign schools, my partners and I teach that, “A nobody cannot challenge a somebody.” The first task is to introduce oneself to voters with enough biographical information that they are comfortable that the candidate has standing to discuss positions in contrast to the opponent.

Hillary’s ad this week is about her mother and background, not about her adult positions or policies because, even as well-known as she is, polls show voters do not really know her. Bruce Poliquin used a similar ploy early in the 2014 primary season with biographical background ads.

With enough money for saturation, the information seeps into voters’ brains, so issues can be discussed in the next round without the mental filter of, “Who the hell is this, and why should I care what he or she thinks?”

Instead of early debates, media would serve voters better with a series of biographical profiles to introduce the field without political filters. Instead of an August debate, perhaps every Democrat and Republican hopeful should get five minutes uninterrupted to present a personal background.

Once we know them, we would be more receptive to learn what they have to say. Then they can go into combat to winnow down the field to the most qualified.

Vic Berardelli, a retired political consultant is author of “The Politics Guy Campaign Tips – How to Win a Local Election.” Now an unenrolled independent, he is a former Republican State Committeeman and former member of the Republican Liberty Caucus National Board.

Via: Banger Daily News

Continue Reading....

Is This Seriously a Line from a Speech by the President of the United States?

From Obama’s pitch for his Iran deal today: Just because Iranian hardliners chant “Death to America” does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe. In fact, it’s those . . . 

(APPLAUSE) In fact, it’s those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It’s those hardliners chanting “Death to America” who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican Caucus.

Directly accusing your opponents of allying with wannabe-genocidal, anti-Semitic, authoritarian nutjobs. Very presidential, that’s the way to win ’em over.

Obama and Iran’s “Hardliners”

I’d like to add a few observations to Patrick’s astute post on President Obama’s insulting and troublingly detached-from-reality speech today on his indefensible Iran deal.

 In Iran, what Obama referred to as “hardliners” chanting “Death to America” are the regime. First and foremost among them is “supreme leader” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Obama’s claim that Iranian “hardliners” really oppose the deal – which which of course implies that he is only dealing with regime “moderates” (what else?) with whom we can safely play ball, is a fairy tale. To be sure, Obama’s media friends are helping him broadcast this fairy tale; that, no doubt, is why the president is able to run to the nearest college campus and get applause for his kooky claims. But the reality is that Khamenei – the guy Obama implored to cooperate with him – is the chief hardliner. The Iran deal could not have happened unless Khamenei supported it; he supports it precisely because it is breathtakingly good for Iran. 

The supreme leader is chief of the “Death to America” cheering squad. Not only did Khamenei actively join regime subordinates in chanting “Death to America” while the negotiations with Obama and Kerry were ongoing. (See also Mona’s column on this subject.) Even four days after the deal was announced, knowing that Congress was still to review it, Khamenei could not help himself but praise Iranians for chanting “Death to Israel, Death to the U.S.” during the negotiations. 

At the same time, Iran’s very “moderate” foreign minister Javad Zarif, who not only supports the deal but negotiated it, assured Iranians that the regime would “continue the arms supply policy” under which it supports Hezbollah and other anti-American, anti-Western, anti-Israeli jihadists. The only difference is that, now, thanks to Obama’s deal, they will have an additional $100 billion-plus with which to materially support terrorism.

 So the fact of the matter is that the people on Capitol Hill who oppose the deal are the people on the side of authentic Iranian moderates. It is Obama who is lending aid and comfort to America’s avowed, unapologetic enemies – enemies who could not be more brazen in trumpeting their hostility, and who steer a regime that has killed thousands of Americans. 

The people who oppose this deal are the ones who effectively oppose Iran’s hardliners (rather than pretending to oppose while aiding and abetting them). The people who oppose this deal recognize that it will strengthen the hand of the tyrannical jihadist regime, enabling it to solidify its hold on power and continue persecuting the Iranian people who despise the regime. 

On that score, it is worth recalling that in 2009, when Iranian democracy activists rose up in protest and appeared poised to attempt overthrowing the hardliner regime, it was Obama – not Americans who oppose Obama’s Iran deal – who turned a deaf ear to them, even as the regime shot them dead in the streets. The president had his choice between cajoling Iranian hardliners and championing Iranians who yearn for a better relationship with the West … and he made it.

Via: National Review

Continue Reading....

Voting Rights Act Used to Strike Down Texas Voter ID Law

Veasey celebrated the ruling as a victory for all Texas voters. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call File Photo)

On the eve of its 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, a federal appeals court on Wednesday affirmed a lower court’s ruling that Texas’ strict voter ID law violates Section 2 of landmark civil rights legislation.

Texas Rep. Marc Veasey, the lead plaintiff in the original suit brought against the photo ID law, heralded the ruling as a victory for Lone Star minority voters.

“As a champion for voting rights, I am proud that with this decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has taken the first steps towards ensuring that all Texans have unfettered access to the ballot box,” he said in a statement. 

Veasey, joined by the U.S. Justice Department and minority rights groups, had argued that the voter ID law first passed by the state’s GOP legislature in 2011 was intended to discriminate against minority voters. As such, the plaintiffs argued, it amounted to a poll tax.

The appeals court agreed with the district court that the law has had a “discriminatory effect,” which violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. But it disagreed with the lower court’s ruling that it was crafted with discriminatory intent and remanded it back to the lower court for further consideration.

It’s unclear what the fallout of the ruling will be at Texas polling places because the court did not suggest a remedy for its ruling. It remanded that question, too.

Because of its narrow ruling, the unanimous decision can’t be called a complete victory for the plaintiffs, University of California Irvine professor Rick Hasen wrote on his Election Law Blog.

“This also strikes me as an opinion written as narrowly as possible to still give a victory to the plaintiffs. (Perhaps that was the price of a unanimous opinion?),” he wrote.

Despite its limited scope, Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa cast the ruling as a win for Democrats. “Once again, the rule of law agrees with Democrats. The Republican voter ID law is discriminatory. Republicans made it harder for African-Americans and Latinos to cast their vote at the ballot box.”

Hinojosa is optimistic that further court consideration of the matter will end in Democrats’ favor.

“We remain confident that the courts will find justice for Texas voters and ultimately strike down this racist and discriminatory law.”

But Texas Republicans insist that a voter ID law is still necessary.

“In light of ongoing voter fraud, it is imperative that Texas has a voter ID law that prevents cheating at the ballot box,” Gov. Greg Abbott said in a statement Wednesday afternoon. “Texas will continue to fight for its voter ID requirement to ensure the integrity of elections in the Lone Star State.”

Via: Roll Call

Continue Reading....

Thousands of California convicts to regain right to vote in ACLU-state settlement

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California restored voting rights Tuesday to tens of thousands of criminals serving sentences under community supervision, reversing a decision by a state official that they could not participate in elections.

Secretary of State Alex Padilla announced the settlement between the state and the American Civil Liberties Union of California, which sued on behalf of nearly 60,000 convicts who became ineligible to vote when then Secretary of State Debra Bowen determined in 2014 that community supervision was equivalent to parole.

Her decision stemmed from a 2011 realignment of the state's criminal justice law that aims to reduce overcrowding in state prisons by sending people convicted of less serious crimes to county jails or alternative treatment programs.

A judge later overturned Bowen's policy, stating that community supervision and parole are different.

Bowen's office appealed the decision, but Padilla, a fellow Democrat, decided to let the court ruling stand.

The secretary of state's office found the lower court's opinion thorough and convincing, said Padilla spokesman Steve Reyes. He added it is Padilla's position to err on the side of maintaining voting rights in contentious cases.

"When there are questions, we're in favor of keeping the right to vote intact," Reyes said.

Tuesday's announcement was timed to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Voting Rights Act.

"Secretary of State Padilla is bucking a national trend in which voting rights are under attack," Lori Shellenberger, director of the ACLU of California's Voting Rights Project, said in a statement. "We are thrilled that this administration has effectively said 'no' to Jim Crow in California."

Still, California's ruling is a narrow one and unlikely to establish precedent, said Michael Risher, an attorney with the ACLU of Northern California.

Earlier this summer, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, vetoed a bill that would have extended the right to vote to roughly 40,000 convicts on probation or parole.

Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Via: US News and World Report

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] ‘TRUMP MIGHT BE THE BEST NEGOTIATOR IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD!!’

Trump empire legal counsel Michael Cohen isn’t scaling back expectations for the GOP debate. Instead, he’s touting Trump as quite possibly the best negotiator in the history of the world.

Via: The Right Scoop

Continue Reading....

CALIFORNIA: ​Why Higher Taxes for Potholes is a Bad Idea

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, here we go again. Once more, taxpayers are being told by our political elites that, if we want good roads, we have to have higher taxes.

Just a few weeks ago, this column exposed the politicians’ plan to hike gas taxes along with vehicle license fees and registration. This plan, by San Jose lawmaker Jim Beall, would slam taxpayers in three ways. First, it would raise at least $3 billion annually by increasing the gas tax by another 10 cents a gallon. Second, it would hike the vehicle license fee, which is based on value, by more than 50 percent over 5 years. Third, it would increase the cost to register a vehicle by over 80 percent.

The latest scheme is Assembly Constitutional Amendment 4 which would weaken Proposition 13 by eliminating the two-thirds vote for local transportation sales taxes. ACA 4 is a bad idea. California already has the highest state sales tax in the nation. Not only that, but sales taxes are highly regressive, hitting the poor and working middle class the hardest.

It is true that California ranks very low nationally in the condition of its roads and highways. But, in addition to an already high sales tax we also have the highest income tax rate in America and the 4th highest gas tax. (And, by the way, that gas tax doesn’t even include the cost of California’s one of a kind “cap and trade” regulations which substantially increases the cost of every gallon of fuel pumped in California).

The truth is that the sad condition of our highways has nothing to do with the lack of tax dollars and has everything to do with poor management and bad choices in deciding where our transportation dollars are spent. Our taxes are far more likely to be paying for projects we don’t even need — like High Speed Rail — or a bloated Caltrans budget than they are for fixing roads.

There’s another compelling reason why, should it ever make it to the ballot, ACA 4 deserves to be resoundingly defeated.  At least 20 counties in California, including all the large ones, have already passed higher sales taxes with the two-thirds supermajority vote mandated by Prop 13. Billions of dollars have been raised by these so-called “Self-Help Counties” all for transportation purposes. In going to the voters, local officials have to make sure that they propose projects that are truly needed. Lowering the vote threshold will only incentivize waste and the funding of pet projects, not the high priority needs of California motorists.

We believe very strongly that taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay the price for bad decisions made by politicians and bureaucrats. Until our elected leaders direct the vast amount of money already available for highway improvements to those needed projects, we certainly shouldn’t consider even higher taxes and weakening Prop. 13. That’s why HJTA will oppose ACA 4 and we urge all California taxpayers to do the same.

Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association — California’s largest grass-roots taxpayer organization dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and the advancement of taxpayers’ rights.

Originally published by the HJTA.org

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Obama’s Assploding Chutzpah Attack On His Critics: “They Have No Compunction About Being Repeatedly Wrong”…

Wait, isn’t he always wrong?

(Click image above for video)

“We can get a better deal. I know it’s easy to play on people’s fears. To magnify threats. To compare any attempt at diplomacy to Munich. But none of these arguments hold up. They didn’t back in 2002 and 2003. They shouldn’t now. (Applause)  The same mindset in many cases offered by the same people who seem to have no compunction with being repeatedly wrong, led to a war that did more to strengthen Iran, more to isolate the United States than anything we have done in the decades before or since. It’s a mindset out of step with the traditions of American foreign-policy, where we exhaust diplomacy before war, and debate matters of war and pieces in the cold light of truth.”

Via: Weasel Zippers

Gunman who opened fire at Tennessee movie theater killed by police

A gunman who was also armed with a hatchet opened fire in a movie theater in suburban Nashville, Tenn. Wednesday before dying in a shootout with police.

Fire department spokesman Brian Haas said three people were treated for exposure to pepper spray, and one of those had a superficial wound that could have been caused by a hatchet. No one was taken to a hospital.

The gunman was reportedly identified as a 51-year-old man from the Nashville area. Police spokesman Don Aaron said he was wearing a surgical mask when he unleashed pepper spray inside the theater showing "Mad Max."

Aaron said an officer came into the theater and was fired upon by the suspect. The officer shot back, then backed off. After that, a SWAT team came in, and there was another exchange of gunfire. The suspect was then found dead.

The man also left two backpacks that were being examined by hazardous device officers.

A metro police dispatcher told The Tennessean newspaper the shooting was reported at 1:13 p.m. at the Carmike Hickory Hollow Cinema in Antioch, Tennessee.

Nashville Police confirmed in a tweet that an active shooting situation was reported, and the the suspect was dead. 

The latest shooting comes about two weeks after a gunman opened fire inside a movie theater in Lafayette, Louisiana, during a screening of the film "Trainwreck." Police said John Russell Houser killed two people and wounded nine others before fatally shooting himself.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

Beacon Hill forces line up for fight over sanctuary protections for illegal immigrants

Beacon Hill lawmakers are quietly pushing legislation that could offer sanctuary protections to illegal immigrants across the state, the Herald has learned.

The new legislation, filed by state Rep. Byron Rushing (D-Boston), would ban public agencies from giving or sharing information on illegals with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement unless forced to do so by a court or a federal order.

The bill also would ensure illegal immigrants have access to state benefits — such as welfare and driver’s licenses — and it would prohibit Bay State employees from denying “assistance, benefit, payment, service or participation in any program or activity” on the basis of immigration status, except as required by federal law.

State Rep. Shaunna O’Connell (R-Taunton) immediately decried the bill, saying, “This will make Massachusetts a sanctuary state that harbors illegal aliens and makes available to them every benefit under the sun.”

“I think this would be devastating to Massachusetts in many ways,” O’Connell said.

The sanctuary aspects of the bill mirror rules in San Francisco, where the July 4 random shooting death of Kathryn Steinle — allegedly at the hands of an illegal immigrant deported five times — brought the city’s lax practices into question.

Several Republican presidential candidates now back “Kate’s Law,” named after the slain 32-year-old San Francisco woman, which would hand out five-year prison sentences to any deportee who returns.

The legislation is before the Committee on Children and Families, where O’Connell is a member. The panel was scheduled to hear the legislation last week, but the controversial bill was pushed back to September as sanctuary city policies sparked national headlines.

“This is a bill that just popped up,” O’Connell said. “Nobody knew about it.”

But Rushing responded to the outcry over his bill, saying it doesn’t ask anyone to break federal laws and that he simply wants to encourage immigrants to move to the Bay State.

“It prohibits barring people on the basis of immigration status,” said Rushing, adding that hot-under-the-collar politicians should “calm down.”

“We want to make sure all people of Massachusetts are here legally, and we do that by helping them become legal citizens,” 
he said.

Rushing admitted that there is nothing in his legislation to ensure that illegal immigrants are on a path to citizenship before they receive state services, but said he’d be open to adding that language.

The Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, a pro-immigrant group, has highlighted Rushing’s bill on their website as “priority legislation.”

They write that it “would provide clear guidance that inquiries into immigration status by state agencies and recipients of state funds are not permissible unless 
required by law.”

Word of the bill came on the day Republican Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal appeared on Boston Herald Radio saying top officials in sanctuary cities should be held “criminally liable as accessories” for any crimes committed 
by illegals.

Somerville Mayor Joseph A. Curtatone quickly challenged the GOP presidential candidate to “come and get me.” Curtatone, the mayor of a sanctuary city, said Jindal’s plan is an attempt to push him “beyond the 1 percent right now” in presidential polls.

Via: Boston Herald

Continue Reading....

[Commentary] Climate change and the Latino community

Climate change and its components adversely affect the Latino community. For example, the 2010 census data show that Latinos became the majority in 191 U.S. metropolitan districts, especially in areas with high vehicle traffic and power plant activity.

Furthermore, data from the American Lung Association indicate that Latinos have the highest incidence of asthma. A major issue is the impact of power plants as the largest source of carbon pollution in the U.S., accounting for approximately one-third of all domestic greenhouse emissions, a climate change component. Of concern is the connection between the asthma and the emissions.

However, there is a broader context that should worry Americans: climate change. While greenhouse emissions are the result of the power-plant operations, the results of such emissions have been global warming in the intermediate term and climate change in the long term. Invariably, global warming and climate change have been used interchangeably but are in fact distinct events in a greater set of environmental problems.

The Colorado Latino Leadership, Advocacy, and Research Organization (CLLARO) has recently completed a research project that measured the Latino community's perception about climate change. Almost half of the respondents identified themselves as bilingual or multilingual compared to English only or Spanish only. Among several survey items was one asking the respondents whether climate change is the same as global warming. The bilingual/multilingual group was almost fifty-percent more likely than the English speaking group and more than twice as likely as the Spanish speaking group to respond correctly.

Bilingualism and its cultural components can be proxies for cross cultural sensitivity — i.e., aware of events in both the Latino community and the larger one. Therefore, these findings, among others, highlight the importance of culture and more specifically cross cultural understanding of the impact of climate change on the Latino community.

Understanding such difference is key to developing strategies for dealing with the overall problem of climate change. The enforcement of the Clean Power Plan will begin the process of mitigating the adverse fall out from power plant emissions. The plan calls for cutting carbon pollution from the power sector by 30 percent from 2005 levels. The proposal also requires cutting pollution from soot and smog by over 25 percent by 2030. The results will be cleaner breathing and better health.

However, to ensure that such mitigation occurs in ways that improve the health of the Latino community, there is a need for diverse representation at the strategy table, whether that table is set by the governor, the Colorado congressional and senatorial delegation, city mayors and/or the private sector. Given the evidence, culturally responsive persons are more likely to understand the issues and recommend viable steps for improving the quality of life for the Latino community. These steps can include outreach, community education, involvement in the public policy process, and, of course, voting.

As part of the national strategy to deal with climate change, CLLARO supports the Clean Power Plan and will encourage members of the Latino community to support it also. The improvement in the quality of health and life within the Latino community and the overall Colorado community merits such support.

Christine Alonzo is executive director of the Colorado Latino Leadership Advocacy Research Organization. CLLARO will host a Research Expo on Aug.13 at the Denver Center for the Performing Arts from 5 to 7 p.m.

Via: Denver Post

Continue Reading....